Do we still have it in us to win a world war?

[Greg_D]

Having witnessed some staggeringly inept attempts at 'coping' with the snow over the last week, i seriously think that the uk populace has gone too far down the road of dependance on someone else for their every human need.

If we were to transport the current population to 1939, do you think that we would have the cajones to see it through like our parents/grandparents did. my personal opinion is that we wouldn't.

Let's not rip the question apart literally and grammatically and keep on topic, have we lost that inimitable something

Has H+S and blame culture eroded this country's moral fibre and backbone irreperably

Greg

[FraserLFA]

I think your point above is exactly why we could still do it. If people will do as instructed, surely winning would be easier instead of having people doing their own thing?

[Andehh]

Which clowns voted for 'yes'? Have you not been following the news for the last few years, the armed forces have been butchered to the point where we'd struggle to fight off a cold.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 13th January 13:05

[OnTheOverrun]

People get lazy and dependent when circumstances allow them to, but come hardship and danger to their chosen lifestyle, I believe character still shines through. And militarily we are in much better shape to fight a big war than we were in 1938 when we could barely string a division together.

Anyway, why do you ask? Do you know something we don't?

[G0ldfysh]

plenty of chavs to use as cannon fodder

[cs02rm0]

Stop their benefits then maybe.

[OnTheOverrun]

Andehh said:

Which clowns voted for 'yes'? Have you not been following the news for the last few years, the armed forces have been butchered to the point where we'd struggle to fight off a cold.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 13th January 13:05

Learn some history - we had nothing at all in 1938 to fight with and neither did the Americans yet we won.

[FraserLFA]

Andehh said:

Which clowns voted for 'yes'? Have you not been following the news for the last few years, the armed forces have been butchered to the point where we'd struggle to fight off a cold.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 13th January 13:05

But the theory was being transported back to world war 2. So not just the army, but every man and woman helping out any way they can etc.

[plasticpig]

Yes. Because the current population has all the knowledge required to develop nuclear weapons. In 1940 Berlin would be a large glass car park.

[Magog]

To be honest I think we probably could. I think the reason that society is the way it is now, and the reason people look back with a certain nostalgia, rightly or wrongly, to WWII and the 'blitz spirit', is that people need something to fight for and a cause to believe in. This is particularly true of young men. It's an interesting fact that in Northern Ireland , suicide was considerably lower during the troubles than it is now (http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2005/1806.html).
At the risk of sounding crass and offending some I suspect it's why terrorists are able to radicalise some young men so easily, and so many are willing to take up arms in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in that they feel they have a cause to fight for. I suspect many of the chav scrotes of today might well relish the chance to have something to lay down their lives for.

[BoRED S2upid]

Not a chance.

[Mroad]

Andehh said:

Which clowns voted for 'yes'? Have you not been following the news for the last few years, the armed forces have been butchered to the point where we'd struggle to fight off a cold.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 13th January 13:05

I don't think the point of the question is about our underfunded and inadequate armed forces but about the general population if called to arms would they bother and could they cope.

I agree up to a point especially after witnessing people who moan about councils not clearing the snow yet can't be assed to get a shovel and help themselves.

However defending your country is a different ball game to coping with a bit of snow. I still think if the chips are down and invasion is around the corner we still have that spirit to rise up against any foe.
Mind you having the will and having the funds, materials and equipment is a different kettle of fish and we don't have that for sure.

[Munter]

Magog said:

I suspect many of the chav scrotes of today might well relish the chance to have something to lay down their lives for.

Problem is most of them couldn't identify the world on a map of the world. So if you call it a world war they wouldn't actually know what they are fighting for.

If we call it "The War to Save Football" then we might have a slim chance.

[The Wookie]

War isn't the same as it used to be. I don't think anyone would win a world war with ground troops anymore.

It'd probably either be nuclear armageddon or endless automated assaults from the technologically advanced countries until one or the other ran out of money/bullets/planes/ships/missiles/pilots/soldiers... followed by nuclear armaggedon.

[Stitch]

OnTheOverrun said:

Andehh said:

Which clowns voted for 'yes'? Have you not been following the news for the last few years, the armed forces have been butchered to the point where we'd struggle to fight off a cold.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 13th January 13:05

Learn some history - we had nothing at all in 1938 to fight with and neither did the Americans yet we won.

Not quite true - we had a reasonable expeditionary force (that was eventually beaten and evacuated from Dunkirk) and our forces were more mechanised than the Germans. It was clear to most from at least the early 30s that war was inevitable and some arrangements/planning had been made. Unfortunately, although the idea of using tanks in close support of infantry to punch holes in defensive lines was actually a British-led strategy, only the German army strategist saw the potential and developed the theory.

Most importantly (and hard to believe decades on) we had the French. There army and systems of defence were thought to be second to none. Unfortunately, whilst they had the kit, they didn't have the heart (the destruction and carnage of WWI, which had been fought on their land, was very much in memory).

Much like the French in 1939, I don't think that the UK population at large would be willing to suffer the privations that our grand and great grand parents suffered in the early 40s. The whole population lived, slept and ate the war year after year.

[Greg_D]

The Wookie said:

War isn't the same as it used to be. I don't think anyone would win a world war with ground troops anymore.

It'd probably either be nuclear armageddon or endless automated assaults from the technologically advanced countries until one or the other ran out of money/bullets/planes/ships/missiles/pilots/soldiers... followed by nuclear armaggedon.

^^^Whoosh.........................

[Lordbenny]

What's that got to do with cars?

[The Wookie]

Greg_D said:

The Wookie said:

War isn't the same as it used to be. I don't think anyone would win a world war with ground troops anymore.

It'd probably either be nuclear armageddon or endless automated assaults from the technologically advanced countries until one or the other ran out of money/bullets/planes/ships/missiles/pilots/soldiers... followed by nuclear armaggedon.

^^^Whoosh.........................

Not really, I was just highlighting that it's a slightly crap analogy. The world's not the same as it used to be, so what's the point in pontificating about the war. They fought so we could lead an easy life, now we do.

[Munter]

The Wookie said:

They fought so we could lead an easy life, now we do.

I'm not sure that's strictly true regarding their motivation. A nice side effect admittedly. But I suspect they were fighting because "no bunch of jumped up Hun evil bds are going to invade their country if they can stop 'em." Rather than "Well I'd like my grand kids to have an easy life. Seems like this will do that if we win."

[The Wookie]

Don't get me wrong, but it's sort of the same thing. Does the average conscripted bloke fight for queen and country or do they fight because they want their children to enjoy their way of life, which is defined by their country.

Personally I don't think this country is worth fighting for anymore and I doubt anyone would waste their resources invading us, if that answers the original question.

Edited by The Wookie on Wednesday 13th January 13:43