[NorseViking]

“” “” But they’re pros. The professional contingent in the Russian ground forces is about 200K. I think the Brits would make mincemeat of them in any conventional confrontation. We have 5x the UK’s population and roughly 5x the regular troops. I don’t see the UK’s military as particularly weak relative to the forces it is likely to encounter.
Its nuclear deterrent could be bigger, but it has enough to completely exterminate the 30 biggest Russian cities, killing about 1/4 the Russian population. That is probably sufficient to deter a Russian first strike.”” “”

ROLFMAO. Pros in what? Buggery? British military these days is nothing, both conventional and strategic components.

[Zhang Fei]

[ROLFMAO. Pros in what? Buggery? British military these days is nothing, both conventional and strategic components.]

---

A Russian military that lost 7 aircraft in a conventional invasion of *Georgia* is probably little better than the Third World militaries that provide Russia with much of its export sales. The British Army would roll right over the Russians in a conventional fight. It was always assumed that NATO forces would have the qualitative edge, but overwhelming Warsaw Pact numbers, and the fact that the Soviets would, as the invading force, have the initiative, would make any conflict a close-run thing. Then Desert Storm showed the world just how decrepit Eastern Bloc equipment and tactics actually were. It’s a mistake to mention British and Russian forces in the same breath.