Peers as in technological peers. Like having access to the logistical capacity (military transports) and weapon technology.
I see your point, but it really sounds like a useless parity measure to me. does access matter if you can't sustain it for a conflict of any reasonable duration?
Put it this way, if the UK turned it's armed forces on the third worlders currently invading it, they more than likely win.
are you sure about this? as you say, half the army would instantly defect to the opposition. what fraction of the others would immediately become pregnant? then theres reserves, how many fighting age non military Brits would actually want to fight this? Not just in some abstract sense but go actually get shot at. For the country and the leaders who created the problem in the first place(among the fuckton of other nasty things).
you'd be in a worse position than Israel today, because no victim trump card, rampant demoralization and no infinite ammo.
I see your point, but it really sounds like a useless parity measure to me. does access matter if you can't sustain it for a conflict of any reasonable duration?
Yes because it determines your potential... you can always find a certain number of good soldiers immediately (even if very few) but it takes decades to build industry and tech.
are you sure about this? as you say, half the army would instantly defect to the opposition. what fraction of the others would immediately become pregnant? then theres reserves, how many fighting age non military Brits would actually want to fight this? Not just in some abstract sense but go actually get shot at. For the country and the leaders who created the problem in the first place(among the fuckton of other nasty things).
If the UK government suddenly got based enough to take action and kick out the refugees, there would be no shortage of competent white male volunteers. Authentic, strong leadership galvanizes men, even men that start out weak.
Peers as in technological peers. Like having access to the logistical capacity (military transports) and weapon technology.
Put it this way, if the UK turned it's armed forces on the third worlders currently invading it, they more than likely win.
If those same third world's are now at least half of the military because you persecuted Whites and so have access to same weapons, they're fucked.
I see your point, but it really sounds like a useless parity measure to me. does access matter if you can't sustain it for a conflict of any reasonable duration?
are you sure about this? as you say, half the army would instantly defect to the opposition. what fraction of the others would immediately become pregnant? then theres reserves, how many fighting age non military Brits would actually want to fight this? Not just in some abstract sense but go actually get shot at. For the country and the leaders who created the problem in the first place(among the fuckton of other nasty things).
you'd be in a worse position than Israel today, because no victim trump card, rampant demoralization and no infinite ammo.
Yes because it determines your potential... you can always find a certain number of good soldiers immediately (even if very few) but it takes decades to build industry and tech.
If the UK government suddenly got based enough to take action and kick out the refugees, there would be no shortage of competent white male volunteers. Authentic, strong leadership galvanizes men, even men that start out weak.
that sounds awfully like magical thinking to me, but hey, bigger miracles have happened in history. good luck guys.
That's because it is magical thinking. The UK government would never be that based.