I suspect they'll leave us out because we'll be incredibly unreliable in our support or opposition to any action. They want an alliance they can actually get to act when the time comes, the original SEATO failed to actually do anything because France and the UK opposed military action in Vietnam and Laos.
I know we're terf-island but I'm actually fairly confident that we would oppose similar such action again. British participation in any wars that don't directly represent the interests of British people would get mass opposition and people will take much more radical action to oppose it this time after the Iraq war protests failed without radical action.
Different situation. The UK's attitude to war is completely different when it doesn't involve putting soldiers physically on the ground in direct combat. You can get UK involvement in anything as long as it's just using the Navy and the RAF. If you intend to use the Army public reaction is completely different.
I think this is because the British public view it as "intervention" or supporting someone else's fight when it's just shooting some missiles whereas when you're putting people in direct combat then it's perceived as "war".
Yes but any actual activity from an alliance intended to oppose China would generate a full blown war against an opponent that can retaliate in all possible ways.
I seriously do not think the British public will have the same reaction to it. Perhaps I should revise my earlier statement -- the British public has no problem with using our military as long as it is in a situation where NO members of our military are put at risk. Libya represented that for us as there was no risk to our ships or our planes. China on the other hand does not, even if we could avoid sending troops (I don't think we could) there would still be an inherent loss of ships and planes. The British will ask, "What for? What has this got to do with us? Why put our lives at risk when China are just fucking up their own people?" (however wrong that is).
They'll support whatever... As long as it doesn't come with loss of life. If that occurs then support disappears.
If Belgium somehow ended up on the Chinese side we'd break out the gun boats. Hell, I'm surprised there aren't already replica plane enthusiasts crashing shed-built Spitfires into Brussels.
I suspect they'll leave us out because we'll be incredibly unreliable in our support or opposition to any action. They want an alliance they can actually get to act when the time comes, the original SEATO failed to actually do anything because France and the UK opposed military action in Vietnam and Laos.
I know we're terf-island but I'm actually fairly confident that we would oppose similar such action again. British participation in any wars that don't directly represent the interests of British people would get mass opposition and people will take much more radical action to oppose it this time after the Iraq war protests failed without radical action.
deleted by creator
Different situation. The UK's attitude to war is completely different when it doesn't involve putting soldiers physically on the ground in direct combat. You can get UK involvement in anything as long as it's just using the Navy and the RAF. If you intend to use the Army public reaction is completely different.
I think this is because the British public view it as "intervention" or supporting someone else's fight when it's just shooting some missiles whereas when you're putting people in direct combat then it's perceived as "war".
I hate to break it to you, but the army probably doesn’t have much of a role in the SCS. That’s all navy and airforce.
Yes but any actual activity from an alliance intended to oppose China would generate a full blown war against an opponent that can retaliate in all possible ways.
I seriously do not think the British public will have the same reaction to it. Perhaps I should revise my earlier statement -- the British public has no problem with using our military as long as it is in a situation where NO members of our military are put at risk. Libya represented that for us as there was no risk to our ships or our planes. China on the other hand does not, even if we could avoid sending troops (I don't think we could) there would still be an inherent loss of ships and planes. The British will ask, "What for? What has this got to do with us? Why put our lives at risk when China are just fucking up their own people?" (however wrong that is).
They'll support whatever... As long as it doesn't come with loss of life. If that occurs then support disappears.
deleted by creator
"surely we'll resist it this time"
supports iraq invasion
"surely this time"
supports libya invasion
"surely--"
elects boris johnson
"su-"
This is wrong. The people definitely didn't support the Iraq invasion. There was a shift in support in the last pre war polls but the majority disapproved.
deleted by creator
If Belgium somehow ended up on the Chinese side we'd break out the gun boats. Hell, I'm surprised there aren't already replica plane enthusiasts crashing shed-built Spitfires into Brussels.