Skip to content

A majority of Brits think World War 3 is likely in the next 5 to 10 years – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,003
edited 7:22AM in General
A majority of Brits think World War 3 is likely in the next 5 to 10 years – politicalbetting.com

53% of Britons say they think WW3 is likely in 5-10 years, up 12pts since last yearVery likely: 16% (+8 from April 2025)Fairly likely: 37% (+4)Fairly unlikely: 25% (-9)Very unlikely: 7% (-1)yougov.com/en-gb/articl…

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,573
    First on the grid like Kimi Antonelli.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    Oh dear McLaren.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    edited 7:05AM
    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,573
    Those Ferraris have quite the first lap performance.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 32,599
    edited 7:11AM
    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:
    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    Are those Reform voters who don't believe our armed forces can defend us the same ones that support Putin?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    edited 7:23AM
    WW3 won't look like WW1 or WW2.

    Iran is showing how it has learned from the Russo-Ukranian war. Cheap sea and air drones, mass produced and dispersed are very hard to defend against.

    (Incidentally I have my doubts about nomenclature, the Severn Years War was the first worldwide conflict, with major battles on 3 continents and across the oceans. It should be WW1)
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,680
    Time to reinstate those Martello Towers.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,931
    I've every respect and admiration for those in the armed services as well as any kind of civil defence, but I doubt they will be able to do much to defend us in the event of any war, never mind WWIII. If we'd been invaded the way Ukraine was, would we still be fighting? When push really comes to shove, which 'side' would our richly diverse population be on? WWIII is quite likely to involve civil war here at home as well as attacks from outside.

    That's all without the impact of even a few minor nuclear weapons. If a real war like that does break out, we as a nation would have to get real very quickly, and to me, it seems unlikely we could do it in time. We can't even agree on what a woman is.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,054
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    My mother was in a shelter next to their house on Biggar Bank, Walney Island - A mine was dropped on the beach - The planes came in from the Irish Sea to bomb Barrow shipyards. The mine went off later the blast breaking a rim round the top of glasses that were stored upside down. The shipyard wasn't hit. Recently was shown a dummy factory on Walney Island that was designed to mislead the bombers.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,005
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    Our London terraced street has several 1950s infill houses where bombs destroyed the houses previously located there. There was an anti aircraft battery at the top of the hill that the Germans were trying to take out, I believe.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,676
    Icarus said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    My mother was in a shelter next to their house on Biggar Bank, Walney Island - A mine was dropped on the beach - The planes came in from the Irish Sea to bomb Barrow shipyards. The mine went off later the blast breaking a rim round the top of glasses that were stored upside down. The shipyard wasn't hit. Recently was shown a dummy factory on Walney Island that was designed to mislead the bombers.
    Good morning

    My mother, father, sister and I, as a baby, sheltered under a steel table in our kitchen in north Manchester when a v bomb engine stopped above us.

    Apparently it was terrifying as we waited and it hit a neighbours house killing 6

    Hardly believable we are talking about something similar in 2026

    Trump has made the same miscalculation Putin did over Ukraine, and as with that war it is impossible to know how this ends

    Maybe the poor state of readiness of our Navy will prove to be a blessing as we cannot provide any tangeable contribution to the Straits of Hormuz defence
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    Bloody Bibi and Trump, thanks to them we just get one grand prix in seven weeks.

    Ferrari are stopping this being a Mercedes procession.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,287
    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,287
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    Our London terraced street has several 1950s infill houses where bombs destroyed the houses previously located there. There was an anti aircraft battery at the top of the hill that the Germans were trying to take out, I believe.
    There’s a gap in the middle of Tyler Street in Greenwich, where I used to live, where they simply inserted a perpendicular street over the bomb damage. Much confusion as it just stops and then starts again through an alley. They should rename the sections “Tyler St (North)” and “Tyler Street (South)”
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,680
    edited 8:01AM
    This morning's map shows a lot of congestion. Hope nothing happens in Suez! Did Trump ask the Israeli Navy to do a turn of duty in the Gulf or just those countries he wants to troll?

    One appropriately named vessel in that morass - Sea Adventure.


  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,287
    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    Sorry Foxy, you made the same point I see. Just better…
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,135
    edited 8:04AM
    Largely meaningless poll as "World War 3" is a very vague term. Is it the US Navy vs the Chinese Navy over Taiwan in the Pacific? Or is it an all-out nuclear exchange between America and Russia? Or something in between?

    It's a bit like asking people whether the weather over the next decade is going to be good or bad. People have different definitions of good and bad weather and the next decade is a long time.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,508
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/

    Latest step in descent of US democracy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    AnneJGP said:

    I've every respect and admiration for those in the armed services as well as any kind of civil defence, but I doubt they will be able to do much to defend us in the event of any war, never mind WWIII. If we'd been invaded the way Ukraine was, would we still be fighting? When push really comes to shove, which 'side' would our richly diverse population be on? WWIII is quite likely to involve civil war here at home as well as attacks from outside.

    That's all without the impact of even a few minor nuclear weapons. If a real war like that does break out, we as a nation would have to get real very quickly, and to me, it seems unlikely we could do it in time. We can't even agree on what a woman is.

    "Our richly diverse population" already makes up nearly 18% of recuits to the armed forces. Around 60% of ethnic minority background are UK citizens, with 40% other nationalities, mostly Commonwealth..

    "Ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) personnel accounted for 17.9 per cent of Intake into the UK Regular Forces in the 12 months to 31 March 2024."

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024

    I am not sure if you meant to imply that ethnic minorities were not properly British nor patriotic. I hope not.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,508
    Fishing said:

    Largely meaningless poll as "World War 3" is . Is it the US Navy vs the Chinese Navy over Taiwan in the Pacific? Or is it an all-out nuclear exchange between America and Russia. Or something in between?

    Sane democracies vs the US and Russia seems most likely
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    Eesh, Alonso had to retire because the car was vibrating so much he was losing the feeling in his hands.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 12,857
    Foxy said:

    WW3 won't look like WW1 or WW2.

    Iran is showing how it has learned from the Russo-Ukranian war. Cheap sea and air drones, mass produced and dispersed are very hard to defend against.

    (Incidentally I have my doubts about nomenclature, the Severn Years War was the first worldwide conflict, with major battles on 3 continents and across the oceans. It should be WW1)

    But what about the war of the Spanish succession?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    edited 8:16AM
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    Sorry Foxy, you made the same point I see. Just better…
    While the Seven Years War was the real WW1, I think that there was enough fighting in Asia and Africa as well as across the Oceans for the 1914-1918 war to also qualify. My own grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917-18 for example.

    The last battle of the 14-18 war was at Kasama in modern Zambia on 12th November 1918, with the German forces surrendering shortly afterwards. News of the Armistice hadn't reached them. The East African campaign outlasted the Western front.

    The Japanese fought the Germans in China too, thereby setting up the later war there.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,023
    edited 8:16AM
    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example, although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 11,078
    edited 8:17AM
    Morning,
    P.B

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us

    "Mood among anti-regime Iranians turns against Trump".
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,287
    Foxy said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I've every respect and admiration for those in the armed services as well as any kind of civil defence, but I doubt they will be able to do much to defend us in the event of any war, never mind WWIII. If we'd been invaded the way Ukraine was, would we still be fighting? When push really comes to shove, which 'side' would our richly diverse population be on? WWIII is quite likely to involve civil war here at home as well as attacks from outside.

    That's all without the impact of even a few minor nuclear weapons. If a real war like that does break out, we as a nation would have to get real very quickly, and to me, it seems unlikely we could do it in time. We can't even agree on what a woman is.

    "Our richly diverse population" already makes up nearly 18% of recuits to the armed forces. Around 60% of ethnic minority background are UK citizens, with 40% other nationalities, mostly Commonwealth..

    "Ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) personnel accounted for 17.9 per cent of Intake into the UK Regular Forces in the 12 months to 31 March 2024."

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024

    I am not sure if you meant to imply that ethnic minorities were not properly British nor patriotic. I hope not.
    I saw a map recently of biggest languages other than English by local authority area. In a sea of Polish throughout non-metropolitan England, Nepalese stood out in my neck of the woods (Ashford and Folkestone & Hythe) doubtless because of the Gurkha legacy.

    Interestingly the same map suggested the biggest language other than English in Castle Point, Essex, is now Yiddish due to migration from North London to Canvey Island
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,798
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Icarus said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    My mother was in a shelter next to their house on Biggar Bank, Walney Island - A mine was dropped on the beach - The planes came in from the Irish Sea to bomb Barrow shipyards. The mine went off later the blast breaking a rim round the top of glasses that were stored upside down. The shipyard wasn't hit. Recently was shown a dummy factory on Walney Island that was designed to mislead the bombers.
    Good morning

    My mother, father, sister and I, as a baby, sheltered under a steel table in our kitchen in north Manchester when a v bomb engine stopped above us.

    Apparently it was terrifying as we waited and it hit a neighbours house killing 6

    Hardly believable we are talking about something similar in 2026

    Trump has made the same miscalculation Putin did over Ukraine, and as with that war it is impossible to know how this ends

    Maybe the poor state of readiness of our Navy will prove to be a blessing as we cannot provide any tangeable contribution to the Straits of Hormuz defence
    Here's an extract from a letter my Dad sent to my Mum not long after he'd been enlisted and was undergoing training at Stanmore:


    Usual address


    Mon Oct 14th 1940


    My darling wife,
    I got away from here at 1-15 yesterday but it took over two hours to get to Liverpool St. I thought at first I might be able to get down to Upminster but there would have been no time. I just missed Dad [who was working at nearby Broad Street station] so I thought I would go along to see Daisy and Arthur. I got on a bus but only got as far as Shoreditch Church as Kingsland Rd [a main thoroughfare linking Shoreditch to Dalston] was hit on both sides about 15 minutes before I got there. One of the railway bridges was down and the air-raid was still on. I didn’t think it would be any good going to Aunt Sarah’s as they were probably over the shelters and things were a bit hot so I went back to L’pool St, had something to eat & returned to Kingsbury. Lucky I did. Some of the chaps from here who left it a bit later had a H--- of a job to get back. Wembley Station was hit about half an hour after I passed through there. Also one or two places along the line. When I got back here I ran into a chap who used to play for Lee United & he made me come and have a drink with him. Ada darling I could do with that underwear, but if you have not already sent it, perhaps it would be best to give it to me on Sat. if I see you then. We have been issued with our overcoats now & have to collect the remainder of the equipment to-night. We have heard that we are going from here next Monday & I think we will, because we have all our stuff now (except Gas-masks) and have learned all our drills. On Sat. last we had to go through the gas-chamber and when we came out we were all crying like babies for about 15 minutes. We did look funny. I will have to see you this week-end, precious, because I don’t know where I will be next week or when I shall be able to see you again.....
    Read slowly the paragraph is extraordinary. A rare gem.

    In the Vindolanda tablets, the oldest writing found in Britain (I think) is a fragment of a letter to a soldier:

    "... I have sent you ... pairs of socks from Sattua, two pairs of sandals and two pairs of underpants, two pairs of sandals ... Greet ...ndes, Elpis, Iu..., ...enus, Tetricus and all your messmates with whom I pray that you live in the greatest good fortune."
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 11,078
    That's an interesting one, I thought most Jewish populations had migrated from East to North London, not the other way round.

    Why is that happening ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,411
    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example, although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    “World War” was used as early as 1914: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war#Etymology
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 58,644
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Eesh, Alonso had to retire because the car was vibrating so much he was losing the feeling in his hands.

    Why was he driving an Ajax?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,005
    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,552
    Will Trump and co get pardoned after this? My favourite Americans discuss.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkMGm8tuBs0
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,708
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    No, no - you've got that all wrong. The bombing only affected London. At least, that's how it is often portrayed on TV.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,676
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Icarus said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    My mother was in a shelter next to their house on Biggar Bank, Walney Island - A mine was dropped on the beach - The planes came in from the Irish Sea to bomb Barrow shipyards. The mine went off later the blast breaking a rim round the top of glasses that were stored upside down. The shipyard wasn't hit. Recently was shown a dummy factory on Walney Island that was designed to mislead the bombers.
    Good morning

    My mother, father, sister and I, as a baby, sheltered under a steel table in our kitchen in north Manchester when a v bomb engine stopped above us.

    Apparently it was terrifying as we waited and it hit a neighbours house killing 6

    Hardly believable we are talking about something similar in 2026

    Trump has made the same miscalculation Putin did over Ukraine, and as with that war it is impossible to know how this ends

    Maybe the poor state of readiness of our Navy will prove to be a blessing as we cannot provide any tangeable contribution to the Straits of Hormuz defence
    Here's an extract from a letter my Dad sent to my Mum not long after he'd been enlisted and was undergoing training at Stanmore:


    Usual address


    Mon Oct 14th 1940


    My darling wife,
    I got away from here at 1-15 yesterday but it took over two hours to get to Liverpool St. I thought at first I might be able to get down to Upminster but there would have been no time. I just missed Dad [who was working at nearby Broad Street station] so I thought I would go along to see Daisy and Arthur. I got on a bus but only got as far as Shoreditch Church as Kingsland Rd [a main thoroughfare linking Shoreditch to Dalston] was hit on both sides about 15 minutes before I got there. One of the railway bridges was down and the air-raid was still on. I didn’t think it would be any good going to Aunt Sarah’s as they were probably over the shelters and things were a bit hot so I went back to L’pool St, had something to eat & returned to Kingsbury. Lucky I did. Some of the chaps from here who left it a bit later had a H--- of a job to get back. Wembley Station was hit about half an hour after I passed through there. Also one or two places along the line. When I got back here I ran into a chap who used to play for Lee United & he made me come and have a drink with him. Ada darling I could do with that underwear, but if you have not already sent it, perhaps it would be best to give it to me on Sat. if I see you then. We have been issued with our overcoats now & have to collect the remainder of the equipment to-night. We have heard that we are going from here next Monday & I think we will, because we have all our stuff now (except Gas-masks) and have learned all our drills. On Sat. last we had to go through the gas-chamber and when we came out we were all crying like babies for about 15 minutes. We did look funny. I will have to see you this week-end, precious, because I don’t know where I will be next week or when I shall be able to see you again.....
    It all seems so matter of fact and very recognisable of that generation

    And my grandmother's christian name was Ada
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,142
    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,655
    Submission will be our saviour
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,573
    Ferrari podium for Lewis!
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,517
    Ides of March, beware
    ... and happy Mothering Sunday to all mothers
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 58,644
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    Kimi Antonelli is such a likeable guy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,659
    edited 8:49AM
    F1: very nice Ferrari battle.

    Got a bit unlucky with the Aston Martin reliability hitting Stroll rather than Alonso, but mildly ahead overall on the tips.

    Edited: Bearman's going to replace Hamilton at Ferrari in 2 years or so if another top team doesn't snap him up first.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,763
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

    It really is extraordinary. The President knows that Russia is helping with Iranian targetting of US forces, but doesn't think it important. He also provides Putin a financial lifeline by suspending sanctions on Russian oil.

    If Trump was a Russian asset, in what way would he behave differently?
    If he could, Trump would join the war on the side of Russia.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    I see Sir Lewis Hamilton has the same definition of subtle as I do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 58,644
    FF43 said:

    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

    The US military has shown great restraint in not taking him outside and putting him up against a wall.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,861
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

    It really is extraordinary. The President knows that Russia is helping with Iranian targetting of US forces, but doesn't think it important. He also provides Putin a financial lifeline by suspending sanctions on Russian oil.

    If Trump was a Russian asset, in what way would he behave differently?
    If he could, Trump would join the war on the side of Russia.
    He already has
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,763
    edited 8:51AM
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    Dopermean said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/

    Latest step in descent of US democracy

    He doesn’t do irony, does he?

    Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote in a post on X. “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
  • TazTaz Posts: 25,945
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
    Yes, unintended consequences sadly.

    About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.

    The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    ydoethur said:

    Dopermean said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/

    Latest step in descent of US democracy

    He doesn’t do irony, does he?

    Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote in a post on X. “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
    This is the same regime that has the effrontery to criticise us over freedom of speech.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,987
    MarqueeMark said:

    FF43 said:

    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

    The US military has shown great restraint in not taking him outside and putting him up against a wall.
    They are a bunch of chumps, useful idiots to do his bidding.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    Taz said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
    Yes, unintended consequences sadly.

    About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.

    The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
    The Newfoundland regiment being the most terrible example. Almost all the colony’s military age men were killed in c.15 minutes of one battle.

    It’s one reason why the Newfoundland Dominion collapsed in the 1930s and Britain resumed direct rule.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    Taz said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
    Yes, unintended consequences sadly.

    About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.

    The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
    I was around 10 when I was told we suffered 57,000 casualties on the first day of The Battle of the Somme, I couldn't process that then and nearly 40 years later I still cannot.

    That's nearly the capacity of Anfield.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,552
    Who's responsible for this crazy war. The Americans the Jews or the Israelis?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMOg3BkYpzw
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,544
    Incidentally this looks like a more useful RN acquisition than most, air transportable uncrewed minesweepers:

    https://www.navylookout.com/up-close-with-the-royal-navys-uncrewed-minehunting-programme/

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 22,264
    Sean_F said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
    To go all Godwin, Hitler believed that the democracies wouldn’t be able to fight in the same way as the totalitarian states.
    He was right, in a wrong way. The allies (excluding the totalitarian Soviets) used steel to flesh wherever possible. And I think only one person in the armed forces was shot for desertion. Amazing to think of our grandfathers and great grandfathers going through all that. Sobering.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 22,264
    Taz said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
    Yes, unintended consequences sadly.

    About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.

    The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
    Yep. And there are horrific stories of the telegrams arriving to multiple houses in a street on the same day. I can’t imagine what it was like to go to war with your mates and see them killed all around you. Bad enough when it’s men you’ve only known through the army.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,659
    turbotubbs said:

    Sean_F said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
    To go all Godwin, Hitler believed that the democracies wouldn’t be able to fight in the same way as the totalitarian states.
    He was right, in a wrong way. The allies (excluding the totalitarian Soviets) used steel to flesh wherever possible. And I think only one person in the armed forces was shot for desertion. Amazing to think of our grandfathers and great grandfathers going through all that. Sobering.
    Not sure which battle (maybe the Somme?) but one World War One encounter had Tolkien on one side and Hitler on the other. Which is a slightly odd thought.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,277
    Morning all :)

    It all depends on how you define "war" and indeed how you want to classify such a thing. The term "World War 3" has been corrupted to mean a potentially civilsation ending, species endangering global nuclear conflict but you could equally argue there was the ideological war between Communism and Capitalism which largely ended after 1989 (Vietnam is voting, watch for that exit poll).

    With the end of the ideological conflict, we've gone back to good old-fashioned conflicts about faith and resources. We need oil to keep going - who has it, how can we be sure we can control its supply and distribution? Whether World War 4 will end up as the Resource Wars (which won't stop with oil or gas but will likely expand to include water over time), who can say?

    Such conficts aren't just fought on distant battlefields - we see the impacts here in terms of the cultural struggles in Europe against Muslim immigration as well as fuel prices at the pumps. That's a kind of "Home Front" which has always been there.

    There's a cynical view creating or maintaining a "threat" legitimises Government policy and actions aimed at controlling the population as well as maintaining a military-industrial complex. Are Russian armies really going to sweep across Europe? Hardly, so the threat is "cyber" and as we see the vulnerability of our modern life systems to disruption and the ensuing chaos justifies Government spending on defence and the maintenance of a surveillance society.

    There is undoubtedly a vulnerabilty - imagine a week or a month without electricity - which could be exploited and that's where we need to prioritise our efforts.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    Morris_Dancer said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Sean_F said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
    To go all Godwin, Hitler believed that the democracies wouldn’t be able to fight in the same way as the totalitarian states.
    He was right, in a wrong way. The allies (excluding the totalitarian Soviets) used steel to flesh wherever possible. And I think only one person in the armed forces was shot for desertion. Amazing to think of our grandfathers and great grandfathers going through all that. Sobering.
    Not sure which battle (maybe the Somme?) but one World War One encounter had Tolkien on one side and Hitler on the other. Which is a slightly odd thought.
    One person who created a bizarre fantasy land of immortal super beings that had a resounding impact on the world.

    And the other was author of The Hobbit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,763
    edited 9:14AM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Taz said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
    Rubbish title. We want our money back.

    And our generation of young men.
    Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
    Yes, unintended consequences sadly.

    About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.

    The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
    I was around 10 when I was told we suffered 57,000 casualties on the first day of The Battle of the Somme, I couldn't process that then and nearly 40 years later I still cannot.

    That's nearly the capacity of Anfield.
    And yet, French and German casualties in WWI were much worse. Our commanders had at least learned, thanks to the Anglo-Boer War, that defensive rifle fire was deadly. German and French commanders took the wrong lesson - that a sufficiently determined attacker, willing to take casualties, would prevail over the defenders.

    The figure that blew my mind was the Germans suffering 3,000 casualties, in one day, advancing 20 metres into the Tractor Works, at Stalingrad.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,931
    Foxy said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I've every respect and admiration for those in the armed services as well as any kind of civil defence, but I doubt they will be able to do much to defend us in the event of any war, never mind WWIII. If we'd been invaded the way Ukraine was, would we still be fighting? When push really comes to shove, which 'side' would our richly diverse population be on? WWIII is quite likely to involve civil war here at home as well as attacks from outside.

    That's all without the impact of even a few minor nuclear weapons. If a real war like that does break out, we as a nation would have to get real very quickly, and to me, it seems unlikely we could do it in time. We can't even agree on what a woman is.

    "Our richly diverse population" already makes up nearly 18% of recuits to the armed forces. Around 60% of ethnic minority background are UK citizens, with 40% other nationalities, mostly Commonwealth..

    "Ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) personnel accounted for 17.9 per cent of Intake into the UK Regular Forces in the 12 months to 31 March 2024."

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-april-2024

    I am not sure if you meant to imply that ethnic minorities were not properly British nor patriotic. I hope not.
    Not at all.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 22,771
    I don't believe these poll results at all. If people genuinely believed WWIII was imminent we'd see much more support for tax rises and spending cuts to fund rearmament.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,181
    Morris_Dancer said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Sean_F said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
    To go all Godwin, Hitler believed that the democracies wouldn’t be able to fight in the same way as the totalitarian states.
    He was right, in a wrong way. The allies (excluding the totalitarian Soviets) used steel to flesh wherever possible. And I think only one person in the armed forces was shot for desertion. Amazing to think of our grandfathers and great grandfathers going through all that. Sobering.
    Not sure which battle (maybe the Somme?) but one World War One encounter had Tolkien on one side and Hitler on the other. Which is a slightly odd thought.
    It was the Somme. Both in vaguely associated roles as well. Tolkein as Signals Officer and Hitler as a communications runner.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,763
    Morris_Dancer said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Sean_F said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    It’s the reverse of the Fremen Mirage. Harsh environments breed unbeatable soldiers, while modern civilisation produces decadents. Historically, it’s nonsense.
    To go all Godwin, Hitler believed that the democracies wouldn’t be able to fight in the same way as the totalitarian states.
    He was right, in a wrong way. The allies (excluding the totalitarian Soviets) used steel to flesh wherever possible. And I think only one person in the armed forces was shot for desertion. Amazing to think of our grandfathers and great grandfathers going through all that. Sobering.
    Not sure which battle (maybe the Somme?) but one World War One encounter had Tolkien on one side and Hitler on the other. Which is a slightly odd thought.
    I once read a cracking piece of fanfiction, which had the the young Lieutenant Tolkien encountering Maglor (the surviving son of Feanor) in the trenches, who told him about the history of Middle Earth.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 22,771
    Foxy said:

    WW3 won't look like WW1 or WW2.

    Iran is showing how it has learned from the Russo-Ukranian war. Cheap sea and air drones, mass produced and dispersed are very hard to defend against.

    (Incidentally I have my doubts about nomenclature, the Severn Years War was the first worldwide conflict, with major battles on 3 continents and across the oceans. It should be WW1)

    Looking at the drone safari in Kherson, it's clear the next big war will be even more a total war than the last one, even presuming it doesn't turn nuclear.

    Would your numbering make the next one WWV?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,686
    Unless Putin invades most of mainland Europe or China invades Japan and with North Korea South Korea then WW3 is not very likely in my view. We do need to spend more as a percentage of our gdp on defence though
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,862
    One of the reasons I liked Harold MacMillan was this from the Battle of the Somme 'he was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek.'
  • eekeek Posts: 32,861
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dopermean said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/

    Latest step in descent of US democracy

    He doesn’t do irony, does he?

    Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote in a post on X. “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
    This is the same regime that has the effrontery to criticise us over freedom of speech.
    It’s worth pointing out that for Trump criticizing him
    is his definition of fake news.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,277
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

    Yes but notions of civilians fighting invading tanks with improvised molotov cocktails and pitchforks are as fanciful now as they were then.

    There's little or no "fighting" involved - absent nuclear war, against which the only defence seems to be mutual suicide, the real "threat" is chaos and disorder not an invading army.

    The speed at which civilisation can unravel is frightening - someone once said the modern world is only three meals away from anarchy. How would we cope with no electricity for a week or a month? Many wouldn't, some would. Your survival might come down to stealing your neigthbour's food and killing them though you'd hope people would collaborate and co-operate to get through it together. Past history offers both scenarios as possible.

    We've also seen societies can evolve very quickly in times of crisis - who knows?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,861
    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,686
    FF43 said:

    Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

    Though he also said 'He added that the U.S. is “doing that against them,” because “we’re giving a little information to Ukraine and we’re trying to make peace between the two nations.”
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,181
    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example, although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I think Historians tend to regard the Seven Years War as the first properly 'world war'. It was fought in Europe, North America, South America, West Africa, India, the West Indies and the Philippines.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One of the reasons I liked Harold MacMillan was this from the Battle of the Somme 'he was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek.'

    Did it sustain him through all the pis?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,659
    Scott_xP said:

    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

    "You're scum, we don't need you, please send ships we don't need to the war we've already won."
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 58,227
    An interesting subplot regarding Tucker Carlson:

    https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/2033019251234136164

    If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.

    Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,652
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example, although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I think Historians tend to regard the Seven Years War as the first properly 'world war'. It was fought in Europe, North America, South America, West Africa, India, the West Indies and the Philippines.
    I've often wondered as to the thoughts of the British forces that conquered the Philippines and then found out that the war was over before they did. (Although, I think they were pretty happy to give them back as the occupation wasn't going well.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,861
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

    "You're scum, we don't need you, please send ships we don't need to the war we've already won."
    @NormalIslandNws

    Donald Trump is the best ever president at winning wars because he has won the Iran war seven times in the last ten days. No other president has ever won the same war seven times.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,070
    edited 9:33AM
    Icarus said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    De-Fredded:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Had dinner with someone who was in Coventry when it was bombed in WWII.

    Plenty of wine; convivial, but sobering.

    My dad can remember bombs falling during the Second World War, not far from Coventry oddly enough.
    The impact of WW2 bombing on the UK was more than many realise. The numbers make me think it through again whenever I see them,

    3.5-4 million dwellings were damaged or destroyed in the UK; that was just under 30% of the housing stock.

    The breakdown is approximately 200k destroyed, 250k seriously damaged, the rest being minor. 1 million in London, 2.5 to 3 million in the rest of the country.
    My mother was in a shelter next to their house on Biggar Bank, Walney Island - A mine was dropped on the beach - The planes came in from the Irish Sea to bomb Barrow shipyards. The mine went off later the blast breaking a rim round the top of glasses that were stored upside down. The shipyard wasn't hit. Recently was shown a dummy factory on Walney Island that was designed to mislead the bombers.
    Coincidentally yesterday & Friday were the anniversaries of the Clydeside Blitz wherein Clydebank had only 8 out of its c.12000 houses undamaged. It’s arguable whether the Blitz or the 1960s brave new world revamp had more of a negative effect (at least the latter didn’t kill 1200 people, not directly anyway).

    The Singer factory in Clydebank was one of the wonders of the modern industrial world. It survived the bombing but not de-industrialisation.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,573
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Kimi Antonelli is such a likeable guy.

    That podium was awesome to watch. Not sure Lewis has ever been so happy to finish 3rd in a race before! The interaction between Lewis, Kimi, and Bono, was great.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    williamglenn said:

    An interesting subplot regarding Tucker Carlson:

    https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/2033019251234136164

    If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.

    Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack

    That would require planning, forethought, some idea of what is going on.

    That's three reasons why it didn't happen.

    Of course, Fucker Carlson may *think* he has been used that way, which would be epically funny because it would cause him to turn on Trump and give us one positive from this shitshow.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,686
    'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

    The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

    In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

    The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

    They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    Omnium said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.

    You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.

    WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.

    The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example, although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
    I think Historians tend to regard the Seven Years War as the first properly 'world war'. It was fought in Europe, North America, South America, West Africa, India, the West Indies and the Philippines.
    I've often wondered as to the thoughts of the British forces that conquered the Philippines and then found out that the war was over before they did. (Although, I think they were pretty happy to give them back as the occupation wasn't going well.)
    That is of course essentially the plot of the first Hornblower novel, The Happy Return - he captures a Spanish ship and starts a rebellion in Nicaragua only to find they had been at peace for three months.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,680
    Scott_xP said:

    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

    It's a test of fealty (in the literal sense). He knows they are not needed but wants to see who takes the knee. Probably based on a deep sense of insecurity that he needs to constantly see who will bend.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 38,079
    williamglenn said:

    An interesting subplot regarding Tucker Carlson:

    https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/2033019251234136164

    If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.

    Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack

    More 12D chess from Trump?

    Perhaps both you and Tucker give Trump too much credit. Bibi forced his hand. When he spoke to Tucker, Trump had no idea he was about to set off such a hideous train of events.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 78,080
    Scott_xP said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

    "You're scum, we don't need you, please send ships we don't need to the war we've already won."
    @NormalIslandNws

    Donald Trump is the best ever president at winning wars because he has won the Iran war seven times in the last ten days. No other president has ever won the same war seven times.
    It's been won in stages. It's the Seven Tiers War.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,652
    HYUFD said:

    'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

    The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

    In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

    The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

    They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o

    I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,659
    F1: if Japan's as awful for overtaking this year as it was last, then Ferrari's super starts might actually enable them to win.

    On the other hand, on race pace, the Merc is clearly better, and it's a lot easier to follow closely than it has been in the past.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,763
    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @hopisen

    The US president's position seems to be
    - Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
    - We don't need them anyway.
    - They should help us solve this problem we created.
    - But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

    https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

    It's a test of fealty (in the literal sense). He knows they are not needed but wants to see who takes the knee. Probably based on a deep sense of insecurity that he needs to constantly see who will bend.
    Back in the days when vassaldom, and homage were the cornerstone of politics, only the most idiotic of overlords would behave like that to vassals.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,901
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

    The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

    In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

    The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

    They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o

    I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
    He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers.
    Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.

    And Good Morning one and all.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,676
    Lib Dems at 9% !!!!!!!

    https://x.com/i/status/2033115031294943260
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 5,335
    Reform down in yet another poll.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,686
    edited 9:44AM
    OldKingCole said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

    The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

    In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

    The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

    They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o

    I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
    He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers.
    Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.

    And Good Morning one and all.
    They aren't now, most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015.

    The Charles Kennedy pacifist CND types left for Labour and the Greens long ago.

    Macron has also included the UK in a wider European deterrence group so it has nothing to do with the EU 'He said eight other European countries – the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark – had agreed to participate in a new "advanced deterrence" strategy.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026