Why should we consider Europe to be relevant?
(Michael "Based" Fallon)
To answer your question, because we have some of the largest defence budgets and best-equipped militaries
Daily reminder that the "le badass Russian Minister of Defence" is a politician that never spent a single day in the army.
(unlike the Chinese and Iran's one, they're both generals)
It's pathetic that actual russian soldiers are content with civilians wearing their uniform.
If this guy was your boss, you'd look sad too
Wars are won on a number of factors, with money being one of the more important ones. Going to war is an unbelievably huge financial investment. Industry, founded on financing, is one of the fundamental routes to victory.
i dont understand why politicians are appointed minister of defense and not generals
in one point russian Minister of Defence was Anatoliy Serdyukov former Furniture dealer
I don't think you understood me
Civilians/the public oversee the politicians who in turn oversee the military. That's the idea at least, cbf getting into an argument over if it actually works that way
>be minister of defense
>be a communist
>waste half of the budget buying 6 tons of seafood for a party
I expected the worst, so I'm really happy with the outcome.
In a Parliamentary democracy, the Cabinet ministers are by convention drawn from MPs, the elected representatives of the people. This convention exists because Cabinet is the most powerful group of people in the country, the executive arm of government.
Since Secretary of State for Defence is a Cabinet position, Defence will be run by an MP. You will often have MPs who are ex-military, and in that case, you might have an ex-military person as Defence Secretary.
it should be like this
>head of state is commander in chief
>commander in chief appoints a general as minister of defense, not a career politician
>minister of defense runs the army while deferring to the head of state
Launching nukes directly into North Vietnam, extremely close to the Chinese border, would warrant nuclear retaliation from China into South Vietnam. You can't just hurl nukes around that close to another major power and expect them to let shit slide. They would launch a nuke into South Vietnam, probably kill a lot of American troops, and then it would only escalate from there. Who would back down, especially in an extremely symbolic proxy war?
In other words, they're unelected. And what about all the democracies where you a figurehead unelected Head of State, like Britain?
Also, what's bad about civilian oversight of the military? What exactly is the point of the Armed Forces if not to report to the democratically elected, CIVILIAN, government?
I think you're misunderstanding the actual amount of influence the MoD has in terms of how the military is run. Literally everything they do is decided by the Prime Minister, in terms of budget and a general idea of its allocation, and by respective chiefs of the branches. Often times the MoD isn't even included in meetings between senior military officials and the PM. What he does, however, is give a scapegoat, one person to pin blame on and put pressure on who in turn puts that pressure on his subordinates in the military. If they refuse, that's when he has actual power vested in him by the govt. over the military.
lol did chinks have nukes around vietnam war ?
Honestly, he isn't bad as i thought it would be. He actually do some shit there, the last one wasn't bad either. Even though, i still prefer someone from the Military there.
China's first nuclear weapons test was in '64, so yes.
>Americans nuke North Vietnam
>Chinese stunned at major aggression barely over the border
>Chinese nuke southern side of DMZ
>Americans howl for commie blood
>Chinese forces stream in to support North Vietnamese
>Americans demolecularize Hanoi, begin nuclear strikes on the Vietnamese-Chinese border to stop influx of Chinese troops
>Radiation spills into southern china
>tens of millions suffer from radiation injuries, Chinese state media cannot cover up a disaster this big
>Chinese galvanized into launching more nukes into South Vietnam in response
>Soviets amass forces for assault on western europe, try to negotiate for peace
>America just lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Chinese nukes, they're not having it
>USSR reverts to show of force, testing nuclear weapon few hundred miles off Alaskan coast
>US shuts down negotiations, sets trajectories for maximum Soviet and Chinese civilian casualties
>USSR does the same
>all men are blind and scared
>all women beg men to stop
>children wonder what their parents are doing
>a Norwegian team launches a weather balloon into the atmosphere for research
>USSR radar picks it up as a foreign incoming object
>it all ends
F A M
oki they did have nukes , but did they have means to deliver them >?
Maybe not through a silo, but they could fly a protected bomber over, or even sneak one in through the Ho Chi Minh trails. Even Operation Rolling Thunder couldn't take out the trails
few tactical nukes(nuclear dynamite) and job done
How about we work for peace and not Fallout: Real Life? Why are you so bloodthirsty senpai
You need to look at the big picture.
Imagine the Chinese had a "primitive" nuke or they couldn't use it. If the Americans nuked Vietnam, the soviets would nuke the countries they invaded and so on. This would start a nuclear arms race with every country around the world developing atomic bombs, H-bombs etc.
José have many toilets did you clean today ?