Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[The Conservative]

Never underestimate just how much safety the Pacific and the Atlantic give to the US.

If that was true, then you'd have the same logic between the water separating England from Europe. What's different then and now? Technology...

1. Which body of water is greater? The stretch of water between mainland Europe and the British Isles or the stretch of water between the British Isles and North America?

2. And you do have the same logic. After all, did the early American military pose as big a threat to the British Isles as the BI posed to the early American territory that had declared independence? Did the American navy sail to Britain and launch an invasion of the British Isles?

For the longest time, England was nearly impenetrable by ship or any other invading force because of that small gap of water... that has now been removed by technology.

And the water has no bearing on any invading force for the US. All they need to do now is come through the southern border, it's porous enough we probably wouldn't see an invading army down there till it's too late. I mean how many hundreds of thousands go through the border each month, never mind year?

[Speaker to Animals]

The distance really is not the major limiting factor. Just having to stage somewhere, gather the ships, load the troops, and make the crossing is quite enough. The distance only means you take longer from getting from the staging zone to the landing zone.

In the context of the 18th century.. not much of a difference.

Also, British were supplied from North America, not England, as far as I know. That was part of the problem that caused the revolt.

[The Conservative]

The distance really is not the major limiting factor. Just having to stage somewhere, gather the ships, load the troops, and make the crossing is quite enough. The distance only means you take longer from getting from the staging zone to the landing zone.

In the context of the 18th century.. not much of a difference.

You also need a toehold to do it with as well, that was the benefit of England, there wasn't a lot of places in where they could get a force off without someone seeing it from a good distance.

The US though... well...

[Speaker to Animals]

The distance really is not the major limiting factor. Just having to stage somewhere, gather the ships, load the troops, and make the crossing is quite enough. The distance only means you take longer from getting from the staging zone to the landing zone.

In the context of the 18th century.. not much of a difference.

You also need a toehold to do it with as well, that was the benefit of England, there wasn't a lot of places in where they could get a force off without someone seeing it from a good distance.

The US though... well...

It's difficult to disguise an armada.

The other thing about Britain having a better deal is that you need only *some* decent landing zone. North America is a big place. Three different governments too.

Britain is one thing except for Ireland, and landing in Ireland isn't going to threaten England one bit in 18th century.

England was always a fucking fortress.

[The Conservative]

The distance really is not the major limiting factor. Just having to stage somewhere, gather the ships, load the troops, and make the crossing is quite enough. The distance only means you take longer from getting from the staging zone to the landing zone.

In the context of the 18th century.. not much of a difference.

You also need a toehold to do it with as well, that was the benefit of England, there wasn't a lot of places in where they could get a force off without someone seeing it from a good distance.

The US though... well...

It's difficult to disguise an armada.

That's the point, That is why England was so hard to conquer originally... and why that limitation is no longer there.

In the case of the US though, the same limitation is also gone, we accept so many people into this country, we could easily be taken from the inside out with how porous our borders are.

[Speaker to Animals]

Look how difficult it was to land in Normandy in WW2. That was the largest armada in human history by a really wide margin, and it still was extremely difficult, costly, and fatalities were high.

Invasion across even a channel is a big deal. Make it into an ocean and it just takes more time.

I'll grant you that, in modern warfare forward, the distance across the Atlantic gives us more time to sink ships, but one could also point out that the shorter distance of the channel makes it easier to sink ships from the shore with anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

I mean.. the Argies fucked it up with the tiny (back then) British forces all the way on the other side of the hemisphere. The Falkand Islands were right there too.

[The Conservative]

Look how difficult it was to land in Normandy in WW2. That was the largest armada in human history by a really wide margin, and it still was extremely difficult, costly, and fatalities were high.

Invasion across even a channel is a big deal. Make it into an ocean and it just takes more time.

I'll grant you that, in modern warfare forward, the distance across the Atlantic gives us more time to sink ships, but one could also point out that the shorter distance of the channel makes it easier to sink ships from the shore with anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

I mean.. the Argies fucked it up with the tiny (back then) British forces all the way on the other side of the hemisphere. The Falkand Islands were right there too.

Yup, but there is a reason why if you really want to go back in history why Rome never got past a specific point in England, and that part they did put up there wasn't really held, it was more of a nod that they did it... but any place that is defendable can be taken down by the right people...

Remember, General MacArthur almost single-handedly could have won the Korea war if he was allowed to continue his attack. He also attacked an area that was not meant to be possible either to take down...

[Fife]

Italian regions start pursuing greater autonomy in shadow of Catalonia crisis

MILAN/VENICE (Reuters) - Political leaders in northern Italy claimed an overwhelming mandate on Monday to seek greater autonomy from Rome after referendums that did not go as far as the independence vote in Catalonia declared illegal by Spain.

Voters in Lombardy and Veneto, both run by the once openly secessionist Northern League, backed the party’s autonomy bid by more than 95 percent, although in Lombardy less than half of the electorate turned out.

In both regions, many people complain their taxes are wasted by the central government, accusing Rome of delivering low-quality public services and diverting money to the poor south widely seen by northerners as corrupt.

“This is the big bang of institutional reforms,” Veneto Governor Luca Zaia told a news conference, announcing plans to begin negotiations on clawing back powers from the central government in 23 policy areas.

[C-Mag]

What's up with all these Bombings in Sweden, I'm seeing 7 in the last 2 weeks. Europeans bring me up to date here. What's happening ?

[C-Mag]

Hey, Andrej Babiš, the Czech candidate often compared to Trump won in a landslide. I wonder if the Sweden Bombings had any affect on the vote.