FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Our Armed Forces ?
Our Armed Forces ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
What do people think should constitute our Armed forces ?
Ie number of ships , Planes , tanks , Soldiers and of what type ?
I think our Navy Espically is too small and of the wrong type 
Discuss  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Where do you want to start?
How about Navy, Air Force, Army...
Navy...
We are an Island that relies on international trade to survive. In fact, we can't even feed ourselves. We need a Navy large enough to protect our merchant fleet and project power to any place in the world that we rely on for our survival. Therefore we need at least 5 aircraft carrier groups, and when i say aircraft carrier groups I mean real aircraft carriers not through-deck cruisers. We also need a credible force both blue-water and brown water submarines and enough minesweepers and submarine hunters to guarantee that we can keep our sea-lanes open. I would suggest this means a return to at least the same levels of sea power as we had in the late 50's.
Air Force: We need enough strike (fighter) aircraft that we can provide 24 hour cover to 100% (with 100% redundancy) of our airspace. Fact is a fighter can not be in 2 places at once and at present we do not have anything like enough planes to do this. We also need enough aircraft that we can supply 100% air cover (with a 100% redundancy) to any forces we are using to project military power overseas. I would suggest at least 1000 fast jets plus enough transports and specialist aircraft to cover all eventualities.
Army: Ground forces need to be big enough to be able to cover all possible requirements without troops having to be on active duty all the time. I would suggest that troops who find themselves on active duty for anything more than about 10% of their service tend to become very damaged. I would suggest we need to return to late 1970's manning levels in order to reduce stress on troops.
Of course ground forces are the quickest to train and equip, aircraft and aircrew take a lot longer to train, and warships even longer to build. This should also be taken into account when deciding manning levels.
However I am biased, and some may think I am going a bit over the top. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Even I think that's a little over the top!
Really? I can justify every thing I have listed and show how it is really required. Can you tell me why it is over the top?
"
5 carrier groups? We haven't even got 1 at the moment.
What percentage of GDP were you thinking to spend? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Where do you want to start?
How about Navy, Air Force, Army...
Navy...
We are an Island that relies on international trade to survive. In fact, we can't even feed ourselves. We need a Navy large enough to protect our merchant fleet and project power to any place in the world that we rely on for our survival. Therefore we need at least 5 aircraft carrier groups, and when i say aircraft carrier groups I mean real aircraft carriers not through-deck cruisers. We also need a credible force both blue-water and brown water submarines and enough minesweepers and submarine hunters to guarantee that we can keep our sea-lanes open. I would suggest this means a return to at least the same levels of sea power as we had in the late 50's.
Air Force: We need enough strike (fighter) aircraft that we can provide 24 hour cover to 100% (with 100% redundancy) of our airspace. Fact is a fighter can not be in 2 places at once and at present we do not have anything like enough planes to do this. We also need enough aircraft that we can supply 100% air cover (with a 100% redundancy) to any forces we are using to project military power overseas. I would suggest at least 1000 fast jets plus enough transports and specialist aircraft to cover all eventualities.
Army: Ground forces need to be big enough to be able to cover all possible requirements without troops having to be on active duty all the time. I would suggest that troops who find themselves on active duty for anything more than about 10% of their service tend to become very damaged. I would suggest we need to return to late 1970's manning levels in order to reduce stress on troops.
Of course ground forces are the quickest to train and equip, aircraft and aircrew take a lot longer to train, and warships even longer to build. This should also be taken into account when deciding manning levels.
However I am biased, and some may think I am going a bit over the top."
I love your thinking!
You need to add maritime patrol aircraft of course.
But as CLCC says, how they hell could we ever pay for it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even I think that's a little over the top!
Really? I can justify every thing I have listed and show how it is really required. Can you tell me why it is over the top?
5 carrier groups? We haven't even got 1 at the moment.
What percentage of GDP were you thinking to spend? "
We haven't had a proper carrier group since 1980 because we have not had a proper carrier. Even the 2 being built at the moment are not real aircraft carriers, they are though deck cruisers.
As for how I came up with 5 carrier groups, it is the minimum number that I believe is required to be able to protect merchant shipping and have spare capacity to cover emergencies, overhauls and repairs.
The initial costs would be quite high, but as the investment would result in the restarting of our steel and shipbuilding industries much of the cost would be absorbed by the extra economic activity it would generate both directly and indirectly. (It is the beauty of using military spending to stimulate an economy provided a siege economy model is adopted.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Even I think that's a little over the top!
Really? I can justify every thing I have listed and show how it is really required. Can you tell me why it is over the top?
5 carrier groups? We haven't even got 1 at the moment.
What percentage of GDP were you thinking to spend?
We haven't had a proper carrier group since 1980 because we have not had a proper carrier. Even the 2 being built at the moment are not real aircraft carriers, they are though deck cruisers.
As for how I came up with 5 carrier groups, it is the minimum number that I believe is required to be able to protect merchant shipping and have spare capacity to cover emergencies, overhauls and repairs.
The initial costs would be quite high, but as the investment would result in the restarting of our steel and shipbuilding industries much of the cost would be absorbed by the extra economic activity it would generate both directly and indirectly. (It is the beauty of using military spending to stimulate an economy provided a siege economy model is adopted.)"
By prope carrier I presume you mean with cats and traps and angled flight deck? Fair enough.
Need to junk that F35 too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Even I think that's a little over the top!
Really? I can justify every thing I have listed and show how it is really required. Can you tell me why it is over the top?
5 carrier groups? We haven't even got 1 at the moment.
What percentage of GDP were you thinking to spend?
We haven't had a proper carrier group since 1980 because we have not had a proper carrier. Even the 2 being built at the moment are not real aircraft carriers, they are though deck cruisers.
As for how I came up with 5 carrier groups, it is the minimum number that I believe is required to be able to protect merchant shipping and have spare capacity to cover emergencies, overhauls and repairs.
The initial costs would be quite high, but as the investment would result in the restarting of our steel and shipbuilding industries much of the cost would be absorbed by the extra economic activity it would generate both directly and indirectly. (It is the beauty of using military spending to stimulate an economy provided a siege economy model is adopted.)"
I don't think you are over the top at all !
Did you notice that Thier is talk of scrapping the anti ship missiles on our frigates and destroyers !
Leaving them with one pop gun ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By prope carrier I presume you mean with cats and traps and angled flight deck? Fair enough.
Need to junk that F35 too!"
Yep and definitely YEP!
It is funny how when we sold Harriers to the Yanks they had to be built in the USA. When we sold chobham armour to the Yanks it had to be manufactured under licence in the states, but when we buy anything from them it also has to be made in the USA!
FUCK THAT!
We should build our own military equipment including weapons and munitions. And just like the yanks if they want to sell us stuff it should be manufactured from scratch here under licence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think you are over the top at all !
Did you notice that Thier is talk of scrapping the anti ship missiles on our frigates and destroyers !
Leaving them with one pop gun ! "
I do try to keep up to date, but as I have been off the long term reserve list for nearly 15 years now I no longer have the access I used to have to the current state of play in the military. Also being a former booty my knowledge of the RN and RAF has always been quite limited. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"By prope carrier I presume you mean with cats and traps and angled flight deck? Fair enough.
Need to junk that F35 too!
Yep and definitely YEP!
It is funny how when we sold Harriers to the Yanks they had to be built in the USA. When we sold chobham armour to the Yanks it had to be manufactured under licence in the states, but when we buy anything from them it also has to be made in the USA!
FUCK THAT!
We should build our own military equipment including weapons and munitions. And just like the yanks if they want to sell us stuff it should be manufactured from scratch here under licence. "
Yep ! I would do the same with our nuclear deterrent aswell !
I don't trust we have real control of it !
I'd also like to see an updated Harrier Built ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yep ! I would do the same with our nuclear deterrent aswell !
I don't trust we have real control of it !
I'd also like to see an updated Harrier Built ! "
We agree again. However be reassured we have full control over our nuclear deterrent. Of course an updated harrier would be a good but there is nothing wrong with the current one, the yanks are now flying all the ones the tories got rid of! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yep ! I would do the same with our nuclear deterrent aswell !
I don't trust we have real control of it !
I'd also like to see an updated Harrier Built !
We agree again. However be reassured we have full control over our nuclear deterrent. Of course an updated harrier would be a good but there is nothing wrong with the current one, the yanks are now flying all the ones the tories got rid of! "
OK, but they got rid of them because they'd been so starved of funds for maintenance that the whole fleet was buggered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"OK, but they got rid of them because they'd been so starved of funds for maintenance that the whole fleet was buggered. "
Funny how the USM were able to bring them back to full operation. Guess that's because the yanks have not spent the last 40 years running down their armed services. But the tories have history when it comes to screwing the armed forces and then dropping them in the shite with substandard equipment! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The Harrier was unique , if anything won the Falklands it was that plane .
Like you say the Yanks still use it Crackers !
We should design and make all our military equipment at no expense spared . But tayloured to Defend our great nation ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Where do you want to start?
How about Navy, Air Force, Army...
Navy...
We are an Island that relies on international trade to survive. In fact, we can't even feed ourselves. We need a Navy large enough to protect our merchant fleet and project power to any place in the world that we rely on for our survival. Therefore we need at least 5 aircraft carrier groups, and when i say aircraft carrier groups I mean real aircraft carriers not through-deck cruisers. We also need a credible force both blue-water and brown water submarines and enough minesweepers and submarine hunters to guarantee that we can keep our sea-lanes open. I would suggest this means a return to at least the same levels of sea power as we had in the late 50's.
Air Force: We need enough strike (fighter) aircraft that we can provide 24 hour cover to 100% (with 100% redundancy) of our airspace. Fact is a fighter can not be in 2 places at once and at present we do not have anything like enough planes to do this. We also need enough aircraft that we can supply 100% air cover (with a 100% redundancy) to any forces we are using to project military power overseas. I would suggest at least 1000 fast jets plus enough transports and specialist aircraft to cover all eventualities.
Army: Ground forces need to be big enough to be able to cover all possible requirements without troops having to be on active duty all the time. I would suggest that troops who find themselves on active duty for anything more than about 10% of their service tend to become very damaged. I would suggest we need to return to late 1970's manning levels in order to reduce stress on troops.
Of course ground forces are the quickest to train and equip, aircraft and aircrew take a lot longer to train, and warships even longer to build. This should also be taken into account when deciding manning levels.
However I am biased, and some may think I am going a bit over the top."
Of course, what the rest of the world did as we massively rearmed like this would, probably, be rather interesting. The dreadnought race of some 100 years ago would, perhaps, be an appropriate parallel, although with whom? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My idea would be armed forced for defence tho !
In other words a military that could protect this island from anyone !
Even Russia or the USA !  "
Agreed.
However, it is better to fight your wars on your enemies ground than on your own.
The reason that the USA is the richest country in the world is because it has managed to fight all it's wars on other peoples soil, and the same was true of the UK up until WW2.
I never want to have to fight on our soil or to have to defend our borders directly. This may mean I am not a nice person in the eyes of many but I would rather inflict 100 Aleppo's on foreign countries than see one British city blitzed.
We need strong forces that can be projected across the globe, at present we rely too heavily on our nuclear deterrent which is a grave mistake. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Yep ! I would do the same with our nuclear deterrent aswell !
I don't trust we have real control of it !
I'd also like to see an updated Harrier Built !
We agree again. However be reassured we have full control over our nuclear deterrent. Of course an updated harrier would be a good but there is nothing wrong with the current one, the yanks are now flying all the ones the tories got rid of! "
err sorry the yanks can switch the guidance & targeting system off anytime they like just in case we point them at them so we do not have "full control " of our nuclear deterant just a bloody big firework |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"err sorry the yanks can switch the guidance & targeting system off anytime they like just in case we point them at them so we do not have "full control " of our nuclear deterant just a bloody big firework "
Really?
Can you really be so naive?
Just to be clear, you are saying that somewhere (maybe more than a single place) there is a switch that can turn off all the Trident targeting and guidance system? Remember that is both the UK's and USA's nuclear arsenal. Can you see any potential flaws in such a system? Could you possible see a way how an enemy could disable something like 99% (maybe 100%) of NATO's nuclear capability if that were the case? Or maybe you could see how if that were the case a successful first strike would make a retaliatory strike impossible.
Or do you think that just maybe it is a nice story to spread around so that some of the anti nuclear shrills will stop harping on about there being no control over pressing the button and all it needs is for a SSBM commander to decide that they are going to start WW3 and that's it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"err sorry the yanks can switch the guidance & targeting system off anytime they like just in case we point them at them so we do not have "full control " of our nuclear deterant just a bloody big firework
Really?
Can you really be so naive?
Just to be clear, you are saying that somewhere (maybe more than a single place) there is a switch that can turn off all the Trident targeting and guidance system? Remember that is both the UK's and USA's nuclear arsenal. Can you see any potential flaws in such a system? Could you possible see a way how an enemy could disable something like 99% (maybe 100%) of NATO's nuclear capability if that were the case? Or maybe you could see how if that were the case a successful first strike would make a retaliatory strike impossible.
Or do you think that just maybe it is a nice story to spread around so that some of the anti nuclear shrills will stop harping on about there being no control over pressing the button and all it needs is for a SSBM commander to decide that they are going to start WW3 and that's it?"
Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case."
I think not. Cruise Missiles rely on GPS, but I think you will find that Trident is a pre-GPS system that first entered service in late 70's, and considering that GPS was first launched 1995 and is disrupted by anything that blocks the GPS satellites time signal broadcast it would never be used for such an important system as Trident. Also as a GPS signal cannot be picked up underwater and Trident is a subsurface launch system I would suggest that the 2 systems are totally incompatible.
Of course I could be wrong and Trident may rely in some way on the totally non secure GPS system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's way too big and we spend way too much money time and resources on it!.
.
.
It's the biggest bunch of phoney Maloney government propaganda I've seen since.... Well since ever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case.
I think not. Cruise Missiles rely on GPS, but I think you will find that Trident is a pre-GPS system that first entered service in late 70's, and considering that GPS was first launched 1995 and is disrupted by anything that blocks the GPS satellites time signal broadcast it would never be used for such an important system as Trident. Also as a GPS signal cannot be picked up underwater and Trident is a subsurface launch system I would suggest that the 2 systems are totally incompatible.
Of course I could be wrong and Trident may rely in some way on the totally non secure GPS system."
But trident is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ideally zero but you do seem to have had a habit of making enemies
I remember watching a documentary of some poor limbless idiot still patriotic to the hilt takes to his training (brain washing) ... Not seeing he was used as a pawn and was under compensated for his loss while thinking he's quid in with about 1 million to live on from 20 years old or so and needing 24/7 care
Disgusting.... 'our armed forces' said with pride |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case.
I think not. Cruise Missiles rely on GPS, but I think you will find that Trident is a pre-GPS system that first entered service in late 70's, and considering that GPS was first launched 1995 and is disrupted by anything that blocks the GPS satellites time signal broadcast it would never be used for such an important system as Trident. Also as a GPS signal cannot be picked up underwater and Trident is a subsurface launch system I would suggest that the 2 systems are totally incompatible.
Of course I could be wrong and Trident may rely in some way on the totally non secure GPS system.
But trident is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile."
Yes; it's true that cruise missiles rely on constant gps ( and inertial navigation).
But a " cruise missile" means simply that it flies ( like an aircraft) at various altitudes, including terrain following at low level. And is constantly propelled in flight
Trident is " ballistic" in that it is fired, and is only powered on its upward trajectory; afterwards it is in unpowered "ballistic" flight.
It uses inertial navigation to hit its target(s). Steering achieved by fins ( in atmosphere) and thrusters ( in space) To achieve ultimate accuracy, it needs the additional system to update its trajectory ( part of which uses a " star sight " system. In addition it is a MIRV system ( Multiple Independently targeted re-entry vehicle). I.e. One missile carries several warheads, which are guided to different targets ( and some of which are dummies or decoys to deceive anti- missile systems.)
Again, accuracy of targeting relies on the external system; since it it will be out of the atmosphere ( but sub orbital) for most of its flight; and has to do a lot of calculations to deal with errors occurring during te-entry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case.
I think not. Cruise Missiles rely on GPS, but I think you will find that Trident is a pre-GPS system that first entered service in late 70's, and considering that GPS was first launched 1995 and is disrupted by anything that blocks the GPS satellites time signal broadcast it would never be used for such an important system as Trident. Also as a GPS signal cannot be picked up underwater and Trident is a subsurface launch system I would suggest that the 2 systems are totally incompatible.
Of course I could be wrong and Trident may rely in some way on the totally non secure GPS system."
Nothing to do with the "GPS" system; something entirely different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm not paying one penny of tax's for armed anything!.
If we want to defend the country i suggest national service training for everybody and everybody gets a gun just like Switzerland or Israel.....
Just who were meant to be getting invaded from?.... France? Germany? .
.
Last time I looked we've got more chance of being invaded by Somalians  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember watching a documentary of some poor limbless idiot still patriotic to the hilt takes to his training (brain washing) ...
Disgusting.... 'our armed forces' said with pride "
Limbless idiot, still patriotic!
Disgusting, brainwashed armed forces!
Said with pride!
How dare you!
I do not know why any individual signs up, I know why I did. I (and all who serve or have served) accept that many would not make the same commitment, that is their choice and we (all who serve) would willingly die to protect your freedom (including the freedom not to serve).
But to call us all brainwashed idiots and to so glibly dismiss the sacrifices made by those who are willing to sacrifice all for you...
You are a disgrace!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Serve for what... The removal of fictional weapons of mass destruction....
Who did you serve?
I'm a disgrace because I don't endorse invading countries, killing innocent people and using young men and women as toy soldiers. Fair enough so
I know I'm touching a nerve and sorry if it offends you but that's what they do... Recruit them young, brainwash them hard
There is an enviable camaraderie that comes from going to war with a bunch of lads and then coming back hopefully alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Trident relies on a US provided global location and guidance system, which lies outside the missile itself .
It can be , theoretically, targeted and fired independently of this system, but it's accuracy and control is much reduced in that case.
I think not. Cruise Missiles rely on GPS, but I think you will find that Trident is a pre-GPS system that first entered service in late 70's, and considering that GPS was first launched 1995 and is disrupted by anything that blocks the GPS satellites time signal broadcast it would never be used for such an important system as Trident. Also as a GPS signal cannot be picked up underwater and Trident is a subsurface launch system I would suggest that the 2 systems are totally incompatible.
Of course I could be wrong and Trident may rely in some way on the totally non secure GPS system.
Nothing to do with the "GPS" system; something entirely different. "
they use a telemetrics guidance system independant of the gps sytem ballistic missiles are also fitted with a "range saftey " which should the missile go out of control or out side its trajectory it can be self desturcted or self distructs itself due to a wobble etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Serve for what... The removal of fictional weapons of mass destruction....
Who did you serve?
I'm a disgrace because I don't endorse invading countries, killing innocent people and using young men and women as toy soldiers. Fair enough so
I know I'm touching a nerve and sorry if it offends you but that's what they do... Recruit them young, brainwash them hard
There is an enviable camaraderie that comes from going to war with a bunch of lads and then coming back hopefully alive. "
Forgive me for not replying sooner, but I needed to step away from the keyboard and put some distance between myself and your posts before answering you.
I was going to explain how forces personnel are trained and why, but what would be the point? However I will address what seems to be your primary point, your objection to the wars our forces fight.
It is not the place of the armed forces or any single member of those forces to choose how they are used. Armed conflict (war) is a device used by those in power to force others to bend to their will. That we produce people of such stature that they willingly serve and do their duty regardless of the cost to them is something to be proud of, not to be scorned.
If you are looking for a target for your anger direct it to those who start the wars not those in the services who fight them.
I served my Queen and Country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I'm not paying one penny of tax's for armed anything!.
If we want to defend the country i suggest national service training for everybody and everybody gets a gun just like Switzerland or Israel.....
Just who were meant to be getting invaded from?.... France? Germany? .
.
Last time I looked we've got more chance of being invaded by Somalians "
Why would that be so surprising ?
Things change !
They've both tried before !!!
Tho I think the main priority is to be able to defend an air attack !
How good are our anti aircraft systems ? Is it still Rapier ? Or have we updated ?
I could see a scenario where we could have to defend a bombing attack from the USA !
Don't laugh ! Think about it ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I'm not paying one penny of tax's for armed anything!.
If we want to defend the country i suggest national service training for everybody and everybody gets a gun just like Switzerland or Israel.....
Just who were meant to be getting invaded from?.... France? Germany? .
.
Last time I looked we've got more chance of being invaded by Somalians
Why would that be so surprising ?
Things change !
They've both tried before !!!
Tho I think the main priority is to be able to defend an air attack !
How good are our anti aircraft systems ? Is it still Rapier ? Or have we updated ?
I could see a scenario where we could have to defend a bombing attack from the USA !
Don't laugh ! Think about it !"
I think a more likely scenario is not a direct attack on the UK, but more likely is an attack either on an ally which drags us into a war (WWI & WWII) or an attack between allies where we have to pick a side and again get dragged into a conflict.
Without sufficient conventional forces to achieve our strategic objectives, we may have to consider deploying our nuclear arsenal, which would be terrible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I could see a scenario where we could have to defend a bombing attack from the USA !
Don't laugh ! Think about it !"
The USA planned to invade Canada in the 1930's. They even went as far as building a FOB and starting to build up the forces required for the invasion before changing their mind an deciding that there was going to be war in Europe and that they did not need to attack the UK because Germany would do it for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Without sufficient conventional forces to achieve our strategic objectives, we may have to consider deploying our nuclear arsenal, which would be terrible."
Please explain how you reach the conclusion that deploying nuclear weapons would be terrible. By the way I do not think the use of nuclear weapons has to lead to Armageddon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Serve for what... The removal of fictional weapons of mass destruction....
Who did you serve?
I'm a disgrace because I don't endorse invading countries, killing innocent people and using young men and women as toy soldiers. Fair enough so
I know I'm touching a nerve and sorry if it offends you but that's what they do... Recruit them young, brainwash them hard
There is an enviable camaraderie that comes from going to war with a bunch of lads and then coming back hopefully alive.
Forgive me for not replying sooner, but I needed to step away from the keyboard and put some distance between myself and your posts before answering you.
I was going to explain how forces personnel are trained and why, but what would be the point? However I will address what seems to be your primary point, your objection to the wars our forces fight.
It is not the place of the armed forces or any single member of those forces to choose how they are used. Armed conflict (war) is a device used by those in power to force others to bend to their will. That we produce people of such stature that they willingly serve and do their duty regardless of the cost to them is something to be proud of, not to be scorned.
If you are looking for a target for your anger direct it to those who start the wars not those in the services who fight them.
I served my Queen and Country."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Without sufficient conventional forces to achieve our strategic objectives, we may have to consider deploying our nuclear arsenal, which would be terrible.
Please explain how you reach the conclusion that deploying nuclear weapons would be terrible. By the way I do not think the use of nuclear weapons has to lead to Armageddon. "
That's because when the last two were dropped there were only two bombs in existence, now there are thousands.
Nuclear weapons are now much more powerful and destructive than they were previously.
During WWII civilian casualties were expected and accepted, the world has now moved on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Without sufficient conventional forces to achieve our strategic objectives, we may have to consider deploying our nuclear arsenal, which would be terrible.
Please explain how you reach the conclusion that deploying nuclear weapons would be terrible. By the way I do not think the use of nuclear weapons has to lead to Armageddon.
That's because when the last two were dropped there were only two bombs in existence, now there are thousands.
Nuclear weapons are now much more powerful and destructive than they were previously.
During WWII civilian casualties were expected and accepted, the world has now moved on."
Sadly as far as civilian casualties go I think the works has gone backwards !
My rule would be , if you couldn't accept it been done to us don't do it !
I'm meaning air Strikes here .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's because when the last two were dropped there were only two bombs in existence, now there are thousands.
Nuclear weapons are now much more powerful and destructive than they were previously.
During WWII civilian casualties were expected and accepted, the world has now moved on."
I am sorry but I find your reasoning flawed for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, what has destructive power got to do with anything? It makes no difference if you are killed by a bayonet, a single bullet fired from a small arm or a nuclear bomb, dead is dead. In the same way it makes no difference if a million people are killed in milliseconds by a single nuclear explosion or over a few years by conventional weapons. In fact I would suggest that of the 2 choices the former is more humane than the latter.
Secondly, I would suggest that the only people who profit from not using nuclear weapons are the arms industry who feed the industrialised killing of humans for profit in a way that we have all become totally conditioned to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sadly as far as civilian casualties go I think the works has gone backwards !
I agree, in fact I would go further and say that killing civilians is now standard practice in all conflicts."
Yes , it's Horrendous !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Time to look towards turning our armed forces into a defence minded force, rather than going all over the world fighting wars at the bequest of the American government. "
I Couldn't Agrree More !!!
And I'm Right Wing and Your Left Wing  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Sadly as far as civilian casualties go I think the works has gone backwards !
I agree, in fact I would go further and say that killing civilians is now standard practice in all conflicts.
Yes , it's Horrendous !
"
Year on year less and less humans around the world are killed by conflict. Although we see more and more of it, its just bevause of better media and hearing things that are happening everywhere in the world. Violence is on the decrease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"That's because when the last two were dropped there were only two bombs in existence, now there are thousands.
Nuclear weapons are now much more powerful and destructive than they were previously.
During WWII civilian casualties were expected and accepted, the world has now moved on.
I am sorry but I find your reasoning flawed for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, what has destructive power got to do with anything? It makes no difference if you are killed by a bayonet, a single bullet fired from a small arm or a nuclear bomb, dead is dead. In the same way it makes no difference if a million people are killed in milliseconds by a single nuclear explosion or over a few years by conventional weapons. In fact I would suggest that of the 2 choices the former is more humane than the latter.
Secondly, I would suggest that the only people who profit from not using nuclear weapons are the arms industry who feed the industrialised killing of humans for profit in a way that we have all become totally conditioned to."
A war could be a few days (Russia-Georgia), or it could last years (Syria). So it does make a difference with nuclear weapons, as it would kill potentially millions instantly, rather than if it was spread over a period of time, there is time for conflict resolution, peace making and peace keeping. With nuclear weapons you take away time for those efforts.
A bayonet is an extremely targeted weapon, you can tell the difference between a soldier in a uniform and a baby for instance. A single bullet is also targeted.
Usually aimed at a military target. Of course you could be spraying and praying and hit civilian casualties, however compared to a nuclear weapon, its like a surgeon's scalpel. Nuclear weapons are designed to deal a tremendous amount of damage over a large area. This is likely to include significant civilian casualties which wouldn't happen with conventional weapons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Serve for what... The removal of fictional weapons of mass destruction....
Who did you serve?
I'm a disgrace because I don't endorse invading countries, killing innocent people and using young men and women as toy soldiers. Fair enough so
I know I'm touching a nerve and sorry if it offends you but that's what they do... Recruit them young, brainwash them hard
There is an enviable camaraderie that comes from going to war with a bunch of lads and then coming back hopefully alive.
Forgive me for not replying sooner, but I needed to step away from the keyboard and put some distance between myself and your posts before answering you.
I was going to explain how forces personnel are trained and why, but what would be the point? However I will address what seems to be your primary point, your objection to the wars our forces fight.
It is not the place of the armed forces or any single member of those forces to choose how they are used. Armed conflict (war) is a device used by those in power to force others to bend to their will. That we produce people of such stature that they willingly serve and do their duty regardless of the cost to them is something to be proud of, not to be scorned.
If you are looking for a target for your anger direct it to those who start the wars not those in the services who fight them.
I served my Queen and Country."
This Sir,
Has to be one of the best and most considered responses to date. Thank you for bringing the facts and common sense to the debate.
The military only deploy when politicians have failed ..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Time to look towards turning our armed forces into a defence minded force, rather than going all over the world fighting wars at the bequest of the American government. "
all we have is a defence force less than 80k serving is considered just that it's just out idiot polititions haven't realised that and continue to act like we have an empire
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
