FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > More Defence Cuts
More Defence Cuts
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
Simples | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples "I so hope this was ironic. | |||
"Chill and enjoy the festive season who know that far ahead we will not be out for many years yet.The EU will have fallen apart and the Euro will be in turmoil. As for the US under Mr Trump who knows the doller could become worthless,then we would moan the pound was to high. All this predicting is a waste of time,years ago people like you stood on street corners with banners saying the end is nigh,we are still here. The world could end and none of this will matter so enjoy new year and stop moaning." Nice one.  | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic."No ! Not at all Why ? | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?"Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go. As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine). Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it? What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries? The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world. Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs. | |||
| |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?
Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go.
As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine).
Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it?
What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries?
The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world.
Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs."Well, I deleted my simplistic answer as this is so much better! (I'm worried about you suggesting that people on here should read up on something though!) | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?
Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go.
As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine).
Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it?
What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries?
The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world.
Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs."One of the best posts I've seen all year.....  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?
Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go.
As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine).
Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it?
What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries?
The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world.
Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs."You didn't read Properly !!! I said make our own for us , only buy our own ! And DONT EXPORT TO ANYONE ! | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?
Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go.
As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine).
Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it?
What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries?
The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world.
Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs.
You didn't read Properly !!!
I said make our own for us , only buy our own !
And DONT EXPORT TO ANYONE !"As stated above, we don't have the time, expertise, nor money to develop all our own arms ourselves. These things are now incredibly complex, and reliant on components and technologies developed beyond our own borders. -Matt | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples
I so hope this was ironic.
No ! Not at all
Why ?
Have you any idea of the cost to become not just self sufficient, but an exporter of all of the arms used by the joint services? The UK is already punching well above its weight as an arms exporter but without a vast injection of money into privately controlled companies, there is not much further we can go.
As it stands, British Aerospace can just about compete with Boeing and Lockheed as long as they work with European Partners. As a stand alone entity, British Aerospace does not have the resources to develop much other than the odd, bomb variant, missile and torpedo. For example, the current hot topic is the Lockheed F35 jet programme which for Lockheed is a $1.5 trillion dollar project to deliver aircraft frames and technology at a price of around $100,000,000 per airframe (without the engine).
Moving on, sureLandRover could tool up and look to develop light fighting vehicles to rival humvees that "could" be sold to the rest of the world, but who is going to make them do that if it is not part of their business plan? Will they be nationalalised and forced to do it? Who will pay for it?
What about the supply of sidearms, personal weapons, light and heavy machine guns as well as light artillery? Who is going to pay private companies to research, develop and produce all of these arms which are currently sourced from a number of countries?
The idea that the UK can go back in time to pre WW1 times when armaments were primitive and become self sufficient again is naive. That said, it does not surprise me that in these days and ages of Brexit fantasy land that people probably do think that trillions of pounds can be magicked into companies in order to make Britain great again by becoming the major supplier of armaments to the world.
Suggest you read the very many articles on line about defence procurement and how it works in this country - and indeed it will continue to work under any future government quite simply because the UK does not have the money to fund armament R&D to supply the world with everything it needs.
You didn't read Properly !!!
I said make our own for us , only buy our own !
And DONT EXPORT TO ANYONE !
As stated above, we don't have the time, expertise, nor money to develop all our own arms ourselves. These things are now incredibly complex, and reliant on components and technologies developed beyond our own borders.
-Matt"It is true. Heck, we don't even have the expertise to buy military equipment. | |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX" Plenty of defence experts and armed service's personnel supported Brexit and those were the ones leave voters listened to. In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). Just look at what happened during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (while we we fully submerged in the EU with no prospect of a referendum or leaving) we couldn't even afford to provide our troops with the proper equipment and in many cases troops were supplied with sub standard equipment (this is common knowledge and was reported widely). So I'm afraid the Ministry of Defence spending record and management of resources while in the EU is not exactly great either is it. | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). " ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt" Where as the decision the leave the EU has lead to the pound crashing to the lowest levels in more than 300 years, and blown a hole in finances of the MOD. | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt" Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? " Yet still, nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? Yet still, nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt" Perhaps the MOD should have negotiated better contracts? | |||
| |||
| |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? " And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave. | |||
"F35' s are costing approx one hundred million dollars per aircraft (plus the engine). In Early June, that was approximately £65-£70 million per airframe, it is now approximately £83 million per airframe and likely to be £85-£90 million per airframe as we trot on through 2017 and beyond. Of course it is not only F-35's that get bought in USD, but never mind we are going to be independent." Erm, the MOD could have saved more than that if they had decided what version of the F-35 could actually take off from the Queen Elizabeth carriers before building them. | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave. "Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then. Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign. David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose. | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave.
Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then.
Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign.
David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose. "Yes make it worse. Defence always has, and always will be, the responsibility of the member states of the EU. The EU had nothing to do with Defence. There were a lot more defence experts supporting remain, and crucially they were the more senior members warning about the risks of leaving the EU. As I offered before, I am happy to add up the number of stars for defence experts supporting remain, you do the same for leave and we'll see who gets more. Maybe you can explain it simply me, why do you think it will be better for our defence to have to make further cuts and have a smaller military (in terms of personnel) and a smaller defence budget? How does that make us safer? | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave.
Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then.
Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign.
David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose.
Yes make it worse. Defence always has, and always will be, the responsibility of the member states of the EU. The EU had nothing to do with Defence.
There were a lot more defence experts supporting remain, and crucially they were the more senior members warning about the risks of leaving the EU. As I offered before, I am happy to add up the number of stars for defence experts supporting remain, you do the same for leave and we'll see who gets more.
Maybe you can explain it simply me, why do you think it will be better for our defence to have to make further cuts and have a smaller military (in terms of personnel) and a smaller defence budget? How does that make us safer? "It might make them think a bit more carefully as to how they spend their budget. Like the rest of the country/world, they are not immune to budgets and restrictions. Surely the experts told them that a devaluation in the pound against the dollar might have an impact, especially if they had already spent their money refitting carriers for aeroplanes that could actually take off? | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave.
Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then.
Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign.
David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose.
Yes make it worse. Defence always has, and always will be, the responsibility of the member states of the EU. The EU had nothing to do with Defence.
There were a lot more defence experts supporting remain, and crucially they were the more senior members warning about the risks of leaving the EU. As I offered before, I am happy to add up the number of stars for defence experts supporting remain, you do the same for leave and we'll see who gets more.
Maybe you can explain it simply me, why do you think it will be better for our defence to have to make further cuts and have a smaller military (in terms of personnel) and a smaller defence budget? How does that make us safer? "Firstly I never said our defence spending was the responsibility of the EU, I just point out that the Ministry of defence spending record and management of resources has been less than perfect during our membership of the EU. 2nd it's not a case of who had more defence experts backing either side it's a case of which ones talked more sense and I happen to think the ones who backed Brexit talked more sense. You seem to suggest earlier that no defence experts backed Brexit when in fact there were many, just as there were many experts in other fields like economics, business, politics, etc who backed Brexit. Again not a case of who had more for me but a case of which ones talked more sense. In terms of senior defence experts you don't get much more senior than Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, former head of the UK armed forces/chief of defence staff who backed Brexit. | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave.
Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then.
Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign.
David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose.
Yes make it worse. Defence always has, and always will be, the responsibility of the member states of the EU. The EU had nothing to do with Defence.
There were a lot more defence experts supporting remain, and crucially they were the more senior members warning about the risks of leaving the EU. As I offered before, I am happy to add up the number of stars for defence experts supporting remain, you do the same for leave and we'll see who gets more.
Maybe you can explain it simply me, why do you think it will be better for our defence to have to make further cuts and have a smaller military (in terms of personnel) and a smaller defence budget? How does that make us safer?
It might make them think a bit more carefully as to how they spend their budget. Like the rest of the country/world, they are not immune to budgets and restrictions. Surely the experts told them that a devaluation in the pound against the dollar might have an impact, especially if they had already spent their money refitting carriers for aeroplanes that could actually take off?"And the best way to teach the MOD that lesson is to crash the pound to a 300 year low? | |||
"In relation to your other point on spending cuts you think everything has been hunky dory and rosy for the Ministry of Defence while we are in the EU? Ministry of Defence have been making cuts for the last 8 years since the global banking crash, recession and under austerity coalition lib dem/tory government and then the austerity under the current government (all happened while we are full members of the EU). ...but had nothing to do with our membership of the EU. -Matt Nice how you cut out the part of my post about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (before the global crash in 2008), when the Ministry of Defence were supplying our troops with sub standard equipment. That happened while we were members of the EU, supposedly in a time of economic prosperity and no recession or austerity. So what is your excuse for that? And Brexit is going to make it worse... that's why the defence experts told you not to vote Leave.
Make it worse? So you admit it wasn't perfect while we were members of the EU then.
Plus as I said in an earlier post plenty of defence experts supported the Leave campaign.
David Cameron tried to put one of them on his list of defence experts who supported Remain, until he came out and said he never gave his consent for his name to be put on the government list and he actually supported Brexit. His name is General Sir Michael Rose.
Yes make it worse. Defence always has, and always will be, the responsibility of the member states of the EU. The EU had nothing to do with Defence.
There were a lot more defence experts supporting remain, and crucially they were the more senior members warning about the risks of leaving the EU. As I offered before, I am happy to add up the number of stars for defence experts supporting remain, you do the same for leave and we'll see who gets more.
Maybe you can explain it simply me, why do you think it will be better for our defence to have to make further cuts and have a smaller military (in terms of personnel) and a smaller defence budget? How does that make us safer?
It might make them think a bit more carefully as to how they spend their budget. Like the rest of the country/world, they are not immune to budgets and restrictions. Surely the experts told them that a devaluation in the pound against the dollar might have an impact, especially if they had already spent their money refitting carriers for aeroplanes that could actually take off?
And the best way to teach the MOD that lesson is to crash the pound to a 300 year low? "A 300 year low on the pound? Is that not the interest rate as opposed to the value of the pound? And I am afraid that if the MOD cannot work out that they need aeroplanes that can actually fly from their carriers then they certainly need to learn a few lessons. | |||
| |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! " Our carriers are unlikely to be killing anyone for a while. | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! " But in reality we simply can't afford the money and don't have the expertise without importing that too which goes to money and (yes folks, you've guessed it!) freedom of movement. You're not talking about a bit more money, you're talking massive amounts! | |||
| |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX" The experts warned of a recession,if leave won. Leave won,so we must be in recession, Or are you just cherry picking the experts that suit your cause,and ignoring the experts who basically lied. You know the experts I mean, the ones who were more interested in swaying the vote in favour of remain, Whilst showing very little interest in giving an honest,or realistic outcome. Are they part of your whole raft of experts,on a wide range of subjects,the Brexiters,(as we now know) very wisely chose to ignore??? | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! " How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. " Or by making what we do pay for effective? As opposed to wasting billions on ineffective contracts? You know? Carriers without planes. Crap guns. Crap personnel carriers. That sort of thing. | |||
"Maybe it's time that we concentrate on a defence force rather than being part of the World Police force devised by the Americans." Exactly ! We need ships and good anti Aircraft defence ! | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! But in reality we simply can't afford the money and don't have the expertise without importing that too which goes to money and (yes folks, you've guessed it!) freedom of movement. You're not talking about a bit more money, you're talking massive amounts!" But we do ! And I'm not talking over night ! Eventually wouldn't you sleep better knowing no British weapon has killed anyone unless we were stacked first ? | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. Or by making what we do pay for effective? As opposed to wasting billions on ineffective contracts? You know? Carriers without planes. Crap guns. Crap personnel carriers. That sort of thing." Try, just try for a moment to undertake the most basic research on the cost of arms that we do need and then factor in that procurement will be the same on or out of the EU. The only relevance that the EU has to this debate is that Brexiters are approaching the issue in a typically simplistic way without caring or bothering to investigate or consider any underlying issues and assume that the UK can magic itself back to the Industrial Revolution era and lead the world in arms and armaments manufacture thereby making Britain Great again. | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. Or by making what we do pay for effective? As opposed to wasting billions on ineffective contracts? You know? Carriers without planes. Crap guns. Crap personnel carriers. That sort of thing. Try, just try for a moment to undertake the most basic research on the cost of arms that we do need and then factor in that procurement will be the same on or out of the EU. The only relevance that the EU has to this debate is that Brexiters are approaching the issue in a typically simplistic way without caring or bothering to investigate or consider any underlying issues and assume that the UK can magic itself back to the Industrial Revolution era and lead the world in arms and armaments manufacture thereby making Britain Great again." Not at all. I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea. | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. Or by making what we do pay for effective? As opposed to wasting billions on ineffective contracts? You know? Carriers without planes. Crap guns. Crap personnel carriers. That sort of thing. Try, just try for a moment to undertake the most basic research on the cost of arms that we do need and then factor in that procurement will be the same on or out of the EU. The only relevance that the EU has to this debate is that Brexiters are approaching the issue in a typically simplistic way without caring or bothering to investigate or consider any underlying issues and assume that the UK can magic itself back to the Industrial Revolution era and lead the world in arms and armaments manufacture thereby making Britain Great again." I don't want to lead the world on arms ! That's the point ! Just make what we need to defend ourselvelves ! | |||
"I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea." Maybe the first problem the MOD and military has, is they are not allowed comment on political decisions. Maybe the second problem is the previous Tory government sold off the Royal Ordinance factories, and our defence industries to foreign countries so that now we have to buy all our defence requirements from foreign arms dealers who profiteer at our expense. | |||
"I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea. Maybe the first problem the MOD and military has, is they are not allowed comment on political decisions. Maybe the second problem is the previous Tory government sold off the Royal Ordinance factories, and our defence industries to foreign countries so that now we have to buy all our defence requirements from foreign arms dealers who profiteer at our expense." Exactly ! But let's reverse this ! | |||
"I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea. Maybe the first problem the MOD and military has, is they are not allowed comment on political decisions. Maybe the second problem is the previous Tory government sold off the Royal Ordinance factories, and our defence industries to foreign countries so that now we have to buy all our defence requirements from foreign arms dealers who profiteer at our expense. Exactly ! But let's reverse this ! " Yes let's... You lead the way and tell us what to do | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! How? I mean really FFS. See about 12 posts up. The cost of modern weaponry is astronomical and can only be made affordable by JVing and/or selling on top of what is needed. Or by making what we do pay for effective? As opposed to wasting billions on ineffective contracts? You know? Carriers without planes. Crap guns. Crap personnel carriers. That sort of thing. Try, just try for a moment to undertake the most basic research on the cost of arms that we do need and then factor in that procurement will be the same on or out of the EU. The only relevance that the EU has to this debate is that Brexiters are approaching the issue in a typically simplistic way without caring or bothering to investigate or consider any underlying issues and assume that the UK can magic itself back to the Industrial Revolution era and lead the world in arms and armaments manufacture thereby making Britain Great again. Not at all. I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea." That was a political decision, don't you think the military should be under civilian political control? | |||
"I am merely suggesting that before the MOD suggests that it's economic woes are due to the devaluation of the pound against the dollar, it should review why it's massive spending has been so ineffective. That might be a better start. Unless you think aircraft carriers without aircraft are a clever idea. Maybe the first problem the MOD and military has, is they are not allowed comment on political decisions. Maybe the second problem is the previous Tory government sold off the Royal Ordinance factories, and our defence industries to foreign countries so that now we have to buy all our defence requirements from foreign arms dealers who profiteer at our expense. Exactly ! But let's reverse this ! " You know thousands of people work in our defence industry and exports earn us billions right? You want to lose that? | |||
| |||
"That was a political decision, don't you think the military should be under civilian political control? " NO! I think that politicians should give the military a budget and a brief after which they should keep their ignorant untrustworthy noses out! | |||
"That was a political decision, don't you think the military should be under civilian political control? NO! I think that politicians should give the military a budget and a brief after which they should keep their ignorant untrustworthy noses out!" Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! | |||
"Yes ! I would if it came to it ! At least we wouldn't be making things to kill people ! Strong Defence for our Defence Only ! " Would we have rifles? | |||
"Yes ! I would if it came to it ! At least we wouldn't be making things to kill people ! Strong Defence for our Defence Only ! Would we have rifles? " Brown Bess muskets, all we could afford the ammo for, we'd be back to confiscating manure heaps to get saltpetre out of! | |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX" And what's your excuse for all the defence cuts over the last 40 years..... pre-Brexit? | |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX And what's your excuse for all the defence cuts over the last 40 years..... pre-Brexit?" Tories | |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX And what's your excuse for all the defence cuts over the last 40 years..... pre-Brexit? Tories" But the Wilson-Callaghan 'government' weren't Tories were they? | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! " The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed." Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? | |||
"Simple Solution ! Make our own Arms for ourselves ! And sell to no other country's and don't but arms from no other country's
Simples "Simplistic is a better term | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? " Blimey, almost sounds like an advert for how good the UK is. Ah, but hang on, in a couple of years time we won't be able to make or sell anything will we? And all the barbed wire we do have will be needed to run the length of the south coast to keep us in and foreigners out won't it? (That is you're usual vision of a UK outside the EU anyway) | |||
"Yes ! I would if it came to it ! At least we wouldn't be making things to kill people ! Strong Defence for our Defence Only ! Would we have rifles? " We would have everything we needed to ensure no one even the the USA or Russia would Mess ! Mainly missiles and an Air Force 2nd to none ! | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? " Fair points , yes I would export things like that ! My main idea was to stop us selling to vile regimes like Saudi Arabia , As for the money part , we would be putting obey into our own economy do our defence manufactures wouldn't need to sell abroad , oh and create more jobs | |||
| |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? Blimey, almost sounds like an advert for how good the UK is. Ah, but hang on, in a couple of years time we won't be able to make or sell anything will we? And all the barbed wire we do have will be needed to run the length of the south coast to keep us in and foreigners out won't it? (That is you're usual vision of a UK outside the EU anyway)" Well considering something like 2/3 of our arms sales are to the Middle East, I doubt being in or out of the EU would affect our status as world's 2nd (or 5th depending on which stats you look at) biggest arms dealer. -Matt | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? Fair points , yes I would export things like that ! My main idea was to stop us selling to vile regimes like Saudi Arabia , As for the money part , we would be putting obey into our own economy do our defence manufactures wouldn't need to sell abroad , oh and create more jobs "Right, but whilst we make a lot of things, we don't make everything we would need to defend ourselves... e.g was can't just sit there in an armoured JCB covered in barbed wire, with our night vision goggles on and bullet proof vest... we need other things too. And besides, we are all nice and peaceful. It is far better business selling these things to countries and regimes that actually use them and get them blown up so that they come back and buy more. I once had a client who was one of the oldest registered companies in the UK. They exclusively sold candles and communion wafers to the Catholic church... now THAT is a reoccurring business model!
-Matt | |||
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent ! | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !"Which we could use against Yorkshire when in declares independence | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !"There is no capacity in UK for building tanks anymore. The new AJAX vehicle is being " made" by General Dynamics UK - but GD UK is a subsidiary of GD (US) set up fort he purpose; AJAX is a development of an existing vehicle from Steyr Daimler, already being used by Spain and Austria. The engine and gearbox are German, the gun is a French/UK development. The hulls will be made in Spain; the vehicles ( might) be assembled in UK. The alternative was a Swedish vehicle. The WARRIOR upgrades will be fine by GD in collaboration with a French company. Our Rifles and Machine guns are made by the US wing of BAE; ( the SA 80 rifle is a development of the AR15) The Minimi and GPMG machine guns are a Belgian (FN )design, produced by BAE; The Typhoon fighter is the Eurofighter, made largely by Airbus, Aermacchi, and BAE under a German based holding company. All our missiles are made in the US, or by a European consortium called MBDA. Landrover only produce slightly modified vehicles for military nowadays; which are not of the specification that the UK needs or wants; the majority of wheeled armoured vehicles come from the US ( (MASTIFF etc) Logistic vehicles are MAN trucks ( built in Germany, but "supplied" by MAN UK) Our transport aircraft are American or Airbus; Our helicopters are American/ Italian /French UK military uniforms are made in China; Boots are German. Helmets and body armour is made in UK, by subsidiaries of US and Spanish companies. We make ( some of) our own ships, our submarines, The tridents are built and assembled in UK to modified US designs. Communications gear and radars are mostly German/French. UK makes most of its own ammunition, and military underwear. BAE; the " British " defence contractor , has its global HQ in UK, but is essentially a US company now, to all intent and purpose. | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !
There is no capacity in UK for building tanks anymore.
The new AJAX vehicle is being " made" by General Dynamics UK - but GD UK is a subsidiary of GD (US) set up fort he purpose; AJAX is a development of an existing vehicle from Steyr Daimler, already being used by Spain and Austria. The engine and gearbox are German, the gun is a French/UK development.
The hulls will be made in Spain; the vehicles ( might) be assembled in UK.
The alternative was a Swedish vehicle.
The WARRIOR upgrades will be fine by GD in collaboration with a French company.
Our Rifles and Machine guns are made by the US wing of BAE; ( the SA 80 rifle is a development of the AR15) The Minimi and GPMG machine guns are a Belgian (FN )design, produced by BAE;
The Typhoon fighter is the Eurofighter, made largely by Airbus, Aermacchi, and BAE under a German based holding company.
All our missiles are made in the US, or by a European consortium called MBDA.
Landrover only produce slightly modified vehicles for military nowadays; which are not of the specification that the UK needs or wants; the majority of wheeled armoured vehicles come from the US ( (MASTIFF etc)
Logistic vehicles are MAN trucks ( built in Germany, but "supplied" by MAN UK)
Our transport aircraft are American or Airbus;
Our helicopters are American/ Italian /French
UK military uniforms are made in China;
Boots are German.
Helmets and body armour is made in UK, by subsidiaries of US and Spanish companies.
We make ( some of) our own ships, our submarines,
The tridents are built and assembled in UK to modified US designs.
Communications gear and radars are mostly German/French.
UK makes most of its own ammunition, and military underwear.
BAE; the " British " defence contractor , has its global HQ in UK, but is essentially a US company now, to all intent and purpose.
"But surely we could make Britain Great again and not bother with any of the foreign meddlers? Let's just build everything for ourselves | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !
There is no capacity in UK for building tanks anymore.
The new AJAX vehicle is being " made" by General Dynamics UK - but GD UK is a subsidiary of GD (US) set up fort he purpose; AJAX is a development of an existing vehicle from Steyr Daimler, already being used by Spain and Austria. The engine and gearbox are German, the gun is a French/UK development.
The hulls will be made in Spain; the vehicles ( might) be assembled in UK.
The alternative was a Swedish vehicle.
The WARRIOR upgrades will be fine by GD in collaboration with a French company.
Our Rifles and Machine guns are made by the US wing of BAE; ( the SA 80 rifle is a development of the AR15) The Minimi and GPMG machine guns are a Belgian (FN )design, produced by BAE;
The Typhoon fighter is the Eurofighter, made largely by Airbus, Aermacchi, and BAE under a German based holding company.
All our missiles are made in the US, or by a European consortium called MBDA.
Landrover only produce slightly modified vehicles for military nowadays; which are not of the specification that the UK needs or wants; the majority of wheeled armoured vehicles come from the US ( (MASTIFF etc)
Logistic vehicles are MAN trucks ( built in Germany, but "supplied" by MAN UK)
Our transport aircraft are American or Airbus;
Our helicopters are American/ Italian /French
UK military uniforms are made in China;
Boots are German.
Helmets and body armour is made in UK, by subsidiaries of US and Spanish companies.
We make ( some of) our own ships, our submarines,
The tridents are built and assembled in UK to modified US designs.
Communications gear and radars are mostly German/French.
UK makes most of its own ammunition, and military underwear.
BAE; the " British " defence contractor , has its global HQ in UK, but is essentially a US company now, to all intent and purpose.
But surely we could make Britain Great again and not bother with any of the foreign meddlers? Let's just build everything for ourselves "And who is going to build these things then? Build the factories Train the engineers Train the skilled craftsmen. Actually set up the "UK only" companies that produce defence technology ( they are almost all multinationals) Notwithstanding that the technology is multinational; without other's science and research you wouldn't be able to progress; UK has outstanding scientists and researchers; but almost all of the research in these fields is multinational; it's not possible to go it alone anymore. If you want a defence force in lorries and land rovers painted green, with a few bolt action rifles and a handful of grenades, then be my guest. | |||
" Actually set up the "UK only" companies that produce defence technology ( they are almost all multinationals) Notwithstanding that the technology is multinational; without other's science and research you wouldn't be able to progress; UK has outstanding scientists and researchers; but almost all of the research in these fields is multinational; it's not possible to go it alone anymore. " Ah, you just hurt the feelings of everyone who works for QinetiQ. | |||
| |||
"Those pesky defence experts did warn about the negative impact of Brexit on UK defence, but the Brexiters decided to ignore them along with a whole raft of experts on a wide range of subjects. Well it seems as though a fall in the pound is really starting to bite, especially in defence where a lot of major projects are brought from the US in dollars. To make up for this there will have to be further cuts. This will only be the beginning as the economy will take an even bigger hit once we trigger A50 and after we leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnH4Llfsz9FX And what's your excuse for all the defence cuts over the last 40 years..... pre-Brexit? Tories" The failure to supply our troops with the proper equipment during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened under a Labour government, the Blair/Brown era. If Tony Blair was going to lie to Parliament and the whole country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to get us into a war, you think the least he could do is make sure our troops don't get lumbered with sub standard equipment. | |||
| |||
"The failure to supply our troops with the proper equipment during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened under a Labour government, the Blair/Brown era. If Tony Blair was going to lie to Parliament and the whole country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to get us into a war, you think the least he could do is make sure our troops don't get lumbered with sub standard equipment. " Of course the equipment that you blame Tone (and I am no fan) for supplying to our troops was procured by the previous Tory government. But don't let that stop you passing the buck. | |||
"The failure to supply our troops with the proper equipment during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened under a Labour government, the Blair/Brown era. If Tony Blair was going to lie to Parliament and the whole country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to get us into a war, you think the least he could do is make sure our troops don't get lumbered with sub standard equipment. Of course the equipment that you blame Tone (and I am no fan) for supplying to our troops was procured by the previous Tory government. But don't let that stop you passing the buck." Yet he still let them go. | |||
"Never forget that Britain did once have a military helicopter manufacturer. Gknwestland. But under the Labour government it has become owned by the Italians. So Leonardo-Finmeccanica now own all the IP to Merlin and wildcat. If they want to move all manufacturing and servicing abroad they can. Well done Tony. "Actually it was one Mrs Thatcher who sold out Westland in 1985/6 to the US manufacturer Sikorsky. It was called the Westland affair and led to Secretary of State for Defence, Micheal Hesaltine resigning after which he did everything he could to remove Thatcher from No 10, in fact he became known as the 'stalking horse' because of his enmity for the woman. | |||
"Yet he still let them go." That has always been the way. During WW2 our troops were issued Sten Guns that were so badly designed and built that shaking them would cause the bold to ride over the sear and empty the magazine. It would have cost virtually nothing rectify the problem but it was not fixed because it would have meant someone admitting they got it wrong. Same with the body armour issued to our troops in Afghanistan, someone made a mistake and put the built in cooling elements on the outside rather than inside of armour rather than admit the mistake and correct the error by turning it inside out and reattaching buckles and the ballistic plate pocket on the opposite side they were issued and troops got to suffer heat stroke. this is what happens when politicians and civi accountants order military equipment for troops. | |||
" Same with the body armour issued to our troops in Afghanistan, someone made a mistake and put the built in cooling elements on the outside rather than inside of armour rather than admit the mistake and correct the error by turning it inside out and reattaching buckles and the ballistic plate pocket on the opposite side they were issued and troops got to suffer heat stroke. " Erm no; There isn't, and never has been, any "cooling elements " on body armour. It is simply ( not so simply actually) a pair of Kevlar/ ceramic mix plates in a cover/ carrier. The only " cooling" element is that the combat shirt that goes underneath was redesigned to include microfibres to wick sweat away and reduce heat stress. The Osprey UK body armour ( constantly developed after the first gulf war) is actually world beating, and far superior to the US version in several ways. | |||
"Erm no; There isn't, and never has been, any "cooling elements " on body armour. It is simply ( not so simply actually) a pair of Kevlar/ ceramic mix plates in a cover/ carrier. The only " cooling" element is that the combat shirt that goes underneath was redesigned to include microfibres to wick sweat away and reduce heat stress. The Osprey UK body armour ( constantly developed after the first gulf war) is actually world beating, and far superior to the US version in several ways. " Guess when the SoS Defence admitted the mistake in parliament a few years ago they were lied then... | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !
Which we could use against Yorkshire when in declares independence "Lol , yes I should have seen that coming
Il settle for an in dependant England for now ta | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !
There is no capacity in UK for building tanks anymore.
The new AJAX vehicle is being " made" by General Dynamics UK - but GD UK is a subsidiary of GD (US) set up fort he purpose; AJAX is a development of an existing vehicle from Steyr Daimler, already being used by Spain and Austria. The engine and gearbox are German, the gun is a French/UK development.
The hulls will be made in Spain; the vehicles ( might) be assembled in UK.
The alternative was a Swedish vehicle.
The WARRIOR upgrades will be fine by GD in collaboration with a French company.
Our Rifles and Machine guns are made by the US wing of BAE; ( the SA 80 rifle is a development of the AR15) The Minimi and GPMG machine guns are a Belgian (FN )design, produced by BAE;
The Typhoon fighter is the Eurofighter, made largely by Airbus, Aermacchi, and BAE under a German based holding company.
All our missiles are made in the US, or by a European consortium called MBDA.
Landrover only produce slightly modified vehicles for military nowadays; which are not of the specification that the UK needs or wants; the majority of wheeled armoured vehicles come from the US ( (MASTIFF etc)
Logistic vehicles are MAN trucks ( built in Germany, but "supplied" by MAN UK)
Our transport aircraft are American or Airbus;
Our helicopters are American/ Italian /French
UK military uniforms are made in China;
Boots are German.
Helmets and body armour is made in UK, by subsidiaries of US and Spanish companies.
We make ( some of) our own ships, our submarines,
The tridents are built and assembled in UK to modified US designs.
Communications gear and radars are mostly German/French.
UK makes most of its own ammunition, and military underwear.
BAE; the " British " defence contractor , has its global HQ in UK, but is essentially a US company now, to all intent and purpose.
"All the more reason to do it ! Look at the jobs it would create
Not saying we could do it instantly ! | |||
"We could make everything we need if we had the will to
And Yes that includes a Nuclear Detterent !
There is no capacity in UK for building tanks anymore.
The new AJAX vehicle is being " made" by General Dynamics UK - but GD UK is a subsidiary of GD (US) set up fort he purpose; AJAX is a development of an existing vehicle from Steyr Daimler, already being used by Spain and Austria. The engine and gearbox are German, the gun is a French/UK development.
The hulls will be made in Spain; the vehicles ( might) be assembled in UK.
The alternative was a Swedish vehicle.
The WARRIOR upgrades will be fine by GD in collaboration with a French company.
Our Rifles and Machine guns are made by the US wing of BAE; ( the SA 80 rifle is a development of the AR15) The Minimi and GPMG machine guns are a Belgian (FN )design, produced by BAE;
The Typhoon fighter is the Eurofighter, made largely by Airbus, Aermacchi, and BAE under a German based holding company.
All our missiles are made in the US, or by a European consortium called MBDA.
Landrover only produce slightly modified vehicles for military nowadays; which are not of the specification that the UK needs or wants; the majority of wheeled armoured vehicles come from the US ( (MASTIFF etc)
Logistic vehicles are MAN trucks ( built in Germany, but "supplied" by MAN UK)
Our transport aircraft are American or Airbus;
Our helicopters are American/ Italian /French
UK military uniforms are made in China;
Boots are German.
Helmets and body armour is made in UK, by subsidiaries of US and Spanish companies.
We make ( some of) our own ships, our submarines,
The tridents are built and assembled in UK to modified US designs.
Communications gear and radars are mostly German/French.
UK makes most of its own ammunition, and military underwear.
BAE; the " British " defence contractor , has its global HQ in UK, but is essentially a US company now, to all intent and purpose.
But surely we could make Britain Great again and not bother with any of the foreign meddlers? Let's just build everything for ourselves "Exactly | |||
"Forget money for a bit ! Make our own Arms for the UK only , and for defence !!! Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more knowing our weapons arnt Killing Anyone ! The only way to make things affordable to use yourself is to export them to others who pay good money for them. To think we could do any other is rather misinformed. Exactly. Also the defence industry is full of grey areas as well, for example the UK is one of the world leaders in barbed wire. Would you ban us exporting barbed wire? Land Rover sell military vehicles all over the world, should they be stopped from doing that? How about bullet proof vest? Night vision googles? Night vision goggles can't kill anyone. JCB produce military versions of some of their equipment, is a digger too dangerous for export? Blimey, almost sounds like an advert for how good the UK is. Ah, but hang on, in a couple of years time we won't be able to make or sell anything will we? And all the barbed wire we do have will be needed to run the length of the south coast to keep us in and foreigners out won't it? (That is you're usual vision of a UK outside the EU anyway)" | |||
"Erm no; There isn't, and never has been, any "cooling elements " on body armour. It is simply ( not so simply actually) a pair of Kevlar/ ceramic mix plates in a cover/ carrier. The only " cooling" element is that the combat shirt that goes underneath was redesigned to include microfibres to wick sweat away and reduce heat stress. The Osprey UK body armour ( constantly developed after the first gulf war) is actually world beating, and far superior to the US version in several ways. Guess when the SoS Defence admitted the mistake in parliament a few years ago they were lied then..." Do please give me the exact reference for the SOS statement on the " cooling system " issue on the body armour. I would be fascinated to see this; since there is no cooling system, therefore they can't have put it in the wrong place. Guess you are misunderstanding something . | |||
" Actually set up the "UK only" companies that produce defence technology ( they are almost all multinationals) Notwithstanding that the technology is multinational; without other's science and research you wouldn't be able to progress; UK has outstanding scientists and researchers; but almost all of the research in these fields is multinational; it's not possible to go it alone anymore. Ah, you just hurt the feelings of everyone who works for QinetiQ." I doubt it ( since I worked with - but not for - QQ for many years); over 75% of their research is done as international collaboration. They rely on US, German, French, Australian and many other collaborations as much as the others rely on them. And exchange researchers with other nations organisations on a constant basis. Not forgetting that it has two subsidiaries; QQ Europe, Middle East and Australasia, and QQ Nirth America ( set up as overseas companies to be able to comply with those other countries' laws). | |||
| |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start ." As if the delusion and fantasy that Brexit is going to transport the UK into a new Nirvana, we now have Brexiters lead threads and suggestions that the UK has limitless funds and resources to feed itself and defend itself without any reliance on people who look different and sometimes smell of garlic. Delusionisn is the new symptom of the day. Simple solutions that must be good because they sound right and we get our country back as well... result. | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start ." You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. " The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout "OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn? | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout
OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn? "I thought you were the OP of this thread?  | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout
OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn? "Lol , well seeing as I voted UKIP and want an I dependant England I very much doubt it | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout
OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn?
Lol , well seeing as I voted UKIP and want an I dependant England I very much doubt it "You're not the OP though. | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout
OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn?
Lol , well seeing as I voted UKIP and want an I dependant England I very much doubt it
You're not the OP though. "Oh yeah, I'm the OP! I did mean Mr Suit though 
Mr Suit I think you would like some of Corbyn's policies, you seem to have a similar mind set. | |||
"I'm not saying we could change overnight but we could start . You don't get it, do you? You don't just " start" a defence industry. It exists, already, and its multinational ( unless you are Russia or China). The UK government can't just say " make a defence industry"; Defence industry, like any other, relies on demand; and governments don't " buy British" they buy what is available, at the price they want to pay. So unless the government actually opens its own factories to make its own weapons , it can't change. And defence industry isn't like making cars, when you make many thousands; UK Army needs 500 tanks ( maximum). Build a massive factory, design the tank, train everyone to make tanks, once they are made, the factory closes, sack the workers. Then it needs 250,000 rifles, so open a factory,design the rifle, train people to make them, make them, close it, sack all the workers Etc.... It's actually the expertise that is needed; Last time the UK actually made a tank was in 2002. UK no longer has the capability to make tanks ( the factory closed, everyone who knows how to make tanks has retired or gone to work in US and Germany. Challenger needs an update programme to keep it effective; currently the only bidders for the work, who could do it are BAE land systems ( in America), Rheinmetall ior Krauss Maffei in Germany, or possibly a Swiss company. The tank factory in Leeds is still Thier . It could re open ! Your idea about the government running our arms industry isn't a bad shout
OP, are is your real name Jeremy Cornyn?
Lol , well seeing as I voted UKIP and want an I dependant England I very much doubt it
You're not the OP though.
Oh yeah, I'm the OP! I did mean Mr Suit though
Mr Suit I think you would like some of Corbyn's policies, you seem to have a similar mind set. "Lol oh Dear even I got confused then
I don't think mr Corbyn would like an ENP supporter lol , but you make a good point , yes Thier may be left wing policies I like
Ps yes I know the ENP doesn't exist yet !
But it will | |||
| |||
"I don't think Corbyn would like my Defence Plans "If they are any more robust that a sign on top of the white cliffs of Dover say "Please dont invade", you are probably right! | |||
"Chill and enjoy the festive season who know that far ahead we will not be out for many years yet." What?! I'm sure I was told this leaving would be a piece of piss to sort out, all done in a jiffy don't you know. | |||
| |||
"What's wrong with Corbyns Defence policy?" Does he have one ? | |||
"What's wrong with Corbyns Defence policy? Does he have one ?" Seeing as he is against the police shooting to kill in a 'active shooter' scenario (ie Paris/Mumbai style attack), I cant imagine his defence policy being particularly robust. | |||
| |||
"'Mr Corbyn told Labour's National Executive Committee "any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" and said terrorism should not be used to undermine freedom and legal protection. He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." What part of that do you disagree with? " any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" That bit. | |||
| |||
"'Mr Corbyn told Labour's National Executive Committee "any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" and said terrorism should not be used to undermine freedom and legal protection. He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." What part of that do you disagree with? any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" That bit. " You are in favour of a State shoot to kill policy? | |||
"I don't think Corbyn would like my Defence Plans
If they are any more robust that a sign on top of the white cliffs of Dover say "Please dont invade", you are probably right!"Lol x Bloody Hell we Agree on Something | |||
"'Mr Corbyn told Labour's National Executive Committee "any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" and said terrorism should not be used to undermine freedom and legal protection. He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." What part of that do you disagree with? any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" That bit. You are in favour of a State shoot to kill policy? " Yes | |||
| |||
"'Mr Corbyn told Labour's National Executive Committee "any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" and said terrorism should not be used to undermine freedom and legal protection. He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." What part of that do you disagree with? any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" That bit. You are in favour of a State shoot to kill policy? Yes" You surprise me...... | |||
"So you are therefore in favour of the death penalty?" Nope. | |||
"So you are therefore in favour of the death penalty? Nope. " Don't no about me being a Corbynite ? I think you are getting Close to the Mr Suit Party | |||
| |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system." So if a terrorist was walking down the street with a gun shooting people you wouldn't want the police to shoot to kill the terrorist? | |||
"What's wrong with Corbyns Defence policy?" What's right with it? We'd have no nuclear deterrent. He wants nuclear subs without any nuclear missiles on them (shall we sell tickets and use them as cruise ships?) He wants to hand over power sharing of the Falklands to Argentina. Already pointed out on the thread he doesn't want the police to shoot to kill terrorists. He calls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' and he thinks the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy. Corbyn is a pacifist, he doesn't have any kind of coherent defence policy. | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system." If police are issued with firearms, then if the firearms are used, they are always "shoot to kill". There is no such thing as " shoot not to kill". " shooting to wound " is a Hollywood and TV fiction. However brilliant a marksman someone is; if you use a firearm, then you use it to maximum effect. Always. That means that the outcome is very likely to be death.And you know this when you squeeze the trigger. There is no such thing as shooting someone in the leg or arm to " stop" them . What must be done, is to give armed officers utterly clear and unambiguous " rules of engagement " which specify exactly when the firearm may be used, and when not. And armed officers need to be very carefully selected for mental stability, ability to think clearly and make decisions under pressure, and trained accordingly. The marksmanship element is ( relatively) easy; the decision making element is the difficult bit. It's necessary to have the capability, but to be exercised only as a last resort, and when it is legal. | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system. So if a terrorist was walking down the street with a gun shooting people you wouldn't want the police to shoot to kill the terrorist? " 'He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."' Couldn't you be bothered to read that bit? It seems you are absolutely in accord with Mr Corbyn on this. Do you feel dirty, or will you go into denial as per? | |||
" Already pointed out on the thread he doesn't want the police to shoot to kill terrorists. " When something is pointed out incorrectly, it isn't 'pointed out'. | |||
" He calls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' " 'Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation: "Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree … There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that", he argued.' Now you can see it in context I'm sure you will revise your opinion and discard your prejudiced and misinformed opinion on this matter at least. | |||
" He wants to hand over power sharing of the Falklands to Argentina. " 'Corbyn supports a "negotiated settlement" with the Falkland Islands that may involve "some degree of joint administration" with Argentina. Can you 'hand over' power SHARING? Anyway, it's a sensible, practical approach. It doesn't mean giving up soveriegnty or turning Falkland Islanders into Argentinians. | |||
" He wants to hand over power sharing of the Falklands to Argentina. 'Corbyn supports a "negotiated settlement" with the Falkland Islands that may involve "some degree of joint administration" with Argentina. Can you 'hand over' power SHARING? Anyway, it's a sensible, practical approach. It doesn't mean giving up soveriegnty or turning Falkland Islanders into Argentinians. " Falkland islanders voted over 90% in favour of remaining a fully British territory. Corbyn appears to want to go against the democratically expressed will of the people there. | |||
| |||
"You think he 'appears' to, but he doesn't. He wants people to get around a table and talk. As he does with Palestine. As he did with Northern Ireland. Is your suggestion unending conflict?" There is no conflict in the Falklands now. So why does Corbyn want to rock the boat? | |||
" He calls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' 'Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation: "Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree … There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that", he argued.' Now you can see it in context I'm sure you will revise your opinion and discard your prejudiced and misinformed opinion on this matter at least." Well Corbyn's Christmas message didn't appear to go down well with those who served in the armed forces. Corbyn was blasted yesterday for wishing our Armed forces a 'peaceful' new year. He was attacked by viewers of the minute long video on Forces TV. Peter Harrison wrote ...."Get this two faced hypocrite off here. This man is a danger to every man and woman in the Armed forces." SAS hero Andy McNab said...."It's too little, too late. He criticised the actions of the British military in Northern Ireland and praised the Irish nationalist fighters. Someone has obviously told him to go for it and be pro military. I don't believe a word he says." | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system." What other policy could their be? A "shoot to temporarily incapacitate, but with no threat to life" policy? | |||
" He calls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' 'Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation: "Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree … There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that", he argued.' Now you can see it in context I'm sure you will revise your opinion and discard your prejudiced and misinformed opinion on this matter at least." So do you think we should be talking with and negotiating with ISIS? | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system." The government should have a legitmate monopoly on the use of deadly force. If we accept that we want the police to be armed (in the UK this is limited of course), then we have to accept that there will be times when the use if deadly force is required. The Home Office website shows that there were 14,753 times firearms officers were deployed in England and Wales in the 12 months up to March 2016. Firearms were discharged 7 times. That is 0.047% of deployments resulting in a shot being fired. This shows in incredible restraint that UK firearms officers already demonstrate in discharging their duties. They only shoot in the most extreme of circumstances when they believe that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the firearms officer to take the shot they believe is right, and they should be both accountable to and protected by the law. They are not killers walking the streets looking to shoot someone, they are doing a job and have been sent by others to a dangerous situation that other people would rightly try to flee. If we send them to do that job, we should not then crucify them for having done it. | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system. The government should have a legitmate monopoly on the use of deadly force. If we accept that we want the police to be armed (in the UK this is limited of course), then we have to accept that there will be times when the use if deadly force is required. The Home Office website shows that there were 14,753 times firearms officers were deployed in England and Wales in the 12 months up to March 2016. Firearms were discharged 7 times. That is 0.047% of deployments resulting in a shot being fired. This shows in incredible restraint that UK firearms officers already demonstrate in discharging their duties. They only shoot in the most extreme of circumstances when they believe that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the firearms officer to take the shot they believe is right, and they should be both accountable to and protected by the law. They are not killers walking the streets looking to shoot someone, they are doing a job and have been sent by others to a dangerous situation that other people would rightly try to flee. If we send them to do that job, we should not then crucify them for having done it." I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate | |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate "Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries) | |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate
Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries)"Absolutely Mint x Happy New Year x I'd message you but can't as I'm outside your Remit ! | |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate
Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries)"Ah, there's a problem here in that Coldstream is actually in Scotland. So just rename the Grenadiers perhaps? | |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate
Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries)
Ah, there's a problem here in that Coldstream is actually in Scotland. So just rename the Grenadiers perhaps?"I know, but do you want Scotland to have two regiments and everyone else gets one? | |||
| |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate
Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries)
Ah, there's a problem here in that Coldstream is actually in Scotland. So just rename the Grenadiers perhaps?
I know, but do you want Scotland to have two regiments and everyone else gets one? "Point of pedantry; Both the Coldstream Guards and the Grenadier Guards are English Regiments; the Coldstreams although Coldstream is in Dcitland, it's on the Borders . The Regiment was originally raised on both sides of the Border by General Monck as part of Cromwell New Model Army ( The army of the Commonwealth of England.) But the Coldstream Guards are a " North East England/Border Regiment, not Scottish. Grenadiers are an English Regiment (Originally Lord Wentworth's Regiment) formed out of elements of the Honourable Artillery Company which was, at the time, in Bruges. So there are Two English Guards Regiments, and one each for Scotland, Ireland and Wales. | |||
" I may make you my Home Secretary if I become PM at this Rate
Can I have defence instead? I have a policy in mind just for you. In the Foot Guards, you have the Welsh Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, and yet no English guards (Grenadier & Coldstream Guards are also available in all major retailers). So we could either create a new Guards regiment, or merge the Grenadiers and the Coldstream guards into the English guards (although I must advise that the loosing of cap badges is very politically sensitive for some reason, even though the Army has been doing it for centuries)
Ah, there's a problem here in that Coldstream is actually in Scotland. So just rename the Grenadiers perhaps?
I know, but do you want Scotland to have two regiments and everyone else gets one?
Point of pedantry;
Both the Coldstream Guards and the Grenadier Guards are English Regiments; the Coldstreams although Coldstream is in Dcitland, it's on the Borders . The Regiment was originally raised on both sides of the Border by General Monck as part of Cromwell New Model Army ( The army of the Commonwealth of England.) But the Coldstream Guards are a " North East England/Border Regiment, not Scottish.
Grenadiers are an English Regiment (Originally Lord Wentworth's Regiment) formed out of elements of the Honourable Artillery Company which was, at the time, in Bruges.
So there are Two English Guards Regiments, and one each for Scotland, Ireland and Wales."So let's rename them. We'll have the Irish Guards, Welsh Guards, Scots Guards, English Guards and Belgian Guards | |||
| |||
"Let's not forget the Fire Guards please......or the Prison Guards "Well the Life Guards are another regiment. I think they look after the Army's swimming pools | |||
" So let's rename them. We'll have the Irish Guards, Welsh Guards, Scots Guards, English Guards and Belgian Guards "Why Belgian Guards? The Honourable Artillery Company is an English ( Specifically London) Regiment, raised by Henry VIII as Musketeers and Grenadiers ( from a London company of " Archers and Hand gunners") It happened to be serving in Bruges when the Grenadier Guards were formed from it... Call them the London Guards - they are /were traditionally recruited from London and the South and referred to as the "Cockneys" or the "Bill Browns " ( or " Biw Brahns ").  | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system. The government should have a legitmate monopoly on the use of deadly force. If we accept that we want the police to be armed (in the UK this is limited of course), then we have to accept that there will be times when the use if deadly force is required. The Home Office website shows that there were 14,753 times firearms officers were deployed in England and Wales in the 12 months up to March 2016. Firearms were discharged 7 times. That is 0.047% of deployments resulting in a shot being fired. This shows in incredible restraint that UK firearms officers already demonstrate in discharging their duties. They only shoot in the most extreme of circumstances when they believe that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the firearms officer to take the shot they believe is right, and they should be both accountable to and protected by the law. They are not killers walking the streets looking to shoot someone, they are doing a job and have been sent by others to a dangerous situation that other people would rightly try to flee. If we send them to do that job, we should not then crucify them for having done it." So 'proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life' then? You agree with Corbyn. It's funny how people, once they decide they don't like someone, attribute all kinds of things to them to fuel their bias. I'm as guilty as any. | |||
"A shoot to kill policy is sanctioning state murder, which is if anything worse than the death penalty because it even bypasses the legal system. The government should have a legitmate monopoly on the use of deadly force. If we accept that we want the police to be armed (in the UK this is limited of course), then we have to accept that there will be times when the use if deadly force is required. The Home Office website shows that there were 14,753 times firearms officers were deployed in England and Wales in the 12 months up to March 2016. Firearms were discharged 7 times. That is 0.047% of deployments resulting in a shot being fired. This shows in incredible restraint that UK firearms officers already demonstrate in discharging their duties. They only shoot in the most extreme of circumstances when they believe that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for the firearms officer to take the shot they believe is right, and they should be both accountable to and protected by the law. They are not killers walking the streets looking to shoot someone, they are doing a job and have been sent by others to a dangerous situation that other people would rightly try to flee. If we send them to do that job, we should not then crucify them for having done it. So 'proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life' then? You agree with Corbyn. It's funny how people, once they decide they don't like someone, attribute all kinds of things to them to fuel their bias. I'm as guilty as any." So what do you think a shoot to kill policy is and why are you against it? | |||
| |||
"Pretty much the same as yours and Jeremy Corbyn's." Well Im for it, and he’s against it, so how does that work? | |||
| |||
" He calls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' 'Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation: "Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree … There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that", he argued.' Now you can see it in context I'm sure you will revise your opinion and discard your prejudiced and misinformed opinion on this matter at least. So do you think we should be talking with and negotiating with ISIS?" As Corbyn said “The British government maintained a channel through the IRA all through the troubles. I don’t condemn them keeping a back-channel to the Taliban … I think there has to be some route through somewhere [to Isis],” he told the programme. “A lot of the commanders in Isil, particularly in Iraq but to some extent in Syria, are actually former officers in the Iraqi army.” Mr Corbyn said he would not go as far as to open “dialogue” with the so-called “Islamic State”, which controls large parts of Iraq and Syria, but that not cutting off contact completely could have advantages.' I think this is a sensible approach, don't you? | |||
"No, you are both for it if it is proportionate and strictly necessary to save lives. If you are in favour of sending out police officers with orders to shoot to kill other than when strictly necessary to save life then we do differ. I don't know why you are arguing. You clearly thought Corbyn's views were different to what they actually are. I find his reported views and pre-conceived views of many are often different to the ones he has. He is usually very thoughtful and considered but most people do not give him the time to listen unfortunately. He may not be a very good leader of a party, or particularly good with the media, but I don't find his actual positions on most matters to be very far wrong." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023 He says he is not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general, he thinks it can be dangerous and counter productive. Those were his view, it was only a day later, after he realised how damaging his words were, that he then changed what he said in public on the matter. | |||
| |||
"It can be dangerous and counter productive. A day later he found he needed to make some extra clarification due to misinterpretations by many commentators in the media. As I say, he is not particularly media savvy and a bit naive. " Yeah, he thinks that the police response to an active shooter is what can be dangerous. I and most other people think that the terrorist is what's dangerous, not the police response. It was only the public outcry at what he had said that I would describe has him doing a U turn, and what you would describe as clarifying his opinion. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Do you think it a good idea to tell the Police there are terrorists in a muslim neighbourhood, send them in with guns and tell them they have carte blanche to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist if they protest in the slightest at any abuse of power by police officers? I'm just wondering, seeing as how well that kind of attitude to black people has worked over time in the United States? " You're straying so far off point to try and prove something wrong its unbelievable | |||
"I wish people would FUCKING STOP using the words " shoot to kill" It's SHOOTING. The KILL is assumed. " Shoot to kill" implies that there is " shoot not to kill". There isn't. If you draw a firearm and use it on someone, then you assume that the person is highly likely to die. And once you have committed to shoot, you shoot as accurately and effectively and as much as is required to immobilise the target. If the target survives, after the shooting, and is taken into control, then it is a bonus. If you don't want " shoot to kill" then the only way is to disarm all police officers." Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those." However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective! | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective!" I don't think we use hollow points do we? The US police do but I didn't think ours did. We have seriously upgunned our police though since Mumbai. | |||
"I wish people would FUCKING STOP using the words " shoot to kill" It's SHOOTING. The KILL is assumed. " Shoot to kill" implies that there is " shoot not to kill". There isn't. If you draw a firearm and use it on someone, then you assume that the person is highly likely to die. And once you have committed to shoot, you shoot as accurately and effectively and as much as is required to immobilise the target. If the target survives, after the shooting, and is taken into control, then it is a bonus. If you don't want " shoot to kill" then the only way is to disarm all police officers. Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those." Actually it wasn't particularly good; and had a tendency to often go straight through; and people did walk away after a 7.62mm hit if it didn't hit bone; the smaller 5.56 mm used nowadays has a far better kill as it transmits more energy to the target | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective! I don't think we use hollow points do we? The US police do but I didn't think ours did. We have seriously upgunned our police though since Mumbai." No our police don't use Hollow points;some US police do; not all. Military ammunition is full metal jacket, as armies are bound by the Geneva convention, which bans hollow, or expanding ammo. Police aren't. Some used the Black Talon rounds, which cause fearsome wounds; ( the same rounds used by Pistorious to shoot his girlfriend), but I think they have stopped using them as the rounds are too horrific. | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective! I don't think we use hollow points do we? The US police do but I didn't think ours did. We have seriously upgunned our police though since Mumbai. No our police don't use Hollow points;some US police do; not all. Military ammunition is full metal jacket, as armies are bound by the Geneva convention, which bans hollow, or expanding ammo. Police aren't. Some used the Black Talon rounds, which cause fearsome wounds; ( the same rounds used by Pistorious to shoot his girlfriend), but I think they have stopped using them as the rounds are too horrific." I'd bet we have teflon coated rounds tucked away too, to go through body armour. | |||
"I wish people would FUCKING STOP using the words " shoot to kill" It's SHOOTING. The KILL is assumed. " Shoot to kill" implies that there is " shoot not to kill". There isn't. If you draw a firearm and use it on someone, then you assume that the person is highly likely to die. And once you have committed to shoot, you shoot as accurately and effectively and as much as is required to immobilise the target. If the target survives, after the shooting, and is taken into control, then it is a bonus. If you don't want " shoot to kill" then the only way is to disarm all police officers. Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. Actually it wasn't particularly good; and had a tendency to often go straight through; and people did walk away after a 7.62mm hit if it didn't hit bone; the smaller 5.56 mm used nowadays has a far better kill as it transmits more energy to the target " As I understood, the purpose of change to the SA80 and the 5.56mm round was to remove more injured people from the battlefield and tie up more resources as well being lighter? SLR injuries that I saw in the early 1980's were horrific compared to what I have seen in recent years (albeit on battlefield footage from Iraq and Afghanistan). | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective! I don't think we use hollow points do we? The US police do but I didn't think ours did. We have seriously upgunned our police though since Mumbai. No our police don't use Hollow points;some US police do; not all. Military ammunition is full metal jacket, as armies are bound by the Geneva convention, which bans hollow, or expanding ammo. Police aren't. Some used the Black Talon rounds, which cause fearsome wounds; ( the same rounds used by Pistorious to shoot his girlfriend), but I think they have stopped using them as the rounds are too horrific. I'd bet we have teflon coated rounds tucked away too, to go through body armour." No; Teflon rounds are another myth; You just use the SS109 military bullet that will pierce level 1 or 2 body armour; if you suspect higher level, you have to get close and go for headshots . ( Teflon coated bullets were an idea developed to attempt to reduce barrel wear ; they didn't make any difference, and it was a pointless idea anyway. They were never intended to enhance body armour piercing, nor do they.) Body armour ( any armour, depending on what it's made if, ) is defeated by velocity and hard projectiles | |||
"I wish people would FUCKING STOP using the words " shoot to kill" It's SHOOTING. The KILL is assumed. " Shoot to kill" implies that there is " shoot not to kill". There isn't. If you draw a firearm and use it on someone, then you assume that the person is highly likely to die. And once you have committed to shoot, you shoot as accurately and effectively and as much as is required to immobilise the target. If the target survives, after the shooting, and is taken into control, then it is a bonus. If you don't want " shoot to kill" then the only way is to disarm all police officers. Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. Actually it wasn't particularly good; and had a tendency to often go straight through; and people did walk away after a 7.62mm hit if it didn't hit bone; the smaller 5.56 mm used nowadays has a far better kill as it transmits more energy to the target As I understood, the purpose of change to the SA80 and the 5.56mm round was to remove more injured people from the battlefield and tie up more resources as well being lighter? SLR injuries that I saw in the early 1980's were horrific compared to what I have seen in recent years (albeit on battlefield footage from Iraq and Afghanistan). " No: a 5.56 mm bullet ( up to 200 m) has a much higher wound mechanism than a 7.62mm , ( ke= 1/2mv2). After 300 m, the 7.62 maintains velocity and thus energy better. The move to 5.56 was to be able to carry 3x more ammunition ( its 1/3 the weight of 7.62), and get higher kills at shorter range. 5.56 is far more effective sub 200 m; and equivalent out to approx 400; 7.62 outstrips it at 400m +. | |||
" Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. However the police have more options when it comes to ammunition (such as hollow point rounds) than the military are allowed to use. I did read an interesting article the other day by the US Army and their reasoning for adopting a new round. The 5.56 round takes about 7.5 inches before it begins to tumble and create an effective wound cavity. They were blaming the Afghans and the Iraqis (and Somalis from before) for being too skinny for the rounds to be effective as their torsos are only around 9 inches thick. I thought it was funny to blame the enemy for being too skinny for your rounds to be effective! I don't think we use hollow points do we? The US police do but I didn't think ours did. We have seriously upgunned our police though since Mumbai. No our police don't use Hollow points;some US police do; not all. Military ammunition is full metal jacket, as armies are bound by the Geneva convention, which bans hollow, or expanding ammo. Police aren't. Some used the Black Talon rounds, which cause fearsome wounds; ( the same rounds used by Pistorious to shoot his girlfriend), but I think they have stopped using them as the rounds are too horrific." https://www.channel4.com/news/hollow-point-bullets-to-be-standard-issue-for-met-police See, we do use hollow point ammunition, if you google UK Police Ammunition, you will find FOI request and response from the British Transport Police which also confirms that they use hollow point in 9mm and 5.56mm. Also the 5.56x45 is around half the weight (11.8g) of the 7.62x51 (25.4g) fired by the SLR, rather than a 3rd of the weight. | |||
"I wish people would FUCKING STOP using the words " shoot to kill" It's SHOOTING. The KILL is assumed. " Shoot to kill" implies that there is " shoot not to kill". There isn't. If you draw a firearm and use it on someone, then you assume that the person is highly likely to die. And once you have committed to shoot, you shoot as accurately and effectively and as much as is required to immobilise the target. If the target survives, after the shooting, and is taken into control, then it is a bonus. If you don't want " shoot to kill" then the only way is to disarm all police officers. Mind you, modern small calibre high velocity rounds sometimes need a few more insurance shots to make sure. The old 7.62mm SLR round was a one hit wonder. You were not getting up after being hit with one of those. Actually it wasn't particularly good; and had a tendency to often go straight through; and people did walk away after a 7.62mm hit if it didn't hit bone; the smaller 5.56 mm used nowadays has a far better kill as it transmits more energy to the target As I understood, the purpose of change to the SA80 and the 5.56mm round was to remove more injured people from the battlefield and tie up more resources as well being lighter? SLR injuries that I saw in the early 1980's were horrific compared to what I have seen in recent years (albeit on battlefield footage from Iraq and Afghanistan). No: a 5.56 mm bullet ( up to 200 m) has a much higher wound mechanism than a 7.62mm , ( ke= 1/2mv2). After 300 m, the 7.62 maintains velocity and thus energy better. The move to 5.56 was to be able to carry 3x more ammunition ( its 1/3 the weight of 7.62), and get higher kills at shorter range. 5.56 is far more effective sub 200 m; and equivalent out to approx 400; 7.62 outstrips it at 400m +. " I never studied the technical details, but the 7.62mm round fired from the SLR was a true man mangler. Demo's at Warminster and Medical Corps images of human wounds was enough for me. Shot down the range it would almost sever two pig corpses and blast a hole through a breeze block wall behind. The Gimpy would chop a tree down in four or five bursts. I never shot the SA80 but my former colleagues who did said that they did not have the same confidence as they did with the SLR albeit, it was more manageable and versatile. | |||
"Do you think it a good idea to tell the Police there are terrorists in a muslim neighbourhood, send them in with guns and tell them they have carte blanche to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist if they protest in the slightest at any abuse of power by police officers? I'm just wondering, seeing as how well that kind of attitude to black people has worked over time in the United States? You're straying so far off point to try and prove something wrong its unbelievable " I didn't bring up Corbyn on this thread, I merely asked what people objected to regarding his defence policy, given it was a thread about defence. The answers were, I thought, misrepresentative of Corbyns position when I looked at it. I also think advocating less restraint on the part of police officers firing guns, particularly in and around minority communities perceived as a threat is a path that can lead to greater home grown problems, so quite an important point really. I had thought perhaps, when talking about Corbyn and his defence policy, the position that he advocates regarding not renewing trident and spending some of that money on conventional weapons and intelligence instead would have been brought up, not to mention going to war at the drop of a hat all the time but concentrating on peace. These are two things he is usually criticised for and germain to the opening post of the thread. My apologies for the sidetrack, I hadn't expected my simple questions to lead where they did. | |||
"Do you think it a good idea to tell the Police there are terrorists in a muslim neighbourhood, send them in with guns and tell them they have carte blanche to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist if they protest in the slightest at any abuse of power by police officers? I'm just wondering, seeing as how well that kind of attitude to black people has worked over time in the United States? You're straying so far off point to try and prove something wrong its unbelievable I didn't bring up Corbyn on this thread, I merely asked what people objected to regarding his defence policy, given it was a thread about defence. The answers were, I thought, misrepresentative of Corbyns position when I looked at it. I also think advocating less restraint on the part of police officers firing guns, particularly in and around minority communities perceived as a threat is a path that can lead to greater home grown problems, so quite an important point really. I had thought perhaps, when talking about Corbyn and his defence policy, the position that he advocates regarding not renewing trident and spending some of that money on conventional weapons and intelligence instead would have been brought up, not to mention going to war at the drop of a hat all the time but concentrating on peace. These are two things he is usually criticised for and germain to the opening post of the thread. My apologies for the sidetrack, I hadn't expected my simple questions to lead where they did. " Well I think you post has revealed your fundamental misunderstanding of what people are upset about when it came specifically to the "shoot to kill" comments. It is absolutely nothing at all to do with advocating less restraint. Nothing at all. It is solely about where the police would place their shot. They are currently trained to aim for centre mass, or, if a suicide vest is suspected, a head shot. Getting shot in your centre mass, or in the head, is seriously bad for your health and there is a very good chance you could die. If Corbyn was PM, I believe that there is a much greater chance that that police officer would be facing a charge of murder. Corbyn doesn't believe in a shoot to kill policy, he believes that there is such a thing as shoot to wound. Corbyn doesn't want the police officer to aim for the centre mass or the head, he wants the police officer to aim for the arm or the leg or the hand or the foot. These are much smaller targets which greatly increases either a miss and the bullet continuing along its path, potentially hitting an innocent bystander, or hitting but passing straight through and again potentially hitting someone else. | |||
| |||
