FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > RM, Bulwark & Albion
RM, Bulwark & Albion
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Should the UK be cutting our amphibious assault capability to save money, or should the government/treasury look to make cuts elsewhere?
There has also been talk of an amalgamation of the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment to make savings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I don't know the answer to the specific question, but I do think the UK needs to get a perspective on its place in the world before deciding its military strength.
The UK for a long time considered itself a stabilising force in world conflicts. Now it is the UK that is the destabilising force.
Do we still think these little islands of ours should be getting involved in conflicts to help our chums in America, or destabilising regimes we don't like.
I prefer the Norway model in more ways than one.
PS I do know that the vast sums of defence capital going to the Royal Navy for new submarines and new aircraft carriers are creating a huge hole in the budget for other items. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fuck NO!
The RMC are our last fully independent spearhead unit, and we are an island. That means that unless it is the 'true blue' 'Queen and Country' Tories intention that we have no way of landing troops in hostile territory or moving a mobile force to anywhere in the world it is required to protect our national interests than the RMC must remain as they are.
Of course the defence of the realm has never been a Tory strong suit (a bit like managing the economy) but they have always been good at convincing the gullible that they they are the party of fiscal prudence and strong defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To digress whilst watching Football Focus on Saturday.
Manchester City have spent more money on their defence than 52 countries have on their defence budget.
Now that was a stat I like.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
This is one of those complicated things.
Actually everything is complicated, but that isn't usually how discussions on here seem to go 
We have a place on the UN security council because we were one of the victorious powers (albeit on behalf of the British Empire), have nuclear weapons and maintain an outsized military.
We have had such influence in Europe for the same reason.
We are an important US ally for the same reason as well as being a bridge to Europe.
We consequently have a large military sector which is one of the few areas where international trade rules allow massive subsidies. This high technology spending leaks out into the rest of industry. Jobs and engineering advances stem from this.
So, with specific reference to the thread. I think we keep spending. We provide our armed forces with the best equipment and deploy them where they can do some good, not where the US wants us to deploy them. These resources have a such humanitarian use as military.
We have also been living off the reputation of the Iranian embassy siege and the Falklands campaign for far too long. We find ourselves in a world full of old men engaging in pissing contests (Trump, Putin, Xi). We can't compete but, sadly, we need to be a consideration.
That's my, probably flawed, geopolitical opinion but the best I can do with the information I have available  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know the answer to the specific question, but I do think the UK needs to get a perspective on its place in the world before deciding its military strength.
The UK for a long time considered itself a stabilising force in world conflicts. Now it is the UK that is the destabilising force.
Do we still think these little islands of ours should be getting involved in conflicts to help our chums in America, or destabilising regimes we don't like.
I prefer the Norway model in more ways than one.
PS I do know that the vast sums of defence capital going to the Royal Navy for new submarines and new aircraft carriers are creating a huge hole in the budget for other items."
Simple truth Sara. We are an island, we depend on merchant marine to supply our needs. To guarantee the security of shipping to and from this island we need a strong navy that can project power to any place in the world that supplies our needs. Further, we also need to be able to project land forces to those same places and to confront any enemy before they are landing on our beaches.
The debate should not be about saving money, it should be about what we need to defend our vital interests. Further I don't know if you have noticed or not, but the same is true about our armed forces as is true about virtually every branch of government and management in most fields. When you start cutting you to save money you have to continue to cut till there is nothing left. As the Tories are fond of saying its about UK PLC! Businesses have to grow to thrive, as soon as the asset stripping bean counters move in and start shrinking the business then it is heading for insolvency.
Can you guess what austerity is and why after 8 years of it we are worse off now than 10 years ago? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustme6Man
over a year ago
tamworth |
Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. .. "
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain."
You forget that the Tories always know the cost of everything.
Shame they do not understand the value of those self same things. Any potholes in the roads round where you live? Or are they like fracking something that is fine if done in the northern wastelands? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
The thing that always suprised me about Bulwark and Albion is how cheap they are:
HMS Queen Elizabeth- £3.1bn
Type 26- £1bn each
Type 31e- £250m each
Albion Class- £225m each |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustme6Man
over a year ago
tamworth |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain."
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain.
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
"
Brexit is the start of a retreat even if it's been wrapped up in a Union Flag and talk of taking back control. If it was defined as looking influence, as it is, then the picture would be different... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The thing that always suprised me about Bulwark and Albion is how cheap they are:
HMS Queen Elizabeth- £3.1bn
Type 26- £1bn each
Type 31e- £250m each
Albion Class- £225m each "
They, are pretty old though. To get them up to a spec to counter current peers would require quite some investment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The thing that always suprised me about Bulwark and Albion is how cheap they are:
HMS Queen Elizabeth- £3.1bn
Type 26- £1bn each
Type 31e- £250m each
Albion Class- £225m each
They, are pretty old though. To get them up to a spec to counter current peers would require quite some investment."
They have had refits and mondernisation. I'm all for adding a new class of amphibious assault ships, the French have the Mistral class which is good, but at the moment we are fighting to keep what we've got, so replacing them, or adding a new class is not on the cards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Typical Tories the party of strong defence NOT !!!
REMEMBER it was the Tories that tried to sell out aircraft carriers before the Faulkland conflict !!!
They will run everything into the ground rather than Chase their tax dodging mates for money the country is owed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustme6Man
over a year ago
tamworth |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain.
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
Brexit is the start of a retreat even if it's been wrapped up in a Union Flag and talk of taking back control. If it was defined as looking influence, as it is, then the picture would be different..."
Mmmm.....would have to respectfully disagree...will enable freedom of action outside the EU bureaucrats....never a bad thing... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain.
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
Brexit is the start of a retreat even if it's been wrapped up in a Union Flag and talk of taking back control. If it was defined as looking influence, as it is, then the picture would be different...
Mmmm.....would have to respectfully disagree...will enable freedom of action outside the EU bureaucrats....never a bad thing..."
What military or foreign policy actions of the UK has the EU stopped? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustme6Man
over a year ago
tamworth |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain.
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
Brexit is the start of a retreat even if it's been wrapped up in a Union Flag and talk of taking back control. If it was defined as looking influence, as it is, then the picture would be different...
Mmmm.....would have to respectfully disagree...will enable freedom of action outside the EU bureaucrats....never a bad thing...
What military or foreign policy actions of the UK has the EU stopped? "
Well here's one of numerous examples....
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2015/11/18/brexit-might-revive-britains-influence-on-the-foreign-policies-of-the-new-eu-member-states/
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustme6Man
over a year ago
tamworth |
Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement... "
What's that got to do with the EU? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement...
What's that got to do with the EU? "
A b s o l u t e l y F u c k a l l |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Heck no...the Royal marines and our amphibious capabilities are the spearhead of our military. Unfortunately unless we mine our coast and go for bunker Britain. .it is better to resolve problems overseas rather than our own shores. Been at the heart of UK policy for 300 years. Unfortunately the UK has a major influence in the world...I know some people would like to say we are a little island with no influence...but that is just shucking global responsibilities..how would we have stopped the Sierra Leone massacres without an amphibious capability. ..
Actually, I'd say that we were maintaining an outsized level of influence.
That's a good thing.
It's something that we would give up cheaply and would find all but impossible to regain.
Unfortunately for many who would like to see this small island denuded to a third rate power....the UK is globally ranked as the third most influencing country in the world after the USA and Russia. ..defined as projection of soft power..diplomacy and aid...hard power ..military. ..and cultural power ...all else...
://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-international-influence?slide=5
Like it or not we have a global responsibility...
Or should we retreat and go for fortress Britain tat retreats from the world stage....don't think so..
Brexit is the start of a retreat even if it's been wrapped up in a Union Flag and talk of taking back control. If it was defined as looking influence, as it is, then the picture would be different...
Mmmm.....would have to respectfully disagree...will enable freedom of action outside the EU bureaucrats....never a bad thing...
What military or foreign policy actions of the UK has the EU stopped?
Well here's one of numerous examples....
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2015/11/18/brexit-might-revive-britains-influence-on-the-foreign-policies-of-the-new-eu-member-states/
"
Thanks for the link, I've added it to my reading list, when I've finished I'll give you a response. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement...
What's that got to do with the EU?
A b s o l u t e l y F u c k a l l"
I'm gonna bet that both the poster, and the German jet were there as part of the NATO led ISAF mission established by the UN Security Council Resolution 1386. Nothing to do with the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
To digress a bit, and pick up on one of the points above.
Every empire rises and every empire falls, Brexit, for me, is a continuation of the latter - the empire that got so big it imploded.
How far will the implosion go? I suspect when, not if, Scotland leaves the UK, England and what remains of the UK will need to come to terms with this delusion of being some sort of global power.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"To digress a bit, and pick up on one of the points above.
Every empire rises and every empire falls, Brexit, for me, is a continuation of the latter - the empire that got so big it imploded.
How far will the implosion go? I suspect when, not if, Scotland leaves the UK, England and what remains of the UK will need to come to terms with this delusion of being some sort of global power.
"
Sadly I too think that I will see the break up of the UK in my lifetime. This will have a negative impact in many areas, but I think defence will be particularly hard hit. We have important RAF bases and radar stations, a large Army Infantry Regiment, and strategically important naval bases and ship yards, all based in Scotland. I think the splitting of defence assets (inc. personnel), pension and compensation schemes, will be highly contentious and will greatly reduce the UK's capabilities. I highly doubt that an independent Scotland would have any expeditionary forces, and may well expect the British tax payer to foot the bill for their defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the UK be cutting our amphibious assault capability to save money, or should the government/treasury look to make cuts elsewhere?
There has also been talk of an amalgamation of the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment to make savings."
The eu can buy em for your daft arsed eu army idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Should the UK be cutting our amphibious assault capability to save money, or should the government/treasury look to make cuts elsewhere?
There has also been talk of an amalgamation of the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment to make savings.
The eu can buy em for your daft arsed eu army idea. "
I have never advocated for an EU Army, I have always said it will never happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To digress a bit, and pick up on one of the points above.
Every empire rises and every empire falls, Brexit, for me, is a continuation of the latter - the empire that got so big it imploded.
How far will the implosion go? I suspect when, not if, Scotland leaves the UK, England and what remains of the UK will need to come to terms with this delusion of being some sort of global power.
"
You're right about all empires coming to an end, however Brexit is the beginning of the end of the EU empire, not the UK"s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement... "
Sounds like this would be our defence policy under a Corbyn led Labour government. The pacifist Corbyn would scrap trident or have our subs sailing around the world with no nukes on board, soldiers given guns with blank rounds to fire and warplanes with no missiles on board. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement...
Sounds like this would be our defence policy under a Corbyn led Labour government. The pacifist Corbyn would scrap trident or have our subs sailing around the world with no nukes on board, soldiers given guns with blank rounds to fire and warplanes with no missiles on board. "
Sounds like post Brexit UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Could also mention EU pressure over Syria intervention... reminds me of a story told in Afghan. ..a German tornado appeared overhead when an allied patrol were under fire ..they contacted the German FOC for a bombing run...the German FOC responded that German planes carried no live weapons but they were happy to video the engagement...
Sounds like this would be our defence policy under a Corbyn led Labour government. The pacifist Corbyn would scrap trident or have our subs sailing around the world with no nukes on board, soldiers given guns with blank rounds to fire and warplanes with no missiles on board.
Sounds like post Brexit UK "
Thems your choices, a pacifist who won't fire, or Tories who can't fire because they have sacked all the personnel, scrapped the ships, sold the planes, and won't buy any missiles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds like post Brexit UK
Thems your choices, a pacifist who won't fire, or Tories who can't fire because they have sacked all the personnel, scrapped the ships, sold the planes, and won't buy any missiles. "
I'm former military, and when it boils down to it I am in no way a pacifist, in fact I am extremely hawkish and believe that when force is used it should be overwhelming from the start. (As we used to say: Go ugly early.) But I do not want my politicians to be hawks, I want them to be realistic doves and to have pacifist instincts, which I think you will find if you read or listen what JC has actually said rather than the misquotes and spin of the anti Corbyn media is his actual position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"IWe are an island, we depend on merchant marine to supply our needs. To guarantee the security of shipping to and from this island we need a strong navy that can project power to any place in the world that supplies our needs. Further, we also need to be able to project land forces to those same places and to confront any enemy before they are landing on our beaches.
"
I thought that sort of imperial mindset died in the Suez Canal 60 odd years ago. Obviously not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"IWe are an island, we depend on merchant marine to supply our needs. To guarantee the security of shipping to and from this island we need a strong navy that can project power to any place in the world that supplies our needs. Further, we also need to be able to project land forces to those same places and to confront any enemy before they are landing on our beaches.
I thought that sort of imperial mindset died in the Suez Canal 60 odd years ago. Obviously not.
"
Seems some think britain is still an empire and britania still rules the waves lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought that sort of imperial mindset died in the Suez Canal 60 odd years ago. Obviously not.
"
So you think being able to protect our supply routes has no place in the modern world...
OK, lets scrap the Navy they obviously serve no purpose. At the same time we can scrap the RAF after all if in this modern idle of yours there is no need to protect the shipping that brings everything we use to produce everything we make from round the world and then ship it out to those who buy our produce thus allowing us to buy in the 40% of all the food we eat, there is no need to protect the integrity of our skies. Following on from that if we do not need to protect our seas, skies and trade routes then there is no need to protect the integrity of our land so lets scrap the Army too...
Look at that, between you and I we have just saved the country over £35 billion a year (and only put a million or so out of work), and I am sure no nasty hostile foreign power will now use our inability to defend ourselves or threaten them as a green light to use their military to hold us to ransom and annex any of our territories they decide they want. After all there have been no incidents of global powers doing things like that since the formation of the UN after WW2...
With all due respect, Sara, do you think my hyperbole has shown up any weaknesses in your position? Since the emergence of 'modern' geopolitical defence thinking in the late 50's early 60's where the majority of the industrialised nations decided to cut and divert defence spending to enriching the elite. Claiming that quality was more important than quantity. Would you say we are more or less secure?
Try to be honest (if not with us at least with yourself). For my part I would say that the world today is a lot more dangerous and getting more dangerous by the day.
Now who would have thought that reducing defence spending and diverting what is spent from employing full time professionals to defend us in favour of grandiose vanity projects would actually make the world am more dangerous place for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't forget our Armed Forces do much good work outside of Defence.
Disaster relief and drug enforcement to name but two."
Now, now no need to further muddy the waters. After all there is no need for standing Defence forces, it is always possible to hire G4S to supply security for major events, they do a great job and I am sure that they would do an equally fantastic job delivering disaster relief or supplying highly disciplined personnel to provide boots on the ground in any national emergency.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Actually we have to ask the question - can we adequately defend ourselves? The answer is probably not!
We are an island and therefore there is a "natural" physical defence - a positive!
That's about it - the RN sadly has been depleted over the last 30 years and we have a token defence in the ship's we have. We don't stand a cat in hells chance of defending our supply lines with what we have and to defend the country too! Are we a global player? We try to be, but we need to concentrate on our defence.
The RAF again has been cut to the bone - do we have enough planes capable of defending the nation's skies?
ARMY cut to the bone again well trained but is it well equipped? Regulars are low, so we rely on the TA because that's the cheapest option. Can we stop the Russains - No way. The Albanians yes so let's get it into perspective.
NUCLEAR deterent - we can't nuke everyone - how many missiles do we have and how reliable are they - some fail?
The days of Rule Britannia are long gone - accept it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
I think that defense from invasion is based on nuclear deterrence.
The rest of the armed forces are now, in reality, a foreign policy tool.
Aid in disaster relief
Evacuate endangered citizens (and non citizens)
Enforce international law (peacekeeping and treaty)
Impode/police a particular world view helpful to UK interests (such as keeping a particular foreign government in power)
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, if anyone is placed in harm's way soldiers need the best equipment and commanders need the best range of tactical options available to accomplish this.
The question is, can the UK afford this breadth of capability? If not we have to work with other nations to create a composite capability. However, this means losing some control of foreign policy. Also, as our allies tend to be democracies, a change of government could mean a loss of one leg of a tactical spread.
Guess what, it's complicated! Best to have a one-off referendum to decide |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Nuclear deterrence is utterly useless against the primary threats faced by the UK - terrorism and cyberattack.
Then I hear the military top brass shout the odds about how the UK will soon be within range of a missile from North Korea tipped with armageddon.
No mention whatsoever about how our enormous investment in WMD will deter them.
They cannot have their cake and eat - either the WMD stockpile of the UK is a deterrent, in which case why worry about NK, or it isn't, in which case they money would be far better spent on defending these islands against the real threats - terrorism and cyberattack.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think that defense from invasion is based on nuclear deterrence.
The rest of the armed forces are now, in reality, a foreign policy tool.
Aid in disaster relief
Evacuate endangered citizens (and non citizens)
Enforce international law (peacekeeping and treaty)
Impode/police a particular world view helpful to UK interests (such as keeping a particular foreign government in power)
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, if anyone is placed in harm's way soldiers need the best equipment and commanders need the best range of tactical options available to accomplish this.
The question is, can the UK afford this breadth of capability? If not we have to work with other nations to create a composite capability. However, this means losing some control of foreign policy. Also, as our allies tend to be democracies, a change of government could mean a loss of one leg of a tactical spread.
Guess what, it's complicated! Best to have a one-off referendum to decide "
Don't forget Military Aid to Civil Authorities (MACA) is a key military function and a part of the Army 2020 strategy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making? "
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations "
Ah, the naivety of some.
Let me just introduce you to some facts...
Scotland has approximately 10% of the UK population, 50% of the UK landmass, some 60 to 70% of the UK's territorial waters and 90% of the UK's gas and oil. Considering the UK as a whole needs to spend over £35 billion a year protecting these assets it is only reasonable to expect that an independent Scotland would need to spend the same (proportionately) to defend what would become Scottish assets. Allowing for the loss of some benefits of scale lets say a cost of £20 billion a year is reasonable. Where will that come from? And where will you find the personnel?
Or do you think that being nice and asking nicely is all it will take to to stop others from taking what you can't defend? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations "
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia? "
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol"
How much do you know about the military and defence of Iceland? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol
How much do you know about the military and defence of Iceland? "
Not alot but im pretty sure no western european country are sitting waiting on russia to invade lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Ireland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of an Irish island in a newly independent Ireland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making? "
There, fixed it for you
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Ireland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of an Irish island in a newly independent Ireland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
There, fixed it for you
"
Lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
well most seemed to back the choice of trident over conventional .... you make your bed then you lie in it .... and don't forget, trident is payable in dollars and at current exchange rates and increasing interest it's rapidly draining the money pot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Ireland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of an Irish island in a newly independent Ireland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
There, fixed it for you
Lol "
NATO didn't exist when Ireland left, neither did nuclear weapons, nor the United Nations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol
How much do you know about the military and defence of Iceland?
Not alot but im pretty sure no western european country are sitting waiting on russia to invade lol"
So you wouldn't know that Iceland's military consists of around 400 people with half of those being in the coast guard, or that BRITISH planes are often responsible for defending their airspace as part of an ongoing NATO air policing mission then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol
How much do you know about the military and defence of Iceland?
Not alot but im pretty sure no western european country are sitting waiting on russia to invade lol
So you wouldn't know that Iceland's military consists of around 400 people with half of those being in the coast guard, or that BRITISH planes are often responsible for defending their airspace as part of an ongoing NATO air policing mission then. "
Good on them just shows you dont need to waste millions on defence eh |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol
How much do you know about the military and defence of Iceland?
Not alot but im pretty sure no western european country are sitting waiting on russia to invade lol
So you wouldn't know that Iceland's military consists of around 400 people with half of those being in the coast guard, or that BRITISH planes are often responsible for defending their airspace as part of an ongoing NATO air policing mission then.
Good on them just shows you dont need to waste millions on defence eh "
So you don't want to pay for your own defence in either blood or money? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Physical invasion of the UK by a uniformed military of a nation state is highly unlikely. Firstly due to geography, as mentioned we are an island and amphibious assault is much more difficult than land assault, requiring specialist equipment such as landing craft. Secondly we are geographically surrounded by allied nations, it seems unlikely at the moment that France would look to invade for example.
However, something like a ballistic missile we are poorly equipped to defend against with our UK military footprint as it stands. We could improve this quickly, but are unprepared for that eventuality as it stands.
That being said, we are a part of NATO, and sit on the UN Security Council, so it's unlikely that anyone would want to fuck with us. We are no Yemen or Ukraine.
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Scotland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK of England, Wales and NI want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of a Scottish island in a newly independent Scotland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
When scotland is independent and theres no nukes on the clyde the majority of scots will be delighted as we dont want them here,as for a russian invasion that is just absurd we scots are a friendly nation and once independent will be making friends with all fellow European nations
Was Crimea or Eastern Ukraine "unfriendly"? How about Georgia?
Yous are both deluded does norway ,iceland and all other european nations have big armies navy ect ,and you do know scotland will be entitled to 8.4% of all uk assets so we will do just fine with a few scots regiments and a few navy vessels,you both sound like britnats starting the scaremongering already lol"
True.
They also don't generate 3.5% of GDP from the defence industry or generate £5bn in export revenue.
How many jobs in Scotland are dependent on UK defence contracts?
Regardless of the moral arguments, there are a few jobs and a bit of money to be made up.
Make whatever political argument you wish, but please answer the problems that will be faced by actual peopled in their daily lives first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
But, another thing to ponder is how this would change if Ireland were to become independent. They would not have a nuclear deterrent, not have a seat at the UN SC, may not be automatic members of NATO, could someone like Russia mess with them a bit? They might very well be tempted. Would the UK want to go to war with Russia over say an invasion of an Irish island in a newly independent Ireland? Or would we leave them to lay in a bed of their own making?
There, fixed it for you
Lol
NATO didn't exist when Ireland left, neither did nuclear weapons, nor the United Nations. "
Me thinks you are confusing Russia with the UK when it comes to a country with a track record of waltzing into other countries uninvited and occupying them. Very few suffer from Britain's inflated sense of exceptionalism.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
