• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

UK armed forces

Recommended Posts

Stuffs kicking off, more so than usual.

Big gap opening up in spend v budget.

Most of uks defense spending is pussed away paying for stuff well ever use - tanks, artillery, navy.

Uk does not face any direct threat - unless France goes muzzer.

The threats we face are

Russia - which is more likely to be dicking around with cyber.

China, who are pursuing a very agressive military and industrial spy operation.

And muzzers, most of whom are in the country.

We need a few squaddies and tanks floating around the Russian border countries.

And larger special forces.

And some patrol boats.

All will operae with partner orgs - Nato, Eu operations, probably us, can, aus, nz.

Heres that genius Brown, focusing on uk defense

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-dont-ditch-5bn-251898

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Generation Game said:

Looks like Scampton is finally going to get it's marching orders. 

There does seem to seem something the air, beyond the normal milatary whingning.

Many factors. 70% of mil spending is going on units that have not been used in the last 40 odd years.

Brown spending the future slend on dome useless carriers being built near his old constituency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spygirl said:

Stuffs kicking off, more so than usual.

Big gap opening up in spend v budget.

Most of uks defense spending is pussed away paying for stuff well ever use - tanks, artillery, navy.

Uk does not face any direct threat - unless France goes muzzer.

The threats we face are

Russia - which is more likely to be dicking around with cyber.

China, who are pursuing a very agressive military and industrial spy operation.

And muzzers, most of whom are in the country.

We need a few squaddies and tanks floating around the Russian border countries.

And larger special forces.

And some patrol boats.

All will operae with partner orgs - Nato, Eu operations, probably us, can, aus, nz.

Heres that genius Brown, focusing on uk defense

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-dont-ditch-5bn-251898

Always fighting the last war, it’s the British way , or the one before 

Trident is really useful, not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Malthus said:

Always fighting the last war, it’s the British way , or the one before 

Trident is really useful, not 

Well, yes.

But it is in keeping the really old capabilities that you gain capability for the next war.  Going all out for cyber and anti-terrorism just because it is 'today' is the sort of thing that gets you into trouble when odd things happen.

Frankly, there is a large cost in having a standing army.  But saying 'we've not had a war in ages' isn't a good argument for not having one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgul said:

Well, yes.

But it is in keeping the really old capabilities that you gain capability for the next war.  Going all out for cyber and anti-terrorism just because it is 'today' is the sort of thing that gets you into trouble when odd things happen.

Frankly, there is a large cost in having a standing army.  But saying 'we've not had a war in ages' isn't a good argument for not having one.

Problem is that ps what weve got - an army that stands.

It sucks up all the money and resources that orevents the uk developing a modern strategy.

Uk spends more housing squaddies than it does on missile development (probably)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Problem is that ps what weve got - an army that stands.

It sucks up all the money and resources that orevents the uk developing a modern strategy.

Uk spends more housing squaddies than it does on missile development (probably)

Only resources.  The money just goes round and round.

Now, you can argue 'what amazing things we'd have if we didn't waste squaddies time squarebashing' or 'if we didn't waste nuclear scientists in making bombs'.

But the 'money' thing is just an illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dgul said:

Only resources.  The money just goes round and round.

Now, you can argue 'what amazing things we'd have if we didn't waste squaddies time squarebashing' or 'if we didn't waste nuclear scientists in making bombs'.

But the 'money' thing is just an illusion.

Disagree.

You have 5 mintues to win a war. Then it becomes  a war of attrition.

Access to money wins wars more than bombs do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Disagree.

You have 5 mintues to win a war. Then it becomes  a war of attrition.

Access to money wins wars more than bombs do.

Well, I suppose the first bit is right.

If you have to use the money to buy stuff from abroad.  Otherwise it is just about having the internal capability.

But I'm talking about capability.  If we're to maintain the advantages of having a military (if there is an advantage) then you have to have a broad capability.  No point in having a very capable cyber warfare department if the next threat is from the north and all our equipment fails below zero (say).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If overall outcomes are anything to go by then yes we are still fighting WW1 and not very successfully at that - .and a lot of deaths in the meantime.  The donkeys are still in charge though.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The days of battleships pulling alongside eachother and slugging it out are long gone, as is carrier warfare a'la pacific WW2 

Oppenheimer ensured that with Hiroshima & Nagasaki wars could be finished in a day, no need for all these standing armies / navys etc etc 

Yes if you need to take and hold ground you need troops & tanks but an island in the North Atlantic doesnt need to take & hold ground does it? 

ahh....but we must protect the falklands & commonwealth! attack subs can do that and air power delivered from friendly countries airbases then if they dont play ball a trident on their capital city job done.

This is all pointing to the "EU Army" isnt it? of some kind of swiss style national reserve

Edited by WorkingPoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, WorkingPoor said:

The days of battleships pulling alongside eachother and slugging it out are long gone, as is carrier warfare a'la pacific WW2 

Oppenheimer ensured that with Hiroshima & Nagasaki wars could be finished in a day, no need for all these standing armies / navys etc etc 

Yes if you need to take and hold ground you need troops & tanks but an island in the North Atlantic doesnt need to take & hold ground does it? 

ahh....but we must protect the falklands & commonwealth! attack subs can do that and air power delivered from friendly countries airbases then if they dont play ball a trident on their capital city job done.

This is all pointing to the "EU Army" isnt it? of some kind of swiss style national reserve

If you have a large standing army then there is a temptation for politicians like Blair to use it to puff up their egos.

Historically the British did not trust governments with large numbers of soldiers because they thought there was a chance they would be used against them. That problem did not apply to the navy so that was where the defence budget was spent. If we had stuck to that basic template we would have avoided most of the costly and pointless wars of recent years  in places like Afghanistan since you can't get a ship to the latter. The same logic applies to the nuclear deterrent. It is an all or nothing response and it can't be finessed to fight the type of 'limited wars' beloved of modern politicians.  When it comes to big conflicts like the First and Second World Wars it is a different ball game but we simply don't have the industrial base to fight that sort of war any more and if we did the entire population would end up getting conscripted.

 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO we would be better off spending defence budgets on the RN to combat people smuggling in the Med and other types of piracy, and building up a really effective UK border patrol force with high speed response, and a return to 1950s pro-active policing in both urban and rural areas. 

None of which will happen in a million years as it goes against the whole trend of soft-invasion and demographic replacement that our leaders seem hell bent on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Generation Game said:

When you have a fifth column, and money is taken out of the defence budget to fund its existence, then you have to ask why bother spending anything on defence?

To bomb the brethren of the fifth columnists abroad in order to increase their numbers here and anger the ones already here. It is an indirect way of turning our own army against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.