Britboy - you want to be able to 'have' Afghanistan? No one, going back to the Roman Empire, has ever taken Afghanistan in a land war. The only way we could 'have' them would be to nuke them, and that achieves very little.
Massive military cuts
- Thread starter britboy4321
- Start date
Thats fine if the world stays stable in roughly the same manner as it is now... as I've said many times before history has taught us its never the case... human nature hasn't changed.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
we dont need one. c'mon people its 2010. we all know that all future wars will be fought by corporations...or something like that
Afghanistan has a nickname on the global stage - 'graveyard of empires'. Not exactly heart-warming motivational stuff for the poor guys duped into being deployed there.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
But with the RAF they are going to pre-world-war 1 staffing levels (although in those days it was of course the royal air corps).
Surely you must see this is at least in part ideologically driven? Or would any party that won the election had to have made the same decision over these cuts?
It's more stable than it has ever been in the past, because of the global economy, as well as global business... nothing like that has existed on this scale ever! It's literally inconceivable for conflict to flare up between the UK and another nation capable of attacking it that warrants our current military. If you disagree, please cite an example of such a nation.
People who keep trying to justify the ridiculous military expenditure just don't realize we need that money. We need it for our transport network, our hospitals, our schools, our infrastructure...
I think it's a nice/good thing to have a small military. Look around the world, are you aspiring to America or Scandinavia? Scandinavian show how a great quality of life can be achieved without spending BILLIONS on weapons.
Depressing? No way, spending money we don't have on weapons is depressing.
We certainly can blame the country's disasterous financial state on Labour. They doubled the national debt in 8 years, 50% of the increase was prior to the recession commencing, and they committed and promised billions in expenditure on many, many things that we simply did not have, nor have any realistic prospect of having without borrowing.
I agree to a point, but you have to remember fiscal profligacy is ideologically based as well, it's the reason every significant period of Labour in power has resulted in serious economic damage and massive cuts afterwards.
The problem with the state running services is that they become massively politicised, and we end up with situations such as we have now, especially when combined with the fact that democratic politics is based on fallacy in the first place and we don't have enough protection from it.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,656
It's easy to make cuts but hard to get back the lost capability. Previous defence reviews have decided we don't need things like carriers, then Argentina invaded the Falklands. Right now we're not really using our heavy armour so it can be chopped, hopefully we wont need it in the future because they're not the quickest things to build.
These reviews look at the wars we're fighting today and shape the forces to fight that war, by the time the cuts have taken place we'll be fighting a different war that the government will end up buying rushed through over priced kit to supply the army with.
Defence budget is tiny in comparison to NHS and Social services and loss of capability there wont bite the country so hard if a friend becomes an enemy.
These reviews look at the wars we're fighting today and shape the forces to fight that war, by the time the cuts have taken place we'll be fighting a different war that the government will end up buying rushed through over priced kit to supply the army with.
Defence budget is tiny in comparison to NHS and Social services and loss of capability there wont bite the country so hard if a friend becomes an enemy.
And previous to WW1, etc. it was more stable than it ever had been previously, businesses branching out on a global scale, etc. and we still had a war... building upto WW2 - same story... if you can't see that human nature hasn't changed a bit then theres no point arguing this anyway.
With the exception of a certain Ghengis Khan of course...
Not to mention the Mughals under Babur, or the Saffavids of Persia.
The global economy was nowhere near entwined back then as it was today. The USSR and China were complete unknowns on the arena back then, and the UK/US had no dealings with them whatsoever that would have made the idea of war completely farcical. It was perfectly alright to start a world war back then because the nations either used the resources from their colonies or didn't deal with their enemies at all. Now we all rely on each other in this day and age.
People seriously should stop comparing a century ago to today. What a silly thing to do.
The way countries got out of these kinda situations in the past... ironically was war heh... but because of progress this isn't so acceptable these days... but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
No issues cutting the military but you must cut its commitments at the same time - no good asking less people to do same level as all the armed forces are already stretched - seems like no one cares about cutting back the military until they are needed, then its too late.
The cutting back on military establishment is so short sighted it feels like Labour again! DOnt forget that all those personnel being cut will be then looking for jobs, which there isnt any - they also wont be spending - as with the cuts on bases where they are the only thing keeping the local community going!
The military is already stretched close to or beyond its capacity - as stated by many a General! The govt should look elsewhere for the cuts (MPs allownaces etc) as raping the armed forces will only come back to bite them/us on the £$£" both economical and security wise!
The cutting back on military establishment is so short sighted it feels like Labour again! DOnt forget that all those personnel being cut will be then looking for jobs, which there isnt any - they also wont be spending - as with the cuts on bases where they are the only thing keeping the local community going!
The military is already stretched close to or beyond its capacity - as stated by many a General! The govt should look elsewhere for the cuts (MPs allownaces etc) as raping the armed forces will only come back to bite them/us on the £$£" both economical and security wise!
Its never silly to compare to a century ago... reliance on others breeds war too - when people don't feel like they are getting their fair share of the resources and have their backs to a wall.
Scrap the RAF completely, reduce the Army drastically.
Increase the Navy concentrating on highly mobile Marine units and Amphibious capability using Carrier Groups and some land based air support and transport.
Very basic explanation, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Increase the Navy concentrating on highly mobile Marine units and Amphibious capability using Carrier Groups and some land based air support and transport.
Very basic explanation, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Imo we simply must push forward with defence consolidation with co-operation from our EU partners i.e. an EU Defence Force. We simply cannot afford to have our own effective Army, Navy and Air Force any more - and neither can any other EU nations. An EUDF is the only logical conclusion the strategic defence review can come to, I can't see any other option unless the government are willing to sacrifice sanity for popularity.
We cannot throw billions down a black hole keeping an artificial and useless industry alive for the sake of jobs. That way leads to madness.