Unworkable without complete European Soverignty. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Massive military cuts
- Thread starter britboy4321
- Start date
Unworkable without complete European Soverignty. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
A century ago we didn't have the communications technology we have now, we didn't have the United Nations, we didn't have the Council of Europe, we didn't have such a strong allegiance with the US, come on. Not to mention, apart from the Middle East and North Korea, there really aren't any major countries wanting war. So please don't compare to a "century ago".
And I should mention the only country in the Middle East lusting and thirsting for war is a nation that's firmly on our side - and even further, that conflict has NOTHING to do with us.
Great thinking
What do you think the RAF does?
I know what it does, incorporate the land based neccessity into the Navy, we do not need two separate administrations for it.
Its the right thing to do. Whatever people may think of our country it isnt the same nation that took part in the last two world wars. We dont need an armed forces that we cant afford any more.
Sad perhaps, but it seems that it is the only logical move.
Sad perhaps, but it seems that it is the only logical move.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
I think Generals always exaggerate about such things as in the military there is a massive ideology of 'our boys deserve the best everything'. It's their natural inclination to push against politicians to get the best humanly possible for their forces, and the biggest force possible not least because it makes their missions easier.
They said we were stretched when we were in two theatres simultaneously. Now we are only in 1 theatre, have they said 'Yes- that's a bit of a relief'??? Any 'thats freed things up a little'??? Nope, still, we've still got all the same 'we're massively stretched to breaking point' speeches from generals.
I just sometimes get a bit of a 'cry wolf' feeling from generals ranting about how they need more more more - as it never changes even when the Iraq theatre closed completely for example
If they re-new trident, which everyone is so in favour of they have to cut else where, hence this.
All we have to do is stop sticking our noses in to pretend we are the big men in world affairs for 10 years then we can go back to normal with the next generation.
All we have to do is stop sticking our noses in to pretend we are the big men in world affairs for 10 years then we can go back to normal with the next generation.
So your idea is a large navy with no air power to provide air cover ?, nice idea.
Im ok with proposed cuts, tanks ?, too be Honest we have way to many. And tornados are pretty old hat, 100 typhoons would see away anyone but the most determined attacker..... We will have to reduce our worldwide missions though.
Just as long as we keep our new carriers and trident replacement, these are vital.
Great thinking
What do you think the RAF does?
Why does it require a completely separate grouping to provide that support? Indeed, the Navy and the Army already have their own air arms (Fleet air arm and the army air corps). Getting rid of the overheads via consolidation does have some benefits...
What a fantastically terrible idea. It would cost us nearly as much, and we wouldn't have any real say in whether it got used, not to mention we'd lose our ability to stimulate the economy via military spending...
Renegotiating to EEA membership would be a far better solution if you want to save money, and would save more than scrapping military spending entirely could ever hope to do.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
I agree. It seems to me there's not a lot the RAF do that couldn't be performed by the royal air corps, drones, and cruise missiles.
So your idea is a large navy with no air power to provide air cover ?, nice idea.
Im ok with proposed cuts, tanks ?, too be Honest we have way to many. And tornados are pretty old hat, 100 typhoons would see away anyone but the most determined attacker..... We will have to reduce our worldwide missions though.
Just as long as we keep our new carriers and trident replacement, these are vital.
Just what do you think Carriers do exactly?
Carrier based air support is vital, along with landbased air support and logistical support.
The Navy already supply Air Support, at least during my 17 years in the Royal Marines.
Last edited:
No but I reckon it could happen in 5 years if the political will was there - we can take it as read that France and Germany will be on board, probably Italy as they have a humongous debt problem. The main obstacles will be the the UK, Scandinavian countries and the new Eastern European nations. If we started pushing for it then it could feasibly happen as it could be made optional like the Euro. Remember that 5 years ago an EU president and foreign minister seemed impossible but now we have them.
Generals do cry wolf, but over the last few years it has been proved that we cannot sustain what we are getting involved in without more people, not less. It isnt an issue to cut back but it is an issue to ask more of the armed forces with less - its not an industry, its about fighting, life and death etc. The money is spent by all taxpayers to maintain thier security - there is a lot more to it, but cut the military=less influence on the world stage=less security for this little island nation!
WHy not get the money by withdrawing from the EU, spending on supporting other countries etc - why risk our jobs and security when we are paying a fortune to others??
WHy not get the money by withdrawing from the EU, spending on supporting other countries etc - why risk our jobs and security when we are paying a fortune to others??
Last edited:
Oh no we might have to built schools or hospitals or roads or telecommunications instead
MY SMARTBOMBS :'(
Why would it cost nearly as much? Given Iraq and the reasons we invaded there, is it really such a bad idea that our parliament don't get to choose when to commit forces abroad?
As for stimulate the economy, you could for example run the EUDF like the ESA, where every pound that the UK government gives to the ESA gets spent on products and services from UK companies.
I simply do not think the majority of the UK population would ever sign off on the loss of British Soverignty that would entail.
I can see the benefits for European Integration along the lines (although not setup) of the United States, but I don't think we will see it happen in our lifetimes, the ideological and historical barriers are simply too great.