Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
alchal said:
Nukes kind of make it pointless for us really.
Click to expand...

The way I see it - we don't need a huge professional army - but we do need the ability to pivot to meet whatever changes or challenges lie ahead in a world which is unfortunately becoming increasingly less stable. For instance it would be useful to be able to stand up a robust professional force as part of a NATO effort to deter Russian endeavours in places like Maldova and the Baltics, which might need a significant rotation in coming years, without leaving things to chance at home.

The more you rely purely on nuclear weapons the higher, even if still low, the chance is you might end up having to use them.
 
Rroff said:
The way I see it - we don't need a huge professional army - but we do need the ability to pivot to meet whatever changes or challenges lie ahead in a world which is unfortunately becoming increasingly less stable...
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Not having the option to deploy force when the unexpected happens is just inviting trouble.
 
potatolord said:
Fully agree.

Not having the option to deploy force when the unexpected happens is just inviting trouble.
Click to expand...

Far better though to be able to deploy a force of willing combatants who are there to defend their home by choice.

Mandating that everyone is forced into 2 years of servitude to protect a country that has done little to nothing except take, take, take from them is a fast way to end up with a totally uncommitted combat force, filled with young people that do not want to be there.

If Ben Wallace wants a "force he can deploy should it be needed" then maybe he should look at making such a thing a desirable choice, something people would WANT to do, not have to be mandated into it by law.
 
The other approach is to make the leaders actually lead troops into battle.

If Putin was in the front row of the infantry advance, he might have thought twice.

National Civil service - I'm open to the idea. National military service. NO
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
The way I see it - we don't need a huge professional army - but we do need the ability to pivot to meet whatever changes or challenges lie ahead in a world which is unfortunately becoming increasingly less stable. For instance it would be useful to be able to stand up a robust professional force as part of a NATO effort to deter Russian endeavours in places like Maldova and the Baltics, which might need a significant rotation in coming years, without leaving things to chance at home.

The more you rely purely on nuclear weapons the higher, even if still low, the chance is you might end up having to use them.
Click to expand...
I agree, I was thinking more home defense.
 
Devilman said:
Far better though to be able to deploy a force of willing combatants who are there to defend their home by choice.

Mandating that everyone is forced into 2 years of servitude to protect a country that has done little to nothing except take, take, take from them is a fast way to end up with a totally uncommitted combat force, filled with young people that do not want to be there.

If Ben Wallace wants a "force he can deploy should it be needed" then maybe he should look at making such a thing a desirable choice, something people would WANT to do, not have to be mandated into it by law.
Click to expand...

A professional armed forces is a requirement.

Living where I do, I think a year or two "out of the valley" would be a great opportunity for some.

I appreciate you'll get a lot of useless lumps, but you will get some decent people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom