Has Britain Resigned?
Discussion
Smollet said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What irritates me about the anti military brigade (pardon the pun) is that the peace we enjoy now was bought and paid for by the / our military, If it was not, we would currently have an irate little chap with a small moustache under his nose in charge here.
It would be a remarkable achievement if he was considering how old he'd be by now. 
Pan Pan Pan said:
Smollet said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What irritates me about the anti military brigade (pardon the pun) is that the peace we enjoy now was bought and paid for by the / our military, If it was not, we would currently have an irate little chap with a small moustache under his nose in charge here.
It would be a remarkable achievement if he was considering how old he'd be by now. 
What influence should we expect to have? What do we have a right to?
World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
IainT said:
What influence should we expect to have? What do we have a right to?
World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
As was stated in the article, much of the Western world and beyond is based on our model over a period of three hundred years or so. World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
Compared to some nations, we are still technologically at the forefront with some great thinkers.
It's not something of which to deprive the world. We make a difference - though it may be difficult to believe sometimes if you read the newspapers or venture to the High Street on a Friday night.
LordGrover said:
IainT said:
What influence should we expect to have? What do we have a right to?
World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
As was stated in the article, much of the Western world and beyond is based on our model over a period of three hundred years or so. World population 7 billion, UK Population ~64 million. We have 0.88% of the world population. We should not expect to have a say beyond our capability to add value to the global community. Our importance should not be in relation to what we can take out.
Compared to some nations, we are still technologically at the forefront with some great thinkers.
It's not something of which to deprive the world. We make a difference - though it may be difficult to believe sometimes if you read the newspapers or venture to the High Street on a Friday night.
It's the harking back to times of Empire and divine right that I find objectionable. We should be focusing on being a valued member of the global community rather than worrying about perceived status.
Mojocvh said:
elster said:
Our military capability is one of the best in the world. Definitely Top 5.
Utterly Delusional.or confusing the cold war war orbat with the modern orbat ...
the WW£ if fought conventionally or if it automatically didn;t go nucelar would be foughjt on a very traditional lines - assuming the War PAcs creaking command structure didn;t collapse under it;s own paperwork and lack of alternatives ...
I don't think people realise just by how much the Military has shrunk with repeated 'slash and burn' Defence Reviews (primarily Tory) since 1990. I'm approaching this from a 'Light Blue' background, but the Dark Blue and the Green have suffered just as much.
First we had the race to the non-existent 'Peace Dividend' with the 'Options for Change' review in 1990.
Strangely enough within the year we were on Ops with Operation Granby (Gulf War 1). Aside from a short (around 6 month) period at the end of 1991/early 1992 we have been on Ops continuously ever since: Op Haven (Kurdish resupply), Op WARDEN (Northern Airwatch over Iraq), Op VIGOUR (Somalia), Ops GRAPPLE and DENY(Bosnia), Op JURAL (Southern Airwatch over Iraq), Op ENGADINE (Kosovo), Op HERRICK (Afghanistan), Op TELIC (Gulf War 2), Op ELLAMY (Libya), Op SHADER (Islamic State).
Secondly we had the debacle that was 'Front Line First' in 1994.
Under Labour we binned off the Jaguar Force early as well as the Sea Harriers.
Then of course we had the 2010 SDSR that threw away multiple capabilities, not least Maritime Patrol and Joint Force Harrier. Additionally we are losing the SAR role (so CSAR Combat Search and Rescue will probably get binned), we are paying through the nose for a stupid PFI deal for the Air to Air Refuelling force (£1.5 MILLION per day to Airtanker) which is not fit for purpose, buying a new transport a/c which has less capability than C17 but which costs more.
Are people aware that we have a mere 7 front line fast jet Sqns (4x Typhoon, 3x Tornado).
Ultimately, despite an increase in performance, numbers do count. But it's not just in hardware, bodies count too. Possibly the biggest example of the fact the Forces have been slashed was the introduction of the MPGS (Military Provost Guarding Service) because there weren't enough Uniformed personnel left to do the job!
Services that were once done 'in house' (eg Catering, Movements, Pensions) are now contracted out to the lowest bidder such that the service provided is poor and Morale suffers as a result with inevitible consequenses.
First we had the race to the non-existent 'Peace Dividend' with the 'Options for Change' review in 1990.
Strangely enough within the year we were on Ops with Operation Granby (Gulf War 1). Aside from a short (around 6 month) period at the end of 1991/early 1992 we have been on Ops continuously ever since: Op Haven (Kurdish resupply), Op WARDEN (Northern Airwatch over Iraq), Op VIGOUR (Somalia), Ops GRAPPLE and DENY(Bosnia), Op JURAL (Southern Airwatch over Iraq), Op ENGADINE (Kosovo), Op HERRICK (Afghanistan), Op TELIC (Gulf War 2), Op ELLAMY (Libya), Op SHADER (Islamic State).
Secondly we had the debacle that was 'Front Line First' in 1994.
Under Labour we binned off the Jaguar Force early as well as the Sea Harriers.
Then of course we had the 2010 SDSR that threw away multiple capabilities, not least Maritime Patrol and Joint Force Harrier. Additionally we are losing the SAR role (so CSAR Combat Search and Rescue will probably get binned), we are paying through the nose for a stupid PFI deal for the Air to Air Refuelling force (£1.5 MILLION per day to Airtanker) which is not fit for purpose, buying a new transport a/c which has less capability than C17 but which costs more.
Are people aware that we have a mere 7 front line fast jet Sqns (4x Typhoon, 3x Tornado).
Ultimately, despite an increase in performance, numbers do count. But it's not just in hardware, bodies count too. Possibly the biggest example of the fact the Forces have been slashed was the introduction of the MPGS (Military Provost Guarding Service) because there weren't enough Uniformed personnel left to do the job!
Services that were once done 'in house' (eg Catering, Movements, Pensions) are now contracted out to the lowest bidder such that the service provided is poor and Morale suffers as a result with inevitible consequenses.
MOD said:
A quarter of those serving in the UK's armed forces want to quit, a Ministry of Defence survey (MoD) suggests.
The rate of personnel planning to leave, or who have given their notice, increased from 16% in 2011 to 25% now.
Those planning to stay in the service for as long as they could also fell from 41% in 2011 to 34% now.
I find it somewhat risible that the RAF is now just about half the size of the Air Cadet Organisation!The rate of personnel planning to leave, or who have given their notice, increased from 16% in 2011 to 25% now.
Those planning to stay in the service for as long as they could also fell from 41% in 2011 to 34% now.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
repeated 'slash and burn' Defence Reviews (primarily Tory) since 1990.
Since 1990 until May this year there had been 1 Tory Govt followed by 3 Labour ones and a Coalition. Just saying, IMO Labour cut defence spending proportionately whilst expecting massively more conflict involvement ( so bang went the peace dividend ), I don't think there would have been anything like the scale of military adventures listed if it weren't for Bliar. Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The big slash and burns were primarily Tory in 1990 and 1994/5. OK the 2010 SDSR was under a Coalition, but a Tory led one.
I'm fully aware Labour reduced Forces spending, I even mentioned it, but it was more by stealth over a longer period of time so it didn't stand out as much.
It just felt to me that Labour committed the forces to a hugely ambitious military programme that the previous Tory Govt had no intention of, it would have been fair enough if Labour had massively increased spending as we seemed so suddenly be pretending to be Americas partner in every war going, but they didn't. Hence the sudden stretch. I'm fully aware Labour reduced Forces spending, I even mentioned it, but it was more by stealth over a longer period of time so it didn't stand out as much.
I thought we resigned somewhere in the middle of the 20th century, possibly immediately after/during WW2. Certainly we had resigned by the time we decided to voluntarily start handing powers over to those in Brussels.
Our more recent military interventions to me don't seem to have had our interests at heart and bear no resemblance (at least at first glance to me) to the kind of things Britain was involved in historically. i.e. Our recent foreign adventures do not portray some kind of own (Britain's) global power.
IIRC empires tend to last around 250 years...
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092...
Our more recent military interventions to me don't seem to have had our interests at heart and bear no resemblance (at least at first glance to me) to the kind of things Britain was involved in historically. i.e. Our recent foreign adventures do not portray some kind of own (Britain's) global power.
IIRC empires tend to last around 250 years...
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092...
Timmy40 said:
I don't think there would have been anything like the scale of military adventures listed if it weren't for Bliar.
Regardless of who was in government in 2001 we would have been compelled to partake in the invasion of Afghanistan because our closest ally was attacked. As for the misadventure in Iraq, the opposition at the time was behind Blair all the way - in fact IDS went even further than Blair in talking up the threat from Saddam and he wanted action against him to take place even sooner.bbc said:
Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has gone further than most British politicians in outlining the threat allegedly posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The Tory leader claims Iraq is developing ballistic missiles, which would have "the capacity to strike most of Europe, including London".
He also claims Saddam has an active nuclear weapons programme.
The Tory leader claims Iraq is developing ballistic missiles, which would have "the capacity to strike most of Europe, including London".
He also claims Saddam has an active nuclear weapons programme.
bbc said:
He also claims the reason Mr Duncan Smith has been so vocal in his calls for the evidence to be published is that he has been given a sneak preview of its contents by contacts in the Bush administration.
Mr Henderson told BBC News Online: "Iain Duncan Smith is George Bush's secret weapon in Great Britain.
"They (the Bush administration) tell him what is going on because they see he is politically correct."
'Contacts in Washington'
Mr Henderson argued: "Tony Blair is politically correct in US eyes, but his party is incorrect.
"So they are using Duncan Smith to push Blair in the right direction."
He claimed Mr Duncan Smith was "party to the same information as Tony Blair, that the Americans are deliberately telling him"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2238147.stmMr Henderson told BBC News Online: "Iain Duncan Smith is George Bush's secret weapon in Great Britain.
"They (the Bush administration) tell him what is going on because they see he is politically correct."
'Contacts in Washington'
Mr Henderson argued: "Tony Blair is politically correct in US eyes, but his party is incorrect.
"So they are using Duncan Smith to push Blair in the right direction."
He claimed Mr Duncan Smith was "party to the same information as Tony Blair, that the Americans are deliberately telling him"
About 150 Labour MPs rebelled against their government on Iraq whereas the Tory figure was about a dozen.
I'm no fan of Blair but we would have gone along with Bush regardless of who was in number 10 at the time.
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
OKAY I'll say this just the once [to keep up the comic theme] the numbers game..
Say you have a force of 48 offensive airframes.
At any one time 1/4th of that number are unavailable due to maintenance cycles etc.
Of those [36] airframes available, due to contractual issues they can only carry 1/2 the number of bombs that they were meant to do.
So instead of 8 bombs you now have 4 per aircraft. So you can deploy 144 precision guided warheads per sortie wave.
BUT due their small size [to fit in the aircraft in the first place] of 208lbs their effectiveness is limited with some targets requiring multiple targeting to ensure destruction.
So we say 1/4 of those bombs [36] will be "wasted" on multiple attack profiles.
So now you can only effectively attack 108 "targets" per sortie wave.
Unfortunately, despite your best planning and technological "advantage", your warheads are being destroyed as they approach their targets [due to the fact they use active sensors] at the rate of 1/3 so you now have only 72 "kills" from your 144 pgm's per sortie wave.
You find that despite what the brochure said, your aircraft are vulnerable to detection and attack.
Whilst your superior defensive tactics have prevented any airframe losses so far, you find that a further 1/3 of attacks are being turned back to prevent airframe loss so now you only have 48 kills from your 144 pgm per sortie wave.
Which is exactly the number of extortionately expensive airframes you started out with...ps guess what airframe we are discussing
Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 26th May 18:29
BlackLabel said:
Mojocvh said:
elster said:
Our military capability is one of the best in the world. Definitely Top 5.
Utterly Delusional.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff