Why do we bother with the Armed Forces of today?
Discussion
It's not uncommon to see people on here and elsewhere bemoaning the lack of investment in our forces, with the latest of course being on the thread about Rishi wanting to bring back conscription.
Arguably, though, isn't the strange thing actually the large number of troops we still have on the books?
Standing Armed Forces cost an absolute fortune, and they're no bloody use to anybody outside times of war, so historically we never kept them when we didn't need them. In fact the very reason we don't have a Royal Army is because traditionally our land forces were raised by and in service to the aristocracy who lent their services to the monarch when required on a temporary basis.
This has of course caused problems at times - trying to find enough recruits healthy enough to carry a pack and rifle for the Boer War was a nightmare, and also an experience we seemed to forget about within a decade as we had to commit to battle in 1914 to support our allies with a woefully under-resourced Army, for example - and the resources that required the most training - Navy officers - would be retained ashore on half pay rather than cut loose completely, but overall our forces were scaled up and down on demand for all but the last century or so of human history.
Of course the demands placed on today's troops are infinitely more technically complex than they ever were for anyone fighting at any time before WW1 so we simply can't make them redundant in case we do need them, but why can't we put them to better use?
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
Arguably, though, isn't the strange thing actually the large number of troops we still have on the books?
Standing Armed Forces cost an absolute fortune, and they're no bloody use to anybody outside times of war, so historically we never kept them when we didn't need them. In fact the very reason we don't have a Royal Army is because traditionally our land forces were raised by and in service to the aristocracy who lent their services to the monarch when required on a temporary basis.
This has of course caused problems at times - trying to find enough recruits healthy enough to carry a pack and rifle for the Boer War was a nightmare, and also an experience we seemed to forget about within a decade as we had to commit to battle in 1914 to support our allies with a woefully under-resourced Army, for example - and the resources that required the most training - Navy officers - would be retained ashore on half pay rather than cut loose completely, but overall our forces were scaled up and down on demand for all but the last century or so of human history.
Of course the demands placed on today's troops are infinitely more technically complex than they ever were for anyone fighting at any time before WW1 so we simply can't make them redundant in case we do need them, but why can't we put them to better use?
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
Kermit power said:
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
But would that see people leave the forces and also put people off joining? Folk don't join the forces to build railway lines.Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
Kermit power said:
It's not uncommon to see people on here and elsewhere bemoaning the lack of investment in our forces, with the latest of course being on the thread about Rishi wanting to bring back conscription.
Arguably, though, isn't the strange thing actually the large number of troops we still have on the books?
Standing Armed Forces cost an absolute fortune, and they're no bloody use to anybody outside times of war, so historically we never kept them when we didn't need them. In fact the very reason we don't have a Royal Army is because traditionally our land forces were raised by and in service to the aristocracy who lent their services to the monarch when required on a temporary basis.
This has of course caused problems at times - trying to find enough recruits healthy enough to carry a pack and rifle for the Boer War was a nightmare, and also an experience we seemed to forget about within a decade as we had to commit to battle in 1914 to support our allies with a woefully under-resourced Army, for example - and the resources that required the most training - Navy officers - would be retained ashore on half pay rather than cut loose completely, but overall our forces were scaled up and down on demand for all but the last century or so of human history.
Of course the demands placed on today's troops are infinitely more technically complex than they ever were for anyone fighting at any time before WW1 so we simply can't make them redundant in case we do need them, but why can't we put them to better use?
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
The majority of people in the armed forces are actually doing stuff day in day out so have no time to build railways.Arguably, though, isn't the strange thing actually the large number of troops we still have on the books?
Standing Armed Forces cost an absolute fortune, and they're no bloody use to anybody outside times of war, so historically we never kept them when we didn't need them. In fact the very reason we don't have a Royal Army is because traditionally our land forces were raised by and in service to the aristocracy who lent their services to the monarch when required on a temporary basis.
This has of course caused problems at times - trying to find enough recruits healthy enough to carry a pack and rifle for the Boer War was a nightmare, and also an experience we seemed to forget about within a decade as we had to commit to battle in 1914 to support our allies with a woefully under-resourced Army, for example - and the resources that required the most training - Navy officers - would be retained ashore on half pay rather than cut loose completely, but overall our forces were scaled up and down on demand for all but the last century or so of human history.
Of course the demands placed on today's troops are infinitely more technically complex than they ever were for anyone fighting at any time before WW1 so we simply can't make them redundant in case we do need them, but why can't we put them to better use?
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country would be hugely beneficial for the economy, help get a more even spread of jobs away from the M25, and would presumably be relevant training work for various parts of the forces as well, to say nothing of providing even better transferable skills for when they do eventually leave.
Any reason we couldn't maximise taxpayer value when we don't need them all in a theatre of war?
Take the Navy for example. Ships need constant maintenance and are operational 90% of the time. The crew also has to train together to be effective. That happens regardless of what conflict we may be involved in.
Are you imagining everyone turns up on Monday morning and sits about waiting for a war to start?
I do think there should be some sort of extended civil emergency role for the armed forces, but there is little capacity to take on a full time civilian roles.
98elise said:
The majority of people in the armed forces are actually doing stuff day in day out so have no time to build railways.
Take the Navy for example. Ships need constant maintenance and are operational 90% of the time. The crew also has to train together to be effective. That happens regardless of what conflict we may be involved in.
Are you imagining everyone turns up on Monday morning and sits about waiting for a war to start?
I do think there should be some sort of extended civil emergency role for the armed forces, but there is little capacity to take on a full time civilian roles.
Maybe not the Navy or RAF, but the Army are the big one anyway.Take the Navy for example. Ships need constant maintenance and are operational 90% of the time. The crew also has to train together to be effective. That happens regardless of what conflict we may be involved in.
Are you imagining everyone turns up on Monday morning and sits about waiting for a war to start?
I do think there should be some sort of extended civil emergency role for the armed forces, but there is little capacity to take on a full time civilian roles.
What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
Kermit power said:
Maybe not the Navy or RAF, but the Army are the big one anyway.
What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
Train hard fight easy. What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
Kermit power said:
Maybe not the Navy or RAF, but the Army are the big one anyway.
What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
Seriously? Shortages as kit wears out and breaks down is a well known limiting factor in any long campaign. Which is why the numbers that actually do the contact with the enemy fighting part is a tiny percentage of the whole thing.What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
For example this source estimates only 30% of troops in Vietnam saw action against the enemy.
Of that 30% only a fraction would be front line grunts.
https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/swenssonjohn/ewrt2v...
Kermit power said:
I
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Perhaps read up on MACC. It's been a thing for even longer than when I joined up (early 80s). We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Of course, when cheap labour and expertise is being provided for large infrastructure projects/rail work/cable laying etc. Two things are going to happen; the businesses being undercut won't be happy and the socialists will be complaining about the government looking after their rich mates.
Kermit power said:
98elise said:
The majority of people in the armed forces are actually doing stuff day in day out so have no time to build railways.
Take the Navy for example. Ships need constant maintenance and are operational 90% of the time. The crew also has to train together to be effective. That happens regardless of what conflict we may be involved in.
Are you imagining everyone turns up on Monday morning and sits about waiting for a war to start?
I do think there should be some sort of extended civil emergency role for the armed forces, but there is little capacity to take on a full time civilian roles.
Maybe not the Navy or RAF, but the Army are the big one anyway.Take the Navy for example. Ships need constant maintenance and are operational 90% of the time. The crew also has to train together to be effective. That happens regardless of what conflict we may be involved in.
Are you imagining everyone turns up on Monday morning and sits about waiting for a war to start?
I do think there should be some sort of extended civil emergency role for the armed forces, but there is little capacity to take on a full time civilian roles.
What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
I can only speak for the Navy regarding maintenance, but it still gets done. You don't spend your whole time in a war shooting at people.
In a conflict environment (or training for it) you work at least 2 x 6hrs in each 24 hours (7 days a week). Operator Maintainers contine to maintain and fix their kit in those hours.
During actual fighting everyone is working no matter what time of day or how long you've been on duty. Maintenance stops and you're purely operating the ship as a warship.
heisthegaffer said:
Let's hope we never have to use them.
I'm pleased we have this insurance policy in place personally.
This is how I see it. We are paying for an insurance policy which gives us the credibility to have influence on the world stage.I'm pleased we have this insurance policy in place personally.
You are protecting the liberty and safety of the people within your nation and also using this clout to make international/political deals/agreements. You need to have a force which is ready for immediate response.
It's a massive expense but necessary to maintain our way of living in society.
As for our soldiers, we are asking them to be ready to sacrifice their lives and be commanded to go into a situation which may require 24 hours a day alertness for an indefinite period in a hostile environment. So yes we pay for them to train, maintain, prepare, do exhibitions and have a lot of downtime (that's the perk of the job).
We have them because the world is a s
t place full of nasty thugs who given half a chance will have a pop at you.
If we didn't have an armed force the Falkland Islanders would now be spanish speaking sheep shearers.
If we didn't have armed forces what would happen if Putin decides to launch a few ballistic missiles at us because he can with impunity.
If we didn't have armed forces NATO wouldn't come and bail us out.
I suggest you actually think it out, the world is not full of nice leaders who want to leave other countries alone.
As for getting them to do other things, well believe it or not they are actually employed making sure they are ready and equipment is ready just in case any of the scenarios above look likely.
Do I know what I'm talking about? Well I have an insight with 40 years working with all branches of armed the armed forces.
t place full of nasty thugs who given half a chance will have a pop at you.If we didn't have an armed force the Falkland Islanders would now be spanish speaking sheep shearers.
If we didn't have armed forces what would happen if Putin decides to launch a few ballistic missiles at us because he can with impunity.
If we didn't have armed forces NATO wouldn't come and bail us out.
I suggest you actually think it out, the world is not full of nice leaders who want to leave other countries alone.
As for getting them to do other things, well believe it or not they are actually employed making sure they are ready and equipment is ready just in case any of the scenarios above look likely.
Do I know what I'm talking about? Well I have an insight with 40 years working with all branches of armed the armed forces.
Edited by sherbertdip on Sunday 26th May 15:18
2 & 3 Para are in constant rotation as the Spearhead Battalion in case something does go wrong.
3 Para have a company in Estonia and the other companies are in constant training or in exercise.
I’m not sure what other infantry battalions are doing. Or the Gucci units, otherwise known as Ranger Battalions.
3 Para have a company in Estonia and the other companies are in constant training or in exercise.
I’m not sure what other infantry battalions are doing. Or the Gucci units, otherwise known as Ranger Battalions.
Kermit power said:
Maybe not the Navy or RAF, but the Army are the big one anyway.
What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
The sergeant lets them off having unpolished boots and creased clothing?What do they all do every day? They can't spend it all on exercise, and if maintaining their equipment is so labour intensive that it fills the rest of their days, how do they cope when they do have to go to war and can't spend their whole time maintaining their kit?
What would a UK defence force (only) military look like compared to the one today where we’re trying to cover everything? Eg global reach. I guess I’m coming from a point where as an island no one will be invading us anytime soon. China is on the other side of the world and Russia can’t even get out from near their own borders let alone launch an invasion fleet.
Isolationist theory I know but thought I’d ask
Isolationist theory I know but thought I’d ask
Kermit power said:
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country
There are a huge amount of people doing those jobs already so do you propose making them all redundant?Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country
Maybe you could train them to shoot guns and they could defend the country? I'm not quite sure what you've achieved though except making a load of people who don't want to be soldiers become soldiers and vice versa.
jurbie said:
Kermit power said:
We've got all these guys drawing salaries, so couldn't we also be making use of them on large infrastructure projects?
Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country
There are a huge amount of people doing those jobs already so do you propose making them all redundant?Things like laying in new rail lines or expanding fibre broadband across the country
Maybe you could train them to shoot guns and they could defend the country? I'm not quite sure what you've achieved though except making a load of people who don't want to be soldiers become soldiers and vice versa.
Getting them to do tasks as you suggest is just insulting and demeaning to our professional military, it is the know the cost of everything and the value of nothing mentality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff