The first duty of any government
Discussion
It’s often said the first duty of government is to protect the people.
How have successive Governments been allowed by the public to run our armed forces and defensive capabilities to a point where the RN cannot field a single ship.
It’s a disgrace, the deployment of troops to unwinnable conflicts, lack of recruitment, vision and overall investment is incredible.
I know deep down that spends large sums of cash on battleships is dreadfully outdated, but turns out they are pretty handy assets in a sticky situatio.
Plus the cost.
We all want a well armed, well equipped armed forces. How much extra are you willing to pay for it?
It’s all well and good with people who come along and say just slash the benefit bill or something similar but they also still have to be paid alongside every other expenditures.
Face it, taxes would have to rise to buy the ships and planes we need in sufficient numbers and that is not a vote winner.
We all want a well armed, well equipped armed forces. How much extra are you willing to pay for it?
It’s all well and good with people who come along and say just slash the benefit bill or something similar but they also still have to be paid alongside every other expenditures.
Face it, taxes would have to rise to buy the ships and planes we need in sufficient numbers and that is not a vote winner.
What if war was called and no one turned up? I'm somewhat ambivalent.
In society there seems to be a lack of interest in the armed forces and the projection of military power. Health, housing and education are right up beside defence for me, and they're slumped too. I'm not sure what the money is getting spent on, but there isn't enough for the core duties of state.
Alledgedly other defence assets were deployed to the region, but they couldn't defend Akrotiri from one Shahed drone; seems pretty inept.
In society there seems to be a lack of interest in the armed forces and the projection of military power. Health, housing and education are right up beside defence for me, and they're slumped too. I'm not sure what the money is getting spent on, but there isn't enough for the core duties of state.
Alledgedly other defence assets were deployed to the region, but they couldn't defend Akrotiri from one Shahed drone; seems pretty inept.
Just to add, it is not about capability but also will.
Then there are the personalities within the Government...
Google AI said:
Labour remains the primary party representing areas with the largest Muslim communities, with their MPs representing 57 of the 64 constituencies with the highest Muslim populations.
57 seats out of 404 Labour hold. About 15%. With the current popularity or lack there of they might need as many friendly constituencies as possible.Then there are the personalities within the Government...
Google AI said:
Richard Hermer KC, appointed Attorney General for England and Wales in July 2024, is a prominent human rights lawyer whose legal career involved representing a diverse range of clients, including some with ties to Muslim, Palestinian, and Middle Eastern causes.
Starmer said there was no legal case for allowing the US to use UK bases. I wonder why?hiccy18 said:
What if war was called and no one turned up? I'm somewhat ambivalent.
In society there seems to be a lack of interest in the armed forces and the projection of military power. Health, housing and education are right up beside defence for me, and they're slumped too. I'm not sure what the money is getting spent on, but there isn't enough for the core duties of state.
Alledgedly other defence assets were deployed to the region, but they couldn't defend Akrotiri from one Shahed drone; seems pretty inept.
Point well made. Without defence, health, housing and education are irrelevant.In society there seems to be a lack of interest in the armed forces and the projection of military power. Health, housing and education are right up beside defence for me, and they're slumped too. I'm not sure what the money is getting spent on, but there isn't enough for the core duties of state.
Alledgedly other defence assets were deployed to the region, but they couldn't defend Akrotiri from one Shahed drone; seems pretty inept.
valiant said:
Plus the cost.
We all want a well armed, well equipped armed forces. How much extra are you willing to pay for it?
It s all well and good with people who come along and say just slash the benefit bill or something similar but they also still have to be paid alongside every other expenditures.
Face it, taxes would have to rise to buy the ships and planes we need in sufficient numbers and that is not a vote winner.
The larger issue is that we haven't the resources to build well equipped armed forces. We all want a well armed, well equipped armed forces. How much extra are you willing to pay for it?
It s all well and good with people who come along and say just slash the benefit bill or something similar but they also still have to be paid alongside every other expenditures.
Face it, taxes would have to rise to buy the ships and planes we need in sufficient numbers and that is not a vote winner.
The MoD has a terrible track record for wasting what money it gets.
The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
brake fader said:
All the money is spent on hotels and fag money for migrants.
The issue is still that we haven't got the resources to ramp up defence production. Getting the money to pay for it isn't a big issue. Governments find money when it's needed. Look at COVID spending if you want proof of that just as they couldn't find PPE.
The difficulty with defence is similar.
swisstoni said:
The MoD has a terrible track record for wasting what money it gets.
The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
Christ it cost a £2m missle to shoot down a 20k drone.The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
Let's go back in tech
Piston engined plane a couple of machine guns or cannons big fuel tanks modern avionics and boom easy cheap drone defence.
swisstoni said:
The MoD has a terrible track record for wasting what money it gets.
The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
The Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate (&type 31) have been raging successes though. So much so that we're getting foreign orders for more. The Type 45 was found to have propulsion and cooling problems but has been successfully upgraded- look at the mess the US Navy Procurement is in and we look positively dilligent.The Ajax (put simply, a mini-tank) has so far cost £5bn to develop. No doubt it would be a very able vehicle.
The one slight problem is that it renders it's occupants deaf and suffering from vibration injury to joints and back.
And it's not fixed yet despite attempts.
Our problem is that we don't want to pay for sailors because we need to triple lock pensions and pay for healthcare. We''ve been scrapping ships because we can't crew them.
That and two men starting a full blown war and not telling anyone else what was going on.
If the US want to use our bases for this clusterf
k they've started then everyone should be billing them for blowing through finite stocks of expensive AA missiles to cover the gaping holes in the US master "plan". Plus anything destroyed before Dragon can get there. If anyone in the ME is upset that we're not there like it's 90/03 can take it up with the US.
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 5th March 03:09
We also have to consider that we've lived through generations of little or no threat to our country. Certainly not conventional in the way that traditional defence systems would have been of benefit.
Who would we defend against?
Probably the greatest threat to our country is cyber attack and big pointy missiles and warships don't do much against them.
Do we seriously believe the likes of Russia have any interest in a conventional attack?
Even North Korea only seem as trigger happy as they are because they fear the kind of attack Iran is experiencing now which would not be happening if there was a risk of nuclear retaliation.
Who would we defend against?
Probably the greatest threat to our country is cyber attack and big pointy missiles and warships don't do much against them.
Do we seriously believe the likes of Russia have any interest in a conventional attack?
Even North Korea only seem as trigger happy as they are because they fear the kind of attack Iran is experiencing now which would not be happening if there was a risk of nuclear retaliation.
Pistom said:
We also have to consider that we've lived through generations of little or no threat to our country. Certainly not conventional in the way that traditional defence systems would have been of benefit.
Who would we defend against?
Probably the greatest threat to our country is cyber attack and big pointy missiles and warships don't do much against them.
Everyone is always gearing up to fight the last war they fought.Who would we defend against?
Probably the greatest threat to our country is cyber attack and big pointy missiles and warships don't do much against them.
After Iraq/Afghanistan the papers were full of how Britain's "cold war" force of ASW frigates & Aircraft Carriers was useless as we're likely to be fighting counter-insurgent asymmetric warfare in future.
Now we're posting threads asking where the Navy's gone.
- edit* Did some digging. Royal Navy Training budget 2019-23:
FY2018-19 23.783M
FY2019-20 21.989
FY2020-21 25.198
FY2021-22 64.984
FY2022-23 101.330
FY2023-24 112.128
[/code]
So ignored until the invasion of Ukraine, basically.
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 5th March 03:21
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 5th March 03:22
hiccy18 said:
Health, housing and education are right up beside defence for me, and they're slumped too.
Nah. Healthcare spending has ballooned to 43% of government spending on goods and services.Under Thatcher (timeline reference rather than person/party) defence and health had budget parity. Now defence isn't a bit less than health, it's 1/3 of health and well on the way to being 1/4.
The public are largely disinterested because we feel safe and not under any real threat. For years all that war stuff seemed to happen somewhere else, far away, and we’ve mostly just been busy consuming things and enjoying getting stuff el gratis.
When I was younger I simply assumed we had a great army, that we were firmly in bed with Uncle Sam who had our back, and that if push ever came to shove we could always rely on NATO to sort things out.
But the last few years have been a bit of a wake-up call. The escalation of global conflicts, the scale of death and destruction, and the blatant disregard for international rules of engagement have really opened my eyes.
The uncomfortable reality is that the UK now looks pathetically under-armed. You do have to wonder whether we’d even manage if another Falklands-type conflict kicked off.
Now, sadly the UK has a very small pot that it's been pissing in for years due to under investment, burdening immigration, an older population being kept alive at any costs whilst soaking up money.
Yet, we still talk tough on the world stage
When I was younger I simply assumed we had a great army, that we were firmly in bed with Uncle Sam who had our back, and that if push ever came to shove we could always rely on NATO to sort things out.
But the last few years have been a bit of a wake-up call. The escalation of global conflicts, the scale of death and destruction, and the blatant disregard for international rules of engagement have really opened my eyes.
The uncomfortable reality is that the UK now looks pathetically under-armed. You do have to wonder whether we’d even manage if another Falklands-type conflict kicked off.
Now, sadly the UK has a very small pot that it's been pissing in for years due to under investment, burdening immigration, an older population being kept alive at any costs whilst soaking up money.
Yet, we still talk tough on the world stage
Dog Biscuit said:
The public are largely disinterested because we feel safe and not under any real threat. For years all that war stuff seemed to happen somewhere else, far away, and we ve mostly just been busy consuming things and enjoying getting stuff el gratis.
When I was younger I simply assumed we had a great army, that we were firmly in bed with Uncle Sam who had our back, and that if push ever came to shove we could always rely on NATO to sort things out.
But the last few years have been a bit of a wake-up call. The escalation of global conflicts, the scale of death and destruction, and the blatant disregard for international rules of engagement have really opened my eyes.
The uncomfortable reality is that the UK now looks pathetically under-armed. You do have to wonder whether we d even manage if another Falklands-type conflict kicked off.
Now, sadly the UK has a very small pot that it's been pissing in for years due to under investment, burdening immigration, an older population being kept alive at any costs whilst soaking up money.
Yet, we still talk tough on the world stage
The issue is that the US (looked like it) could be relied on. They were happy to be the preeminent military and we were happy to provide bases and a relatively small assistance.When I was younger I simply assumed we had a great army, that we were firmly in bed with Uncle Sam who had our back, and that if push ever came to shove we could always rely on NATO to sort things out.
But the last few years have been a bit of a wake-up call. The escalation of global conflicts, the scale of death and destruction, and the blatant disregard for international rules of engagement have really opened my eyes.
The uncomfortable reality is that the UK now looks pathetically under-armed. You do have to wonder whether we d even manage if another Falklands-type conflict kicked off.
Now, sadly the UK has a very small pot that it's been pissing in for years due to under investment, burdening immigration, an older population being kept alive at any costs whilst soaking up money.
Yet, we still talk tough on the world stage
Trump has torn that up with a negotiation style based on winners and losers rather than diplomacy and mutual aid.
I think most people would love to see a well funded and relatively large military but to what end? No one will be invading us, we re an island in the Atlantic, no foe of ours has the size or reach for a sea or airborne invasion. Russia hasn t got the navy or kit, they can t even get further than 50 miles from their border in to Ukraine after many years and millions of casualties, china is on the other side of the planet and only interested in the china sea. Neither will be slinging ballistic missiles at us. So what is the mission statement and purpose of our armed forces? Probably boils down to just:
A navy to keep watch of our sea lanes, cables and waters
QRF/air defence for our skies
Nuclear deterrent
Intelligence services
Special forces/marines
If we just stuck to looking after ourselves we can (and do) the basics well. We don’t need a continental size shock army, we don’t need a global navy, we don’t need an air armada.
A navy to keep watch of our sea lanes, cables and waters
QRF/air defence for our skies
Nuclear deterrent
Intelligence services
Special forces/marines
If we just stuck to looking after ourselves we can (and do) the basics well. We don’t need a continental size shock army, we don’t need a global navy, we don’t need an air armada.
Edited by Boom78 on Thursday 5th March 07:19
Firstly, you don t base government policy on throw away phrases.
Secondly, we need to question, is global power projection part of defence or a relic of a time gone?
I find interesting how people who are anti asylum seekers and anti international aid are often pro global power projection.
Secondly, we need to question, is global power projection part of defence or a relic of a time gone?
I find interesting how people who are anti asylum seekers and anti international aid are often pro global power projection.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff