Our Armed Forces
Discussion
Seems that just about every thread in the news section gets some sort of derogatory comment about our armed forces being incapable of carrying out operations because of cuts.
As I understand it we have something like 180,000 trained and ready personnel ignoring any reserves of which only around 10% are actually posted anywhere in conflict.
We still have the largest navy and air force within the EU and second largest within NATO.
We are one of the 5 recognised nuclear powers.
We are the fourth largest military spender in the world although that may well be third if you take the fact that our defence chiefs can't actually stick to their budget.
It appears that the same people who make the comments also hold opinions on public cut backs elsewhere but they would be more swathing with the cuts.
Given the above for us to pop into Libya for instance to do a bit of peacekeeping or maintain a no fly zone shouldn't be that much of a problem for us.
Am I missing something here?
As I understand it we have something like 180,000 trained and ready personnel ignoring any reserves of which only around 10% are actually posted anywhere in conflict.
We still have the largest navy and air force within the EU and second largest within NATO.
We are one of the 5 recognised nuclear powers.
We are the fourth largest military spender in the world although that may well be third if you take the fact that our defence chiefs can't actually stick to their budget.
It appears that the same people who make the comments also hold opinions on public cut backs elsewhere but they would be more swathing with the cuts.
Given the above for us to pop into Libya for instance to do a bit of peacekeeping or maintain a no fly zone shouldn't be that much of a problem for us.
Am I missing something here?
If I were going into combat, I would take a squade of British soldiers over a brigade of the average middle eastern conscripts. The reason why is, despite criticism (some deserved when it comes to proper gear), they are still some of the best trained most reliable and best equipped soldiers in the world. It's not how many you have, it's what you can do with them (fnarr, etc)
For the record, I would take a squad of yanks as well. Same reason. I would, however, insist that one of them was a FAC
For the record, I would take a squad of yanks as well. Same reason. I would, however, insist that one of them was a FAC
Zaxxon said:
OP, do you think that our armed forces should be under fire on the front line for most of their career?
Do you know how much wars / peace keeping missions cost?
Do you know how many of that 180'000 is made up of front line troops? uninjured and not resting troops / pilots / seamen?
As a long shot...................No.Do you know how much wars / peace keeping missions cost?
Do you know how many of that 180'000 is made up of front line troops? uninjured and not resting troops / pilots / seamen?
Your average Royal Marine Commando now has 2 tours of Afganhistan under his belt and is staring a 3rd tour in the face. He is also under 24-25 years of age.
He has been either at the very, very sharp end for 6 mths at a time avery 1.5 years or he has been going through intense sessions of 'working up' and operartional specific training. If the Royal Marine is over 28 then it is likely that he also served in Iraq as well, at the very sharp end.
What we read about that is going on in Afganhistan is just the tip of the iceberg, these guys are getting into 'contact' pretty much once or twice a day. It is brutal and incredibly draining.
All members of the forces could do with a well earned breather.
As much as I am a Tory, I think the PM should back off a bit, look at what is being done to the Military in general and decide if he and they can afford to stick their noses into yet another conflict that does not directly effect us.
It's either a Defence budget or a War budget, and you need enough personel and money depending on whether you defend or go to war.
He has been either at the very, very sharp end for 6 mths at a time avery 1.5 years or he has been going through intense sessions of 'working up' and operartional specific training. If the Royal Marine is over 28 then it is likely that he also served in Iraq as well, at the very sharp end.
What we read about that is going on in Afganhistan is just the tip of the iceberg, these guys are getting into 'contact' pretty much once or twice a day. It is brutal and incredibly draining.
All members of the forces could do with a well earned breather.
As much as I am a Tory, I think the PM should back off a bit, look at what is being done to the Military in general and decide if he and they can afford to stick their noses into yet another conflict that does not directly effect us.
It's either a Defence budget or a War budget, and you need enough personel and money depending on whether you defend or go to war.
Mojocvh said:
Zaxxon said:
OP, do you think that our armed forces should be under fire on the front line for most of their career?
Do you know how much wars / peace keeping missions cost?
Do you know how many of that 180'000 is made up of front line troops? uninjured and not resting troops / pilots / seamen?
As a long shot...................No.Do you know how much wars / peace keeping missions cost?
Do you know how many of that 180'000 is made up of front line troops? uninjured and not resting troops / pilots / seamen?
Perhaps you could put some numbers to that lot for me as it seems to be a bit of a secret as to how many of our troops are qualified, how many are actually being utilised and where?
This is exactly what the original post was about. We have a good military strength but constantly all I hear is we wouldn't be capable of doing that because of the cuts.
I call bulls
t, if push came to shove and we needed to mobilise a force for our security I reckon we would fair pretty well.LD1Racing said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Am I missing something here?
Yes, a sense of pride in our hard working armed services. The rest of the wasteful public sector can't be cut enough but leave the forces alone, never know when we might really need them.
There is obviously a question of how much we need to maintain in todays world or the answer would be to just increase defence spending year on year out of proportion to GDP.
But more to the point on here we keep getting snide comments that our military could not do this or that because of cuts when I believe we still have a very strong capability.
MOTORVATOR said:
How enlightening. I ask a question and all you can come back with is a load of alarmist cobblers rather than facts.
Perhaps you could put some numbers to that lot for me as it seems to be a bit of a secret as to how many of our troops are qualified, how many are actually being utilised and where?
This is exactly what the original post was about. We have a good military strength but constantly all I hear is we wouldn't be capable of doing that because of the cuts.
I call bullst, if push came to shove and we needed to mobilise a force for our security I reckon we would fair pretty well.
Perhaps you could put some numbers to that lot for me as it seems to be a bit of a secret as to how many of our troops are qualified, how many are actually being utilised and where?
This is exactly what the original post was about. We have a good military strength but constantly all I hear is we wouldn't be capable of doing that because of the cuts.
I call bulls
t, if push came to shove and we needed to mobilise a force for our security I reckon we would fair pretty well.
Oh please do step up then. 
Yes I'm laughing at you.Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 2nd March 00:10
Mojocvh said:
MOTORVATOR said:
How enlightening. I ask a question and all you can come back with is a load of alarmist cobblers rather than facts.
Perhaps you could put some numbers to that lot for me as it seems to be a bit of a secret as to how many of our troops are qualified, how many are actually being utilised and where?
This is exactly what the original post was about. We have a good military strength but constantly all I hear is we wouldn't be capable of doing that because of the cuts.
I call bullst, if push came to shove and we needed to mobilise a force for our security I reckon we would fair pretty well.
Perhaps you could put some numbers to that lot for me as it seems to be a bit of a secret as to how many of our troops are qualified, how many are actually being utilised and where?
This is exactly what the original post was about. We have a good military strength but constantly all I hear is we wouldn't be capable of doing that because of the cuts.
I call bulls
t, if push came to shove and we needed to mobilise a force for our security I reckon we would fair pretty well. Oh please do step up then. Yes I'm laughing at you.Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 2nd March 00:10
lostsoixanteneuf said:
We are one of the 5 recognised nuclear powers.??
USA
Russia
France
UK
China
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea
That's correct the first five are 'Recognised', the remainder are known or believed to possess but are not recognised under the treaties.USA
Russia
France
UK
China
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea
If you really like we can call it one of nine in the world, which is quite a statement given the size of us wouldn't you say?
MOTORVATOR said:
Given the above for us to pop into Libya for instance to do a bit of peacekeeping or maintain a no fly zone shouldn't be that much of a problem for us.
Am I missing something here?
May I ask; is this a suggestion that the UK armed forces should "pop into Libya", or that the perception of the Armed forces being under equipped / staffed because of cuts etc. is inaccurate?Am I missing something here?
Pixel Pusher said:
May I ask; is this a suggestion that the UK armed forces should "pop into Libya", or that the perception of the Armed forces being under equipped / staffed because of cuts etc. is inaccurate?
Do we really want to put our armed forces into another counter insurgency conflict, yes one group of Libyans would happily see us go in, but for how long and to what end, or do we find ourselves once again in some low intensity police action where those that wanted us to go in, (or others later) start hiding amongst the civilians, and we find ourselves the target, with the drip drip drip of a slow body count being repatriated through Wooton Bassett? It's not that we can't go in, but rather it's easy to go in, it's all the other committments, and more importantly the getting out, no front line, IEDs, no coherent goal, mandate, or exit strategy, do we long term, make things worse by going in, in storing up problems for later.Leaving aside Kosovo and Sierra Leone, which were successes, where have we got a a satisfactory outcome? not the fighting, not the going in, it's about the outcome, and an outcome, at what cost?
Pixel Pusher said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Given the above for us to pop into Libya for instance to do a bit of peacekeeping or maintain a no fly zone shouldn't be that much of a problem for us.
Am I missing something here?
May I ask; is this a suggestion that the UK armed forces should "pop into Libya", or that the perception of the Armed forces being under equipped / staffed because of cuts etc. is inaccurate?Am I missing something here?
Of course we have to work within the capabilities we have and that is what our elected leaders and defence staff would discuss before entering into any theatre.
We only ever get to hear about what is being decommissioned / cut, never about what has just or is about to go into service.
The one person on here that has actually thought about it and appreciates the forces and capabilities we do possess happens to be an American which tells a story about us really.
Now whether we do pop into Libya or wherever is down to, as I said, our elected leaders, our forces will do whatever is required of them because that's what they are, but I get the impression that if they did they would be on a hiding to nothing here with bloody daily mail like pops about how on earth are they going to manage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff