Wise words indeed!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A war vs the war...
Despite the unbelievable sacrifice going on in foreign fields, it could potentially be said that the outcome of the current fight will not determine the long term future of the UK (other than putting politicians off getting involved in scuffles we cannot afford and are best to avoid on the far side of the world in future).
The same cant be said about a nuclear armed Iran, or a potential fight with the BRIC nations over resources. Harsh? Maybe. But thats the way I see it. We cannot allow the short term nature of current conflict (asymmetric warfare) dull our more expensive traditional warfighting experience.
Perhaps we should consider axe-ing the welfare state before defence of the realm?
Despite the unbelievable sacrifice going on in foreign fields, it could potentially be said that the outcome of the current fight will not determine the long term future of the UK (other than putting politicians off getting involved in scuffles we cannot afford and are best to avoid on the far side of the world in future).
The same cant be said about a nuclear armed Iran, or a potential fight with the BRIC nations over resources. Harsh? Maybe. But thats the way I see it. We cannot allow the short term nature of current conflict (asymmetric warfare) dull our more expensive traditional warfighting experience.
Perhaps we should consider axe-ing the welfare state before defence of the realm?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hanoijane,
I am not in the military, but have worked in trying to provide them with the best kit ( in this case aircraft / weapons systems ) possible.
In answer to your point, yes I WOULD fight off any invading types with a rifle or whatever I could muster.
We Brits' are mature and unafraid to discuss failings, imagined or otherwise, but I doubt anyone posting here would seriously turn their back - Britain is still Great, we're just frustrated by hindrances which would largely disappear overnight in that sort of wartime ( unfortunately that's the services shooting themselves in the foot, they have a habit of winning despite being treated abominably by politicians ) - nothing new there.
I didn't like the sound of the budget ' front line forces will be protected ' going on to mention the NHS etc...
I am a great fan of the people who actually work at the sharp end of the NHS, the idea is a great credit to the country - even the Americans are only just getting used to the idea that saving people's lives without retiring to the Bahamas on the proceeds is a Good Thing; however, myself and friends having experienced our 'local' ( many miles away ) A & E hospital, I intend to instruct my doctors I would rather face a longer trip & chance it than go there.
For defence cuts, well in my crystal ball of enormous power I see one or two new aircraft carriers, with versatility for other navies already built in, being sold off pronto - remember it was the Tories who wanted to sell HMS Invincible before the Argentinians saved her !
As for the Trident replacement, well we all cringe at the cost but as cruise missiles can be shot down by various means, it still seems necessary.
I don't see any need at all though for 4 sets of missiles, don't think that's the idea.
I am not in the military, but have worked in trying to provide them with the best kit ( in this case aircraft / weapons systems ) possible.
In answer to your point, yes I WOULD fight off any invading types with a rifle or whatever I could muster.
We Brits' are mature and unafraid to discuss failings, imagined or otherwise, but I doubt anyone posting here would seriously turn their back - Britain is still Great, we're just frustrated by hindrances which would largely disappear overnight in that sort of wartime ( unfortunately that's the services shooting themselves in the foot, they have a habit of winning despite being treated abominably by politicians ) - nothing new there.
I didn't like the sound of the budget ' front line forces will be protected ' going on to mention the NHS etc...
I am a great fan of the people who actually work at the sharp end of the NHS, the idea is a great credit to the country - even the Americans are only just getting used to the idea that saving people's lives without retiring to the Bahamas on the proceeds is a Good Thing; however, myself and friends having experienced our 'local' ( many miles away ) A & E hospital, I intend to instruct my doctors I would rather face a longer trip & chance it than go there.
For defence cuts, well in my crystal ball of enormous power I see one or two new aircraft carriers, with versatility for other navies already built in, being sold off pronto - remember it was the Tories who wanted to sell HMS Invincible before the Argentinians saved her !
As for the Trident replacement, well we all cringe at the cost but as cruise missiles can be shot down by various means, it still seems necessary.
I don't see any need at all though for 4 sets of missiles, don't think that's the idea.
Last edited by Double Zero; 28th Mar 2010 at 23:55.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The OP was suggesting that a submarine-based nuclear deterrent still has relevance. I don't believe it does. As noted by Flying Serpent, there are more innovative means of delivering nuclear weapons to the doorstep of your enemy.
You must learn to think outside the box as your adversaries, both current and potential, are wont to to. Chuckling to yourselves over how the Americans never learned their lesson from their visit to this country (Viet Nam) is of little use when you go making the very same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be.
The most effective argument against a political system, a religion or a culture is a better, kinder, more compassionate or successful version of the aforementioned. Spend your billions developing that, and you may find you offer a better argument for following your philosophy than the possibility of a personal meeting with something from a stinky* submarine.
* Why do RN boats always smell so bad?
You must learn to think outside the box as your adversaries, both current and potential, are wont to to. Chuckling to yourselves over how the Americans never learned their lesson from their visit to this country (Viet Nam) is of little use when you go making the very same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be.
The most effective argument against a political system, a religion or a culture is a better, kinder, more compassionate or successful version of the aforementioned. Spend your billions developing that, and you may find you offer a better argument for following your philosophy than the possibility of a personal meeting with something from a stinky* submarine.
* Why do RN boats always smell so bad?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point, HJ.
"If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be."
I think it was you as well who asked the question of (basically) who among us, in this nation would be prepared to put their money where their mouth is, if the s**t really hit the fan... and, I'm afraid, I'd have to agree with you, beyond those who are either currently serving or have served in the last 10-20 years, given the paucity of the current leadership, I dont think that many of the UK population would be prepared to make that kind of sacrifice and that the kind of spirit we saw in WW2 has largely all but disappeared.
However, lets not get alarmist; theres a difference between protecting your national interests, being able to defend your territory and world power projection and as we all know, our traditional role has been based on state-on-state warfare, which is changing dramatically. It can never be said though (as someone else has pointed out, referring to the dwindling of natural resources over time), that just because the current - and maybe forseeable near-mid future conflicts - may be more asymmetrical that it is always going to be that way.
We have to decide what we're going to be and stick to it. NATO still remains relevant as a concept, despite its failings. Our perceived position as one of the global plastic plods to America's world policeman though is one that we have to seriously reconsider as to whether it is affordable, whether it is practical and whether it is really necessary.
On the subject of the strategic deterrent, I have to say, that dependant on which way the dice falls on whether we should remain punching above our weight and whether such an interventionist stance is in our true national interests, that for the first time in my life finding it somewhat difficult to justify 100Bn on Son Of Trident and conceptually, I find myself falling in behind those who are suggesting TLAM equipped Astute, or possibly even a TLAM/stand-off equipped stealth UAV.
Now, some may say that the range of current TLAM systems doesnt give you the flexibility and that CM systems are vulnerable to SAM/ABM systems and may possibly be negated by multi-layered AD systems. I accept that point. It doesnt mean though that future generation TLAM systems are going to be that way. Regarding the inherent problems with range, yes it would mean your delivery system has to get closer to the target area in order to deliver the weapon and then as soon as it is fired, the delivery platform's position is comprimised, but lets be serious here, beside the "Alamo" type scenario of defending your home territory with everything you've got in a last ditch attempt to prevent being over-run/invaded/wiped out, what kind of circumstances would it truly be necessary to use these systems many many miles from home?
I have to agree that I dont think that post-9/11 would have been the time to do it and would have exacerbated the current situation many many times over. It could be argued that Shock & Awe was what forced Ghadaffi to the negotiating table and got rid of the Libyan W.M.D. programme - having seen what happened to Saddam, Ghadaffi was in no mood for his regime to go the same way. So, there has been at least one positive pay-off from it, it could be said.
Radical Islam is not necessarily something that is going to be "defeated", if it ever possibly can be military, at the end of a gun. We have to think of other ways and a lot of it falls upon the regimes where the threat grows and comes from to marginalise it and negate its need (same with violent Irish republicanism, as we have seen over the last 10-12 years) as much as anything else... A state on state war machine is not necessarily the best way to achieve this objective, although elements of it, such as use of special forces, assassination teams, a la Mossad, targetted at senior elements of insurgents/those who pose a direct threat, use of UAV's against targets of opportunity and yes, as Clinton did, following the attacks on the US Embassies in the late 1990's use of TLAM's against known training sites etc, in my very very humble opinion is riposte enough without changing your entire military ethos and way of doing things.
The way things are going now, to the shame of not only the government and defence ministers who have dictated it and presided over it, but also to the greater disgrace of those of star rank in uniform who have allowed them to do it, is that going forward, all we are going to be able to carry out in the near to middle future is estuary cocktail parties and port visits and more Afghan campaigns or similar.
Were it to kick off again down south, we would be screwed and would have to let the FI go and comprimise our interests in Antarctica . Now, maybe in a post-colonial world, this is a wake up call we should have had years ago and maybe should have been better prepared for than what we are. But far better for us to decide thats the kind of society we want to be and move to that kind of position voluntarily, rather than having it foisted on us by a military defeat in a conflict the country didnt want and wasnt prepared to fight when the balloon went up.
"If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be."
I think it was you as well who asked the question of (basically) who among us, in this nation would be prepared to put their money where their mouth is, if the s**t really hit the fan... and, I'm afraid, I'd have to agree with you, beyond those who are either currently serving or have served in the last 10-20 years, given the paucity of the current leadership, I dont think that many of the UK population would be prepared to make that kind of sacrifice and that the kind of spirit we saw in WW2 has largely all but disappeared.
However, lets not get alarmist; theres a difference between protecting your national interests, being able to defend your territory and world power projection and as we all know, our traditional role has been based on state-on-state warfare, which is changing dramatically. It can never be said though (as someone else has pointed out, referring to the dwindling of natural resources over time), that just because the current - and maybe forseeable near-mid future conflicts - may be more asymmetrical that it is always going to be that way.
We have to decide what we're going to be and stick to it. NATO still remains relevant as a concept, despite its failings. Our perceived position as one of the global plastic plods to America's world policeman though is one that we have to seriously reconsider as to whether it is affordable, whether it is practical and whether it is really necessary.
On the subject of the strategic deterrent, I have to say, that dependant on which way the dice falls on whether we should remain punching above our weight and whether such an interventionist stance is in our true national interests, that for the first time in my life finding it somewhat difficult to justify 100Bn on Son Of Trident and conceptually, I find myself falling in behind those who are suggesting TLAM equipped Astute, or possibly even a TLAM/stand-off equipped stealth UAV.
Now, some may say that the range of current TLAM systems doesnt give you the flexibility and that CM systems are vulnerable to SAM/ABM systems and may possibly be negated by multi-layered AD systems. I accept that point. It doesnt mean though that future generation TLAM systems are going to be that way. Regarding the inherent problems with range, yes it would mean your delivery system has to get closer to the target area in order to deliver the weapon and then as soon as it is fired, the delivery platform's position is comprimised, but lets be serious here, beside the "Alamo" type scenario of defending your home territory with everything you've got in a last ditch attempt to prevent being over-run/invaded/wiped out, what kind of circumstances would it truly be necessary to use these systems many many miles from home?
I have to agree that I dont think that post-9/11 would have been the time to do it and would have exacerbated the current situation many many times over. It could be argued that Shock & Awe was what forced Ghadaffi to the negotiating table and got rid of the Libyan W.M.D. programme - having seen what happened to Saddam, Ghadaffi was in no mood for his regime to go the same way. So, there has been at least one positive pay-off from it, it could be said.
Radical Islam is not necessarily something that is going to be "defeated", if it ever possibly can be military, at the end of a gun. We have to think of other ways and a lot of it falls upon the regimes where the threat grows and comes from to marginalise it and negate its need (same with violent Irish republicanism, as we have seen over the last 10-12 years) as much as anything else... A state on state war machine is not necessarily the best way to achieve this objective, although elements of it, such as use of special forces, assassination teams, a la Mossad, targetted at senior elements of insurgents/those who pose a direct threat, use of UAV's against targets of opportunity and yes, as Clinton did, following the attacks on the US Embassies in the late 1990's use of TLAM's against known training sites etc, in my very very humble opinion is riposte enough without changing your entire military ethos and way of doing things.
The way things are going now, to the shame of not only the government and defence ministers who have dictated it and presided over it, but also to the greater disgrace of those of star rank in uniform who have allowed them to do it, is that going forward, all we are going to be able to carry out in the near to middle future is estuary cocktail parties and port visits and more Afghan campaigns or similar.
Were it to kick off again down south, we would be screwed and would have to let the FI go and comprimise our interests in Antarctica . Now, maybe in a post-colonial world, this is a wake up call we should have had years ago and maybe should have been better prepared for than what we are. But far better for us to decide thats the kind of society we want to be and move to that kind of position voluntarily, rather than having it foisted on us by a military defeat in a conflict the country didnt want and wasnt prepared to fight when the balloon went up.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is 2010 and we're broken in almost every sense of the word. A few nukes in our back pocket aint going to change that.
I believe that is the main (if not the only) reason we still have ballistic missiles.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba
An intelligent reply, if I may say so. You were doing well until you mentioned our future capability being reduced to estuary cocktail parties; you're a little behind the times, as funding has been withdrawn and we're already incapable of doing so.
An intelligent reply, if I may say so. You were doing well until you mentioned our future capability being reduced to estuary cocktail parties; you're a little behind the times, as funding has been withdrawn and we're already incapable of doing so.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traditional "enemy"
A cynical student of history once said that, as far as the Foreign Office is concerned, the "traditional enemy" has always been "The French". Thus, if "They" have got something, "We" must have it too ... (seems to work 'tother way round too).
"They" got missles, "We" gotta have missles or subs, or sooper-dooper supersonic fighters - flying off ships too.
Others call it "the waving of the willie". (L'agitation du Guillaume ???).
However, now that Marcel Dassault's no longer holding the reins and the French government is (almost?) as skint as HMG, perhaps some cooperation will get going at last, at least in the fixed-wing world ... (Cross-postings of diplomats might help too ... Now that's really outrageous).
"They" got missles, "We" gotta have missles or subs, or sooper-dooper supersonic fighters - flying off ships too.
Others call it "the waving of the willie". (L'agitation du Guillaume ???).
However, now that Marcel Dassault's no longer holding the reins and the French government is (almost?) as skint as HMG, perhaps some cooperation will get going at last, at least in the fixed-wing world ... (Cross-postings of diplomats might help too ... Now that's really outrageous).
Last edited by Jig Peter; 29th Mar 2010 at 11:05. Reason: add French bit
