Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without an adequate defence, all else is at risk. Just use the £12 billion that the Tories want to borrow then give away in foreign aid. Defence of our country is much more important.
Next get out of the EU, the vast billions spent on this and its regulations would easily pay the entire defence budget twice over.
Then we could stop the Asylum/human rights racket and the money saved would pay for Trident.
All this without touching front line services to the British people.
Next get out of the EU, the vast billions spent on this and its regulations would easily pay the entire defence budget twice over.
Then we could stop the Asylum/human rights racket and the money saved would pay for Trident.
All this without touching front line services to the British people.
Actually, when you think about it, there would be vast savings to be made on all sorts of budgets if our courts didn't regularly overturn commonsense verdicts in favour of 'you forgot to dot the i' judgements - compensation to villains whose human rights had been abused, etc. Colour me to the right of Genghis Khan, I guess.
It would, probably, be a good idea to stop invading people too - when I joined the RAF in 1977 we were the chaps who stood up for the underdog, always had moral rectitude up the yin yang, and never EVER stooped to the sort of underhand dealing that was common amongst Johnny Foreigner...now look at us, we've invaded Iraq twice, Afghanistan once (I still don't understand that one - Iraw was 'cos S.H. had weapons of mass distraction, we seem to have gone into Afghanistan on the principle that it was next door and was worth a look. We've been into Bosnia, Africa...For a country we all believe to be in the right all the time, repulsing aggressors etc we seem to invade rather a lot of places.....makes you begin to wonder who the aggressors are, exactly...
If Zimbabwe had oil, Mugabe would be in a hole and the stars and stripes would be fluttering in the breeze over Harare. The Union Jack would be fluttering in the breeze wherever the septics wanted to put our token force.
But there isn't any oil, so we are not interested. There isn't any oil in Afghanistan, but hey, it's ideal for a gas pipeline. If only Iran wasn't in the way........
But there isn't any oil, so we are not interested. There isn't any oil in Afghanistan, but hey, it's ideal for a gas pipeline. If only Iran wasn't in the way........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Odiham
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD
Rather a simplistic view to say we went into Iraq just for the oil. Why arn't we in Iran/Nigeria/Venezuela? And lets face, the price of petrol hasn't exactly dropped has it.
Anyway what do I know, back to the thread. Looks like me and a lot of people at ISK will be looking for a job later this month. So much for the Tories being the party of the Forces!
Rather a simplistic view to say we went into Iraq just for the oil. Why arn't we in Iran/Nigeria/Venezuela? And lets face, the price of petrol hasn't exactly dropped has it.
Anyway what do I know, back to the thread. Looks like me and a lot of people at ISK will be looking for a job later this month. So much for the Tories being the party of the Forces!
Last edited by rockiesqiud; 1st Oct 2010 at 20:27.
MGD,
Actually, Rhodesia is one of the most natural resource rich countries in Africa - why do you think the Chinese are so active there? The fact is borders SA is a dead give-away as to the riches below (diamonds, oil etc).
I reckon the Rhodesian Stock Market could be one of the contrarian buys of the decade! Watch this space!
Actually, Rhodesia is one of the most natural resource rich countries in Africa - why do you think the Chinese are so active there? The fact is borders SA is a dead give-away as to the riches below (diamonds, oil etc).
I reckon the Rhodesian Stock Market could be one of the contrarian buys of the decade! Watch this space!
Rather a simplistic view to say we went into Iraq just for the oil. Why arn't we in Iran/Nigeria/Venezuela?
Iran? Not yet at least. Certainly the final Bush years were laying the foundations for an invasion that may yet happen [though probably without us]
Nigeria? The biggest players pumping the stuff out the ground are UK oil companies anyway.
Venezuela? Chavez is a nutter, but surrounded by people the US are keen to keep on side. Besides, I think the White House is still weighing up Chavez.
Actually, Rhodesia is one of the most natural resource rich countries in Africa - why do you think the Chinese are so active there? The fact is borders SA is a dead give-away as to the riches below (diamonds, oil etc).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for the Tories being the party of the Forces!
Also if you look at overall defence spending in the last 60 years there is not much in it between the two parties. We just tend to remember things like Labour cancelled TSR2 and Maggie gave us a huge pay rise. Have a look at the graph at post 302 to see a downward trend in defence spending from the Tories and an increase from 1997 onwards under the Labour party.
If you examine history I think you will find that defence spending has always been related to the economic climate of the country and the world; regardless of which party is in power.
By the way I no longer support any party as I have realised over the years that they are all the same.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1975 was the last cull of the RAF and it was a Labour Govt that did it. AT fleet demise saw Belfast, Comet, Brittania & Andover disappear without mercy. 1978 was the worst year for the Armed Forces when wives marched on Downing Street to fight for fair pay, because husbands cannot strike. 2010 may well go down in history as Englands lowest hour which will be some legacy for future politics. I suspect that the Falklands may well be hung out to dry sometime soon and many Commonwealth post independence support is legally due to end in the very near future. 2012 for Jamaica for example.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Budget a mess- Osborne
So George O now says the budget is a mess according to those left wingers at the Beeb following unfettered spending by the previous administration.
Could this be the start of a face saving turnround?
Could this be the start of a face saving turnround?
KB,
it could be - i don't discount the political neccessities of 'good news' and the government wanting to be seen to cripple a 'new' labour leadership with the catastrophes of the past. doing that by supporting 'our boys' just makes it more poisonous for Milliband.
on the other hand, Osbournes comments (and lets not pretend its untrue) could be a justification for saying 'fcukit!' and slashing the budget to a fraction of its current level, ridding the MOD of most of its leadership and CS, and getting rid of almost all the expeditionary/offensive capabilities (as well as most of the people) and saying 'we'll start again'.
and just not starting again.
After Iraq no government is going to win votes by having an interventionist foreign policy, its fair to say that no conventional military threat exists to the fabric of this country, and politically speaking that £20bn (the difference between an expeditionary and purely defensive military posture) could be better spent on issues the public actually gives a **** about.
defence is important, personally i think a serious defence with significant epeditionary capabilities and the political will to use them are vital, utterly vital, to the national interests of a country that trades worldwide, but i don't believe for 1 second that - apart from when things go wrong in wartime - the public gives a flying monkies abourt defence.
it could be - i don't discount the political neccessities of 'good news' and the government wanting to be seen to cripple a 'new' labour leadership with the catastrophes of the past. doing that by supporting 'our boys' just makes it more poisonous for Milliband.
on the other hand, Osbournes comments (and lets not pretend its untrue) could be a justification for saying 'fcukit!' and slashing the budget to a fraction of its current level, ridding the MOD of most of its leadership and CS, and getting rid of almost all the expeditionary/offensive capabilities (as well as most of the people) and saying 'we'll start again'.
and just not starting again.
After Iraq no government is going to win votes by having an interventionist foreign policy, its fair to say that no conventional military threat exists to the fabric of this country, and politically speaking that £20bn (the difference between an expeditionary and purely defensive military posture) could be better spent on issues the public actually gives a **** about.
defence is important, personally i think a serious defence with significant epeditionary capabilities and the political will to use them are vital, utterly vital, to the national interests of a country that trades worldwide, but i don't believe for 1 second that - apart from when things go wrong in wartime - the public gives a flying monkies abourt defence.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military chiefs accuse coalition of rushing defence review - Telegraph 2 Oct 10
Two questions:
1. What impact will that have on morale within the Armed Forces?
2. During the delay, how much more money will be wasted on contracts likely to be cancelled?
Former military chiefs and senior officers have accused the government of “rushing” the defence review that could lead to mistakes which would haunt a generation of servicemen.
They have called on the Prime Minister to delay making a final announcement by several months as the process was becoming confused with cost cutting.
They have called on the Prime Minister to delay making a final announcement by several months as the process was becoming confused with cost cutting.
1. What impact will that have on morale within the Armed Forces?
2. During the delay, how much more money will be wasted on contracts likely to be cancelled?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like Really annoyed et al. I simply cannot understand why the overseas aid budget is untouchable. I thought "Charity began at Home."
Why the hell cold hard currency has to be borrowed
then given away just leaves me speechless.
Why not give aid to under developed countries in trade credits, vouchers if you will? At least that way the borrowed cash stays in the UK.Industries and agriculture would have a market and tinpot dictators wouldn't line their Swiss bank accounts with the cash.
Oh and why can't the B @stards responsible for bankrupting the UK be locked up for treason?
Its going to be the 1930s all over again God forbid and God help our Kids.
Why the hell cold hard currency has to be borrowed
then given away just leaves me speechless.Why not give aid to under developed countries in trade credits, vouchers if you will? At least that way the borrowed cash stays in the UK.Industries and agriculture would have a market and tinpot dictators wouldn't line their Swiss bank accounts with the cash.
Oh and why can't the B @stards responsible for bankrupting the UK be locked up for treason?
Its going to be the 1930s all over again God forbid and God help our Kids.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy George is banging on about all this Cold War-orientated kit that we're procuring. Apart from Typhoon T3, how many projects facing the axe were conceived before the early 90s? And is Gorgeous George too young to remember the swingeing cuts in both numbers and capabilities in the early 90s as a direct result of the Cold War's end.
We've already had a "Peace Dividend", we can't have another one 20 years later.
We've already had a "Peace Dividend", we can't have another one 20 years later.
Last edited by Father Jack Hackett; 2nd Oct 2010 at 10:32.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've wasted billions of pounds running around the world helping enforce Pax-Americana and now that there is a lack of funds for the defence budget this is being used as justification for modelling our armed forces for this very purpose in the future.
Unfortunately, "cold-war oriented kit" is pongo-speak for anything that doesn't immediately support them on Herrick, particularly if it's a big platform. Wokka's, Tornados, Harriers, Nimrods (MR2 & R1 varieties) don't get tagged with that label, yet all were conceived through the height of the "Cold-war".
The fact that they're all versatile platforms with wide capabilities might have something to do with it. Exactly the sort of capabilities that you would find in MRA4, Typhoon, CVF, F35, Type 26, the amphibious fleet, yet because none (well maybe one) will make it to Herrick and those not yet bought have a hefty price tag, the briefs to the media carefully use the phrase "cold-war" in relation to them. Gen Dannatt set the hare running, the Beeb are busily keeping it going.
The fact that they're all versatile platforms with wide capabilities might have something to do with it. Exactly the sort of capabilities that you would find in MRA4, Typhoon, CVF, F35, Type 26, the amphibious fleet, yet because none (well maybe one) will make it to Herrick and those not yet bought have a hefty price tag, the briefs to the media carefully use the phrase "cold-war" in relation to them. Gen Dannatt set the hare running, the Beeb are busily keeping it going.
Apache is a cold war weapon system - designed and intended to stop the hordes of T-72s and T-80s pouring through the Fulda gap using the Hellfire missile as the primary weapon system....
I don't see the Army giving the Apache a hard time!!!!!
I don't see the Army giving the Apache a hard time!!!!!
Was just about to revise my previous, pointing out that everyone agreed that SDR 97/98 was actually a pretty good document - just never funded and made some poor assumptions about concurrency and duration of scale of effort.
The whole idea of that SDR was the "Expeditionary" capability which everyone agreed was post Cold-war and in general a good idea. All the expensive platforms now being tagged as "cold-war", with the possible exception of Typhoon, MRA4 and Astute were spec'd and ordered to fit that capability mindset.
Interesting to see "new-speak" (or collective amnesia) in action. The treasury have their tag-line sorted and no-one appears to be pointing out the obvious......
The whole idea of that SDR was the "Expeditionary" capability which everyone agreed was post Cold-war and in general a good idea. All the expensive platforms now being tagged as "cold-war", with the possible exception of Typhoon, MRA4 and Astute were spec'd and ordered to fit that capability mindset.
Interesting to see "new-speak" (or collective amnesia) in action. The treasury have their tag-line sorted and no-one appears to be pointing out the obvious......
VR
I didn't say it isn't. I just stated what it was originally designed for -it first flew in 1975, entering full production in 1982.....!
Any weapon system that has versitility can be prove to be very effective in roles it wasn't originally intended for, so to label systems as "cold war" weapons is a deliberately calculated attempt to denegrate them and imply they cannot be effective in any contemporary role - that was the point I was trying to make by using the Apache as an example of a "cold war" weapon system that is very effective today in non "cold war" scenarios.
Just because it was "cold war", it doesn't mean it is cannot be effective and useful today.....
I didn't say it isn't. I just stated what it was originally designed for -it first flew in 1975, entering full production in 1982.....!
Any weapon system that has versitility can be prove to be very effective in roles it wasn't originally intended for, so to label systems as "cold war" weapons is a deliberately calculated attempt to denegrate them and imply they cannot be effective in any contemporary role - that was the point I was trying to make by using the Apache as an example of a "cold war" weapon system that is very effective today in non "cold war" scenarios.
Just because it was "cold war", it doesn't mean it is cannot be effective and useful today.....
Last edited by Biggus; 2nd Oct 2010 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think it priceless when those biased to the Army try to insinuate that the RN and RAF are obsessed with acquiring "Cold War" kit. We don't see them volunteering big cuts in Challenger 2, AS90, MLRS, HVM, Rapier etc. Hardly very relevant to current and future COIN campaigns.
And moving on from legacy kit to future eqpt, the most "Cold War" of the imminent procurements is the Army buy of Wildcat. What versatility does it provide beyond targetting the 3rd Soviet Shock Army as it pours through the Fulda Gap?
And moving on from legacy kit to future eqpt, the most "Cold War" of the imminent procurements is the Army buy of Wildcat. What versatility does it provide beyond targetting the 3rd Soviet Shock Army as it pours through the Fulda Gap?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PM on TV this morning (sunday) tried his best to be non commital as to the outcome of SDR however when pressed clearly stated that Main Battle Tanks and Air Defence fighters have had their day. No mention of maritime or Nimrod. I think it may be re-role or have a nice day for the chaps in black overalls, but the fighters outcome is still in the balance as comments were made regarding carriers with no aeroplanes being a legacy 'issue', hinting that demise of Harrier may be premature. An interesting week is ahead as all will be televised in Birmingham this week. The Chinook order is clearly on the boil in the political kitchen but he managed not to give anything away on that one.