SDSR versus Real World Events
teeteringhead,
Fair shout. I was making the rather esoteric point that we are ALL descended from a single group of about two hundred folk who left Africa some 50,000 years ago.
Sand4gold.
Sorry, I couldn't give a stuff how foolish you think I come across as.
Mad_Mark.
Fair shout.
jindabyne.
Likewise, you make a fair point. Unfortunately I don't really care that my views are acceptable or unacceptable as, you see, they are my views.
Fair shout. I was making the rather esoteric point that we are ALL descended from a single group of about two hundred folk who left Africa some 50,000 years ago.
Sand4gold.
Sorry, I couldn't give a stuff how foolish you think I come across as.
Mad_Mark.
Fair shout.
jindabyne.
Likewise, you make a fair point. Unfortunately I don't really care that my views are acceptable or unacceptable as, you see, they are my views.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@pr00ne,
Ditto. Nor do we care about your views. Not true actually. But hopefully you get the point. It is admirable how you are so enthusiastic and forthright with reference to your own belief system. I just wish you would be somewhat friendly and stop accusing people of being Xenophobic. How do you know they are xenophobic? Do you know that person? What makes someones point xenophobic? just because you say so?
I would say that maybe you do care as you have a tendency to be somewhat excited, a tad rude to people, and accuse people of being xenophobic.
I would also say that the fact that you post to this forum shows your interest in sharing your beliefs, and to "discuss" with others. Therefore you care.
Apologies pr00ne. A bit of a rant. You see, I care about your views - even if they are incorrect
Hval
Unfortunately I don't really care that my views are acceptable or unacceptable as, you see, they are my views.
I would say that maybe you do care as you have a tendency to be somewhat excited, a tad rude to people, and accuse people of being xenophobic.
I would also say that the fact that you post to this forum shows your interest in sharing your beliefs, and to "discuss" with others. Therefore you care.
Apologies pr00ne. A bit of a rant. You see, I care about your views - even if they are incorrect
Hval
Last edited by hval; 25th Feb 2011 at 14:37.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I acknowledge that we are broke, and of course the MoD Procurement process needs to get sorted (and unusually there has been much sense on the Dr Fox Spending thread on procurement and project management), but as someone that was having a drink with a snap shot of British society then the HMG have got it's work cut out in aligning the expectations of the British public "
much truth here
We are broke
The Great British Public is living in dreamland with regards to our military (and economic) power
No politician is seriously going to tell them the real truth - we'll have to go through a Suez Crisis or similar to get through to anyone
much truth here
We are broke
The Great British Public is living in dreamland with regards to our military (and economic) power
No politician is seriously going to tell them the real truth - we'll have to go through a Suez Crisis or similar to get through to anyone
"I was making the rather esoteric point that we are ALL descended from a single group of about two hundred folk who left Africa some 50,000 years ago".
And where did they come from? Just an esoteric point, you understand.
And where did they come from? Just an esoteric point, you understand.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speak for yourself,
my antecedents evolved from an ape in the north of the great Northern landmass who stuck a leaf on his head to protect himself from the constant rain. Thus was Lancashire Man (Homo Flatcapitus) born....
We didn't come down from the trees either - we rolled up on a trolleybus.
Dave
my antecedents evolved from an ape in the north of the great Northern landmass who stuck a leaf on his head to protect himself from the constant rain. Thus was Lancashire Man (Homo Flatcapitus) born....
We didn't come down from the trees either - we rolled up on a trolleybus.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a numbers game!!
Pr00ne,
My apologies, but I did not mean to cause offence with my post. I just thought that it was amusing that I found that BBC link shortly after reading your initial post. As I said; “good” timing.
Anyway water under the bridge now as I noticed that the report from that link has now changed, quite considerably.
I do have a couple questions for you though. You talk of 787,000 born here against 237,000 settled here. Do you not need to also consider that approximately 650,000 die here?
Also, if it was to come down to voting for a government, it would be 18 years before that 787,000 could vote but the 237,000 (who apparently have an average age of between 25 and 28) would be able to vote straight away!
I am just playing devil’s advocate here, but based upon what has happened in the last 39 years, the mathematics suggest that 2050 could actually be quite a close call!!
My apologies, but I did not mean to cause offence with my post. I just thought that it was amusing that I found that BBC link shortly after reading your initial post. As I said; “good” timing.
Anyway water under the bridge now as I noticed that the report from that link has now changed, quite considerably.
I do have a couple questions for you though. You talk of 787,000 born here against 237,000 settled here. Do you not need to also consider that approximately 650,000 die here?
Also, if it was to come down to voting for a government, it would be 18 years before that 787,000 could vote but the 237,000 (who apparently have an average age of between 25 and 28) would be able to vote straight away!
I am just playing devil’s advocate here, but based upon what has happened in the last 39 years, the mathematics suggest that 2050 could actually be quite a close call!!
Getting back to the original thread, although demographic transition is undoubtedly of interest to someone, an interesting comment from Simon Heffer in today's Telegraph.
Indeed, one can't help but feel that Dave et al are actually more interested in generating and sustaining capable militaries in other countries rather than their own - after all, as Dave pointed out the other day, trade is vitally important. It also means that when you sell your own military down the river you can go to your chums for assistance and 'lease' your required capability from them. If defence is an insurance contract, I guess we have decided to do with out and look to hire or lease capability as and when required. It's a fine line between genius and madness!
Indeed, one can't help but feel that Dave et al are actually more interested in generating and sustaining capable militaries in other countries rather than their own - after all, as Dave pointed out the other day, trade is vitally important. It also means that when you sell your own military down the river you can go to your chums for assistance and 'lease' your required capability from them. If defence is an insurance contract, I guess we have decided to do with out and look to hire or lease capability as and when required. It's a fine line between genius and madness!
The foolish cuts that leave us defenceless The ludicrous, hasty and ill-informed decision to cut defence so severely is one for which Dave and his Chancellor must take full responsibility, writes Simon Heffer.
Nothing I have written lately attracted a greater postbag than an article reflecting that Britain had chosen to cease to be a serious country, choosing to put welfare and a bloated public sector above engagement in the world and the willingness to defend ourselves properly. Most of you agreed; and perhaps the few who didn’t will reconsider your views after the farce of the Libyan evacuation this week.
Full credit to the Prime Minister for admitting the shambles he made of this: but what did he expect? Governing, for the inexperienced and callow people who now run our country, is about having power. They seem not just to be unsure of what to do with that power, but of what power actually requires them to do. It requires, not least, to have them protect British subjects going about their legal business in the world. Dave, though, was too busy on a photo-opportunity in Cairo, and his preposterous deputy thought his main responsibility lay in having a skiing holiday. He forgot he was in charge: if only the rest of us could.
Mr Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has seemed disengaged from reality since problems with his private life a few months ago. But he only had to try to whistle up charter flights to get our people out of Libya because the RAF is depleted and our Mediterranean fleet hardly exists. We have been reminded that we need reach in the world, because our people are very much out in it. An inability to protect them means we are not a serious country, and one that invites the contempt of its now immensely vulnerable citizens.
The senior officers who wrote to this newspaper yesterday about the idiotic nature of our defence cuts reinforced this point, unwittingly. Not only can we not protect ourselves against those who threaten our interests: we no longer have the forces to mount a simple rescue operation. I was told at the time that Mr Hague was urging support for the hard Treasury line against the Ministry of Defence when the cuts were discussed last year. If so, he is well and truly hoist with his own petard.
The defence review must be reopened. It has been established that money was wasted on procurement in the MoD; and the civil service establishment there was, and is, too large. But that is no reason to decommission Ark Royal, or our Harrier capability. The world is an exceptionally dangerous place, much more so than these foolish cuts admitted. For us to remain secure and to be able to protect our people we need more ships, more planes and more men and women under arms. The cuts always looked idiotic, and some of us said so at the time. They seem lethal now.
History tells us that the unexpected always happens: ask the ghosts of Baldwin and Chamberlain, who refused to expect the Second World War. Ministers will say that no one could have predicted this wave of instability in the Middle East and North Africa even last autumn, when the cuts were announced. That is true. But what any sensible politician could, and should, have planned for is that, one day, the unexpected would happen. That day has come quickly.
The ludicrous, hasty and ill-informed decision to cut defence so severely is one for which Dave and his Chancellor must take full responsibility. They chose to increase the overseas aid budget, which should have been abolished. They chose to ring-fence the NHS budget, which is full of waste. We await mass sackings of unproductive people in local government. All this would pay for our better defence, and save Dave from further humiliating apologies. He had better listen, for the world situation has every chance of getting much, much worse.
Nothing I have written lately attracted a greater postbag than an article reflecting that Britain had chosen to cease to be a serious country, choosing to put welfare and a bloated public sector above engagement in the world and the willingness to defend ourselves properly. Most of you agreed; and perhaps the few who didn’t will reconsider your views after the farce of the Libyan evacuation this week.
Full credit to the Prime Minister for admitting the shambles he made of this: but what did he expect? Governing, for the inexperienced and callow people who now run our country, is about having power. They seem not just to be unsure of what to do with that power, but of what power actually requires them to do. It requires, not least, to have them protect British subjects going about their legal business in the world. Dave, though, was too busy on a photo-opportunity in Cairo, and his preposterous deputy thought his main responsibility lay in having a skiing holiday. He forgot he was in charge: if only the rest of us could.
Mr Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has seemed disengaged from reality since problems with his private life a few months ago. But he only had to try to whistle up charter flights to get our people out of Libya because the RAF is depleted and our Mediterranean fleet hardly exists. We have been reminded that we need reach in the world, because our people are very much out in it. An inability to protect them means we are not a serious country, and one that invites the contempt of its now immensely vulnerable citizens.
The senior officers who wrote to this newspaper yesterday about the idiotic nature of our defence cuts reinforced this point, unwittingly. Not only can we not protect ourselves against those who threaten our interests: we no longer have the forces to mount a simple rescue operation. I was told at the time that Mr Hague was urging support for the hard Treasury line against the Ministry of Defence when the cuts were discussed last year. If so, he is well and truly hoist with his own petard.
The defence review must be reopened. It has been established that money was wasted on procurement in the MoD; and the civil service establishment there was, and is, too large. But that is no reason to decommission Ark Royal, or our Harrier capability. The world is an exceptionally dangerous place, much more so than these foolish cuts admitted. For us to remain secure and to be able to protect our people we need more ships, more planes and more men and women under arms. The cuts always looked idiotic, and some of us said so at the time. They seem lethal now.
History tells us that the unexpected always happens: ask the ghosts of Baldwin and Chamberlain, who refused to expect the Second World War. Ministers will say that no one could have predicted this wave of instability in the Middle East and North Africa even last autumn, when the cuts were announced. That is true. But what any sensible politician could, and should, have planned for is that, one day, the unexpected would happen. That day has come quickly.
The ludicrous, hasty and ill-informed decision to cut defence so severely is one for which Dave and his Chancellor must take full responsibility. They chose to increase the overseas aid budget, which should have been abolished. They chose to ring-fence the NHS budget, which is full of waste. We await mass sackings of unproductive people in local government. All this would pay for our better defence, and save Dave from further humiliating apologies. He had better listen, for the world situation has every chance of getting much, much worse.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as an outsider, people seem to be missing the elephant in the tutu dancing in the living room.
The EU wants its own military because it can't be taken seriously as a sovereign nation until it has one. On past experience that means they'll work step by step for the next couple of decades until they have it and there is no more RAF or Royal Navy or British Army.
If that's the case, the government may not see the point in spending British taxpayers' money on hardware that's just going to be handed over to Brussels in a few years. Why not let the French and Germans pay for it instead?
The EU wants its own military because it can't be taken seriously as a sovereign nation until it has one. On past experience that means they'll work step by step for the next couple of decades until they have it and there is no more RAF or Royal Navy or British Army.
If that's the case, the government may not see the point in spending British taxpayers' money on hardware that's just going to be handed over to Brussels in a few years. Why not let the French and Germans pay for it instead?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam Fox, Secretary of State for Defence 10:00PM GMT 26 Feb 2011
The speed of events in North Africa has shown how quickly circumstances can change and how quickly the UK can be drawn in. At a time when endless negativity is rampant, it is easy to forget that Britain remains the world's fifth biggest economy with the world's fourth biggest defence budget.
As William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has said, Britain is "richly endowed with the attributes for success". We are a powerful and leading voice inside the UN, Nato, EU, the Commonwealth, the G8 and G20. We are part of a complex, interdependent global economy that brings the unavoidable importation of strategic risk.
An island nation like Britain, with so many interests in so many parts of the world – 92 per cent of trade moving by sea, around 10 per cent of our citizens living abroad – is inevitably going to be affected by global instability.
In most circumstances we handle these changes in the global strategic picture along with our allies, but occasionally have to deal with problems on our own as we did in the Falklands and Sierra Leone. It is because we face such a wide range of security challenges that the Government has spent a great deal of effort on creating a multilayered approach to defence and diplomacy.
This presents challenges because we were hugely weakened by the economic incompetence of the last Labour government. Next year, as a result of Gordon Brown's profligacy, we will be paying more in debt interest than we spend on the defence budget, the foreign office budget and the international aid budget put together. Put simply, the level of our debt is a national security liability.
Related Articles
Liam Fox: Libya will send strategic shock waves through Arab world 26 Feb 2011
It is against this very adverse financial position that we carried out our Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
The first task was to determine the direction for our national security. We could have chosen a fortress Britain policy, where we effectively reduced our global engagement and concentrated on protecting our borders. This would have ignored the reality of Britain's global interests.
We could have assumed a much greater future involvement in asymmetric and non-state warfare similar to the type we face today in Afghanistan. But such a committed posture would have fallen into the trap of assuming that all future wars would look like the wars of today.
Instead, the National Security Council decided on an adaptive posture which would allow greater flexibility and agility in our Armed Forces enabling them to adapt to the changing nature of threats.
The vision we've set out – Future Force 2020 – ensures that by the end of the decade we have coherent, efficient and cutting-edge Armed Forces prepared for the challenges of the future. It's important we continue down the path so we can react to the challenges of today.
As we have seen in Libya in the past 96 hours the UK still has the military capability to protect British interests. At a time when the commercial sector was unable or unwilling to fly, the Government used a range of military assets, including Royal Navy warships each with a detachment of Royal Marines and C-130 Hercules aircraft to evacuate hundreds of Britons and citizens from a dozen other countries. In fact, British Armed Forces have been leading the way with HMS Cumberland being the first military asset from any country to enter and evacuate citizens from the Libyan city of Benghazi.
Future Force 2020 is an ambitious programme and as David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has said, it will require real-terms year-on-year increases in the defence budget in the second half of the decade. But I am certain that it is achievable.
I take a different view from those critical of the SDSR and believe Britain will still be able to play a role in the world.
Future Force 2020 means that Britain will continue with its minimum credible nuclear deterrent to protect against nuclear blackmail in a world where, as North Korea and Iran have shown, nuclear proliferation is increasing. We cannot afford to take a chance on the security of future generations and that is why we will invest to replace Trident. The end of the decade will also see Britain with Type-45 destroyers, the new Type-26 Global Combat Ship and new carrier capability operating the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter.
The Navy's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will have the ability to combine fast jet, helicopter, unmanned aerial vehicles and amphibious capabilities – a floating piece of sovereign British territory which we can use as a base worldwide whenever our needs require it.
We will also have seven of the new Astute class submarines at the cutting edge of global submarine technology.
The Royal Marines will continue to provide a key element of our high-readiness response force. We will be able to put 1,800 marines on to shore with all the required helicopters, protective vehicles, logistics and command and control support in a similar way as we did in Sierra Leone in 2000.
In addition to the Joint Strike Fighter, our air force will have updated Eurofighter Typhoons and renewed investment in transport aircraft with the Airbus A400M replacing our ageing Hercules fleet, supplemented by combat-tested Boeing C-17s.
The Army will be remodelled into five new multi-role brigades, plus the parachute and air-assault capability provided by 16th Air Assault Brigade. This will be supported by a range of additional assets and personnel and will mean that, if required, we could field a force of 30,000 including maritime and air assets for a one-off intervention.
Though I cannot go into detail, our internationally respected and battle-tested Special Forces will receive significantly enhanced capabilities too.
Far too much attention has been given to the older equipment which is being taken out of service and far too little to the investments we are making for the future. This is why, for example, we are investing £650 million in cyber security.
In addition to reshaping our military capabilities to face the future challenges, we must also radically restructure the MoD and Armed Forces. This is why the work of the Defence Reform Unit is so important. We also need to improve our ability to prevent conflicts through the promotion of prosperity and a peaceful resolution of disputes.
Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, is readjusting our international aid programme so we are able to create a stable environment in which the eradication of poverty becomes a realistic goal.
The events of 9/11 produced a strategic shock which changed how we view the world. The events in North Africa over recent days may also come to change how we view the world. Instead of happening immediately, it is likely to be protracted.
Where all of this will end up is still to be determined, but what we do know is that providing a sound defence and foreign policy designed for adaptability is the surest way to keep our country and its people safe. This is something we are determined to deliver.
The speed of events in North Africa has shown how quickly circumstances can change and how quickly the UK can be drawn in. At a time when endless negativity is rampant, it is easy to forget that Britain remains the world's fifth biggest economy with the world's fourth biggest defence budget.
As William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has said, Britain is "richly endowed with the attributes for success". We are a powerful and leading voice inside the UN, Nato, EU, the Commonwealth, the G8 and G20. We are part of a complex, interdependent global economy that brings the unavoidable importation of strategic risk.
An island nation like Britain, with so many interests in so many parts of the world – 92 per cent of trade moving by sea, around 10 per cent of our citizens living abroad – is inevitably going to be affected by global instability.
In most circumstances we handle these changes in the global strategic picture along with our allies, but occasionally have to deal with problems on our own as we did in the Falklands and Sierra Leone. It is because we face such a wide range of security challenges that the Government has spent a great deal of effort on creating a multilayered approach to defence and diplomacy.
This presents challenges because we were hugely weakened by the economic incompetence of the last Labour government. Next year, as a result of Gordon Brown's profligacy, we will be paying more in debt interest than we spend on the defence budget, the foreign office budget and the international aid budget put together. Put simply, the level of our debt is a national security liability.
Related Articles
Liam Fox: Libya will send strategic shock waves through Arab world 26 Feb 2011
It is against this very adverse financial position that we carried out our Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
The first task was to determine the direction for our national security. We could have chosen a fortress Britain policy, where we effectively reduced our global engagement and concentrated on protecting our borders. This would have ignored the reality of Britain's global interests.
We could have assumed a much greater future involvement in asymmetric and non-state warfare similar to the type we face today in Afghanistan. But such a committed posture would have fallen into the trap of assuming that all future wars would look like the wars of today.
Instead, the National Security Council decided on an adaptive posture which would allow greater flexibility and agility in our Armed Forces enabling them to adapt to the changing nature of threats.
The vision we've set out – Future Force 2020 – ensures that by the end of the decade we have coherent, efficient and cutting-edge Armed Forces prepared for the challenges of the future. It's important we continue down the path so we can react to the challenges of today.
As we have seen in Libya in the past 96 hours the UK still has the military capability to protect British interests. At a time when the commercial sector was unable or unwilling to fly, the Government used a range of military assets, including Royal Navy warships each with a detachment of Royal Marines and C-130 Hercules aircraft to evacuate hundreds of Britons and citizens from a dozen other countries. In fact, British Armed Forces have been leading the way with HMS Cumberland being the first military asset from any country to enter and evacuate citizens from the Libyan city of Benghazi.
Future Force 2020 is an ambitious programme and as David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has said, it will require real-terms year-on-year increases in the defence budget in the second half of the decade. But I am certain that it is achievable.
I take a different view from those critical of the SDSR and believe Britain will still be able to play a role in the world.
Future Force 2020 means that Britain will continue with its minimum credible nuclear deterrent to protect against nuclear blackmail in a world where, as North Korea and Iran have shown, nuclear proliferation is increasing. We cannot afford to take a chance on the security of future generations and that is why we will invest to replace Trident. The end of the decade will also see Britain with Type-45 destroyers, the new Type-26 Global Combat Ship and new carrier capability operating the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter.
The Navy's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will have the ability to combine fast jet, helicopter, unmanned aerial vehicles and amphibious capabilities – a floating piece of sovereign British territory which we can use as a base worldwide whenever our needs require it.
We will also have seven of the new Astute class submarines at the cutting edge of global submarine technology.
The Royal Marines will continue to provide a key element of our high-readiness response force. We will be able to put 1,800 marines on to shore with all the required helicopters, protective vehicles, logistics and command and control support in a similar way as we did in Sierra Leone in 2000.
In addition to the Joint Strike Fighter, our air force will have updated Eurofighter Typhoons and renewed investment in transport aircraft with the Airbus A400M replacing our ageing Hercules fleet, supplemented by combat-tested Boeing C-17s.
The Army will be remodelled into five new multi-role brigades, plus the parachute and air-assault capability provided by 16th Air Assault Brigade. This will be supported by a range of additional assets and personnel and will mean that, if required, we could field a force of 30,000 including maritime and air assets for a one-off intervention.
Though I cannot go into detail, our internationally respected and battle-tested Special Forces will receive significantly enhanced capabilities too.
Far too much attention has been given to the older equipment which is being taken out of service and far too little to the investments we are making for the future. This is why, for example, we are investing £650 million in cyber security.
In addition to reshaping our military capabilities to face the future challenges, we must also radically restructure the MoD and Armed Forces. This is why the work of the Defence Reform Unit is so important. We also need to improve our ability to prevent conflicts through the promotion of prosperity and a peaceful resolution of disputes.
Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, is readjusting our international aid programme so we are able to create a stable environment in which the eradication of poverty becomes a realistic goal.
The events of 9/11 produced a strategic shock which changed how we view the world. The events in North Africa over recent days may also come to change how we view the world. Instead of happening immediately, it is likely to be protracted.
Where all of this will end up is still to be determined, but what we do know is that providing a sound defence and foreign policy designed for adaptability is the surest way to keep our country and its people safe. This is something we are determined to deliver.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for deleting the rugby induced beer post late last night that rambled on.
Now sober (ish) I can hopefully make a more succinct contribution, namely that the BBC are still reporting 300 or so in the desert and although I genuinely hope that there will be no further requirements for any Cabinet minister or the Prime Minister to say sorry again, I believe that now is the time that COBRA, MOD, FCO and the Prime Minister himself wished that he did have Harriers, Carriers, a Maritime Patrol/SIGINT/ELINT Aircraft and also enough embarked helicopters/troops to take up the slack (if fixed wing becomes tactically unsound or non viable) or support the tremendous work by the Herc and SF community.
Nurse's post is typical of the self delusion that is going on at the upper political echelons as they ignore some very experienced military and academic advice. I agree that Force 2020 may deliver everything that Dr Fox believes in his recent correspondence (if it survives the cuts of PR11, PR12, PR13, PR14, SDSR 15, PR16, PR 17 PR18 etc).
but what are the British people both at home and overseas expected to do/think between 2011 and 2020 and how many more 'sorrys' do we expect from the Prime Minister between now and then?
Now sober (ish) I can hopefully make a more succinct contribution, namely that the BBC are still reporting 300 or so in the desert and although I genuinely hope that there will be no further requirements for any Cabinet minister or the Prime Minister to say sorry again, I believe that now is the time that COBRA, MOD, FCO and the Prime Minister himself wished that he did have Harriers, Carriers, a Maritime Patrol/SIGINT/ELINT Aircraft and also enough embarked helicopters/troops to take up the slack (if fixed wing becomes tactically unsound or non viable) or support the tremendous work by the Herc and SF community.
Nurse's post is typical of the self delusion that is going on at the upper political echelons as they ignore some very experienced military and academic advice. I agree that Force 2020 may deliver everything that Dr Fox believes in his recent correspondence (if it survives the cuts of PR11, PR12, PR13, PR14, SDSR 15, PR16, PR 17 PR18 etc).
but what are the British people both at home and overseas expected to do/think between 2011 and 2020 and how many more 'sorrys' do we expect from the Prime Minister between now and then?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Nurse,
Thank you for your posting; I found the politicians comments interesting. Am not sure if you believe the politicians or are cynical as I am. A few points: -
1/ Do you actually believe the politicians? Every single one of them has, and is (irrespective off political affiliation) proven to be liars, whether outright, by omission or misdirection.
2/ Yes we may have Type 45 destroyers and possibly we will get two aircraft carriers (no aircraft and one to be sold, so we actually will have one) etc. What he omits is that we don't and wont have enough of anything. Also look at the reduced hours of everything. Less flying training allowed, less ships at sea. Oh yes ships at sea without weapons as well. I could go on. Basically we have an over stretched armed forces, with old, tired equipment in the main, not enough of it, and what is new, not enough and over used.
3/ Weren't the government lucky with HMS Cumberland? A ship that is being scrapped saves the day? (tongue in cheek)
I am so saddened by the fact that politicians seem to be incapable to understand that our nations sovereignty and security are paramount - above and beyond any other costs - and that includes bankers continued wealth, a hugely expensive, inefficient NHS and Civil Service.
Hval
Thank you for your posting; I found the politicians comments interesting. Am not sure if you believe the politicians or are cynical as I am. A few points: -
1/ Do you actually believe the politicians? Every single one of them has, and is (irrespective off political affiliation) proven to be liars, whether outright, by omission or misdirection.
2/ Yes we may have Type 45 destroyers and possibly we will get two aircraft carriers (no aircraft and one to be sold, so we actually will have one) etc. What he omits is that we don't and wont have enough of anything. Also look at the reduced hours of everything. Less flying training allowed, less ships at sea. Oh yes ships at sea without weapons as well. I could go on. Basically we have an over stretched armed forces, with old, tired equipment in the main, not enough of it, and what is new, not enough and over used.
3/ Weren't the government lucky with HMS Cumberland? A ship that is being scrapped saves the day? (tongue in cheek)
I am so saddened by the fact that politicians seem to be incapable to understand that our nations sovereignty and security are paramount - above and beyond any other costs - and that includes bankers continued wealth, a hugely expensive, inefficient NHS and Civil Service.
Hval
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@MG23
Your comment has nothing to do with the argument of the thread; and to be honest, I am not sure what it has to do with you.
The Commonwealth is a dead duck - a bit like the Canadian Air Force!
Your comment has nothing to do with the argument of the thread; and to be honest, I am not sure what it has to do with you.
The Commonwealth is a dead duck - a bit like the Canadian Air Force!
-inejad isn't reading any of these forums...................oh!!:
eek: