Will the UK leave NATO eventually?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That train left the station in 1995. IFOR. NATO out of area ops began."
well put Lonewolf - I always thought it was partly a bunch of people in NATO trying to show they were still "relevant", in a time when defence cut-backs were rampant , and partly becuase there wasn't any established, organised, international militray force immediately available..................
well put Lonewolf - I always thought it was partly a bunch of people in NATO trying to show they were still "relevant", in a time when defence cut-backs were rampant , and partly becuase there wasn't any established, organised, international militray force immediately available..................
No, the UK won't leave NATO. In a post Brexit world NATO will take on even more significance from a UK perspective. I don't doubt that it's a debate that Moscow and RT would love to encourage, and I imagine they're grateful for Hangar's help with that, but it won't happen.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reneged on a treaty to defend Poland.." Really, Peter? In 1939 we went to war on Polands behalf, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of our finest and leaving our nation indebted into the following century. The fact that right now hundreds of British servicemen are standing firm on Polish soil gives the lie to the OP's silly suggestion of UK abandoning NATO
Yellow Sun - I agree.
In making such comments, Airpolice is obviously clueless about what actually went on and the very generous and significant support that was both offered and provided.
From somebody in the know on the armament side of the house before, during and after, add to your list Shrike ARMs and the offer of the loan of the LHD USS Iwo Jima complete with "contractors" as part of the crew.
In making such comments, Airpolice is obviously clueless about what actually went on and the very generous and significant support that was both offered and provided.
From somebody in the know on the armament side of the house before, during and after, add to your list Shrike ARMs and the offer of the loan of the LHD USS Iwo Jima complete with "contractors" as part of the crew.
And here is an account somewhere from AVM Ron Dick regarding the US provision of eye watering amounts of fuel, with senior American loggies diverting oil tankers to ASI at the drop of a hat. ISTR that we insisted on paying for it (at a favourable rate) rather than taking it for free, which was what Cap Weinberger seems to have been angling for.
Or if their relatives were involved in the raid (without loss) the night before on the Ruhr (leaflets only to be in accordance with FDR's plea that the combatants not bomb towns).
Or if they've discovered that they are related to some of the men who died when HMS Courageous was sunk on 17 September.
We might have been rushing to the stage at curtain rise after misjudging the time available to get there when final call was made, and then fluffed our lines a bit - but we but were suffering casualties almost as soon as Act One started...
I guess it depends on when you consider the curtain to have risen. If you lived in areas taken/annexed/acquired via the Munich agreement, their war started a wee bit earlier than yours. Depending in perspective and scope, you can run it back a lot earlier than that as well.
West Coast:-
Indeed, there is a school of thought that WW2 was merely a continuation of WW1, interrupted merely by an armistice and retribution, that eventually ensured that part 2 was even more devastating than part 1...
you can run it back a lot earlier than that as well.
Indeed, there is a school of thought that WW2 was merely a continuation of WW1, interrupted merely by an armistice and retribution, that eventually ensured that part 2 was even more devastating than part 1...
YS
SO:-
Well, not directly perhaps but part 1, part 2, and the resulting Cold War, showed that the UK has always held firm to the principle of allying with other nations against any one nation, or group of nations, that threatened European peace and hence our security. Churchill once wrote a book or two about it I believe, ie about our history. NATO is merely the latest manifestation of that historic policy.
"A nation that forgets its past has no future". Now who was it who said that....?
..not that it helps with the original question either way.
"A nation that forgets its past has no future". Now who was it who said that....?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed again, chugalug which is why I described the suggestion to the contrary as mischief-making. Indeed the referendum seems to reinforce rather than weaken that.
ShotOne, like you I believe the OP to be mistaken. Unlike you I believe it expressed Hangarshuffle's opinion rather than mere mischief. It is just possible that subsequent posts have swayed that opinion.
Isn't that what discussion is all about? Isn't that what PPRuNe, and particularly this forum, is all about?
Isn't that what discussion is all about? Isn't that what PPRuNe, and particularly this forum, is all about?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug, I also thought the purpose was to enable discussion, as means of entertainment.
The original question seems to have been lost.
We are supposed to be discussing whether the United Kingdom WILL leave NATO, rather than discussing whether or not the United Kingdom SHOULD leave NATO.
None of the arguments about why we should have retained the LRMPA capability were sufficient to stop the UK giving it up.
None of the persuasive arguments about keeping the Harrier Force worked.
The "shoulds" don't really matter.
The original question seems to have been lost.
We are supposed to be discussing whether the United Kingdom WILL leave NATO, rather than discussing whether or not the United Kingdom SHOULD leave NATO.
None of the arguments about why we should have retained the LRMPA capability were sufficient to stop the UK giving it up.
None of the persuasive arguments about keeping the Harrier Force worked.
The "shoulds" don't really matter.
airpolice, I'm not sure about the point you are making. If it is about the difference of will as against should then we'll all have to watch our P's and Q's before posting to avoid further offence being taken.
Our LRMPA capability was lost (temporarily one hopes) because Haddon-Cave confirmed that the fleet, and the proposed upgraded fleet, were unairworthy. That was caused by the Gross Negligence of RAF VSOs, not HMG. As to the Harriers, they fell foul of inter Service politics I suspect.
So the DS solution to the OP is that nobody knows for sure what "will" happen? Can't really see the point, I'm afraid.
Our LRMPA capability was lost (temporarily one hopes) because Haddon-Cave confirmed that the fleet, and the proposed upgraded fleet, were unairworthy. That was caused by the Gross Negligence of RAF VSOs, not HMG. As to the Harriers, they fell foul of inter Service politics I suspect.
So the DS solution to the OP is that nobody knows for sure what "will" happen? Can't really see the point, I'm afraid.
So I think that unless NATO reinvents itself, then we will need to leave.
airpolice, attempts to predict the will (see what I just did there ;-) of "the people" have backfired spectacularly of late. So let's just wait and see how that "will" expresses itself. A good start will be the debate today by its elected representatives on our Nuclear Deterrent.
NATO may have been founded to guard against possible Soviet aggression, but it isn't limited to that one purpose. Admittedly, Out of Area Operations since then have diluted the brand but its central purpose is to safeguard European Peace and is as important as ever.
Notice that I talk of "Europe". The EU is not "Europe" but an organisation within it. In my view it is part of the problem and not the solution. Nonetheless, the danger as ever comes from its Eastern Border and it will be for NATO to defend it, not the EU (I fervently trust).
NATO may have been founded to guard against possible Soviet aggression, but it isn't limited to that one purpose. Admittedly, Out of Area Operations since then have diluted the brand but its central purpose is to safeguard European Peace and is as important as ever.
Notice that I talk of "Europe". The EU is not "Europe" but an organisation within it. In my view it is part of the problem and not the solution. Nonetheless, the danger as ever comes from its Eastern Border and it will be for NATO to defend it, not the EU (I fervently trust).
Among the factors included in the Southern Region threat were:
Overpopulation in the Magreb and Middle East
Arguments/disputes over water and land rights
Migration northwards out of the Middle East and the Magreb.
I used to brief this stuff with some frequency.
It has all come true, and it strikes me as bizarre that the perceived "greater threat" is viewed as being from the East. Russia's a problem that can be dealt with in a European fashion. The threats to the south and east? Not so.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a reason the old guard think that way; the Russian threat can be countered with familiar tools; jet fighters, tanks and warships. Not so, that from the South. If your toolbox only has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail!