Options

My party left Britain’s military capabilities 'enfeebled'

Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
Forum Member
✭✭✭

Comments

  • Options
    woodbinexwoodbinex Posts: 34
    Forum Member
    I'm amazed at how inept the tories have been on defence,its not what you expect from them,personally i would scrap trident(after all can you imagine a situation where we would make a first strike?)but then keep our commitment to nato to spend 2% of gdp on defence
  • Options
    PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nimrod! lol. Did it even fly.
  • Options
    thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,624
    Forum Member
    woodbinex wrote: »
    I'm amazed at how inept the tories have been on defence,its not what you expect from them,personally i would scrap trident(after all can you imagine a situation where we would make a first strike?)but then keep our commitment to nato to spend 2% of gdp on defence

    Deterrents are not about first strikes. If someone has flattened London, or killed 60% of the population, I think most rational people would retaliate . Its the knowledge that we could do that that deters it from happening. There's no point in being able to protect Poland, or Baghdad, if we can't protect 60% of the population from being incinerated - by anyone who takes a fancy to doing it. And you wouldn't want to go up against any of the growing number of nuclear powers with just conventional forces - they would die in under 15 minutes.

    Your point about spending is indeed amazing . You have to conclude that the Cameron Conservatives either don't care that we now have no significant conventional capability, or they just believe their own rhetoric about spending figures and don't understand capability, or they think like Clegg - and believe that the only threats are a few, far of,f terrorists.

    They are now completely out of step with nearly all the planet. Arms budgets are increasing by 7-10% all over the place. Almost every other significant military power is planning to fight other states. Japan , S Korea, Germany and France are now all increasing their defence budgets - as are all NATO's eastern members. Even Italy has just announced its going ahead with buying the JSF fighters we look like delaying . Germany has just quietly moved to increase its tank units by 50% . France is doing more against iSIS by factor of 3 . Australia is doing more than we are- on a third of the population. We have an airforce thats a third the size of Israel or Saudi Arabia's . We are the only G20 power without any maritime patrol aircraft. Israel Australia and Turkey are all buying the JSF in bigger numbers than we can afford. Our technology is obsolete in many areas compared, to what Japan, S Korea, Russia, or Israel are fielding . The US has already refocused on the state threats posed by Russia, China, N Korea and Iran, and is buying new technology while maintaining numbers . its noticed that the UK seems strategically stuck in denial, and our forces are less and less capable of doing much useful as allies. At some point, the US is going to get very fed up with Cameron leading the freeriders club, that relies on US taxpayers to defend them.
  • Options
    mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Deterrents are not about first strikes. If someone has flattened London, or killed 60% of the population, I think most rational people would retaliate . Its the knowledge that we could do that that deters it from happening. There's no point in being able to protect Poland, or Baghdad, if we can't protect 60% of the population from being incinerated - by anyone who takes a fancy to doing it. And you wouldn't want to go up against any of the growing number of nuclear powers with just conventional forces - they would die in under 15 minutes.

    Your point about spending is indeed amazing . You have to conclude that the Cameron Conservatives either don't care that we now have no significant conventional capability, or they just believe their own rhetoric about spending figures and don't understand capability, or they think like Clegg - and believe that the only threats are a few, far of,f terrorists. ....

    The problem with deterrence theory is that if an enemy has launched a first strike against us then that enemy has not been deterred. What enemy is least likely to be deterred at present? That would currently be IS. What is the best strategy for dealing with such threats? IS are a death cult who believe in Armageddon but they have support throughout the Middle East, parts of Africa and increasingly in Europe. They are an ideological movement. Directing support to the Intelligence and Security Services seems a rational enough strategy against such an enemy.
  • Options
    crystalladcrystallad Posts: 3,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nukes have done a great job of stopping large conflict! India Pakistan is a good example!
  • Options
    duckymallardduckymallard Posts: 13,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    Nimrod! lol. Did it even fly.

    It served in the Royal Air Force from the early 1970's until 2010 - there was a fleet of around 40-50 - so I'm guessing the answer to your "question" is yes.
  • Options
    longpiggylongpiggy Posts: 2,156
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And Nicola gets castigated by some for suggesting that we should get rid of Trident (which we cannot use unless we get American say so and even then never use) and invest in conventional forces - which we are sorely lacking - bloody communist!
  • Options
    paul2307paul2307 Posts: 8,079
    Forum Member
    It served in the Royal Air Force from the early 1970's until 2010 - there was a fleet of around 40-50 - so I'm guessing the answer to your "question" is yes.

    Based on a plane that first flew in 1949 , I think the term is obsolete
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    Nimrod! lol. Did it even fly.

    I hope for the sakes of all those who crewed them it did...............
  • Options
    warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    paul2307 wrote: »
    Based on a plane that first flew in 1949 , I think the term is obsolete

    A maritime patrol aircraft doesn't have to do any fancy flying - it just bimbles along using radar and listening devices to hunt for ships and submarines. A converted airliner is a good choice, and it doesn't matter much how old it is.
Sign In or Register to comment.