Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Considering the Mail has changed what they think the cuts will be virtually every day for the last week, I'd rather just wait and see what they actually are.

It's like their infamous list of things which give you cancer, like scrambled eggs and apples. *rolls eyes*

loki old fart wrote:Trident is getting put on hold.
The two aircraft carriers will be built. The first will have helicopters, till the second one is built.
Then the first will be sold or mothballed.
Arkroyal will be scrapped, as will the planes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321713/Cameron-announces-defence-cuts-Trident-hold-years.html

Former Navy chiefs Admiral Lord West and Admiral Sir Jonathon Band have both warned that the absence of jets on board the carriers would make it impossible to retake the Falklands
if the Argentinians chose to invade.

For the next ten years the UK will have just one active carrier, armed with helicopters, with HMS Queen Elizabeth entering service in 2016.

That will leave the UK dependent on the French or Americans to help in the event of a new Falklands crisis over the next decade.

...and if all THAT wasn't bad enough, Lady Diana is DEAD! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!111!!!!1!


Seriously, read better newspapers. Most of that is just alarmist bollocks.

Agreed. I recommend buying the Times and the Independent. The Independent for anything not to do with war/Israel/military projects, as they're a bunch of leftist snobs, and the Times to cover those gaps competently.

Yup, I read The Times and The Economist. Seriously.

Don't you guys have, like, the third or fourth most powerful military in the world? You guys can beat Argentina. If you really want to.

No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.

I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?

I have wondered that actually. If there was ever a time to say it, now it is "Oh how the mighty have fallen." I'm almost curious to see if the Argentine's will attempt to retake the Falklands in a few years, and what sort of international shitstorm that will kick up.

Precursor to an ideological revolution in the UK perhaps?

The Argentine's won't try it again. They'd never succeed in landing, there's a massive fortified airbase there now, as opposed to a handful of marines.

Not only that, the Argentine military and economy is in an even worse state than it was there. Tack on British nuclear subs having the capability to sink any kind of Argentine vessel they like, and it's a foregone conclusion.

In other words, the Falklands won't happen again.

Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.

Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.

Yep, sure did work in Iraq, vietnam, Afghanistan, the first falklands war, Russias attack on georgia, the six day war, and hundreds of internecine conflicts in africa and east asia!

Oh wait. No. Thats not actually true at all, it just provided united and extreme wartime governmental stimulus to a set of lagging industrial complexes in prewar America at a time when significant other infrastructural and social investments were starting to bear fruit.

It's a fun myth though.

Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

You know that war happened 30 years ago right? I know it's sort of England's "thing" but argentina isn't really their great satan. They should be more worried about protecting industrial investments abroad and locally from terrorists then an island across the ocean that at this point no one cares that much about. The threat of American intervention with it's superbuddy alone should keep the argentinians off. One Nimitz (we've got a few) carries more airpower then the country of argentina and it's highly unlikely that we wouldn't respond to an unwarranted act of agression at this time and in that area.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.

Yep, sure did work in Iraq, vietnam, Afghanistan, the first falklands war, Russias attack on georgia, the six day war, and hundreds of internecine conflicts in africa and east asia!

Oh wait. No. Thats not actually true at all, it just provided united and extreme wartime governmental stimulus to a set of lagging industrial complexes in prewar America at a time when significant other infrastructural and social investments were starting to bear fruit.

It's a fun myth though.

I said temporary, implying that it didn't really work all that well.

You know that war happened 30 years ago right? I know it's sort of England's "thing" but argentina isn't really their great satan. They should be more worried about protecting industrial investments abroad and locally from terrorists then an island across the ocean that at this point no one cares that much about. The threat of American intervention with it's superbuddy alone should keep the argentinians off. One Nimitz (we've got a few) carries more airpower then the country of argentina and it's highly unlikely that we wouldn't respond to an unwarranted act of agression at this time and in that area.

Oh, you mean just like how we helped out our buddies the first time?

Oh, you mean just like how we helped out our buddies the first time?

Like I said, 30 years ago. Times change and it's been a long time.

chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.

How many wars in the history of the world, particularly those that weren't about seizing territory (given that few wars are, these days, about seizing territory), have been accompanied by economic growth?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

That chance is always present.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Don't you guys have, like, the third or fourth most powerful military in the world? You guys can beat Argentina. If you really want to.

It isn’t just about having the most powerful armed forces, it’s about the amount of force you can project into another part of the world. It’s a lot cheaper to fight a defensive war closer to home.

Argentina, deploying into a largely undefended island reasonably close to home, had a considerable advantage over the UK who had to travel a hell of a long way and land on a now defended island. It speaks volumes for the relative scale of the two militaries that the UK still managed to win decisively.

Ketara wrote:No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.

I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?

Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?

sebster wrote:
It isn’t just about having the most powerful armed forces, it’s about the amount of force you can project into another part of the world. It’s a lot cheaper to fight a defensive war closer to home.

Argentina, deploying into a largely undefended island reasonably close to home, had a considerable advantage over the UK who had to travel a hell of a long way and land on a now defended island. It speaks volumes for the relative scale of the two militaries that the UK still managed to win decisively.

Exactly.

There are 4 tiers of military strength in the world:

1) US.

2) UK, France.

3) China, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel, Iran.

4) Everyone else.

sebster wrote:
Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?

Pretty much.

Ketara wrote:No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.

I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?

This.

Someone on Radio 4 said the question that has to be answered is why every single major MOD project takes twice as long as expected, costs twice as much as budgeted, and doesn't work properly in the end.

Albatross wrote:I don't want to get hung up on the numbers (as I'm not too sure of their accuracy), but 2.5% is more than 2% - which is what China spends. Germany only spends 1.3%, France 2.3%.

Yeah, the UK spends more than other NATO partners. But that is less of an argument for the UK to spend less, and more of an argument for the rest to spend more.

You say Germany does a lot of the heavy lifting but I'd say there's room for improvement there, considering that a) They are a richer country than the UK, and b) They don't currently meet the minimum NATO recommended level of expenditure.

Umm, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mention Germany at all. Killkrazy mentioned the UK and Germany were the heavy lifters, in my post I just pointed that no European country is pulling it’s weight, and in combination they’re a long way short of where they should be. Europe should not have been dependant on US support to intervene in the Balkans.

I mean, the UK spends more on defence than Russia.

Which says more about the woefully small size of Russian GDP than it does about anything else.

I don't think anyone can say that Britain doesn't do it's fair share, which makes it all the more stupid of Hilary Clinton to brief against her supposed allies.

It does more than the other European members of NATO. The issue is whether Europe should accept that they as a group of nations do not have any real level of force projection, if they should be comfortable relying on the US.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah Seb, i have to ask, where do you feel that Germany does its part?

I didn't say it. I don't think it. I don’t know where Albatross got that idea from. And that goes beyond their expenditure as a % of GDP... the level of German commitment to Afghanistan and the unwillingness to expose their troops to fire is simply ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Word. The Cold War is over. Time to move on and protect OUR borders.

Well, the idea that modern military operations have anything to do with defence of your own borders is laughable, as I’ve mentioned to you many times before. You’re flanked by two very big oceans, and there is no country on Earth with the force projection capabilities to invade and control a population of 300 million, let alone get past all those carrier groups you have out there.

You have that very big military in part because you need to protect key resources overseas, and in part because you have a political system that keeps giving dumptrucks of money to your military.

That said, I do agree that if NATO doesn’t mean enough to the European nations to maintain basic levels of expenditure then I don’t see any value in you remaining in it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains when nobody else wants to go with them.

Uhh, no. There was support in Europe to commit ground troops, the desire to just maintain the air campaign was American. What complicates things is the reality that without US commitment a ground campaign would have been under resourced, and to be honest I’m kind of surprised how indifferent Europe is to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.

NATO is a mutual defence treaty, nothing required NATO partners to send troops to Afghanistan other than the belief that we needed to get AQ and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. That's kind of why the number of troops committed by various countries were all over the place.

Also, lots of troops from non-NATO countries were committed/

More importantly, if the role of the military is to protect the US, why should it protect a border that clearly supplies cheap labor?

It isn't like anyone really cares about random proles being killed by random foreign proles.

I mean, Fraz tells us all that people are brutal, so why not let them be?

Albatross wrote:Yup, I read The Times and The Economist. Seriously.

Yeah, I really liked reading The Times when I was in the UK. It's a conservative paper done properly.

sebster wrote:Umm, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mention Germany at all.

Yeah, feth knows where I got THAT from... my mistake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

1 For the daily mail, seems they got it right
lets hope their wrong about everything else.

Yeah, that was in The Times yesterday. My point still stands.

So the Navy is to be cut to 19 surface ships.

I wonder if that includes minehunters or whether it means "real warships".

The Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force has 48 ships of small frigate size and upwards.

loki old fart wrote:

1 For the daily mail, seems they got it right

It's almost like they might have seen this reported on the BBC 22:00 news last night !

chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.

Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

Here's an interesting question.

Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

Frazzled wrote:Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

We flood their airwaves with continuous episodes of "Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men" until they crack and sign over any and all mineral weath they have to us. We then storm the beach using the surviving members of Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath supported by helicopters with giant speakers playing high level rock/metal to collect Chevez's surrender.

All SOP for our armed forces.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

We flood their airwaves with continuous episodes of "Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men" until they crack and sign over any and all mineral weath they have to us. We then storm the beach using the surviving members of Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath supported by helicopters with giant speakers playing high level rock/metal to collect Chevez's surrender.

All SOP for our armed forces.

Excellent. That wraps that up quite nicely.

Frazzled wrote:
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

Watch the USA go into meltdown at Chavez having nukes.

errr.....loki, you're quoting another article of the Mail predicting stuff again. Exactly what you were doing before. You see, what the newspapers do, is string together lots of extraneous facts, to make a supposition seem like a fact.

Jeez man, wait until it's actually unveiled before flying off the handle at the government.

Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?

The levels of support? You mean all those helicopters we don't have enough of? Or our ever shrinking surface fleet? Or the terrible levels of care offered to injured soldiers and their families? Our lack of military hospitals? Our often inferior kit and equipment bought from arms dealers who spent their time wining and dining civil servants?

There's a reason we cannot afford 100,000 men, and it's mainly because the civil service pisses it all up the wall much the way the NHS and education sector does. It's just less obvious, because the public and press don't often see the military up close.

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.

Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

Here's an interesting question.

Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.