Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003 From: England Status: offline
Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.
I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.
Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008 From: Sweden Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: wodin
Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.
I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.
I thought that UK had a strong garrison at Falklands now days. Is that not so any longer?
_____________________________
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.
I'm extremely surprised the US, with it's vast arsenal, regarded the UK as anything above "militarily capable at a push".
Britain has long lost the ability to be a significant asset to any major power. I think from a world stage perspective and in a political sense, the UK is hanging on in there and just about probably cuts the mustard. I also think that is where the US has often benefited from the UK as an ally...and only militarily in the sense that the UK is willing to put up guns with the US more often than not. But in terms of actually bolstering anything the US needs to get involved in...no.
In 1979 the Tory government got into power and slowly started to dismantle the Armed Forces. This sent a message to Argentina and immediately the UK was on the back foot, bringing Hermes back from her trip to the scrap yard and the Vulcan bomber...along with many other plans they had in motion.
In 1990, the UK Government (again Tory) was again at the cuts - this time going a step further and actually sending out notices of Termination of Employment as troops sat waiting to sort Iraq out.
In 2011, the Tory Government yet again kicks in a vast array of cuts to the Armed Forces.
Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.
I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.
I thought that UK had a strong garrison at Falklands now days. Is that not so any longer?
It has a garrison.
I do believe it's significant enough and can be argued though that the garrison in place is enough to deal with anything the Argentinians could muster...though if there was a military "pact" between the South American countries, who knows.
Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002 From: Cornwall, UK Status: offline
Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.
In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.
Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.
In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.
Totally agree. There's definitely a bung going on there.
There is zero requirement for a nuclear deterrent today. 100 billion could go along way to restoring the Armed Forces to a decent fighting force. They are over stretched - and they're not even having to man the places they used to back in the day.
I know he's a Royal and all, but how much does it cost to train someone to fly one of those things? If he's such a great Apache pilot and inspirational leader shouldn't he keep doing it for a few years, or maybe train as an instructor, rather than arranging pageants at Horse Guards?!
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
I'm extremely surprised the US, with it's vast arsenal, regarded the UK as anything above "militarily capable at a push".
Britain has long lost the ability to be a significant asset to any major power. I think from a world stage perspective and in a political sense, the UK is hanging on in there and just about probably cuts the mustard. I also think that is where the US has often benefited from the UK as an ally...and only militarily in the sense that the UK is willing to put up guns with the US more often than not. But in terms of actually bolstering anything the US needs to get involved in...no.
In 1979 the Tory government got into power and slowly started to dismantle the Armed Forces. This sent a message to Argentina and immediately the UK was on the back foot, bringing Hermes back from her trip to the scrap yard and the Vulcan bomber...along with many other plans they had in motion.
In 1990, the UK Government (again Tory) was again at the cuts - this time going a step further and actually sending out notices of Termination of Employment as troops sat waiting to sort Iraq out.
In 2011, the Tory Government yet again kicks in a vast array of cuts to the Armed Forces.
When will the people in the UK learn.
warspite1
Oh good politics And you have the gall to complain that this forum is too hostile.. and then promptly insult half the voters of the UK. Good grief...
Yes because the Labour crowd have always been the Armed Forces friend...
The people of the UK did learn - sadly it took them thirteen years of rule by two incompetents - one a war hungry moron, the other just a moron - before they came to their senses.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2014 7:26:23 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hertston
Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.
In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.
Totally agree. There's definitely a bung going on there.
There is zero requirement for a nuclear deterrent today. 100 billion could go along way to restoring the Armed Forces to a decent fighting force. They are over stretched - and they're not even having to man the places they used to back in the day.
warspite1
Nope. How do you know who your enemy is in the future? Once our nuclear deterrent goes - its gone. When some nutter threatens to take Europe off the face of the world - because he can with impunity - then its a bit too late to be wishing we'd kept it.
So Lady Thatcher was wrong for removing the deterrent that led to the Falklands, but we can give up our only weapon against future nutters that can wipe us out? Right....
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away. I think that is the real threat.
_____________________________
When the going gets weird,... the weird turn pro Hunter S Thompson
I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away. I think that is the real threat.
Agreed - as per my post (sorry - I posted not know you had said what I was thinking).
Just my opinion and nothing more but the US will continue to view the UK as a military partner in the future. We will have to as the US's military is also becoming a shell of its former might and will need the UK to help bolster its depleted strenght. Even with the current administration's personal view of the UK, the UK will continue to be relied on. Like I said, just my opinion. By the way, nuclear deterrent will only work if the current government has the balls to actually use it. I question whether the American government has them or will just try to hold talks with the enemy to figure out why they attacked us. Who knows.
_____________________________
RebelYell
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jamm
I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away. I think that is the real threat.
warspite1
I quite agree at the moment BUT who knows in future? - and as I say, once its gone it ain't coming back.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2014 9:14:03 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Wow if only Labour were back in power so military spending would be great again,lol.A bit of selective memory going on there.
They certainly weren't the Armed Forces best buddies. Look at the contracts they screwed up.
I pointed out 3 episodes I recall in my life where the armed forces were basically demobbed en-masse...and each time the Tories were in power. It's also a particular sore point with me that they were the government in power when some of my friends were receiving their P45 whilst on Active Service in a war zone.
For the record, and to clarify, I am as much a Labour lover as I am a Tory lover or a Liberal lover.
I vaguely remember the despair the 70's brought my family in Glasgow but I definitely remember the 80's and 90's as those were more my impressionable years.
Sorry that that is distasteful to some of you - but that's how it was for me.
The UK will continue to be an asset to the United States for many years to come because of it's geographic location, and therefore it's strategic usefulness, not to mentioned their shared language.
Just my opinion and nothing more but the US will continue to view the UK as a military partner in the future. We will have to as the US's military is also becoming a shell of its former might and will need the UK to help bolster its depleted strenght.
+1
Both my son-in-laws in USN...both agree that the RN is a well respected highly professional force, not to be lightly dismissed.
I think everyone is missing out on one big reason for all the military spending past, present, and future. Is it the opinion of most, that Russia (the old Soviet Union) could NEVER fall back to their former communist aggressive ways? I, for one, could certainly envision a future, not far from now where such a thing might happen.
Tis better to have and never need than to need and not have!
The US and UK are tied very deeply in very many ways. It would take a lot to break that union. It would be a sad day indeed were that ever come to pass.
Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002 From: Salida, CA. Status: offline
quote:
Is it the opinion of most, that Russia (the old Soviet Union) could NEVER fall back to their former communist aggressive ways?
With a leader like Putin it would be a mistake to think there isn’t much he wouldn’t do to regain dominance in Eastern Europe again. As long as he can maintain his power through Russia’s current system of government, he has shown he’s not going to try and grab control permanently (at least not yet). But if his power is threatened, I have no doubt he’d revert to communism in a heartbeat if it would allow him to maintain control. The man is evil.
As to the armed forces, it seems the world goes in cycles. Wars are fought and people value their ability to defend themselves and they remain strong for a while, but then time passes. Peaceniks and liberals rail on about the tragedy of defense spending instead of giving stuff to the poor and countries slowly disarm. Then along comes some evil bastard who notices how weak the world is and he goes for broke and millions die. It seems humanity is destined to never learn from the past.
The real tragedy of the world situation today over the past is countries around the globe have come to rely on the US almost totally for defense. Professional militaries are almost non-existent in the world today and the ability to fight in an emergency if needed is questionable. What was it we found out during the Libya uprisings, non-US NATO forces only had 6 days worth of ammunition stockpiled or some ridiculously tiny number of days? It basically revealed how defenseless they are if the US isn’t there to do the heavy lifting.
If the US military gets defunded the way the liberals want to defund it, the world will be ripe for the picking. If that happens the only thing that might buy enough time to rearm is nuclear deterrent. Get rid of that and you’re headed into slavery or worse guaranteed.
Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002 From: Cornwall, UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
So Lady Thatcher was wrong for removing the deterrent that led to the Falklands, but we can give up our only weapon against future nutters that can wipe us out? Right....
Neither nuclear weapons nor anything else can be relied upon to deter 'nutters' as those nutters by definition are likely to act irrationally. Seen from some particular religious viewpoints, it might even be considered rational to provoke a nuclear strike by launching one. Therefore... the only way a nuclear deterrent can prevent a nuclear attack on the UK is a 100% successful first strike on an assessed threat, with the associated consequences.
Sorry mate, but regardless of which bunch might be in power, that scenario is not acceptable to me. Neither is wasting 100 billion plus on something far better spent on conventional defence, healthcare, tax cuts or whatever else your ideological heart might desire. The whole nuclear thing is a nonsense for the UK in the 21st century. It's nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of any 'deterrent', and everything to do with staying in the club that includes a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
< Message edited by Hertston -- 1/18/2014 8:49:24 PM >
Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> No longer an asset.. 
No longer an asset.. - 
and then promptly insult half the voters of the UK. Good grief... 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread