No longer an asset.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

wodin -> No longer an asset.. (1/16/2014 9:25:54 PM)

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.




Orm -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/16/2014 10:22:21 PM)


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?



t001001001 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/16/2014 11:36:44 PM)

quote:

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.


?

UK and USA are still BFFs no? What are you talking about?



wodin -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 2:06:58 AM)

LINK

Lots of papers covering the comments made by Robert Gates former USA defense chief.



USS Wyoming -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 3:55:04 AM)

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.



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 1:26:14 PM)

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. [8|]



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 1:28:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


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?


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.



Hertston -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 4:31:05 PM)

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.



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 4:36:11 PM)


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.



Qwixt -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 4:49:48 PM)

The defense budget is just a jobs/kickback program at this point, or can someone explain to me why we need to outspend the next 15 countries or so?

As to nuclear deterrent, I like the thought of having a few nukes locked and ready to go, but we do not need the majority of them.



Hertston -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 5:33:18 PM)

And of course, this sort of bollocks doesn't help,

Prince Harry to begin new army staff job

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?!



warspite1 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 6:02:56 PM)

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. [8|]
warspite1

Oh good politics [8|] And you have the gall to complain that this forum is too hostile..[sm=nono.gif] 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.





warspite1 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 6:07:29 PM)


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....




Jamm -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 7:42:54 PM)

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.



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 7:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

The defense budget is just a jobs/kickback program at this point, or can someone explain to me why we need to outspend the next 15 countries or so?

As to nuclear deterrent, I like the thought of having a few nukes locked and ready to go, but we do not need the majority of them.

The countries that might be a threat to the UK with a nuke are not the kind of establishments that are going to be bothered about retaliation.



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 7:45:05 PM)


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.


Agreed - as per my post (sorry - I posted not know you had said what I was thinking).



jday305 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 8:03:10 PM)

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.



ASHBERY76 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 8:05:10 PM)

Wow if only Labour were back in power so military spending would be great again,lol.A bit of selective memory going on there.



warspite1 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 8:08:18 PM)

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.



warspite1 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 8:08:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Wow if only Labour were back in power so military spending would be great again,lol.A bit of selective memory going on there.
warspite1

Very selective



JudgeDredd -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 8:18:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

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.



z1812 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/17/2014 10:44:42 PM)

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.



baloo7777 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 12:31:50 AM)

ORIGINAL: jday305
quote:

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.



shaddock -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 1:11:43 AM)

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.



Twotribes -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 1:28:16 AM)

The current US Administration does not care about any ties to the UK. They have snubbed the UK more then once. And we have 3 more years to go.



Jevhaddah -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 1:53:34 AM)

What we need is a damn good Alien invasion, that'l sort the man/woman persons from the boy/girl persons...

Sorry had to may snakwbites...

Cheers

Jev



Boomer78 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 3:41:56 AM)

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”

― Thomas Jefferson

I suppose some people think that the Declaration of Independence was written with disappearing ink.
[sm=terms.gif]



Jim D Burns -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 5:35:14 AM)

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.

Jim



Max 86 -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 12:32:32 PM)

"Peace through Strength"

"Prepare for war, Pray for Peace"




Hertston -> RE: No longer an asset.. (1/18/2014 7:47:28 PM)

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.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375