Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The armed forces need to be bigger to protect Britain's interests. Just defending 'our island' is not enough, besides, the army is not big enough to do that anyway. We have trade interests, allies to support and even just defending the UK 'homeland' cannot be done by the forces sitting in the UK.
The government is making the same mistake we have made time and time again, cutting back the standing army and then being on the 'back foot' when conflict arises. It happened before WW1, before WW2 and goi9ng back further, before the Napoleonic war and before Crimea. Indeed it happened before the Falklands, a war that helped prove how wrong cutting the forces is.
You cannot just whistle up a well trained modern forces just like that along with the sophisticated equipment they need to operate. Any future conflict will have to be fought with whatever forces and equipment we have to hand. No second chances in future, no time get get it right after getting it wrong in peace. This is a world in which the only certain thing is that the unexpected will happen...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry.
The Falklands War had nothing to do with what you suggest.
The only reason why Argentine forces landed on the Falklands was due to British forces not being present there, not because we did not have the troops, ships and planes necessary.
Even two modern warships and/or 12 Phantoms based at the Falklands would have deterred the Argentine fleet from getting to the shores of these islands of ours.
The problem arose once the Argentine army set up base there.
But as we all know, Britain's forces were able to dislodge even that.
So it is not true that we did not have the military capability.
But only a fraction of that force would have been required to repel an Argentine landing had it been stationed there before the invasion from Argentina.
So your point there is refuted.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
As for WW I and WW II, Barry, no government in their right mind would have foreseen any such war coming, nor prepared for it militarily if they had. They'd have tried to prevent it breaking out in the first place through other means, such as talking directly to the parties concerned.
In fact, even the German authorities (the NSDAP) of that period could not have foreseen what WW II was to develop into. Because if they had, they'd have prevented Hitler from starting the war.
And if people had known beforehand how WW I would become, don't believe that millions - tens of millions - of men in Britain and Europe would have enlisted: they wouldn't have! Not in their right mind they wouldn't have.
Neither in Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, nor in Britain, Russia, France, Belgium and Italy.
If someone told us now that WW III were coming, with massive destruction and mass deaths, people world-wide would try to prevent it starting in the first place, not simply accept it and say "yes, alright, let's all go and enlist and fight it out".
And as for the Crimean War, Britain, France and Russia were all completely equipped for such a war, lacking nothing - except adequate nursing staff for the wounded. It was just a case of deciding to go and fight such a senseless war in the first place to make it possible.
In the end, Britain ended up fighting on Russia's side against the Ottoman Empire in WW I, didn't they Barry?
So what was the point in the Crimean War, then?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
You forgot the Boar War in your list, Barry.
Britain, with regiments from Australia and Canada included, ended up investing 250,000 soldiers in South Africa, to conquer territories inhabited by Dutch people, and take over the diamond, gold and platinum mines.
The British government of that period introduced Apartheid to South Africa, and used the tribal Africans to work in the mines.
The mine-owners were usually British aristocratic families, with vested interests from various other financial sectors.
To this day, tribal Africans still work the mines, others reap the profits.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - your very strange and warped idea of historical events is true comedy.
As always of course you totally misinterpret what I was saying anyway and refer to the causes of war rather than the poor military state we were in prior to having to go to war in most cases. Which is what I refer to.
I am not going into detail about your post #23 or #24 but I cannot resist responding to #22.
As far as the Falklands was concerned - the early retirement of HMS Ark Royal and the plans to get rid of HMS Endurance along with other planned cuts including the planned sale of one of our small 'mini carriers' made the Argies think we would be unwilling and unable to re-take the islands. That is what prompted them to invade. After which the government learned the lesson and cancelled planned defence cuts. That is what I refer to. Our lack of conventional carrier support with airborne early warning radar lost us ships.
In fact what you are actually saying underlines my point about needing sufficient flexible and modern forces to defend Britain's interests all over the world. Cutting defence always end in tears and wasted lives.
Guest 767- Registered: 30 Aug 2012
- Posts: 458
To think the unthinkable, we are heading to a place where there will no longer be a Royal Navy, nor Army nor Air Force. What we will have,sooner rather then later, is a Great Britain Defence Force. It will be a small but very well equipted Force quite capleable of defending our homelands, but of little use else where.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Theirs no money Barry
Cuts must be deep fast and quick
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
oh keith b
Alexander, whilst i may have commented that dover in places still looks bomb hit lol
your views to not get involved in any thing outside of the UK would make us even more vunerable.
Kens point though, shared by others, looks to leading to a position where in the future we will not be able to cope
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it will leave us with little influence as a world power if we cannot bring our military might to bear in any forthcoming altercations.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
wasn't that what i said howard?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
With an EU army all we will need is a small contribution
Look at what's unfolding in the big picture
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, I can only repeat that Britain needed only a small air-unit on the Falklands and/or a few warships off the Falklands coast to deter the Argentine invasion, and perhaps a small military force in Port Stanley.
The reason the invasion came, where the best Argentine warships were WW II hand-downs from the USA, was because Mrs. Thatcher in all her wisdom did not even have one warship stationed there.
It took just a few torpedoes from a Brit submarine to sink the General Belgrano. But that was after General Gualtieri sent the invasion force over to Port Stanley, in fact weeks after.
So many British and Argentine lives were lost simply owing to Madam Thatcher not stationing any RN warships at the Falklands.
The Argentine generals would never have invaded in the first place if there had been a pair of warships there.
As for the rest of your post, "defending Britain's interests all over the world" is something you have been advocating for a long time, but the Government does not agree with "your very strange and warped idea"
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Just a point the PM stated that if the Falkland were to be invaded again we would regain. My question is with what.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
We have troops and planes stationed there. or at least an airfield for planes to land before any relic-fleet from Argentina could ever set sail. Our satelites would detect an Argentine military build-up before it ever set sail, Tom.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - your very shaky knowledge of history is showing through.
1/ A 'small military force in Port Stanley' - there was one, 40 Royal Marine Commandos. The same kind of 'small force' that had been stationed there for decades. HMS Endurance was also still in commission though HMG actually had plans to scrap her.
2/ The Argies best ships were not old WW2 hand me downs but a pair of modern Type 42 Destroyers sold to the Argentine by the British government in the 1970's.
All of that though is totally besides the point, the whole point of what I said originally has been missed by you. In fact all you are doing is proving my point.
Your interpretation of British interests is simply too narrow, wrong and utterly dangerous.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, one thing is for sure: the Government does not agree with your view.
That really explains everything, especially the fact that we cannot get involved in a mess in some other country that would pin our soldiers down in a situation such as the one which T. Blair led our forces into in Afghanistan.
So your point has already been proved wrong by a Conservative government.
Need I say more?
As for the Falklands, I know full well there were some British soldiers based there, and the local Falklands Defence Force was also present (made up of inhabitants), but there were no British warplanes or warships there.
No matter how you try to wriggle this around Barry: there were none!
Not because Britain hadn't spent enough money on the Armed Forces, but simply because they were present elsewhere.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Everything that's happening round the world is pointing to the need for a European armed forces.....the last force to cut
is the SAS ....they should be increased in size.....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Unreliable European allies will not defend UK interests, a European army is the last thing we need. Can you imagine the French, Germans or Spanish supporting us in defending the Falklands? No
As for the size of the defence budget - there are a number of different ways it can be measured and it is interesting that the statement on that was not qualified.
The simple fact is that we are not spending enough on defence. This should be the top priority and is the one and only budget heading that both deserves and needs to be increased, deserved because during the years of Brown's profligate spending it was the only department not to benefit and need because of the wide ranging threats to British interests that are increasing.
We need to take this story with a pinch of salt though as there will always be some small p politiking to protect the budget in advance of any proposals. The actual threat to the SAS is from the pool of potential recruits being cut from over 100,000 to 82,000 that endangers the quality. Remember - they do not recruit direct but from the best of other regiments after a tough selection process. An actual cut to 22 SAS, as such, is very unlikely as they are a fairly small regiment anyway.
Increasing the size of the SAS is not possible without compromising quality unless we actually increase the size of the pool from which they get selected.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
yet again we get involved, this time mali in pursuit of the bearded ones yet again. a couple of days ago we heard that 30 troops were being sent in a non combat role, now it is up to 300.
every time we get involved with islamist aggression the threat to our peace increases, the security services have done a great job so far, but this latest involvement act as a recruiting sergeant for disaffected young muslims.