|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 17, 2024 5:20:03 GMT
The world is at a crossroads. Putin is trying to rebuild the Russian empire.
If we are not in a position to wage conventional war to repeal an invasion of a NATO country, we may have to wage unconventional (nuclear) war.
It's better to have a large conventional force at the ready.
Appeasement didn't work, it simply enabled him, and now over a million are dead because of Putin and his wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 17, 2024 6:35:37 GMT
I thought the idea of having nukes was so we don't have to have large conventional forces? The days of sending boys to their deaths in great numbers are long gone and more kit less people seems the order of the day .
Having said that we do seem to have reduced our military capability to a small unit within NATO and is probably why we say "how high" when the USA says "jump" .
Not that Im a expert in such matters (far from it ) but I would see a build up of the navy and air force as a priority for our future needs
|
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Jan 17, 2024 10:43:40 GMT
It's rare that I agree with Corinne Stockheath...errr, sorry, Grant Shapps... but he made some good points in his speech and to be fair, I think every SecDef we've had has known the scale of the problem but been impeded in addressing the issue by Treasury and other internal and external influences.
I joined the Army as a Reservist in 1986 and went Regular in 1997, so my service has tracked the last 35 years of Defence. From my experience, HM Armed Forces has been in 'managed decline' since the first calls for a 'peace dividend' in the wake of the Cold War. This was despite the fact that prominent military analysts then, now and at all points in between have been arguing that the collapse of the Soviet Union offered no 'peace dividend', but rather made the world a more unpredictable and dangerous place - as has been proven. Nevertheless, eager neoliberals with little or no cognisance of Defence were keen to divert as much funding from the 'war machine' into other government priorities as they could. Following DCS15 in 1995, the active cuts began and they were ill-informed. 'Front Line First' probably sounded reassuring to the voting public (the only thing politicians give a shit about), but the reality was that the drastic cuts to the 'logistic tail' of the Armed Forces left those teeth arms troops high and dry, without the transport, infrastructure, kit and equipment, messing and healthcare that they needed to go and do what they do. Ever since - ostensibly to rebalance that - successive governments have cut teeth arms to bring them down to a level that can be supported by that much (and unfairly) maligned 'logistic tail'.
There was an attempt, under Cameron, to beef up the Territorial Army to fill the gap, but as with so many government initiatives, a good idea was blighted by a penny-pinching Treasury. This is what led to the TA being re-named the Army Reserve, with an intent to reflect the US National Guard model, or the Swiss model. However, it was all talk and little in the way of action.
God forbid we find ourselves in another shooting war in the next decade - and one that is more existential than our desert adventures of the last two decades - we may very well have to go down the US National Guard route and revisit our use of Reservists. For example, I was medically discharged eighteen months ago and so, under the current rules, I can't be called back up. But if push came to shove, I could easily backfill a firm-base, UK post to free up medically deployable colleagues to go forward.
More widely in general society, serving in the Armed Forces is not seen as an attractive career option. Clan Cartertonian are doing their bit - I have two Junior Cartertonians in the Army, one in bomb disposal and one in intelligence and a younger one looking at engineering - but that's hardly surprising for kids brought up in a military family ('pad brats'). The problem is that whilst in previous generations everyone would have known someone who had served in the military, today there are swathes of society with no such personal association and a perception of the military based solely on war films and news coverage. That does not promote a productive recruiting pool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2024 10:55:07 GMT
I thought the idea of having nukes was so we don't have to have large conventional forces? The days of sending boys to their deaths in great numbers are long gone and more kit less people seems the order of the day . Having said that we do seem to have reduced our military capability to a small unit within NATO and is probably why we say "how high" when the USA says "jump" . Not that Im a expert in such matters (far from it ) but I would see a build up of the navy and air force as a priority for our future needs The British people are handing over billions of pounds over to Ukraine, which is only going to end up in the hands of America's industrial military complex. Meanwhile British forces can't even offer adequate training and are probably wasting millions by trying to appease identity politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 17, 2024 11:04:01 GMT
If Ukraine falls Putin will invade Moldova, Poland, Finland, Latvia, large conventional forces are needed in order to deter conventional invasions.
Otherwise, it's nuclear war.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 17, 2024 11:08:37 GMT
Surely this rather comes down to what we want (and financially can afford) to be.
If we want to pretend to be a major player on the world stage, sorting out on our own Houti rebels in far flung places, yes we need a large military but boy we are going to have to cut back on little things like hospitals and schools to pay for it.
If we want to accept our role is now part of the collective defence of Western Europe along with our Western European Allies, you surely get a very different answer. Russia has proven itself incapable of getting to even the capital city of its nearest neighbour. The idea that it poses a serious threat of sending a land army across eastern Europe and into Germany and onwards to Britain is absurd. As is the prospect of it sailing round Western Europe and up the Thames to invade London from the sea. China is such a long way away that similarly it poses limited threat to Western Europe. A rogue USA (not an unrealistic prospect sadly) perhaps is the biggest threat to the UK.
At present we still cling on to our former glories and fall between two stools - still spending far too much on defence if our role is just to defend Western Europe but not enough if we want to be the World's policeman, so we play along as the US's lapdog as a minor part of US military adventures. That seems dumb. We really should choose.
For me, I would settle for a role alongside France and Germany and Italy and Spain and smaller Western nations in creating a coordinated defence force aimed at defending Western Europe and spend the savings on money currently wasted on "defence" on public services that actually benefit the public.
If you advocate spending more on "defence", perhaps you could articulate what role you are seeking and what threat you are defending against. Or is this to be another run for the hills "you never know what threat may materialise, spend shed loads of money anyway" debate to which the counter argument is always OK why are we not building meteorite shields and defences against alien life forms just in case. After all you never know....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jan 17, 2024 11:11:32 GMT
Well said, dappy.
Like most armchair generals a majority here appear to want an army equipped to fight the last war not any conceivable future one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2024 11:20:22 GMT
If Ukraine falls Putin will invade Moldova, Poland, Finland, Latvia, large conventional forces are needed in order to deter conventional invasions. Otherwise, it's nuclear war. Germany and Poland have been supporting Russia for the perks, and have been doing so for many years. Meanwhile shipping lanes are being attacked whilst France refuses to support any action to stop it, even though it's all being orchestrated by Russia's allies. Why are we funding wars as cannon fodder to benefit the EU, when the EU clearly has a lot of responsibility?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 17, 2024 11:22:57 GMT
We're providing arms to the victims of wars to stop the expansion of Putin's Vladovite empire.
Big difference.
The man is an aggressor.
If he hadn't been such a dodgy twat, Russia could have joined NATO, or better still NATO could have disbanded.
BUT because of Putin NATO has never been more relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 17, 2024 11:30:30 GMT
The Wests answer to the threat from the East. Get armed to the teeth and destroy our enemies.
Chinas answer to the threat from the West . Build trade routes and alliances with countries that hate the West .
I can see a problem with the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jan 17, 2024 11:39:19 GMT
If Russia can't prevail against a military midget like Ukraine what makes us think they'll be fighting their their way all the way to the English Channel?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 17, 2024 11:42:47 GMT
If Russia can't prevail against a military midget like Ukraine what makes us think they'll be fighting their their way all the way to the English Channel? Well yes but Russia has a lot of potential to be a very powerful enemy in the future . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jan 17, 2024 11:47:41 GMT
They could also be a very powerful friend if approached in the right way.
Hint: Joining in on US-inspired and -led sabre-rattling along its borders isn't the right way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 17, 2024 11:51:44 GMT
They could also be a very powerful friend if approached in the right way. Hint: Joining in on US-inspired and -led sabre-rattling along its borders isn't the right way. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 17, 2024 12:01:11 GMT
If Ukraine falls Putin will invade Moldova, Poland, Finland, Latvia, large conventional forces are needed in order to deter conventional invasions. Otherwise, it's nuclear war. I read somwhere that the UK are sending 20.000 troops to a NATO excerercise in Poland...I guess the majority of those sent will be Territorial's......
Found the link it's just 2 days old...
UK to deploy 20,000 troops to NATO military drill to practice repelling a Russian invasion
In a speech today, the defence secretary is expected to announce the deployment of the army, navy and RAF personnel to the 31-nation Steadfast Defender military exercise across Europe.
|
|
