It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Military

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I recntly found a list of the british armed forces statistics, I was wondering what other brits thought of the numbers.
RN:
www.armedforces.co.uk...
www.armedforces.co.uk...
www.armedforces.co.uk...
British army
www.armedforces.co.uk...
www.armedforces.co.uk...
www.armedforces.co.uk...

RAF:
www.armedforces.co.uk...
www.armedforces.co.uk...

What does everyone think of our armed forces then?




posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What does everyone think of our armed forces then?


Outstanding men and women, they have my full support even if I don't support the wars they fight in


Well I think the military numbers are about right, but any cuts to front line troops would be very dangerous, Britain is simply to involved in global affairs that we need a decent number of ground troops.

And concerning the cutting of regiments, we can't forsake our military history for so called effiency, ways can be found to bypass the problem.

See here

We need to improve the technology level of our military, money has been wasted by current and past Governments on projects that are both late and cost more than they needed to.

On a maybe more radical note that doesn't keep with the tradition of the military (and many will want to hang me for saying this) I'd like to see the end of people entering the military at officer level straight away and make it a minimum requirement to serve at least say 5 years before they can apply to officer level.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
What do I think?

I myself am not overly worried about us having a small number of a "land force" as the United Kingdom is an Island Nation. However, I think we need a stronger Navy and Anti-Air craft capability as this would better our Nation.

We also should invest more into our "Air-Force" as these help "win" a war, the troops just help "control" the ground and I doubt we'll be invading many more places for a long while. Especially with the way Iraq is going. I also think our Military needs to play a more active role in U.N. Missions and CommonWealth Missions, punishing those that do deserve it - such as Mugarbe in Zimbabwe.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
But Odium, what if Blair foolishly follows Bush into Iran?

If they do that, we will all need more land forces.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
If our nation was like Switzerland and remained neutral to any conflict going on , id say the figures were acceptable but were not, any war that springs up Britain has to be there with less and less resources. Either spend more or stop going to war.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
If our nation was like Switzerland and remained neutral to any conflict going on , id say the figures were acceptable but were not, any war that springs up Britain has to be there with less and less resources. Either spend more or stop going to war.


You know the Brits will be expected to back Bush's new actions in Iran.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
But Odium, what if Blair foolishly follows Bush into Iran?

If they do that, we will all need more land forces.


Blair ain't that foolish, now with Iraq not being the push-over they all hoped for they realise they'll be stuck there for a few years. If he even attempts to push for another War, especially with Iran you'll see the Labour party voted out come next Election and the Liberal Democrats coming through - which is bad for both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, also they'll never get another "War Bill" through Parliament while Blair is in charge. They just don't trust him - it would take an attack on British Soil.

However I wouldn't put it passed "them" to stage such a thing to get the British people and even the European Union behind such a thing.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Be assured, we are already in Iran tampering with the situation. What choice will Blair have but to follow? If it gets too iffy, remember, al Qaeda will strike a target that affects both the British and the U.S. And there you will find the justification for support.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Theres no way the British will enter into any war with Iran, we don't have the forces to do it , we are stretched beyond our limits now in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Blair tried to involve us in another war he would be history.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
We've been in Iran for the last few years, through "Agents" from both the CIA and MI6 as well as Special Forces locating targets. I know how our Government works, however at the moment Blair only has a majority of 66, the Tory(Conservative) Party won't side with him and the Liberal Democrats won't - so it would be hard to get a "War Bill" through the House of Commons. The Law Lords are also very "Anti-War", with most serving in World War Two and most in Interviews saying how "Anti-Iraq" they are. (I'll find the links in the morning)

So they would need some major attack on our soil to cause us to go to War, otherwise outside of the U.K. it won't get out people behind it enough. They'll also need to attempt to get the European Union on side and even with such an attack it would be hard. The majority of people seem to think that Iraq was not a good idea and until our troops our home they won't stand for another war. Couple that with the fact the Territorial Army is running low, it would be even harder to justify another war and get involved in it before Iraq is sorted and I don't see that being in Blair's last few years before he leaves - which has to be before 2008.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Theres no way the British will enter into any war with Iran, we don't have the forces to do it , we are stretched beyond our limits now in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Blair tried to involve us in another war he would be history.


Welcome to the USA, mate!



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
So they would need some major attack on our soil to cause us to go to War, otherwise outside of the U.K. it won't get out people behind it enough. They'll also need to attempt to get the European Union on side and even with such an attack it would be hard...


Yes, yes, yes, BUT, what if al-Qaeda struck a neighborhood near you?

What then?

What if the Iranian signature was all over it?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
If our nation was like Switzerland and remained neutral to any conflict going on , id say the figures were acceptable but were not,

A) We are not Switzerland, we dont have to make our men and women serve in the military.
B) What you have said so far has been idiotic..



any war that springs up Britain has to be there with less and less resources. Either spend more or stop going to war.

And spend less on what?
We cant afford to not go to war sometimes, there is no way to stop gping to war every so often.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   


also they'll never get another "War Bill" through Parliament while Blair is in charge. They just don't trust him - it would take an attack on British Soil.


Hmmmmm..... intriguing...



So they would need some major attack on our soil to cause us to go to War,


Hmmmmm.........very intriguing....



They'll also need to attempt to get the European Union on side and even with such an attack it would be hard.


All of the our Allies have pledged their support......



Yes, yes, yes, BUT, what if al-Qaeda struck a neighborhood near you?

What then?

What if the Iranian signature was all over it?


I smell something fishy..............

It just spooked me reading these comments from before 7th July...and now after it seems rather ominous.....



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I think I found something that might be part of the spending problem for the MOD...

www.nationmaster.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
That's an interesting link, devilwasp and more than a little concerning. There was a big fuss about the household debt of private citizens hitting the £1 trillion mark not so long ago so that accounts for a portion. The government debt as of 2003 was £437 billion.

Converting into $ gives:

household debt: $1.74 trillion
government debt: $829 billion

Which takes care of $2.6 trillion. So the other $2.1 trillion, would that be debt to foreign banks owed by British companies?

Either way, I do believe we need to invest more in our armed forces. The situation might be relieved slightly when the new carriers enter service but i'd like to see more money given to the army and air force and especially for research and development.

ECK's comments do seem strangely prescient now but judging the mood of the country, I still don't believe we will assist in any attack on Iran. It will take a hell of a lot for Blair to convince the people of this country of the need for another war.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
What does everyone think of the UK being able to fire only 64 nukes at one time.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What does everyone think of the UK being able to fire only 64 nukes at one time.


Thats more than enough isn't it when they are in the multiple Megaton range? More than able to make anyone think twice about nuking us....I hope anyway!

EDIT: Thinking about that, are you sure it is 64 warheads and not 64 missiles. We have 3 trident subs with 16 odd missiles each. Each missile can carry multiple warheads (up to 16 I think)

[edit on 25/8/05 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Thats more than enough isn't it when they are in the multiple Megaton range? More than able to make anyone think twice about nuking us....I hope anyway!

Really?


EDIT: Thinking about that, are you sure it is 64 warheads and not 64 missiles. We have 3 trident subs with 16 odd missiles each. Each missile can carry multiple warheads (up to 16 I think)

[edit on 25/8/05 by stumason]

We have 4 subs with 16 missiles each, I didnt know they where multiple warhead but I know they are in the 100-475 KT yeild.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
Thats more than enough isn't it when they are in the multiple Megaton range? More than able to make anyone think twice about nuking us....I hope anyway!

Really?


EDIT: Thinking about that, are you sure it is 64 warheads and not 64 missiles. We have 3 trident subs with 16 odd missiles each. Each missile can carry multiple warheads (up to 16 I think)

[edit on 25/8/05 by stumason]

We have 4 subs with 16 missiles each, I didnt know they where multiple warhead but I know they are in the 100-475 KT yeild.


Only 3 vanguards are active, last time I checked. Each missile is believed to have 12 warheads (this is a best guess scenario by "experts" as the UK won't confirm it)

The warheads are variable too, so can be amended to give varying yields. Do not be surprised to find we could pack a punch if we had to.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join