Britains Armed Forces too small?

Im not talking in terms of quantity but quality. You don[t really think if the British army was of similar size to the American, you would have a chance?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Ill give you Hostage sitiuations with the SAS they are goof, But most capable in Bombing? Over the USAF you have to be kidding right?

Also mass tank assult the numbers are being slashed , and armoured regiments re equiped with light armour , Quality maybe but surely a lack of quantity

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Im not talking in terms of quantity but quality. You don[t really think if the British army was of similar size to the American, you would have a chance?

I dont see the quality in UK bombers over US bombers. The RAF bomber force is made up mainly of what Tornados?

There is nothing that can compare the the B-2 or F-117

Ok i´ll be more percise. The quality of the actual soldier. As in ww2 the German soldier was clearly the best around but was defeated by the production war. If the UK had your production power we would match and defeat you in any conventional battle.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


I dont see the quality in UK bombers over US bombers. The RAF bomber force is made up mainly of what Tornados?

There is nothing that can compare the the B-2 or F-117

Tats right Tornados and Jaguars , a strategic airstrike capability has been lacking since the demise of the V bombers in the 80's .

has been going on for some time. I did some work with the MOD in 1999 and it seemed most of the guys i spoke to were moving out. We do have a role to play - but it seems that our present - albeit temporary president elect has decided to scale back - i wonder what Mr Brown will do given he is supposedly the next occupant of Number 10 (funny cos he lives there already)

Originally posted by Silk
has been going on for some time. I did some work with the MOD in 1999 and it seemed most of the guys i spoke to were moving out. We do have a role to play - but it seems that our present - albeit temporary president elect has decided to scale back - i wonder what Mr Brown will do given he is supposedly the next occupant of Number 10 (funny cos he lives there already)

TAX TAX TAX TAX ....... repeat to fade sorry off topic

But again a good point , loss of highly trained personel , eg SAS to MERC and consulting and RAF pilots to Airlines , all bad things, but can you blame them ?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by buckaroo]

Sorry, you guys are actually second best, Australian S.A.S are the best trained and equipped troops on this planet. But the whole thing is disgusting anyway....NWO troops, each and every one of them..

What is a soldier? A terrorist who gets paid.

Originally posted by DrBones666
Sorry, you guys are actually second best, Australian S.A.S are the best trained and equipped troops on this planet. But the whole thing is disgusting anyway....NWO troops, each and every one of them..

What is a soldier? A terrorist who gets paid.

A bit harsh there DrBones666 my Dad served for 12 years in the British Army , he ai'nt a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination , nor are my mates in the Navy and Army today.

And the Australian SAS may well be up there with the best of the best when it comes to training , but best equipped?, I doubt it

Lets talk about what Britain really needs here. Does it need a military with a global power projection capability? No. Does it need a military with a very good home defense capability? Yes.

If you want to be able to project sizable power anywhere in the world then you do need a big military, supported by vast amounts of resources, money and foreign real-estate, and it has to be supplied with very capable systems. However if you want a military with a capability to regionally project power and with a capability to regionally defend itself then you can make do with a lower budget and with a lower man count.
So in my opinion no, the UK does not need a bigger military because it is already very capable when it comes to defending itself and when it comes to projecting limited power. The only reason I see for it to increase its military would be if it wanted to start waging war on nations far from its shores.

Lets not kid ourselves here, Britain is not the vast empire it once was with its colonies and territories all over the world (maybe some politicians haven't gotten the memo?) so a global projection capability is not needed. It is an island nation that will not be invaded by anyone with their right mind.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

I'm not saying that this was always the case, but these days the military is used illegally, the US and UK and even the Australian government deploy the military because of CORPORATE INTERESTS, not in the best interests of the people, NEVER in the best interest of the people.

Look at Gitmo, look at whats happening in Iraq, and WHY are they building federal detainment centres all across America? All across the world, soldiers are TRAINED to fire upon their OWN PEOPLE!

My friend was in the Australian army, and he said that he was trained to respond to orders to detain civilians, and fire upon them if ordered to, this is disgusting.

Look at who they recruit, gang members! The powers that be want a cruel military, absolutely brainwashed to respond to orders without question, no matter how evil and wrong those orders might be. I also know a martial arts trainer who was hired by the Australian Military to train soldiers to be cold enough to stab their own friends in training exercises. It was his job to RAISE the level of psychopathic unfeeling killers in the ranks...

The plan is to institute Martial Law across all areas of the "civilised world," and for chaos everywhere else so they can wipe out dissidents, come on people, WHY ARE THEY BUILDING CONCENTRATION CAMPS ACROSS AMERICA???

People need to realise that the real enemies are the powers that be...

Can you inform me a little more of such concentration camps? By the way, I personally think most of you reaction to military programs and training is due to a lack of familiarity and awareness and experience.

In the meantime however I suggest you cut down of watching V for Vendetta.

the UK is technogically sound (2nd only to america).


1) a major nuclear power

2) raf:- eurofighter, which people say is the worlds 2nd best fighter (2nd only to the new f-22), tornadoGR4's, F-35's (coming in service soon).

3) navy:- Type45's entering service soon, new carriers, new subs.

4) future:- great looking projects in the future (ucav's, uav's) again from what ive seen only america can challenge us with the UCAV designs (raven, corax) look really promising

+ BAE have 4 more in production (apprantly).

. working on UCAV projects with the US (project churchill) for one.

. hmmm, that new nuclear weapon thing the US & UK are testing (that can destroy a country the size of russia in one)

. arn't the UK involved in that 'star wars defence system' thing also?
----

i agree with what the dude said above me, i believe our troops are the best trained in the world - but technological wise america leads the way!!

but i believe america is the only threat to the united kingdom, i don't think we'd be second faviourtes if anyone else tryed to invade us.

but yeah back to the topic, i don't believe the manpower of the british armed forces is an issue!!

my concern is that our troops are EVERYWHERE (afganistan, iraq, falklands, peacekeeping in eastern europe, still troops in ireland) etc.

as a nation we are doing too much.


[edit on 23-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

As an American I think I understand how Europeans are THROUGH with WAR. The UK is the one divided country. It is genetically linked to the United States, but it is sited in Europe. Or nearly so. In the First World War, Great Britain, France Russia and Germany each lost more than 1 million men of young age. Germany lost many millions of men in the Second World War as did also the Soviet Union. America lost about 145,000 KIA in the First, and 450,000 KIA in the Second. From 1918 to 1939 is just 21 years. One generation. Tens of million of people would have lived through both wars.

I hope the UK does not raise its 2.2% of GDP for its armed forces. Hire more cops, not more soldiers.

It is my solemn belief that the Republicans and George Bush have pervertedly CO-OPTED the Nine Eleven Event. Geo W had, by September, 2001, undone the 1993 tax policy that had brought our country to a balanced budget and projected surplus. The stock market had collapsed, losing 40% of its value compared to December, 2000.

I sincerely believe that Geo W was advised that WAR TRUMPS ECONOMY!

The 1993 WTC attack was treated as a CRIME. The perpetrators were sought out and brought to trial. The leader - the blind mullah - is now in jail. But there was no glory in that. No SAVE an election motive. The Republicans got by in 2002 and were able to use Nine Eleven again in 2004.

ASIDE: I see the current US inspired Iran brouhaha as a GOP ploy for our November 7, 2006 election. Hey, if WAR worked in ‘02, and ‘04, why not try it in ‘06?

Katrina is the example how poorly the Geo W Administration has prepared America for a disaster. The Homeland Security thing is mostly SHOW and very little GO. Truth is, we cannot afford to have the level of security Americans think we are striving for. Geo W proposes to limit our civil liberties and to backrupt the country, in the name of the open ended War on Terrorism. Now he has promised to remain in Iraq until 2009.

DON’T BE SUCKERED INTO THAT MODE OF OPEN ENDED SECURITY PROPOSALS FOR HALLIBURTON AND ETC.



[edit on 3/23/2006 by donwhite]

Maybe you shoyuld ask the Rothschild family to fund Britains military. They pretty much own the major central banks in the world and have directors (spies) in the largest major American corporations through its largest banks which they in fact were the original financers of.

Britain does not need to increase their military, they control Americas through the bankers.

Wow, nice little rant there don white except that it had almost nothing to do with the UK and the size of its military. Please people keep it on topic and don't get sidetracked by distractions.

The British need to think more longterm. This is a dangerous world, if something happen's to America there will be nobody to bail them out. Balance would be good, all those cuts are going to reflect badly if a conflict occurs overnight.

The uk spends more on travel for its armed forces then it does on ammo, i dont have a clue how much ammo the whole british army uses every year for training, but from the stories my dad has been telling me (yeah he was in the army) they use one hell of alot.

While i ahve no quams about them spraying ammo everywhere to train for a real fight, i do take issue with the spending on travel.

On the point about the soldiers of the UK being among teh best in the world, i would have to agree. When peopel think about special forces then its the sas all the way for my money.

Originally posted by northwolf
UK isn't actually under a conventional war threat, or is it?

Funny, that's what they thought in 1982 until some Argy muppet decided to have a go at British soverign territory. The shortfalls in British equipment soon came to light, resulting in a massive shake-up of tactics and kit.

My point is, if there is ever another attack on such territory, will we have the opportunity to learn lessons? Cuts will continue to happen until there is a big shock to the system (like in '82). We will just have to hope that the cuts have not left us in a position where we wouldn't win such a conflict when it happens.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by northwolf
UK isn't actually under a conventional war threat, or is it?

Funny, that's what they thought in 1982 until some Argy muppet decided to have a go at British soverign territory. The shortfalls in British equipment soon came to light, resulting in a massive shake-up of tactics and kit.

My point is, if there is ever another attack on such territory, will we have the opportunity to learn lessons? Cuts will continue to happen until there is a big shock to the system (like in '82). We will just have to hope that the cuts have not left us in a position where we wouldn't win such a conflict when it happens.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by PaddyInf]

Yes i suppose the old addage its better to have a gun (or a well trained and equipped armed forces capable of mounting say a falklands style campaign) and not need it , than to not have one and need it, applys here.

Its interesting to here that the Americans are often calling for her NATO allies to increase spending on defence, I don't blame them , but I still think we have got to face facts , The MOD can not keep under funding the Armed forces and , still expecting to have "the best troops" in the world.

I come from a long line military family most;ly naval and marine , my Dad was in the army , and im sure would have been proud of me had I followed in his footsteps, but when my brother recently expressed an intrest in joining the marines , my dad was against it 100% which shocked me, his argument was mainly because he sees the forces as being over committed, and feared that the pressure of almost continueal deployments to the worlds trouble spots would take its toll.