[Mazzini]

(Original post by Organ)
This is the problem, why are some British people so paranoid? The cold war is over, why are we so scared about incoming nuclear missiles? Japan don't have nuclear weapons. Poland don't. Portugal don't. Why do we need them? Our allies the French and the Americans have them anyway, why do we need nuclear bombs?

Oh yeah, because Portugal would really nuke us after we bailed them out.

[binkey]

-DELETED-

[Nick100]

(Original post by gladders)
I think you have a good case for cutting unnecessary military spending; nobody would dispute that.

But the question is disbanding it entirely, excessively and recklessly cutting spending, if you will.

I was arguing against someone who claimed that miliary spending is an economic benefit; I agree with you that military spending should not be cut.

[SpicyStrawberry]

Our military does a lot more than just go to war and serve as a deterrent, so cutting jobs even more wouldn't be a great thing to do. Argentina might be kicking off about the Falklands again, so we would need them for that.

[callum9999]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Allies and situations change. Your comment reflects a lack of insight in an ever evolving world. It would be wise to base the security of your entire nation not only the today you know, not only on the future you can conceive, but also the future you can't.

How insightful...

The EU are a bit more than simply "allies". And on the off chance that it does fall apart in the future, it's hardly going to be instant.

[callum9999]

(Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
Our military does a lot more than just go to war and serve as a deterrent, so cutting jobs even more wouldn't be a great thing to do especially as Argentina might be kicking off about the Falklands again.

They clearly won't be invading them...

[ckingalt]

(Original post by callum9999)
How insightful...

The EU are a bit more than simply "allies". And on the off chance that it does fall apart in the future, it's hardly going to be instant.

So your great logic/plan is to disband the military and get rid of nukes. Then if the world balance does shift in unpredictable ways you will just form a new defense from scratch (since it won't happen in an instant).

[callum9999]

(Original post by ckingalt)
So your great logic/plan is to disband the military and get rid of nukes. Then if the world balance does shift in unpredictable ways you will just form a new defense from scratch (since it won't happen in an instant).

And I said that when exactly?

[ckingalt]

(Original post by callum9999)
And I said that when exactly?

Whoops, I mentally mixed up several of Organ's comments with your's. My mistake.

[Keckers]

(Original post by Organ)
I agree, but I am in favour of a federal EU anyway so we can project European interests as equal amongst the United States and China in the future.

Ah wonderful, three massive nuclear superpowers with large bureaucratic governments obsessed with central planning. Ever read 1984?

[lambert1]

This is never going to happen. Liberals jack off over public spending and conservatives jack off over a big military. Both sides are in agreement over keeping it the way it is.

[billydisco]

(Original post by Organ)
The cold war is over, why are we so scared about incoming nuclear missiles? Japan don't have nuclear weapons. Poland don't. Portugal don't. Why do we need them? Our allies the French and the Americans have them anyway, why do we need nuclear bombs?

How many enemies do Japan, Poland and Portugal have?

You are seriously naive... you a leftie by any chance?

[the mezzil]

(Original post by callum9999)
They clearly won't be invading them...

You don't know that things change, here is the most famous example:

1938: Hitler CLEARLY won't be going to war with Britain due to appeasment

[the mezzil]

(Original post by petebuckson)
i agree. people who join the army are just braindead chavs who can't be bothered getting a job in the real world and think it will be cool to kill some people they've never met.

Completly untrue and you obvously don't know many servicemen/women. Do you have any sources or evidence to back up your claims?

[callum9999]

(Original post by the mezzil)
You don't know that things change, here is the most famous example:

1938: Hitler CLEARLY won't be going to war with Britain due to appeasment

Well obviously I can't know that for sure, but as far as it is reasonably practical... I can't know America won't invade the UK - doesn't mean it's an event we actually need to be ready for.

And I personally don't see the parallel between the Falkland Islands and the outbreak of WW2 but there you go.

[gladders]

(Original post by callum9999)
Well obviously I can't know that for sure, but as far as it is reasonably practical... I can't know America won't invade the UK - doesn't mean it's an event we actually need to be ready for.

And we're not! Otherwise the armed forces would be a billion times bigger than they currently are. In fact the armed forces are geared to our international commitments and estimations of dangers present and likely in the future.

And I personally don't see the parallel between the Falkland Islands and the outbreak of WW2 but there you go.

In 1939, Britain was woefully unprepared for war because people feared arming would provoke Hitler. Conversely, not arming also meant he didn't take Britain seriously.

[callum9999]

(Original post by gladders)
And we're not! Otherwise the armed forces would be a billion times bigger than they currently are. In fact the armed forces are geared to our international commitments and estimations of dangers present and likely in the future.



In 1939, Britain was woefully unprepared for war because people feared arming would provoke Hitler. Conversely, not arming also meant he didn't take Britain seriously.

I know we aren't - that's my point. It's unlikely so there is no need to be ready for it.

Yes I've done GCSE history... I still hardly see how appeasing Hitler is remotely similar to the current Falklands situation.

[dean01234]

[QUOTE=Organ;36266179Our allies the French [/QUOTE]


lets put our national security in the hands of the French why don't we?

Is it because they have proven themselves to be reliable allies in the past?

Is it because they are a bunch of fantastic, wonderful and friendly people?

/end sarcasm

[Jihad]

(Original post by Organ)
Does anybody particularly have a problem with this? A reduction of the British Army to say about 25,000 troops and similar scale reductions in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, as well as the shelving of the nuclear weapons programme. I'm not convinced that the British military is really furthering national interests - we will lose a seat on the UN security council, but so what? It doesn't seem to bother Germany or Spain unduly. Anybody got any convincing arguments to counter this?

i seriously think there is something majorly wrong with you, or youre just trolling.

[Thatcherite]

(Original post by Organ)
Does anybody particularly have a problem with this? A reduction of the British Army to say about 25,000 troops and similar scale reductions in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, as well as the shelving of the nuclear weapons programme. I'm not convinced that the British military is really furthering national interests - we will lose a seat on the UN security council, but so what? It doesn't seem to bother Germany or Spain unduly. Anybody got any convincing arguments to counter this?

You're illogical, one of the worst ideas that any nation can do at a time like this is "disband the military".
We have Iran attempting to enrich uranium, we have Syria acting like the rouge state it always was, we have a North Korean leader whose only policy is military and Argentina playing up once again.
The worst thing we can do is disband ours.

In fact, we should restore our military back to the 2001 strength and increase it further with an extra 1% of spending of the GDP.
The military is the only area where spending should not be cut.