Why are we (British Taxpayer) paying for Primce Harry to tour Brazil?

Scroll to see replies

My fear is nukes falling into the hands of non state actors.

My worst nightmare is somebody setting of a dirty bomb in somewhere like London or Manchester. We all know who would love to get their hands on one of them.

Maybe the USA is buddying up with Iran in Iraq with this potential consequence in mind. Get them on good terms, so they would be less inclined to look the other way should the wrong sorts come knocking on the door asking for the left overs.

I'm also glad to see this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10938372/Trident-given-a-vote-of-confidence-for-now.html

All we now need to do is buy a few more Type 45's, make sure the carriers are not going to be mothballed, increase the standing army to 100k and buy more (swap) Gucci kit and get rid of the antiquated ****e that is floating around in various MoD warehouses.

Oh, and whoever didn't make sure that the F35 contracts had timescales and budget constraints on them from building to delivery should be taken aside and shot. We are being ripped off now by constant upgrades to "faults" which cost more and more, which could of been avoided if we had somebody with a backbone who said "look listen here, I want 130 F35 delivered by x amount of years, at the agreed x price". But no, the morons decided to give them a blank cheque. They are pretty much useless now as the Chinese now have the blueprints and the stealth technology has gone out of date because they ****ed around with it so much.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 121

username1331498

Stop complaining, the Royal Family bring in a massive amount of money as a result of tourism.

Reply 122

Jammy Duel

I find it hilarious that people get all like "OMG, why are we wasting money having this royal going here and that royal going there?" as if they get the money for each trip independently, and not a single sum of money [from the government] (or two if you want to be fussy, but it's a set amount) to be spent as the necessary people see fit.

Reply 123

Tengo

Original post by the mezzil

Deaths increase during famine and war. That is common sense. But peace does not result in the absence of death or unjust killing. It means there is less opposition to it. By this I mean genocides occur during peacetime and end with war. That is a fact. Take that as you will.

I never referred to those wars? We were not even in Vietnam, and we have not been at war with Iran. As for Somalia, the most that we have contributed there is a few special forces units. So your point is completely irrelevant. There has been no war in those countries that we can determine was pointless for Britain, since we were not involved.

I'm talking about the USA and it's countless failed military intervention. You are talking about war en bloc, so don't get saucy when I use examples to contradict your 'facts'.

The primary threats are:

1)Instability in the Middle East, as anybody who has read a newspaper in the past 4 years should know, which will threaten trade routes and resource supplies, alongside the more important and saddening mass atrocities that have and will occur.

And how does war benefit the middle east? The allied forces are in such places for Oil, not to uphold some mythical humanitarianism.

2)Cyber warfare from China, Russia, DPRK and Iran

DPRK, really? We have more than enough resources to deal with such affronts as is, and realistically the best way to combat cyber-warfare is to invest in computer-science training rather than defence. I don't deny that it's a threat, though, but I'm not sure that spending is demonstrably the answer.

Home-grown terrorism, alongside foreign terrorists intent on destroying western values and liberalism

How does defence spending stop domestic terrorism? In the long run, this a matter of education and communication, in the short-run, it's an extremely cost-ineffective, difficult to deal with (not to mention overstated) threat.

Jihadist organisations consolidating their power within a country to use as a spring board for attacks on the west

Are you aware of the poverty and ineffectiveness of such institutions? Are you also aware that the strongest anti-western sentiment is founded in the history of War, i.e: Afghanistan? There a definitive links between western forces and the Mujahideen.

Abduction of UK and allied nationals in volatile areas of the world

It happens, but how common is this, really? And is this actually a military issue, or a political one?

Small chance, but still a realistic possibility of state on state conventional warfare

Not gonna happen. MAD.

With a resurgent Russia, buttressed by China, dominating Eastern Europe and causing chaos in the Middle East, a Sunni/Shi'a conflict in progress which threatens the geopolitical fabric of that entire region, we simply cannot afford anything less.

Yes we can.

Reply 124

the mezzil

Original post by Tengo

Given that genocide itself is an act of war, I would argue your baseless 'fact' is just that. It is possible to stop genocide with war, but not unilaterally. I would even advocate war in such extreme circumstances, if the c/b analysis pays off and it is the will of the people to act.

I'm talking about the USA and it's countless failed military intervention. You are talking about war en bloc, so don't get saucy when I use examples to contradict your 'facts'.

And how does war benefit the middle east? The allied forces are in such places for Oil, not to uphold some mythical humanitarianism.

DPRK, really? We have more than enough resources to deal with such affronts as is, and realistically the best way to combat cyber-warfare is to invest in computer-science training rather than defence. I don't deny that it's a threat, though, but I'm not sure that spending is demonstrably the answer.

How does defence spending stop domestic terrorism? In the long run, this a matter of education and communication, in the short-run, it's an extremely cost-ineffective, difficult to deal with (not to mention overstated) threat.

Are you aware of the poverty and ineffectiveness of such institutions? Are you also aware that the strongest anti-western sentiment is founded in the history of War, i.e: Afghanistan? There a definitive links between western forces and the Mujahideen.

It happens, but how common is this, really? And is this actually a military issue, or a political one?

Not gonna happen. MAD.

Yes we can.

I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Go back and consult a dictionary on the differences of genocide and war. Genocide can be intepreted as an act of war, but when one side is not entering a state of armed conflict, then by definition it is not war. It is peace. For example the DPRK is technically at war with the south, but no officially sanctioned violence has been authorised for 50 odd years. During this ceasefire (peace) do you think the DPRK has been happy clappy giving everyone high fives? Or do you think thousands of people have been purged and executed, with thousands more imprisoned in Gulags. What about the Rwandans? Do you really think that was war? Or was it simply slaughter?

Reply when you have sorted your definitions out.

Oh and you do realise Afghanistan has no oil reserves. So its pretty stupid to claim that we are in there for oil. It just tells me you havent thought things through. Defence spending also includes domestic military intelligence (GCHQ/ MI5)

And MAD never worked for Iraq, Argentina, Korea.... etc etc.
Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)