Is the size of Britain's military becoming a problem?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-day-that-britain-resigned-as-a-global-power-10269098.html
In my opinion, more per year needs to be spent on our armed forces.
In my opinion, more per year needs to be spent on our armed forces.
Scroll to see replies
Something that a lot of people don't realise is that the SDSR (Strategic Defence Spending Review) has created an armed forces which is more like a large large task force than an actual standing military; it can respond to small scale conflicts around the world but only with assistance from other nations. After the treaty of Versailles was imposed at the end of the First World War, Germany's Wehrmacht was allowed no more than 100,000 members. In order for the ground based forces of a country to qualify as an actual standing army, it has to exceed 100,000 members. This means that the British Army isn't actually an army at all; currently standing at 82,000, and is in fact already a defence force. This has basically hobbled the Army and although they don't like to admit it, they've been significantly hampered by politics and the past 2 decades has taken it's toll on the Armed Forces. Spending levels are so low that we have to rely on other nations to back us up in times of need. If Russia of China were to invade tomorrow, the US would throw the UK and the rest of Europe to the wolves in a heartbeat.
tl; dr we would get steamrollered by any other modern nation in the event of a war because of the decline of the spending on the British Armed Forces.
tl; dr we would get steamrollered by any other modern nation in the event of a war because of the decline of the spending on the British Armed Forces.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by futbol
It needs to be much smaller yes
6/10 poor effort at trolling
With the changing nature of warfare, standing armies don't need to be nearly as big in terms of manpower as in decades gone by. Still, I would certainly support better defence spending in order to project our power better in other parts of the world, and because by the nature of the beast a period of complacency and peace will be ended with a period of crisis and war.
Original post by scrotgrot
With the changing nature of warfare, standing armies don't need to be nearly as big in terms of manpower as in decades gone by. Still, I would certainly support better defence spending in order to project our power better in other parts of the world, and because by the nature of the beast a period of complacency and peace will be ended with a period of crisis and war.
Although technology and weapons platforms can be used as force multipliers in a conflict against a lesser enemy, there will never be a substitute for raw manpower when it comes to conventional warfare. The Army had a hard time adjusting to the asymmetric tactics used by the Taliban and the decreased capability of the Army forced these changes but this will inevitably be a detriment to the armed forces in the case of a future conventional ground war against similarly organised opponents as was the case in WW2, Falkland conflict, Bosnia and Iraq.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by napkinsquirrel
Although technology and weapons platforms can be used as force multipliers in a conflict against a lesser enemy, there will never be a substitute for raw manpower when it comes to conventional warfare. The Army had a hard time adjusting to the asymmetric tactics used by the Taliban and the decreased capability of the Army forced these changes but this will inevitably be a detriment to the armed forces in the case of a future conventional ground war against similarly organised opponent as in the case of WW2, Falkland conflict, Bosnia and Iraq.
This is why we have nuclear weapons and must keep Trident fully supported. No country is going to invade the UK knowing all their cities will be wiped off the map in response. Conventional wars between nuclear powers aren't going to happen because as soon as the country being invaded feels threatened out come the nukes.
Therefore why do we need an army over 100,000 in size? To fight terrorist organisations like ISIS? I think not, those threats need to be solved via the UN with dozens of countries contributing.
Original post by Sephiroth
Therefore why do we need an army over 100,000 in size? To fight terrorist organisations like ISIS? I think not, those threats need to be solved via the UN with dozens of countries contributing.
ISIS is already 200,000 fighters in strength. The resolve of other countries cannot be counted on in the case of a foreign power attacking us or our national interests being threatened. Having a large armed forces is essential for projecting power; especially in overseas territories (i.e. Germany and Cyprus) where they are ready for rapid deployment. Not everyone in the Army is an infanteer, there is a vast logistical network behind the army and manpower is critical to efficient operation. Not everyone who wears the uniform is out patrolling or door-kicking 24/7. The capability of the Army was stretched more thinly in Afghanistan then it ever was in Iraq and we were only supposed to be suppressing a local insurgency force, gathering intel, training the Afghan Army and Police and enacting search and destroy of materiel; not implementing a full scale tactical operation.
Think, like the NHS, the Armed Forces could do with less politicking and far, far, far less wasted money.
Original post by mojojojo101
Think, like the NHS, the Armed Forces could do with less politicking and far, far, far less wasted money.
Both suffer heavily from having to sub-contract.
Original post by Crb822
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-day-that-britain-resigned-as-a-global-power-10269098.html
In my opinion, more per year needs to be spent on our armed forces.
In my opinion, more per year needs to be spent on our armed forces.
I agree. After watching "Afghanistan: The Lions Last Roar?" I was shocked by how poor and ineffective our troops were.
the training fortunately hasn't slacked, although I am worried about the lowering of standards on the SAS course due to a few deaths.
it is quite obvious is the lack of actual troops in the first place and the poorness of the equipment.
I remember when harrier jets were technological marvel. now theyre obsolete.
the SA80 is an awful firearm by modern standards.
the AR18 was adopted by one nation. Japan. and the SA80 is a bullpup version of that rifle. and a poorly designed one too. if the UK wants a bullpup then Steyr Aug or IWI Tavor would be a much better option. either that or going for an AR15 like the rest of most of the world. or even something piston driven like the HK416.
I mean troops needed longer range weapons for Afghanistan.
and introducing a designated sniper rifle like the KAC is pretty poor. they have awful feedback in the american army. so why the british thought to adopted an old rifle already declared to be inferior is beyond me.
the vehicles are poor. I saw a mission from the pathfinders regiment they spent most of their time fixing their crappy cars before giving up on their mission because their cars were too crap.
compare that to the cars the SAS first used during WWII in africa that allowed them to run riot through north africa causing chaos with anything but the cars stopping them.
then the lack of planes, air support, helicopters, pilots, and then supplies.
all evident with the Royal Irish regiment when they became, essentially stranded without supplies. where their supplies were dropped in the wrong place. water was lacking to the point where they made a system where they only drank a cup of water if their urine was red.
the british army struggled to hold on to one tiny area of helmand province.
the only reason americans gave helmand to the british to sort out was cause of their history there.
the americans have had such a shocking time with the british that they don't want to work with us again unless we become a small force working under their command as an adhoc unit. thats how ineffective we were.
however its not the troops fault. altho like... dude... dropping the supplies in the wrong area.... pfft.
but i think another HUGE problem in the british military is the amount of nepotism high up in the ranks thats full of "yes men".
promises were made that could not be kept.
Original post by Mick.w
I agree. After watching "Afghanistan: The Lions Last Roar?" I was shocked by how poor and ineffective our troops were.
The equipment is currently improving in standards because of various through-life upgrades. The worst piece of equipment being issued at the moment is probably the Bowman radio; that took ages to even be upgraded to a fieldable level.
The use of the SA80 is very important for the British Army. It has a very distinctive silhouette and helps distinguish us from the Americans when it comes to winning hearts and minds. Its accuracy at range dominates in its class of weapons; significantly outperforming the US AR-15 style carbine weapons.
A lot of the equipment provided and outlined in the Urgent Operational Requirement documents has had significant teething troubles. This is to be expected when they have to be developed and deployed so quickly; R&D cycles responding to a changing battlefield threat such as IEDs can last years and of course issues will be discovered in field testing. Just remember that if it's possible for a squaddie to break it, it's poorly designed. This is no mean feat given their propensity for breaking everything.
The strain on R&D and equipment at the moment is basically because of the sharp change from conventional to unconventional warfare. The lack of manpower is the main problem.
(edited 8 years ago)
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
Still we are apparently the 5th ranked army.
Still we are apparently the 5th ranked army.
It's not about size, it's about what you do with it.
America practically invaded Ukraine with their NGO's and violent backed protests.
They spent billions in Ukraine to oust their Democratically elected leader and put in a load of anti-Russians. This revolution like the Bolshevik revolution, and even the French revolution has a lot in common. Guess what it is?
Who are the real bad guys here when they threaten Russia with NATO surrounding it?
Cameron said he wanted a peaceful solution, then sends British troops to Ukraine.
They spent billions in Ukraine to oust their Democratically elected leader and put in a load of anti-Russians. This revolution like the Bolshevik revolution, and even the French revolution has a lot in common. Guess what it is?
Who are the real bad guys here when they threaten Russia with NATO surrounding it?
Cameron said he wanted a peaceful solution, then sends British troops to Ukraine.
Original post by CerealJunkie
America practically invaded Ukraine with their NGO's and violent backed protests.
They spent billions in Ukraine to oust their Democratically elected leader and put in a load of anti-Russians. This revolution like the Bolshevik revolution, and even the French revolution has a lot in common. Guess what it is?
Who are the real bad guys here when they threaten Russia with NATO surrounding it?
Cameron said he wanted a peaceful solution, then sends British troops to Ukraine.
They spent billions in Ukraine to oust their Democratically elected leader and put in a load of anti-Russians. This revolution like the Bolshevik revolution, and even the French revolution has a lot in common. Guess what it is?
Who are the real bad guys here when they threaten Russia with NATO surrounding it?
Cameron said he wanted a peaceful solution, then sends British troops to Ukraine.
Yes. The 35 troops we sent are clearly going to take on the entire Russian army by themselves... Get a sense of perspective.
We should be spending more on the military, particularly things like aircraft carriers. We don't need massive expansion of the military, but we should have the ability to act militarily on our own if needed, without having to get the Americans to help us out.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- essay question - sociology
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Joining the British army - How do I tell my family I will be joining?
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- Is Israel winning
- Evaluate the interpretations
- Could Britain get a US trade deal if Trump wins?
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- Stressing about RAF
- Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage
- Uk sanctions china
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- I feel like I'm of very low intelligence, so I will fail in life
- Penis doesn't hang down it sticks out!
- What degree is best for this job?
- Who's your favourite historical figure?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Relationship - Single
- Becoming a Pilot
- Pilot
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
