|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 13, 2024 10:30:03 GMT
It's too small apparently.
How do you feel about our forces in general. Are you of the opinion that we need to be strong, we need to spend more on our defences. Are we a better country with a better army ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 13, 2024 10:31:15 GMT
They should reintroduce National Service
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 13, 2024 10:33:12 GMT
They should reintroduce National Service Maybe the birch and borstals also. As usual the cry from the section of the British public who support national service are too old to do it. They all do it in Greece, they are mostly fairly positive about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 13, 2024 10:36:53 GMT
If they're in Starbucks and haven't got a student ID, then haul 'em out and give 'em six months training
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 13, 2024 10:40:21 GMT
If they're in Starbucks and haven't got a student ID, then haul 'em out and give 'em six months training Yeah, let's teach mandem how to kill someone with a banana. |
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Feb 13, 2024 10:54:52 GMT
They should reintroduce National Service I wouldn't go that far, but i think 2 years of some kind of part-time community service would be a good idea, it wouldn't have to be in the military. |
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 13, 2024 10:59:47 GMT
Maybe on a Yorkshire kibbutz, that sort of thing ?
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,786
|
Post by rayge on Feb 13, 2024 12:40:26 GMT
I know it probably was not a serious question in the first place, but I believe that all the armed forces should be decommissioned in favour of a squad of civilian workers who could be on hand to deal with natural disasters and would otherwise be involved in major infrastructure products.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 13, 2024 12:46:54 GMT
If this doesn't bring DOUGIE back, nothing will!
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 13, 2024 13:07:19 GMT
I know it probably was not a serious question in the first place, but I believe that all the armed forces should be decommissioned in favour of a squad of civilian workers who could be on hand to deal with natural disasters and would otherwise be involved in major infrastructure products. It is a serious question. I like the squad of civilian workers in principle. The application and funding and running of that idea seems beyond the capabilities of the current political class. |
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 14, 2024 13:54:11 GMT
An Army is essential. We need, ideally, one around 180,000 to 200,000 strong.
The British Army is, generally, a pretty decent one and they only improve with operational experience. Wars and conflicts, whilst not eminently desired, do generally help to build understanding of how to approach scenarios through experience. One thing counts above all else in warfare - experience. That's why the US armed forces are the best, because they are continually engaged in all sorts of conflicts all over the world and have a military structure that is geared towards understanding how to fight all sorts of opponents, whether it be asymmetric, conventional or whatever, and to learn from the experience. I am concerned that the Russians will take the experience of fighting the Ukrainians into a future conflict with NATO across the Polish, Romanian and Baltic states.
Given that we have no idea of what the future is, and also that we are living in what seems like a volatile world, to think about disbanding our military forces entirely just seems like outright utopian lunacy to me. Military forces generally help out with all sorts of disasters and have first-hand experience of dealing with such things, unlike NGOs, who seem to fuck things up - as was evinced in Haiti.
I'd say that giving those who serve in the Armed Forces full salary pension after 25 years might help recruitment. But there are some significant concerns that if Britain was drawn into a conflict where recruitment might be an issue, we don't have a pool of people who would be willing to serve.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 14, 2024 14:22:38 GMT
If the Russian fighting experience has taught them anything, it is that they need to keep a healthy jail population, hire mercenaries and teach them that war is different if the enemy has actual functioning air cover.
Then again, they could just fess up and realise that they ain't all that, when push comes to shove.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Feb 14, 2024 14:22:44 GMT
An Army is essential. We need, ideally, one around 180,000 to 200,000 strong. The British Army is, generally, a pretty decent one and they only improve with operational experience. Wars and conflicts, whilst not eminently desired, do generally help to build understanding of how to approach scenarios through experience. One thing counts above all else in warfare - experience. That's why the US armed forces are the best, because they are continually engaged in all sorts of conflicts all over the world and have a military structure that is geared towards understanding how to fight all sorts of opponents, whether it be asymmetric, conventional or whatever, and to learn from the experience. I am concerned that the Russians will take the experience of fighting the Ukrainians into a future conflict with NATO across the Polish, Romanian and Baltic states. Good points, I wonder what you think of the theory that The British Army should start a war, just to keep their eye in as it were. After all, military manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain are all very well, but no substitute for the real thing. May I suggest Iceland? The cold weather conditions would be a good preparation for when Putin invades Latvia or Finland. I think Iceland would be relatively low risk as they have a small population and are quite placid for Viking types. It's not too far to go either so wouldn't leave too much of a carbon footprint. One would hope we would not repeat the mistakes of the 1973 Cod War when we were unprepared for their use of the haddock. Or perhaps we should be looking at a hot country given the Middle East seems to be a bit of a hot spot for this sort of thing? I note Arsenal's form has improved no end since their warm weather training break in Dubai and it could have a similar galvanising effect on The British Army. Failing all that we could always pick another ruck with the Irish, it doesn't take much to put their backs up, and go into Belfast all guns blazing! Thoughts...? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 14, 2024 14:38:26 GMT
That's why the US armed forces are the best, because they are continually engaged in all sorts of conflicts all over the world and have a military structure that is geared towards understanding how to fight all sorts of opponents, whether it be asymmetric, conventional or whatever, and to learn from the experience. Absolutely extraordinary. |
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Feb 14, 2024 15:01:07 GMT
That's why the US armed forces are the best, because they are continually engaged in all sorts of conflicts all over the world and have a military structure that is geared towards understanding how to fight all sorts of opponents, whether it be asymmetric, conventional or whatever, and to learn from the experience. Absolutely extraordinary. But Johnny think about it. Korea, a draw . Vietnam , less said. Afghan and Iraq conflicts were a total success, Kuwait ,dammit , saw the enemy pretty much run away. |
|
