The mighty military

[HertsWolf]

Once upon a time, Britain had armed forces that could defend more than the southern half of the Grand Union canal in daylight hours.

We are, it seems, currently hunting down a Russian submarine which is in our waters.

Our "nuclear deterrent" policy means that we have only one way of doing this: launching ballistic missiles at civilian, military and political centres across Russia. The Russians will retaliate with their ballistic missiles and suddenly, for about three minutes, we will know where that fucking submarine has been hiding.

The hunt for this submarine is being conducted by a maritime support aircraft. A French one. Because throughout the centuries, it has been proven that relying on the French for your military activities is what we call in Hampshire "a fucking good idea".

Why are we hunting foreign submarines using an aircraft that lands for lunch between 11am and 4pm and doesn't fly at all during the weekends or when there is a Catholic saint listed on the calendar? No disrespect to the French military, but the only people on the planet I would want doing military shit for us less, would be the Belgians. Their response to a submarine in their waters would be to close the Brussels Metro and hide under a duvet.

Wasn't there a plan to replace the British-built Nimrod maritime support aircraft? Ah no. That was cancelled by the current government in 2010 after the previous government let the Nimrod replacement plans go over budget by £789 million. That will leave us with relying on a morning-only maritime coverage by Jacques, Pierre and Serge until such time as we can export 5,000 jobs to a US manufacturer of maritime support planes and get our own maritime support aircraft in about five years' time.

Tell me, what exactly do our politicians do when they are not filling in expense forms?
Can't we create a "political deterrent" that, in the event of a crisis or war, launches MPs and councillors into enemy territory to fuck up their military and defence capability?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Those cheeky Ruskie scamps hey, you'd think they'd have enough on their plate what with trying to blow the shit out of anything that moves in Syria on all sides. That and creeping across Ukraine one field at a time hoping no one will notice. With soldiers that definitely are most certainly not from Russia, of course.

But no, they have a military that can do more than wave it's hands in the air at one particular crisis at a time.

Meanwhile, I see Argentina voted in a new President over the weekend.,,,

 

[spireite]

Tbf there's only China, Russia and the US who can claim to be able to kick our head in militarily, so for a fading empire still holding onto past legacy we're not doing too bad

 

[Luke_1884]

We give as good as we get.

We've got two fronts covered 24/7 protecting the homeland and we're able to react to crisis' rapidly when asked.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Meanwhile, I see Argentina voted in a new President over the weekend.,,,

A more friendly one from our point of view. He'll take more of a "we do not speak of it" approach that will allow us to co-operate more closely by the sounds of things. Well, until he needs a distraction I suppose.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Tbf there's only China, Russia and the US who can claim to be able to kick our head in militarily, so for a fading empire still holding onto past legacy we're not doing too bad

depends on the conflict don't it. we probably shouldn't get into that whole 'my dick is bigger than yours' game but our army ain't very big. course we do have nukes which helps, india have a far bigger armed forces and nukes though so they're probably ahead of us. north korea have the biggest but no projection capabilities, so you'd be safe saying we was 'better' than them. what about, say, turkey? no nukes, but far larger armed forces and plenty of experience fighting a domestic guerilla war. same with pakistan, they have nukes too though.

depends on how you judge though doesn't it. say the test is how they'd do against a weaker, non atomic neighbor. all aforementioned forces would do better conquering a weaker state. the libyan intervention proved that european armies are lacking. we can't commit to warfare without u.s. strategic and logistical backing. the iraq war was our last hoo-rah. libya, from my understanding, was a big wake up for eu policy queens, there was a real acknowledgement that war had entered a state we were ill-equipped for, and all future conflicts needed to be multilateral ones with the core of the web being the u.s. and us, at best, little dew covered outer web pieces (sorry, wish i knew cobweb terminology)

the future of us, militarily, shouldn't be desperately hanging on to our status as failed imperial conquistadors. we need to accept we're in a new age of asymmetrical warfare. our emphasis should be on targeted strikes, providing quality training to potential allies, participating in small ground incursions using our pretty impressive amphibious abilities and co-ordinating an effective nuclear deterrant with nato. establishing joint no-fly zones is well within out purview too as the raf is still one of the better air forces around

 

[Conker]

Even Russia, despite having a huge military in comparison don't have anything near the capabilitys we do to project military power around the world.

Lots of tanks etc but they would struggle to move or sustain them.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

So those 6 world leading type 45 destroyers that cost £1Bn each and are only a few years old.

Yeah, they all need new engines because the ones they were all fitted with randomly seem to cut out and leave the ship stranded now and again, a sitting duck in any conflict situation.

BAE systems and Rolls Royce are looking into it...