Defence of the UK

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by pgs

We could build a new empire by invading and colonising all non aligned nations, we could then own Sweden, Lichenstein, Monaco, Switzerland, Finland, loads of little Pacific Islands, possibly Iceland, and why not Cuba just for fun. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

May I be in the task force against Monaco, rather than having to tackle Switzerland, Finland or Cuba - all of which are armed to the teeth.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Yes, but Finland is now owned by Brussels. And Switzerland are outside the Eu, so they can't afford any weapons because their economy has collapsed.
Apparently.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

nolf · June 2007

You can never dispand the army.

If you did so it would take at least 20 years to get a new army of equivalent standard to the one disbanded.

It isn't just a case of training soldiers- you would have no-one to train them, no one to lead them, no equipment, no one trained to use the equipment, no strategic plans, no threat assesment from various countries, no battle tactics, no chance of defeating any foreign country without extensive training and to a large extent experience!
Everyone who had experience of battle and war would go back to normal jobs and who knows if they would still be alive when the army was restarted.

An army is a gradually entity that has to constantly change its tactics and methods of warfare to addapt to changing tactical circumstances and new technology.

If the army was got rid of then you would have years and years of work to learn, not only that but you would have to rely on foreign powers (porbably american) to train your new army. So your tactics and equipment would be based around a foreign powers equipment and tactics. You surrender your country to a huge amount of foreign control.

For this reason alone you need to keep your army. For things such as this you have to look at the next 100 years of what could happen instead of the next 5 or 10 years. And who can say whether or not there will be war in that time.

It's only sensible to prepare for the worst, by 2050 China will be the worlds no.1 economy and whos to say they won't take an aggressive foreign policy stance against the West, making it necessary for us to defend purselves against them.

Nuclear weapons defend us to an extent but the difficulty is when do you use them? Armies are much more appropriate.
If (for example) France became hostile to us- would you nuke them then?
If France became increasingly aggressive towards us and started to cut off diplomatic relations do you nuke them then?
If France imprisoned all UK citizens in jail do you nuke them then?
If France delcared war and started landing troops on the Sotuh coast do you nuke them then?
French troops are marching down Oxford Street do you Nuke them then?

In reality even if France had totally defeated you, nuclear weapons still don't work.
Using Nuclear weapons against a nuclear power guarantees an equal response. Nuclear weapons are in effect suicide. You can't defend yourself by comitting suicide, so if anyone were to call your bluff and invade, you'd be left helpess.

Thats why we need an army.

Pride speaks, but Elephants listen...

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

What would happen? We'd end up selling ourselves out to some other government, possibly based in Brusse....oh, hang on...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Unlike say, selling ourselves (and our defence) out to the Americans, which is what we've done since WW2... that's so much more independent. We only paid off our post-war debts last year, our 'independent' nuclear deterent can't be lauched without their say-so, and we are obliged to supply the USA with all the signals intelligence gathered by GCHQ (amongst other things...).

I'd rather be European than an American lap-dog.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I detect a bit of economy with the truth in this.

I don't know to what extent you're right about the nuclear deterrent but it would be nice to see some proper proof.

As for the second, there is a sharing agreement between the Brits and yanks on certain areas of that material, which means that nothing like all the stuff which the Brits collect gets passed on to them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The UKUSA (UK-USA, but generally pronounce Yoo-Koo-Sa) agreement signed in 1946 or 1947 and still officially secret mandates exactly what I said. The original version of this, the BRUSA agreement, dates from WW2. It was supplemented by the CANUSA agreement and Britain also signed on behalf of Australia and New Zealand. All second parties, that is Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand are obliged to supply all SIGINT that the USA requires, with no reciprocity. There are also now many third parties, including Germany, Norway, Japan and so on, which have varying obligations.

The UKUSA agreement was first revealed in public by Duncan Campbell in some articles in the late 70s and early 80s, then in a book in Australia. An Australian minister admitted its existence in a TV prog later on. It's also described in rather more detail by James Bamford in his too books on the National Security Agency, 'The Puzzle Palace' and 'Body of Secrets.' There are also numerous bits of land in Britain that we are obliged to 'loan' to the Americans for SIGINT, for USAF use and various other bits and pieces - Menwith Hill in N.Yorks being the biggest SIGINT element (the main NSA base for the northern hemisphere). All telephone, fax and telex transmissions between Europe and the USA and vice-versa are passed through Menwith, and scanned using voice, word and other recognition software. It's also a downlink for most US military satellite systems and other things besides...

It's pretty well-known now that Britain would not be able to launch a nuclear strike without US approval - it was part of the deal for Trident and no doubt will be part of the deal for the replacement. I'll dig up some evidence if you really want, but it's not something that's really debated by most people who work in the area.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The UKUSA agreement was first revealed in public by Duncan Campbell in some articles in the late 70s and early 80s, then in a book in Australia. An Australian minister admitted its existence in a TV prog later on. It's also described in rather more detail by James Bamford in his too books on the National Security Agency, 'The Puzzle Palace' and 'Body of Secrets.' <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sure it's also mentioned in several Frederick Forsyth books.[;)]

ankev1 · June 2007

FM,

The UKUSA agreement was an agreement and the traffic is two way i.e. the obligations are mutual and freely entered into, which was not quite how it came across in your post. It is a fact that all the nations involved share what they are prepared to share, in other words, no one nation automatically hands over all it's stuff to the USA or vice versa.

I'd be wary of quoting Duncan Campbell if I were you. Like any other journalist he gets things wrong now and then and I don't think anybody has ever suggested that he has a privileged inside line to the establishment, unlike, oddly enough Frederick Forsyth who does occasionally get told what the establishment wants him to know.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

unlike, oddly enough Frederick Forsyth who does occasionally get told what the establishment wants him to know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Like how the armourer designed the silencer on the Jackal's gun that eliminated the supersonic crack of the bullet. [;)]

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

FM,

The UKUSA agreement was an agreement and the traffic is two way i.e. the obligations are mutual and freely entered into, which was not quite how it came across in your post. It is a fact that all the nations involved share what they are prepared to share, in other words, no one nation automatically hands over all it's stuff to the USA or vice versa.

I'd be wary of quoting Duncan Campbell if I were you. Like any other journalist he gets things wrong now and then and I don't think anybody has ever suggested that he has a privileged inside line to the establishment, unlike, oddly enough Frederick Forsyth who does occasionally get told what the establishment wants him to know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I am sorry, but are simply wrong about UKUSA. It is not remotely mutual in the sense of obligations being mutual. That is certainly not how the NSA see it at least...

Duncan Campbell is only one of many sources I have on this, some of whom are ex-insiders. I wrote my PhD thesis on SIGINT bases.

If you are suggesting you have inside information, you can contact me privately to confirm your credentials if you like. But believe me, I've met plenty of those who think they know, or worse, pretend they know...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

I wrote my PhD thesis on SIGINT bases.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought a PhD had to be some sort of academic heavyweight study.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

I wrote my PhD thesis on SIGINT bases.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought a PhD had to be some sort of academic heavyweight study.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nice try, Patrick... [;)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Gary Askwith · June 2007

I have never understood the constant, incessant carping on by the Euro-sceptic right-wing about loss of British sovereignty to the EU whilst totally ignoring the 60 odd year loss of sovereignty to the USA [:(!]

What Blair has done for Bush...

Iraq

Blair gave Bush unquestioning loyalty from first moment Iraq invasion was raised. Stood by him throughout the aftermath of the 2003 invasion despite no WMD being found, and the deaths of 149 British soldiers in the war

Guantanamo Bay

Betrayed the British nationals held without trial at Camp Delta by remaining silent for the first two years. The Prime Minister only called for the camp to be closed in March 2006, after it had been open for four years

Rendition

Blair allowed secret flights from American "black site" prisons to refuel at British airports in the knowledge that prisoners would be tortured, but concealed the information from European investigators

Middle East

PM's support for US policy undermined his position with Palestinians and his desire to be an honest broker. Backed Bush in refusing to demand an immediate ceasefire during the Israeli onslaught in Lebanon last year

Public Opinion

Sacrificed his popularity in the country and provoked hostility within the Labour Party and around the world, to preserve what is seen as a one-sided relationship - summed up in the phrase 'Yo, Blair!'

What Bush has done for Blair...

A Medal

In recognition of Blair's unstinting support for America since 11 September 2001, the PM has been awarded the singular honour of a US Congressional Medal. He has yet to collect it

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

I wrote my PhD thesis on SIGINT bases.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought a PhD had to be some sort of academic heavyweight study.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nice try, Patrick... [;)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd forgotten, FM's a lot brighter than most of them and doesn't bite so easily. [:(!]

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<sees opportunity to bait regcogs>

We need them to keep workers and trade unionists (to name two categories) in their place.

<retreats and waits for and hour's worth of the sort of stuff that would even send redder's mother to sleep>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, most of us workers and trade unionists have long understood that the ultimate raison d'etre of the state's police and armed forces is to impose the will of the state on its people.

The mystery is this: who are the "we" of whom you speak?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<sees opportunity to bait regcogs>

We need them to keep workers and trade unionists (to name two categories) in their place.

<retreats and waits for and hour's worth of the sort of stuff that would even send redder's mother to sleep>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, most of us workers and trade unionists have long understood that the ultimate raison d'etre of the state's police and armed forces is to impose the will of the state on its people.

The mystery is this: who are the "we" of whom you speak?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Which is of course why socialist countries don't need police or armed services.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

...socialist countries...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are there any?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

...socialist countries...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are there any?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it lasts until their economies collapse.

Garybee · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Most of our armed forces seem to be concerned with keeping the peace anywhere but Great Britain.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't confuse what the government is concerned with, with what the armed forces are concerned with.

Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.

nolf · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

...socialist countries...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are there any?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it lasts until their economies collapse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No Patrick get it right!

There have never been any socialist countries, they were all masquerading as socialists!

As soon as a REAL socialist country is set up you would see how perfect it was!

Pride speaks, but Elephants listen...

Saddle bum · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by nolf

As soon as a REAL socialist country is set up you would see how perfect it was!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And, and, and I believe; there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. [:0]

Molon Labe.

ankev1 · June 2007

I always find the left wing complaint that there has never been a socialist country to bit an insult to our collective intelligence. It's a bit like an old Nazi Gauleiter saying that we've never given fascism a proper chance. How many people have to be killed by lefty regimes before we write the idea off?

mossycp · June 2007

I was hoping to have an input into my own thread but it soon got hopelessly confusing and political so I didn't bother!

So, getting back to my original topic I think it could be a good thing. No more getting involved in other countries business, no more ridiculous expenditure on defence, a model for the rest of the world to follow. If we want to lead the world then why not do so by disarming and being completely passive? I really can't believe that any nation would want or need to invade the UK simply because we aren't big enough or have anything that anyone else wants.

You may have guessed I'm a bit of an idealist! Not a realist.

<h5>Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way {Dr Seus}</h5>

gavintc · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mossy

I was hoping to have an input into my own thread but it soon got hopelessly confusing and political so I didn't bother!

So, getting back to my original topic I think it could be a good thing. No more getting involved in other countries business, no more ridiculous expenditure on defence, a model for the rest of the world to follow. If we want to lead the world then why not do so by disarming and being completely passive? I really can't believe that any nation would want or need to invade the UK simply because we aren't big enough or have anything that anyone else wants.

You may have guessed I'm a bit of an idealist! Not a realist.

<h5>Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way {Dr Seus}</h5>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The problem is that if we (UK) were deciding to have no Army we would not start from the current position of a nation with global interests and a history of intervention. I propose it is easier for Germany to take a more laid back approach to its military and world interventions than UK.

It is possible to make a strong plausible case that we back out of world intervention and the world would be safer. But, that means that we could do little in the future to protect people over whom we have some responsibility.

I must add that I am no lover of the current conflicts; Afghanistan and Iraq and have a distaste for Blair's misuse of his power. This can distort the views on the utility of armed forces as our memory is rather short. UK armed forces have been successful in a number of areas throughout the world in recent years; Timor, Bosnia, earthquake and flood disasters, providing stability in Belize are some. Even in UK, the fire strike, regular floods and of course the foot and mouth disease problem was controlled well be the Armed Forces.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mossy

I really can't believe that any nation would want or need to invade the UK simply because we aren't big enough or have anything that anyone else wants.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Depending on what criteria you adopt, we about the fifth largest economy on earth and pretty rich compared to many countries.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

I always find the left wing complaint that there has never been a socialist country to bit an insult to our collective intelligence. It's a bit like an old Nazi Gauleiter saying that we've never given fascism a proper chance. How many people have to be killed by lefty regimes before we write the idea off?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It would be interesting to hear you describe which aspects of the former soviet block, or china, or Cuba, or wherever, were socialist ankev'. Perhaps the Gulag's, replete with dissidents were in some way an expression of the collectivist democratic socially owned ideal rather than the crude instrument of class oppression?

i suspect it is easier to label something from a prejudiced position than to seek to accurately identify the true nature of a society, don't you?

Still, you could give it a shot.

please look up to the stars.. ***

gavintc · June 2007

The problem is socialism as a model is an excellent concept, arguably a utopia. However, people mess up the model. So, if you could have socialism without people, it would work.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gavintc

The problem is socialism as a model is an excellent concept, arguably a utopia. However, people mess up the model. So, if you could have socialism without people, it would work.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Some socialists have tried to do this by murdering as many of their countrymen as possible. What percentage of the population did Pol Pot kill?

david2 · June 2007

From the CIA World Fact book

"Disputes - international:
in 2002, Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly by referendum to reject any "shared sovereignty" arrangement between the UK and Spain; the Government of Gibraltar insists on equal participation in talks between the two countries; Spain disapproves of UK plans to grant Gibraltar greater autonomy; Mauritius and Seychelles claim the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory), and its former inhabitants since their eviction in 1965; most Chagossians reside in Mauritius, and in 2001 were granted UK citizenship, where some have since resettled; in May 2006, the High Court of London reversed the UK Government's 2004 orders of council that banned habitation on the islands; UK rejects sovereignty talks requested by Argentina, which still claims the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; territorial claim in Antarctica (British Antarctic Territory) overlaps Argentine claim and partially overlaps Chilean claim; Iceland, the UK, and Ireland dispute Denmark's claim that the Faroe Islands' continental shelf extends beyond 200 nm"

So I guess Spain, the Maldives, Argentina, Chile and Denmark all have issues that they may like to sort out by military methods if we had no defence force of our own.

flattythehurdler · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Yes, but Finland is now owned by Brussels. And Switzerland are outside the Eu, so they can't afford any weapons because their economy has collapsed.
Apparently.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suspect they have plenty of nazi weapons in the vaults, and plenty of nazis to use them.

Dan

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Some socialists have tried to do this by murdering as many of their countrymen as possible. What percentage of the population did Pol Pot kill?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh dear Patrick, time for a lecture..

Pol Pot was a murdering butcher, not a 'socialist'. plenty could be explained about how he was the creation of US 'foreign policy' in Vietnam, but i wouldn't want to apologise for a despotic thug.

There are plenty who come here, on the other hand, who have made it a fetish to apologise for capitalism, indeed, some, yourself included, actually justify it.

You only have to glance at the record of the competetive system to realise that it is absolutely inseparable from the most extraordinary and routine violence. The violence of poverty, the violence of famine in a world awash with wealth, the violence of capitalist military dictatorships around the globe - to say little about the violence of capitalist world wars which claimed a minimum of 100 million lives in the 20th century. Its an endless list.

Before anyone tries ascending the moral high ground, you ought to ensure it has a firm base, not one of sand intermingled with blood.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
[brThere are plenty who come here, on the other hand, who have made it a fetish to apologise for capitalism, indeed, some, yourself included, actually justify it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I do indeed and I sleep surprisingly well at night.

Defence of the UK

Comments

Categories