Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Countries our size? Land mass, population size or economy size (gdp)? AFAIK UK is currently 5th behind Germany and one above France. Taking France, similar population size and size of the economy. Also permanent seat on security council, nuclear power, also intervenes in other nations from Libya to Mali and other countries. Also having a military that is structured to fit in with American capabilities. Not surprising in light of years of cold war cooperation and NATO.

So i think you're right. We should carry on acting like other nations are size such as France. I suggest that we are at our own weight and shouldn't step back from the world stage. I suggest that working closely with other nations is a good idea not necessarily being their lap dog doing their bidding. Of course that's my opinion.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

Defending it from whom? With what? The British Isles are surrounded by water, so marine defence systems would seem to be a good place to start.
Do you seriously think that the sole argument for Trident and ordering two replacement carriers is so that we can keep our seat on the security council? Why are you so desperate for the UK to become some parochial backwater? What country would not try to influence world events to their advantage if they had the opportunity?

As events at todays G7 meeting show re sanctions against Russia, no one takes the UK seriously anymore.

AC s do not add to our Maritime defence, we ve not enough surface warships to protect them, crew/mtce or helicopters, we ve what? 13 frigates and 6 destroyers, many of which are in dock at any one time.
I dont know the total shoreline of the UK but i guess that is one boat every several 100 miles of coast.

trident is robbing us of decent conventional forces, for a weapons system we d never ever independently deploy and all our enemies know this.

Exactly - and spending hundreds of billions we don't have.

What other countries of a similar size spend so much to punch above their weight? Why can't we be like Canada and be happy?

I suspect this is an exercise in futility to pursue this with you but here goes.

1. One G7 meeting not going our way hardly counts as nobody takes us seriously. Possibly they don't take Boris seriously but that's another argument.
2. All governments borrow money. It's no more money we don't have than the additional spending on the state pension triple lock or any other spending. We'd still be spending that money on defence if not on Trident. We can argue about whether Trident is the best use of defence spending, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would be playing to our strengths.
3. Similar sized countries? Let's take France: about the same population, UNSC permanent member, nuclear capabilities, GDP comparable with ours, and what's this? A nuclear powered aircraft carrier?
Canada has half our population, half our GDP, and 41 -yes 41 - times the land area. How could we possibly become like Canada? Even if we drained the entire North Sea, planted it with trees, annexed Scandinavia and shipped off half the population we'd still be a fifth the size of Canada.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Countries our size? Land mass, population size or economy size (gdp)? AFAIK UK is currently 5th behind Germany and one above France. Taking France, similar population size and size of the economy. Also permanent seat on security council, nuclear power, also intervenes in other nations from Libya to Mali and other countries. Also having a military that is structured to fit in with American capabilities. Not surprising in light of years of cold war cooperation and NATO.

So i think you're right. We should carry on acting like other nations are size such as France. I suggest that we are at our own weight and shouldn't step back from the world stage. I suggest that working closely with other nations is a good idea not necessarily being their lap dog doing their bidding. Of course that's my opinion.

France had nothing to do with NATO for decades, only returning in 2009...... our obsession with nukes means we ve had to let our conventional forces slide, eg we ve still no maritime patrol air craft!

some measures put our eco at 9th.

but the point is with Assad, its all very well having red lines etc etc and i do agree with this!
BUT it must be part of an overall strategy, look, last week Trump was wanting to be best buddies with assad and putin, the next he is attacking both! DT has no plan and thats very dangerous, confrontation with russia will damage us all.

russia is not going to abandon Assad, we all know that, russia wants to work with the west on terrorism, we can have a say in what happens over the future of syria or we can whatch as russia and iran decide how it pans out.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

Defending it from whom? With what? The British Isles are surrounded by water, so marine defence systems would seem to be a good place to start.
Do you seriously think that the sole argument for Trident and ordering two replacement carriers is so that we can keep our seat on the security council? Why are you so desperate for the UK to become some parochial backwater? What country would not try to influence world events to their advantage if they had the opportunity?

As events at todays G7 meeting show re sanctions against Russia, no one takes the UK seriously anymore.

AC s do not add to our Maritime defence, we ve not enough surface warships to protect them, crew/mtce or helicopters, we ve what? 13 frigates and 6 destroyers, many of which are in dock at any one time.
I dont know the total shoreline of the UK but i guess that is one boat every several 100 miles of coast.

trident is robbing us of decent conventional forces, for a weapons system we d never ever independently deploy and all our enemies know this.

Exactly - and spending hundreds of billions we don't have.

What other countries of a similar size spend so much to punch above their weight? Why can't we be like Canada and be happy?

I suspect this is an exercise in futility to pursue this with you but here goes.

1. One G7 meeting not going our way hardly counts as nobody takes us seriously. Possibly they don't take Boris seriously but that's another argument.
2. All governments borrow money. It's no more money we don't have than the additional spending on the state pension triple lock or any other spending. We'd still be spending that money on defence if not on Trident. We can argue about whether Trident is the best use of defence spending, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would be playing to our strengths.
3. Similar sized countries? Let's take France: about the same population, UNSC permanent member, nuclear capabilities, GDP comparable with ours, and what's this? A nuclear powered aircraft carrier?
Canada has half our population, half our GDP, and 41 -yes 41 - times the land area. How could we possibly become like Canada? Even if we drained the entire North Sea, planted it with trees, annexed Scandinavia and shipped off half the population we'd still be a fifth the size of Canada.

+1

Let's also get the Trident spend into perspective given that it has an estimated 40 year lifespan. If we take the hundred billion lifetime cost estimate that's £2.5bn per year. Which is approx 5%-6%% of our overall defence spend based on the article below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

Not sure where people get the idea we are running down conventional capabilities in favour of nukes.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah but in fairness Stevo, as much as I'm not a fan of you, I don't think you'd have it in you to sport a Hitler moustache, gas thousands of people and generally plunder the wealth of millions whilst sanctioning and ordering massive war crimes.

I'll take that as a compliment Rick

tangled_metal

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Countries our size? Land mass, population size or economy size (gdp)? AFAIK UK is currently 5th behind Germany and one above France. Taking France, similar population size and size of the economy. Also permanent seat on security council, nuclear power, also intervenes in other nations from Libya to Mali and other countries. Also having a military that is structured to fit in with American capabilities. Not surprising in light of years of cold war cooperation and NATO.

So i think you're right. We should carry on acting like other nations are size such as France. I suggest that we are at our own weight and shouldn't step back from the world stage. I suggest that working closely with other nations is a good idea not necessarily being their lap dog doing their bidding. Of course that's my opinion.

some measures put our eco at 9th.

That's ok then since our Armies are ranked 9th in the world according to some measures.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2016-4/#no-10-turkey-11

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Countries our size? Land mass, population size or economy size (gdp)? AFAIK UK is currently 5th behind Germany and one above France. Taking France, similar population size and size of the economy. Also permanent seat on security council, nuclear power, also intervenes in other nations from Libya to Mali and other countries. Also having a military that is structured to fit in with American capabilities. Not surprising in light of years of cold war cooperation and NATO.

So i think you're right. We should carry on acting like other nations are size such as France. I suggest that we are at our own weight and shouldn't step back from the world stage. I suggest that working closely with other nations is a good idea not necessarily being their lap dog doing their bidding. Of course that's my opinion.

some measures put our eco at 9th.

That's ok then since our Armies are ranked 9th in the world according to some measures.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2016-4/#no-10-turkey-11

Behind Italy and France eh?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Countries our size? Land mass, population size or economy size (gdp)? AFAIK UK is currently 5th behind Germany and one above France. Taking France, similar population size and size of the economy. Also permanent seat on security council, nuclear power, also intervenes in other nations from Libya to Mali and other countries. Also having a military that is structured to fit in with American capabilities. Not surprising in light of years of cold war cooperation and NATO.

So i think you're right. We should carry on acting like other nations are size such as France. I suggest that we are at our own weight and shouldn't step back from the world stage. I suggest that working closely with other nations is a good idea not necessarily being their lap dog doing their bidding. Of course that's my opinion.

some measures put our eco at 9th.

That's ok then since our Armies are ranked 9th in the world according to some measures.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2016-4/#no-10-turkey-11

Behind Italy and France eh?

We don't seem to get as much bang for our bucks.

rick_chasey

Haha, just makes me grin, imagining the Union jack waving gurners who crow about cheese eating surrender monkeys as opposed to Our Brave Boys reading that particular chart.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Haha, just makes me grin, imagining the Union jack waving gurners who crow about cheese eating surrender monkeys as opposed to Our Brave Boys reading that particular chart.

Unfortunately, bravery, cheese eating and surrendering are not in the ranking criteria, otherwise the ranking might be somewhat different

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Haha, just makes me grin, imagining the Union jack waving gurners who crow about cheese eating surrender monkeys as opposed to Our Brave Boys reading that particular chart.

Even less happy about India and Italy.

Assessments should be based upon the navy in 1805, army in 1815,and airforce in 1940

rjsterry

Do you actually know anyone like this or are you just convinced such people exist? In any case all countries mythologise their history and have done since there was history.

What I did think was interesting from that article was how much variation there was. I'd have thought there would be a broad consensus on what a well balanced military should contain, but there seems to be no obvious pattern.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Do you actually know anyone like this or are you just convinced such people exist? In any case all countries mythologise their history and have done since there was history.

Yes I work with them.

One said he hadn't read a book in decades but now he's reading a book a month. I was genuinely pleased for him.

Every single one he's read was on the SAS.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you actually know anyone like this or are you just convinced such people exist? In any case all countries mythologise their history and have done since there was history.

Yes I work with them.

One said he hadn't read a book in decades but now he's reading a book a month. I was genuinely pleased for him.

Every single one he's read was on the SAS.

I have been in a room of a hundred odd Yanks/Brits when the speaker put up a photo and said who is that. The Brits were clueless and the Yanks roared Cornwallis. Their fun was ruined as none of us had a clue who he was so we could not be taunted.

Ask any Brit when the Crimea or Boer wars were, then ask them who won.

The more knowledgable ones will guffaw at the French for thinking they liberated their own country without realising the Yanks are laughing at us for thinking we liberated France.

Dunkirk we dress up as a victory.

We lost the major sea battle of WW1 but not by enough to make a strategic difference.

We replaced realism with jingoism a long time ago and if you question it you get called unpatriotic.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

What I did think was interesting from that article was how much variation there was. I'd have thought there would be a broad consensus on what a well balanced military should contain, but there seems to be no obvious pattern.

It would be interesting to know their methodology. They seem obsessed by aircraft carriers being the means of projecting power.

rjsterry

Well if you want a mobile air base, the only way you can do it is to stick it on a ship.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you actually know anyone like this or are you just convinced such people exist? In any case all countries mythologise their history and have done since there was history.

Yes I work with them.

One said he hadn't read a book in decades but now he's reading a book a month. I was genuinely pleased for him.

Every single one he's read was on the SAS.

I have been in a room of a hundred odd Yanks/Brits when the speaker put up a photo and said who is that. The Brits were clueless and the Yanks roared Cornwallis. Their fun was ruined as none of us had a clue who he was so we could not be taunted.

Ask any Brit when the Crimea or Boer wars were, then ask them who won.

The more knowledgable ones will guffaw at the French for thinking they liberated their own country without realising the Yanks are laughing at us for thinking we liberated France.

Dunkirk we dress up as a victory.

We lost the major sea battle of WW1 but not by enough to make a strategic difference.

We replaced realism with jingoism a long time ago and if you question it you get called unpatriotic.

As I said, it's been happening since there was history. Can't quite remember where, but on the side of a cliff is carved a lot of guff about great victories in cuneiform. Both sides claimed the other side lost the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC.

tangled_metal

Interesting thing is US and UK use bases in other parts of the world as do others. It's possible to base planes around the world at bases in sympathetic countries. Whilst aircraft carriers might be a good option it's not likely to be the only option available to the UK for force projection (a trendy term among experts).

Countries with more aircraft carriers score highly for it but they're only helicopter carriers. I'm certain helicopters should rank as lower on rankings than planes on carriers.

There's a subjective scoring going on. I'm sure you could juggle the top 10 places excluding places 1, 2 and 3. No matter what way you look at it i very much doubt those positions would change from USA, Russia then China. However i fully expect China to move up the rankings one day. Their technology behind their military is supposed to be improving dramatically. Wasn't there a state of the art carrier launched a few years ago?

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Interesting thing is US and UK use bases in other parts of the world as do others. It's possible to base planes around the world at bases in sympathetic countries. Whilst aircraft carriers might be a good option it's not likely to be the only option available to the UK for force projection (a trendy term among experts).

Countries with more aircraft carriers score highly for it but they're only helicopter carriers. I'm certain helicopters should rank as lower on rankings than planes on carriers.

There's a subjective scoring going on. I'm sure you could juggle the top 10 places excluding places 1, 2 and 3. No matter what way you look at it i very much doubt those positions would change from USA, Russia then China. However i fully expect China to move up the rankings one day. Their technology behind their military is supposed to be improving dramatically. Wasn't there a state of the art carrier launched a few years ago?

i dont know how many planes you think the UK has to dot around the world......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... -Isil.html

check the number that are actually available at short notice, approx 40...... not many is it? shortages in ground crew mtce staff and pilots too, came to a head, when navy 'choppers ran out of mtce crew when soviet sub hunting recently in scotland, the canadians used their patrol aircraft to help us out :oops:

the UK has zero AC, maybe we ll move up the rankings once we do?
depends on the theatre, whether you need helicopters or planes, ideally if you wish to project power, then you need both.

We might find out how good chinese ships are in the South China Seas.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Interesting thing is US and UK use bases in other parts of the world as do others. It's possible to base planes around the world at bases in sympathetic countries. Whilst aircraft carriers might be a good option it's not likely to be the only option available to the UK for force projection (a trendy term among experts).

Countries with more aircraft carriers score highly for it but they're only helicopter carriers. I'm certain helicopters should rank as lower on rankings than planes on carriers.

There's a subjective scoring going on. I'm sure you could juggle the top 10 places excluding places 1, 2 and 3. No matter what way you look at it i very much doubt those positions would change from USA, Russia then China. However i fully expect China to move up the rankings one day. Their technology behind their military is supposed to be improving dramatically. Wasn't there a state of the art carrier launched a few years ago?

i dont know how many planes you think the UK has to dot around the world......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... -Isil.html

check the number that are actually available at short notice, approx 40...... not many is it? shortages in ground crew mtce staff and pilots too, came to a head, when navy 'choppers ran out of mtce crew when soviet sub hunting recently in scotland, the canadians used their patrol aircraft to help us out :oops:

the UK has zero AC, maybe we ll move up the rankings once we do?
depends on the theatre, whether you need helicopters or planes, ideally if you wish to project power, then you need both.

We might find out how good chinese ships are in the South China Seas.

We probably have enough for what we need IMO.

Your attempt to do the country down this time may have some merit if we are trying to be one of the top 3 but we're not.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Interesting thing is US and UK use bases in other parts of the world as do others. It's possible to base planes around the world at bases in sympathetic countries. Whilst aircraft carriers might be a good option it's not likely to be the only option available to the UK for force projection (a trendy term among experts).

Countries with more aircraft carriers score highly for it but they're only helicopter carriers. I'm certain helicopters should rank as lower on rankings than planes on carriers.

There's a subjective scoring going on. I'm sure you could juggle the top 10 places excluding places 1, 2 and 3. No matter what way you look at it i very much doubt those positions would change from USA, Russia then China. However i fully expect China to move up the rankings one day. Their technology behind their military is supposed to be improving dramatically. Wasn't there a state of the art carrier launched a few years ago?

i dont know how many planes you think the UK has to dot around the world......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... -Isil.html

check the number that are actually available at short notice, approx 40...... not many is it? shortages in ground crew mtce staff and pilots too, came to a head, when navy 'choppers ran out of mtce crew when soviet sub hunting recently in scotland, the canadians used their patrol aircraft to help us out :oops:

the UK has zero AC, maybe we ll move up the rankings once we do?
depends on the theatre, whether you need helicopters or planes, ideally if you wish to project power, then you need both.

We might find out how good chinese ships are in the South China Seas.

We probably have enough for what we need IMO.

Your attempt to do the country down this time may have some merit if we are trying to be one of the top 3 but we're not.

defence of the realm is vital, not enough frigates and no maritime patrol craft, is nt enough, under the tories watch.

they ve had to order new patrol craft from the Americans, at a far great cost than if they d not scrapped the Nimrod upgrade, on top of the foul up on the AC plane type.

Not a question of doing the country down, our armed forces do an amazing job on some very limited resources and increasing demands. but questioning the rhetoric V reality, anyway i was answering TM's point on using allied airbases instead of building our own carriers.

But as usual, good to know that all is tickety boo in stev0 towers lol!

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

...Not a question of doing the country down, our armed forces do an amazing job on some very limited resources and increasing demands...

The Borrowers.
Allegedly.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

defence of the realm is vital, not enough frigates and no maritime patrol craft, is nt enough, under the tories watch.

they ve had to order new patrol craft from the Americans, at a far great cost than if they d not scrapped the Nimrod upgrade, on top of the foul up on the AC plane type.

Not a question of doing the country down, our armed forces do an amazing job on some very limited resources and increasing demands. but questioning the rhetoric V reality, anyway i was answering TM's point on using allied airbases instead of building our own carriers.

But as usual, good to know that all is tickety boo in stev0 towers lol!

And yet we are number 9 in the world of military powers if you believe the report linked above:

"No. 9. UK
Budget: $60.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 146,980
Tanks: 407
Total aircraft: 936
Submarines: 10

Although the UK is planning to reduce the size of its armed forces by 20% between 2010 and 2018, it can count on being able to project its power around the world.

The Royal Navy is planning to put the HMS Queen Elizabeth, an aircraft carrier that has a flight deck measuring 4.5 acres, into service in 2020, carrying 40 F-35B joint-strike fighters across the globe."

Doesn't sit easily with your unbiased assessment

mamba80

yeah 40 jets??? the US navy will be flying off hms QE as we ve neither the jets nor the crew in 2021, with uk navy plans to have 12 jets and a helicoptor contingent - defence review 2015.

i m not saying any of this is wrong but dont make out we are touring the world with 40 jets etc etc as you r doing.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

yeah 40 jets??? the US navy will be flying off hms QE as we ve neither the jets nor the crew in 2021, with uk navy plans to have 12 jets and a helicoptor contingent - defence review 2015.

i m not saying any of this is wrong but dont make out we are touring the world with 40 jets etc etc as you r doing.

Plus the 896 other aircraft :roll:

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

yeah 40 jets??? the US navy will be flying off hms QE as we ve neither the jets nor the crew in 2021, with uk navy plans to have 12 jets and a helicoptor contingent - defence review 2015.

i m not saying any of this is wrong but dont make out we are touring the world with 40 jets etc etc as you r doing.

Plus the 896 other aircraft :roll:

we had a heck of a lot of bi-planes in the 1930's too... but nice try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33618484

kingstongraham

Is it true that it was named the HMS Queen Elizabeth to make it impossible to cancel when it went over budget?

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

defence of the realm is vital, not enough frigates and no maritime patrol craft, is nt enough, under the tories watch.

they ve had to order new patrol craft from the Americans, at a far great cost than if they d not scrapped the Nimrod upgrade, on top of the foul up on the AC plane type.

Not a question of doing the country down, our armed forces do an amazing job on some very limited resources and increasing demands. but questioning the rhetoric V reality, anyway i was answering TM's point on using allied airbases instead of building our own carriers.

But as usual, good to know that all is tickety boo in stev0 towers lol!

And yet we are number 9 in the world of military powers if you believe the report linked above:

"No. 9. UK
Budget: $60.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 146,980
Tanks: 407
Total aircraft: 936
Submarines: 10

Although the UK is planning to reduce the size of its armed forces by 20% between 2010 and 2018, it can count on being able to project its power around the world.

The Royal Navy is planning to put the HMS Queen Elizabeth, an aircraft carrier that has a flight deck measuring 4.5 acres, into service in 2020, carrying 40 F-35B joint-strike fighters across the globe."

Doesn't sit easily with your unbiased assessment

Could it be that defence of the realm and projecting power are mutually exclusive?

rjsterry

Quite obviously not.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Quite obviously not.

If you were tasked with defending the UK you would have two aircraft carriers rather than more shore based fighters/bombers and long range patrol aircraft?