Which are you most likely to be killed by (Brits)
Comments
-
It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.0 -
It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
Has martial law been declared? I missed that on News At Ten. :?0 -
Well done for the predictable response.
Not George Bush, but others did.I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.
Who saw 9/11 coming?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651
This wasn't the first time planes had been hijacked which was the extent of the intel.
Flying them into skyscrapers was never predicted. And you can quote all the theorists in the world about conspiracies. There is no solid proof of any. 16 years ago, when I first joined the army we trained for conventional warfare against old fashioned threats like Russia and the balkans problems. We changed our entire way of working overnight after 9/11 and we are still stuck in this mindset. There are other threats around the world we are still deploying troops to all over the world. Places I bet you didn't even know we are. You never know whats coming next.
As predictable as the next attack on UK soil being done in the name of ISIS, or whatever.
It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
You're right. The next serious attack of the UK in any way shape or form probably wouldn't be but we don't plan for wars or threats one at a time. You don't pick and choose where the next threat can come from. We were not prepared for everything that has happened over the last decade in the middle east and Afghanistan. You do not have to have the threat directed at the UK right now to think we can say it won't in the future. Be that 5 years or 50 years. No one knows what could happen tomorrow. And if you can have possible future threats with nuclear capabilites then you need then too as a deterrent.0 -
Lots of armed police on the streets tonight.It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
Has martial law been declared? I missed that on News At Ten. :?
Does the colour of uniform matter that much?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Lots of armed police on the streets tonight.It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
Has martial law been declared? I missed that on News At Ten. :?
Does the colour of uniform matter that much?
Yes it does.0 -
Lots of armed police on the streets tonight.It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
Has martial law been declared? I missed that on News At Ten. :?
Does the colour of uniform matter that much?
Yes it does.
not sure what you mean by that martial law, news at ten comment?0 -
It may matter to you and I. It will matter in a hearing.
Lots of armed police on the streets tonight.It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
Has martial law been declared? I missed that on News At Ten. :?
Does the colour of uniform matter that much?
Yes it does.
A terrorist will have little concern as to who is pulling the trigger.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
To pick up on the comment about a Paris style attack on a city other than London. I would say that most larger, i.e. potential target cities, they'd have a decent compliment of armed police. Plus rapid deployment from other forces/cities. Although it is probably not that hard for lone gunmen to move around in hit and run strikes to cause most chaos. I know it's not in a city but b there v was a lone gunman in Cumbria that totally b stretched that police force (mind you Cumbria has only v a handful of armed response offices in the whole county on duty at one time. So probably irrelevant.
I do think any city or country would struggle with Mumbai attacks.0 -
Let's have a little fact check as you seem to be off making statements again about how are fighting forces are so weak that we couldn't possibly cope. Rubbish.It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.
Maybe not, but without suitable conventional forces, the carnage will be far worse, maybe we d be able to deal with an attack in London, but a Paris style one in another city?
we ve a choice, trident or conventional, we cant have both (to a level that can deal with threats we can reasonably foresee) as you would point out, we ve not enough money in the coffers.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-Kingdom
For good measure I've thrown in France for comparison.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=France
They have more numbers militarily but it's hardly day and night. To quote the source: 'The UK maintains one of the strongest economies and fighting forces anywhere in the world'.
So stop doing this country down (yet again) to try to make an incorrect political point."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
this is slightly more accurate stev0
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-decline-of-the-uk-armed-forces-in-charts-2015-2
aint the internet wonderful? lol! coming from a wide miltary family, it re enforces what i ve seen too.
you really do need to stop saying everyone who disagrees with you is "doing the country down" it does you no credit and shows you ve lost the argument... yet again, i do notice that when presented with the evidence you tend to disappear
0 -
That link is out of date with 6 destroyers, 13 frigates , frigates, IIRC 10 submarines as well as the non-major.combative vessels like minesweepers, helicopter platforms, patrol vessels etc. I think I saw somewhere that there are 76 commissioned RN vessels, of course not many are truly offensive vessels but there's still a.decent amount to be effective as part of joint offensives.this is slightly more accurate stev0
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-decline-of-the-uk-armed-forces-in-charts-2015-2
aint the internet wonderful? lol! coming from a wide miltary family, it re enforces what i ve seen too.
you really do need to stop saying everyone who disagrees with you is "doing the country down" it does you no credit and shows you ve lost the argument... yet again, i do notice that when presented with the evidence you tend to disappear
Considering all offensives since Falklands have tended to be as part of a wider alliance I can see no problem with matching capabilities within wider alliances. I think there's perhaps only 3 navies around the world capable of independent action, USN, PLAN and the Russian Navy. Any other navy would need to work with one of those or several other smaller navies.0 -
Sorry but that link is accurate as of August this year and for the Navy at anyone time, ships will be in dock.
Steve was trying to make the point that defence spending and our capability is cool and dandy, its not.
We ve had real terms decreases in spending over many decades, its not just our navy but army and RAF too, many on the right would poo hoo an EU defence force but as you elude too, we ve now little choice and strangely, a PM who may well campaign for us to leave.
The GDP 2% spending on defence is nt enough, infact havent we now included aspects of foreign aid to make it up to that figure.0 -
As I have already stated, our military strength and capabilities have diminished for many years as our world role changed. We simply can't afford to be the power that we were.
EU defence force? We have an alliance already, it's called NATO.0 -
Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Depends on how far ahead you are looking.0 -
Probably the Americans.
Directly or indirectly.
Personally I would cut spending on military much further. No to a replacement for Trident and slim down the forces by half. The money is better spent on useful things like people.0 -
Has anything, ever, panned out as expected 30 years down the line?Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Depends on how far ahead you are looking.
We are spending money on something we probably wont need during times of austerity.
And, if we do need it then we are goosed anyway.
Plenty of Countries without nuclear are getting by just fine.
Better to use the resources on the enemies that we know.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Your logic is that no other threat exists at the moment other than terrorism. We can put all our eggs in one counter insurgency basket and forget about all the other potential flash points around the world. Nothing else to worry about cos your crystal ball tells us so.0 -
No.Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Your logic is that no other threat exists at the moment other than terrorism. We can put all our eggs in one counter insurgency basket and forget about all the other potential flash points around the world. Nothing else to worry about cos your crystal ball tells us so.
My logic is to deal with known threats rather than spending more on an unknown threat.an anology.
Someone is running and shouting at you that they are going to stab you and you know they have a knife. Meanwhile someone you don't know may have a bomb.
Are you going to start digging a bomb shelter or defend yourself from the knife?
There is not enough time to do both.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
As I have already stated, our military strength and capabilities have diminished for many years as our world role changed. We simply can't afford to be the power that we were.
EU defence force? We have an alliance already, it's called NATO.
Your right bally, we cannot afford both, trident costs 10bn per year and its replacement will cost 100bn plus increased running costs and this if it comes in on budget, given recent examples not gauranteed.
As our role in the world has shrunk, we no longer need to be struting the world stage with trident, a weapon that in reality no PM would ever use without the US telling us too.
As PB says, we need to be able to deal with day to day threats as well as being prepared for the world in 20 or 30 years time, europe may well implode into inward looking nation states once again esp if we leave it, the US could retreat into its fortress or focus on the Pacific/chinese threats, leaving NATO where?
this scenario is far more likely than russia firing ICBMs at little old UK.0 -
No.Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Your logic is that no other threat exists at the moment other than terrorism. We can put all our eggs in one counter insurgency basket and forget about all the other potential flash points around the world. Nothing else to worry about cos your crystal ball tells us so.
My logic is to deal with known threats rather than spending more on an unknown threat.an anology.
Someone is running and shouting at you that they are going to stab you and you know they have a knife. Meanwhile someone you don't know may have a bomb.
Are you going to start digging a bomb shelter or defend yourself from the knife?
There is not enough time to do both.
Hopefully someone had already had the presence of mind and the sense to plan for such an eventuality and build a bomb shelter. 0 -
No.Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Your logic is that no other threat exists at the moment other than terrorism. We can put all our eggs in one counter insurgency basket and forget about all the other potential flash points around the world. Nothing else to worry about cos your crystal ball tells us so.
My logic is to deal with known threats rather than spending more on an unknown threat.an anology.
Someone is running and shouting at you that they are going to stab you and you know they have a knife. Meanwhile someone you don't know may have a bomb.
Are you going to start digging a bomb shelter or defend yourself from the knife?
There is not enough time to do both.
Why do you think we have intelligence services like MI5 MI6 GCHQ etc? They know about the threats that the average man in the street knows nothing about. I know a lot more than most of the threats out there as a part of my job and even I don't know about them all. Just because the press are not hand feeding you that particular story doesn't mean those who need to know are ignoring it.0 -
Edit @ Mamba
Strutting the world stage? In which way? The US can strut the world stage with her projection of conventional forces. She deploys a carrier group as a show of strength.
The US possesses the 1st and 3rd largest air forces in the world, that gives them the capability of some serious strutting. We can't strut like that any more.
We do however have a permanent seat on the Security Council, a position given some legitimacy by our continued nuclear capable status.
You are right, NATO may dissolve in the future, who knows? If it does, everyone would seek new alliances. That's the thing see, no-one knows what the world will look like in the future. That's why we should try to plan for the unknown eventualities.
Of course we need to plan for known threats, but let's keep our minds open to future risks.0 -
Edit @ Mamba
Strutting the world stage? In which way? The US can strut the world stage with her projection of conventional forces. She deploys a carrier group as a show of strength.
The US possesses the 1st and 3rd largest air forces in the world, that gives them the capability of some serious strutting. We can't strut like that any more.
We do however have a permanent seat on the Security Council, a position given some legitimacy by our continued nuclear capable status.
You are right, NATO may dissolve in the future, who knows? If it does, everyone would seek new alliances. That's the thing see, no-one knows what the world will look like in the future. That's why we should try to plan for the unknown eventualities.
Of course we need to plan for known threats, but let's keep our minds open to future risks.
to me, our continued ownership of nuclear weapons has more to do with this than any actual value to our defence, which is why i used the term strutting
My veiw is that because of the expense of Trident, we limit our ability to plan for anything other than nuclear holocaust.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2699854/Life-nuclear-war-revealed-Computer-models-reveal-Earth-suffer-20-year-long-winter-worldwide-famine.html
as i said early, there is no such think as a limited nuclear war - do we have the right to risk the destruction of all future generations? for what? so we dont get invaded by the Russians or Chinese? sorry but those empires like all others before, will not last forever.0 -
In summary we do not know what we are talking about as we don't have the full picture. Fair enough, on both sides.
No.Tonight in Germany shows us that all this nuclear stuff is just willie waving.
Your logic is that no other threat exists at the moment other than terrorism. We can put all our eggs in one counter insurgency basket and forget about all the other potential flash points around the world. Nothing else to worry about cos your crystal ball tells us so.
My logic is to deal with known threats rather than spending more on an unknown threat.an anology.
Someone is running and shouting at you that they are going to stab you and you know they have a knife. Meanwhile someone you don't know may have a bomb.
Are you going to start digging a bomb shelter or defend yourself from the knife?
There is not enough time to do both.
Why do you think we have intelligence services like MI5 MI6 GCHQ etc? They know about the threats that the average man in the street knows nothing about. I know a lot more than most of the threats out there as a part of my job and even I don't know about them all. Just because the press are not hand feeding you that particular story doesn't mean those who need to know are ignoring it.
I simply have less faith than you when considering a Government planning 30 years ahead when we know they are only interested in 4 years time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Edit @ Mamba
Strutting the world stage? In which way? The US can strut the world stage with her projection of conventional forces. She deploys a carrier group as a show of strength.
The US possesses the 1st and 3rd largest air forces in the world, that gives them the capability of some serious strutting. We can't strut like that any more.
We do however have a permanent seat on the Security Council, a position given some legitimacy by our continued nuclear capable status.
You are right, NATO may dissolve in the future, who knows? If it does, everyone would seek new alliances. That's the thing see, no-one knows what the world will look like in the future. That's why we should try to plan for the unknown eventualities.
Of course we need to plan for known threats, but let's keep our minds open to future risks.
to me, our continued ownership of nuclear weapons has more to do with this than any actual value to our defence, which is why i used the term strutting
My veiw is that because of the expense of Trident, we limit our ability to plan for anything other than nuclear holocaust.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2699854/Life-nuclear-war-revealed-Computer-models-reveal-Earth-suffer-20-year-long-winter-worldwide-famine.html
as i said early, there is no such think as a limited nuclear war - do we have the right to risk the destruction of all future generations? for what? so we dont get invaded by the Russians or Chinese? sorry but those empires like all others before, will not last forever.
No there is no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange. To me, our capability to strike back in kind to any nuclear attack is our best guarantee that an exchange doesn't happen and the world is not turned into a cinder. As I said in a previous post, if our PM at the time decided that a counter strike would be futile and would only cause millions of more deaths and decided not to retaliate, that would be a good decision because the deterrent would have failed. It would make no difference to us, we would be dead anyway. The whole ethos is that any aggressor must believe that there is a possibility that we would retaliate, whereby a nuclear strike would be counterproductive for him.
Out of interest, what level of conventional forces would you consider sufficient to deter an aggressor from carrying out a nuclear strike on the UK?
You are right that China and Russia will not have empires in perpetuum, but no-one has a crystal ball to see who will be the new nuclear kid on the block in 30 years and what their leadership will look like.
I wonder how the Japanese and S Koreans view the man with the funny hair cut to their north?0 -
No there is no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange. To me, our capability to strike back in kind to any nuclear attack is our best guarantee that an exchange doesn't happen and the world is not turned into a cinder. As I said in a previous post, if our PM at the time decided that a counter strike would be futile and would only cause millions of more deaths and decided not to retaliate, that would be a good decision because the deterrent would have failed. It would make no difference to us, we would be dead anyway. The whole ethos is that any aggressor must believe that there is a possibility that we would retaliate, whereby a nuclear strike would be counterproductive for him.
Out of interest, what level of conventional forces would you consider sufficient to deter an aggressor from carrying out a nuclear strike on the UK?
You are right that China and Russia will not have empires in perpetuum, but no-one has a crystal ball to see who will be the new nuclear kid on the block in 30 years and what their leadership will look like.
I wonder how the Japanese and S Koreans view the man with the funny hair cut to their north?
the problem is that you risk nuclear war with this tatic, but i do agree that its not beyond the realms of possibility that we could come under threat from an unkown nuclear power but we could also be invaded from space too, you ve got to make a judgement.
as for N Korea and a level of conventional forces required, S K hasnt nuclear weapons and yet the north has neither invaded nor used them but given the chinese on one side and the US on the other, Korea is a bad example.
However, when a former Air Marshall and an ex chief of staff, says that we struggle to deter russian spy planes flying close our air space, that we should bring back an AWACs system (fairly crucial if you have nuclear deterent) that we send soldiers into battle ill prepared, sack full time soldiers and attempt to replace them with part timers, that we have no 'Carriers and when we do, they have no planes, and that we will have to rely on allies to provide surface ship cover, then i think the balance has swung too far the wrong way.
i find it odd that a so called left winger has this opinion but those on the conservative right, think all is cool and dandy.0 -
No there is no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange. To me, our capability to strike back in kind to any nuclear attack is our best guarantee that an exchange doesn't happen and the world is not turned into a cinder. As I said in a previous post, if our PM at the time decided that a counter strike would be futile and would only cause millions of more deaths and decided not to retaliate, that would be a good decision because the deterrent would have failed. It would make no difference to us, we would be dead anyway. The whole ethos is that any aggressor must believe that there is a possibility that we would retaliate, whereby a nuclear strike would be counterproductive for him.
Out of interest, what level of conventional forces would you consider sufficient to deter an aggressor from carrying out a nuclear strike on the UK?
You are right that China and Russia will not have empires in perpetuum, but no-one has a crystal ball to see who will be the new nuclear kid on the block in 30 years and what their leadership will look like.
I wonder how the Japanese and S Koreans view the man with the funny hair cut to their north?
the problem is that you risk nuclear war with this tatic, but i do agree that its not beyond the realms of possibility that we could come under threat from an unkown nuclear power but we could also be invaded from space too, you ve got to make a judgement.
as for N Korea and a level of conventional forces required, S K hasnt nuclear weapons and yet the north has neither invaded nor used them but given the chinese on one side and the US on the other, Korea is a bad example.
However, when a former Air Marshall and an ex chief of staff, says that we struggle to deter russian spy planes flying close our air space, that we should bring back an AWACs system (fairly crucial if you have nuclear deterent) that we send soldiers into battle ill prepared, sack full time soldiers and attempt to replace them with part timers, that we have no 'Carriers and when we do, they have no planes, and that we will have to rely on allies to provide surface ship cover, then i think the balance has swung too far the wrong way.
i find it odd that a so called left winger has this opinion but those on the conservative right, think all is cool and dandy.
I don't find it cool and dandy at all. I'm just saying that we have to be realistic in what we can now afford, so much money in the pot and all that. An Air Marshall wants more planes? Hold the front page!! Yes I would like to see more robust defences but where does the money come from. You would obviously say trident but I think this is not an option. I linked the money that would be saved on tax credits in an earlier post because I know you would find money being diverted from there not to be an option. We obviously have views that are poles apart and will never find convergence.
I gave N Korea as an example of not knowing what the future holds. If you tell me that 25 years ago you had sat in the pub with your mates and postulated that a madman would be in charge of N Korea and be within a whisker away from being capable of launching ballistic nuclear missiles, well done! Kudos to you.
As regards him not invading S. Korea, they are sheltering under the protection of a giant US umbrella.0 -
I also recall asking in a previous post if you thought Truman would have dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if Japan had possessed a similar capability. What do you think?0
-
ok given by 1945, japan had no means of delivery, nor did they ever pocess bombers such as b29's, your question is moot, the world did not (in practice) realise what these bombs would do either.
so i will give you the example you should have presented, the Cuban missle crisis, the threat of deployment of nuclear weapons by the US, caused the Soviets to pull back, so i ll give you that one.
but we dont live in the cold war era, we dont face a spanish armada nor nazi germany or the Soviet union, times move on and we cannot cover all past threats, we need to grapple with the ones we currently face and try to foresee new ones, so given you like to foresee a nuclear aggressor, China could well prove to be one, esp given the stand off's in the Pacific right now! so allowing them into our power supply industry is obviously a foolhardy move?
So back to Trident,Yes Trident is the obvious place, cut your garment according to......
taking money from the poorest in society whilst at the same time, increasing inheritance tax thresholds and decreasing higher rates of Tax, failing to block tax loopholes, George could look no further than his own family firm perhaps? keeping charitable status of private schools.... allowing schools to save tax and parents to operate a tax save scheeme by paying up front, in what possible way is a fee paying school a fugging charity?
there is plenty of money in the system, its how you go about collecting it, Cameron has recently just popped up with billions more for SAS and MI5 etc where has that come from? thought we were skint.
But this thread is about Paris and seems to have morphed into a defence debate, So hats off to the french, seeing all the bullet holes in their shields as they were shot at as they entered the theater was humbling, they are extremely brave people, i hope they hunt down and kill all these murdering scum.0
