Which are you most likely to be killed by (Brits)
Comments
-
Evidence on the high street suggests that most Brits are more likely to be killed by eating / smoking themselves to death than anything else. But that doesn't generate the same kind of headlines as bombing the crap out of some foreign country.
It's human nature to want to retaliate after an outrage like the Paris shootings, but by it's nature, a terrorist organisation isn't sitting neatly in one place waiting to be bombed.
The thing I'd like to know from the clever people out there, is how do you go about trying to eradicate an radical ideology. It's impossible to bomb a system of beliefs, however extreme, peverse and wrong-headed they are. And do you think that I.S. are ever going to think "hang on a minute, they've stepped up the bombing, we'd better stop shooting and blowing them up"? We'll only be generating more I.S. martyrs, countless thousands of innocent civilian casualties, and spurring them on to commit more acts of terrorism against the infidel aggressors...0 -
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.
Something that we agree on. Well said.0 -
And therein lies the point which Corbyn was failing to make with regards to not wanting to bomb ISIS.
Cut the funding. Saudia Arabia is where I'd start.0 -
Simply making observations on your comments that appear to be consistently negative towards the UK and in comparison with other (usually more socialist) countries. Seems to me that they are motivated at least partly by a desire to sat that those nasty tories got it wrong.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
It is true that our armed forces are smaller than is historically has been the case but how many times will we need to 'go it alone' in a major way, especially being part of NATO as Bally says? The NATO spending target is being met and who are you to say that you know better than NATO? And my link above shows that we still have substantial armed forces.
You seem very sure that we could not cope with certain situations - show us some evidence then?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wish they would, it's known most of their funding comes from Saudi. Unfortunately we want their oil.Cut the funding. Saudia Arabia is where I'd start.0 -
No Steve, i am extremely proud of our British heritage, i just dont like seeing it thrown down the drain, almost all of europe is more left wing than the UK but that ll change unfortunately.
as for an example - the french are now sending an aircraft carrier to support their bombing in Syria, something we could nt do and if it werent for the fact that we have a base in cyprus, we d be snookered, indeed acc to former defence chiefs we would be over stretching ourselves with additional missions in syria.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07134
we are meeting this 2% target by manipulating the figures, something you would know about? lol!
so big reduction in real terms since 1991, you can see there is a marked decline under the tories, inc under their present tenure, of course so there should have been but i think it has gone too far and plenty experts in the field agree.
the terrorist threat has been known about since 9/11, so hardly new, have we been preparing for it, camerons funding announcement says no!
of course no one can be sure how we would cope but numerically, a huge manhunt on the scale we are seeing in france might be beyond us, but still the tories are going to cut 5000 from the Met alone.... wise or not?0 -
No Steve, i am extremely proud of our British heritage, i just dont like seeing it thrown down the drain, almost all of europe is more left wing than the UK but that ll change unfortunately.
as for an example - the french are now sending an aircraft carrier to support their bombing in Syria, something we could nt do and if it werent for the fact that we have a base in cyprus, we d be snookered, indeed acc to former defence chiefs we would be over stretching ourselves with additional missions in syria.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07134
we are meeting this 2% target by manipulating the figures, something you would know about? lol!
so big reduction in real terms since 1991, you can see there is a marked decline under the tories, inc under their present tenure, of course so there should have been but i think it has gone too far and plenty experts in the field agree.
the terrorist threat has been known about since 9/11, so hardly new, have we been preparing for it, camerons funding announcement says no!
of course no one can be sure how we would cope but numerically, a huge manhunt on the scale we are seeing in france might be beyond us, but still the tories are going to cut 5000 from the Met alone.... outside of the Met, many ARU's are merged with traffic motorway cops..... to save money.....wise or not?[/quote]0 -
[/quote]No Steve, i am extremely proud of our British heritage, i just dont like seeing it thrown down the drain, almost all of europe is more left wing than the UK but that ll change unfortunately.
as for an example - the french are now sending an aircraft carrier to support their bombing in Syria, something we could nt do and if it werent for the fact that we have a base in cyprus, we d be snookered, indeed acc to former defence chiefs we would be over stretching ourselves with additional missions in syria.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07134
we are meeting this 2% target by manipulating the figures, something you would know about? lol!
so big reduction in real terms since 1991, you can see there is a marked decline under the tories, inc under their present tenure, of course so there should have been but i think it has gone too far and plenty experts in the field agree.
the terrorist threat has been known about since 9/11, so hardly new, have we been preparing for it, camerons funding announcement says no!
of course no one can be sure how we would cope but numerically, a huge manhunt on the scale we are seeing in france might be beyond us, but still the tories are going to cut 5000 from the Met alone.... outside of the Met, many ARU's are merged with traffic motorway cops..... to save money.....wise or not?
Defence cover is being provided by a British Type 45 destroyer. Carriers are not deployed in isolation, they are deployed within a carrier group. Carriers need protection.
Forces being used in mutual support as part of a coalition. Hmm Well who would have thought of that?0 -
Given the choice between spending on Defence or the elderly in this day and age of ageing demographics, a bankrupt world, NATO etc. I know what I'd prefer.
"Don't tell them your name Pike"0 -
Defence cover is being provided by a British Type 45 destroyer. Carriers are not deployed in isolation, they are deployed within a carrier group. Carriers need protection.
Forces being used in mutual support as part of a coalition. Hmm Well who would have thought of that?
whats wrong with that? we are allies after all, are you now for an EU defence force? which if ALL euro countries genuinely met the 2% budget would abe a great idea - co op is the way forward.
Also, in this case, one guided missile destroyer is enough, but if we were facing another enemy, it most certainly would not be.
fwiw left wing france has more destroyers and frigates than we do, plus of course they actually have an AC ! complete with actual planes.... mmm who would have thought of that?
what do you think about the way the 2% of gdp nato budget has been met?0 -
Defence cover is being provided by a British Type 45 destroyer. Carriers are not deployed in isolation, they are deployed within a carrier group. Carriers need protection.
Forces being used in mutual support as part of a coalition. Hmm Well who would have thought of that?
whats wrong with that? we are allies after all, are you now for an EU defence force? which if ALL euro countries genuinely met the 2% budget would abe a great idea - co op is the way forward.
Also, in this case, one guided missile destroyer is enough, but if we were facing another enemy, it most certainly would not be.
fwiw left wing france has more destroyers and frigates than we do, plus of course they actually have an AC ! complete with actual planes.... mmm who would have thought of that?
what do you think about the way the 2% of gdp nato budget has been met?
Nothing wrong with that at all. I've spent god knows how many pages arguing that we have alliances whereby conventional forces can work together.0 -
Defence cover is being provided by a British Type 45 destroyer. Carriers are not deployed in isolation, they are deployed within a carrier group. Carriers need protection.
Forces being used in mutual support as part of a coalition. Hmm Well who would have thought of that?
whats wrong with that? we are allies after all, are you now for an EU defence force? which if ALL euro countries genuinely met the 2% budget would abe a great idea - co op is the way forward.
Also, in this case, one guided missile destroyer is enough, but if we were facing another enemy, it most certainly would not be.
fwiw left wing france has more destroyers and frigates than we do, plus of course they actually have an AC ! complete with actual planes.... mmm who would have thought of that?
what do you think about the way the 2% of gdp nato budget has been met?
Nothing wrong with that at all. I've spent god knows how many pages arguing that we have alliances whereby conventional forces can work together.
only if we all pull our weight, which we, together with the rest of europe, are not.
...and the 2% of gdp question?0 -
War isn't won by battalions of muddy squaddies sitting on a hill these days.
Nor is it won by having a large Navy. Even in 1982 one missile crucified a ship or 7.
War is online, GCHQ, Intelligence, Spying, SAS etc. etc. these days.
What is the importance of this 2%? It has no bearing on anything.0 -
It's the NATO recommended spend as a % of GDP. Some people are a bit fixated on it as they seem to think the only solution to any perceived problem is to simply throw more money at it. Usually other people's money.War isn't won by battalions of muddy squaddies sitting on a hill these days.
Nor is it won by having a large Navy. Even in 1982 one missile crucified a ship or 7.
War is online, GCHQ, Intelligence, Spying, SAS etc. etc. these days.
What is the importance of this 2%? It has no bearing on anything."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
2% gdp across NATO?
What is it, only 5 countries meeting the target?
If the target is 2% we should at least achieve it. I see the spending calculation now includes expenditure that previously wasn't included. On previous calculations it would have been 1.97%. The new calculation are within the framework agreed by NATO so our obligations are met.
I would however share your desire that spending be increased when possible.0 -
What?War isn't won by battalions of muddy squaddies sitting on a hill these days.
Nor is it won by having a large Navy. Even in 1982 one missile crucified a ship or 7.
War is online, GCHQ, Intelligence, Spying, SAS etc. etc. these days.
What is the importance of this 2%? It has no bearing on anything.
No Trident?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 -
2% gdp across NATO?
What is it, only 5 countries meeting the target?
If the target is 2% we should at least achieve it. I see the spending calculation now includes expenditure that previously wasn't included. On previous calculations it would have been 1.97%. The new calculation are within the framework agreed by NATO so our obligations are met.
I would however share your desire that spending be increased when possible.
Surely it is not how much is spent, nor how esoteric the %GDP calculation, but how effective is the spend? Less spent more wisely, good. More spent stupidly, e.g. on willy-waving, unusable so-called deterrent, bad.0 -
Maybe Cameron should hope his MPs dont say YES to bomb Syria?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11584269/Saudis-UK-made-war-jets-outnumber-RAFs.html
That Saudi has more planes is no surprise, that the RAF has so few front line planes is shocking.
but at least Cameron is now getting his own plane ...... an RAF A330 airbus, at a cost of 10m, no other PM has needed one before so why does he? President Cameron anyone? as you say Steve0, some people like to spend other peoples money (on themselves)
Cmeron also had no problem getting hold of a few billion recently, he also likes to throw money at a problem eh stev0?
When your dealing with a defence budget, that 0.3 % makes a huge difference.
Defence of the realm is paramount, and france has shown by having a large police force and military, they were able to mount 100's of raids every night until successful.0 -
I think CamForce One is a refuelling Airbus re-configured. The fleet was bought on an eye-wateringly expensive PFI project, so we are better using them rather than have them sitting around at Brize Norton doing nowt.
Another reason modern warfare is just too expensive.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
I would like to have seen this and previous governments bite the bullet on defence cuts and spend on new war planes, especially ground attack, which we have a shockingly low number of. It would have been far better to find the billions to support our aviation industry rather than selling our tranche of Eurofighter Typhoons to the duplicitous evil Kingdom of Saud.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0
-
Perhaps we should be more concerned about antibiotic apocalypse. Now that is truly worrying...Ecrasez l’infame0
-
Maybe Cameron should hope his MPs dont say YES to bomb Syria?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11584269/Saudis-UK-made-war-jets-outnumber-RAFs.html
That Saudi has more planes is no surprise, that the RAF has so few front line planes is shocking.
but at least Cameron is now getting his own plane ...... an RAF A330 airbus, at a cost of 10m, no other PM has needed one before so why does he? President Cameron anyone? as you say Steve0, some people like to spend other peoples money (on themselves)
Cmeron also had no problem getting hold of a few billion recently, he also likes to throw money at a problem eh stev0?
When your dealing with a defence budget, that 0.3 % makes a huge difference.
Defence of the realm is paramount, and france has shown by having a large police force and military, they were able to mount 100's of raids every night until successful.
I agree Mamba, I could have probably found a better use for the £10m as well.
0.3% is a lot of money, but money we don't have unless cut elsewhere. You say cut trident but as you seem to concede, nukes DO have a deterrent value, how much would you have to spend on conventional weapons to achieve the same deterrence, assuming you believe it to be possible.0 -
B. Current threat to our way of life comes from an asymmetric conflict, 'civilised' (stepping around the definition of that) states vs nutjob nihilists. Trident and such is no deterrent to a religious zealot of any persuasion, and I lump the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs together with their islamist contemporaries, who wants some form of end-of-days anyway.
Given the deterrence of the world's nuclear stockpile is the mutual standoff between the US and Russia, UK having a so-called independent capability is irrelevant.
So protect our citizens from real tangible threats and don't waste our money on willy-wavers that we can never use.0 -
B. Current threat to our way of life comes from an asymmetric conflict, 'civilised' (stepping around the definition of that) states vs nutjob nihilists. Trident and such is no deterrent to a religious zealot of any persuasion, and I lump the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs together with their islamist contemporaries, who wants some form of end-of-days anyway.
Given the deterrence of the world's nuclear stockpile is the mutual standoff between the US and Russia, UK having a so-called independent capability is irrelevant.
So protect our citizens from real tangible threats and don't waste our money on willy-wavers that we can never use.
So you only react to the possibility of one threat? You just form policy on what you think may happen today?0 -
B. Current threat to our way of life comes from an asymmetric conflict, 'civilised' (stepping around the definition of that) states vs nutjob nihilists. Trident and such is no deterrent to a religious zealot of any persuasion, and I lump the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs together with their islamist contemporaries, who wants some form of end-of-days anyway.
Given the deterrence of the world's nuclear stockpile is the mutual standoff between the US and Russia, UK having a so-called independent capability is irrelevant.
So protect our citizens from real tangible threats and don't waste our money on willy-wavers that we can never use.
So you only react to the possibility of one threat? You just form policy on what you think may happen today?
I agree Bally, but given that in 2010 the 1st thing the tories cut was defence spending (and have in real terms since) despite the known threats at the time, i have little trust in their judgment to predict anything.
They are cutting Police forces across the land, at a time when the threats are right here, right now.
We are facing an enemy that isnt going to go away, IS will morph into ???? and find another failed state to operate from, so if needs be, then we ll have to have an across the board increase in income tax, not popular but i feel sure there are large numbers of people in this country who could afford it, this wouldnt effect the very poorest as they dont earn enough - 1% increase across all tax rates would rise 5.5 billion.0 -
I wondered how long it would take before the fiscal equivalent of Godwins law kicked in. The old 'just get them to pay a bit more tax and we can spend it on good things' line. The assumption being that some do not pay a 'fair share' as arbitrarily defined by you :roll: It's a bit outside the main topic here but I'd be happy to deconstruct this and quite a few of the assumptions behind it at some point.
BTW believe it or not I believe that we do need to maintain a proper defence and security capability given the threats we face. But simply throwing money at problems often does not work - its more how you spend it that counts and how you use what you have. The fact that we have not had a Paris style atrocity in the UK for over a decade is testament to the fact that we are doing some things right."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
B. Current threat to our way of life comes from an asymmetric conflict, 'civilised' (stepping around the definition of that) states vs nutjob nihilists. Trident and such is no deterrent to a religious zealot of any persuasion, and I lump the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs together with their islamist contemporaries, who wants some form of end-of-days anyway.
Given the deterrence of the world's nuclear stockpile is the mutual standoff between the US and Russia, UK having a so-called independent capability is irrelevant.
So protect our citizens from real tangible threats and don't waste our money on willy-wavers that we can never use.
This ^.
Cut spending on Defence. Don't renew Trident as it isn't necessary.
We are members of NATO so if anything was to happen that needed more resources then we have allies.
The country (like everywhere else in the world) is in a dire financial situation, the money is far better used elsewhere.0 -
The elephant in the room.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19745673#p19745673]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:Perhaps we should be more concerned about antibiotic apocalypse. Now that is truly worrying...
Nature is going to save the planet.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 -
You're not wrong.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19745673#p19745673]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:Perhaps we should be more concerned about antibiotic apocalypse. Now that is truly worrying...0 -
BTW believe it or not I believe that we do need to maintain a proper defence and security capability given the threats we face. But simply throwing money at problems often does not work - its more how you spend it that counts and how you use what you have. The fact that we have not had a Paris style atrocity in the UK for over a decade is testament to the fact that we are doing some things right.
Do you? how do you propose to pay for it then? take from people on min wage? incentives to work dont seem to apply to them.
It costs, in personnel and equipment, as spending cuts have hit all Government organisations over many years, there is little fat to cut, sometimes personal safety trumps money, do you think anyone caught up in Paris was laying there thinking "french tax rates are far too high"
We are surrounded by sea, are not in Schengen, 2 reasons that makes the smuggling of weapons in and out of this country harder, however should the UK launch attacks on Syria who knows what we might face?
i d rather we look forward than bask in previous success.0
