[News] UK moving to “war fighting readiness” - UK defence

[WATFORD zero]

@WATFORD zero

I find it really hard to chat/debate with you, because you keep going back and editing your posts, deleting things, adding things.

You’re an interesting guy, I don’t agree with you often, but I like a clean discussion and exchange of views. Can we do that going forward please?

(Also, the smilies make you come across rude and unable to talk normally to a fellow human being - even one who largely agrees with you. You do you, but I personally think it’s not a good look).

The thing about what we should prepare against was a completely new point, maybe I should have put it in another post.

(And it was so tempting)

 

[lawros left foot]

Forgive me, where did I say the Moskva was a "modern Warship"?

I simply used it as an example of a flagship that'll cost $750M to replace, being destroyed by a drone worth a few hundred dollars. Source.

I merely meant that our warships are far more advanced and modern than the Moskva.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're sure that we're not already dong this?

Come on. If we are, along with all our other military planning and espionage, HMG would have* published all the details so they can be judged by the opposition and news media!

Everyone knows that it is a matter of national interest and indeed security for a Labour government to explain exactly what they are doing in every sector of UK life, why, how, the nature of the benefit, how they can guarantee the outcome, and how they have thought of everything, including exact costings and how it will all be paid for.

Just like Badenough and Farage and that Liberal whose name escapes me have done.

Oh.

*of.

(In case of misunderstanding, I am agreeing with you. I am sure we are doing all sorts that won't be blabbed about in parliament by over-excitable ninnies. Hopefully, adults seem to still be in charge. Not that the task in hand is a simple conundrum. )

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The thing about what we should prepare against was a completely new point, maybe I should have put it in another post.

(And it was so tempting)

If that was an apology then I'm sure it will be accepted.
This is a good thread.....as noted earlier...let's keep it that way.

 

[darkwolf666]

With regard to manpower for the forces, the Royal Navy should be alright.

As MSM keep telling us, ad infinitum, there’s boatloads of fighting age men arriving in the country on a daily basis, all with seagoing experience.

That's good, very good

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you’re wondering why you canot get a hospital appointment for months , or the Council have no money to fix the pot holes , or any number of things wrong with our services…. You might remember this increase in spending to build weapons to blast our fellow humans to oblivion.
Humanity is better at killing than caring ………

The hospitals, pot holes and the other any number of issues concerning you were here before last summer.
They are the product of 14 years of Tory cockwomblery,
not nine months of a labour government and one defense spending initiative

The point is that Trump has pulled the rug from under European security.
We have to get our finger out and pay our way.
Or Putin will carry on until he has re-annexed all the territory that was part of the soviet union.
Starmer has taken a lead among European nations (despite Brexit).
This may come as a shock to lifetime labour haters, and the peace dove-clutchers on the left.
It is what it is.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I merely meant that our warships are far more advanced and modern than the Moskva.

But if it's a race between designing, building and commissioning major military assets and technology, I really think there's only going to be one winner (and technical obsolescence is only moving in one direction).

Hence we first have to figure out what are going to constitute the biggest risks to UK security in 2035, as @The Fits pointed out.

 

[lawros left foot]

I went to games with an ex-submariner until fairly recently, when he moved away to Devon and gave up his ST. He made it to the Philippines at one point and he has the scar and shit tat from Subic Bay to prove it (and a very funny story).

However, that's his only colourful story and some of the things he told me would make most normal people go f**k that. He's also an incredibly talented engineer who can put just about anything together. The chances of finding a whole lot of similar young people these days doesn't seem likely. Even in our group of Gen Xs I can't think of anyone who'd have wanted to do that or been good at it.

Subic Bay was a very , err, interesting place.

2 of my nephews have served in the RN since I left, one as a Chief petty officer engineer artificer on nuclear submarines, the other as a Lieutenant Commander air engineer who is still serving.

Neither has been to as many countries as I went to in a shorter time .I was a general service( frigates, mainly) rating.

 

[Doug-ees-evil]

It will takes years to re-join the EU. Big military projects take many more years to complete.

I’m pro-EU as you fully know. Even as a Remainer and Rejoiner we must address the practicalities and realities of our situation.

Of course. Agree. It will take years, but I believe natural demographics may speed that process along a lot quicker than we think.

The deeper military collaboration has already started with Europe. First by Johnson (only decent thing he did) and continued with now closer co-operation by Starmer.
Nato-led of course, but goes to EU level too (to what extent yet I'm not sure). At some point they may say, "you know what, this would be a lot easier if you join part of the club again".

 

[lawros left foot]

But if it's a race between designing, building and commissioning major military assets and technology, I really think there's only going to be one winner (and technical obsolescence is only moving in one direction).

Hence we first have to figure out what are going to constitute the biggest risks to UK security in 2035, as @The Fits pointed out.

Completely agree, as I said in another post, prepare for the next war, not the last one.

Easier said than done though.

 

[jcdenton08]

Of course. Agree. It will take years, but I believe natural demographics may speed that process along a lot quicker than we think.

The deeper military collaboration has already started with Europe. First by Johnson (only decent thing he did) and continued with now closer co-operation by Starmer.
Nato-led of course, but goes to EU level too (to what extent yet I'm not sure). At some point they may say, "you know what, this would be a lot easier if you join part of the club again".

Agree with every word of this.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

View attachment 203276

Easy to put the figures up like that and make it appear really bad, but it lacks a lot of vital context

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the cold war and so numbers would be far higher as a result, as global tensions meant there was a greater need.

Then you have the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Russia and neighbouring states that were part of the old Soviet Union becoming more friendly and open and posing a far smaller risk of war.

Then you have the social and economic union occurring amongst many European counties, close ties, more open boarders, less likelihood of a European wide conflict

This means that a large military wasn't as essential as before so it's no wonder numbers drop as peace emerges.

Now we see a threat emerging to peace once again and therefore a response is required to increase preparedness and increase deterrence to hopefully stave off another major war in Europe / globally, so expect the size to increase once again and will be higher until we (hopefully one day soon) start to return to a world with very little threat to global peace.

But without that vital context of a changing world (for the better for the most part in those represented years) the numbers on the graph make it look shocking.

 

[WATFORD zero]

If that was an apology then I'm sure it will be accepted.
This is a good thread.....as noted earlier...let's keep it that way.

It was.

Thinking about it, the reason I generally post the emojis is in recognition of the fact that most of NSC (and certainly my posts), no matter how passionately we feel about it at the time is just old men shouting at clouds (and a few old women, and one or two youngsters who need to take a serious look at themselves)

I'm sure it wasn't like this 25 years ago.

Anyway, back on Topic.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Hands up all those who would back Britain to win a war at this point?

People would not fight or comply with conscription.

 

[jcdenton08]

The thing about what we should prepare against was a completely new point, maybe I should have put it in another post.

(And it was so tempting)

I’d say it’s worth it mate, particularly in this thread. I’ll happily discuss, concede, debate. I’d happily chat to you over a pint no matter if we agree or disagree, let’s keep that vibe. Not in the least because we basically agree on this one, in so many words.

 

[WATFORD zero]

People would not fight or comply with conscription.

I would be stunned if every professional service person didn't fight and if you talk to professional services people you will find out that the last thing they would want in the middle of a fight is conscripts.

If you are old enough to have been friendly or worked with people who were conscripts, you'll understand why.

 

[A1X]

NSC stands ready to do it’s part

 

[WATFORD zero]

NSC stands ready to do it’s part

View attachment 203294

@hans kraay fan club, @Frutos, @Bry Nylon, @Guinness Boy

@El Presidente @Bozza, @Goldstone1976

 

[Madafwo]

You could argue that actually if these submarines/munitions are made in the UK (no idea if they actually are) that they would create jobs/attract further investment and do just that?

I'd argue that sounds like trickle down economics which doesn't really work, far better in my opinion to build from the bottom up.

 

[TomandJerry]

Easy to put the figures up like that and make it appear really bad, but it lacks a lot of vital context

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the cold war and so numbers would be far higher as a result, as global tensions meant there was a greater need.

Then you have the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Russia and neighbouring states that were part of the old Soviet Union becoming more friendly and open and posing a far smaller risk of war.

Then you have the social and economic union occurring amongst many European counties, close ties, more open boarders, less likelihood of a European wide conflict

This means that a large military wasn't as essential as before so it's no wonder numbers drop as peace emerges.

Now we see a threat emerging to peace once again and therefore a response is required to increase preparedness and increase deterrence to hopefully stave off another major war in Europe / globally, so expect the size to increase once again and will be higher until we (hopefully one day soon) start to return to a world with very little threat to global peace.

But without that vital context of a changing world (for the better for the most part in those represented years) the numbers on the graph make it look shocking.

That's the point - we are totally under prepared for a conflict. It will take years to boost numbers back upto where they once were.

The stats don't lie, ever since the 50's we've pretty much had falling numbers barring a few years.

Since the 50's we've had the cold war, Afghanistan, Iran, trouble in Ireland, Falklands to name a few.

And now we are potentially facing Russia and we are starting on the back foot.