alchresearch Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 On Radio 4's Today show yesterday a woman was going on about how we need to "project our presence" across the world and "intervene". Maybe if we didn't project our presence and stick our noses in where its not wanted we wouldn't be in such a state. Try intervening in a drunken brawl on the streets on a Saturday night and see where it gets you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcspb1 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 My previous entries on this post may have come across a little unstructured, and I apologise for that. Yesterday, I'd had a particularly bad day health-wise, those of you who know me will understand the cause. My main concerns, and I do agree that we could trim the armed forces (Though mainly at the top of the tree - too many Chiefs and not enough Indians) are that the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, along with its Harrier aircraft, is being decommissioned, leaving us with one ‘carrier’ for the next ten years that will only carry helicopters. I would rather, than have any new carrier in operation, have no carriers at all for the next ten years, surely that would be more cost effective? My worry is that an unimagined conventional threat may emerge in five, ten, or twenty years, which Britain will no longer have the military resources to meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 My previous entries on this post may have come across a little unstructured, and I apologise for that. Yesterday, I'd had a particularly bad day health-wise, those of you who know me will understand the cause. My main concerns, and I do agree that we could trim the armed forces (Though mainly at the top of the tree - too many Chiefs and not enough Indians) are that the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, along with its Harrier aircraft, is being decommissioned, leaving us with one ‘carrier’ for the next ten years that will only carry helicopters. I would rather, than have any new carrier in operation, have no carriers at all for the next ten years, surely that would be more cost effective? My worry is that an unimagined conventional threat may emerge in five, ten, or twenty years, which Britain will no longer have the military resources to meet. Just what happened in 1914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Just what happened in 1914. What's your point? Genuine question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 What's your point? Genuine question.. Nearly the whole of the regular army was wiped out in the early part of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Nearly the whole of the regular army was wiped out in the early part of the war. So what sort of conflict do you reckon we should gear up for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 So what sort of conflict do you reckon we should gear up for? A very difficult question. It is for those in power to decide and they obviously have done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 On Radio 4's Today show yesterday a woman was going on about how we need to "project our presence" across the world and "intervene". Maybe if we didn't project our presence and stick our noses in where its not wanted we wouldn't be in such a state. Try intervening in a drunken brawl on the streets on a Saturday night and see where it gets you. Hopefully the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will have taught our politicians a lesson they won't forget in a hurry and the one good thing about the defence cuts is that in future such military adventures will be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 So what sort of conflict do you reckon we should gear up for? An armed invasion from the Channel Islands ? We could probably hold them at bay for a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcspb1 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 In the future, if something like the Falklands conflict was to re-emerge, what would we have to defend it with? We couldn't rapidly deploy our depleted forces en-masse, like we did historically. We now have neither have the hardware, nor manpower, to react to such a perceived threat. Argentina has recently asked the U.N. to broker talks on the Falkland Islands future. And there is no wonder, it all comes down to the black stuff. Argentinian claims will intensify if large deposits of oil are found – geologists estimate that up to 60bn barrels of oil and gas could lie in Falklands waters, putting the region on a par with the North Sea. I, for one, know where this will lead if the 60bn barrels estimate is proven. After all, Sovereignty over the islands is still claimed by both London and Buenos Aires. So, hypothetically, for the moment - Argentina invade the Falklands again in 2011, what's our next move given the recent defence cuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.