Guardian: "Britain's Armed Forces: The Future Of War"

"Next year the UK could be at peace with the world after a century of conflict. What is the role of the military now?"

Britain's armed forces: the future of war | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

The mountebanks will find something to drag us into.

 

This is one of the main problems that politicians have and can't understand about the military. next year, hopefully, the armed forces will be unemployed i.e. they will not be in a hot war. This means that politicians of all parties will start saying "Why are we paying for something we don't use?". The defence budget is then reduced (slashed) and politicians are then happy.

Some months later a war starts and the politicians are looking round for the troops they have sacked............

Continue ad infinitum.

 

I was shocked by a post on RR that made me realise that the size of the Andrew, as far as its complement of personnel is concerned, is less than half of the Navy I joined in the 60s.

 

In 1960, the Royal Navy numbered 102,000. Even in 1969, it numbered around 92,000.

Today, the trained regular strength of the Naval Service totals 30,500 comprising 23,700 RN and 6,800 RM personnel:

Naval Quarterly Pocket Brief Oct 2013​

 

I would like to think that if we are no longer supporting personel in Afganistan and all the cost that entails that there would be no further cuts especially to the RN. The RN would then become the most active and important service ( ok it already is) and investment into the personel and equipment a modern RN needs to protect our interests nationaly and internationaly would be reinvested into the Andrew. How about another 7 type 26's and a couple more type 45's.

Dream on yeah I know.

 

War will be created, good for money, good for votes


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)

 

don't worry there's always the never to be fired SLBMs.

 

Tomcat, I think you mean "don't worry, there's always the, hopefully, never to be fired SLBM's. Unless, of course, you are a time lord and know what the future holds for us all.

 

Very similar to what came to mind when I read Tomcat's post. After all, a deterrent isn't a deterrent if it is never intended that the threat of retaliation be carried out if we are attacked.
Of course, it's a different argument as to whether the deterrent has failed if we are attacked.

 

That's the crux of the Trident argument. Is it a waste of money because it's never been used, or is it worth every penny because it's never had to be used.