Blame the people who built them.
Reduction in the size of UK Army
- Thread starter diy_fun_uk
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
It's better defended than it was. But it isn't and never will be a heavily fortified site. There's a handful of fast jets on site, I believe we still have a more or less unarmed River class vessel stationed down there. After that we're almost down to the penguins.
It is a potential conflict that we would want to fight. Failing to plan for it would be stupid and a classic failure to learn from the past.
It has been planned for. Don't forget the sub patrol and increased intelligence, and the Argentinian lack of any viable means of getting there.
Oh good, I'm glad to hear that. As long as Boris has it all planned out I'm sure it'd be fine.
Sponsored Links
It's a shift of emphasis and as a USA military person pointed out they do not fancy a smaller UK army but that is balanced against a better equipped one.
Military aspects always figure in Tory policy and it's interesting to note how much is spent in that area against others. Might via austerity for many and arms sales make a lot of money, more for some countries than others.
Military aspects always figure in Tory policy and it's interesting to note how much is spent in that area against others.
Might via austerity for many and arms sales make a lot of money, more for some countries than others.That'll help won't it?Blame the people who built them.
Maybe blame the people who ordered two floating targets and oversaw the doubling of the construction budget?
You've gone from General Armchair to a Petty Officer of the Poop Deck in one afternoon. Would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on?
All ships are targets.
But if the people making them actually do their jobs properly, the people using them then just have to concentrate on their jobs and adversaries not wondering about the guarantee claims.
B
Bodd
When we colonised the world our army's were far outnumbered, we were successful in quashing uprising and taking lands because we had state of the art weapons compared to our opposition..
We are not going to compete with numbers against the mighty army's of Russia and China.. The hope would be that our weaponry would be far superior.
What's to even say the threat will come from two of the biggest nations on earth. Threats today come more in the form of Islamic groups infiltrating our lands. Groups who want to hurt us and damage our way of life are amongst us now.
Who ever then next real threat is from they are amongst us now.
We are not going to compete with numbers against the mighty army's of Russia and China.. The hope would be that our weaponry would be far superior.
What's to even say the threat will come from two of the biggest nations on earth. Threats today come more in the form of Islamic groups infiltrating our lands. Groups who want to hurt us and damage our way of life are amongst us now.
Who ever then next real threat is from they are amongst us now.
A spear and a buffalo-hide shield will not beat a voracious modern enemy.
“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.”
B
Bodd
well it did in that battle with the Zulus prior to rourkes drift
I don't recall if it was in the UK review or a recent yank one, but there was mention of a high probability that a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon would be used within the next 5-10 years.
The US's latest threat assessments are requiring their military to move away from the recent insurgency type combat, and prepare for a peer-level adversary - so weapons systems, roles and tactics are having to change for the US too.
Russia, China and Iran are employing more space and cyber tactics and actual attacks, and despite many people being stuck in the "bigger armies means defeat for smaller ones" perception, the problem with that line of thinking is that Russia China and Iran have very little experience in actual combat and tactics of modern warfare - and that matters a great deal more than numbers. The western alliances are much more adept at using smaller numbers and technology much more effectively.
The US's latest threat assessments are requiring their military to move away from the recent insurgency type combat, and prepare for a peer-level adversary - so weapons systems, roles and tactics are having to change for the US too.
Russia, China and Iran are employing more space and cyber tactics and actual attacks, and despite many people being stuck in the "bigger armies means defeat for smaller ones" perception, the problem with that line of thinking is that Russia China and Iran have very little experience in actual combat and tactics of modern warfare - and that matters a great deal more than numbers. The western alliances are much more adept at using smaller numbers and technology much more effectively.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
- Status
Sponsored Links
