Do we need an Armed Forces?

[McSteamy]

Did anyone listen to Jeremy Vine at lunchtime today when he posed this question? I was amazed that so many people think we don't.

George Monbiot had a very convincing article in The Guardian once on why we do not need an army. However I think it is not only a question of defence, as LtEveDallas said they do a lot more than just defending us.

Also disbanding the army would disproportinately hit the North and the poor. Again. In many places this is the only way to get a job.

I would totally reorganise the army (never gonna happen) along the US Army where merit counts for a lot more than birth. The US Army's free education is absolutely fantastic. Or it seems so for an outsider.

I think the military has changed a lot in recent years gingercat and now merit is used during selection rather than birth/family.

n

ooh random "n" - not sure where that came from

As someone has already said our army isnt just a fighting force when the firemen went on srtike who covered ? The forces when foot and mouth was rife who helped The forces When 911 happened and we had planes diverted all over the country too raf airfields ect who was it who helped? MY husband is in the forces and has done all those things plus been sent too iraq apfghan ect

Well the British subs are so silent the French and British crashed into each other by accident! Personally I don't think we can dispense with Trident and I actually found that article strangely comforting. I have great faith in the integrity of our system.

As for whether we still need Armed Forces.... The Navy in particular does a lot of fighting against drug trafficking, illegal immigration, safeguarding exclusive economic zones and protecting commercial shipping (Somalian coast operations). DHs role is nothing warlike right now but he still seems to be spending a lot of time designing missions! Besides, all forces are involved in disaster relief and peacekeeping operations.

The minute we take them below operational capacity and are under threat there will be a huge outcry and people will feel very betrayed. I know there are those who argue that we could rely on mutual defence pacts but nothing is assured tbh.

"The US Army's free education is absolutely fantastic. Or it seems so for an outsider."

It's also been accused of being a carrot used to lure poor American youths into the armed forces so as to get a decent education.

"The Navy in particular does a lot of fighting against drug trafficking, illegal immigration, safeguarding exclusive economic zones and protecting commercial shipping (Somalian coast operations)"

The Navy isn't that well equipped to deal with something those that you mention, and neither do they want to be.

To fight pirates you need lots of helicopters, lots of marines and big relatively cheap ships capable of carrying as many of those first two things as possible.

The Navy want high tech expensive ships, those big new aircraft carriers and crews expertly skilled in anti-submarine and anti-aircraft warfare. All pretty useless for anti-pirate/anti-drug/anti-immigrant operations.

I'm not saying that we should gut the Navy and make it into the ideal anti-pirate force (however useful that might be right now) as that would be incredibly short sighted.

While the Navy does need to be more flexible and open to things like cheap helicopter ships we can't just focus on what it gets up to at the moment, we need to focus on what it might need to do in 10 or 20 years time and keep it equiped and ready to do those things.

Thanks Badgerspaws, although I am still curious about where you get your information from. Are you in fact a submarine commander?

Anyway. So, Trident is basically a whole load of nuclear submarines circling the globes, so that no-one knows where they are at any given time and this is supposed to be the best deterrent against nuclear strikes from enemy nations?

Because it keeps them on the back foot as they can't take us out first?

Have I got this right? Still slightly confused.

On the question of drug trafficking, wasn't sure exactly what your last point was but the Navy really doesn't need much to be effective. Just stick a large grey boat in the relevant seas and it'll deter all sorts of ne'er do wells. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be operational - word spreads like wild fire when there's a ship around and puts traffickers off trying to get through.

Perhaps that was what you were saying too?

BadgersPaws The US Army has "... also been accused of being a carrot used to lure poor American youths into the armed forces so as to get a decent education." Well, currently in many cases the British Army is luring the most vulnerable, poorest young people with meagre wages to die in far-flung places. They might as well get a chance for a better life.

Sorry, it is just that might heart sinks every time I see the photos of those dead soldiers in the papers.

"So, Trident is basically a whole load of nuclear submarines circling the globes, so that no-one knows where they are at any given time"

Well there's only ever one submarine out on patrol at a time. We've got four in total, that allows for the boat on patrol, one is normally undergoing repairs and the other two are in port, on a training mission or heading out or returning from a patrol.

Few people know where they actually go but I'd bet that they're reasonably close to home in case they have problems.

"Because it keeps them on the back foot as they can't take us out first?"

Basically yes.

The idea is that it removes the possibility of any enemy being able to strike at us without them in turn being hit back in retaliation.

"the Navy really doesn't need much to be effective. Just stick a large grey boat in the relevant seas and it'll deter all sorts of ne'er do wells"

One big expensive grey boat really doesn't deter anyone other than the few pirates in range of it's single helicopter and even then how many of them can one helicopter deter?

A number of cheaper simpler ships carrying lots of helicopters, less highly trained sailors and more marines would be far more effective. However that's not the sort of force that the Navy wants to be.

Thanks. I don't know much about pirates but I do know about drug trafficking and actually one naval ship (doesn't have to be British Navy, the French, Americans etc are just as good) can be immensely effective. Word soon spreads.

However, of course lots of ships with lots of helicopters would be much much better!

I am now convinced you are, definitely, a submarine commander.

Hmmm. Interesting. Wonder what DH would think of this thread....he is a former submarine commander.

ah ha - is he, in fact, badgerspaws?

Whether they're equipped for it or not they do do a lot of those sorts of missions. I won't debate the effectiveness of what they're doing or their level of equipment though! But crews trained in anti-submarine warfare and crews equipped to go on patrols aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of patrols double up as training exercises and surveys as well. It is more about geographical proximity and acting as a deterrent than taking action, quite apart from the fact that, off the coast of Somalia in particular, you have a problem when you arrest pirates in international waters. DH (fairly reliably) that the effect of a big grey ship on drug-trafficking AND piracy is pretty measurable. Illegal immigration is slightly trickier because most Navies tend to act on that when they see it rather than go looking for trouble. We don't need lots of helicopter carriers etc - we just need to send 1 to a task force like Atalanta along with 6 other countries and hey presto! A force made up of 7 appropriate ships.... It might not be what their primary purpose is but it's what they're doing - and providing a vital contribution.

That's in addition to the support in Afghanistan etc.

I agree that we can't gut the Navy - it's too risky to take it below operational capacity!

The idea of Trident is basically to keep our nuclear deterrent away from the mainland so people can't take it out and then destroy us. We'll always be able to hit back.

Badgerspaw /DH - I thought you were busy doing covert ops somewhere!

"We don't need lots of helicopter carriers etc - we just need to send 1 to a task force like Atalanta along with 6 other countries and hey presto! A force made up of 7 appropriate ships.... It might not be what their primary purpose is but it's what they're doing - and providing a vital contribution."

The new Type 45 ships the Navy is getting are costing over £1bn each and currently only carry a few guns because their missiles aren't ready.

That's one ship with one helicopter.

How many more cheaper ships, basically just helicopter landing pads, could have been bought and how much more effective would they be?

As said we cannot allow the Navy to be gutted and reduced to a something akin to a counter insurgency force but the Navy has got to accept that low level warfare is going to be a big feature for the next few decades and has got to start equipping itself for it rather than constantly struggling, and giving up so much, in order to be a big ship navy.

"I am now convinced you are, definitely, a submarine commander."

I don't think I'd even be allowed onto a submarine yet alone given the steering wheel

I think we do need our armed forces RAF and RN as well as the army.
As others hav epointed out it's not jsut about fighting.
They do fire cover - when we lived in Scotland, DH was sent to Devon to cover striking firefighters.
Foot and Mouth cover
Fllod rescues,
Mountain rescue
Search and rescue.

The Armed Forces are getting cut back far too much. I personally think that within 15-20 years the RAF will be merged into the Army and Navy.
I'm not sur ehow I feel about trident though. I grew up in the 80s with the threat of cold war hanging over us

I can't see the Armed Forces being completely disbanded (there is always a need for Defence I think) but I can see it going the way of a merged Defence Force rather than the 3 (well 4) separate services.

They've already pretty much merged the defence medical services, so I imagine they'll merge everything as the risk changes.

Defence Policing is pretty much Army run tri Service now too. Well their training is.

Badgerspaw can't be the Co of a submarine - they don't (or they didn't the last time I was on one) have steering wheels.

I am very proud to be married to a Nuclear Submariner, and to be the sister of one - they are a breed apart in the RN.

Trident works - if it ain't broke don't fix it. MAD kept the balance of power in the Cold War; the future is not going to be a set of conflicts like Afghanistan whatever Sir David Richards says, and anyway, how are the Army going to get there without Crab Air and the RN?

I agree we need more Littoral ships, but the carriers obviate the need for borrowing airfields when we fight overseas and provide a secure base which if properly escorted and screened is difficult to attack.

It will never go truly joint Sidge; the Army gets sea sick!

LOL scary, and the Navy don't like all that stomping and shouting!

I was a Naval Nurse when it went triservice at Haslar and the Army were less than impressed that we didn't salute them indoors.

lol I remember that Sidge! I loved working there!

It was great wasn't it!

Such a lovely hospital, I still can't believe they've closed it.

I know, lots of memories.

Do you remember the patient that was killed by her husband there? Were you there then?

Loved living at HMS Dolphin! Will never forget getting up early to watch the first Japanese ship to come into UK waters since the war - they were all facing Gosport, we thought it was a bit odd until a Japanese tannoy sounded telling them they were on the wrong side and they all ran round to face Portsmouth.

Gosh yes I vaguely remember that. Didn't they find her in the bathroom or something? Awful.

We didn't live at Haslar when I was there as there was no room for us students, so they placed us at Sultan. Hundreds of fit young lads and a block of nurses - happy days!