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.

She was found on an unused ward - was my patient! Although I wasn't on duty at the time. Very sad

Bet you have some fun memories living out there! Did you frequent Emma's?

I am hijacking my own thread

Glad to see that getting rid of the Armed Forces does not seem to be what the majority wants - at least not on mumsnet!

No, the RN don't need to stomp and shout; too noisy for submarines! A quiet word is usually effective.

Oh McSteamy I have some fond memories of Emmas

Spent many a drunken night pleasant evening enjoying the atmosphere there

The aroma of sweaty matelot, the sticky carpet, the bangin choons, the bottles of Smirnoff Ice, aaaahhhhh

fedup/scaryteacher - OMG!

There is a high chance you may be married to my cousin who is/was a nuclear submarine commander.

From an anarchist perspective: I wouldn't get rid of the army, but I would get rid of the top brass and the politicians who order them to die and slaughter for a very narrow set of interests. The army too often acts as a political entity - for example in N.Ireland where it sided with the Unionist thugs. Not enough vetting of the army for right wing sympathies. The army needs to be directly controlled by ordinary people.

The adverts on the TV which ask boys to go to the internet to play war computer games are child abuse by the state.

As for Trident being a deterrent if you follow that argument surely every nation in the world needs nuclear weapons, then there would be no more war! Tsk... Even if the French were marching on London no one would have the right to nuke Paris.

There has been coverage on radio, strandedatsea, and even interviews with top brass and sub captains and crew, actually doing drill for a missile launch.

Although there might be a deterrent to a national enemy, ie some regime decided (stupidly) to attack the UK, but if terrorists attacked, having nuclear weapons is ineffective. Indeed, a little before the election

Imagine the scenario - a bunch of terrorists decides to explode a dirty bomb carried in a light aircraft (or executive jet, who knows what they could buy) in central London. It would be far from impossible unless City Airport bans executive jets. Flight plan would be say Edinburgh to London in the morning arriving at 10:00.

If the pilot was part of the plot he could simply detour from the intended path to go right over Buckingham Palace and the bomb could be detonated at anything from 500 to 1500 feet above ground, ensuring wider coverage than some blast on the ground, making central London a wasteland for at least 30 years, stopping all forms of transport, wiping out banks, data centres, and a few million people killed or wounded or given radiation poisoning (whilst many specialists might also be killed - time the attack to coincide with some conference for cancer specialists, ie those who know how to best make use of radiation for good, and also know how to help someone through dangerous exposure.

If the pilot was not part of the plot, s/he could still be coerced or killed and the plane taken off course.

Now, there's been an explosion in London, 20% of the population in the area are incapacitated, the area is 'hot' so no one can move in to search of survivors, Parliament and various Government departments are devastated, and what would be your target for a retaliatory strike?

Are you Andy McNabb?

coolfonz

"The army too often acts as a political entity - for example in N.Ireland where it sided with the Unionist thugs. Not enough vetting of the army for right wing sympathies. The army needs to be directly controlled by ordinary people."

What a load of codswallop! The senior officers in all three services are highly-trained and have a good understanding of their profession built up through many years experience.

Are you honestly suggesting that some civvie with no military/tactical/strategic experience should be the one giving the orders? Even when we have ministers/politicians who have no Service records, they take advice from the Service Chiefs and give broad direction which the Services translate into actual orders/actions. To put civvies in charge of that process would result in stupidity, confusion and complete ineffectiveness.

As for the Forces being "political", well, the Services are banned form being members of any political party or engaging in any politcal activity other than voting. After all, to paraphrase, "War is simply the continuation of diplomacy by other means." so, naturally, the Services are a politcal tool in the same way that the Diplomatic Service or overseas aid is a political tool.

Not saying ordinary people should conduct day to day operations, saying ordinary people should have the final say on what the army does. Like go to Iraq and Afghanistan for example, or not.

And the army - indeed all the security services - are pretty overtly right wing, establishment, political entities, used by the state. Especially the top brass. Bit odd to argue otherwise.

I would not want to see the armed forces (ie the men and women) cut in numbers - indeed it would be good to see more going into the forces.

However, I do think the defence contractors have made fortunes out of various projects, and far too many are like government IT projects, overdue and over budget. Then there are complete failures in getting things right, like having equipment that fails because it is so high-tech it won't work if there's cloud in the way, or that cannot cope with high (or low) temperatures, or sand, or whatever.

Some reigning in of the kit (every geek's nightmare) seems to me to be necessary, but put some of the savings into higher salary and better quarters so whether single or in married quarters, there isn't water leaking in or poor heating, or other problems which mean whoever is away on a tour of duty is concerned about the family left behind, and in a position where they are unable to get things sorted out. Just adds to stress and strain that could should be completely avoidable.

As for Trident, from the various comments made about not having enough spare parts, and the comments from BP about the working practice, it strikes me as being a poor attempt at a deterrent.

If there are three subs out at sea I would expect them to all be on patrol, for at least5 months of their time out (container ships can go from the UK to China and Japan in 30 days, and while I don't know the exact routes these subs would be taking, I would expect them to spend more time in the Arctic circle than anywhere else - after all the bulk of the industrial nations are easily within the northern hemisphere, and even various Middle East states would probably be in range from somewhere east of Leningrad, firing due south.

With the UK so far north, the possibility of spending time in the Indian Ocean (for example) to be able to fire on Middle East, South East Asia, and further north to China and Russia, is there, but the time taken to get into position and back would mean they would probably be spending 4 weeks there and the rest of a 5 month tour either getting there or coming back (if they were to be 'running silent' rather than 'going like the clappers' and making a noise!)

Slight aside: Sidge - the Army never salute indoors, is this some strange medical oddity?.

(re Trident) "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'd like to see a vote on whether Trident is considered vital to the public. We all have our own views - some for, some against - yet one could point to the number of countries in Europe where there is no atomic weapon available, and no likelihood, either.

Anyone with nuclear weapons might be deemed a target because of those weapons - after all, with NATO and other treaties, an attack on one country (armed with nuclear missiles or not) can be deemed an attack on every country in that group, so could incite a nuclear strike, so if that's definitely going to be the case, why not take out the resources of the country with missiles first, and have your own forces attacking other countries in the group with no nuclear arms.

Given the ultimatum "we've already hit the UK, give it up, or you will be next" some countries are likely to accept defeat in the knowledge that the UK might suffer massive losses, but why should get devastated too ?

I no longer see nuclear arms as a deterrent but something of a risk. Having the arms here means they could be used against us, too, just by blowing up any storage sites!

UK 0 : attacking nation : 1

(they can leave their own country a barren wasteland while invading their neighbours, so long as they have demonstrated the ability, and will, to use their nuclear arms).

Orienteerer I think it was just a strange RSM oddity!

He was deeply weird. Expected all sorts of weird behaviour until the (RAF) head honcho pointed out 1, we were a hospital not an Army training camp, 2, we were now a triservice environment and not an Army training camp and 3, 80% of our clientele were civvies and not new recruits.

He tried to run my friend for not saluting him in the Naafi

PS The 100 Billion was, I think, spread over a number of years. I suspect with inflation and defence contract clauses, inflation will be added and it will run to perhaps 120 Billion

He wasn't a plastic surgeon was he?

What, the RSM? No, no idea what his actual role was but IIRC he wasn't a medic.

Anyway, after all that chat about (NOT) saluting indoors, Yes we do need an armed forces. OK, slightly biased as ex Regular Army & now in TA.

Sorry he was the RSM d'oh! - I just had a flashback of being balled out by an Army Surgeon for something his Junior Dr had done when reading your post!

Beenbeeta - my husband isn't a seaman officer, but a Weapon Engineer - it takes various types to run a boat.

Coolfoonz - as the dictum is not to discuss women, religion or politics, how can you know what the political affiliation of each 135,000+ of HM Forces is? I've been a Forces brat all my life, and I don't know what my friends/brother thinks politically. I do know what dh thinks, but my mum has our proxy votes as we are abroad, so have to tell her how to vote.

Network Guy; a boat can only stay out as long as the food lasts, and that is normally a couple of months. What you don't want is a bomber coming into a port to replenish as that would perhaps be a bit of a giveaway.

Also Trident - MAD has worked to date; I see no reason why it shouldn't for the forseeable future. Oh, and the Submarine service is called the silent service for a reason!

Beenbeeta - you never know... It is a small world, but not too keen to out myself here!

No I am not at all keen to either. Just thought I ought to say something in case you accidentally let slip something.

As you were.

"a boat can only stay out as long as the food lasts, and that is normally a couple of months"

So they never get anything delivered by a helicopter from a passing RN vessel ?

Sure, it might be inconvenient for both parties but if they are 500 miles away from nearest land, surely far from impossible and while the surface vessel knows the position of that boat for an hour or so after they each depart, what's to say the boat won't change course within 3 hours and turn anything up to 180 degrees?