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.

I spent 6 years in the Army and I am married to a serving soldier. I think people don't understand how much they do other than Afghanistan. I covered the fire mans strike. The Army helped massively during the hand foot and mouth crisis. I think that they do alot often for low wages and in bad conditions.

My last unit was a Scottish Infantry regiment and yes alot of the guys were young poor and badly educated. However they were trained to do an excellent job, they earned an honest wage when they often came from some dreadful areas and quite honestly told me if they weren't in the Army they would of been on benefits or working in a factory etc. I have nothing but respect for the work they did.

Everyone knows the risks of deploying to Afghanistan and you accept it when you do the job. I have been to Iraq myself and it was flipping frightening. You spend months and months living in a tent away from family and friends without a day off and all for pathetically low wages.

I think suggesting we don't need armed forces is insane unless the rest of the world did the same. We are needed for a deterrent and to pick up the slack when people that strike exercise the right to do so. An option that the Armed forces do not have

Unless in the direst of emergencies, no they don't recive anything and by that point they'd already have transmitted anyway and broken cover. They could be spotted by a satellite for one reason and even that hour of vulnerability is a huge window given that the meeting would need to have been arranged prior to leaving (as the subs don't transmit) so lots of people would know where they were going to be and more people knowing = more risk.

Herbietea - I think it would be hugely beneficial if the state got rid of its clandestine nature and its outdated concept of national security. I think ordinary people are far wiser than corrupt top brass and politicians who commit others to fight wars to play political games.

Scaryteacher - the armed forces top brass are part of the British state's political establishment, they generally adhere to its principles. Which on the whole are pretty far to the right.
The entire concept that the British state is valid in fighting pre-emptive wars in foreign countries for example is institutionally xenophobic at best, racist at worst. 1.5mn dead Iraqis and 1mn dead Afghans as an example. The army was sent to Iraq, by the army's top brass and the war criminals at the Labour party, with the express knowledge innocent civilians would be killed to achieve political aims. Indeed Tony Blair said so to parliament before the campaign started.
The idea that one country can choose to invade another one and use its military power to do so, is something from the dark ages.

Which is why the armed forces of the UK need direct control from the population, not career soldiers and politicians mired in corruption and adventure war-gaming fantasies.

Imo.

"Which is why the armed forces of the UK need direct control from the population, not career soldiers and politicians mired in corruption and adventure war-gaming fantasies."

It's clear that you have little to no understanding of how the Forces operate within our political system. You need to learn to separate the Services from their political masters. The recent CGS, Sir Richard Dannat, was anything but a political tool/war-gaming fantasist. Of course, you cannot prevent people from having their own political views but the Forces are not allowed to act on those views beyond casting their votes. The politicans are the ones who decide where and when to send the Forces and the Services follow those orders.

The senior officers in charge of the Forces did not make any yes/no decisions regarding the war in Iraq/Afghanistan - that decision was firmly in the hands of the politicians. If you remove those senior officers from their posts, with whom do you replace them? Who will make the strategic level decisions (note, I make no mention of the political decision) needed by the Services to function?

You make huge sweeping generalisations about the nature of people who serve their country and have spent their entire working lives doing so.

Your points regarding politicans are separate - they do have the power to make the decision you find so contentious and we've since voted them out of office, although it would appear to make little difference to our presence in Afghanistan. We're certainly there for the long haul.

I certainly wouldn't want Joe Public in charge of such sensitive decisions with little to no knowledge or, indeed, interest in defence affairs.

'"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 ?' No, it would defeat the object of a bomber being on patrol and no-one (apart from the CO, XO and presumably the Navigator) knowing where they were. If it is a Hunter killer and they are on patrol, they won't want to pop up either. The submarine service are silent and stealthy. You don't advertise in any way, shape or form where you are, as that defeats the object of the exercise.

'Scaryteacher - the armed forces top brass are part of the British state's political establishment, they generally adhere to its principles. Which on the whole are pretty far to the right.
The entire concept that the British state is valid in fighting pre-emptive wars in foreign countries for example is institutionally xenophobic at best, racist at worst.'

Bollocks. HM Forces are neutral, and I would say that the outgoing CDS has snuggled up to the Labour party very cosily indeed. That's why Brown kept him on to keep Dannat out. Stirrup was serving his left wing political masters, and NOT the troops, whose interests he was there to protect.

'The idea that one country can choose to invade another one and use its military power to do so, is something from the dark ages.' The Falklands, oh, and WW2, Georgia last year, the Russians invading Czechoslovakia. Not the dark ages, within the last 120 years. If you send troops to war, there will inevitably be casualties. I don't think though that the British Army is responsible for all those deaths you've quoted, given that it isn't that big, and that in Afghanistan not that many are there.

No-one likes war, but someone has to be prepared to fight when necessary and when the Government tells them to do so. I note Russia is sabre rattling again, and has taken delivery of some big pieces of kit....do you really think that Putin was going to play dead?

Switzerland has almost no armed forces, and they don't take part in conflict anyway, and Costa Rica has no armed forces whatsoever- and both these countries are doing fine.

Also, as the Liberal Democrats campaigned explicitly against the Iraq War and Trident, and are now in government, why are they not reminding George Osborne that he can save sn immense amount of money now by cancelling both of them?

"Also, as the Liberal Democrats campaigned explicitly against the Iraq War and Trident, and are now in government, why are they not reminding George Osborne that he can save sn immense amount of money now by cancelling both of them?"

You do know that the war in Iraq has been over for a while now and that the bulk of our troops are now home (aside from a small element who are there in a training/advisory capacity)?

Costa Rica does have a paramilitary force, the Public Security Forces, whose role includes law enforcement and internal security. Perhaps there would be less drug trafficking if they did have a standing army?

Switzerland has been neutral since 1515 and its policy of neutrality has been internationally recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 so not just any other country doing fine without armed forces.

Yes, armed forces definitely needed.

"Switzerland has almost no armed forces"

Pardon?

This is Switzerland that still has conscription for every adult male? Switzerland where after completing the actual military service you stay in the reserves for years? Switzerland where they keep their military weapons at home?

Switzerland that has more beds in bomb shelters than citizens?

Switzerland where key tunnels and bridges are built with tank traps and demolition charges?

Switzerland that has about half as many tanks as us (200 odd vs. 400 odd) despite having a population about a 10th of our size?

Switzerland is in many ways a far more militaristic nation than us, certainly in terms of how the military is integrated into the whole of society. It realised a long time ago that the only way to back up it's neutrality was to also be seen to be carrying a big stick.

The Swiss are fine for only as long as their neutrality is recognised. If someone wanted to invade and chose to ignore that they could.

Switzerland fights with another kind of weapon anyway if you think about it.

Well, seems worth repeating - would like the staff to have more money, and higher numbers too, so in a crisis they do not have to be quickly returned to theatre after a short break back in the UK, and much better conditions, but feel the technology is sucking up the money, and that's to the detriment of pay and conditions.

Need the opportunity to consider alternatives to Trident, not just ring-fence it to the detriment of everything else in the defence budget. Personally would prefer it to be scrapped - lots of countries have no nuclear arms, and while phased reduction keeps on being talked about, when superpowers have thousands of warheads, us getting rid of 225 and saying 'OK, nuclear free, now you join us' might be considered barmy by some, but there are military heads saying we would never use them anyway.

The fact they are for use in MAD means we should aim to avoid MAD, surely. As suggested earlier, if a terrorist group hit London with a dirty bomb, who would be our target for destruction ? Could be a group made up of several different nationalities and there'd be no point wiping out innocent people in any of them as 'retaliation'.

Makes holding these dreadful weapons the most ridiculous bit of willy-waving there is, 'cos it isn't as if they offer a real deterrent (to terrorists), nor are they usable in many other instances! Hitting anyone without their own would be seen as overkill, hitting anyone with their own leads to MAD. Ridiculous really.

Of course we need armed forces, and nuclear weapons, for all the reasons pointed out by BetaDad.

It is utterly ludicrous to think that we could do without either.

Some of the comments on this thread about the perceived role of the Forces are so ludicrous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As for the US army being better educated: give me strength. Did you see what they let happen to the museums in Baghdad? Most of them wouldn't be able to point to the Middle East on a map. British officers are also very, very highly trained. To get to the top in the Army these days you have to be very intelligent and educated.

My husband was in a Highland regiment. They took boys off the streets of Glasgow who would never have had a career otherwise as the traditional industries have all gone. They gave them a good diet and made them fit. Then they trained them.

As for the Northern Ireland comment--my husband was deployed to Belfast to stop the Protestants firebombing and generally bullying the Catholics. He certainly didn't collude in any Unionist terrorist activity.

Sorry, didn't mean to be so rude about US troops. I'm sure they're not all as I portrayed them.

"Need the opportunity to consider alternatives to Trident"

If we want a deterrent there isn't a real alternative to something "Trident like" that would give an equivalent deterrent using as few warheads as possible.

Whether we need a deterrent at all is a fair question though, for the record I believe that we do.

"The fact they are for use in MAD means we should aim to avoid MAD, surely."

MAD worked in the Cold War and stopped either side thinking that it could start a war. It also stopped the wars that did happen, such as Korea, expanding in scope as previous conflicts had.

People think that nuclear weapons were never used after WW2. Well in a way, the most important way, they were used every day and stopped WW2 repeating WW1 in being swiftly followed by a sequel.

However MAD is of no use against terrorists, and therefore neither is Trident. Anyone trying to tell you that we need Trident because of the terrorist threat is at best misguided.

"It is utterly ludicrous to think that we could do without either."

Q. How many countries in the world ?
A. Well over 150.

Q. How many are "industrial" or "advanced" ?
A. Plenty - well over 50 ?

Q. How many have nuclear arms ?
A. Less than 20 (don't know exact figure so didn't suggest an actual number)

Q. Why do we need nuclear weapons when over 125 other countries have no similar weapons ?

A. We have had them for years, for historic reasons, and we are too dumb unwilling to accept they are no longer needed ?

Probably.

"If there are three subs out at sea I would expect them to all be on patrol"

Only one is actually on patrol at any one time. The others will be in various states of heading to/from a patrol, training missions and repairs.

There has been talk of cutting down the number of boats in any replacement system. However you need to make sure that you've got one boat out and one ready to go at any time. So dropping one to three is probably as far as you could go, however a risk averse manager would no doubt argue that that's too risky, hence the current number of four boats.

ISAF is a NATO force, so not purely American; lots of nations and their troops involved.

"Q. Why do we need nuclear weapons when over 125 other countries have no similar weapons ?

A. We have had them for years, for historic reasons, and we are too dumb unwilling to accept they are no longer needed ?"

South Africa is the only country that seems to have had a successful nuclear weapons program that was then scrapped so there are no no less nuclear armed states than there ever were.

Also it's not just about nuclear weapons but chemical and biological too. How many states have those? And I do genuinely mean "have" rather than the scare stories that were thrown around about Iraq.

And one of the biggest factors about retaining the nuclear detterent is that we don't know what the world will be like in 20, 30 or 40 years which is the time scale that we've got to think about. What happens if the world does slip back into a Cold War type situation? You can't just whip up a nuclear deterrent and trying to do it quickly results in the horrible sort of short cuts and safety nightmares that marked the early days of our nuclear weapons program.

Discussing whether or not a nuclear deterrent is still needed is a good thing to be doing.

Labelling those who belive that we do still need one "dumb" or even "unwilling" is very counterproductive to having a good debate.

And if those 125 countries that don't have them several have the ability to manufacture them relatively quickly.... If there was a gradual decline in global stability I think a few of those might just put their theories into practice, especially if they don't have an official protection agreement with another country.