Defence Cuts

[Alex]

What a great time for Labour to announce cuts in the defence budget.   They're ditching two RN flagships, a frigate and 2 support tankers.

Helicopters will also be cut with the 14 oldest Chinook transport aircraft removed early from service. 

OK if these ships and helicopters are old, but what will replace them ?     

[dextrous63]

Pitchforks and pikes, going cheap from the forthcoming sales of small holdings and farms😬😉

[klondike]

Now there's a thought - might be some decent shotguns going cheap too.

[JBR]

I think it must be quite clear now that Labour are intent on the destruction of this country, though I'm not sure what they hope to gain by it.

[dextrous63]

Well, if you can't be remembered as outstandingly good,......

[Scrumpy]

Bloody marvelous... Our defence is cut but they continue to help others who are being attacked..
 Waste of our money.. Our taxes should be spent on our country..

[Mups]

Bloody marvelous... Our defence is cut but they continue to help others who are being attacked..
 Waste of our money.. Our taxes should be spent on our country..

I think much the same as you, Scrumpy.
 
If Putin really loses it, and starts attacking us,   or anybody else attacks us,  will we have enough weapons and manpower left to fight with?
I find it scary stuff.

[JBR]

I think much the same as you, Scrumpy.
 
If Putin really loses it, and starts attacking us,  or anybody else attacks us,  will we have enough weapons and manpower left to fight with?
I find it scary stuff.

On our own, I very much doubt it.  Our forces have been cut so much now, both in manpower and especially in hardware, we are weaker now than for a very long time.
The only aspect of our defence is that the few forces we still have are still trained to the highest degree, certainly compared to most other countries.

[Mups]

On our own, I very much doubt it.  Our forces have been cut so much now, both in manpower and especially in hardware, we are weaker now than for a very long time.
The only aspect of our defence is that the few forces we still have are still trained to the highest degree, certainly compared to most other countries.

Exactly.    So if you were a baddie hellbent on destroying us,  wouldn't you choose a time when the country was at its most vulnerable?   I know I would.

I think we need to be very,  very careful how much we are aiding others now.

[klondike]

At the end of the day we have nukes. It's Putin's nukes that deter others from stopping him as they have with other dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi who didn't have them.

Would we use them? I don't know. Nor do the bad guys. It's called deterrence.

[Mups]

At the end of the day we have nukes. It's Putin's nukes that deter others from stopping him as they have with other dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi who didn't have them.

Would we use them? I don't know. Nor do the bad guys. It's called deterrence.

I just wish it would all stop.    Why are some men like this?

Is it just for power and greed?

[klondike]

Is it just for power and greed?

Pretty much but there is ideology involved too.

November 21, 2024, 06:07:37 PM
Back on the original question about whether our army could fight the Russians. I'd say the answer is no. The Russians have been losing close to 2,000 soldiers some days recently and around 700,000 over the 1,000 days of war. Ukraine are supposedly losing less but their losses are less well known. Let's take a guess at half those of the Russians or 350 a day. The British army has just over 70,000 soldiers but large numbers of that total are not front line troops. I'd guess we'd have less than 20,000 fighting troops and probably much less. At the Ukrainian attrition rate that's less than 2 months to the very last man and clearly they'd be done and dusted far far sooner than with one  final Tommy heroically facing the entire Russian army firing NATO rounds at it from his red hot SA80.

Of course some of the Russian or Ukrainian losses aren't front line troops. Some will be driving ammunition up to the artillery etc. so let's count the entire 70,000 UK Army including those at the rear doing the store keeping and those back home guarding Buck House or playing bagpipes in Scotland for Charlie. 70,000 at 350 a day last less than a year to the very last man.

The reason we get away with such a pathetically small army is those nukes.

Interestingly I read that Ukraine has enough spent nuclear fuel from their reactors and sufficient nuclear knowhow to construct hundreds of Hiroshima / Nagasaki sized weapons. If deserted by the west they may well start making some.

[JBR]

I agree with Klon that we could not possibly confront the Russians in a land war with our numbers.

I'm not sure that we could even replicate the Falklands War with what we have, including land, sea and air forces, although we do have a few aircraft and some soldiers stationed on the islands.  We are lucky that the Argies also have very little and that our forces are present on the islands, which itself is an advantage.

[Diasi]

I don't see Putin deploying a nuclear attack on any Western countries, but if he did choose the UK I imagine it would be a limited strike on London, which has everything else so why not the nukes.

There's no kudos in striking North Lincolnshire.

[Alex]

I don't see Putin deploying a nuclear attack on any Western countries, but if he did choose the UK I imagine it would be a limited strike on London, which has everything else so why not the nukes.

There's no kudos in striking North Lincolnshire.

Tower Hamlets would be a good place to start  !