Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:25 pm**

Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.

I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.

Posted: **Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:22 pm**

ORIGINAL: wodin

Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.

I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.

I thought that UK had a strong garrison at Falklands now days. Is that not so any longer?

Posted: **Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:36 pm**

Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.

?

UK and USA are still BFFs no? What are you talking about?

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:06 am**

LINK

Lots of papers covering the comments made by Robert Gates former USA defense chief.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:55 am**

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:26 am**

I'm extremely surprised the US, with it's vast arsenal, regarded the UK as anything above "militarily capable at a push".

Britain has long lost the ability to be a significant asset to any major power. I think from a world stage perspective and in a political sense, the UK is hanging on in there and just about probably cuts the mustard. I also think that is where the US has often benefited from the UK as an ally...and only militarily in the sense that the UK is willing to put up guns with the US more often than not. But in terms of actually bolstering anything the US needs to get involved in...no.

In 1979 the Tory government got into power and slowly started to dismantle the Armed Forces. This sent a message to Argentina and immediately the UK was on the back foot, bringing Hermes back from her trip to the scrap yard and the Vulcan bomber...along with many other plans they had in motion.

In 1990, the UK Government (again Tory) was again at the cuts - this time going a step further and actually sending out notices of Termination of Employment as troops sat waiting to sort Iraq out.

In 2011, the Tory Government yet again kicks in a vast array of cuts to the Armed Forces.

When will the people in the UK learn. [8|]

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:28 am**

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: wodin

Seems like the USA feel due to the current UK government Armed Forces cuts the UK will no longer be the No1 military partner with them.

I agree. In about ten years from now if not sooner Argentina will be able to march into the Falklands and we will have no Navy to deal with it and even if we did manage to send a task force it would be mainly weekend soldiers.

I thought that UK had a strong garrison at Falklands now days. Is that not so any longer?

It has a garrison. [:)]

I do believe it's significant enough and can be argued though that the garrison in place is enough to deal with anything the Argentinians could muster...though if there was a military "pact" between the South American countries, who knows.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:31 pm**

Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.

In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:36 pm**

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.

In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.

Totally agree. There's definitely a bung going on there.

There is zero requirement for a nuclear deterrent today. 100 billion could go along way to restoring the Armed Forces to a decent fighting force. They are over stretched - and they're not even having to man the places they used to back in the day.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:49 pm**

The defense budget is just a jobs/kickback program at this point, or can someone explain to me why we need to outspend the next 15 countries or so?

As to nuclear deterrent, I like the thought of having a few nukes locked and ready to go, but we do not need the majority of them.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:33 pm**

And of course, this sort of bollocks doesn't help,

Prince Harry to begin new army staff job

I know he's a Royal and all, but how much does it cost to train someone to fly one of those things? If he's such a great Apache pilot and inspirational leader shouldn't he keep doing it for a few years, or maybe train as an instructor, rather than arranging pageants at Horse Guards?!

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:02 pm**

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I'm extremely surprised the US, with it's vast arsenal, regarded the UK as anything above "militarily capable at a push".

Britain has long lost the ability to be a significant asset to any major power. I think from a world stage perspective and in a political sense, the UK is hanging on in there and just about probably cuts the mustard. I also think that is where the US has often benefited from the UK as an ally...and only militarily in the sense that the UK is willing to put up guns with the US more often than not. But in terms of actually bolstering anything the US needs to get involved in...no.

In 1979 the Tory government got into power and slowly started to dismantle the Armed Forces. This sent a message to Argentina and immediately the UK was on the back foot, bringing Hermes back from her trip to the scrap yard and the Vulcan bomber...along with many other plans they had in motion.

In 1990, the UK Government (again Tory) was again at the cuts - this time going a step further and actually sending out notices of Termination of Employment as troops sat waiting to sort Iraq out.

In 2011, the Tory Government yet again kicks in a vast array of cuts to the Armed Forces.

When will the people in the UK learn. [8|]

warspite1

Oh good politics [8|] And you have the gall to complain that this forum is too hostile..

and then promptly insult half the voters of the UK. Good grief...

Yes because the Labour crowd have always been the Armed Forces friend...

The people of the UK did learn - sadly it took them thirteen years of rule by two incompetents - one a war hungry moron, the other just a moron - before they came to their senses.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:07 pm**

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Hopefully without raising 'politics', what gets my goat up about continued defence cuts is the continued on maintaining most expensive defence asset - the nuclear 'deterrent'. Nobody can even explain who it's actually intended to deter, these days. That should have gone when the Cold War ended - indeed, if everybody's had we wouldn't have the same risks of proliferation among highly dubious regimes that we do now.

In other words get rid of the nukes and boomers, and spend the cash earmarked for a replacement on hardware and manpower that can actually implement what our foreign policy seems to require. For start rather than that one finished, one mothballed rubbish with the next-gen carriers, build and equip the minimum (with escorts) needed to actually do the job on call - i.e three.
Totally agree. There's definitely a bung going on there.

There is zero requirement for a nuclear deterrent today. 100 billion could go along way to restoring the Armed Forces to a decent fighting force. They are over stretched - and they're not even having to man the places they used to back in the day.

warspite1

Nope. How do you know who your enemy is in the future? Once our nuclear deterrent goes - its gone. When some nutter threatens to take Europe off the face of the world - because he can with impunity - then its a bit too late to be wishing we'd kept it.

So Lady Thatcher was wrong for removing the deterrent that led to the Falklands, but we can give up our only weapon against future nutters that can wipe us out? Right....

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:42 pm**

I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away.
I think that is the real threat.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:43 pm**

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

The defense budget is just a jobs/kickback program at this point, or can someone explain to me why we need to outspend the next 15 countries or so?

As to nuclear deterrent, I like the thought of having a few nukes locked and ready to go, but we do not need the majority of them.

The countries that might be a threat to the UK with a nuke are not the kind of establishments that are going to be bothered about retaliation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:45 pm**

ORIGINAL: Jamm

I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away.
I think that is the real threat.

Agreed - as per my post (sorry - I posted not know you had said what I was thinking).

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:03 pm**

Just my opinion and nothing more but the US will continue to view the UK as a military partner in the future. We will have to as the US's military is also becoming a shell of its former might and will need the UK to help bolster its depleted strenght. Even with the current administration's personal view of the UK, the UK will continue to be relied on. Like I said, just my opinion. By the way, nuclear deterrent will only work if the current government has the balls to actually use it. I question whether the American government has them or will just try to hold talks with the enemy to figure out why they attacked us. Who knows.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:05 pm**

Wow if only Labour were back in power so military spending would be great again,lol.A bit of selective memory going on there.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:08 pm**

ORIGINAL: Jamm

I think the nutters as you call them come in small groups these days and they don't really care how many ICBMs you have squirrelled away.
I think that is the real threat.

warspite1

I quite agree at the moment BUT who knows in future? - and as I say, once its gone it ain't coming back.

Posted: **Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:08 pm**

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Wow if only Labour were back in power so military spending would be great again,lol.A bit of selective memory going on there.

warspite1

Very selective

Matrix Games Forums

No longer an asset..

No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..

RE: No longer an asset..