More Defence Cuts Planned
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Styron - I agree entirly with your words. However I feel that todays government really dont need to rely on, (or care) about a mere 180000 service voters to be re-elected.
What worries me is that I had my 3rd RO interview the other day by a Grp Capt. The subject of defence cuts came up. He expressed his total agreement with them and that there was no logic or justification in a maintaining a large force. He expressed astonishment that I said we dont seem to learn from history.
He went on to say that dangers such as Falklands, Iraq GW1,Balkans, etc etc, could never happen again. His Quote - "We Live in a different world".
Do our lords and master really belive this or do they just suck up to any politician in power.
What worries me is that I had my 3rd RO interview the other day by a Grp Capt. The subject of defence cuts came up. He expressed his total agreement with them and that there was no logic or justification in a maintaining a large force. He expressed astonishment that I said we dont seem to learn from history.
He went on to say that dangers such as Falklands, Iraq GW1,Balkans, etc etc, could never happen again. His Quote - "We Live in a different world".
Do our lords and master really belive this or do they just suck up to any politician in power.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running down the defence forces because "they aren't needed these days" is dangerous. Such action changes the strategic situation and invites trouble. If that lesson wasn't learned in 1939, then the Falklands should have been a forceful reminder. The Falklands are far away and we can pretend that we don't need to be able to act that far away again, but backing ourselves against a wall at home, to the extent that we can hardly even deal with internal security, isn't an option. Five rounds each and share the flak jackets? Disgraceful!
But pr00ne's comment above had me thinking. Looking up some details on one of my dad's old ships I happened upon information about a fleet of LSTs that until 1970 could transport 30,000 troops and 4,000 tanks and armoured vehicles and disgorge them onto any sloping beach anywhere in the world as and when required. These landing ships were operated as civilian ships in the 'Empire' series under a contract that included terms by which they would drop everything and perform the military function when necessary (the crews were mostly reservists) I never knew they existed before. It was a bit like the USA's arrangement with some of the B747s operated by civil air carriers such as Pan Am and TWA. The landing ships were laid off in the 1970's - now wouldn't they have been the business for the Falklands? In fact, would Galtieri ever have invaded knowing that such a fleet existed?
The Swiss armed forces are minimalist, but every manjack of the population has a solid reserve commitment. Israel and Singapore have similar national service arrangements - almost everyone is a lifetime reservist with mandatory annual training. So why not reduce parts of the permanent military forces to a 'backbone' level supported by territorial volunteers utilising aircraft, ships and vehicles contracted to civilian firms.
For example, In the seventies I served at Brize Norton where our VC10 and Britannia aircraft spent weeks on the ground in between flights because we kept enough available to meet a treaty obligation to reinforce the Far East with a stated number of troops within 24 hours. The crews worked regular enough hours, but the aircraft were mostly 'sleepers' kept ready for emergency. They could easily have been 'territorialised' and earned their keep.
With a bit of proper forethought on defence spending it might be possible for the governemt to both have its cake and eat it too - cutting the cost of defence while actually increasing the force available.
But pr00ne's comment above had me thinking. Looking up some details on one of my dad's old ships I happened upon information about a fleet of LSTs that until 1970 could transport 30,000 troops and 4,000 tanks and armoured vehicles and disgorge them onto any sloping beach anywhere in the world as and when required. These landing ships were operated as civilian ships in the 'Empire' series under a contract that included terms by which they would drop everything and perform the military function when necessary (the crews were mostly reservists) I never knew they existed before. It was a bit like the USA's arrangement with some of the B747s operated by civil air carriers such as Pan Am and TWA. The landing ships were laid off in the 1970's - now wouldn't they have been the business for the Falklands? In fact, would Galtieri ever have invaded knowing that such a fleet existed?
The Swiss armed forces are minimalist, but every manjack of the population has a solid reserve commitment. Israel and Singapore have similar national service arrangements - almost everyone is a lifetime reservist with mandatory annual training. So why not reduce parts of the permanent military forces to a 'backbone' level supported by territorial volunteers utilising aircraft, ships and vehicles contracted to civilian firms.
For example, In the seventies I served at Brize Norton where our VC10 and Britannia aircraft spent weeks on the ground in between flights because we kept enough available to meet a treaty obligation to reinforce the Far East with a stated number of troops within 24 hours. The crews worked regular enough hours, but the aircraft were mostly 'sleepers' kept ready for emergency. They could easily have been 'territorialised' and earned their keep.
With a bit of proper forethought on defence spending it might be possible for the governemt to both have its cake and eat it too - cutting the cost of defence while actually increasing the force available.
