-
I knew a simple soldier boy.....
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
And no one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go. -
I was listening to Paxman, Portillo and Mike Jackson on tv last night banging on about this. It's budgetary posturing - we know that.
Portillo started with the best question of all " Right - if this might be the case - let's start with " - which of you (french or Brits) will give up an independent nuclear deterrent ?"Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"Comment
-
You know the way the thinking is going, towards 1 EU military.Comment
-
no thanks - we (the British Army) will end up with all the offensive ops while the French, Germans and some others do all the defensive and logistic operations - or anything else that suits them.Originally posted by Vanguard View PostLast edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 4 February 2010, 14:01.Comment
-
Given the choice between the RDF and the french foreign legion you'd pick the RDF?????Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
Both the germans and the french are highly professional forces, with some excellent kit, (Leopard 2, Puma, Dingo, Fennek, VBCI, G-36 assault rifles, PZh 2000, to name just a few examples). As for not deploying on the sharp end, the French in Bosnia might disagree with you, and lets face it, daily the Chilcot inquiry is hearing how badly planned and executed the invasion and occupation of Iraq was.Comment
-
But isn't that the situation anyway.no thanks - we (the British Army) will end up with all the offensive ops while the French, Germans and some others do all the defensive and logistic operations - or anything else that suits them.Comment
-
Britain's nuclear deterrent is currently based on 4 ballistic missile submarines and their support structure (which is vast). Would it be better based on a different structure?
Many of the "French" in Bosnia were Yugoslav by birth.Originally posted by paul g View Post
And famous British arrogance?Originally posted by CS Gass View PostLast edited by Victor; 5 February 2010, 00:36.Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret MeadComment
-
Britain to seek other military alliances
Britain to seek other military alliances
MARK HENNESSY London Editor
MAJOR future military operations by the United Kingdom will have to be carried out in alliance with other states including France, the British government said, as it struggles to cope with an £800 billion (€916 billion) national debt.
However, the royal navy is to get a replacement for its Trident nuclear missiles and, most likely, two new aircraft carriers, defence secretary Bob Ainsworth told the House of Commons yesterday.
In a 52-page Green Paper, Mr Ainsworth outlined future major security threats, including terrorism, counter-insurgency wars, nuclear proliferation, climate change and the rising power of China. “Tough choices will lie ahead and we need to rebalance our budget to better reflect our priorities,” he told MPs. New equipment would have to be bought more cheaply than in the past, he added.
The emphasis on co-operation with France, now back in Nato, is striking, though the document hints that co-operation with other EU countries will have to be improved if security challenges are to be met. All future operations, bar emergency ones, are “likely” to be carried out “alongside allies and partners”, the document states, adding that this “would place limits on our ability to act nationally, [but] it could deliver a more effective contribution to international security”.
Last month, the Royal United Services Institute, a respected think tank, warned that the number of armed forces personnel would have to fall from today’s 175,000 to 142,000 in six year’s time if budgets are to be kept.
The UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has so far cost £14 billion. This year Afghanistan will cost an extra £5 billion, though this will come from extra treasury funding, rather than from the military’s core budget.
Prime minister Gordon Brown, standing by the £25 billion commitment to replace Trident in the face of Nick Clegg’s opposition, described the Liberal Democrat leader to the Commons as “a unilateralist”.
Mr Brown’s funding of the military during his time as chancellor of the exchequer is featuring more prominently as the Iraq Inquiry hears more about the difficulties facing the British army in that conflict. Former top ministry of defence official Kevin Tebbit told the inquiry yesterday that Mr Brown had imposed an “arbitrary” £1 billion cut in the defence budget months after the invasion took place, but then boosted the budget by £4 billion a year later.
The UK does not face the threat of aggression from another state, the defence secretary said, adding that conflicts “cluttered” with state and non-state players were likely to be the norm for decades.
British troops will have to be “soldiers, diplomats and aid workers”, while the need for “boots on the ground” – each soldier costs £500,000 a year to supply and train, according to the prime minister – will make it difficult for defence chiefs, who are already in a “turf battle” among themselves, to cope with treasury demands for cuts.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret MeadComment
-
half a million pounds to supply and train each of us annually??Originally posted by Victor View Post
now that's what i call "Investment in People!"
who else spends so much on each of their soldiers?!Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 5 February 2010, 01:03.Comment
-
[QUOTE=Victor;286754]
Many of the "French" in Bosnia were Yugoslav by birth.
QUOTE]
And lots of them were french.Comment
-
Originally posted by Victor View Post
the subs carry 160 warheads each. Being mobile and hidden, is the best way to deploy.Comment
-
This is what I have heard mooted.Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
The most efficient model for the BA to copy is the US marine corps, with its own air support, armour, artillery and absorbing the Royal Marines with 10-30,000 strong rapidly deployable expedition/NATO spearhead force. In the future the will be no RAF, army air corps, fleet air arm, it will be one service.
.................Thats the future.Last edited by Vanguard; 5 February 2010, 13:23.Comment
-
That'll be popular.... how far away is this future? I'd reckon it'd probably take many many years for a merger like that to take placeOriginally posted by Vanguard View PostComment
-
Originally posted by CS Gass View Post
I would expect over the next 15-20 yrs, not popular for the RAF or Royal Marines, etc. Nor the Paras who I expect will lose their drop capability, which is outdated, no need when chinooks can bring them into battle more efficiently.Last edited by Vanguard; 5 February 2010, 15:12.Comment
-
But isnt the whole British defence establishment a very traditional institution, the guards units? surely theres no need for the fancy shite of marchin around in mad uniforms, why not axe that? what of the various other units such as horse guards and horse artillery, their very title betrays a conservative mindsetComment
- Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Tweet
Comment