Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely the objective of all defense forces spending is never to use them ?

Of course, however when we have had to engage our forces, the reports coming out is that there are deaths which could have been avoided if better equipment was supplied

I'm thinking about the Light Protected Patrol Vehicles which were ill equiped to deal with the IED deployed, but maybe the below article can sum it up.

British ex-commander hits out over 'inadequate kit' in Afghanistan

We deploy troops and need to protect them, we don't want to have to press the Trident button.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

Quite the reverse.......Sturgeon wants to scrap Trident replacement, and therefore all the jobs associated with it. Presumably Hi-de-Hi woman thinks the same.

Scrapping one type of job does not mean that the money saved could not be used to develop other types of jobs.

Froggitt

You tell that to the tens of thousands of hard working people employed on Trident related activities as they receive their P45.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

You tell that to the tens of thousands of hard working people employed on Trident related activities as they receive their P45.

It was hugely debated during the referendum and there were people who lived on the Clyde who were split pro and against Trident.

A few years old now, but this article may be interesting

Ministry of Defence reveals just 520 Faslane jobs depend on Trident

Claims that Scotland would lose thousands of jobs if the Trident nuclear weapons system is taken out of service or moved elsewhere have been thrown into question following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that only 520 civilian jobs at HM Naval Base Clyde are dependent on Trident.

This might also be interesting too

The age of coalition government is killing off Trident

tincans6

Generali wrote: »

Scrapping Trident wouldn't save the UK any money of course as the US expects that all NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, although we'd describe that as defence of course.

.

Spending on defence as % of GDP

Italy 1.5%
Germany 1.4%
Belgium 1%
Netherlands 1.2%
Norway 1.4%
Denmark 1.4%
Canada 1.0%

All bar Germany are founder members of NATO.

The argument that we have to spend 2% because the USA says so is ludicrous. The UK spent 4.1% of GDP on defence as recently as 1988.

I've no strong feelings on Trident other than the fact that Generals tend to plan for the last war rather than the next potential one. I really doubt the next military threat comes from Russia despite Putin.

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

Spending on defence as % of GDP



I really doubt the next military threat comes from Russia despite Putin.

and you are absolutely sure?

Generali

Given that the USians have an isolationist streak a mile wide I'd say that hoping that the US is going to continue to bail out your military is at best a risky strategy.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Given that the USians have an isolationist streak a mile wide I'd say that hoping that the US is going to continue to bail out your military is at best a risky strategy.

As you know, my history is not the best, but when was the last war that the US had to bail out the UK?

My recollection is that we seem to support the US wars rather than be the one needing supported.

Froggitt

tincans6 wrote: »

I really doubt the next military threat comes from Russia despite Putin.

Doesn't Putin's one by one strategy remind you of the 1930s?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As you know, my history is not the best, but when was the last war that the US had to bail out the UK?

My recollection is that we seem to support the US wars rather than be the one needing supported.

Well there was a rather nasty existentialist one in the 1940s that springs to mind.

The Russians and Americans won that war, despite what the Brits will tell you. The Finest Hour was the Battle of Britain. Apart from that the UK was a launching point for US troops.

The US refusing to support the UK was the end of Suez and the Falklands Campaign could only happen because Mr President Ronnie said it was okay.

Like it or not, the UK isn't a world military power so must kow tow to those that are. It remains an economic power however, mostly because of financial services and engineering but also because of oil and tourism.