Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Interesting UK Specific Defence Websites
jimbo55    1/26/2008 6:56:17 PM
Besides this discussion forum of course, there are some useful and interesting sites out there for UK specific information, resources and discussion etc http://www.defenceoftherealm.com http://www.arrse.co.uk http://www.armedforces.co.uk http://www.forcesreunited.org.uk/forum/default.asp http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk Have been reading strategypage for ages but this is my first post. Thought you might be interested as there doesnt seem to be a UK specific topic in the links section of strategypage so hope I am not breaking any forum rules!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
jimbo55       1/29/2008 7:40:56 PM
Yes, I agree but the fact is that BAE is a UK company with an established foothold in the UK armed forces so I suppose it is natural for a UK site to suggest buying british. Just been reading the page on the carriers, seems to have whipped up a bit of outrage
 
Quote    Reply

jimbo55       1/29/2008 7:42:18 PM
Not sure how this has happened or how to remove the duplicates, can a moderator get rid of them?
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/30/2008 4:52:53 AM

Yes, I agree but the fact is that BAE is a UK company with an established foothold in the UK armed forces so I suppose it is natural for a UK site to suggest buying british. Just been reading the page on the carriers, seems to have whipped up a bit of outrage


nothing wrong with that...
if you have no "empire" to protect and expect all your operations to be defensive or combined with other nations then why bother with carriers which are of limited capability. is it not better to spend the money elsewhere on the real priorities and into research for the next 50 years.
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       1/30/2008 3:03:53 PM



Yes, I agree but the fact is that BAE is a UK company with an established foothold in the UK armed forces so I suppose it is natural for a UK site to suggest buying british. Just been reading the page on the carriers, seems to have whipped up a bit of outrage



nothing wrong with that...

if you have no "empire" to protect and expect all your operations to be defensive or combined with other nations then why bother with carriers which are of limited capability. is it not better to spend the money elsewhere on the real priorities and into research for the next 50 years.

So good he said it thrice... I think it's when you press 'reload' on your browser. It reposts.

I've always seen CVF as optional as it's offensive only. Having said that I'd still rather have them, as they provide flexibility that would otherwise be unavailable. And in the context of a few paltry billion spread out over a number of years they're cheap compared to GDP of well over a trillion per annum.

 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       1/30/2008 3:04:51 PM
....er four times.

Trice? :-)

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/30/2008 3:20:41 PM
BAE isn't the only UK defence company.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/31/2008 7:34:32 AM







Yes, I agree but the fact is that BAE is a UK company with an established foothold in the UK armed forces so I suppose it is natural for a UK site to suggest buying british. Just been reading the page on the carriers, seems to have whipped up a bit of outrage





nothing wrong with that...



if you have no "empire" to protect and expect all your operations to be defensive or combined with other nations then why bother with carriers which are of limited capability. is it not better to spend the money elsewhere on the real priorities and into research for the next 50 years.



So good he said it thrice... I think it's when you press 'reload' on your browser. It reposts.

I've always seen CVF as optional as it's offensive only. Having said that I'd still rather have them, as they provide flexibility that would otherwise be unavailable. And in the context of a few paltry billion spread out over a number of years they're cheap compared to GDP of well over a trillion per annum.


I agree that in an ideal world where we could spend what we want then aircraft carriers would be on the list (I would want ones more capable though....  :-) ). but we have a finite defense budget and it is not realistically going to increase by much as we have far more serious budget concerns in health, education and social matters. defense is always going to be behind these while there is no credible threat. and terrorism that we face is not that big a threat that cannot be covered by current spending being done in a different manor.
so aircraft carriers... which are mostly offensive as you say, are not a priority in a defense budget where we already are stretched in what we do....
ask me again when antartica is opened up for developemnt though and the priorities will change...   :-)
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private    Paul   2/1/2008 3:35:37 PM
Out of curiosity Paul, Can you name the top ten 'far more pressing matters' under:

Health

Education

and

Social Matters

That require this funding?

Also whilst you're at it can you explain to me where the Gov is gonna get the extra £8bn it needs to cover the hole in its finances. Do you support another 2p on income tax? Is there any point at which the taxation levels become too high?

Also, please explain how so many people think that it is only right and proper that departmental spending goes up every year? The assumption in the private sector is that - generally speaking - costs should decrease by 5% or so each year due to greater efficiency. Why is the same not true of Government?

Sorry Paul, I don't mean to sound aggressive. But I can't help feeling this is all on topic, and you are a  frequent advocate of the softer side of Government spending. Yet you have yet to provide any suggestion of why you think, for example, that education requires three times the funding level of defence. Education may or may not be more important than defence, but please tell me why it's three times more important, not for instance seven times more important or 1.5 times more important?




 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       2/3/2008 4:16:22 PM
Armchair Private

I?m also a believer in the softer side of government spending, and I also have difficulty with regard to raising the defence budget. For example I?ve never signed PerfectGeneral?s petitions, although I respect his views and fully understand where he is coming from.

The reality is that the military cannot really deal with the threat that the UK faces these days (which is basically a small number of young Muslim men who live in this country). I would argue that the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions have been failures and they have not increased our security.

I?m sorry if that offends people, and I?m mindful of the sacrifices that individual soldiers make, but that doesn?t alter the point. I do not see what other threats will face us this century, and the fact is that the military just isn?t that important. There is far more to life than big aircraft carriers! The other things you could bear in mind is that we are still the worlds? third or fourth biggest defence spender ? with a far higher proportion of GDP going to it than say Italy, Belgium, Germany or the Netherlands.

Also, what would success cost? Helmand alone needs a division plus (4 Brigades maybe) of British troops to hold ground against the Taleban and that is just one province! To pacify the whole country we would need an army and the costs to achieve that are too high and not worth it.  

With regard to health, the number of older people is rapidly increasing, and the government had to invest huge sums in the NHS (which basically looks after older people) to keep it viable. Although the NHS isn?t perfect, this investment has worked; average life expectancy has increased by one year for each of the past ten years.

As for education we have to increase the number of people with qualifications in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians, who are sending vast numbers of people to college. This is of enormous priority ? low skilled people cannot compete because other people in foreign countries can do the same job for one-tenth of the salary. If we want to maintain a high standard of living, we MUST up-skill children and the workforce.

Social matters is of course about helping people who are less well-off than we are. You might dislike ?skivers? (and I daresay that some people are abusing the system), but this spending does include care home subsidies, the long-term ill, help for disabled people, homeless hostels etc. Having been unemployed, I can assure you that it is no laugh, and the little help that you get is most needed.

Government does genuinely try to create efficiencies in all spending departments ? honest! Talk to doctors, the Police, people working for Social Services, quango?s, council officers, charities etc and they will all complain about under-resourcing in exactly the same way that the army/navy/RAF do. It all comes down to what you see as the key priorities ? for you it is maybe the army whereas I am more concerned about schools. Government tries to balance this, and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they get it right or not.

As to finding £8 billion, I?ve no idea how they will do it. Probably low wage rises and tight departmental budgets across government with some judicious tax rises.

To finish off, there is a shed-load of whinging about this government. I like Arsse, but it is full of utter whingers! I daresay that the criticism is justified in some cases, but the quality of most people?s lives is so much better than it was 15 years ago, that you can?t help but feel that they?ve got something right.  

 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       2/3/2008 6:03:32 PM

Armchair Private

I?m also a believer in the softer side of government spending, and I also have difficulty with regard to raising the defence budget. For example I?ve never signed PerfectGeneral?s petitions, although I respect his views and fully understand where he is coming from.


The reality is that the military cannot really deal with the threat that the UK faces these days (which is basically a small number of young Muslim men who live in this country). I would argue that the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions have been failures and they have not increased our security.


I?m sorry if that offends people, and I?m mindful of the sacrifices that individual soldiers make, but that doesn?t alter the point. I do not see what other threats will face us this century, and the fact is that the military just isn?t that important. There is far more to life than big aircraft carriers! The other things you could bear in mind is that we are still the worlds? third or fourth biggest defence spender ? with a far higher proportion of GDP going to it than say Italy, Belgium, Germany or the Netherlands.


Also, what would success cost? Helmand alone needs a division plus (4 Brigades maybe) of British troops to hold ground against the Taleban and that is just one province! To pacify the whole country we would need an army and the costs to achieve that are too high and not worth it.  


With regard to health, the number of older people is rapidly increasing, and the government had to invest huge sums in the NHS (which basically looks after older people) to keep it viable. Although the NHS isn?t perfect, this investment has worked; average life expectancy has increased by one year for each of the past ten years.


As for education we have to increase the number of people with qualifications in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians, who are sending vast numbers of people to college. This is of enormous priority ? low skilled people cannot compete because other people in foreign countries can do the same job for one-tenth of the salary. If we want to maintain a high standard of living, we MUST up-skill children and the workforce.


Social matters is of course about helping people who are less well-off than we are. You might dislike ?skivers? (and I daresay that some people are abusing the system), but this spending does include care home subsidies, the long-term ill, help for disabled people, homeless hostels etc. Having been unemployed, I can assure you that it is no laugh, and the little help that you get is most needed.


Government does genuinely try to create efficiencies in all spending departments ? honest! Talk to doctors, the Police, people working for Social Services, quango?s, council officers, charities etc and they will all complain about under-resourcing in exactly the same way that the army/navy/RAF do. It all comes down to what you see as the key priorities ? for you it is maybe the army whereas I am more concerned about schools. Government tries to balance this, and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they get it right or not.


As to finding £8 billion, I?ve no idea how they will do it. Probably low wage rises and tight departmental budgets across government with some judicious tax rises.


To finish off, there is a shed-load of whinging about this government. I like Arsse, but it is full of utter whingers! I daresay that the criticism is justified in some cases, but the quality of most people?s lives is so much better than it was 15 years ago, that you can?t help but feel that they?ve got something right.  




you may all ridicule me for this point, but the necessity of a military force should never be underestimated. back in the late 20's/early 30's, Britain never thought she'd need a decent sized military force, the navy got rid of its 'size' rule, equipment was sold, recruitment wasn't cared for, technology went to shams, the ten year rule was ridiculously signed year after year, churchill saw to it that funding was lessened [far beyond what should have been], then whoops, look what happened. And idiots like churchill swept the blame over to Chamberlain and others [when his hand was rather red itself]. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is you should never underestimate the utility and necessity of our forces. You can go on all you like saying warfare has changed from industrial to 'amongst the people' [as G Rupert Smith would say],
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics