In message , Jackie Mulheron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It'll be worse for both sides.

Well Phil Hunt seems to think otherwise and is posting some good detailed
stuff. You don't think the MOD is a model of efficiency do you?

No. However, some countries have "Ministries of Defence" in the genuine
sense that their military capability is limited to their territorial
waters/airspace, and some UN blue-helmet work if they're so inclined.
That means you're planning for an unlikely contingency and if it
happens, it's on known home ground.

Other countries - like the UK - maintain the capability to send and
support most of a division to pretty much anywhere in the world. That
means that you may find your forces fighting anywhere from the South
Atlantic to the al-Fao Peninsula, and they have to be flexible,
adaptable and survivable enough to cope with that.

This becomes a *much* larger problem, involving large overheads in
everything from multiple uniforms in sufficient supply (witness recent
problems in Iraq where 9,000 soldier-sets of desert CS95 was nowhere
near enough) to having dozens of large ships with crews and security
detachments available at short notice to get to where the fighting is,
and keep the supply of beans, bullets and batteries flowing.

I would not want to fight the Finns or the Norwegians on their home
turf, but neither could they project power to any significant extent.
The UK currently can do so. Would an independent Scotland be willing to
maintain that capability?

I heard a tale (was a guy in the RAF as well) who said that the fly past of
Tornados at the Jubilee was backed up with another equal number so
unconfident were they of their ability to stay airworthy.

Sounds a little exaggerated to me, but I'm working with the wrong shade
of blue to know. (Personally, I'm told that your only chance of support
from *any* air force is if it's before four o'clock on a weekday - or
lunchtime on Friday )

Inspirational stuff along with a Tescos style supply system. Or is it
Morrisons?

When Tesco has a Basra branch, the comparison may be valid.

'Sedate'? The poster who got me into this argument was claiming that
Scotland would get what it wanted or start throwing Tridents around.

Well he isn't called "Auld" Bob because he's a sprightly adolescent. He's
pulling your chain (I hope he's pulling your chain!!!)

Doesn't seem to have been. Very ill-tempered fellow.

and I doubt he will
be leading the movement for national liberation anyway.

Are you sure he's not been planted by London?

A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
capability on both sides, but could be managed to minimise the pain. But
the scenario presented was simple thuggery.

It could also mean they just keep the institutions and have them as a shared
resource with some designated units and bases under some form of sovereign
control.

And shared funding, and then you get the cries that Scotland doesn't
need this aggressive expeditionary policy and won't pay for it, but do
you still get access to the data even though you're refusing to
contribute to collecting it?

If necessary, solutions will be found, but I'm wary of notions that it's
simple, quick or easy.

But it was not I that advanced the notion of "if we don't get what we
want, we just nuke London".

Again that's just Bob. It would be a bit difficult getting to that point in
the first place what with having to storm Faslane, make sure the subs don't
slip out and have the people to operate them or know the codes to fire them.
(Why am I even considering such a ridiculous scenario???!!!)

Wasn't my idea either.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk