If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may 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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Robert Peffers
writes Frae Auld Bob Peffers: Just for the record what was said by me was quite plain. Yes - "give us what we want or we start throwing nuclear weapons around". It was due to someone's assumptions that the armed forces belonged to England. Not sure who said that, but I was only drawn in by the egregiously stupid stuff rather than flagrantly foolish nationalism. My reply was that if this was true then Scotland would just hang on to what was already in Scotland - Virtually the entire nuclear fleet. Apart from that part of it down at Aldermaston, a point oft neglected. The guy went of on a great tirade with way to much detail and some garbled bluster about what England would do. Translation, poor Mr Peffers didn't understand the facts as explained to him. My reply was, a bit tongue in cheek, that Scotland would just auction off the nukes to the highest bidder. Oh, I *see*, it was all just a little wee joke, was it? Then how come *you* didn't see the funny side? The essential point was, though, that Scotland, as a partner in the UK already owned and thus were due a fair share of the existing forces. Surely. But then, those forces include the supporting infrastructure, and the trained personnel, and the stockpiles of spares and supplies to support them. (And if you think the UK struggles, that's because we *use* the kit and that shows up the weaknesses) For that matter, if you're planning to give up on aspirations to "second division world power", how many offshore patrol vessels equal one Landing Ship Dock? -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Jackie Mulheron wrote:
Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having a lot of power in Congress at the moment. That could easily change with threat of an embargo on whiskey shipments...! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:44:31 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
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. Yes. While Britain, on the other hand, seems to have a Ministry of Being Bush's Poodle. Our armed forces seem to be specialised towards being a small "niche" force which can't really do much on its own but which can be used as a component for any advanturism our masters^W valuable allies the Americans wish to get into. And I expect if the Tories ever won power (which they won't in the next election, the electoral system pretty much guarrantees that -- if the Tories get more votes than Labour, Labour can still win an overall majority) they would be even more sycophantic little poodles. They've no choice really -- Britain can either go with Europe or with the USA and too many Tories hate Europe for ythe first possibility nto happen. 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. Only as part of an Amnerican force, in which case it would be mainly there for political reasons, to give the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld a thin veneer of multilateralism. And since it would only be for political reasons, why not just send a battalion? It shows the flag just as well. The RN is currently getting rid of its Harriers. This means it will be without air defence capability until we get the new F-35s (I wonder if the USA will deign to sell its loyal ally the fully stealthed version, or whether like most foreign partners, we'll have the "monkey model" foisted on us?) In any case, the F-35 isn't going into production until the 2010s and I doubt if it'll be operational with the RN in much less than 10 years. And until then it's pretty much unthinkable that the surface fleet would go anywhere against any country with any significant air capability -- even tuppeny-ha'penny ********s like Sudan would represent significant dangers to an RN without air cover. 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. Once the Harriers are gone, Britain will lose the capability to mount another Falklands operation. 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? On its own? Of course not, since it's highly unlikely it would want to pay the money to do so (10% or more of GDP wouldn't go down well with the voters). In concert with other European nations, as part of an EU that's a full military alliance, it's a serious possibility. If you extrapolate the armed forces of Sweden or Finland to the full EU you get the possibility of very substancial foreces indeed -- e.g. 200 army divisions and 5000 fighter aircraft would be entirely possible. As you correctly point out, logistics are an important consideration. If there is a major war which the EU is forced into, it is very likely to be in the Middle East. Turkey wants to join the EU, and should be allowed in. Then, Europe would have a land border with the middle east, which would make logistic constraints a lot more manageable, especially if the road haulage, air feight and airliner industries were made part of the war effort for the duration of hostilities. Europe's substancial transport infrastructure would be capable of supplying very sizable forces in the middle east; certainly larger forces than the USA could put there, which would have to be transported and supplied by ship or air thousands from halfway around the world. All this could be done without large extra spending on defence; something like 2% of GDP, throughout the EU, would pay for it. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Kemp wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:34:39 +0100, "Jackie Mulheron" wrote: In article , Peter Kemp writes: If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden (extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and population). Hell, why not an Israel? Bigger population and no occupation commitments...unless you include parts of Lanarkshire and the Glesga Strip. Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having a lot of power in Congress at the moment. Peter Kemp Yeah, I think we're a bit too well educated and western oriented to be like Israel or any Arab country. I mean, we do have some small problems with religious loonies but not as much as those eejits have. Let's face it, Arabs bomb Israelis and Israelis bomb Arabs. And why? Coz they're a different religion. They'll tell you it's about land, but it's all about religion at the bottom line. We should go a little further and make any form of religious proselytising a crime. Then all your loony Catholics, Protestants, Islamists, Jews and any other w*nker could be safely locked up. IMHO, religion is personal and should be kept as such. M |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Jackie Mulheron wrote: Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having a lot of power in Congress at the moment. That could easily change with threat of an embargo on whiskey shipments...! Well I didn't write that but I'll just say that's okay since it will only hurt the Irish and Canadians. [Checks watch to see how long clarification will be asked for] |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Jackie Mulheron wrote:
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Jackie Mulheron wrote: Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having a lot of power in Congress at the moment. That could easily change with threat of an embargo on whiskey shipments...! Well I didn't write that but I'll just say that's okay since it will only hurt the Irish and Canadians. [Checks watch to see how long clarification will be asked for] :^) -- Knowing Canadian smile. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |
Chinook: stalwart of armed forces air operations | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 08:14 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
Cutting the UK armed forces | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 7 | October 25th 03 05:08 PM |
Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 100 | September 25th 03 12:13 PM |