Tanks for the memory -

[Observer II]

Seems HMG are planning to mothball all the Army's tanks,  no doubt driven by austerity - but what it shows is a lack of a cohesive defence policy based on the long term interests of the Country.  To simplify - either we wish to pursue a global strategy of protecting the UK's interests throughout the world or we concentrate on the security of our Island home.  The former requires such items as expensive aircraft carriers and escorts, airborne resources etc; to cover such eventualities as a Falklands style episode.  The latter requires the capability to secure our immediate borders, our fishing grounds and of course our cyber space and terrorism.   Trying to compete with the projection power of the US is no longer affordable imo.       

[Latchford Locks]

My tupennyworth is just concentrate on defence.

There is no point trying to take on the world and it's mother these days.

All money should just secure our islands ,end of.

Our nuclear submarines are the number one priority,as long as we have a nuclear strike capability nobody will attack our territories.

[Latchford Locks]

And once Donald Trump leaves the White House NATO will regain it's number one international safeguard.role.

[Evil Sid]

I am not sure that a nuclear strike capability is the deterrent that it used to be. Difficult to nuke terrorists who tend to strike in small numbers and are widespread and as a rule very secretive.

Two goldfish in a tank and one says to the other "Do you know how to drive one of these"....

[Latchford Locks]

48 minutes ago, Evil Sid said:

I am not sure that a nuclear strike capability is the deterrent that it used to be. Difficult to nuke terrorists who tend to strike in small numbers and are widespread and as a rule very secretive.

 

48 minutes ago, Evil Sid said:

 

A handful of terrorist are not going to invade our country,

My point is any present or future powers that had any ideas would not attack either us or France because they know the price.they would pay.

On which I base my assumption on who the aggressors are or would be.

 

[Observer II]

Not so sure the deterant  would actually get used Latch;  they gamed it on a BBC prog, using ex-Ministers and Civil Servants, who would be the actual decision makers.  The scenario was a Russian nuke strike on NATO forces, and the decision required was to retaliate using Trident.  Seems the concensus was,  why kill another million or two civilians in Moscow, and risk even more nukes.   Ether way there are no winners in a nuke scenario, so a rather kami kazi strategy in any event.   Putting that aside, we've just purchased two aircraft carriers, who's purpose is to project offensive power globally,   frankly I just don't see the point; if we look at all our recent involvements, they've solved nothing and left behind a mess.   We need to look at more realistic scenarios, like keeping our coastal waters clear of illegal migrants and EU fish poachers,  which suggests fast missile equipped  patrol boats, and plenty of them;   sufficient strike aircraft and drones,  while the Army is based on a large TA reserve.  There are also requirements for electronic and cyber warfare, and the destruction of satelites etc.   HMG needs to concentrate on realistic threats rather than prestige.     

[Latchford Locks]

18 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Not so sure the deterant  would actually get used Latch;  they gamed it on a BBC prog, using ex-Ministers and Civil Servants, who would be the actual decision makers.  The scenario was a Russian nuke strike on NATO forces, and the decision required was to retaliate using Trident.  Seems the concensus was,  why kill another million or two civilians in Moscow, and risk even more nukes.       

Crickey it's reading things like this that makes me glad I'm of an age where I have stopped buying green bananas anymore 😕

[Davy51]

Mutually assured destruction ,keeping the peace since 1945.

[Observer II]

You mean there have been no wars since 1945 ?     

[Davy51]

Not between the so called major powers.

[Observer II]

We had the "Cold War", which was a series of "hot" proxy wars, from Korea to Viet Nam;  which almost went nuclear during the Cuba crisis.    

[Latchford Locks]

38 minutes ago, Observer II said:

We had the "Cold War", which was a series of "hot" proxy wars, from Korea to Viet Nam;  which almost went nuclear during the Cuba crisis.    

I don't think Korea or Vietnam were part of The Cuban Crisis; With Korea having stopped fighting in1953 and signing the armistice,and Vietnam was not a battlefield really(as the French had gone home) until 1964/5

Oddly enough one of the main reasons was Turkey and the stationing of nuclear missiles there.

I lived through the crisis and remember being absolutely terrified.

 

[Observer II]

Never said that Latch - these "proxy wars" were all part of the "cold war" ,  with both super powers competing and selling and testing their new kit with each one.  Cuba flared up, because the Yanks didn't want Russian nukes in their backyard, whilst having their nukes in Russia's backyard in Turkey.  Both were removed in the end, but the cold war continued until the collapse of the USSR.         

[Latchford Locks]

49 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Never said that Latch - these "proxy wars" were all part of the "cold war" ,  with both super powers competing and selling and testing their new kit with each one.  Cuba flared up, because the Yanks didn't want Russian nukes in their backyard, whilst having their nukes in Russia's backyard in Turkey.  Both were removed in the end, but the cold war continued until the collapse of the USSR.         

I remember Kruschev he terrified me

Banging his shoe on a desk during international meetings and telling America that the USSR were churning out missiles like sausages

He made Donald Trump seem saintly