It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
War is horror and young people dying screaming for their mothers, innocent children burning alive, babies suffocating in rubble, whole villages murdered.
We can't ever forget that when talking about the toys.
Our politicians seem to have an enormous inability to wield these deadly forces responsibly, so I feel it is our duty to ensure they don't have the means to wage war. Or at the very least, to judge them harshly when they ignore us.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
I think the badger suggestion is good, but maybe a more "Home Alone" approach could be employed. I suggest drones full of toy cars, deployable via remote, so the enemy troops all stand on them and fall over. Would that work?
This in a nutshell is everything that we *don’t* need or want in our “defence” capability - the ability to act as America’s stooge in ill-advised military interference around the world.
It has caused immense damage to our national interest, international reputation, security and economy, not to mention destabilising whole regions and leading to millions of deaths and a refugee crisis, and wasting the lives and health of British service personnel.
The sooner we stop doing this the better, and losing the capability would be the most effective way of ensuring it.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Modernisation. Future proofing. Readiness. Call it what you will.
JSF on its decks with Poseidon P8 also in support will mean we're a force to be reckoned with once again. That might not be important to some people but that's because we haven't needed it yet. Hopefully we never will.
i have always maintained that, if we decide to 'do a blair' and get involved in something that most of the right-thinking world can see is both immoral and doomed . then twenty members of the house of commons should be selected at random, sent for a week or two's training in nbc survival/first aid. then when the british forces roll over the border into whatever shitstorm they've embroiled us in, those politicians should be in two warrior afv's in the first wave.
no exceptions, for age, sex or illness. if they can send people into harms way, they should be willing to put themselves in the same position.
then we may see a less hawkish attitude to getting involved in other people's wars.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
Who knows? Could be anywhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be the actual defence of British soil. There are all sorts of scenarios. An aircraft carrier makes us a mobile force. Don't forget they can also carry marines and helicopters as well as strike aircraft.
I don't condone getting involved in "other people's wars" but still think it's a good thing to have this in our arsenal because it gives us options. You can argue all you want that it's a waste of money etc etc but the fact is that none of us know what the future holds. You can't base the country's entire future defence on what's happening this week.
I'd actually be interested to hear what scenarios you can come up with where an aircraft carrier is the best tool. We seem to manage to carry out air sorties in our immoral war in afghan OK, that's pretty far from British soil.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
The only times we have actually used them for our own benefit would be the Falklands - which we would never have had to re-take at all if our government had not been so inept as to withdraw the forces necessary to defend them in the first place - and Sierra Leone, which was a worthwhile intervention (and notably nothing to do with the US) but still would have been possible without an aircraft carrier - the Harriers were not used in combat, only for 'reconnaissance and reassurance' missions.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Granted. But quite simply, Afghanistan needed setting up first. And it took a hell of a lot of drawing down. And we relied on (for example) transport aircraft to move aircraft every day of the week. It was a massive undertaking, hidden from public perception most of the time. You say it was immoral, we'll have to leave that argument for another day
Scenarios? A foreign aggressor attacks one of our allies and we respond (immediately). A foreign aggressor does another Falklands on us by wading into one of our overseas territories and we (can) respond immediately.
We're not reinventing the wheel here. Lots of countries have carriers.
On that basis we also don't need a nuclear capability.
Remind me again how having Polaris deterred General Galtieri from invading the Falklands. If I remember rightly he ignored it, knowing that we could not use it.
Or how having Trident deterred Putin from annexing Crimea and eastern Ukraine. He just called our bluff, explicitly reminding the West that Russia is also a nuclear power.
Or how it deters Islamist terrorists?
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein