OJW Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Please see this link comparing Russia's Forces with our own. Sorry its a Daily Mail Article, theres a good picture that compares us with them. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963288/US-UK-warn-sanctions-against-extraordinarily-craven-Russia-40-000-streets-Moscow-protest-Ukraine-coup.html Why is it we have such a small military? Because we rely on mutually assured destruction? - If thats the case then why haven't other countries reduced the size theirs? Because we know we will always be able to fight as part on NATO or with the US? If it came to it do we stand a chance? Is our kit and training significantly better so that we don't need as much? These are all question that sprang to mind when I read the article. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 To save money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) To save money! That and the belief that we would never again be attacked through Europe, and now thanks to the gangster in charge of Russia a seemingly very miss-founded belief.and of course we are also part of and under the protection of a military alliance :lol: KW Edited February 22, 2015 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 That and the belief that we would never again be attacked through Europe, and now thanks to the gangster in charge of Russia a seemingly very miss-founded belief. KW Indeed, it all started when Russia was not thought to be a threat and the wall came down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 To save money its that simple, the country is writing checks it can't afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJW Posted February 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I realise that it was to save money, I'm more interested in what the military reasoning behind it was and whether if we needed to we could restore it. Why does Russia have 1600 war heads if the UK think 160 will do the job should push come to shove? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver90owner Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I agree with tightchoke but those comparisons are, frankly, meaningless. Under what situation could Russia use all their might against the UK? A better comparison would be using numbers of NATO forces which would be deployed against an aggressor. The odds change a fair bit, but perhaps not sufficiently to resist an attack. But other factors, such as better technology, need to be included in comparisons, along with fuel, armament stocks and re-supply. RAB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Our armed forces are a form of preventative maintenance which when money gets tight is always the first thing to be cut back. Always a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastiebap Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 To save money. We've got form for it. Finish one war/think that our big threat has been neutralised, then get caught out seriously under manned when the next conflict occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 A more equal comparison would be vs size of population. We have always had a small force than Russia. Don't forget that a lot of the Russian hardware is outdated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I realise that it was to save money, I'm more interested in what the military reasoning behind it There is no military reasoning behind it as it's never been a military decision. The decision and reasoning behind it is purely political, based on cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 It’s the Neville syndrome, it is prone to afflict weak Prime Ministers and has the effect of paralysing the ability of governments to make adequate preparation to deter just such events as we are experiencing in Europe at the moment. Si vis pacem para bellum http://www.biography.com/people/neville-chamberlain-9243721 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I realise that it was to save money, I'm more interested in what the military reasoning behind it was and whether if we needed to we could restore it. Why does Russia have 1600 war heads if the UK think 160 will do the job should push come to shove? As Scully says, there is/was NO MILITARY REASONING. The military get told how much money they have per annum and what they can spend it on. The wall came down in 1989 while I was serving, money was removed quickly and acreditted to the PEACE DIVIDEND. A lot of the training we had done up until then was cancelled. Many trips abroad were moved to bases within this country and some equipment put in to storage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) So that the nation could continue to be able to afford to pay for the NHS and old ages pensions........ Can you imagine the reaction if a party was to propose shutting down a few dozen hospitals and reducing the OAP pension by a couple of quid a week so that we could have half a dozen extra frigates and few more squadrons of Typhoons! It would be political suicide Edited February 22, 2015 by scolopax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 So that the nation could continue to be able to afford to pay for the NHS and old ages pensions........ Can you imagine the reaction if a party was to propose shutting down a few dozen hospitals and reducing the OAP pension by a couple of quid a week so that we could have half a dozen extra frigates and few more squadrons of Typhoons! It would be political suicide True Blue http://monologues.co.uk/003/Poor_But_Honest.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 A more equal comparison would be vs size of population. We have always had a small force than Russia. Don't forget that a lot of the Russian hardware is outdated. Whilst a lot may be outdated the stuff that counts certainly is not, they are building nuclear missile subs as if they are going out of fashion, and it seems they are gearing up to help Iran take Saudi out, if that happens hang on to your hats. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleFieldRelics Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The politicians have done the same with our police force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 and it seems they are gearing up to help Iran take Saudi out, What evidence is there of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 What evidence is there of that. The Russians themselves are stating it, they want the oil price up and the want to show the west their strength both objectives would be achieved, why do you think the US is backing off arming Ukraine? simply that if they do the Russians will be both arming and pushing Iran to strike Saudi and then who knows? plenty out there on the net. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The main reason is that it saves money-those in the know pacify us by saying that increases in Technology greatly improve the destructive capability of the equipment that we have-thus enabling us to maintain sufficient force albeit with reduced manpower/finance. A great idea we all cry-but the money needed to keep pace with the modern weapons that the majority of the world use has not been spent on our armed forces-it has simply been squandered away on largely useless causes while we continue to beat our chests against all comers. We are weaker now than before the second world war and the millions that perished then has taught our leaders nothing. So lets all get together and do what we do best......nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 You all worry too much. Providing they don`t nuke us, in order to invade the U.K, the Ruskies will have to come through France. The French will stop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The main reason is that it saves money-those in the know pacify us by saying that increases in Technology greatly improve the destructive capability of the equipment that we have-thus enabling us to maintain sufficient force albeit with reduced manpower/finance. A great idea we all cry-but the money needed to keep pace with the modern weapons that the majority of the world use has not been spent on our armed forces-it has simply been squandered away on largely useless causes while we continue to beat our chests against all comers. We are weaker now than before the second world war and the millions that perished then has taught our leaders nothing. So lets all get together and do what we do best......nothing. really? From wiki, Operated by the Royal Navy and based at Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast, at least one submarine is always on patrol to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent. Under the terms of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review,[1] each will be armed with a maximum of eight missiles and 40 warheads, although their capacity is much larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Have we ever seen the peace dividend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHOOTEMUP Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Have we ever seen the peace dividend? More importantly what was the peace dividend??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 welsh1-hard to attack land based targets and destroy an enemy such as the Taliban using a sub-lets just have a quick peep at our subs record. First Nuke powered sub to attack an enemy target was "Conks" in a questionable attack on the Belgrano-she then hid for the rest of the conflict acting as an underwater spy, a few years later she collided with a Yacht before being scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.