Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the UK Army has been downgraded so much it is now a shadow of its former self, down from just over 100,000 in 2010 to 73,000 now, more money was spent on drones and online spying than boots on the ground, an invasion of the UK may not happen but at some point soldiers will be needed to control the panicking masses.
I agree the Army is too small, however other countries Army's have similarly shrunk, and this even includes the US Army, which itself is struggling to recruit.
I think this recent debate and the on-going need to end the peace dividend and to reinvest in our armed forces is a wake up call, and that we need to respond appropriately in terms of increasing defence spending and our armed services.
I agree the Army is too small, however other countries Army's have similarly shrunk, and this even includes the US Army, which itself is struggling to recruit.
I think this recent debate and the on-going need to end the peace dividend and to reinvest in our armed forces is a wake up call, and that we need to respond appropriately in terms of increasing defence spending and our armed services.
I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine should have been a wake up call and something should have been done then to upgrade our military not leave it until 2 years later.
I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine should have been a wake up call and something should have been done then to upgrade our military not leave it until 2 years later.
I totally agree however at least the issue is now being debated openly.
I think that this is an interesting article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tary_personnel
It shows that the US is way, way down the list when it comes to per capita number of active military personnel. The UK and most European countries are even further down the list.
I think that this is an interesting article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tary_personnel
It shows that the US is way, way down the list when it comes to per capita number of active military personnel. The UK and most European countries are even further down the list.
This is all irrelevant, WWIII isn't going to be like previous wars, no 'army' will be needed, we had better all hope and pray that nuclear powers don't go anywhere near a WWIII because the planet will not be a very pleasant place to be afterwards, if you are unlucky enough to survive a WWIII that is.
This is all irrelevant, WWIII isn't going to be like previous wars, no 'army' will be needed, we had better all hope and pray that nuclear powers don't go anywhere near a WWIII because the planet will not be a very pleasant place to be afterwards, if you are unlucky enough to survive a WWIII that is.
Quite possible that if the Ukraine war widened to become a shooting match between Russia and NATO that a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons could be used. Very likely by Russia first if NATO pushed Russian forces out of the Ukraine and Putin already beginning to feel the heat and criticism in Russia of the way the war is going might feel panicked enough to resort to a nuclear strike. The actions of a desperete man who knows he may be removed from power and with nothing to lose.
This is all irrelevant, WWIII isn't going to be like previous wars, no 'army' will be needed, we had better all hope and pray that nuclear powers don't go anywhere near a WWIII because the planet will not be a very pleasant place to be afterwards, if you are unlucky enough to survive a WWIII that is.
The Speech made by the current Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders, was in relation to Russian attempts to grab more land in Ukraine and beyond, and Europe's ability to stand up to Russian conventional forces if needed.
General Sanders speech was also misquoted and what he was calling for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces, including increased Army manpower and a British Army that could expand rapidly if needed.
Whilst General Sanders also spoke of laying the foundations for a voluntary call up (if needed), rather than mandatory peacetime conscription, however the media interpreted his speech in a more sensationalist manner in order to write sensationalist headlines.
Increased defence spending to around 3% and an increase in manpower and the ability to expand the size of our forces are perfectly sensible however this does not mean that people are going to be called up for mandatory military service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that an increase in reserve forces alone "would not be enough".
He highlighted the threat from Russia and pointed to steps being taken by other European nations to put their populations on a "war footing".
He also called for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces.
In a speech at an armoured vehicle conference, Gen Sir Patrick was not making an argument for conscription - where men of fighting age are required to enlist in the military - but rather laying the foundations for a voluntary call up if war broke out.
"Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough," he said, as he also called for more to be done to modernise and equip the armed forces.
On Wednesday, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) said Russia's war in Ukraine was about much more than seizing territory, saying it was about defeating our system and way of life.
In his speech he said Britain needed an army designed to expand rapidly.
"We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare - and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking," he said. "Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.
"But we've been here before, and workforce alone does not create capability."
He highlighted steps being taken in countries like Sweden and Finland - where the threat of Russia looms closer - to put their nations more on a war footing.
Other senior Nato military commanders have also recently been calling on the alliance to ready itself for a potential conflict.
In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister's spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.
Gen Sir Patrick said the nation could not afford to make the same mistakes of 1914, when it failed to perceive the escalations that led to World War One.
General Sanders isn't a politician. He sees the need to increase the armed forces from a military point of view without seeing it from the national economic factor. Increasing a First World Army is going to cost a huge amount of money. The Government are not going to raise taxes to pay for that so the other option is to make substantial cuts to the domestic budget with all the negative consequences it will have on the population and pure suicide for the government in the next election.
Another thought on conscription. If that were to happen I would hope that those who are conscripted will receive pay equal to that of the Regular troops.
National Service was a cheap way to obtain cannon fodder at half the price.
Last edited by James Austen; 01-28-2024 at 08:29 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
