Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

What makes you think that the two issues are mutually exclusive? As was shown in 2001, if you allow states like Afghanistan to fail, then it increases your own vulnerability to attack.

Only if you provide visas to the inhabitants of such states and ignore every warning sign about them. 9/11 was more a failure of our immigration, intelligence, and law enforcement policy than it was our foreign policy. Until they were allowed into this country and provided the training to fly airplanes, the terrorists were no more a threat than any number of vicious gunmen from places like the Congo.

These topics always seem to turn outward, look what we could buy if only the government didnt spend on chavs, olympics, welfare scoungers, MP's expenses but where does it end

Lets have loads of carriers because they are more important than ambulances, educating the countries kids or almost any other area of public spending.

I remember being on here a year or so ago and trying to convince people that the tories if they got in would be just a skinny on defence as labour.

And whilst it is true that there is enormous waste in the public sector that needs slashing, and I do mean slashing, not just trimming the defence community must also acknowledge and share some of the blame for the situation we are in.

Yes, funding as a percentage of GDP has fallen the cost over runs and dubious decisions are now coming back to haunt us. Billion pound air warfare destroyers are just not sustainable, look at what a Type 42 cost and compare it to a Type 45. Then apply normal inflation and see why we have a Navy so small it has to resort to sending the RFA to standing patrols or why the RAF can't provide meaningful CAS without help or why the Army can support itself with ISR.

More money aint coming any time soon and as soon as the defence chiefs and politicians actually realise this and faced up to its implications we might stand a chance of having a balanced force

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by msr

Originally Posted by harareboy99

As much as a like Danatt he is wrong on this occasion.

How do we know the next war wont need carriers?

Because we are stuggling to fund the current one, which does not require this capability (likewise Eurofighter)

MSR

Then perhaps we ought to ditch the current one?
Which is more important, the defence of this country or bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan?
If we must choose then perhaps Afghanistan must look after itself?

My bold.

What makes you think that the two issues are mutually exclusive? As was shown in 2001, if you allow states like Afghanistan to fail, then it increases your own vulnerability to attack.

I'm not an expert but if we can afford to be in Afghanistan or we can afford to defend our own shores then there isn't much of a choice is there?
If we can only have one or the other then Afghanistan can fend for itself

Originally Posted by meridian

More money aint coming any time soon and as soon as the defence chiefs and politicians actually realise this and faced up to its implications we might stand a chance of having a balanced force

I'm not so sure more money isn't on the horizon. A 1% cut in the welfare budget would fund a carrier. Three and a half days welfare expenditure to fund a carrier that should be in service for 50 years. Bargain.

Money will be tight in future but bear in mind that the Tories have a radically different list of spending priorities. Paying canutes like Sven (remember him) to watch Sky TV all day isn't a high priority for Dave. Neither is giving the cost of a carrier to the Indian government to fund their space programme because that gives Gordon a warm feeling in his nappy.

I hope so AM but I just dont see that given the trickle of stuff coming out of the tory defence team (as it is). If anything the tories will be slashing and burning right across the board because the reality is, as a country with a huge debt burden and government bonds to sell, we simply have no choice.

We can all indulge in whimisical wishful thinking about how many chavs we could cull to buy this bit of kit or expand that capability but hope is not a good strategy and that is exactly what all the defence chiefs have being indulging in for several years.

When the reality hits home the jointness goes out of the window and bitchfest starts

When will they ever learn because governments have been doing this for generations

Originally Posted by fantassin

Not to mention that according to a briefing given by an RN officer I attended last year, there is a huge question mark on how the RN, which is a "bottom fed" system, will be able to generate the thousands of sailors needed to crew the two new aircraft carriers. According to the briefing, the RN should actually start to grow now IOT have the relevant pyramid of ranks, esp. PO to be able to operate the two A/C when they are admitted into service.

I’m sure you might be aware of the project for the French Navy to have an almost indistinguishable carrier design of their own?

Perhaps manning problems would be resolved in part of the masterplan for the ‘European Navy’?


-DC

Originally Posted by Khyros

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

What makes you think that the two issues are mutually exclusive? As was shown in 2001, if you allow states like Afghanistan to fail, then it increases your own vulnerability to attack.

Only if you provide visas to the inhabitants of such states and ignore every warning sign about them. 9/11 was more a failure of our immigration, intelligence, and law enforcement policy than it was our foreign policy. Until they were allowed into this country and provided the training to fly airplanes, the terrorists were no more a threat than any number of vicious gunmen from places like the Congo.

Exactly. We invaded Afghanistan because we had to be seen to retaliate for the Sept. 11th attacks. 'Securing' Afghanistan to prevent further attacks was nothing but a political line trotted out to justify it. If anything, our actions since Sept 11th have increased the threat against us.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

Originally Posted by Khyros

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

What makes you think that the two issues are mutually exclusive? As was shown in 2001, if you allow states like Afghanistan to fail, then it increases your own vulnerability to attack.

Only if you provide visas to the inhabitants of such states and ignore every warning sign about them. 9/11 was more a failure of our immigration, intelligence, and law enforcement policy than it was our foreign policy. Until they were allowed into this country and provided the training to fly airplanes, the terrorists were no more a threat than any number of vicious gunmen from places like the Congo.

Exactly. We invaded Afghanistan because we had to be seen to retaliate for the Sept. 11th attacks. 'Securing' Afghanistan to prevent further attacks was nothing but a political line trotted out to justify it. If anything, our actions since Sept 11th have increased the threat against us.

Just as declaring war against Germnay increased the threat against us, and taking the fight to the IRA increased the threat against us.

Are you seriously suggesting we just sat on our arses whilst Al Q got bigger and bolder in Afghanistan? The fact that they had already set one bomb off in the US should have been enough, attacking an american embassy should have firmed up the desire to take their base out. Just because immigration missed one of the terrorists did not obviate the need to invade Afghanistan.

That's odd, I don't remember the UK invading Ireland to get rid of the IRA.

What is an al-qaeda base anyway? Bigger than Salisbury Plain? Smaller than a shopping bag full of box cutters? Is it like a James Bond villains' set? Lots of lasers and flashing lights and lightweight monorail cars? Does it do a WMD and vanish into thin air when you get near it? Is it full of multi-million pound flight simulators or is it half a dozen bags of rice piled up behind a rock?

The obvious answer, I suppose, is that wherever bin Laden is, that's a terrorist base. And as long as the Pentagon doesn't do anything silly like killing him, the US military can spend happily spend billions of dollars every year destroying terrorist 'infrastructure' all over the planet for the good of everybody's career.

Of course, in terms of reducing terrorist activity, it's about as useful as carpet bombing Australia to get rid of the rabbits. But reality's got nothing to do with it -- this is fantasy land, the bomb-happiest kingdom of them all.

Originally Posted by littlejim

That's odd, I don't remember the UK invading Ireland to get rid of the IRA.

No, we sent troops to protect the ordinary Roman Catholics from the excesses of the Protestants. The Provos decided to have a go and, instead of running away we reinforced heavily KNOWING THAT THE SITUATION WOULD PROBABLY GET WORSE

What is an al-qaeda base anyway? Bigger than Salisbury Plain? Smaller than a shopping bag full of box cutters? Is it like a James Bond villains' set? Lots of lasers and flashing lights and lightweight monorail cars? Does it do a WMD and vanish into thin air when you get near it? Is it full of multi-million pound flight simulators or is it half a dozen bags of rice piled up behind a rock?

PLaces like this.

The obvious answer, I suppose, is that wherever bin Laden is, that's a terrorist base. And as long as the Pentagon doesn't do anything silly like killing him, the US military can spend happily spend billions of dollars every year destroying terrorist 'infrastructure' all over the planet for the good of everybody's career.

Of course, in terms of reducing terrorist activity, it's about as useful as carpet bombing Australia to get rid of the rabbits. But reality's got nothing to do with it -- this is fantasy land, the bomb-happiest kingdom of them all.

Funny that, because I haven't seen Al Q in Afghanistan plan any spectaculars lately.