Cost of War .

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by sirbhp, Mar 11, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. sirbhp

    sirbhp LE Book Reviewer

    Now I don't want a load of abuse as i am just asking a general question. I know that one death is far too many .

    Lets say that when we pull out of Afghan that we would have lost 500 men and women. Cant speculate on the wounded because we don't get the proper figures on them . After 14 years of warfare and a high turnaround of troops is this death rate acceptable to those who send our folks into battle .? If the death rate was 10,000 would the government be getting its arse kicked ?

    Does this apparently low attrition rate mean that the forces did a good job in a bad situation and saved the politicians necks ? I understand that we loose 100 on average soldiers a year from drunk driving , being drunk and accidents on exercise or on the road .

    I think what I am trying to ask is what level of deaths were we the public prepared to accept knowing the past history of Afghanistan?

    Once again I offer full suport to the dead and wounded of this war but also wonder why our troops have had to rely on a number of charities after being wounded or discharged from the cake .
  2. Read the first few chapters of "The Kindly Ones" for a view on the cost of war.

    "on average, 13.04 deaths per minute from the invasion of Russia until the end of the war"

    Politicians dont care, never have and never will.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. They care more today simply as a result of Sky New et al publishing the death toll with one or 2 added each time. They have no control, unlike USSR, on that information so each death is treated as a failure and a strategic blunder.

    Democratic nations have been disabled from winning wars (with casualties) ever since Vietnam, perhaps before. The notable exception is the Falklands but that was in the age of the MOD spokesman and heavy control of the media.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I think that is a well zeroed shot right there.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. And it happened to be a war with a clearly-defined and popular objective.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    you notice they shut down lyneham and moved the cortege route to avoid wooton and now they don't feature in the news bulletins as much as they used to.

    that was more political than economical I was told by someone in the NAO who had the MOD desk.

    politicians rarely see beyond whitehall and memos unless its a photo opportunity. you never saw cameron on the line putting flowers on the roof of the hearses when he was in opposition. tony blair would have done purely for the photo opportunity
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Again, slightly off topic but didn't the repatriated use to come into Brize before anyway? Many rumours but surely wherever the transport fleet is based would make for the obvious location?
  8. All politicians care about is themselves and the power they have and hanging on to that power, I remember telling a visiting MP when I was an old n bold senior. "I'm here under the YTS scheme" "thats nice said he". Dont listen just patronise the boys (and girls). They really are selfish self centred people.
  9. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    as far as I'm aware it was moved away due to the location of medical evac unit to cut down on flights as brize was at capacity with two wars and falklands flights, also to seperate the homecomings from the repatriations so as not to upset the families. with only the 1 war now they can offset it.

    when did you last see the cortege on the tv though? the tories don't want hearses on the telly when they are slashing the forces in the middle of a conflict. makes them look bad if that's possible.

    its not been so long since brize was scheduled to become a public airport - apparently branson bought loads of surrounding land as he wanted it as a virgin hub and staff village.
  10. sirbhp

    sirbhp LE Book Reviewer

    do you think that now we have capability to reduce deaths on our side we might get involved in more wars ?
  11. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Worryingly yes, not because more wars worry me but it will mean more pissed off locals moving over here and setting off bombs!
  12. As the nation with the fourth highest defence budget in the world I would like to know why does it take the idiots in whitehall so long to get new equipment, weapons, vehicles etc etc to where they are needed.
    I know things have improved slightly but compared to some of the kit the sceptics have some of ours is like having a bow and arrow.
    Its the duty of the government to supply the armed forces with the best weapons systems, the best vehicles, the best body armour, best medical care and the best after care.
    Something just does not add up, unfortunately its been like it is since the UK first had a standing Army.
    Accidents happen, people get injured or killed in action, but for this to happen from being ill equipped or from a dodgy politician is not acceptable.
    At the end of the day though we all signed on the dotted line and knew there would be risks involved.
  13. Trying to have the best of everything and the mindset that comes with it is probably what got us into this mess. We dont need the best of everything, far from it. We tried that with mra4 and ended up with nothing.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2