Gen Lamb still fighting the cold war...

Actually, I think he's talking some sense: he's not about exquisite equipment from BAe, he seems to be talking about COTS equipment being turned to.

Lamb is someone who spent about a year talking to insurgents in Iraq, and is well aware of what the "cause" is.
 

Yokel

LE
Why do you think it would be the defence budget that pays for these security measures?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
Misread, MSO. Lamb is calling for the Home Office to sharpen up its act including more tech investment (Seaweed concurs). Nothing to do with the MoD or the army.
 
While I agree with his position, Lambs call is reactive, and demands a big budget and does not address the root cause, which we seem even more unwilling to do.
 
While I agree with his position, Lambs call is reactive, and demands a big budget and does not address the root cause, which we seem even more unwilling to do.
I've heard a lot of people talk about "root causes" of everything from terrorism and insurgency to crime and unemployment.

Even with the best will in the world, I have yet to see anyone make fundamental progress in changing the beliefs and attitudes of human beings - within whose nature seems to be the desire to destroy eachother.

Until such time as they do - I'll have a gadget please!

Nothing reactionary here - just a sensible desire to keep pace with the times.

Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Define the root cause. Only the naïve would attribute it to a pure, unadulterated adhesion to one of the tenets of Islam. Opportunism, the desires of the disenfranchised, tribalism, greed, envy, (a degree of amusement of using some of Christianity's seven deadly sins here) all mixed into a stew of violence and harnessed to the desires of a charismatic leader. I'd welcome some serious analysis.
 

DannyDiehard

War Hero
Define the root cause. Only the naïve would attribute it to a pure, unadulterated adhesion to one of the tenets of Islam. Opportunism, the desires of the disenfranchised, tribalism, greed, envy, (a degree of amusement of using some of Christianity's seven deadly sins here) all mixed into a stew of violence and harnessed to the desires of a charismatic leader. I'd welcome some serious analysis.
We had a bit of concern last week. 5 year old grandson fighting at school again. Except the other lad ended up bleeding quite a lot. Teacher did not like that our grandson was completely emotionless as the other lad laid bleeding.

So to the root cause. The question "Why did you hurt him". Answer appears to be it was a consequence of a fight that both lads entered into voluntarily. Asked what he knew about the other lad he explained that the other lad is not allowed to eat the same food as him at lunchtimes. Was this the reason for the fight ? No grandson wasn't bothered as long as no other lad tries nicking his grub. What about the other lad being dark skinned ? Grandson seemed surprised by that as he hadn't really noticed the colour of the other lad's skin. And his expression conveyed contempt for the question (What a silly reason to fight a lad ...... different colours what does go through teacher brains ?). Was the root cause Islamophobia ? Teacher searching her indoctrinated brain for a suitable piece of jargon (Rather as barristers search for stated cases)

His mum arrives (our daughter). "Oh dear I bet you asked him why he did it ?" she said to the teacher.

Then mum asked him "What did you hope to achieve by hurting him ?"

"To win the fight" he readily explained.

"And what have you learned from this ?"

"I'll stick to fighting the Irish lads they don't grass you up afterwards"

(I think they may be Traveller children. The playground appears to have a culture of fighting one on one unarmed and no gang backed bullying. But trying to see if a Traveller culture is the "root cause" is a problem as grandson is well immersed in no names no pack drill).

Anyway our daughter concluded that finding a root cause is a folly when she already owns the solution. To whit the threat of restriction of rations. Although there is a danger the Irish kids will give him grub to keep him strong enough to fight.
 
Gen. Lamb makes perfect sense. The mockery of any mention of the Cold War on this site, even when, as in this case, it is used as an analogy has really got rather tedious.
 

mso

LE
No amount of technology is going to solve the problem. A handful of £10 concrete posts across a few high speed railway tracks is going to cause way more terror than an aeroplane bomb.

Even shouting 'bomb' in a crowded room full of people forlornly holding their belts, shoes and small plastic bags of cosmetics is probably going to cause more casualties.

AQ / ISIS are the masters of asymmetric warfare. Look how much Iraq and Afghanistan have cost this country (and others) and compare it to the costs they have incurred.
 
No amount of technology is going to solve the problem. A handful of £10 concrete posts across a few high speed railway tracks is going to cause way more terror than an aeroplane bomb.

Even shouting 'bomb' in a crowded room full of people forlornly holding their belts, shoes and small plastic bags of cosmetics is probably going to cause more casualties.

AQ / ISIS are the masters of asymmetric warfare. Look how much Iraq and Afghanistan have cost this country (and others) and compare it to the costs they have incurred.
It would seem the rest of us are reading a different article from yourself.
 

loopintheP

War Hero
Lamb's article rest entirely on the assumption that UK Plc is doing nothing to advance our various capabilities, both human and technological. This is certainly not the case. Maybe next week he can tell us that the England football team needs better players.
 
Misread, MSO. Lamb is calling for the Home Office to sharpen up its act including more tech investment (Seaweed concurs). Nothing to do with the MoD or the army.
And absent any future foreign adventures (for which there is no public appetite) the military are increasingly going to be a very niche capability in dealing with AQ, ISIS, self-radicalised teenagers in Rotherham, etc, etc. I think General Lamb understands this.
 

mso

LE
Which article are you reading?

"What we can and have not done to stop these terror threats is, as we did during the Cold War era, to double up and then double again our efforts to stay ahead of those who would challenge us and our way of life.

During the Cold War we were engaged in a constant and costly battle of technologies – the USSR would develop a new capability and we would counter it, they in turn would build a counter – counter measure and we would reply and so on. This expensive grim choreography continued throughout the decades of near violence without ever allowing one or the other side an assured and overmatching advantage."
 
Define the root cause. Only the naïve would attribute it to a pure, unadulterated adhesion to one of the tenets of Islam. Opportunism, the desires of the disenfranchised, tribalism, greed, envy, (a degree of amusement of using some of Christianity's seven deadly sins here) all mixed into a stew of violence and harnessed to the desires of a charismatic leader. I'd welcome some serious analysis.
Three good articles in the current edition of the Economist (you need to register - free of charge - and that gets you access to 3 premium items per wk) which look across the Middle East, and back at the history of Islam.

Having just read all three, I'm left awestruck at the hubris of any individual who thinks that 'addressing the root causes' is remotely within the reach of this country, or even of the The West (whoever that may mean) as a whole.
 
It's trying to address the root cause of English binge drinking - it goes back at least 500 years, so good luck with that.....
 

WW13

On ROPS
On ROPs
Which article are you reading?

"What we can and have not done to stop these terror threats is, as we did during the Cold War era, to double up and then double again our efforts to stay ahead of those who would challenge us and our way of life.

During the Cold War we were engaged in a constant and costly battle of technologies – the USSR would develop a new capability and we would counter it, they in turn would build a counter – counter measure and we would reply and so on. This expensive grim choreography continued throughout the decades of near violence without ever allowing one or the other side an assured and overmatching advantage."
Is he wrong? Do you think we should put in less effort? Should we not look to the past for lessons?
 

Latest Threads

Top