Military will be made smaller.......and depend more on allies.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Jul 8, 2010.

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. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Nick Harvey says that the days of large standing armies are no longer relevant. Yeah, that's right. We couldn't hold any ground we took in Afghanistan or Iraq because our standing army wasn't big enough. Instead, the US, with its large standing army is stepping into the breech and propping our efforts up with 20,000 in Helmand . . . . only because their large standing army means that they can.

    Nick Harvey is being disengenuous to the point of outright lies. He's cutting our indepedence and our ability to protect this nation, JUST like before all the last big wars this country has had to fight.

    We already understand that Brown and Labour nearly bankrupted this country, and that cuts have to be made across the board, but please, please Harvey, don't package all that up in bullsh!t, and do try and avoid doing it to those that attend RUSI meetings. It's a surefire way of getting your card marked as the tw@t you obviously are.

    Just a thought.
  2. And when we have no allies to stand by us......?
  3. Misguided lunacy.
    The UK must be able to defend itself and its interests without reliance on some kind of mythical belief that our "allies" will help us out when the need arises.
  4. [​IMG]

    Britain's new smaller highly mobile army
  5. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Can Mr Harvey explain how, with this smaller defence force, we will be able to look after our oil interests (oops sorry) British subjects in the Falklands? With a smaller defence force we will be hard pushed to defend parts of Britain.

    Still, we have France, Germany and Italy to help defend us:rolleyes:
  6. Fronty

    Fronty Old-Salt Book Reviewer

    Maybe that's the plan... Rely on our European allies to such an extent that it would make sense to fully combine with them for all things military.

    I need more tea...
  7. Well that was always the Labour and LibDem's idea of a well balanced and cohesive defence plan for the UK but I genuinely didn't think the Conservatives were that ****ing stupid.
  8. Whilst I am largely in agreement with you, it doesn't say a smaller army, it says a smaller military.
    That includes the RN
  9. It's lunacy.
  10. I'm desperately ignoring that part ;) My main argument I guess is that we don't have to take that many cuts, but a shift in the emphasis would mean a streamlining in forces, and a true central doctrinal change to the three forces would give a strategic direction as well as meaning less equipment spread - plus people are the most expensive asset we have, so smaller 'lighter' Army = less costs. we can still be effective as a tri service it just needs to be shifted around.

    Quadrennial defence reviews would be nice, too...
  11. A view frightening in its naivety. It seems to ignore the fact that the governments first duty is defence of the Realm.
  12. So, no need to worry about defending the Falklands because we have Nukes?

    You are Naivety Incarnate.
  13. Right on B B. Whate happens when we threaten to nuke somebody and then don't? Utter cr@ap and I hope somebody in the Andrew understands nuclear detterence a bit better than the Yeo.
  14. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Sadly, if you think that the SDSR will impact equally on all three Services then you are amazingly naive about how things work. The Senior RN are cock-a-hoop over what is coming out of it thus far - they think that will be the big winners, and the Army the big losers. Well, no-one really wins, but he RN is probably the 'service of Choice' for Liam Fox, and that will certainly show. He's always championed the RN, and is continuing to do so.

    Expect the Army to lose all sorts of capabilities, as well as lots of Soldiers, the RAF to lose stuff too, and the Navy to be left relatively unscathed. After all, we aren't going to invade anywhere for a while, and we've not had any State-on-State wars fro a while, have we? Well, apart from the Falklands, Iraq, and Serbia - but that was in the past.....