NATO Chief Wants Countries to Develop Areas of Expertise

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Yeoman_dai, Apr 29, 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. Will your comments be so positive if nato decides the uks specialist area of expertise is to provide the pioneer corps, cooks and bottle washers?
  2. Europeans hate British food, surely Le Francais for this, though Pizza works for me as well.
  3. so thats French cooks, Italian Drivers and Germans for the Monkeys.......

    and the Brits get all the front line jobs of cource :p
  4. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    The UK will provide what its good at - the Navy. We can then transport foreigners to do the actual fighting. Or more likely, be on hand to evacuate foreigners when they decide its got too much like a shooting war and they want out.

    NATO countries with areas of expertise will never work because that requires all elements of NATO to turn up to a fight, and we have plenty of evidence that individual member countries have consistantly failed to. Or worse, the heavy armour will turn up from Berlin but will not fire on people shooting at British infantry because their rules of engagement only allow them to use deadly force if directly threatened themselves.
  5. Oh I don't know...

    Italy - Shock invasion role.
    Germany - Civil-military relations
    UK - Equipment procurement
    Holland - weekend duties
    France - Cross country coordination and cooperation...

    What is there not to like?
  6. Ideal role for the gurkhas.
  7. Can just see Eitie and Frog troops eating curry containing chicken beaks and feet
  8. In the seventies uk decided to become natos north atlantic asw experts at the expense of everything else. We nearly lost the falklands because of it.
  9. Tell em its lentils and olive pips. They wont know the difference.
  10. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Actually as a result of the Nott defence review in 80/81, where it was decided that the Navy would discard non-core capabilities, core being defined as protecting our supply routes in the North Atlantic. Up to that point the RN had been designed to be more balanced, with other capabilities. Fortunately the cuts hadn't really kicked in when the Falklands happened.
  11. Bollarcks!!!

    Global aspirations had LONG gone before the Nott Review. He was cutting into the core capability itself.
  12. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Despite the "withdrawal" from east of Suez we were still projecting globally. Nott's cuts were designed to remove all that (including Endurance) and concentrate on frigates in the Greenland Iceland UK gap and on convoy escort. It was bold move to cut MOD costs based on a perception that we didn't need to project power globally and he was proved wrong. How he stayed on as minister I still don't understand.
  13. IIRC, did he not try and resign when the Falklands kicked off, and got told to man up and crack on by Mrs T?
  14. And what exactly were we "projecting globally" immediatly prior to the Nott Review: Eagle? Ark Royal?

    There was a sort of amphibious fleet focussed on the reinforcement of Norway and a sort of ASW fleet for the North Atlantic. FFS, the FRS.1 was not even given the navigation equipment to operate south of the Equator!

    HMS Endurance did not a global project maketh! A larger pool of escorts on cocktail cruises does not a global project maketh!