Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 27 April 2017, 07:42:30
-
As part of the interview, Charlie Stayt kept pressing Boris on how the UK would be involved if the US decided to take military action against N Korea. Why? What's it got to do with us? I wonder if the French defence minister is being asked the same question? Or the Spanish, German, Italian.
Apart from supporting them at the UN and in political statements, what could we actually do? And why would we want to do anything?
-
Common denominators here, Steve.
BBC....anti Brexit, Boris....pro Brexit So anti Boris BBC quiz him on anything that could make him come out
with something controversial, which will in the course of time, will be fine tuned to ridicule him and Brexit.
Korea is a good staging post :y
-
He said Corbyn is a Mugwump! :o ::) ;D
Does anyone here in the real world know hat a Mugwump is? :-\ :)
-
Seems to me that a lot of interviewers see their job as just to put people on the spot almost regardless of topic. They earn brownie points for being controversial and so they can say "but you said . . . . " as some stage in the future. Also imagine the resulting headline "Britain Supports War Against North Korea".
Stupid question at this stage.
-
As part of the interview, Charlie Stayt kept pressing Boris on how the UK would be involved if the US decided to take military action against N Korea. Why? What's it got to do with us? I wonder if the French defence minister is being asked the same question? Or the Spanish, German, Italian.
Apart from supporting them at the UN and in political statements, what could we actually do? And why would we want to do anything?
We have cruise missile equipped subs (assuming any are serviceable). Any attack on N Korea is highly likely to include targets for cruise missiles.
The US are unlikely to get anything involving military force approved by the UN - China and Russia will veto it. So the US will be exploring the options for unilateral "self-defence" style action if they can't get NK to behave. They may well want to involve other countries in a coalition, and frankly we've been the US's #1 buddy in that sort of thing for as long as I can remember. If they're going to ask anyone you can bet we'll be high on their list this time - after South Korea and along with Japan and Australia.
It's a perfectly valid question for a journalist to ask the foreign secretary if, and under what conditions, we would/could be involved in direct military action. Of course, no-one expects a politician to give a straight answer to such a hypothetical question. And if it's not a hypothetical question, a politician would be foolish to answer the question prior to first strike.
-
Oh, and another thing for the conspiracy theorists...
The US have 58 KC-10 tanker aircraft. These are the biggest refuellers the USAF have, and are based on the civilian DC-10, and can off-load roughly double the fuel that the much smaller KC-135 can. They're all US based, and during normal times they're used to ferry cargo around the world and to support the transit of fighter jets to/from Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. However, whenever a military action is imminent, KC-10's gather at nearby bases to support fighter and bomber operations. During the 1986 raid on Libya, over 20 of them were deployed to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Fairford.
In the past month there have been a number of high profile fighter deployments to/through Europe - including F-15's, F-22's and F-35's. KC-10's have been very noticeable by their absence, to such an extent that several of these deployments have been delayed by lack of available tankers. You would normally expect one KC-10 per 4-6 fighters.
Now KC-10's aren't the most reliable beasts, so serviceability probably plays some part in this, but, I wouldn't be surprised if places like Guam and Diego Garcea currently have a large number of big grey lumps sat on them.
-
Oh, and another thing for the conspiracy theorists...
Nope. We don't have any of them here. None at all . . . . ;D
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
-
LCO112G, we are not America's number 1 buddy, we are America's number 1 poodle.
Lizzie, if we have the biggest military capacity in Europe, then I pity the rest.
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
-
Oh, and another thing for the conspiracy theorists...
The US have 58 KC-10 tanker aircraft. These are the biggest refuellers the USAF have, and are based on the civilian DC-10, and can off-load roughly double the fuel that the much smaller KC-135 can. They're all US based, and during normal times they're used to ferry cargo around the world and to support the transit of fighter jets to/from Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. However, whenever a military action is imminent, KC-10's gather at nearby bases to support fighter and bomber operations. During the 1986 raid on Libya, over 20 of them were deployed to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Fairford.
In the past month there have been a number of high profile fighter deployments to/through Europe - including F-15's, F-22's and F-35's. KC-10's have been very noticeable by their absence, to such an extent that several of these deployments have been delayed by lack of available tankers. You would normally expect one KC-10 per 4-6 fighters.
Now KC-10's aren't the most reliable beasts, so serviceability probably plays some part in this, but, I wouldn't be surprised if places like Guam and Diego Garcea currently have a large number of big grey lumps sat on them.
Hence why they want to buy are old DC10's, a large number of which are sat at Bruntingthorpe in a legal wrangle as the company that purchased them has gone bust and owes lots of ground rent...
-
Sir Tigger, a mugwump was an invention of Michael Bentine's, back in the days of black and white telly; it was a (mythical?) creature, maybe a hairy dog - memory won't let me be more specific than that - whose front and rear were so indistinguishable that you couldn't tell its "mug" from its "wump" . Just like that arse-face from EastEnders, Sonia!
Ron.
-
Sir Tigger, a mugwump was an invention of Michael Bentine's, back in the days of black and white telly; it was a (mythical?) creature, maybe a hairy dog - memory won't let me be more specific than that - whose front and rear were so indistinguishable that you couldn't tell its "mug" from its "wump" . Just like that arse-face from EastEnders, Sonia!
Ron.
Nice try .. would be nice if true .. but the reality is ...
mugwump
ˈmʌɡwʌmp/
noun
NORTH AMERICAN
a person who remains aloof or independent, especially from party politics.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mugwump
:)
-
It IS true, Nige - even with my ancient memory I can remember the programme in which it occured - "It's a Square World" You can Google all you like, but we/he invented it first; one up for Britain! :y
Ron.
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
No Problem:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
I do admit though there seems to be some confusion as to how powerful Britain's military is. Some say 5th, others 6th, then, as per one of the above links, we are 2nd in terms of how far our military power can reach. :y :y
-
Sir Tigger, a mugwump was an invention of Michael Bentine's, back in the days of black and white telly; it was a (mythical?) creature, maybe a hairy dog - memory won't let me be more specific than that - whose front and rear were so indistinguishable that you couldn't tell its "mug" from its "wump" . Just like that arse-face from EastEnders, Sonia!
Ron.
Now, if it were a creature which couldn't tell its own @rse from its' elbow...
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
No Problem:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
I do admit though there seems to be some confusion as to how powerful Britain's military is. Some say 5th, others 6th, then, as per one of the above links, we are 2nd in terms of how far our military power can reach. :y :y
That first link is subjective and doesn't use actual figures. The second one says we have two? aircraft carriers and actually quotes Wikipedia as one of its sources.
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
No Problem:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
I do admit though there seems to be some confusion as to how powerful Britain's military is. Some say 5th, others 6th, then, as per one of the above links, we are 2nd in terms of how far our military power can reach. :y :y
That first link is subjective and doesn't use actual figures. The second one says we have two? aircraft carriers and actually quotes Wikipedia as one of its sources.
As I stated, there is some confusion of where the UK rates in the World's military ranking. ;)
It is clear though that the actual power / force available, if you allow for the Trident submarines and other nuclear capability, we are up the top of the rankings whichever way you cut it. That is why Europe was so keen to have a Euro Military, with the UK giving the biggest share. Won't happen now, and we stay close to the US.
Also do not forget the UK has never had a large standing peace time army, and our power is in the Royal Navy and RAF. The former could easily destroy multiple cities, with it's nuclear capacity, without an Army boot touching the ground.
Obviously the only way to test all the tables and theories is to have a war; but who wants that if it can be avoided?
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
No Problem:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
I do admit though there seems to be some confusion as to how powerful Britain's military is. Some say 5th, others 6th, then, as per one of the above links, we are 2nd in terms of how far our military power can reach. :y :y
That first link is subjective and doesn't use actual figures. The second one says we have two? aircraft carriers and actually quotes Wikipedia as one of its sources.
As I stated, there is some confusion of where the UK rates in the World's military ranking. ;)
It is clear though that the actual power / force available, if you allow for the Trident submarines and other nuclear capability, we are up the top of the rankings whichever way you cut it. That is why Europe was so keen to have a Euro Military, with the UK giving the biggest share. Won't happen now, and we stay close to the US.
Also do not forget the UK has never had a large standing peace time army, and our power is in the Royal Navy and RAF. The former could easily destroy multiple cities, with it's nuclear capacity, without an Army boot touching the ground.
Obviously the only way to test all the tables and theories is to have a war; but who wants that if it can be avoided?
Do you think the idea of an EU "army" has died a death then? My gut feeling is that Brexit makes it more desirable for the EU. I have no doubt that the loss of UK element will be a blow. Perhaps the EU will get behind NATo again and dare I say pull their weight by making their agreed contribution. ( Germany has agreed to up theirs but it still won't be anything like their commitment). Just the small problem of Turkey! maybe an EU military has legs after all......
-
We were in the last Korean War, so why not this one if it kicks off.
We are allies of the US, and have the biggest military capacity in Europe. It is only reasonable that Boris was asked THE question. We certainly are a potential player in this game which does / could affect us seriously. :y
I would really like to think that is true, but I very much doubt it. Please prove me wrong
No Problem:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
I do admit though there seems to be some confusion as to how powerful Britain's military is. Some say 5th, others 6th, then, as per one of the above links, we are 2nd in terms of how far our military power can reach. :y :y
That first link is subjective and doesn't use actual figures. The second one says we have two? aircraft carriers and actually quotes Wikipedia as one of its sources.
As I stated, there is some confusion of where the UK rates in the World's military ranking. ;)
It is clear though that the actual power / force available, if you allow for the Trident submarines and other nuclear capability, we are up the top of the rankings whichever way you cut it. That is why Europe was so keen to have a Euro Military, with the UK giving the biggest share. Won't happen now, and we stay close to the US.
Also do not forget the UK has never had a large standing peace time army, and our power is in the Royal Navy and RAF. The former could easily destroy multiple cities, with it's nuclear capacity, without an Army boot touching the ground.
Obviously the only way to test all the tables and theories is to have a war; but who wants that if it can be avoided?
Do you think the idea of an EU "army" has died a death then? My gut feeling is that Brexit makes it more desirable for the EU. I have no doubt that the loss of UK element will be a blow. Perhaps the EU will get behind NATo again and dare I say pull their weight by making their agreed contribution. ( Germany has agreed to up theirs but it still won't be anything like their commitment). Just the small problem of Turkey! maybe an EU military has legs after all......
I personally cannot see the Brexitiers accepting the UK being part of a Euro Military Force, and UK money going towards it. From what I have heard from the Government the UK is going to build up the Royal Navy to ensure it is an even more powerful force in it's own right, with Britain again properly on the World stage.
Time will of course tell, but why would the UK want to be part of anything to do with Europe in terms of it's institutions / enforcement agents? That was, I thought as a Remainer part of what Brexit was all about. Perhaps I'm wrong, but why? :-\
-
No, I think you misread my question. Do you think the Eu will still go ahead and have an EU military (army for want of a better word) without the UK.?
-
No, I think you misread my question. Do you think the Eu will still go ahead and have an EU military (army for want of a better word) without the UK.?
Sorry Varche. To answer that question I would say not. All the time there is a state of uncertainty in Europe, financially as well as politically, I just cannot see it happening. They have had decades to bring about a European force, but instead they have relied, and to some extent so has the UK, on the USA. The Cold War was the focus of that policy. Now they still hope that the US will come to their aid if the Russians or anyone else sends tanks West across the plains of Europe.
Perhaps Trump has brought all European nations around to the reality of the situation now. But with Trump sending mixed messages, who knows what will happen. One thing for sure the Conservative Government in the UK are doing what you should expect; boosting the armed forces with money from somewhere (higher taxes?) :D
-
I believe they will intend to press ahead with the EU army. Its a vital component of the project. They fully intend to have a U.S.E. which will at least be equal to the U.S.A. and render NATO redundant.
This is probably why they deliberately welch on their NATO commitments and try to starve it of funds.
Having a defence force is vital to achieve that aim. Of course its all nonsensical and will collapse around them, but they are deluded beyond reason and drunk with power so cant see that.
Its interesting to note that everyone in this country who is an incurable Europhile, were denying the very possibility of an EU defence force, or even an EU defence policy, as recently as a couple of years ago. Nick Clegg claimed it was not only a lie, but highly dangerous scaremongering.
If LePen gets elected in France in a few weeks time, it will collapse sooner than anyone thought it would.
-
However, after all I have said in this thread, I would make the point that it is not necessarily how big a country's military forces are, but the strength and advancement of their defences. That is an historical fact.
From Alexander the Great defeating the Persions who had a force three their size; to Agincourt and Henry V defeating a far larger French army; the superior Spanish Amarda being wrecked by a small English naval force (with a little luck thrown in) to Nelson defeating the far larger combined French and Spanish fleet at Trafalgar, and to Fighter Command of the RAF halting the advancement of far larger German forces, it was intelligence, technology, skill, knowledge, discipline, training, tactics and great weapons that defeated or at least halted a far larger force. There are many more examples in the history books, but they are examples iof how battles / wars are won.
It is not down to just military might, and all nations should remember that if proposing a war.
PS It is also the strength or weakness of an individual leader that can make all the difference.
-
The problem with European defense forces is that since 1991 they have been progressively hollowed out with an example being UK spending being cut from 4% of GDP to 2% of GDP, with that stupid
prime minister bank manager Major starting the rot. :(
Much equipment which count with our in-theory numbers; are in storage, have been cannibalized for spares to keep a small number serviceable, there are limited supplies or no ammunition and other vital logistics. The fact that our navy will not have any anti-ship missiles from this year with the decommissioning of the last of the Harpoon SSMs, until 2020 in this uncertain world means we are really riding our luck in this and many other areas. Until 2020 the ship's only defense will be the main gun with a range of a few miles. >:( >:( >:(
The fact that since the scrapping of the MOD Procurement Executive, we have had no Government experts, specifying and overseeing equipment specification and procurement, means that equipment project after project have at best had cost overruns and at worst has involved £100m's for them never to reach the point of production or enter service. >:( >:( >:(
-
The problem with European defense forces is that since 1991 they have been progressively hollowed out with an example being UK spending being cut may 4% of GDP to 2% of GDP, with that stupid prime minister bank manager Major starting the rot. :(
Much equipment which count with our in-theory numbers; are in storage, have been cannibalized for spares to keep a small number serviceable, there are limited supplies or no ammunition and other vital logistics. The fact that our navy will not have any anti-ship missiles from this year with the decommissioning of the last of the Harpoon SSMs, until 2020 in this uncertain world means we are really riding our luck in this and many other areas. Until 2020 the ship's only defense will be the main gun with a range of a few miles. >:( >:( >:(
The fact that since the scrapping of the MOD Procurement Executive, we have had no Government experts, specifying and overseeing equipment specification and procurement, means that equipment project after project have at best had cost overruns and at worst has involved £100m's for them never to reach the point of production or enter service. >:( >:( >:(
The cut in spending Rod was down to the "Peace Dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was always going to happen as, since 1945, the British forces had been kept to a level considered suitable to meet any Soviet attack, but then the country needed to consider other priorities. Not really what most of us on the right of politics wanted, but the socialist in me understood why.
What is done is done, and perhaps we are in a situation now as we were in 1937/8. Our military wound down after WW1, with the new force for modern battle, the aeroplane not up to date with mostly obsolete aircraft, and an army small enough to have almost been wiped out in one go later in 1940. Our navy did not have the right ships, with the high command still set on war using battleships, not the aircraft carriers that would be needed. So yes, we have been here before, but I hope that behind the scenes things are happening, and certain officials are being woken up to the reality of life.
I admire, as always the detail of your posts, the last one being no exception Rod, but how do you know how short of shells and missiles we are? Would this information not be top secret, as it is highly sensitive and would aid our enemies? Do you think that actually the true situation is one of "we have enough, but we are restocking? :-\
-
What is done is done, and perhaps we are in a situation now as we were in 1937/8. Our military wound down after WW1, with the new force for modern battle, the aeroplane not up to date with mostly obsolete aircraft, and an army small enough to have almost been wiped out in one go later in 1940. Our navy did not have the right ships, with the high command still set on war using battleships, not the aircraft carriers that would be needed. So yes, we have been here before, but I hope that behind the scenes things are happening, and certain officials are being woken up to the reality of life.
Military equipment is always restocked to fight the last war better. How else can you do this, as you have no clue what clever idea is going to come the next time somebody pulls a trigger?
And my grandfather(a man with 7 years in the Ordnance Corps before Dunkirk) reckoned the best thing that happened to the pre-WW2 British army kit was to dump it in Northern France. I doubt the Navy was any better off.
-
I have to be honest and say that I have not read all of the responses etc on this. I just can't be arsed
My simple question is : Have we got an adequate quantity of available ships. planes, bombs, soldiers, intelligence, expertise etc to deal with some immediate and major threat to our national security ?
My take on this is, No. We do not . . . . right now, at this moment.
Yes or No. Answers on a postcard
-
I believe they will intend to press ahead with the EU army. Its a vital component of the project. They fully intend to have a U.S.E. which will at least be equal to the U.S.A. and render NATO redundant.
This is probably why they deliberately welch on their NATO commitments and try to starve it of funds.
Having a defence force is vital to achieve that aim. Of course its all nonsensical and will collapse around them, but they are deluded beyond reason and drunk with power so cant see that.
Its interesting to note that everyone in this country who is an incurable Europhile, were denying the very possibility of an EU defence force, or even an EU defence policy, as recently as a couple of years ago. Nick Clegg claimed it was not only a lie, but highly dangerous scaremongering.
If LePen gets elected in France in a few weeks time, it will collapse sooner than anyone thought it would.
I agree with you. An EU defence force would send out many signals not the least of which would be unity. Something that isnt evident at the moment. Not much chance of lePen getting in. Like britain france will be a divided country , those in the capital and big cities thinking the world revolves around them and the disillusioned provincial poor
-
What is done is done, and perhaps we are in a situation now as we were in 1937/8. Our military wound down after WW1, with the new force for modern battle, the aeroplane not up to date with mostly obsolete aircraft, and an army small enough to have almost been wiped out in one go later in 1940. Our navy did not have the right ships, with the high command still set on war using battleships, not the aircraft carriers that would be needed. So yes, we have been here before, but I hope that behind the scenes things are happening, and certain officials are being woken up to the reality of life.
Military equipment is always restocked to fight the last war better. How else can you do this, as you have no clue what clever idea is going to come the next time somebody pulls a trigger?
And my grandfather(a man with 7 years in the Ordnance Corps before Dunkirk) reckoned the best thing that happened to the pre-WW2 British army kit was to dump it in Northern France. I doubt the Navy was any better off.
That is all too often very true with British forces, but not with other countries. Why should that be?
But it does not have to be that way, and should not have been with Britain in the past. In terms of the British (the creators of the aircraft carrier) failure to recognise in the 1930's that war at sea would be fought and won with the latest aircraft flying off of the most modern carriers. The Japanese and Americans both recognised this, but the Royal Navy kept on in their dogmatic approach that the battleship was still going to be the key element and their policy with ship building reflected this. In 1939 the Royal Navy had 7 old carriers, some originally converted from being battle cruisers. Of those 5 would be sunk by 1941. I think most know about the Japanese and their policy on using modern carriers and the latest aircraft on them; Pearl Harbour summed it up with the aircraft trumping the US battleships. The US had also recognised the vital importance of the carrier and they won the pacific sea battles to come with them. It is always going to be a point of debate that maybe the US sacrificed some battleships at Pearl but sent their carriers out to sea on a "training exercise" before the attack and thus escape from the battle; very controversial, yes, but it will always be debated by historians.
In terms of the RAF, since 1933 intelligence was available to the British Government that Germany was rapidly rearming, and had in particular started to create a new air force, against the Versailles Treaty of 1919, but they were advancing from having glider clubs, to full scale war planes. Churchill repeatedly warned about this, but the government continued to happily go along with the RAF having obsolete, or not fit for modern purpose, aircraft, and not many of them. It was not until the mid 1930's that the government woke up to the need for modern advance fighters, Hurricanes and Spitfires, and started to order them in 1937/38. But not in large quantities, even though the Luftwaffe had been built up by then to very large numbers.
The point I am making is that it is the British who seem to be reluctant to look far ahead and build a military fit to take on modern forces in the future; they are so often stuck in the past, and ignore the trends that other countries (future enemy) identify with. It is again the case today that our forces have been left behind in terms of new equipment and supply, and the government will have to race to catch up if the worst fears are realised. We live again in a very dangerous world and the government should do all that it can to belatedly re-equip, even if other "priorities" suffer.
-
I believe they will intend to press ahead with the EU army. Its a vital component of the project. They fully intend to have a U.S.E. which will at least be equal to the U.S.A. and render NATO redundant.
This is probably why they deliberately welch on their NATO commitments and try to starve it of funds.
Having a defence force is vital to achieve that aim. Of course its all nonsensical and will collapse around them, but they are deluded beyond reason and drunk with power so cant see that.
Its interesting to note that everyone in this country who is an incurable Europhile, were denying the very possibility of an EU defence force, or even an EU defence policy, as recently as a couple of years ago. Nick Clegg claimed it was not only a lie, but highly dangerous scaremongering.
If LePen gets elected in France in a few weeks time, it will collapse sooner than anyone thought it would.
I don't think or hope that she will. But agree that the EU would be dead in the water if the crazy French bint gets the top job.
-
The French people I know don't believe she will get elected, if that's anything to go by..
-
The French people I know don't believe she will get elected, if that's anything to go by..
Didn't seem to make much difference here or in the States... ::)
-
A report I read yesterday said that a lot of French people are getting pretty pissed off at Macron strutting around Paris like he has already won the election.
Someone should show him a video of Kinnock at his "well Aaaawlright" election rally in the mid 80,s. ;D