Forum menu
I've long believed that an endless supply of cannon fodder only encourages our governments to embark on more fruitless, pointless, reckless foreign misadventures that ultimately benefit only an elite.
Such as providing humanitarian relief in Napal? Or evacuating the British from South Sudan? Or running Ebola relief centres in Sierra Leone?
It's not like the films.
My left-leaning 19 yr old is at uni and has joined the OTC. Not sure I'd want him to be an infantry officer in an over-deployed army. I'm worried.
My thoughts are why not? It's his life, he'll either love it or hate his stint. When my sons old enough it's up to him whatever he wants to do.
It would break my heart to think he would be anywhere near either end of a gun in military service.
Such as providing humanitarian relief in Napal? Or evacuating the British from South Sudan? Or running Ebola relief centres in Sierra Leone?
Go work for Oxfam, then. Or Save the Children, or MSF, or Greenpeace etc. All the humanitarian work you'd ever want, without being complicit in killing people.
The whole humanitarian military thing really winds me up. It's like defence jobs - a ridiculously expensive way to do something which could be accomplished much more effectively by civilians at a fraction of the cost.
Mentioned earlier up there, 4 year contracts??? As far as I'm aware in the RAF its 12 year engagement, which means nothing really, I signed up on a 9 year, extended to 12, an will get out at 8. As long as you've done a return of service, which for me is 3 years after my last bit of training, you can ask to get out, used to be 6 months notice. But is now 12 months, for my trade anyway, just means I can use the resettlement grants well and take my time CV polishing
Six years of fleet air arm for me got an HND and let go in 2005 had a good off as I was a little broken when I was booted so paid my uni lol. If i could go back now and continue Id have to say no as I know have a good life and job but would tell any youngster to go for it Id seen a lot of the world id never get the chance too again. PS Tif pay is/was horrendously crap but there is a nice HND making it worth while rather than forces qualifications that are not recognised by many.
I thoroughly enjoyed my six years in the infantry, but if my kids wanted to join I would try and steer them towards the RAF, reasons being that in my interactions with them they seemed to generally have a more comfortable and stable life, better accommodation/facilities and general quality of life.
The whole humanitarian military thing really winds me up. It's like defence jobs - a ridiculously expensive way to do something which could be accomplished much more effectively by civilians at a fraction of the cost.
So your proud pacifist ideals would not have allowed you to agree with this:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/tsunami2004.politics1
or this
Engineers do all the non vehicle electric, power. Think civil engineering. REME, automotive mechanics
Ah, right. I was thinking civil engineering (which has zero electrical content, I was one). Makes sense that RE would include electrical engineering though.
I once toyed with joining TA and due to my profession was initially advised I should go for REs. Then a REME officer mentioned to me something about being "on the Rhine within 4 days of the balloon going up" and REs being shot at whilst building bridges and his lot, if fired upon, "get into our trucks and *** off". Sounded like good advice, so I didn't join at all.
I work in telecoms and have interviewed and employed lots of ex-forces, have to say that the RAF Satcomms type people have more transferable skills to telecoms over the Signals. Signals I would suggest have better IT skills, all the people I saw could set up PC's/Servers/LAN's etc.. Whereas the RAF people had better telecoms, remote management type skills.
A trade job within the army could be a very good option. Friend of mine's son maintains Apaches.
If you are worried about his security you could see if he's interested in the RAF. I see @bazz made same point
The military has been subejct to dramatic cuts so kts certainly not as secure a career as before but I would not be automatically against working for Her Majestry
So your proud pacifist ideals would not have allowed you to agree with this
You misunderstand my point. Yes, it's nice that a billion-pound warship helped in disaster relief, but a much, much cheaper ship could have done just as good or better a job.
Put a fraction of the MoD's funding directly into civilian disaster relief, and it'll have a much bigger effect. Something like the US Peace Corps.
You misunderstand my point. Yes, it's nice that a billion-pound warship helped in disaster relief, but a much, much cheaper ship could have done just as good or better a job
Youve misunderstood my point, there wasnt a civilian crewed ship nearby, there are no civilian crewed disaster relief ships cruising the oceans ready to respond, the Navy regularly trains for disaster relief and has been fairly effective in the past at rapid reaction scenarios, a much, much cheaper ship doesnt have gas turbines that can get there as quick, utilising a warship as an emergency response vessel is tax payers money well spent..........and quite nice.
But that's just justification after the fact - "we've got these billion-pound warships, isn't it nice we can use them to rescue people?"
Far better not to have built them in the first place, and use the money for something much more socially responsible. Or, not bother replacing them, and spend the billions earmarked for their replacements to do something better.
Far better not to have built them in the first place, and use the money for something much more socially responsible. Or, not bother replacing them, and spend the billions earmarked for their replacements to do something better.
I can't think of anything more socially responsible that defending your populace, it is the first and most important obligation of any government.
The opportunities are there for everyone and they are Tri service. You'd be surprised how many don't avail themselves of the opportunities on offer. I'd suggest those that haven't just didn't apply. Not sure when your bomber crews left?
Within the last 7 years. That said bomber boats are a whole different world to the rest of the services.
Didn't mean to imply you were talking out your hole if that's what you thought, just some of the timeframes being employed are a little dated.
I can't think of anything more socially responsible that defending your populace, it is the first and most important obligation of any government.
You can do that without trying to project power around the world. Have our wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc made us safer? Probably the opposite.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
I would not be very happy, largely because of how our armed forces are often-misused by our government. I am also a pacifist so probably wouldn't be keen from that perspective either.
I understand many people have had a positive experience of it and can't argue with that.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
We as a nation do seem to get into an awful lot of wars, don't we?
It would break my heart to think he would be anywhere near either end of a gun in military service.
Me too.
It's either that, you ignore countries who ask for your help, are invaded or you are marginalised.
Well said Ben. Put the money into other things, including training, youth opportunities and overseas aid and all the good things could be achieved and a wider range of people helped in greater numbers.
I desperately wanted to join the infantry straight from school. My parents very carefully made exactly zero fuss about the idea, steadfastly did not disapprove in the slightest.
I never hit the minimum weight required and moved on to other things.
🙂
23 years service for me. Infantry initially but I transferred to a Corps when my knees started to suffer.
I had the opportunity to join a trade from the begining after good exam results, but simply wanted to be a soldier first and foremost and remain proud I wore my local county regiments cap badge, although it has now long since ceased to exist due to defence cuts. There's a camaraderie in teeth arms that doesnt exist in other branches of the military (imo) and an infantry regiment is like a family.
I've seen some amazing places and had opportunites I wouldn't have had in a civillian job. That said, for my own son i'm in total agreement with Bazz. The RAF are much better looked after and the organisation as a whole is far better managed than the Army. Sort of in the same way as I wouldnt want my son riding motorbikes, but i've had them since I was a teen.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with aspiring for a career in the military. I joined becasue I wanted to make a difference and have helped farmers during the foot and mouth crisis, covered the firefighters strikes, helped with the London Olympics, flood relief, combated smugglers in the far east and much more.
Unfortunately two unpopular wars overseen by two unpopular governments have skewed some peoples views of the military.
I'd suggest looking at the Navy as well.
I'm not in the forces, but work with the Navy everyday (we build stuff for Navy ships)
The Navy are suffering a bit with recruiting at the moment - I think your son could do well if he has a bit of drive/motivation.
Unfortunately two unpopular wars overseen by two unpopular governments have skewed some peoples views of the military.
Orcmaybe some peoplevjust dont like war.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
Yeh, 'cos the whole Suez thing was great wasn't it..................
Don't forget the effect that combat could have on your son's mental health. I've got a friend who has PTSD after serving in Afghanistan in the RAF and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Make sure that he understands the risks as well as the potential benefits.
Ex Forces too and would do it all again at the drop of a hat.
There is a huge spectrum of roles in the forces and suggest that your son looks into all three branches. The Army is a hard life compared to the RAF but the Navy also tough in that you are months away at a time on ship routine which is demanding and not for everyone.
Go work for Oxfam, then. Or Save the Children, or MSF, or Greenpeace etc. All the humanitarian work you'd ever want, without being complicit in killing people.
As Cheekyboy pointed out, the Armed Forces have countless capabilities which simply aren't available in civilian worlds. Similar argument to Cheekyboy, but from an RAF perspective:
The charities above don't have access to large Air Transport aircraft, so where do they go when they need some? The RAF maintains the capability to get to otherwise inaccessible parts of the world, and thus to reach people who simply can't be reached by MSF in their Landrovers. They can also respond within hours to incidents thousands of miles away; that's the reason why, the day after the Nepal earthquake, i was in the middle east preparing to fly aircraft loads of DfID aid directly into Kathmandu. As much as you might like to disagree, there is simply no one else who can maintain these capabilities.
Closer to home, if you are involved in an aircraft crash anywhere in UK airspace (any aircraft, Military or Civil), it'll be a joint RAF / RN unit which comes out to sort you out. Name any UK aircraft crash in the last few decades, and it's the Forces who came to the rescue. Baddies put a bomb in a vehicle, and it's the Forces who come to the rescue. G4S fail to meet their commitments to Olympic Security, and it's the Forces who come to the rescue.
I understand your sentiment, and i think it would be wonderful to live in a world where we didn't need Armed Forces. This world isn't that, and to suggest otherwise is dangerously naïve.
I'm not arguing we don't need armed forces, I'm arguing we need much smaller armed forces, and to invest the difference in other things - like a civilian heavy airlift capability, for instance.
You're still using the "we've got it, so we may as well use it" argument. My argument is the humanitarian stuff the military does is great, and we should definitely keep doing all that stuff, but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
we should definitely keep doing all that stuff, but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
That may be true. Using the Military to do anything is expensive.
However, to be an effective military force, the armed forces need to be of a certain minimum size and by the very nature of would they are really for, they should have plenty of spare capacity when not involved in warfare.
The argument is all about what are they for?
Rightly or wrongly, this is what the current government think they are for:
Our vision is for a secure and prosperous United Kingdom, [b]with global reach and influence.[/b] Everything we do in the UK and around the world is driven by our determination to protect our people and our values, and ensure that our country prospers.
You can't do that with a couple of companies of soldiers and a few patrol boats.
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf ]National Security Strategy[/url]
bencooper - Member
I'm not arguing we don't need armed forces, I'm arguing we need much smaller armed forces, and to invest the difference in other things - like a civilian heavy airlift capability, for instance.
On the other hand I think we need a decent sized military, ie more boots on the ground, but with more emphasis on actual defence instead of expensive toys like Trident and Aircraft Carriers which are really imperial tools and no longer necessary.
There should also be a commitment to properly looking after our military both during and after service.
The military is an honourable profession, which unfortunately is frequently dishonourably used by our politicians.
but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
Who would you use to safeguard your medical professionals
I get the impression that there's a lot of variation in experience depending on the culture of the unit you end up in, and what issues you (or others) take into the army with you.
Two very bad examples I'm aware of both relate to guys who joined up mid to late 90s, so things may be somewhat different.
The older brother of a school friend joined up aged 18 and was bullied horrendously from day one by a group of other recruits. He ended up killing himself with his own rifle. His brother ended up a bit messed up as a result, not only of the suicide, but of the protracted Court process which followed. Ultimately, this found in the Army's favour, i.e. that they hadn't failed in any duty of care.
The other instance relates to a friend of mine who joined up at 18 and served for about 5 years. He was a bit of a tearaway beforehand - liked a drink, got in a few fights, bit of a shagger, but fundamentally a likelable, clever, funny guy. He ended up serving in the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, and I think it was just a very toxic environment for him, i.e. a bit of a drinking/fighting/shagging culture that brought out the worst in him. When he came out, he was basically an alcoholic, had a horrendous attitude to women, and appeared totally traumatised. He was very hypervigilant, not as a result of combat (he was never in it) but as a result of all the fights he'd witnessed/been involved in. He came out with staggeringly racist attitudes too, which appeared from his description to be part of the culture of that unit too.
N.B. I know of others who've had much better experiences than the above, some still ongoing. Just musing on what would be foremost in my mind if I had a child intent on joining up.
You're still using the "we've got it, so we may as well use it" argument. My argument is the humanitarian stuff the military does is great, and we should definitely keep doing all that stuff, but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
Personally, i don't believe so. If you employ a few thousand civilians, equip them with aircraft, aircrews, ships, engineers, medical personnel, logistics infrastructure, their own training system, force protection and everything else you need to sustain them, then it'll start looking a lot like a military force. It will be very expensive, and they'll spend the vast majority of their time training, or standing by to respond.
I respect your position, but i don't think it's realistic.
oldgit - MemberHe had his job less than a year. He was installing LED screens, sound systems and temporary wifi at clubs, exhibitions, indoor and outdoor concerts.
Going right back to page 1, this is usually a pretty in demand skillset, especially if he's doing more than just rigging someone else's kit. Is it something he's considered sticking with or is this a chance to also break from a path he wasn't keen on?
(my bro is self-employed, doing conference av and hires, it's hard graft and can be pretty seasonal but it's worked really well for him.)
The military is an honourable profession, which unfortunately is frequently dishonourably used by our politicians.
True.
I was an Infantry officer and was staggered by the institutional snobbery, racism and sexism. I think that this is fairly well constrained to the teeth arms though, rather than the support arms, where your technical competence, rather than which school you went to matters.
This may have changed in the last few years, but I would want to know how much it had changed before either of my boys went anywhere near the Army (not for a while yet).
To the OP, your lads qualifications and intelligence will be tested pretty thoroughly if he makes enquiries, which will allow an assessment to be made as to whether he is suitable for officer training, or which branch of the Army he may be suitable for. Ideally he can get straight in to a more technical corps, which should allow him to get some amazing training and qualifications. If not though, and he is able to gain the additional qualifications in order to get into the REME, RE, RSignals (or equivalent in the RN/RAF), then I'd recommend going away and getting those qualifications if they are within his grasp. Inter-corps/arms transfers are pretty rare and exceptional.
Ahem...not very often an officer will say something worthwhile! But the above post is in my humble opinion good advice!
Yes I have two sons and also endured 8 years I the Infantry!
Ex vehicle electrician then electronics technician in the reme. Served 9 years, now an civvie atco so work with the RAF a lot!
I wouldn't be here now if it wasn't for the quals I got through the army.
I loved it as I got a sack full of adventure training quals but I was itching to try something new.
Most of my mates are now artificers and they're chat is that reme is going down the pan moral wise. Most are itching to leave and ones even going commission in the AGC to get away from it.
I'd look more to the RAF or navy for technical trades these days but I've been out of the loop for 8 years now.
I know quite a few ex-service people and we've employed a few at work - they all seem very switched on and capable, so I'd have no problem with my offspring joining (not that we have any yet).
Oh the bombs to ploughshares argument - like the millions they pump into DFID that is spent on overseas "consultancies" who advise foreign governments on getting direct overseas investments of which a significant proportion goes directly into the pockets of corrupt government officials all for the sake of an arbitrary 3% target.
Expensive defence jobs? UK defence employers who pay high levels of corporation tax and whose workers pay UK income tax or overseas domiciled corporates like Starbucks who pay a pittance in corporation tax, pay UK workers minimum wage subsidised by taxpayer-funded benefits.
In my ideological youth I saw it differently, and certainly my views of the Services - but having worked closely with the military in many countries they have higher moral standards than those in others like finance, oil and gas...