4th?
The 1st 3 being China, USA, North Korea? I thought France had more troops than we did.
The amusing thing about all the up-in-arms-Daily-Mail-reader response to this is that people somehow think we're still worthy of that much respect and therefore protection. Yeah, when your empire covers 2/3 of the globe, then maybe a large fighting force might come in handy to keep the natives from becoming restless. But nowadays? Who in their right mind is going to invade Britain? What strategic advantage could we possibly provide that Portugal, Iceland or anywhere else in the world couldn't? Also, we're almost entirely surrounded by Europe, and whoever fancies a pop needs to get through them first. France excepted, obviously.
Cut away, I say. But keep the nukes.
I thought France had more troops than we did.
It would have had a lot more when it had conscription, but that was scrapped a few years ago.
backhander - Member
Spokes, You're entitled to your opinion, I believed it to be a troll attempt. I also believe that servicemen have as much right to remain employed as firemen, policemen etc.
That's true, but we can surely re-deploy them to so something more useful - and which doesn't require several £Bn of high-tech equipment?
On the largest military issue, anybody care to guess who the world's 4 largest air forces are?
I thought about it, Druidh had the plums to say it...
it's spend were talking then not size of forces. A quick google finds many countries with far far more 'troops' than we have.
But nowadays? Who in their right mind is going to invade Britain? What strategic advantage could we possibly provide that Portugal, Iceland or anywhere else in the world couldn't?
No one is going to invade us. We don't have any resources that they want. However, they have resources we may want.
Also, we're almost entirely surrounded by Europe, and whoever fancies a pop needs to get through them first.
So, they'll be five minutes before they get to us?
It would have had a lot more when it had conscription, but that was scrapped a few years ago.
Also the Gendarmerie may also be included in the numbers as they are financed from Frances defence budget.
us, russia, china & north korea? it all depends on what some countries include in their list of military aircraft. brazil or argentina may feature.
However, they have resources we may want.
And that's a valid reason for not cutting expenditure on the armed forces? So when the time comes we can forcibly take what's not ours?
Also the Gendarmerie may also be included in the numbers as they are financed from Frances defence budget.
And the Paris fire brigade (army) and the Marseilles fire brigade (navy)
What mail reader responses? Just because someones opinion doesn't agree with yours, they're daily mail readers?
I don't necessarily equate spend with size/capability, we all know how wasteful our MOD is. IMO, it's boots on the ground which counts which puts us in 29th.
druidh, the troops are often deployed to do useful tasks, far more than they are to do the loud stuff (traditionally). The amount of humanitarian work carried out by the forces is considerable.
No one is going to invade us. We don't have any resources that they want.
Not invade, but being a maritime nation, our merchant navy is certainly a pretty valuable "resource" that needs protecting.
backhander - Memberdruidh, the troops are often deployed to do useful tasks, far more than they are to do the loud stuff (traditionally). The amount of humanitarian work carried out by the forces is considerable.
Exactly.
Just because someones opinion doesn't agree with yours, they're daily mail readers?
That generally seems to be the case, yes. They're not a stereotype for nothing.
So when the time comes we can forcibly take what's not ours?
Tsk tsk ....... they are officially known as "vital US interests".
And under the agreement of the "Special Relationship" it is Britain's responsibility to help the Americans secure and defend them.
That generally seems to be the case, yes.
On some planets, maybe. But not this one.
On some planets, maybe. But not this one.
Oh, so you're well-versed in real-life examples of my opinions, the opinions of those that I disagree with, and the corresponding newspaper readerships? That must be nice for you.
backhander has never struck me as a [i]stereotypical[/i] Daily Mail reader.
You should be less causal with your [i]stereotyping[/i] Flying Ox.
Anyway......
This makes for some interesting reading (perhaps), sorry it's wiki but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
We spend an awfully large amount on defence but aside from a specific type of boat, nuclear subs and tac nukes don't really punch AT our weight let alone above it. I can understand the argument for nukes (but don't necessarily agree with them) but do we really need 225 of the ****ers? How many times over could 225 nukes destroy the planet?
I am most certainly not a mail reader.
And when did I ever accuse backhander of being a Daily Mail reader?
You should be more [i]thorough[/i] when reading posts ernie_lynch.
backhander - Member
Anyway......
This makes for some interesting reading (perhaps), sorry it's wiki but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
We spend an awfully large amount on defence but aside from a specific type of boat, nuclear subs and tac nukes don't really punch AT our weight let alone above it. I can understand the argument for nukes (but don't necessarily agree with them) but do we really need 225 of the ****ers?
So, it's over to what TJ says on the other thread. It's not about whether or not we have a military, it's about how much we want to spend and what we get for it.
it's about how much we want to spend and what we get for it.
And how we want to use it, which will have a large bearing on how it needs to be equipped. Absolutely.
I was interested to hear that SF have got a budget increase.
Edit, having read TJs assesment in the other thread, I don't agree with his opinions of what the military capability should be but I do agree that the expectation should match the budget.
Sorry I really couldn't be bothered to read your post that thoroughly.
So its not backhander who you are accusing of being a Daily Mail reader - just other people who disagree with
you ?
It seems backhander was right all along.
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
What? that troll was rubbish. there was loads of miles left in that. You should be ashamed tfo.
I know, but it's bedtime for me. Up at 5 in the morning 🙁
project - Member
"not a lot of vacancies for unemployed fighter pilots are there"
Don't think they have that much to worry about, sure it's not a transferrable skill but ex-forces people tend to be highly employable and ex-RAF and navy even more so. Poor bloody infantry get a raw deal after service though.