[Closed] What would happen if the UK had no armed forces?

airtragic - Member
1. There are 2.
2. They don't have any!
Pedant, a drone from Amazon and some hand grenades then

Appreciate this is probably tongue in cheek, but I'm always amazed/amused by armchair generals who reckon they've got something the military planners on both sides have missed!
These drones; what's their range and payload? How much damage will the grenades do? How quick can it be fixed? Assuming success, what next? What are your chances of success? Given that, do the rewards justify the risk and drawbacks?

Our posture down there is intelligence led and the idea is that we can change that quicker than the other team can change their capability.

1 cruise missile into the only fast jet runway on the islands and you can land all the troops you like.

Not really, it would be concreted over again within hours unless someone dropped a lot of specific runway denial bombs on it. There wouldnt be enough holes - unless you throw dozens at it.

Not to mention tbe Tiffie technically has tough airstrip capability.

Cruise missiles would be used to hit the aircraft hangers, radar, munitions dump and cotrol tower - I suspect that tbe Falklands radar coverage would be able to see such an attack and give enough of a warning to scramble some of the tiffies into the air before they got goosed.2

So, the UK would continue to build Nukes and Weapons for potential invaders ? So Saudi Arabia is a potential hostility ?

Innnneteresting.

As for the Forces that would have nothing to do, the Government could put them to work on resurfacing roads, pipeline fixes, water and electricity infrastructure and telecoms. I kinda like that idea, save all the "rattatattat" firing at cardboard cutouts they do over Kimmeridge .. be lovely and quiet then.

jimdubleyou

there always was - thats what the Falklands war was about. Otherwise they would have been given back to Argentina like we did with Hong Kong -or treated like the Chagos islanders

I think Canada has a relatively small army compared to America and its size due to America having a huge army that keeps it safe.

This is partly true, but...

1. Canada is still required, by virtue of its NATO membership and its close friendship with the US to maintain a certain level of funding and defence procurement.

2. Canada is conscious of the need to defend the Arctic, lest it be used as a highway for hostile countries (read: Russia). This was at least one of the arguments given for Canada's purchase and deployment of an entire fleet of new frigates, and submarines.

3. Canada's forces are small in number, but very effectively-deployed, and able to expand fairly rapidly if necessary.

4. Canada has always been able to meet her commitments globally, including significant contributions to a number of peacekeeping missions, and the war in Afghanistan.

There's shit-loads of oil in the Falklands now.

Not confirmed yet.

Also, it's very expensive to extract, water depth, weather and remoteness mean it would cost more to get it out than it's currently worth.

1 cruise missile into the only fast jet runway on the islands and you can land all the troops you like.

Rachel

Have you seen how much runway a typhoon needs to take off on max reheat.... its not a lot.

I imagine UKIP's fine body of yeomen would keep us safe.

No chance the Queen has lots of armies.

I'm also remembering something about them generally piggy backing of the US military which if the case would mean having to be in line with US wishes. Not sure about that bit tbh!?

The US has a history is getting involved in Central American wars, and a history of disliking anyone that dislikes the US getting a foothold that close to the border. I suspect it would help out Costa Rica, or the incumbent/prospective government of its choosing.

Where does she keep them?

In her sleevsies.

airtragic - MemberAppreciate this is probably tongue in cheek

I was hoping the part where the drones were coming from Amazon was a bit of a hint.

slowoldman - Member
I imagine UKIP's fine body of yeomen would keep us safe.

You will also be sharing a rifle with another like you. 😆

Have you seen how much runway a typhoon needs to take off on max reheat.... its not a lot.

They'll need quite a bit more to get back down safely though.

Most important question. Show me another country with no army we want to be like ? Always good to check how others are doing with that strategy.

Argentina would take Falklands back together with the billions and billions in oil thought be be offshore
Spain would take Gibraltar back
Countries who reply on us for security would turn elsewhere with associated loss of business opportunities
Abuse of fishing rights would escalate
British citizens / companies abroad would be much less safe and business interests would be significantly compromised

Ukranie has a large army but smaller than Russia and it hasn't worked out well for them not being a NATO member
Baltic States are very concerned about Russian "encroachment"

@legend, I've seen stuff like that seriously proposed so I wasn't sure!

Large reserve force and a very proactive approach to ensuring the latter, plus a nuclear deterrent of course!

yeah as long as they have their own car (preferably armoured).

We would have no power or influence in the world. People like to say 'negotiation' is the key, but nobody will negotiate unless you have something to back yourself up. Why do you think we're so desperate to continue with a nuclear deterrent and other nations are so keen to get nukes? Its to increase their power and influence in the world.

It'd be no fun being an irrelevant nation relying on the kindness of other nations to look after us. Why should they? Why should other nations deploy troops to support us? We only have allies in the world due to mutual benefit. and our military protects our interests and provides that stability and security so others can take us seriously. It is of utmost importance for a trading nation.

Forget Spain being our nice friendly allies. Spain would have already invaded Gibraltar militarily if it wasn't for our military. A work colleague of mine is ex-forces and was stationed in Gibraltar when the Falklands kicked off to do just that as part of an increased deployment there to prevent a military invasion whilst our attentions and resources were focussed elsewhere, such was the certainly that Spain would take advantage and invade.

And given that the prime purpose of the government is to guarantee the safety and security of the nation and the people, how could they do that without a serious military force?

Go on, admit it, you have a bunker at the bottom of the garden, don't you? 😆

Hope you have room for Jamba and Ninfan. 😆

Argentina would take Falklands back together with the billions and billions in oil thought be be offshore

Not confirmed yet.

Also, it's very expensive to extract, water depth, weather and remoteness mean it would cost more to get it out than it's currently worth.

Laugh all you want - but without a military - we might not be invaded but we'd end up a vassal state beholden to either an exporter or a corporation - whos sole putpose would be to buy things from them.

See India and Nepal and the various countries involved in Chinas new infrastructure initiative.

TBH - it we want to stay a top 10 economy we're going to have to revert back to massi e state funding for science and technology in an attempt to deindustrialise competitors and invest in keeping access to strategic resources.

What the hippies dont get is that when the empire collapsed, people didnt forgive us - we're still viewed as competitors to be beaten and made to pay for historical wrongs.

Jambalaya, how does the army protect me as a British Citizen abroad? I'm not saying it doesn't, just interested in some facts.

Pimpmaster Jazz - Member

Where does she keep them?

In her sleevsies.

[img] [/img]

Not confirmed yet.

Also, it's very expensive to extract, water depth, weather and remoteness mean it would cost more to get it out than it's currently worth.

Confirmed there is oil - not sure what your definition of shit-load is?
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/2016/04/sea-lion-partners-lift-oil-production-target-offshore-the-falkland-islands.html

Break even price is about $45 a barrel, I'm not sure how much above break even the oil price has to be before people get interested.

... how does the army protect me as a British Citizen abroad?...

Won't they come & get you if the country you're in disintegrates?

So Saudi Arabia is a potential hostility ?

On that note, this makes for interesting reading...

The attack on Yemen is not “Saudi-led” but merely Saudi-fronted. Britain and the United States are concealed behind what Lord Curzon once called an ‘Arab facade’. Philip Hammond claimed Britain aren’t directly involved in the Yemen campaign but hinted they could be in the future. He instead states that Britain will support the assault on Yemen “in every practical way short of engaging in combat”. [9] Below is a catalogue of British involvement, based on reporting so far:

It's quite a long list, [url= https://britishempireexposed.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/britains-role-in-yemen/ ]here's the link if you want to know more
[/url]

I think Canada has a relatively small army compared to America and its size due to America having a huge army that keeps it safe.

This is partly true, but...

1. Canada is still required, by virtue of its NATO membership and its close friendship with the US to maintain a certain level of funding and defence procurement.

2. Canada is conscious of the need to defend the Arctic, lest it be used as a highway for hostile countries (read: Russia). This was at least one of the arguments given for Canada's purchase and deployment of an entire fleet of new frigates, and submarines.

3. Canada's forces are small in number, but very effectively-deployed, and able to expand fairly rapidly if necessary.

4. Canada has always been able to meet her commitments globally, including significant contributions to a number of peacekeeping missions, and the war in Afghanistan.

Canadian and UK armed forces share the same commander in chief...

jimdubleyou - Member

... how does the army protect me as a British Citizen abroad?...

Won't they come & get you if the country you're in disintegrates?

what happens if I'm abroad and the UK disintegrates? I'm so confused

Won't they come & get you if the country you're in disintegrates?

Only if you go missing in the sahara and then it's out sourced

Jambalaya, how does the army protect me as a British Citizen abroad? I'm not saying it doesn't, just interested in some facts.

British forces have been involved in numerous evacuations of British overseas citizens and holidaymakers for a start. When it all goes to shit, who do you think comes in and gets you, the AA?

what happens if I'm abroad and the UK disintegrates? I'm so confused

Just sit quietly where you are, hope nobody notices. 😛

ok so we should spend 45 billion a year in case I get taken hostage in Afghanistan which I shouldn't really go to right now as it is pretty messed up and they might not like Brits because of why?

Howsyourdad

Disarmament is based on the assumption that humans are intrisically rational and good, they aren't.

Tom no I don't . My earlier post covered that I think

Surely though, the more weapons any one particular nation has, the more tensions escalate and the more weapons are required globally to counter the threat...

In order to improve that scenario and reduce the chances of mutual annihilation, surely the 1st step is a steady process of disarmament, ideally by the world's most dominant nations, that others may follow suit.

Then of course we have to consider the environmental impact, which could be another cause of mutual annihilation...

Didnt Guns Germs and Steel pretty much show that the increasing organisation of war, increasing barbarity and more effective weapons actually lead to lower rates of violence - violence became inter-nation instead of inter-family/tribe/village/town.

War has been on the wane for a while now.

If the worlds most powerful nations disarmed, it would leave a vacuum that others would exploit violently.

So all those deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc and the corresponding increase in global arms sales are a keen indicator of peace in our time eh?

I'm sold, best get some shares in BAE to help the bombs for freedom effort.

Maybe we should nuke the ice caps to get them to play fair

War has been on the wane for a while now.

Only because we were at "peak war" 70 years ago. Anything is an improvement from 1931 to 1955.

Hopefully the EU army will invade and us 5th columnists can try may, Johnson and farage and execute them.

Only because we were at "peak war" 70 years ago. Anything is an improvement from 1931 to 1955.

Are we talking about recent history? Because Europe has been at war somewhere in some manner since the year dot.

Are we talking about recent history? Because Europe has been at war somewhere in some manner since the year dot.

Not like the Total War of the 20th Century.

Didnt Guns Germs and Steel pretty much show

The Book by Jared Diamond? hmmmm, interesting choice of source, noted for future reference.

Boys and their toys..

If the UK had no armed forces, where would we send all our unmanageable testosterone fuelled teens? And how would all those worrying adults that never grew out of their childhood action man/sas obsessions get their misanthropic kicks?
Imagine all the sociopathic military fanbois on this thread alone, if they were left to dream up insecure bloodthirsty fantasies of their own design 😯

I'm 100% certain that the greatest threat to security would come from within our own communities.

Why would anyone need to actually invade, [s]weve[/s] theyve sold the family silver anyway.

Not like the Total War of the 20th Century.

I'm intrigued to know your parameters here.

I'm intrigued to know your parameters here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

The Second World War was the quintessential total war of modernity.The level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the battlespace being contested, the scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of non-combatants (and non-combatant property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented and unsurpassed, multicontinental scale

😆

That makes more sense.

😀

^^^Yunki has it nail on the head, the military establishment is an industry like all others, with it's outdated ridiculous traditions and sabre rattling, we are sold the lie that those that serve are heros off on another little foriegn jolly for our benefit, in reality making the world a less safe place to live in, to keep themseves occupied and justify the massive cost of this establishment lie, it's a total sham.

We have Austerity, cuts to social welfare, libaries are closing, people using food banks, but we must have Trident, a system that will never be used, what a croc.. death to imperialism, are you with me brothers!

Nope. History shows that the strong subdjugate and exploit the weak when given an opportunity. The machine gun, IEDs, guerilla warfare and nuclear weapons have been the great equalizer among nations during the 20th century. It is no longer as easy to occupy a country in the long term - given the proliferation of modern weapons - and thus exploit smaller nation states.

Weapons are needed because humans are about half a chromosome away from chimpanzees - we haven't evolved in a way that allows us to put down arms. There will always be those amongst us that are willing to use violence to further their own interests.

You will be the first to be sent to march towards the front line while the machine guns guard your rear.

Thats what the angry old men want you to believe, welcome to brexit britain looking backwards not forward.

Nahhh....it's what thousands of years of abject stupidity evidences.

You think that a species that voted for Brexit is capable of world peace?

Nahhh.

Let me finish with a quote from BSG.

We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devestation and destruction wherever we go

slowoldman - Member

You will be the first to be sent to march towards the front line while the machine guns guard your rear.

Well as long as my rear is being guarded I'm OK.

fergal - Member
Thats what the angry old men want you to believe, welcome to brexit britain looking backwards not forward.

Tom_W1987 - Member
You think that a species that voted for Brexit is capable of world peace?

Weapons are needed because humans are about half a chromosome away from chimpanzees - we haven't evolved in a way that allows us to put down arms. There will always be those amongst us that are willing to use violence to further their own interests.

we are equalled as closely revealed to the Bonobo, who don't use violence to resolve issues and use sex to further interests. Using evolution to explain why we manage to continue to kill each other is lazy thinking.

nickc - Member
we are equalled as closely revealed to the Bonobo, who don't use violence to resolve issues and use sex to further interests. Using evolution to explain why we manage to continue to kill each other is lazy thinking.

we are equalled as closely revealed to the Bonobo, who don't use violence to resolve issues and use sex to further interests. Using evolution to explain why we manage to continue to kill each other is lazy thinking.

It's a common misconception amongst hippies that Bonobos don't use violence to solve issues - they can and do - including organsied violence.

They are just a bit less murdery than their chimp cousins.

Boys and their toys..

If the UK had no armed forces, where would we send all our unmanageable testosterone fuelled teens? And how would all those worrying adults that never grew out of their childhood action man/sas obsessions get their misanthropic kicks?
Imagine all the sociopathic military fanbois on this thread alone, if they were left to dream up insecure bloodthirsty fantasies of their own design

I'm 100% certain that the greatest threat to security would come from within our own communities.

Whatever your, individually entirely valid, view of the Armed Forces, as a serving member of the RN I have to take issue with the idea that the young people who are joining up, do so because they have no other options or are only fit to run at bullets. The competition for a place these days is fierce and the young men and women I see coming through (with very few exceptions) are intelligent, motivated and politically aware.

Whilst there are many valid arguments for a reduction in the size of the Armed Forces it shouldn't be forgotten that open warfare should be viewed as the failure of our many and disparate other activities. From an entirely parochial RN viewpoint, the majority of our day to day focus is on matters such as: protection of trade routes (the vast majority of our imports come via the sea), policing fishing areas, military aid to civilian authorities (disaster relief) and regional engagement. I fully understand that the more kinetic aspects of our business divide opinion along many tangents, I just wanted to highlight some of the often overlooked areas we deal in.

Thanks gunz.. thats a balanced insight and a welcome counterpoint to my slightly tongue in cheek ramblings..
I have no doubt whatsoever that my own young sons will be prime candidates for military recruitment.

Lol tom_w1987

It's cool man, you seek to legitimise your perverted interests and that's ok.
Your morbid fascination makes you feel deep guilt and shame, which puts you in a defensive position..
Your desire to normalise your behaviour and gain credibility for the beliefs that you have developed to cover your shame is a cry for acceptance..

It's ok dude.. there will still be a role for you in an enlightened world.. you will be revered for your historical knowledge, but it is important to learn from the mistakes of history rather than strive to repeat it.

It's going to be ok man..
You're going to be ok

Tom_W1987 - Member
They are just a bit less murdery than their chimp cousins.

I find you amsuing Yunki.

Without an understanding of human evolution, human behaviour, how conflict has shaped and continues to shape our world and how military matters influence geoploitics and economics - you may as well write off 90 percent of human history.

yep, don't disagree with you. Overall they are less violent though. The point that you conveniently ignored was that we aren't predisposed to be violent because of evolution. Evolution has given us the tools to be flexible to negotiate to adapt and to use force. There are cultural norms and institutions that are far more at play in warfare and why we're so ready to use it, than any expressions of Darwinism or biology,

nickc - Member
yep, don't disagree with you. Overall they are less violent though. The point that you conveniently ignored was that we aren't predisposed to be violent because of evolution.

Competition to survive makes us mankind more "gangsta" (some not ...). Hence we evolved faster than the rest in the animal kingdom in order to become the top predators to hunt others for protein ... yummy yummy ... 😛

We are almost certainly evolving away from violence..

We have sought at every junction to develop technologies that distance us from the acts of violence that we commit and we largely fight wars with the ultimate goal of peace.

We are nearly ALL pacifists dealing with a less than perfect situation (except young testosterone fuelled boys.... they ****ing love it 🙂 )

Without an understanding of human evolution, human behaviour, how conflict has shaped and continues to shape our world and how military matters influence geoploitics and economics - you may as well write off 90 percent of human history.

But we could all stop it tomorrow if we wanted to.

yunki - Member
We are almost certainly evolving away from violence..

No, we've not coz we are still the predators.

We just assume we have evolved away but deep down we are just more efficient at what we do ...

... we largely fight [b]wars[/b] in the name of [b]peace[/b].

yep, don't disagree with you. Overall they are less violent though. The point that you conveniently ignored was that we aren't predisposed to be violent because of evolution. Evolution has given us the tools to be flexible to negotiate to adapt and to use force. There are cultural norms and institutions that are far more at play in warfare and why we're so ready to use it, than any expressions of Darwinism or biology,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150811-do-animals-fight-wars

Wilson goes further. He says his critics are happy to accept that the minds of other animals were shaped by evolution, but won't accept that the same is true of humans.

"They want to believe that… what happens in our heads, in our minds, is entirely the result of the culture around us," says Wilson.

He remains convinced that chimps, and therefore humans, have an innate capacity for violence, shaped by an evolutionary history in which violence was sometimes advantageous.

what bit did you miss when I wrote:

Evolution has given us the tools to be flexible to negotiate to adapt and to use force.

The difference, is of course; we are conscious, you simply cannot postulate that the violence of male chimpanzees is direct evidence of our use of violence. This is why I found your quotation of that terrible load of old nonsense Guns Germs and Steel so illustrative.

Just because we have the capacity for brutality doesn't excuse our use of it. Violence in human terms IS the expression of politics/society, it's not "because we are".

Of course we are concious, I just don't think that our thinking is dominated by higher order thought processes as much as you'd like to think that we are....

There is a good amount of evidence that a lot of what you think is conscious beahviour....really isn't.

It's open to debate of course, you'll find evoloutionary biologists and neurologists on either side of the argument.

politics/society

And our biology shapes the society, culture and politics that we live with. As the saying goes, people get the politicians they deserve.