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

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.