US Politics

[eaglesdare]

Not sure that is right, given his attack on our military.

Starmer is behaving precisely as all other world leaders are: You made the mess; you and Israel can clear it up. Why should we be singled out?

Also, I do not believe that he is remotely bothered by Iran's deplorable human rights record. If that were his motivation, he would be taking a very close look at a lot of other countries who rank even lower than Iran.

Who does the military takes orders from? The government? Starmer? Farage?

The government chose to drag its feet, block initial use of UK bases for offensive strikes against Iran, and then only offer limited "defensive" help once Iranian missiles started flying toward British interests.

I don't think the UK has just been singled out. Spain and france have also felt his ire. Spain for the not allowing access to bases and France for blocking supplies to Israel.

Maybe you are right about Trump's motivations. I am sure all will be revealed. But it still does not hide the human rights violations. Iran has been on his radar way before he decided to run for president.

 

[silvertop]

Who does the military takes orders from? The government? Starmer? Farage?

The government chose to drag its feet, block initial use of UK bases for offensive strikes against Iran, and then only offer limited "defensive" help once Iranian missiles started flying toward British interests.

I don't think the UK has just been singled out. Spain and france have also felt his ire. Spain for the not allowing access to bases and France for blocking supplies to Israel.

Maybe you are right about Trump's motivations. I am sure all will be revealed. But it still does not hide the human rights violations. Iran has been on his radar way before he decided to run for president.

Then you criticise the person or the party you do not attack the military.

Of course the Gerald Ford carriers are bigger and stronger but the Queen Elizabeth carriers - once they get passed their teething issues and have their full compliment of planes and escorts - are not toys.

Moreover the British military has long addressed issues of resources by being bloody good with what it has. In WW2 the US had all the goodies; but commonwealth troops were far more effective in terms of kills and prisoners per shell/man/bullet etc. Thus, I suspect our carriers will punch well above their weight.

I am proud of my country and it's military. Trump and his cronies can do one.

 

[ASCPFC]

Then you criticise the person or the party you do not attack the military.

Of course the Gerald Ford carriers are bigger and stronger but the Queen Elizabeth carriers - once they get passed their teething issues and have their full compliment of planes - they are not toys.

Moreover the British military has long addressed issues of resources by being bloody good with what it has. In WW2 the US had all the goodies; I but commonwealth troops were far more effective in terms of kills and prisoners per shell/man/bullet etc.

I am proud of my country and it's military. Trump and his cronies can do one.

Forces are too small and what there is has been heavily diluted in capability due to the changing nature of war, unfortunately.

 

[silvertop]

Forces are too small and what there is has been heavily diluted in capability due to the changing nature of war, unfortunately.

Denuded more than diluted but I take your point.

Our military is currently in transition and right now would struggle to effectively prosecute a war.

But it will adapt to changing needs... and more resources are being diverted... and senior officers will continue to bleat about under resources in order to get even more.

The point is by all means trash the Chinese. They expect it. But it is not for our big ally to gleefully proclaim to the world that our military is rubbish.

 

[eaglesdare]

Then you criticise the person or the party you do not attack the military.

Of course the Gerald Ford carriers are bigger and stronger but the Queen Elizabeth carriers - once they get passed their teething issues and have their full compliment of planes and escorts - are not toys.

Moreover the British military has long addressed issues of resources by being bloody good with what it has. In WW2 the US had all the goodies; but commonwealth troops were far more effective in terms of kills and prisoners per shell/man/bullet etc. Thus, I suspect our carriers will punch well above their weight.

I am proud of my country and it's military. Trump and his cronies can do one.

How then do you feel about our own General Sir Gwyn Jenkins saying that the navy is not ready?

Royal Navy is NOT ready for war, First Sea Lord admits - while US mocks British forces

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'enormous complacency' in addressing the state of the Armed Forces

www.gbnews.com

First sea lord admits Royal Navy is not ready for war

General Sir Gwyn Jenkins says Royal Navy will not be war-ready until the end of this decade

www.independent.co.uk

 

[ASCPFC]

How then do you feel about our own General Sir Gwyn Jenkins saying that the navy is not ready?

Royal Navy is NOT ready for war, First Sea Lord admits - while US mocks British forces

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'enormous complacency' in addressing the state of the Armed Forces

www.gbnews.com

First sea lord admits Royal Navy is not ready for war

General Sir Gwyn Jenkins says Royal Navy will not be war-ready until the end of this decade

www.independent.co.uk

The issue has always been that if you build aircraft carriers then you need a destroyer screen for those carriers. That's Britain's entire capability taken up. Need to build several more destroyers and frigates. Still need to also man them.
Also there is a major problem with submarines and systems but I don't want to say too much.
Logistics ships are also problematic currently.
Several problems.
The aircraft carriers also needed to be nuclear.
Of the armed forces, the RAF aren't too bad.

 

[silvertop]

How then do you feel about our own General Sir Gwyn Jenkins saying that the navy is not ready?

Royal Navy is NOT ready for war, First Sea Lord admits - while US mocks British forces

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'enormous complacency' in addressing the state of the Armed Forces

www.gbnews.com

First sea lord admits Royal Navy is not ready for war

General Sir Gwyn Jenkins says Royal Navy will not be war-ready until the end of this decade

www.independent.co.uk

See above.

 

[silvertop]

The issue has always been that if you build aircraft carriers then you need a destroyer screen for those carriers. That's Britain's entire capability taken up. Need to build several more destroyers and frigates. Still need to also man them.
Also there is a major problem with submarines and systems but I don't want to say too much.
Logistics ships are also problematic currently.
Several problems.
The aircraft carriers also needed to be nuclear.
Of the armed forces, the RAF aren't too bad.

As are our SF, apparently.

Subs, hmm. I am not sure there is any part of our military more protected than them. My S-i-L worked subs in the MoD and was only allowed to say she worked subs.

Our military has always been underfunded until we are actually at war. WW2 we started with bi-planes and ended with jet aircraft, radar, hedgehog mines and proximity fuses. We always find the money when we HAVE to.

Q: can our carriers be converted to nuclear?

 

[ASCPFC]

As are our SF, apparently.

Subs, hmm. I am not sure there is any part of our military more protected than them. My S-i-L worked subs in the MoD and was only allowed to say she worked subs.

Our military has always been underfunded until we are actually at war. WW2 we started with bi-planes and ended with jet aircraft, radar, hedgehog mines and proximity fuses. We always find the money when we HAVE to.

Q: can our carriers be converted to nuclear?

Royal Navy misses £500m of submarine maintenance

Infrastructure bottlenecks have left more than 15 per cent of scheduled work undone since 2020, despite mounting pressures on defence spending

www.thetimes.com

I'd say it's reasonable to suggest without divesting any secrets that the UK carriers are not specifically designed to be converted to nuclear and would probably need major rebuilds to do so.