US Politics

silvertop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eaglesdare said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
silvertop said:
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.
Click to expand...
Forces are too small and what there is has been heavily diluted in capability due to the changing nature of war, unfortunately.
 
ASCPFC said:
Forces are too small and what there is has been heavily diluted in capability due to the changing nature of war, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
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.
 
silvertop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

www.gbnews.com

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 www.gbnews.com

www.independent.co.uk

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 www.independent.co.uk
 
eaglesdare said:
How then do you feel about our own General Sir Gwyn Jenkins saying that the navy is not ready?

www.gbnews.com

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 www.gbnews.com

www.independent.co.uk

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 www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
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.
 
eaglesdare said:
How then do you feel about our own General Sir Gwyn Jenkins saying that the navy is not ready?

www.gbnews.com

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 www.gbnews.com

www.independent.co.uk

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 www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
See above.
 
ASCPFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
silvertop said:
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?
Click to expand...
www.thetimes.com

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 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.
 
Trump talks peace all while sending another aircraft carrier into the region and having around twenty thousand troops ready to deploy.

All the peace talk could be purely for the markets.

Despite Trump's bravado, If he leaves the strait to be controlled by Iran then the oil price and other common item food products in America will be too high come the mid terms for the GOP to be confident.

If he loses both houses then while the Democrats are very unlikely to force him from office, they could most definitely effectively wrap his administration up in knots both on spending blocks and legal challenges.

I genuinely think Trump is still weighing up his options and playing for time.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Trump talks peace all while sending another aircraft carrier into the region and having around twenty thousand troops ready to deploy.

All the peace talk could be purely for the markets.

Despite Trump's bravado, If he leaves the strait to be controlled by Iran then the oil price and other common item food products in America will be too high come the mid terms for the GOP to be confident.

If he loses both houses then while the Democrats are very unlikely to force him from office, they could most definitely effectively wrap his administration up in knots both on spending blocks and legal challenges.

I genuinely think Trump is still weighing up his options and playing for time.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a near certainty that those troops will be used in some role. What their target will be is less clear. Trump’s statements are just his usual statements. Sending the oil prices and stock markets up and down, so those in the know can profit. He knows the Republicans are going to lose the midterms and he will become a lame duck, but no longer cares.

So I am very pessimistic in the short to medium term. The death toll in the Middle East will continue to grow and will increasingly include American citizens. When that ends in some way Iran will continue to control the Straight of Hormuz for the foreseeable future and extract levies on every shipment they allow through, thus making them the dominant power in the region.

The worldwide impact cannot be underestimated. This is a major crisis caused by a severe energy shortage. The only real winner being Russia, with Ukraine’s future looking bleak.

Great job by Trump.
 
kevlee said:
Trump must be in a bad mood today. Sacked the attorney general Bondi and now Hekseth has sacked the Army chief of staff!
Must be like an episode of the apprentice US style - ‘you’re an awful person - your fired’
Click to expand...
That makes 6 out of 8 Joint Chiefs of Staff that of left since Donald Trump returned to the White House.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I think it’s a near certainty that those troops will be used in some role. What their target will be is less clear. Trump’s statements are just his usual statements. Sending the oil prices and stock markets up and down, so those in the know can profit. He knows the Republicans are going to lose the midterms and he will become a lame duck, but no longer cares.

So I am very pessimistic in the short to medium term. The death toll in the Middle East will continue to grow and will increasingly include American citizens. When that ends in some way Iran will continue to control the Straight of Hormuz for the foreseeable future and extract levies on every shipment they allow through, thus making them the dominant power in the region.

The worldwide impact cannot be underestimated. This is a major crisis caused by a severe energy shortage. The only real winner being Russia, with Ukraine’s future looking bleak.

Great job by Trump.
Click to expand...
Projectiles are being fired into the Strait from mobile units on the Iran coast that are proving difficult to spot. And once they are spotted... They're gone.

I think I can guess where they will place their troops.

I am not sure Iran with it's half million sized army will tolerate US boots on their soil.
 
silvertop said:
Projectiles are being fired into the Strait from mobile units on the Iran coast that are proving difficult to spot. And once they are spotted... They're gone.

I think I can guess where they will place their troops.

I am not sure Iran with it's half million sized army will tolerate US boots on their soil.
Click to expand...

I reserve the right to be proven wrong......but I suspect drones and ballistic missiles would be a far larger concern.

I suspect that nothing like that number would come out to fight for the regime. I reckon fifty thousand of the diehards might.....Most would stay concealed in the cities.

The US black hawk's would make mincemeat of most brave enough to form in large groups entering into the combat zone. Potentially the US have twenty thousand out there for boots on the ground that they could use.....though it will probably be half or less than that with as support.

However the operation would take significant losses due to missiles and would be madness unless they have knocked out that capacity.

I suspect that this is the plan.....but drones are far easily to make and operate and it would be a constant flow of bodybags as the Ukraine war has shown.

The war was a very bad idea.....frankly in my view, if you are going to have a war with Iran, the only boots on the ground in Iran should be Israeli ones or Saudi.
 
Stirlingsays said:
I reserve the right to be proven wrong......but I suspect drones and ballistic missiles would be a far larger concern.

I suspect that nothing like that number would come out to fight for the regime. I reckon fifty thousand of the diehards might.....Most would stay concealed in the cities.

The US black hawk's would make mincemeat of most brave enough to form in large groups entering into the combat zone. Potentially the US have twenty thousand out there for boots on the ground that they could use.....though it will probably be half or less than that with as support.

However the operation would take significant losses due to missiles and would be madness unless they have knocked out that capacity.

I suspect that this is the plan.....but drones are far easily to make and operate and it would be a constant flow of bodybags as the Ukraine war has shown.

The war was a very bad idea.....frankly in my view, if you are going to have a war with Iran, the only boots on the ground in Iran should be Israeli ones or Saudi.
Click to expand...
It's hope is a massive mutiny probably exhibited by stay home than active pusch. But...

50 thousand armed die hards killing for Allah and home and largely hidden behind human shields...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top