b3ta.com links
This will only be shown once: B3TA uses cookies to enhance your site experience and provide critical functions. Leave the site if you do not consent to this or read our policy.
We have made a book of all the best @fesshole confessions. Buy it now as the ideal gift for that horrible member of your family who only laughs at bad things. BUY THE FESSHOLE BOOK
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 487507 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post You can only cut 20-0dd percent from the forces.
I'd cut a lot more.

The UK is no longer a world power, and should stop pretending to be one. What it is very good at is providing special-forces type support. Were it down to me, I'd cut a large chunk of the Army, and significant bits of the RAF and Navy, on the basis that they're just not necessary for the foreseeable future: the UK won't be fighting any defensive territorial wars for at least half a century, and possibly ever again.

I'd also cut all nuclear weapons, and give up the UN Security Council seat. Canada and Germany seem to do perfectly well without either.

What it can, and ought to, do is concentrate on small, acute operations, and on cyberwarfare.

You don't need many people for that.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)
This is a normal post cyberwarfare is the way forward
no expenses in travel as they all work from their Mum's basement, and all it costs is a monthly World of warcraft subscription per operative
 (I helped save b3ta! The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)
This is a normal post Seriously.
Territorial warfare is basically economic warfare by other means. But it's an inefficient method.

The future will be all about disabling infrastructure without damaging it, and in a manner that can be repaired in a matter of hours rather than decades.

I appear to be turning into Jean Baudrillard...
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:24, Reply)
This is a normal post that's if the chemtrails don't get us all first ;)

(I helped save b3ta! The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:25, Reply)
This is a normal post Fair point.
Still, it's OK. Computers can't breathe.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:37, Reply)
This is a normal post What do you think
the publicity will be like for the presiding government who cuts that level of forces. Can you imagine the red-tops?
 (I helped save b3ta! whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:21, Reply)
This is a normal post Don't care.
:)

EDIT FOR ELABORATION: I don't see any moral reason why government policy should have to have anything to do with popular sentiment. Of course, it'd be nice if the population supported a good policy - but it strikes me as being more important that it's a good policy to begin with.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:42, Reply)
This is a normal post I believe a number of governments have followed this approach...
...and are not always viewed kindly in hindsight - or indeed at the time.

Democracy may be ****ed up, but it's less ****ed up than someone deciding they know best, and then not bothering to convince everyone else.
 (I helped save b3ta! prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:21, Reply)
This is a normal post not going to change anytime soon
as you say, we should reduce the amount of spending on the forces, and some of the big defense projects. I mean the eurofighter, who are we going to use those against that we haven't already got treaties with, or can overpower with our existing ones, as well as the trident replacement.

however, i reckon that we'll continue to have a large ground based army, not only for political muscle and existing agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, and our "special" relationship with the US, but for the future, especially Argentina, now that they've found oil offshore.

As you say, we should be funnelling money not only into cyberwarfare (especially with the number of attacks from China), but also into drones, since that will allow us to reduce costs if we're going to continue in pointless wars.
 (I helped save b3ta! flapmeister knows where your mum lives, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:08, Reply)
This is a normal post I disagree about the army.
You don't need a large army: you need a disproportionately well-trained and equipped one. I take your point about the Malvinas - but there's NATO and the UN to act as policeman there (assuming you think they ought to be British anyway, and assuming you think it'd make any difference at all in the long run) - and the WHO.

With peak oil on the horizon, there'll be a big shift away from petrochemical resources around the world; and when that happens, noone'll be fighting over oil wells anyway. It simply wouldn't be worth it.

Besides: if there ever was a serious threat to the UK's integrity, and assuming you give a toss about that, conventional re-armament'd be quite easy within a few years.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)