Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Does your country require an armed force?

Does your country require an armed force?


  • Total voters
    54
sleaterkinney said:
But then the yanks would just have to come in again to beat them for ya! :p ;)

but they have biological weapons in the form of smelly cheeses that would fall on the unprepared yanks who would run away at the thought! and new york would be nuked.
 
guinnessdrinker said:
but they have biological weapons in the form of smelly cheeses that would fall on the unprepared yanks who would run away at the thought! and new york would be nuked.
Sounds like a plan, let's go
 
The auld alliance didnt work at waterloo why would it work now ?.There are some people who I am glad are walking the streets of iraq and not England .
Imho its a shame we cant send them to another planet yet :) .
 
dylanredefined said:
The auld alliance didnt work at waterloo why would it work now ?.There are some people who I am glad are walking the streets of iraq and not England .
Imho its a shame we cant send them to another planet yet :) .

The same can be said for any group of UK citizens. Members of the Armed Forces are a reflection of society not an ailment that grew out of it. Some of the most decent people I have met have been military, also some of the worst. I would also send every drug dealer and child abuser to your other planet.
 
mmmSkyscraper said:
Why would you shoot them? Will you shoot all the Northern Irelanders when we hand the province back to Ireland?

So what would you do with them then. And I don think we can hand the province back to Ireland, its not ours to hand back for starters.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
None, just as hating the french for thier silly accents is no good reason.

but you implied you did hate them...so you hate them for no good reason?

you are a pleasant fella aren't you...
 
oh I've got one of them squire don't you worry....

I reckon you ought to trade yours in...Wheel Tappers and Shunters disappeared from our screens a long time ago
 
Sigmund Fraud said:
We spend an awful lot of money on defence considering our main enemy is proficient at taking down sky scrapers with nothing more than stanley knives.


It wasnt our main nemy before 9/11 and may well not be our main enemy in less than 10yrs time so no point in getting rid of them.
 
mauvais mangue said:
I'm from a town where the main employment is in the development of military aircraft. There they build the Eurofighter. Often criticism is levelled at it for being an overdue 1980s relic and that it was designed to fight the Russians in the Cold War, a threat that no longer exists.

I've had lengthy discussions with a number of people about this, and I've come to disagree with that assessment. If you look at the British military hardware alone, it was all developed a very long time ago. The Eurofighter is to eventually replace the Tornado, still in service today, which I believe was first flown in the 1960s. The same typically applies across the board.

The point of all this bizarre rambling is that you do not come by the military technology you need to successfully cope in a crisis in an instant. Since you can't predict the future, you have to maintain at least some readiness at all times, even decades in advance. You can't build a modern army just like that.


I would like to think that Western European countries face little threat today, and so any defensive measures will not be called upon. However the same cannot be said for other areas of the world. If we considered the issue purely on a local scale, and had little or no military to counter the little or no local danger, then we would have no capacity to stop crises elsewhere, such as the Balkans.

I am not for one moment arguing that we have successfully fulfilled that role - you need only look at Srebrenica and the abysmal lack of action in a number of African situations such as Sudan to see that - but that global military responses are necessary regardless of the domestic situation and it is, I believe, a Western duty to do so.


Such is the manner of defence procurement. Every single peice of millitary hardware is outdated by the time it comes into service. Thats why the defence industry is always working on the next generation of hardware.

Eurofighter is already superceeded by the JSF and the F-22 but it still will be one of the best plkanes available. Put that with the AH64-D (apache), the Challenger (the best tank in the world), the AS90 mobile Artillery, the merlin helicopter, and the MRLS system and we have one of the best armed services in the world. The only weak link is the SA-80(A2) :eek:
 
sleaterkinney said:
Because hitler wanted to destroy Britians Air Force, there were no plans for an invasion however.

ahh, right. Thanks for the history lesson.

Why did he want the RAF wiped out? Just to piss us off or could it be to gain air superiority over the south east of england prior to an amphibious and airborne landing? :rolleyes:
 
Ninjaboy said:
if anyone wanted to invade england theyd have to go through the european union first

we should just have a EU defence force, then the likes of blair/bush dont have control imo

EU=cunts but too rich to become the 51st state

Hand over control to the greedy cunts in europe?

Thats a great idea. They cant run a faux parliment without massive corruption and in-efficiency, so i cant see them running an EU army very effectively.
 
Pingu said:
nope the bennies are quite definate about that.

I think more of them would vote to have their eyes plucked out by penguins than become an argentinian dependency.

the US position over the falklands conflict was a difficult one seeing as they were constantly fustrated by the juntas vacillating over their decisions and changing their mind at the last minute.


The Argies even tried to buy the islanders. They offered them £100000 to take argentinian nationality and vote for the islands to be retaken as part of argentina.

Guess how many people said yes....

0 :D
 
Dr_Evil said:
Such is the manner of defence procurement. Every single peice of millitary hardware is outdated by the time it comes into service. Thats why the defence industry is always working on the next generation of hardware.

Eurofighter is already superceeded by the JSF and the F-22 but it still will be one of the best plkanes available. Put that with the AH64-D (apache), the Challenger (the best tank in the world), the AS90 mobile Artillery, the merlin helicopter, and the MRLS system and we have one of the best armed services in the world. The only weak link is the SA-80(A2) :eek:

Agree there, and off course no weapons system is as is and it is continually evolving. The jets may be old but they get new hardware and the abilty to carry better and more accurate weapons. Gone are the days of the JP233....
 
Dodicus said:
Agree there, and off course no weapons system is as is and it is continually evolving. The jets may be old but they get new hardware and the abilty to carry better and more accurate weapons. Gone are the days of the JP233....


Pefect example is the B52! :eek: :eek: :eek:

It was brought out in the late 50s and was scheduled to be withdrawn from service in the 80's but was recyled to carry the cruise missiles and as such has had it's lifespan extended to the 2020's! :eek:

Thats a bloody old plane!
 
Dr_Evil said:
ahh, right. Thanks for the history lesson.

Why did he want the RAF wiped out? Just to piss us off or could it be to gain air superiority over the south east of england prior to an amphibious and airborne landing? :rolleyes:
I stand corrected, I thought this was Hitler's opinion of the british:

"(Hitler spoke) with great admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world." Blumentritt
 
You don't get to party with the other kid's if you ain't got the toys, and the more and bigger toys you've got, the more parties you get invited to.
 
Back
Top Bottom