On the bunker drill, the former minister said that all secretaries of state - not just defence - have a desk and a bed ready for them in a bunker.
This is not so they are able to survive a nuclear attack “for re-populating our islands after the apocalypse” but “because their departments are as integral to the war effort as the MoD”.
Because it’s precisely these politicians who should be repopulating after a potential apocalypse /s
Alternate title: “Former military guy can only think about conflict and makes war mongering comments to scare politicians and population”
If you desire peace, prepare for war.
The US has recently proven itself an unreliable ally and can no longer be depended upon. I don’t want any armed conflict but now is the time to at least make sure you have the plans and resources in place to prepare for future conflicts. Hopefully they will not eventuate but it seems unwise to bet too much on that.
If you desire peace, prepare for war.
This is propaganda twisted logic at its finest. If you want peace you prepare peace you do not fucking prepare war!
What do you do when you have prepared for nothing but peace and someone else brings war? That’s what the idiom means: you don’t prepare for war because you want it, you prepare for war because war literally never happens when you would like except when you are the one invading. If you want peace, you have to be prepared to defend yourself against people who do not desire or understand peace.
The UK is one of the countries in the world with the biggest military spending. Don’t feed up on propaganda, billions on billions already get spend every year on war by pretty much every nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
“Preparing for peace” means spending your money on useful and good things for humanity that aren’t war or police related. If someone brings war to you people will defend themself like they have always done. People from a country that doesn’t steal their money and treat them like pawns will actually defend themself better
It’s not a dichotomy. Of course you’re right we should be providing for people and making sure we have a healthy society. In reality part of that is having sufficient defence. Being prepared for war doesn’t necessarily mean increasing spending either, it could be spending more efficiently, make sure you’re spending on the right things or even strengthening cooperation with allied nations.
I’m not sure what you mean by people defending themselves as they have always done. Maybe you can elaborate more on that, are you saying we should rely on drafting civilians if attacked and therefore spend less to maintain a professional armed forces?
It’s peasants like you and me that “defend” the country. A soldier is a peasant with a uniform. People can defend themself even without an uniform or a politician giving them orders
I think you’ve lost me here. A soldier has access to equipment, extensive training, support from other soldiers, streamlined communications between themselves and other military functions such as artillery, air support, armour and most importantly a massive network of logistics to ensure they can operate effectively. Not to mention guidance from commanders with access to extremely deep and complex intelligence networks. I’m sure I’m missing a bunch of stuff here as I’m far from an expert but you get the point.
Of course things go wrong and it doesn’t always work perfectly but up against a competent armed forces a ragtag bunch of individuals really doesn’t stand a chance. I personally don’t think it’s a credible option for defending your country.
but up against a competent armed forces a ragtag bunch of individuals really doesn’t stand a chance.
As long as they are in the right the “ragtags” will always win. A country is a bunch of invisible lines on the map, no gear or order will ever be able to defend it from a bunch of angry people.
Well, it’s been a quote for about 1500 years and I think the point still stands today.
Eh, there are plenty of old quotes that don’t hold up, and the last 1500 years haven’t really been that peaceful. I think it’s fair to be critical of a philosophy that’s been around that long and has really just been better at marketing increased military spending than actually successful at building real peace.
if the last 1500 years teach you something is that when someone is preparing for war they do not want peace.
It would be nice if politicians could understand the cost of war at a soldier’s level. Politicians should feel a war; not just sit in their protected and lavish war room barking orders and treating lives as meaningless numbers.
Exactly, those who make the decisions to send soldiers to war should be sent to fight themselves, if not gun in hand at least as front line commanders or something so they feel the same danger and see the same horrors as the human fodder they so happily throw at their “enemies”
I mean true enough but that has nothing to do with preparing for war. To put it simply there’s a reason, say, Japan has an army despite their constitution denouncing war.
U need to stop thinking of politicians as people its better to think of them as representatives for a specific interest group (ur vote, everyone else’s vote, and corruption) they make no decisions they simply choose which decision makes the majority of who they represent the happiest.
So you are saying we should have a people’s representation lobby group and bribe them to do our interests. It does make sense in a negotiation sense, even though it sounds very annoying.
That’s what democracy is supposed to be.
Not really, but i guess that’s the difference between ideals and reality. So, who is founding this group?
In the ideal the politicians represent the people. I’m reality it seems they represent whatever gets them money/power.
So, who is founding this group?
That’s the good part only the wealthy corporations can afford such things.
It would be better if soldiers could recognize when they’re being used as pawns vs. actually fighting for what they believe in.
Ukraine never had a chance without foreign troops on the ground.
a soldier is a pawn by definition
Budget season again I see
OP comments are on point.
Russia is breaking things out of storage for their widespread conscripted force usage. They were getting their ass handed to them with NATOs leftovers, and somehow we’re supposed to believe NATO is in danger? The first gulf war demonstrated how Russian tech stacks up against trillions in military expenditure.
Europe’s military production is severely degraded. Russia looks like a paper tiger now, but they can still pump out ammunition for troops and artillery at a rate Europe can’t.
This exactly, if you believe that the enemy is completely incompetent, you will get stung by that. Look at the reality of war, lack of ammunition means all those high end toys are stuck doing nothing. Look in which direction yhe front is going.
NATO is left buying ammunition from non eu countries for Ukraine when they need it 6 months ago, would that be happening if we had stockpiles of the stuff for ourselves? Just how much is left for NATO to use for self defense?
The high tech toys deployed by NATO don’t rely on conventional artillery nearly to the extent it’s utilized in Ukraine, and it’s farcical to claim as much.
So just how much ammunition do we have, keep in mind both Russians and Chinese have militatries well over a million soldiers, thousands of tanks and other ivf. How many anti tank weapons does NATO have left? How many himars missiles? And if we do have this stock, why are we not giving it to Ukraine and repying on purchasing shells half way around the world and even then making promised to pay for it but forking over nothing yet?
They need our help now, not tomorrow. This makes me wonder just how much stock of ammunition do we have for all those high tech toys.
Artillery has been the focus of headlines because the military doctrine of Russia and Ukraine relies heavily upon its use. While conventional stockpiles of shells are depleted, it’s production will increase over time and will occur independent of additional military preparation. This is not the ammunition for the bulk of NATO forces.
NATO has an entire modern arsenal of weaponry that is incompatible with Ukraine’s weapons, waiting within arms reach. They’re in talks to acquire F-16s, which are considerably dated compared to the modern stealth fighters, not to mention the stocks of munitions. Ukraine received 31 Abrams tanks. The US alone has thousands, with large numbers considered for retirement due to their age. Not to mention the numbers of infantry fighting vehicles and crews that have trained on all of these systems for years, unlike the rushed training afforded by Ukrainian troops.
They’re already relying on mass conscription to fill their ranks, rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel.
Yes what NATO has given Ukraine up to now has been largely stockpiles of old stuff. That doesn’t change the lack of production problem. The raw materials are largely the same between primers, powder, brass, and lead. Europe lacks the ability to produce new or old stuff in sufficient quantity for a real war.
China
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a sign of how alien the idea of armed conflict has become to most officials in Whitehall, James Heappey said many departments had declined the chance to take part in a “whole of government” exercise to practice evacuating to a bunker in the event of war.
It was a drill former defence secretary Ben Wallace had pushed for “to get people down to the bunker so they could see what their working environment in war would be”, Mr Heappey wrote in an article for the Sunday Telegraph.
His damning intervention came after Sky News this week revealed that the government has no national plan for the defence of the UK or the mobilisation of its people and industry in a war despite renewed threats of conflict.
But any shift back to a Cold War-style, ready-for-war footing would require political leaders to make defence a genuinely national effort once again, sources told Sky News.
Piling pressure on Rishi Sunak, he wrote: "Only a foolish PM wouldn’t see that the long-term trend is towards global instability that could easily lead to a new cold war and perhaps something even hotter.
Read more from Sky News:Protests in Tel Aviv after 'half a year of hell’Royal Navy ship to be deployed for Gaza aidWorld’s oldest living man reveals secret to long life
The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
