UK military problems & policies

[jmm99]

the 2013 White Paper, in French, is here (160 pp.). Not yet in English that I found.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmJwqRwFYs

While this video comparing U.S. Marine to Royal Marine training is obviously skewed and a bit comical, I still think it is relevant. It points to the direction our military may end up going in if the politically correct get their way. It definitely helps explain their relative poor performance in recent years.

[jmm99]

Female Special Forces; and at 2:21:

Soldiers from 1st SF call them "Killer Barbie Dolls".

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

The big differences between these female warriors and our female activists are they're actually patriotic and serving for a higher cause (not media recognition), they're very fit and capable, and understand they may be employed into a very tough fight. I would be happy to serve with these ladies any day. Note they are training harder than the Royal Marines depicted in the film.

[davidbfpo]

The UK's top soldier, General Peter Wall, has been interviewed:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rmy-chief.html

Of note are his remarks on recruiting for military cyber warriors:

The education and personal qualities of our cyber warriors are likely to be a challenge to more linear military behaviour and we therefore need to consider how we recruit.

[Fuchs]

The British military problems and resulting inadequacy of British military policy can be summarised quite concisely in my opinion:

Their willingness to tax the rich's incomes is not sufficient to fund a military which meets the military-related grand strategic ambitions.

They want to be a great naval power, but can only afford a small fleet with tiny numbers of nuclear submarines and medium-sized carriers. They want to be able to bully, invade & occupy in U.S: style with minimised KIA and degree of improvisation, but cannot afford an army or air force (including support assets such as plenty tankers and heavylift aircraft) to do it on their own.
Meanwhile, playing lap dog and following the Americans everywhere has been understood to be superfluous.

[davidbfpo]

A rather good blogger's explanation why the UK has shrunk it's military, in particular the army and the expectation that is enough for UK national interests:http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.c...real-army.html

From the conclusion:

Given the lack of existential threats, and the reality that there is no real desire for sustained overseas operations for at least the next few years, it is hard to escape the view that the UK not only possesses a reasonably sized army proportionate to its current strategic position, but that by keeping it relatively small, it retains the funds to keep it well trained and well equipped, and in turn enabling it to punch above its weight as a partner of choice for other nations.