WHY is this happening?

[#1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3993486/Bon-voyage-HMS-Lusty-30-years-serving-Queen-country-...

When tensions are increasing all around the world, we have no aircraft carriers in service and our old ones which still exist are now being taken away for scrap.

WHY?

This country is pathetic. Politicians who tell us whatever we want to hear (EG boris and immigration being cut.. then not being cut)..

It seems that our leaders actually have NO INTEREST in putting this country and its people first.

[#2]

How are they not putting people first?

Surely an aircraft carrier is an offensive rather than offensive 'weapon' given that their primary role is to operate away from UK - which still has by the way a decent sized navy. 

The big three have Britannia overruled, let's leave it at that.

[#3]

Successive Governments have Ruined all three services    penny pinching  until we no longer have a Viable force

[#4]

The UK is up to it's neck in debt and that figure is due to get even bigger in the coming years.

Now assuming you had the authority to spend the money what would you do ? There are a long list of people all shouting for money from various government departments such as the health service, social care, security..ie tracking terrorists, transport etc.....the list is endless, so it comes down to priorities and everyday problems that need to be dealt with now.

But let us be realistic here, what country is going to attack the UK direct using warships ? Russia ? Most unlikely but if they did what chance would we have, compare the size of their army and weapons against what we have and you have the answer.

By all means keep nuclear submarines but warships ? some of the recent ones have been breaking down due to a variety of reasons, just what you want if you were ever called on to use them.

[#5]

Theodore Roosevelt. In a letter to Henry L. Sprague, on January 26th 1900, he wrote ,,,

Speak softly and carry a big stick

The UK now does not  even have a twig

[#6]

Actually we have a very big stick, it's called a nuclear weapon which is why I guess although we spend a fair amount of our GDP on defence other services decline in order to pay for it.

Big stick or little soldiers in an uncertain world? I know what I'd rather have. 

[#7]

Trouble is it needs a certain amount of balance.

Despotic mad men and terrorists are well known to take very little notice of the big stick.

[#8]

many moons ago ,,, i was a scout   as they say Always Be Prepared !!!!

[#9]

@rongtw

Si vis pacem, para bellum 

[#10]

"Trouble is it needs a certain amount of balance.

Despotic mad men and terrorists are well known to take very little notice of the big stick"

Very true @billnotben balance is exactly what is needed and I think we are doing our best in the UK to get that right. Israel for example has alway been in the cross hairs of 'despotic mad men' which is why, despite a smaller economy, the state spends double the amount of its GDP on defence than we do plus of course, they have conscription. Needs must of course and threats to the UK are not quite the same and what threats we do have from 'terrorists' are chickens coming home to roost. 

Russia became a problem for the West once the West became a problem to Russia with its nuclear weapons which has now evolved into a standoff. Prior to that and ideology apart, they posed no threat militarily. Want to know where the real danger is? Look further east to the now waking giant that is China. 

"China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep for when she wakes she will move the world"

Napoleon Bonaparte

[#11]

---

Minivanman wrote:

Actually we have a very big stick, it's called a nuclear weapon 

---

You're Putin in disguise. How is it over there in Moscow?

Seriously, saying something like that is pointless. There is only so many times you can threaten nuclear action before everyone becomes sick of it and tries to call your bluff. At that point...

The second issue I have with your statement is that the nuclear weapon is not a big stick. It's an all out slate cleaner. A big stick would be thousands of troops ready to go and kick butt backed by plenty of ships, aircraft, tanks etc. We don't have that big stick now. Instead we just have a slate cleaner that we're never going to use (I hope). We'll see Russia successfully invade the UK before anyone considers using those nukes in this country. I just hope I don't regret forcasting that.

[#12]

---

Minivanman wrote:

How are they not putting people first?

Surely an aircraft carrier is an offensive rather than offensive 'weapon' given that their primary role is to operate away from UK - which still has by the way a decent sized navy. 

The big three have Britannia overruled, let's leave it at that.

---

You realise what you've said makes no sense?

Who are the big three?

I'm off to get a drink.. instead of getting a drink 

[#13]

The big three?

America, China, and Russia.

[#14]

"You're Putin in disguise. How is it over there in Moscow?"

Remind me again how many overseas bases America has compared to Russia. I have already commented on this 7up under the topic Not sure I like this if you'd like to check it out.

PS. here you go, I've cut and pasted it for you 

Easy enough to put this into perspective and see just where Putin is coming from.

Other than a naval supply depot in Vietnam and the current conflict zone in Syria, Russia only have a half a dozen bases and all in former Soviet republics - whereas America has somewhere in the region 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and that's despite recently closing hundreds of them in Iraq and Afghanistan,

So who are the bad guys?

PPS. Have a read of Britannia Overruled - British Policy and World Power in the Twentieth Century by David Reynolds. Read it as part of my studies some years back...... and still have it on my bookshelf!

[#15]

I am well aware of what you wrote in the other thread however you claim that WE still have a big stick to beat the world with and refer to nuclear weapons as being that stick.

The reality is that they are nothing more than the last line of defence against invasion or nuclear attack. They do not influence places like Syria for example. The biggest stick we had when that situation broke out was David Camoron saying "It's time for Assad to go" on a TV news interview.

So please do tell me where our large number of ships, tanks and troops are? And please don't try to sidetrack the issue with your next reply like you did this one - which completely ignores our lack of a big stick but focusses on what russia and america have instead.

You may have misunderstood my comment about Putin. From what I can work out you think I'm referring to them vs america. I'm merely pointing out that your reference to nukes being the big stick is like his way of holding the world to ransom everytime he wants his way - remember how he said he was prepared to go nuclear over crimea. With Putin everything is "Look at me and my nuclear missiles that i could use" and yet he never uses them. THAT is his big stick but we've never once made that threat so it is not our big stick as you suggested.