The British Army has is and always will be one of the most under equipped army`s in the Western world. Aircraft and ships are all very well but to win a war it takes the soldier on the ground.
The govt would rather spend £20 or 30 billion on 3 nuclear submarines than bring the equipment of the Army up to date.
They got rid of SLR and brought in the SA 80 as the soldiers weapon a weapon that has proved useless for many reasons.
They should listen to the men who use the equipment they have and not some geek in a factory who`s sole task is to win a military contract for substandard equipment.
As for homeland security if the army was used against terrorist instead of the incompetants we have as a police force I don`t think we`d have a problem.Remember the Army fought terrorism for 30years in N.Ireland and as usual the govt let them down by introducing the most stupid rules possible.
2006-12-12 08:55:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jacqueline M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that you are reading the wrong newspapers! The Military consists of full and part-time professionals who are equipped with the equipment that works to do the job that they are required to do. The odd hiccup in the logistics chain is blown out of all proportion by some elements of the media and turned into military disintegration because it sells newspapers.
2006-12-12 23:28:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Military hardware takes money, a threat and political will to be useful. You have had a labour government for almost 12 years now. And declining Military equipment for as long. Sack this bunch of losers and invest in the security of our country.
I left the Military in 2004 after 26 years as a result of equipment fatigue in our Nuclear Submarine fleet. I rest my case on this one
2006-12-12 07:23:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kevin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have the bomb. and I have had the experience of seeing one go off, but that is not the answer, if we could only keep a low profile like Switzerland, Portugal and a few others we would not be in the trouble we are now, being the main target for terrorist, but no, Tony Bloody Blair has to stick his nose in all, not caring that the British army is over streached, no money for kit fo the army, give it to them to open up more wells so they can cultivate the poppy for more Heroin to sell in Britain, if he spent the money on surveillance at the ports and airfields ,keep better control of our borders we would be better off and not need a army as big.
2006-12-12 07:30:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by john r 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bang Bang JAM! thats the noise of the British Army Guns!
2006-12-12 07:21:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sir Sidney Snot 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
For years the British military has existed on a shoe-string.
2006-12-12 07:19:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by jonmorritt 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
its all down to tony blair, that wanker has done nothing but cut spending on the MOD and the defence since he took power of our country
it's about time the stupid idots that joted him in woke up and voted labour out next time, all they've done is put up taxes and let millions of people into our country that dont belong here
just look at the NHS and how much more where paying for our petrol and diesel.... then look at how much less is being spent on the defence of the UK
2006-12-12 07:21:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Creef 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're insane, no one is about to invade the UK, face facts Britain is a small island in the north atlantic, they actually have a fairly large military for their size.
2006-12-12 07:31:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Nick F 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do not think you know what you are talking about..We may not have the best kit but it does its job.
The British army is still the best in the world....Only it's size is an issue.
2006-12-12 07:27:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by tony d 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
Low offensive military budget
2006-12-12 07:24:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by I Hate Liberals 4
·
0⤊
0⤋