ForumGarden

We seem to have had a couple of thousand jobs terminated at plants making fighter aircraft. And a damned good thing it is too.

There appears to be a treaty obligation not to blind military pilots by shining bright lights in their faces while they're airborne. I can't think of the least good reason for such an agreement. Air defence over the UK should be guaranteed, and guaranteeing it with a bunch of radar-directed lasers designed to blind the bloody pilots in milliseconds would be as cheap an option as I can think of.

The UK needs fighter aircraft in much the way I need a hernia.

spot;1371147 wrote: We seem to have had a couple of thousand jobs terminated at plants making fighter aircraft. And a damned good thing it is too.

There appears to be a treaty obligation not to blind military pilots by shining bright lights in their faces while they're airborne. I can't think of the least good reason for such an agreement. Air defence over the UK should be guaranteed, and guaranteeing it with a bunch of radar-directed lasers designed to blind the bloody pilots in milliseconds would be as cheap an option as I can think of.

The UK needs fighter aircraft in much the way I need a hernia.


Not for those who have lost their jobs

theia;1371150 wrote: Not for those who have lost their jobs


Would their income not have qualified as blood money? Why on earth they can't engineer more socially acceptable products instead of war-fighters I have no idea but the notion that they took pride in it merely makes me shudder.

These planes they made have, I take it, been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths this year in Libya. The number of deaths is indisputable. Whether the planes which enabled the deaths were made in part by those now redundant is speculation but it seems entirely possible.

What social value has a Eurofighter?

spot;1371156 wrote: Would their income not have qualified as blood money? Why on earth they can't engineer more socially acceptable products instead of war-fighters I have no idea but the notion that they took pride in it merely makes me shudder.

These planes they made have, I take it, been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths this year in Libya. The number of deaths is indisputable. Whether the planes which enabled the deaths were made in part by those now redundant is speculation but it seems entirely possible.

What social value has a Eurofighter?


How can any of us be sure that "socially acceptable products" have not, in their production, caused harm to someone? We could all be involved in "blood money" to some degree by the products we use.

The planes themselves aren't reponsible for anything...

I think you're wrong about the responsibility of those who make the weaponry and the degree to which products not designed to kill can be equated with those that are. A train can only kill if the manual is thrown away and the machinery abused. A Eurofighter can do nothing else, it's what its makers intended it for.

Mere interdiction of airspace has far cheaper alternatives. A Eurofighter was designed in order to dominate someone else's territory. If that didn't make their wages as much blood money as the guineas of Jack Ketch then the concept has no reality at all.

Leaving aside the morality of the present conflicts we are involved in for a moment - you never know when you are going to need to go to war when you need them is not the time to be trying to make them. You might not like war but you do need to maintain the capacity to war if necessary,

Like it or not the human race is at it's most innovative when driven by the need to make war. Most of the innovations in warplane design have spilled over in to the civilian market not just aeroplanes but cars and other everyday objects as well. To lose that level of technical ability is to our long term disadvantage. It's not just BAE, why on earth are we buying trains from german companies while shutting down our own engineering companies? Agriculture and industry are what generate real wealth in an economy maybe you are happy to love in a quaint backwater but the UK is a small overcrowded island we can't sustain ourselves without industry and high tech industry especially.

So I'm sad these people are losing their jobs and if you can come up with some socially acceptable products they can make instead why don't you do so?

gmc;1371182 wrote: So I'm sad these people are losing their jobs and if you can come up with some socially acceptable products they can make instead why don't you do so?If they did then fine, I would be. I think they're more useful drawing the dole than building fighters though.

As for "being ready to fight a war", you're wrong. The UK - or England and Wales of you prefer - needs to guarantee its borders against all adventurers, whether those are foreign governments or pirates. There can be no foreign invasion while we deploy a nuclear deterrent. That's not a weapon of war, that's a guarantee of sovereignty. There can be no piratical outrage while we deploy the Coastguard and make a few battalions available to support the civil authority. Neither are those weapons of war either, they're all the standing army the country needs.

You'll notice there's no Eurofighters in my list.

What about the moral integrity of those involved in the manufacture of nuclear missiles ?

spot;1371186 wrote: If they did then fine, I would be. I think they're more useful drawing the dole than building fighters though.As for "being ready to fight a war", you're wrong. The UK - or England and Wales of you prefer - needs to guarantee its borders against all adventurers, whether those are foreign governments or pirates. There can be no foreign invasion while we deploy a nuclear deterrent. That's not a weapon of war, that's a guarantee of sovereignty. There can be no piratical outrage while we deploy the Coastguard and make a few battalions available to support the civil authority. Neither are those weapons of war either, they're all the standing army the country needs.

You'll notice there's no Eurofighters in my list.


Would you apply this to the people who volunteer for the police force and the armed services, too?

Bruv;1371207 wrote: What about the moral integrity of those involved in the manufacture of nuclear missiles ?


I'm entirely in favour of nuclear missiles. If we ignore their deployment when they were in the hands of a monopolist government then they kill nobody, they deter war, every nation on earth should have a couple of dozen handed to them for free by the UN. What twat's going to invade another country if he knows that, howsoever bigger and more powerful his own country may be, the small guy has a device capable of taking out the big guy's capital city, his government, his cabinet, his chiefs of staff and himself? The Church of England should fund more of them, they are God-inspired tools of peace.



theia;1371208 wrote: Would you apply this to the people who volunteer for the police force and the armed services, too?
As they're currently constituted? Undoubtedly. Everything comes down to what they promise unconditionally to do when ordered, and the fact that they're provided with an income in exchange for their promise. If you change their terms of employment I might have no issue at all with someone doing the job but it would be a different job and it would be different people doing it. I don't think I'd want them employed by the government either - I think the revised functions performed by the armed forces and police should be in the hands of competing for-profit private companies.

spot;1371220 wrote: I'm entirely in favour of nuclear missiles.




The biggest stick ?

Wonder what the feelings of the Mayor of Hiroshima is ?

So then the argument goes "Ah but if the Japanese had had one"

Same argument as the American gun lobby ?

spot;137122 wrote: As they're currently constituted? Undoubtedly. Everything comes down to what they promise unconditionally to do when ordered, and the fact that they're provided with an income in exchange for their promise. If you change their terms of employment I might have no issue at all with someone doing the job but it would be a different job and it would be different people doing it. I don't think I'd want them employed by the government either - I think the revised functions performed by the armed forces and police should be in the hands of competing for-profit private companies.


What would like to see as their terms of employment? Why would you want different people doing it.

I think you may have a good point about the revised functions, whatever they be be, being in the hands of private companies.

Bruv;1371229 wrote: The biggest stick ?

Wonder what the feelings of the Mayor of Hiroshima is ?

So then the argument goes "Ah but if the Japanese had had one"

Same argument as the American gun lobby ?


No, I covered that with "If we ignore their deployment when they were in the hands of a monopolist government then they kill nobody". Nobody ever uses a nuke against a country with the capacity to retaliate in kind, it's an absolute rule with no exceptions. On the other hand millions have died because their government has lacked the threat. How does this have anything to do with "the American gun lobby"? I don't see how you associate the two.

theia;1371251 wrote: What would like to see as their terms of employment? Why would you want different people doing it.


The current people have all demonstrated their unsuitability by agreeing to the current conditions of employment.

I'll try the other later today when I'm back at a computer.

posted by spot

As they're currently constituted? Undoubtedly. Everything comes down to what they promise unconditionally to do when ordered, and the fact that they're provided with an income in exchange for their promise. If you change their terms of employment I might have no issue at all with someone doing the job but it would be a different job and it would be different people doing it. I don't think I'd want them employed by the government either - I think the revised functions performed by the armed forces and police should be in the hands of competing for-profit private companies.


Our legal system has evolved over time, it's not perfect but we're not stuck with it either and we do have the means in place to challenge injustice and abuse of power, All laws are developed to regulate people's behaviour towards one another and to prevent the weak taking advantage of the strong. The oath they take is a Hangover from the old days, in reality it's no different from what you get in any republic.

Privatising the police and armed forces is one of the stupidest ideas I think anyone had promulgated on this forum. Do you really think that would make them somehow more ethical in their behaviour? I live in a country where if a policeman stops me and asks what I am up to he has to have a good reason for doing so and I can't be arrested and held just because he feels like doing so. A private security guard has only the same rights of arrest as I have as a private individual - are you seriously suggesting we allow the wooden tops in shopping malls any more power than they already have.

We used to have private armies in the UK, the biggest owned by the monarch who pretty well did as he liked now they are all under the control of parliament and no one else can have one. What kind of idiot thinks the rich should be able to have a private army?

I can't decide whether you come out with this crap to wind people up or whether you really believe the nonsense you come out with. It is nonsense because what you suggest is hardly likely to be an improvement is it. I hope you are just winding people up because.

We are an island nation,. we need a navy and air force to defend our shores - as it is we can't even keep foreign trawlers out of our waters. What use are nuclear missile submarines except to completely obliterate an enemy in a war that no one would win. They mighty have kept the peace in the past but we can probably get the same effect with nuclear tipped cruise missiles launched from much cheaper submarines than a ballistic missile one. Sooner or later someone will use them probably against someone they don't want to get them. My money would be on israel using one on iran if they think they are about to get one or maybe Turkey who knows.

What we don't need is the daft posturing and throwing our weight around as if we are still an imperial nation especially when we are skint. Don't replace trident, spend the money on conventional forces and stop invading other countries unless there really is no other choice in the matter.

spot;1371252 wrote: No, I covered that with "If we ignore their deployment when they were in the hands of a monopolist government then they kill nobody". Nobody ever uses a nuke against a country with the capacity to retaliate in kind, it's an absolute rule with no exceptions.
You should have added YET.

Only the big boys have had them until pretty recently.On the other hand millions have died because their government has lacked the threat. How does this have anything to do with "the American gun lobby"? I don't see how you associate the two.
The argument goes along the lines that 'If every body is armed the threat is less, nobody dare use them'

I suspect you would hand out nuclear weapons to all with the notion they wouldn't use them for fear of reprisal.

I vote gmc for PM

gmc;1371258 wrote: We are an island nation,. we need a navy and air force to defend our shores - as it is we can't even keep foreign trawlers out of our waters.Go on, just think about what you've actually written there. I've said we need an increased Coastguard and more RNAS helicopter patrol squadrons. That, I think, is addressing the "defend our shores" bit. Your tagged on "foreign trawlers" is mischievous in that it's an entirely political choice which we signed up to, not a military problem or one which can be fixed by your "navy and air force" combination.

Other than the parts I've recommended for boosting, how does the remainder of our armed forces contribute to "defend our shores"? I suggest it doesn't, not even slightly. All it does is add to our ability to project force beyond our shores. Why would you want that to continue?

spot;1371290 wrote: Go on, just think about what you've actually written there. I've said we need an increased Coastguard and more RNAS helicopter patrol squadrons. That, I think, is addressing the "defend our shores" bit. Your tagged on "foreign trawlers" is mischievous in that it's an entirely political choice which we signed up to, not a military problem or one which can be fixed by your "navy and air force" combination.

Other than the parts I've recommended for boosting, how does the remainder of our armed forces contribute to "defend our shores"? I suggest it doesn't, not even slightly. All it does is add to our ability to project force beyond our shores. Why would you want that to continue?


The access to our fishing grounds was the only thing we had to buy our way in to the eec. We now have the ludicrous situation where we are mothballing our fishing fleet while funding the regional development fund so they can help spanish trawlers be built to fish off the UK. but I digress.

We depend on the sea for our survival that means being able to project force out to sea whenever necessary, you can't do that with a few helicopters and a rowing boat. A couple of carriers is more use than a ballistic missile submarine in the present world climate. Same with fighter planes you just don't know what you are going to need to do, having nothing at all is foolish, removing your capacity to defend yourself is foolish. Sweden remained a neutral country in ww2, not least because it's armed forces were big enough to make attacking them a major problem and they had both Russia and Germany as potential protagonists, they still rank amongst the strongest armed forces in europe. Same with Switzerland the losses to an attacker would have been too great so it stayed neutral.

I do agree with you though in that we shouldn't be getting involved in invading other countries just because they have oil.

Perhaps the Eurofighter punches a time card

Personally, I don't see the rational in people picking and choosing the time periods in when it's ok to bulk up one's army as if it's equally as natural to wave a gun around a family reunion pic-nic. Sure it might be ok if it's uncle Bob(might be) but what if it's some guy no one recognizes? No one would call the police?

"Oh, he just has a gun, he hasn't used it yet..."

Things are looking up, I understood all of that and agree with most of it too.