Concerning the future of the Royal Marines.

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,344
Reaction score
17,457
Excellent content in the second link, worth a watch on the first link in the text: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/71a68c0d-db9f-4af0-a27b-928dd5831271

A cracking quote about amphibious warfare:

Major General Thompson said:
The first one is that the unexpected always happens. The second is that it is a come-as-you-are party: you have to go with what you have, and if you haven’t got what you’ve got, you can’t do it. The third is don’t land where the enemy is strong. Land somewhere else. The fourth one is the need for a good surface lift of landing craft to lift the heavy stuff.
 

Illustrious

Royal Marines Commando - Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
2,364
Reaction score
2,525
Still working my way through it but there are some Corps' heavyweights in that discussion. Men who know the strategic aspect of warfare better than most others in the world.
 

Illustrious

Royal Marines Commando - Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
2,364
Reaction score
2,525
Read the entirety of the minutes and it strikes me that it was all futile as their efforts and warnings will fall on deaf ears. There was nothing I did not agree with but I unfortunately don't control the budget.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,413
Reaction score
14,059
Arguably the biggest threat to the defence of the realm lies in the short term perspective which is governed by the five year election cycle.

Honesty and addressing politically unpalatable concepts are fundamental to Defence and other major issues such as the NHS.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,693
Reaction score
4,226
Arguably the biggest threat to the defence of the realm lies in the short term perspective which is governed by the five year election cycle.

Honesty and addressing politically unpalatable concepts are fundamental to Defence and other major issues such as the NHS.

Do you mean questioning the very existence of democracy in the UK?

It's something that some very smart people are saying just doesn't work for finances or tough decisions.
 

Omega

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Posts
355
Reaction score
327
Do you mean questioning the very existence of democracy in the UK?
The Army have already ditched democracy, ignored the majority of their recruiting pool and decided to pander to the ineffectiual minority groups in the hope they will appeal to smaller numbers of applicants but make good the thousands of people they have failed to recruit whilst using the failing Crapita empire.

Nothing could possibly go wrong ;)
 

Illustrious

Royal Marines Commando - Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
2,364
Reaction score
2,525
I think that's where the Chinese are making leaps and bounds because they're fantastic at playing the long game, as do the Finnish, at least in education.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,413
Reaction score
14,059
Do you mean questioning the very existence of democracy in the UK?

I certainly think that our short term expectations from our democratic structure needs reviewing.

The comparison with China made by @Illustrious is a good one. For as long as I can remember that nation has made long term investments and been prepared to wait for perhaps 25 years to see a return on that investment.

Meanwhile the UK model is based on tangible, positive results having to appear within two years or five at the most. Because it's tacitly accepted by the electorate that if positive results are not apparent within that time frame a government's policy has failed and that government loses office to give someone else a chance. One of the most powerful messages in UK politics is 'Time for a change.'

Take BREXIT: 40 years of administration neeed to be dismantled and rebuilt along with economic relationships. Personally I'm prepared to accept that realistically the UK might suffer for at least the next 20 years until we see the economic benefit but it's not a popular view.

Military investment suffers because governments of all flavours only consider today's military environment. Massive economic and strategic investments are made based not on what might happen but what we face today. As an example, one of the biggest factors supporting the SA80 project was that a shorter weapon was needed for troops moving about the plains of Germany in armoured vehicles. Because in 1976 it was predicted that that was where the next war would be fought. :confused:

The honesty factor I mentioned is perhaps best exampled by the pressure on NHS. People aged over 85 are highly likely to be hospitalised for relatively minor age-related issues. And each day about 200 more UK citizens turn 85 years. Arguably we all need to pay much more tax to support the NHS we need now in 2018 but all governments have dodged the issue because they consider it to be political suicide to break the news to the electorate.

A similar argument could be made about our state pension scheme. It is based on a German initiative from 1909. Citizens then retired at age 65, enjoyed perhaps one or two years of state pension and then politely died suddenly from an acute condition rather than lingering in a hospital or nursing care environment.

I've swerved along the rant road somewhat here. Apologies.
Axeing or severely pruning the UK's amphibious capability now will inevitably be regretted in years to come; diminishing the UK's defence as well as our global reach and influence
 

Rover

Moderator
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Posts
3,815
Reaction score
5,904
Cutting the Royal Marines 'will destroy the SAS', warn MPs amid 'plans to axe up to 2,000 Marines and two amphibious assault ships'

  • Commons Defence Committee says it would be ‘militarily illiterate’ to go ahead
  • Committee claims UK would be unable to carry out specialised operations
  • MPs: Talk of cuts will hit Marines’ morale and suggest they're being ‘sacrificed’
Britain’s renowned Special Forces are under threat from controversial cuts to the Royal Marines, MPs warn today.

They fear that reducing the elite infantry corps will weaken the SAS and other Special Forces that recruit heavily from the Marines.

In a scathing verdict, the powerful Commons Defence Committee says it would be ‘militarily illiterate’ to axe up to 2,000 Marines and two amphibious assault ships.

They single out the grave consequences for Britain’s vital Special Forces, which take up to 50 per cent of their recruits from the Marines.

The report says: ‘The contribution made to UK Special Forces by the Royal Marines is… indicative of the quality of the people who pass through its ranks.

‘The growth in the use and tasking of Special Forces in recent years makes a continuing “pipeline” of trained and resilient personnel vital.

‘Reducing the strength of the Royal Marines will substantially reduce the recruitment pool available and reduce Special Forces’ amphibious warfare expertise.’

MPs also say that talk of major cuts will hit Marines’ morale and suggest they are being ‘sacrificed’ by Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Treasury.

New Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is fighting the cuts


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5348819/MPs-warn-Royal-Marines-cuts-destroy-SAS.html
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,413
Reaction score
14,059
Those expressing concern that the UK's amphibious capability is at risk from spending cuts might—quite properly—be asked by the Treasury to justify their concerns in a coherent manner using appropriately economic language.

Personally, all that stuff is way above my pay-grade but I'd argue that the single most credible argument against the propsed cuts can be summed up by one word: History.

The same politically expedient mistakes have been made time and time before. :(
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,001
Reaction score
7,552
Even the Beeb are reporting on it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42933845

Arguably the biggest threat to the defence of the realm lies in the short term perspective which is governed by the five year election cycle.

Honesty and addressing politically unpalatable concepts are fundamental to Defence and other major issues such as the NHS.

It’s an interesting point and one i constantly talk to about with a close friend. He’s ex forces himself and is involved in politics and studies international law and politics.
The term of 5 years is tiny and a lot of it is spent undoing what the previous government has done. It’s almost like it’s 1 step forward 2 back. And any progress made, is usually short term for quick results.
It might be worth extending the term to even 10 years, to actually see a difference.

I think the political parties have just grown and become disillusioned with the common man, and we need to choose as a country a direction that it best and some basic things that never change. Instead of a constant backwards and forwards.

Tories have always traditionally come after labour and have usually implemented some kind of cost saving, because labour increase Public spending. So it’s a constant up, down, up, down.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,413
Reaction score
14,059
The term of 5 years is tiny and a lot of it is spent undoing what the previous government has done.

Exactly. Regardless of partisan politics as a nation we are locked into a 'short termist' democratic process which—arguably—is counter to the nation's security and welfare.
 

Ballista

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Posts
273
Reaction score
198
The biggest tragedy is the lack of a patriotic party that would stand up and demand a 3% of GDP military budget.

The Tories are committed to what seems like an increasingly pointless austerity agenda, Labour comes out with some warm words about public services spending which can't be taken seriously whilst Jeremy "Scrap the armed forces" Corbyn is in charge, the Lib Dems are nowhere and too busy obsessing over brexit, and UKIP was full of cranks at the best of times but now is falling apart at the seams.

I swear if a decent party like that ever emerged they'd sweep the board.
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
My advice to any potential RMs watching this thread with worry is to let the politics take care of itself. No matter what happens, the RMs will continue to recruit. Continue to train hard and if you make the grade there will be a place for you. Having been in the military for longer than I care to mention, these things are cyclical, but one thing no arm of the services can afford to do is stop recruiting new blood.
 

03092014

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Posts
759
Reaction score
674
If there was a general election tomorrow I'd have no idea who to vote for.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,413
Reaction score
14,059
I swear if a decent party like that ever emerged they'd sweep the board.

Possibly, but arguably the real problem lies with us, the electorate. We are not prepared to accept the reality that we—not our government—underfunds the NHS, social care, defence and vital infrastructure.

Tinkering with existing budgets just isn't good enough. We need to pay more tax. But an election manifesto based on tax rises won't get any political party elected.

I support the notion of a specific, ring-fenced tax to fund the NHS rather than from general taxation and it might get more popular support. Possibly this would ease financial stress on Defence permitting decisons to be made for strategic reasons than solely because of budgetary pressure.
 

New Threads

Top