Discussion in 'Military News and Clips' started by Rover, Dec 3, 2017.
You're not really grasping this are you?
The concern expressed by literally everyone has been at the prospective idea standards will he lowered as a result of the "whole idea" and by extension lives will be lost that wouldn't have if the standards didn't change.
It's never been against females as a gender, individuals, and I've not seen anyone disagreeing with the idea simply due to the gender (which is what you were referring to by asking Meg that directed question).
Why wouldn't "we" be concerned about this development? Not a rhetorical question.
Not arguing with you or meg. Agreeing.
That's evidently not true. Ask people like @Ninja_Stoker about their experiences recruiting the cyber guys and how the services has adapted to accommodate those people and their attitudes to life and you might change your mind.
Problem is that's what they said before the Falklands war, and that's probably why there was a Falklands war.
You seem to know what the next war is not going to look like. Perhaps you could tell us what it is going to look like?
What if conventional war kicks off anywhere? Yeh wish you civvies would butt out of it. You know nothing... train hard fight easy
Again, that isn't what I mean. More, asking whether as a country, given current government, and national opinions, a Falklands style assault could/ would/should be mounted in response to an invasion in 2018. I am not telling anyone anything, just viewing things from the perspective of no jumps courses for paras, no ski training for RM etc , fewer ships, swingeing cuts? It seems we cannot afford wider defense commitments and therefore, the role is likely to be more limited.
UNTIL it kicks off again... what if we have to go back to Afghanistan full role or war with a conventional force anywhere?
Called it a while back we would end up back in Iraq and Afghanistan....give me some years and it will prove me right just wait!
This is where I disagree, you make a statement in your first question that the whole thing is confused then when challenged you say it was more a question.
Your debating style is very confusing, if not somewhat fluid - forgive the pun
It's an interesting concept regarding a re-run of a Falklands-style campaign.
It was a response deemed suitable at the time as we had the logistic capability. I'd imagine computer simulation/wargaming today wouldn't necessarily arrive at the same conclusion, even applying the perceived capabilities at the time. Testament to the Royal Marines and Paras, in my opinion, they are the guys who took the fight to the enemy.
Funnily enough, the general consensus at the time was we'd just fought a WW2-style conflict with a few tweaks with regard weaponry. With the exception of 3 Cdo BAS as an asset and a much reduced "fleet" the Royal Marines are probably as capable then as now....but that's about to change, I guess.
Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
And nobody forgets the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxilliary who took the Royal Marines and the Paras to the fight the enemy, incurring serious losses in the doing.
You just ended your own argument. Financially we can barely sort ourselves out, that’s another argument, but why should we add an increased burden on our forces with initial cost of setting up training for females, and the knock on effect of making units and equipment “gender neutral” and not to mention the inevitable compensation payouts.
Financially it’s madness.
Back to your original post. See my bold.
If we wanted a debate on 737s in a holding pattern, or how to scam JPA to pay extra mileage, you will be the first on our list to listen to.
I have only got a limited amount of experience to draw on, and there’s a wealth to draw on from this forum and we are all telling you the same thing.
It has never been 'my' argument. I've always been equivocal about it and certainly from a purely personal point of view, thoroughly against it. I cannot imagine @MEG ripping someones face off, shes far too nice nor indeed many of the guys here.
I am however, the proud possessor of a letter from a senior officer at ctcrm informing me that it would become a 'centre of excellence' for training females for front line combat by 2017. Which sounded great when I read it, before I realised that the planning and preparation for said centre of excellence had probably taken the time it took for the letter to be dictated. I do think that senior officers should stand up more for their beliefs and not just go with the flow.
Fundamentally @tpa I agree with you
Well I am glad I give that impression that I am 'far too nice'...amazing how little you show about yourself over messages. No one has ever said that to me before-first time for everything I guess
The RAF seems to get it pretty tight.
Didn't they get sued by a chick for repetitive strain injury for £400,000, round about 2006-07?
All these bs claims take money away from those who actually have life changing injuries from service.
Some individuals will exploit the system for every last penny if given the chance to do so without a second thought for others.
The RAF have been bombing in Iraq for some time. I believe they will not put boots on the ground there or in Afghanistan in the next 10 years. The public will not stomach it. And I am thankful for that.
Separate names with a comma.