Have our leaders decided we dont really need our Armed Forces?

TV game show?

 

@Dicky As predicted it looks like it is happening. Army numbers cut again, I was interested to see how fast the army numbers have diminished since the 1980s.

Falklands 1982 163,200
Gulf 1991 147,600
Forecast 2025 72,500

I was also right to predict that the mine hunters will go.

I was also thinking about it from a social benefit perspective, what happens to those young people who would have gone into the services and benefited from the education, training and support.

Robots and drones that is the way forward.

 

A couple of hundred years ago we were all riding around on horses. Times have changed and even our forces have to adapt to change.

 

that wasn't my point ...

 

The way things are going the Army will be graduate only recruitment and all NCOs will be a Ruperts with a masters in games programming!

 

Frightening ..Keyboard Warriors .

 

War is always changing. The most expensive hits from the Modern Cold War are computer hacks. Nobody dies directly but a lot of money and time is wasted picking up the pieces. Which is how to win a war by making your opponent use resource faster.

 

What I mean is that society will have to adapt. People who looked after horses developed new skills just as those unable to benefit from army experience will need to find new ways of self fulfilment, be it computer hacking or drone controlling.

 

With reduced need from the introduction of AI, what to do with people who don't meet those educational standards will be a societal issue. When I joined very few graduates in the Wardroom, almost none, they were massively outnumbered by those who had only O or A levels ... oh how the pendulum has swung the other way.

We aren't talking about clever people, some of the best sailors that worked for me had relatively basic English and maths, some of the best fighting soldiers would if they had not joined the army or the marines ended up inside. These aren't the people who will be able to transfer into computer hacking or the like. Society doesn't have a good record of looking after those who need it.

 

This is a problem with the part of modern armed forces that do the fighting, they need to be better trained than before.

The educational system was all geared up to deliver basically qualified people into the massive armed forces, or the mills, and to keep down the masses by making sure they couldnt and did not want to read those books from the dangerous thinkers.
Now there is no sink for the half-trained, but the population still has the general idea that education is not really worth bothering with.

There is still going to be a demand for basically armed logistics support - protecting and providing supplies to places that are too dangerous or remote in the event of disaster.

But as for the cavalry, they went into tank warfare. However I went and looked at the "last great tank battle" in 1991 . Essentially a set of WW2 tanks equipped with armour piercing rounds and decent radios coming on the Iraqi tanks in the same way as the American tanks would probably have still won through surprise.
And now, a set of UAVs flying over the same Iraqi tanks would not even have required anybody taking a risk by cresting that hill.

 

I wouldn't say better trained different skill set, and significantly fewer of them. Not everyone wants to sit staring at a computer screen all day. For some people that is hell.

 

I think we need to reappraise the role of our armed forces.
In a nuclear war they would be no use for fighting but would be an essential force for cleaning up the mess.
I don't think the UK is in danger of a conventional invasion so a strong defensive force isn't really necessary.
As for overseas activities, should we be that much involved now that we have given our empire away.
The greatest modern threat to our country is terrorism and civil unrest. These are the areas in which our armed forces should be specializing.
The size of our forces should be based on that premise.

 

You sound like Nigel Farage ... Policing belongs to the police.

 

Sorry! Didn't mean it like that. Police are a force and if they are armed, they are an armed force. They can deal with the civil unrest while the regular army (with the SAS, MI5/6 etc) deal with the terrorists.

 

So the answer to civil unrest is not to look at the cause but to shoot anyone who won't tow the line. Jeez.

 

Armed forces are the military, the police aren't the military.
I don't think terrorism falls within the remit of the armed forces either.

 

What were the army doing in Northern Ireland during the troubles?

 

Initially was it not a peace keeping deployment?