Saturday 25 September 2010

The New Military We Require

I watched an interesting documentary on the British Army the other day that revealed how much money is squandered within the armed services on such things as buying nice red ceremonial uniforms for the officers to wear to posh dinner parties in the officers mess, how much is spent on officers accomodation, helicopters for the top brass to ride around in, chauffer driven cars etc etc.

The British military establishment is a sick joke.

Whilst the top brass ponce around in gold braid the troops are being asked to fight wars with crap weapons, insufficient money for basic kit and under politically correct rules of engagement that merely ensure we cannot win a war.

There must be a root and branch reform of the armed services.

First of all a new Military High Command must be formed, that is staffed with decorated ex-soldiers who have seen front line action and not just office generals with gold braid all over them.

This Military High Command will be used to promote the interests of front line soldiers, as opposed to the interests of the officer elite, accountants and officer staff in the MOD and the careers of those who order weapons, equipment etc for each department of the MOD.

The Military High Command will put the interests of the troops first and will only order from the weapons companies the equipment required for a 21st century war, not what the weapons companies want or the government wants.

This means that if British arms and weapons manufacturers do not produce the weapons that are required by the British troops in the field, then those British arms and weapons companies must be nationalised and forced to produce the weapons required by the army.

For instance, the SA80 is a weapon that because of the range of its bullets, as opposed to the weaponry of the Taliban like the AK47, has a far less range. This means the gun cannot do the job it is required to do.

The idiot that ordered a gun for British troops that is less powerful than an AK47, the main weapon of the Russians and the Chinese copy of the AK47 and the favoured weapon of terrorists worldwide, should be thrown into prison for corporate manslaughter. The government that agreed the contract to kit the British army with the SA80 should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter as well.

Therefore the SA80 must be scrapped and a new weapon produced to be given to the army that is more powerful than the AK47 in order to ensure our troops have the tactical edge in a firefight with the Chinese and Taliban.

There must be created a British Military Industrial Block that is capable of building and equipping a 21st century British armed forces, as opposed to a series of privately owned weapons and arms companies that produce what profits them and the government of the day in relation to votes in areas where those companies employ people but that puts the troops in active danger.

There must be created a new wing of the British Armed Services that runs alongside the existing Land, Sea and Air wings - that of an Assymetric Warfare Unit which fights terrorism.

This requires a new integrated wing of the military that is capable of merging all wings of the military into one strike force that can operate as an integrated unit 24/7 and attack anywhere in the world.

If Trident is to be our national shield, then this unit will become our spear - how we attack our enemies and then withdraw back under the nuclear shield when required.

For instance - Intelligence is received that an consignment of weapons is on its way to the Taliban. The shipment is organised in an African country and shipped from an African port.

Therefore we send a covert undercover SAS assassination team to kill the people that organise, pay for and prepare the weapons shipment and ensure they cannot do so again.

Then the Royal Navy bomb the ship on its way to Afghanistan with the weapons and sink it.

Then we use the British Army and RAF to target the people waiting to collect the weapons in Afghanistan and kill them all.

That way you win a war without having to fight a war, as you ensure the weapons do not get to the enemy.

Intelligence led assassination teams target the people that fund, organise and equip the arms shipments wherever in the world where they operate. The battlefield is only the final field of conflict, for the first zone of warfare is wherever the people are that support, equip and arm the enemy.

Wherever they are, whether it is Bradford or Tehran or New York - they are targeted for assassination.

Then you destroy the transportation systems that bring the weapons in. If that means sinking ships on the high seas then so be it. Once a few freighters are sunk by the Navy then people would not willing to risk smuggling weapons to our enemies.

Then finally you target those are on the ground and who would take the weapons to the battlefield. Kill those that bring the weapons to the battlefield then the battle cannot take place.

Rather than having boots on the ground, you minimise contact with the enemy by selectively cutting away those support bases which sustain the enemy.

The era of occupation and boots on the ground to combat terrorism is the strategy of failure.

You can only win a war against terrorists and insurgents by ensuring they cannot fight a war.

The new Military High Command will also require a new military force to be created, one that merges all wings of the armed services and who will train, work and fight together.

This new unit will form the basis of the new rapid action military strike force that will be used to destroy and terrorise our enemies wherever in the world they hide.

The old style of war re state v state is almost defunct.

The threats from nation states like Russia against the UK does not exist anymore simply as any attack on us will be met with nuclear oblivion, but what we do face are a civil war and insurgency from Islamist terrorists in the UK and rogue states supporting terrorism and terrorists within the UK or who target our overseas assets.

Sure we will need the British Army to hold territory and secure installations vital to British National interests around the world, so a conventional military is still required, but the time has come for a new force to act as the strike force against new emerging threats in the 21st century.

In the instance of an Islamist uprising in the UK, then with a combination of targeted assassinations of Islamist terrorist and the financial and logistical supporters of Islamism in the UK, the bombing of the supply lines who provide weapons to them and targeting of weapons production facilities in rogue states that equip them then we can eradicate the threat.

In the event of rogue states that assist terrorism, then they must now that we will target them and destroy their infrastructure if they assist our enemies.

Only when our enemies fear us will they not seek to confront us.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...

As an ex soldier i agree with alot of what your saying, but your wrong on the ability of the AK47. its a more powerful round but the rifle is very inaccurate and i would rather use a SA80 the a AK47 anyday. At the moment we use the 5.56mm round as do all western armies, however there are supplemented by the new sharpshooter rifle that is a 7.62round.There is a notion at the moment that we need a more powerful round because of the distance of contacts in Afghanistan, i myself having spoken to comrades still serving that the new sharpshooter rifle should be supplied to all

Defender of Liberty said...

Thanks for the info re the SA80.

You hit the nail on the head re accuracy and long range - the SA80 I hear is good at targeting, but the AK47 is a robust, efficient and good rifle to have in a firefight.

On tactical grounds I suggest that before troops are put on the ground the weaponry of the enemy is studied prior to deployment, and then the weaponry given to the troops is such that it supplies a clear tactical advantage each time they are deployed.

The sharpshooter rifle for instance should have been given to all front line troops before they engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, as to have deployed with the SA80 has undoubtbely led to deaths as a result of the lack of a long range, accurate and hard hitting rifle to engage with the AK47.

Thanks for the comments,

Best regards,


Anonymous said...

AK47's are not inaccurate when used in the single fire mode, it's crap on full automatic mode.
The SA80 is a horrible weapon, in so many ways. On exercise during my time in the TA and as a young boy soldier all I experienced and heard was my mucker shouting "stoppage!" meaning another rifle had jammed. The SA80 was designed with the lesser powerful round to take more enemy combatants out with sever wounds, it's a rather pathetic ideology, you wound an enemy and it will need 2 men to carry him off the battlefield, so you take off 2 men, but the wounded guy still get taken off to fight another day. In Afghanistan you shouldn't need to wound someone so they can all disappear back into a village.
This tactic may work in large European style battles but not against an insurgency where a kill is necessary against fanatics who fight to the death.

I wonder if British troops wouldve been as successful in the Falklands war using the SA80s, all that moisture, sea air, mud and rain. The Agries FN would've been far more superior that the SA80.
Someone needs to redesign the beloved SLR

But the new British rifle is a step in the right direction

Button Mushroom said...

Ooh Lee, unless I'm very much mistaken, I do believe you had a tiny erection -- very tiny, mind -- when you were typing all that exciting stuff about guns!

Defender of Liberty said...

If I used it as a cosh, I would knock you out with it.