Is part of the problem with defence in the UK that we talk too much about spending as a % of GDP rather than about what capabilities we should obtain? To me it seems far more sensible that we would commit to being able to field X number of tanks/fighters/artillery systems/infantry battalions/drones and then work out what we need to spend to get there. It seems the current system incentivises creative accounting to make defence spending look bigger than it is rather than to develop genuine combat capability.
Based on how the Ukraine war has progressed, it seems like drones have completely changed the way war will be fought in the foreseeable future. For example tanks in particular seem to now be relics of a bygone era also to a large extent artillery. Ukraine, despite not having much of a Navy also used drones to essentially shut down Russia's navy.
How are Western military planners adapting to a future where drones are going to play a major role? Does this mean a lot of existing military hardware and tactics have suddenly become obsolete?
I have what’s probably a very disconcerting question. If the UK cannot restore its military capability to project power, should it consider re-negotiating with Argentina the status of the Falkland Islands? It seems possible that in a decade or so Argentina could regain the ability to make a go for them again if their leadership leans heavily into nationalism again. It might be better to get an arrangement of some sort now that might be short of a full turnover than risk an invasion that the UK could no longer counter.
Whilst I understand that Germany is unlikely to try and retake the Sudetenland, I am a little worried by the fact that Germany is rearming much more than other European allies. Is there some way we can get others (France, Spain, Italy…) to rearm even just to 80%, so if one country heads in a poor direction we can all gang up and knock them into shape again?
Do you think there is a concerted effort to undermine the military by the left wing of politics? I am in Australia and the Labor government here changed the rules of enagagement retrospectively and are holding previous serving officers, incuding our VC recipient Ben Roberts Smith, to a standard not actually in law at the time of their service. Are there similar moves in the UK, do you think?
How are countries such as Australia responding to China's military growth, Are alliances like AUKUS and the Quad sufficient to maintain stability in the Pacific region?
As an American we hear a lot from our politicians about the readiness and capabilities of European and British allies. Mostly we hear despair at their unreadiness. Do you think the British military as it now stands COULD lend effective support to a major conflict such as the current war with Iran? Ignoring the fact that our President didn't ask for the support before diving in...would it have been possible or effective from a military standpoint?
Is the military's lack of connection with the grass routes recruitment process, the outsourcing of vetting to Capita for example and the extremely prolonged timescales for joining this has created, significantly impairing the nations ability to attract people to serve. Therefore undermining the whole recruitment drive? Would the bringing back of local military staffed recruitment offices and increased public visibility of the forces, through tattoo's, air shows and other public events not be a more cost effective and transparent way of attracting keen, robust and adventurous characters?
If a major conflict involving NATO were to begin in the next year, what would be the single biggest weakness of Britain's Armed Forces that the public either doesn't know about or doesn't fully appreciate?
Is manning a tank now one of the most dangerous jobs a soldier can do, after Ukranians demonstrated that a drone or two can destroy tanks with relative ease?
Is part of the problem with defence in the UK that we talk too much about spending as a % of GDP rather than about what capabilities we should obtain? To me it seems far more sensible that we would commit to being able to field X number of tanks/fighters/artillery systems/infantry battalions/drones and then work out what we need to spend to get there. It seems the current system incentivises creative accounting to make defence spending look bigger than it is rather than to develop genuine combat capability.
A man which went to hell of Bosnia willingly, my respect.
What parallels does Hamish see, between the ethnic chaos of 90ties Bosnia, and here in the UK today?
Based on how the Ukraine war has progressed, it seems like drones have completely changed the way war will be fought in the foreseeable future. For example tanks in particular seem to now be relics of a bygone era also to a large extent artillery. Ukraine, despite not having much of a Navy also used drones to essentially shut down Russia's navy.
How are Western military planners adapting to a future where drones are going to play a major role? Does this mean a lot of existing military hardware and tactics have suddenly become obsolete?
I have what’s probably a very disconcerting question. If the UK cannot restore its military capability to project power, should it consider re-negotiating with Argentina the status of the Falkland Islands? It seems possible that in a decade or so Argentina could regain the ability to make a go for them again if their leadership leans heavily into nationalism again. It might be better to get an arrangement of some sort now that might be short of a full turnover than risk an invasion that the UK could no longer counter.
Whilst I understand that Germany is unlikely to try and retake the Sudetenland, I am a little worried by the fact that Germany is rearming much more than other European allies. Is there some way we can get others (France, Spain, Italy…) to rearm even just to 80%, so if one country heads in a poor direction we can all gang up and knock them into shape again?
Do you think there is a concerted effort to undermine the military by the left wing of politics? I am in Australia and the Labor government here changed the rules of enagagement retrospectively and are holding previous serving officers, incuding our VC recipient Ben Roberts Smith, to a standard not actually in law at the time of their service. Are there similar moves in the UK, do you think?
What does the British army lack the most of at the moment? How fast can this change?
How are countries such as Australia responding to China's military growth, Are alliances like AUKUS and the Quad sufficient to maintain stability in the Pacific region?
As an American we hear a lot from our politicians about the readiness and capabilities of European and British allies. Mostly we hear despair at their unreadiness. Do you think the British military as it now stands COULD lend effective support to a major conflict such as the current war with Iran? Ignoring the fact that our President didn't ask for the support before diving in...would it have been possible or effective from a military standpoint?
Given the leisurely progress Russia is making in Ukraine, how much of a threat does it pose? Are there other powers we need to worry about more?
Given human nature is it not a primary require to always have a strong capable army
Should Britain look to recreate a military-industrial base or stockpile weapons supplies instead?
Is the military's lack of connection with the grass routes recruitment process, the outsourcing of vetting to Capita for example and the extremely prolonged timescales for joining this has created, significantly impairing the nations ability to attract people to serve. Therefore undermining the whole recruitment drive? Would the bringing back of local military staffed recruitment offices and increased public visibility of the forces, through tattoo's, air shows and other public events not be a more cost effective and transparent way of attracting keen, robust and adventurous characters?
If a major conflict involving NATO were to begin in the next year, what would be the single biggest weakness of Britain's Armed Forces that the public either doesn't know about or doesn't fully appreciate?
Will there be a day when drones replaces soldiers on the battlefield?
Is manning a tank now one of the most dangerous jobs a soldier can do, after Ukranians demonstrated that a drone or two can destroy tanks with relative ease?
My understanding is that it always was one of the most dangerous jobs on the battlefield.