Army 'may patrol streets to confront terror'..
Discussion
And so begins the Government's operation to ensure that they can bring the Civil Contingencies Act into play to defer the election. In essence it says we can't Police the streets properly, so we'll get the (cheaper) Army to do it.
Thinking back to the days of the IRA, there is far less 'real' threat on our streets than there was during the height of the IRA attacks. This seems like a clumsy and cack-handed way to solve a problem that doesn't appear to actually be a problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/arm...
""...to confront the terror threat"
Which, after all, is so great, and the attacks so frequent, that our poor police are all but destroyed.
Me thinks the state doth lie."
and
"This morning I had to ram my Humvee through two terrorist ambushes. The green Surrey lanes are far worse than Afghanistan these days. When I got near to work the building was under siege by some militia, and so I called for an Apache gunship to clear the driveway, and so I managed to roll over the corpses, machine gunning anything that moved.
Yup, 21st century Britain is a dangerous place. I'm so glad I've got 24/7 armed security."
Thinking back to the days of the IRA, there is far less 'real' threat on our streets than there was during the height of the IRA attacks. This seems like a clumsy and cack-handed way to solve a problem that doesn't appear to actually be a problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/arm...
The Independent said:
Long-awaited Green Paper foresees new domestic role for Britain's services, with emphasis on greater co-operation as chiefs face up to budgetary constraints
By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Britain's armed forces could be used on a regular basis on the streets of Britain to confront the threat of terrorism, under the terms of a strategic defence review announced yesterday.
Two of the six "key questions" to be considered by the SDR will focus on domestic threats which "cannot be separated from international security", according to a Green Paper setting out the grounds for a full scale review to start after the election.
Decisions need to be made on the "balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance" and "what contribution the armed forces should make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK".
The paper states: "Stronger, more effective partnership with other Whitehall departments, the intelligence agencies, police forces and others at the national level will become even more important to achieving our security objective."
One proposal due to be considered, according to Whitehall officials, was the formation of a rapid reaction force which could be deployed to counter Mumbai-style terrorist attacks and carry out swift operations outside the country.
On long-term missions overseas the economic circumstances meant that Britain will have to co-operate more closely with international allies like France, said the paper. While the US remained Britain's most important strategic ally, much closer co-operation should take place with other countries.
"In Europe, the return of France to Nato's integrated military structure offers an opportunity for even greater co-operation with a key partner across a range of defence activity" it added.
The main theme of the Paper was "adaptability", imperative due to the varying demands on limited resources. The 52-page document admitted that although commanders on the ground in Afghanistan have shown the ability to adapt rapidly to challenges this had been undermined by the system in London.
"There is a widely held view within defence that our structures and processes have hindered strategic adaptation to evolving challenges and have not been as effective as they should have been in supporting commanders' innovation on the ground."
The Paper made it clear that the SDR will have to carried out against the backdrop of the £178bn deficit in the public finances. Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, stressed: "The wider financial context means resources across government will be constrained. We should not underestimate the scale of that challenge.
"We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need."
The SDR, the first one in more than a decade, is supposed to take a "root-and-branch" look at defence policy with the constraint on spending a major factor. The Ministry of Defence has a £35m black hole in its budget.
However, in presenting the Green Paper yesterday Mr Ainsworth stated three times that he did not expect it to be too "radical". He also said that one of the most contentious investment in defence, two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, is likely to go ahead.
Senior officers in the Army, doing the vast bulk of the fighting previously in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, have forcefully argued in private that the carriers were a luxury in the current economic circumstances and were relics of the cold war in the age of the insurgent.
Mr Ainsworth said yesterday: "The strategic defence review will have to take a pretty radical direction not foreseen by me in order to suggest those capabilities will not be required" he said.
"While of course the whole defence is in the review we understand the commitments we have already made and the likelihood that those will continue to be a requirement in the future."
The Defence Secretary also confirmed that the £20bn updating of the Trident nuclear programme, another source of debate, will also go ahead.
Conservative defence spokesman, Liam Fox, questioned how much Britain could afford to rely on European allies such as France. "We also agree that France and the United States are likely to be our main strategic partners" he said. "For us there are two tests; do they invest in defence? And do they fight? Sadly, too few Europeans pass that test."
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, said the omission of Trident from the review had left the Green paper "unbalanced". He continued: "Surely the manner, the scale and the timing of any replacement of Trident has cost implications for the entirety of the rest of the defence budget."
The Military Balance, an annual assessment of international defence published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies yesterday showed that China and India significantly raised their defence spending in 2009.
India raised its defence budget by 21 per cent following the Mumbai attack the previous year, while China raised its spending in the field by 15 per cent.
The comments section is particularly astute:By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Britain's armed forces could be used on a regular basis on the streets of Britain to confront the threat of terrorism, under the terms of a strategic defence review announced yesterday.
Two of the six "key questions" to be considered by the SDR will focus on domestic threats which "cannot be separated from international security", according to a Green Paper setting out the grounds for a full scale review to start after the election.
Decisions need to be made on the "balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance" and "what contribution the armed forces should make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK".
The paper states: "Stronger, more effective partnership with other Whitehall departments, the intelligence agencies, police forces and others at the national level will become even more important to achieving our security objective."
One proposal due to be considered, according to Whitehall officials, was the formation of a rapid reaction force which could be deployed to counter Mumbai-style terrorist attacks and carry out swift operations outside the country.
On long-term missions overseas the economic circumstances meant that Britain will have to co-operate more closely with international allies like France, said the paper. While the US remained Britain's most important strategic ally, much closer co-operation should take place with other countries.
"In Europe, the return of France to Nato's integrated military structure offers an opportunity for even greater co-operation with a key partner across a range of defence activity" it added.
The main theme of the Paper was "adaptability", imperative due to the varying demands on limited resources. The 52-page document admitted that although commanders on the ground in Afghanistan have shown the ability to adapt rapidly to challenges this had been undermined by the system in London.
"There is a widely held view within defence that our structures and processes have hindered strategic adaptation to evolving challenges and have not been as effective as they should have been in supporting commanders' innovation on the ground."
The Paper made it clear that the SDR will have to carried out against the backdrop of the £178bn deficit in the public finances. Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, stressed: "The wider financial context means resources across government will be constrained. We should not underestimate the scale of that challenge.
"We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need."
The SDR, the first one in more than a decade, is supposed to take a "root-and-branch" look at defence policy with the constraint on spending a major factor. The Ministry of Defence has a £35m black hole in its budget.
However, in presenting the Green Paper yesterday Mr Ainsworth stated three times that he did not expect it to be too "radical". He also said that one of the most contentious investment in defence, two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, is likely to go ahead.
Senior officers in the Army, doing the vast bulk of the fighting previously in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, have forcefully argued in private that the carriers were a luxury in the current economic circumstances and were relics of the cold war in the age of the insurgent.
Mr Ainsworth said yesterday: "The strategic defence review will have to take a pretty radical direction not foreseen by me in order to suggest those capabilities will not be required" he said.
"While of course the whole defence is in the review we understand the commitments we have already made and the likelihood that those will continue to be a requirement in the future."
The Defence Secretary also confirmed that the £20bn updating of the Trident nuclear programme, another source of debate, will also go ahead.
Conservative defence spokesman, Liam Fox, questioned how much Britain could afford to rely on European allies such as France. "We also agree that France and the United States are likely to be our main strategic partners" he said. "For us there are two tests; do they invest in defence? And do they fight? Sadly, too few Europeans pass that test."
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, said the omission of Trident from the review had left the Green paper "unbalanced". He continued: "Surely the manner, the scale and the timing of any replacement of Trident has cost implications for the entirety of the rest of the defence budget."
The Military Balance, an annual assessment of international defence published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies yesterday showed that China and India significantly raised their defence spending in 2009.
India raised its defence budget by 21 per cent following the Mumbai attack the previous year, while China raised its spending in the field by 15 per cent.
""...to confront the terror threat"
Which, after all, is so great, and the attacks so frequent, that our poor police are all but destroyed.
Me thinks the state doth lie."
and
"This morning I had to ram my Humvee through two terrorist ambushes. The green Surrey lanes are far worse than Afghanistan these days. When I got near to work the building was under siege by some militia, and so I called for an Apache gunship to clear the driveway, and so I managed to roll over the corpses, machine gunning anything that moved.
Yup, 21st century Britain is a dangerous place. I'm so glad I've got 24/7 armed security."
Edited by Funk on Friday 5th February 08:47
Muntu said:
Funk said:
What other possible requirement is there for the Army to patrol our streets..?
That said, I do like the idea of the Army blowing up chavs. Where do I sign up?
Errr... I don't see anything in that article that says that the army will be patrolling the streets of the UK (a la NI in the bad old days) except this:
Besides, much as I despise Labour and wouldn't put much past them, this is just a Green Paper. There's no way this could be policy before the election.
The Independent said:
Britain's armed forces could be used on a regular basis on the streets of Britain to confront the threat of terrorism, under the terms of a strategic defence review announced yesterday.
Which is actually quite a big journalistic leap from this:The Independent said:
One proposal due to be considered, according to Whitehall officials, was the formation of a rapid reaction force which could be deployed to counter Mumbai-style terrorist attacks and carry out swift operations outside the country.
Which is hardly a new development anyway. Who do you think would be used (as well as armed police) against a Mumbai style attack here? PCSOs?Besides, much as I despise Labour and wouldn't put much past them, this is just a Green Paper. There's no way this could be policy before the election.
This country is a joke.. I do however like the idea of the army dealing with the chavs.
It would also be nice if a tank could point its guns at No 10
Guy Fawkes did have the right idea
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, ’twas his intent
To blow up the King and Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow;
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
Hip hip hoorah!
A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing o’ cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we’ll say ol’ Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!
It would also be nice if a tank could point its guns at No 10
Guy Fawkes did have the right idea
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, ’twas his intent
To blow up the King and Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow;
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
Hip hip hoorah!
A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing o’ cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we’ll say ol’ Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!
Edited by 528Sport on Friday 5th February 09:31
Even a child could see that having the army patrol the streets would actually lead to an increase in attacks - I'm willing to bet that it would be a lot easier for terrorists etc to convince people sympathetic to their cause to attack military targets then civilian so it would just provide easy and plentiful access to "acceptable" targets.
While I'm sure it would be considered tinfoil-hat thinking I can see how potentially this might be what someone implementing this would be actually hoping for. If it resulted in attacks against soldiers they could say "look we were right - there are terrorists and they are attacking".
Unfortunately I can only really see four possible scenarios for why the gov't might push ahead with such steps
1) They are currently intercepting significant intelligence regarding planned terrorist attacks in the UK and are keeping the information quiet.
2) They have no intelligence are merely scared
3) They have no intelligence but they genuinely think it's a good idea despite its rather gaping flaws
4) They have no intelligence and are trying to manipulate the public's fear for their own ends (see tinfoil hat thinking above)
Honestly I'm not sure which I prefer
While I'm sure it would be considered tinfoil-hat thinking I can see how potentially this might be what someone implementing this would be actually hoping for. If it resulted in attacks against soldiers they could say "look we were right - there are terrorists and they are attacking".
Unfortunately I can only really see four possible scenarios for why the gov't might push ahead with such steps
1) They are currently intercepting significant intelligence regarding planned terrorist attacks in the UK and are keeping the information quiet.
2) They have no intelligence are merely scared
3) They have no intelligence but they genuinely think it's a good idea despite its rather gaping flaws
4) They have no intelligence and are trying to manipulate the public's fear for their own ends (see tinfoil hat thinking above)
Honestly I'm not sure which I prefer
Seem to remeber APCs and other armoured vehicles at LHR a few years back, as well as some of our guys in uniform standing around with SA80s...
No one mentioned then however that there were no munitions issued and it was all a show to bolster Tony bLIARs lying and schemeing about Iraq.....
I'd trust the one-eyed Scots idiot to pull a trick like that any day as he's a control freak and mentally unstable in my eyes, if he throws tantrums and mobile phones as well.... One wonders what creature one has, who is supposedly running the country.
No one mentioned then however that there were no munitions issued and it was all a show to bolster Tony bLIARs lying and schemeing about Iraq.....
I'd trust the one-eyed Scots idiot to pull a trick like that any day as he's a control freak and mentally unstable in my eyes, if he throws tantrums and mobile phones as well.... One wonders what creature one has, who is supposedly running the country.
Einion Yrth said:
Mclovin said:
come on they use the antiterrorist laws for anything now days, think army on streets against citizens.....we are facing a period of austerity, people are going to get mad and the army will be brought in....
... but whose side will they be on?Einion Yrth said:
Mclovin said:
come on they use the antiterrorist laws for anything now days, think army on streets against citizens.....we are facing a period of austerity, people are going to get mad and the army will be brought in....
... but whose side will they be on?The Forces are no longer run by donkey-walloping pukkah ruperts, there are alot of very intelligent, well educated people from all walks of life running them
BruceV8 said:
The Independent said:
One proposal due to be considered, according to Whitehall officials, was the formation of a rapid reaction force which could be deployed to counter Mumbai-style terrorist attacks and carry out swift operations outside the country.
Which is hardly a new development anyway. Who do you think would be used (as well as armed police) against a Mumbai style attack here? PCSOs?Besides, much as I despise Labour and wouldn't put much past them, this is just a Green Paper. There's no way this could be policy before the election.
JMGS4 said:
Seem to remeber APCs and other armoured vehicles at LHR a few years back, as well as some of our guys in uniform standing around with SA80s...
Yes officially because of a terrorist threat to shoot down a jet using a stinger or similar. However, this was just prior to the big stop the war march. After the march the troops went and amazingly the terrorist were neither caught or used the weapon.So either duff info or something to instill fear?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff