If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What would happen if Britain got rid of its Armed Forces?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Just a hypothetical question to pass the time, like. 
I realise that the Armed Forces provide a number of services, including valuable humanitarian missions. But provided Britain could contribute in other ways for such missions, what would the likely consequences actually be?
In this day and age, and with the current relations we have with the world, does anyone actually believe Britain would at any time in the future be in danger of being attacked and/or invaded by another nation?
The danger of terrorist attacks will always be there and armed forces make not one iota of difference to them. If China or anyone else decided to nuke us, it would mean nuclear World War regardless of our own deterrent. Nor that any sovereign nation could possibly have reason to do such a thing.
The money saved would be astronomical, and the things that could be improved with the many billions of Pounds freed every single year endless. The way I see it is all gain and very little pain.
Already one nation (is it Costa Rica?) has successfully lived in peace without any army to back it up for decades, and in an area that for the last half century has been infinitely more volatile than ours. If we are no threat to others, others are no threat to us.
Let the flaming begin...
I realise that the Armed Forces provide a number of services, including valuable humanitarian missions. But provided Britain could contribute in other ways for such missions, what would the likely consequences actually be?
In this day and age, and with the current relations we have with the world, does anyone actually believe Britain would at any time in the future be in danger of being attacked and/or invaded by another nation?
The danger of terrorist attacks will always be there and armed forces make not one iota of difference to them. If China or anyone else decided to nuke us, it would mean nuclear World War regardless of our own deterrent. Nor that any sovereign nation could possibly have reason to do such a thing.
The money saved would be astronomical, and the things that could be improved with the many billions of Pounds freed every single year endless. The way I see it is all gain and very little pain.
Already one nation (is it Costa Rica?) has successfully lived in peace without any army to back it up for decades, and in an area that for the last half century has been infinitely more volatile than ours. If we are no threat to others, others are no threat to us.
Let the flaming begin...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
(Anyway humanitarian missions need well trained infantry more than they need anything else)
Do what? UN missions? defending ourselves? defending our allies?
To give a slightly longer answer you must have more faith in human nature than I do.
Day 1 - we abolish our armed forces
Day 2 - Argentinia invades the Falklands
day 3 - The real IRA starts a recruiting campaign
Day 4 - an unpopular Spanish government faceing an election decides to canvas by sending troops into Gib.
Day 5 - during tough EU negotiations France sends some fighters to overfly Whitehall
The armed forces aren't there to fight wars except in a last resort. They are there to make sure that the risk anyone faces in trying to influence us using force outweighs any possible reward.
You do have far too much time on your hands, Aladdin.
I must say though, that reading your posts generally, you're quite a dreamer really (in a good way). You seem to have some faith in the human condition that humankind will evolve into a caring, sharing, peaceful and harmonious creature. I think that is a wonderful dream to aspire to - and indicates that you are a man with a good heart.
I, on the other hand, while I wish we could aspire to your hoped for standards, feel too cynical about man's inhumanity to man.
Of course, this is a complete aside from your topic, so sorry I hijacked your question.
I for one cannot see a Spanish government- not even a Popular Party one- ever using military force to try to get Gibraltar back, though I guess if Argentina was to fall into a dictatorship again they could be tempted to have another go.
I don't doubt that in the past the army has fulfilled important roles, not just that of waging war. But it is possible we have reached a point in history were none of Britain's "enemies" would be uncivilised enough to consider the use of force in a dispute.
We are important enough for that in what respect?
I wouldn't - it's borders are guaranteed by the US
Can't you? I imagine in 1929 many people felt the same way about Weimar. And it'd be a no risk operation which would get lots of popular support.
In my view that's naive. The reason why people don't fight as many wars is that the risk vs reward is now weighted in the favour of risk. if we couldn't fight back because we've got rid of our armed forces all that's left is reward.
I'm afraid I'm with Teagan on this. We're fundamentally the same as the Romans, Huns and Vandals - but with better weapons.
One world government is a very bad idea ...keep the armies to fight that very idea!
Or, someone just walks in and says "our country and army rule now. K."
Shame, I had you down to lead our merry bunch of adventurers
Well, if I get to lead I'm free Thursday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army
Why haven't they been invaded? Why don't other nations send their fighter jets over as a threatening move when negotiating treaties or solving disputes?
At present not anybody could get rid of their armed forces. Certain countries in certain parts of the world would be in serious risk of promptly being attacked by their neighbours. But I still mantain that Britain could get rid of its own army without any consequences whatsoever.
Because they're small insignificant states? Because they are dependent, or have a history of dependence, or are confident that they can depend on other states for their defence? Or because they have no significant interests of their own?
I think the consequences for Britain, mentioned by FG, are quite likely.
In what way are we so significant?
We have no raw materials of any kind that anyone needs or wants.
We have more or less no manufacturing industry that cannot and is not being replicated elswhere.
We have the financial ...
So we have one city of importance ...who the fuck would want to attack it ...or defend it?
This country realy is on the edge of hell.
because frankly who cares about Micronesia or Andora. Many of these have defence agreements with larger countries, because everyone recognises they are too small to defend themselves, others have police forces which are basically small armies (with AFVs etc).
It also was invaded by the US quiet recently and is now basically a US protectorate
You didn't read the whole article, Aladdin :
Many of the 21 countries listed here typically have had a long-standing agreement with a former occupying country etc etc
Said as a Spaniard wanting Gibraltar back!
Thats the spirit, first Costa Rica then the other 20 and we'll soon have an Empire. I quite fancy being Viceroy of Micronesia.
But you'll only have a for a few years before it sinks under global warming... Still may be good to have to scuba dive to your new possessions