Utopia Talk - Politics - The shocking state of Britain's navy

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 27 00:06:17 UTC 2026

Utopia Talk / Politics / The shocking state of Britain's navy

Rugian
rank Mon Mar 23 02:10:15
Tl;dw: the UK's entire surface fleet of service-ready combat ships is down to 1 aircraft carrier, 2 destroyers and 5 frigates.

http://m.y...YXRlIG9mIGJyaXRhaW5zIG5hdnk%3D

Brutal.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 02:12:35
And yet, a pretty solid improvement from a few years back.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 02:19:50
Not that you are doing that great either.

http://new...nd-marine-tracker-march-9-2026

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 23 02:45:52
I think seb might be some low level government functionary in naval procurement.

Lololololol

Seb
rank Mon Mar 23 03:23:02
So 1/3rd ready, 1/3rd resupply & maintenance low readiness, 1/3rd refit and unavailable.

This is entirely in line with the number of ships in commission. Like, what were you expecting? 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 7 frigates.

You know why the navy is the way it is? All the procurement programs in the 2000s were cut back to pay for two large and expensive land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to support the US, who mocked the soldiers that died and then told us it was not going to bother with NATO collective self defence.

Go fuck yourself Rugian.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 23 03:25:43
Anyway, it's shifting back now.

The key thing for British defence is when the US comes knocking asking for support for a foreign adventure, is to listen to the ambassador carefully, then declare them persona-non-grata and make them send another one until they stop asking.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 23 04:51:07
"it's America's fault we suck"

Pathetic AND gay.

LOL@brits having to live in a country with this sort of moronitude.

Forwyn
rank Mon Mar 23 04:58:34
"two large and expensive land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

"46,000 troops were deployed at the onset of the invasion and the total cost of war stood at £9.24 billion in 2010."

"The watchdog highlights that the use of official development assistance (ODA) to support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, known as in-donor refugee costs (IDRC), rose sharply from £628 million in 2020 to a peak of £4.3 billion in 2023."

http://www...2%A34.3%20billion%20in%202023.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 09:54:28
The Ford is out for 14 months because its clothsdryer caught fire. Probably longer as those things always last longer than planned.

Sammys are just horrible at running well anything.

Rugian
rank Mon Mar 23 15:13:15
Jergul

It's actually really sweet that you instinctively jumped in to defend your buddy.

Okay Seb. I'm sorry I made fun of your little toy collection. It's actually really big and cool!

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 15:28:40
Ruggy
Its more that I pointed this out literally decades ago. I feel like I have been copy-write violated.

Because, come on, seriously. Seb and I buddies? You cannot have been paying attention much.

murder
rank Mon Mar 23 18:40:35

"The Ford is out for 14 months ..."

That's completely normal for a carrier between deployments.

-

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 19:24:19
It was not between deployments until a washing machine caught fire.

Pillz
rank Mon Mar 23 23:41:08
Saw this the other week.

What timing.

"Navy’s Kilby signals USS Ford could see 11-month deployment, approaching record length

During the Vietnam era, the USS Midway set the record for longest at-sea deployment at 332 days.

By Diana Stancy on March 05, 2026 7:38 am

WASHINGTON — After being rerouted to support operations in the Middle East against the Iranian regime, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is expected to remain at sea for 11 months, according to Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jim Kilby.

While the Navy’s carrier deployments are slated to last seven months, the Ford’s current deployment has been extended and could break previous records set during the Vietnam-era.

“That extension will ultimately be about an 11-month deployment, so there will be an impact on her return and the schedule for her maintenance availability so she’s ready to go again,” Kilby told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “The good part about our public shipyards is they’re adjusting that schedule, they’re ready to bring back our carrier and maintain her.” "

Continued

https://br...ent-approaching-record-length/

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 23:54:36
The original meaning of sabotage. Worers throwing wooden clogs (sabots) into machinery during workplace disputes. Not unlikely something like this happened. The vessel also had issues with plumbing backlogs when sailors flushed inappropriate items.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 23 23:54:53
Workers*

Sam Adams
rank Tue Mar 24 02:12:07
The first time jergul has been correct. The carrier was probably sabotaged by a muslim/wokist.

murder
rank Tue Mar 24 05:56:15

"It was not between deployments until a washing machine caught fire."

It was nearing the end of a long deployment. It only makes sense to end it if it has to be brought in for repairs ... and that should have happened when the plumbing broke.

-

Pillz
rank Tue Mar 24 06:32:20
Indians don't need toilets or clean laundry, neither should US service members

Sam Adams
rank Tue Mar 24 17:49:22
There's the greatest naval engagement since the Falklands and the UK can't put to sea any significant naval force.

What would Nelson think? How utterly embarrassing for all involved.

jergul
rank Tue Mar 24 19:26:20
I am sure they would be there to stop the agressors, but Iran does not seem to need any help.

Seb
rank Tue Mar 24 22:30:21
Sam:

Nelson would think "Why is this our war to fight?"

"How utterly embarrassing for all involved"

Indeed, which is why we have decided not to be. The Americans want to prat-fall on the totally unexpected issue of Iran being able to shut the straits, so be it.

Either the Americans will TACO, or they will succeed in bombing Iran into opening the straits.

Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Sam Adams
rank Tue Mar 24 22:46:32
Nelson would take one look at the status of the fleet and immediately flog you to death for treason.

Then he would probably cry and kill himself too.

What a pathetic disaster your once mighty nation has become.

Seb
rank Tue Mar 24 23:52:31
Nelson isn't really going to be in a position to offer a view on the state of the fleet. It's somewhat beyond his experience.

But given the fleet is largely suffering from budget cuts driven by partaking in US instigated wars, I quite agree we need to tell you guys to fuck off and then focus on ASW.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 00:18:32
You have betrayed your heros seb.

Pillz
rank Wed Mar 25 01:16:11
Heroes are beyond seb's comprehension, tbf.

Rugian
rank Wed Mar 25 02:01:35
"But given the fleet is largely suffering from budget cuts driven by partaking in US instigated wars"

*blames the US for the UK not having the money for a proper fleet*

*ignores the welfare payments has made to millions of Muslim rapists living in the UK*

FFS Seb.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 03:32:36
"Heroes are beyond seb's comprehension, tbf."

Excellent point. Heros have honor, loyalty, bravery and usually skill.

I'm not sure a socialist knows what a single one is.

Forwyn
rank Wed Mar 25 04:30:16
Reminder: the UK spent 9 billion on the Iraq War, and 22 billion on Afghanistan.

Adjusted for inflation...50 billion?

The UK budget in 2023 was 1.1 trillion.

Seb says that 30 billion in expenditures bankrupted his military for the next twenty years.

But spends half a billion every year on housing and cash for invaders.

Paramount
rank Wed Mar 25 09:10:18
They don’t have any colonies anymore. Do they need a large navy?

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 11:26:34
Rugian:

Yes, because we spent the money fighting a bunch of very expensive wars for untrustworthy allies, who then decided to wage a trade war on us.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 11:28:19
Forwyn:

Yes, surprisingly, running schools, hospitals and paying pensioners is more important than building a navy to support stupid American wars.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 11:29:41
The fact that Trump seems to want to replay the Dardanelles fiasco, I'm quite glad that Starmer is no Churchill.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 15:29:44
"I'm quite glad that Starmer is no Churchill."

Lmfao

Amazing

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 17:00:22
Sam Adams:

Suspect you don't know what the Dardanelles campaign was, that it was an epic fail, and who its main proponent and architect was.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 17:00:36
Whoops, the above was to NaMBLA.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 17:18:05
Like almost all things, I know vastly more about it than you do.

Basically it was a clusterfuck of British retardation, a good example of the incompetence that resides in you. The naval bombardment was a good idea that almost worked but the british cowards ran away when mines threatened. The landings were so stupid that they were almost certainly invented by your direct anscestor, and were doomed to embarrassing failure even before the first boots hit the beach.

And yes it was a giant black mark on churchills career but still only a collosal retard such as yourself could possibly compare starmer favorably.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 17:22:48
NaMBLA:

The US is about to do a Gallipoli. You were having orgasms about a marine landing to open the heavily mined straits.

I am glad that Starmer isn't a Churchill about to sign us up for a kind if campaign that gave Churchill a "black mark".

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 17:49:13
The US is vastly more capable and intelligent than the UK ever was, the iranians more fragmented than the Turks, and the straits of hormuz are vastly less defensible than the dardenneles.

It might work this time.

You use your failure at the dardenneles as an excuse to be a coward. We use it to determine what to try next time.

This is why you are a declining nation of losers, and why our flag is on the moon.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 18:01:10

Sure, ships can be struck from far further away than coastal batteries. Sure, infantry can now get chewed up by drones etc from miles away.

I want to post the "but it just might work for us" meme.

The British empire was much better at picking the right fights than the US. This is why Pax Britanica lasted a longer than pax America.

But either way, it's not our fight. It's yours and the best result for the UK would be the US losing and a wave against trump and the republicans off the back of it, then the Iranian regime collapsing to a popular liberal movement from war exhaustion.

This is unlikely, but the result I'll root for.

Certainly I wouldn't support any UK involvement that might undermine this result.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 18:10:30
"The British empire was much better at picking the right fights than the US."

Oh such wise picker of fights. You sacrificed the last full generation of British men with actual xy chromosomes by giving them all bayonets and ordering them to charge entrenched machine guns. Again and again and again. Much wise pick. Very strategy. Amazing choice. Lol

"it's not our fight."

Of course not. You are a coward. Nothing is your fight. Especially not those 90 million suffering Iranians who simply want to be not tortured to death by their own gestapo government.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 18:44:53
Sam:

Indeed, it all went wrong when jingoist blimps decided to do something immensely stupid. But there was 110 years of unchallenged supremacy between Trafalgar and wW1, about three generations at that time.

You've barely managed 70 years before screwing
the pootch. One generational change of leaders and you fucked it into the ground.

So now you, NaMBLA, are in ecstasy to send a MEU to do the equivalent of marching slowly towards machine guns.

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 18:45:47
"Nothing is your fight."

Incorrect. There is a war coming with Russia, and possibly with the US depending how decadent it has become. Iran is not important and not our problem.

Forwyn
rank Wed Mar 25 18:52:42
"running schools, hospitals, and migrant hotels, and paying pensioners and invaders" *fixed

"building a navy to support stupid American wars."

Lol. You still fellate to the Falklands and defend Syrian and Libyan intervention.

Sam Adams
rank Wed Mar 25 19:15:39
"There is a war coming with Russia, and possibly with the US"

Lol you are afraid to take on Irans pathetic forces yet you think you will fight Russia. Or much worse the mighty usa?

Lmfao right

Pillz
rank Wed Mar 25 19:40:33
Unless the states are not willing to stomach casualties russia is the only capable military on earth right now sooo

Seb
rank Wed Mar 25 23:24:23
Forwyn:

Yup, but Argentina is no threat, and we don't actually need a lot of surface combatants to intervene in Syria and Libya do we?

NaMBLA:

I don't think you understand the idea that not having a reason to get into a fight isn't the same as being frightened to fight.

It was Napoleon who said "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake".

Forwyn
rank Wed Mar 25 23:26:24
"Argentina is no threat, and we don't actually need a lot of surface combatants"

"not having a reason to get into a fight isn't the same as being frightened to fight."

Interesting how you play both sides in the same comment

Pillz
rank Wed Mar 25 23:27:36
Saving 'Argentina isn't a threat' for a rainy day

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 11:32:05
Forwyn:

How is that playing both sides.

1. Argentina isn't a threat.

2. The principle naval to the UK is Russian submarine activity. We need more attack subs, and more UUVs. More escort frigates is fighting yesterday's war.

It's true we could probably use some more DDs the reason we went from 12 and then 8 and then 6 T45s were to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Ditto on the T26 numbers.

50bn would buy you 6 T45s, 6T26s, and 6 Astutes, with 25bn left over for running and upkeep and have kept the fleet at 1990 levels in numbers.

What do we have to show for Iraq and Afghanistan - sweet fuck all in terms of outcome because the US cut and ran, and not even the gratitude of our former ally that mocks our dead, wages a trade war against us, and threatens a Cold War Russian style political subversion campaign.

Complete waste of time.

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 15:34:32
Pillz:

Go ahead. Comparatively the capability gap between Argentina and the UK has grown since then; and the UK is more assertive about the Falklands than before.

If they decide to try again they'd be facing a stronger defence force; and a much more capable RN even if it's smaller in tonnage.

Their entire fighter air force (when fully delivered 6 in service 18 on order), is 24 F-16s.

It wouldn't take even the full missile load of a single type 45 to shoot all of them down.

A war compliment on a Queen Elizabeth carrier would be 48 F-35s

And there's 4 typhoons at port Stanley with excellent BVR capability. I don't fancy their odds even with surprise attack.

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 15:35:22
If they tried to take the Falklands it would go worse for them than last time I reckon.

jergul
rank Thu Mar 26 15:48:13
We can tell its going great in Iran by Sammy's sudden interest in all things not related to Iran.

jergul
rank Thu Mar 26 15:48:47
Argentina has even less of a navy than the UK compared to back then.

Sam Adams
rank Thu Mar 26 16:11:40
Lol jergul it might be difficult for you to understand but a brain need not be confined to a single thought.

Pillz
rank Thu Mar 26 16:15:56
How do you intend to defend the Falklands if you're defending Europe?

You have threats from the east and west after all, no good Russians and thuggish Americans.

Forwyn
rank Thu Mar 26 17:00:04
"How is that playing both sides."

You predicate your defense of intervention based on how seriously they can fight back, then simultaneously chickenhawk about prepping for war with Russia and the US. lol.

"Intervention A is justified because we can let Islamists do the heavy lifting. Intervention B is not because some of us might die. But I also fellate to the idea of nuking NYC"

Pillz
rank Thu Mar 26 17:18:25
Not NYC, it is an Islamic metropolis.

Boston perhaps

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 20:26:06
Pillz:

There are 4 tornados permanently stationed in port Stanley.

That's enough to take out every fighter they have.

And then their ships are sitting ducks.

If we needed to send an Astute down there, we could take their entire fleet.

Not an issue.

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 20:28:21
Forwyn:

"You predicate your defense of intervention based on how seriously they can fight back, then simultaneously chickenhawk about prepping for war with Russia and the US. lol."

Let me get this straight: I point it Argentina is not threat to the UK; and that somehow undermines the point that we need to preserve our forces to fight the much more powerful Russia and possibly the US (and that these need different weapons and force structures).

You are doing to have to explain to me the contradiction. I don't see it.

Forwyn
rank Thu Mar 26 20:46:14
Oh, are you seriously saying that Argentina is not a threat *right now* to sidestep the historical invasion? lmao

jergul
rank Thu Mar 26 21:16:30
Argentina lacks force projection today forwyn. Its downsizing was way worse than the UKs.

Sam Adams
rank Thu Mar 26 21:18:12
Lol so seb very quickly went from fighting the US and Russia in his head(after admitting the Iranian navy was too much) and now is thinking maybe he take on Argentina. Lol.

Forwyn
rank Thu Mar 26 21:23:17
"Argentina lacks force projection today forwyn."

I'm curious how anyone could read this statement:

"You still fellate to the Falklands and defend Syrian and Libyan intervention."

And think that it had anything to do with 2026 Argentina and not the Falklands fucking war. Am I in bizarro world or something?

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 21:56:13
Forwyn:

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

Current investment decisions are based on current threats.

We don't spend very much on wooden 1st rate ships of the line because of Trafalgar.

Similarly, we don't want to invest heavily in the kind of force structure that won the Falklands conflict; the Argentine force structure is different and technology has moved on.

The original invasion was a failure of deterrence. They were always going to lose, they just didn't understand that.

The lesson here then is to have the right force structure to deter Russia (and also the US is it fancies a pop at Greenland).

The force structure we have in the Falklands is sufficient to defeat any plausible Argentine threat. If that changes, we can talk.

In the meantime, none of this matters for the strategic calculation re Iran. The US started an unnecessary war without consulting with its allies; why would we expand resources helping them US out when we need to preserve and expand our forces to deter Russia and, potentially, US action against our allies in Greenland.

Why would we help you out, even if we had an extra ten escort frigates?

We helped you out in Iraq and Afghanistan and now you are actively threatening us and our allies.

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 21:57:14
NaMBLA:
No. We don't need to take on Argentina, they know how it ends and they won't try.

Sam Adams
rank Thu Mar 26 22:04:50
"Why would we help you out"

Because you want us to shield you from Russia?

Now that might not happen.

Seb
rank Thu Mar 26 22:30:53
NaMBLA:

You've already said you wont. Our defense planning assumes you will not.

Hell you openly laugh and denigrate the deaths of British servicemen that died in the last two US wars.

show deleted posts

Rugian rank	Mon Mar 23 02:10:15 Tl;dw: the UK's entire surface fleet of service-ready combat ships is down to 1 aircraft carrier, 2 destroyers and 5 frigates. http://m.y...YXRlIG9mIGJyaXRhaW5zIG5hdnk%3D Brutal.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 02:12:35 And yet, a pretty solid improvement from a few years back.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 02:19:50 Not that you are doing that great either. http://new...nd-marine-tracker-march-9-2026
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 23 02:45:52 I think seb might be some low level government functionary in naval procurement. Lololololol
Seb rank	Mon Mar 23 03:23:02 So 1/3rd ready, 1/3rd resupply & maintenance low readiness, 1/3rd refit and unavailable. This is entirely in line with the number of ships in commission. Like, what were you expecting? 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 7 frigates. You know why the navy is the way it is? All the procurement programs in the 2000s were cut back to pay for two large and expensive land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to support the US, who mocked the soldiers that died and then told us it was not going to bother with NATO collective self defence. Go fuck yourself Rugian.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 23 03:25:43 Anyway, it's shifting back now. The key thing for British defence is when the US comes knocking asking for support for a foreign adventure, is to listen to the ambassador carefully, then declare them persona-non-grata and make them send another one until they stop asking.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 23 04:51:07 "it's America's fault we suck" Pathetic AND gay. LOL@brits having to live in a country with this sort of moronitude.
Forwyn rank	Mon Mar 23 04:58:34 "two large and expensive land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" "46,000 troops were deployed at the onset of the invasion and the total cost of war stood at £9.24 billion in 2010." "The watchdog highlights that the use of official development assistance (ODA) to support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, known as in-donor refugee costs (IDRC), rose sharply from £628 million in 2020 to a peak of £4.3 billion in 2023." http://www...2%A34.3%20billion%20in%202023.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 09:54:28 The Ford is out for 14 months because its clothsdryer caught fire. Probably longer as those things always last longer than planned. Sammys are just horrible at running well anything.
Rugian rank	Mon Mar 23 15:13:15 Jergul It's actually really sweet that you instinctively jumped in to defend your buddy. Okay Seb. I'm sorry I made fun of your little toy collection. It's actually really big and cool!
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 15:28:40 Ruggy Its more that I pointed this out literally decades ago. I feel like I have been copy-write violated. Because, come on, seriously. Seb and I buddies? You cannot have been paying attention much.
murder rank	Mon Mar 23 18:40:35 "The Ford is out for 14 months ..." That's completely normal for a carrier between deployments. -
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 19:24:19 It was not between deployments until a washing machine caught fire.
Pillz rank	Mon Mar 23 23:41:08 Saw this the other week. What timing. "Navy’s Kilby signals USS Ford could see 11-month deployment, approaching record length During the Vietnam era, the USS Midway set the record for longest at-sea deployment at 332 days. By Diana Stancy on March 05, 2026 7:38 am WASHINGTON — After being rerouted to support operations in the Middle East against the Iranian regime, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is expected to remain at sea for 11 months, according to Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jim Kilby. While the Navy’s carrier deployments are slated to last seven months, the Ford’s current deployment has been extended and could break previous records set during the Vietnam-era. “That extension will ultimately be about an 11-month deployment, so there will be an impact on her return and the schedule for her maintenance availability so she’s ready to go again,” Kilby told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “The good part about our public shipyards is they’re adjusting that schedule, they’re ready to bring back our carrier and maintain her.” " Continued https://br...ent-approaching-record-length/
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 23:54:36 The original meaning of sabotage. Worers throwing wooden clogs (sabots) into machinery during workplace disputes. Not unlikely something like this happened. The vessel also had issues with plumbing backlogs when sailors flushed inappropriate items.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 23 23:54:53 Workers*
Sam Adams rank	Tue Mar 24 02:12:07 The first time jergul has been correct. The carrier was probably sabotaged by a muslim/wokist.
murder rank	Tue Mar 24 05:56:15 "It was not between deployments until a washing machine caught fire." It was nearing the end of a long deployment. It only makes sense to end it if it has to be brought in for repairs ... and that should have happened when the plumbing broke. -
Pillz rank	Tue Mar 24 06:32:20 Indians don't need toilets or clean laundry, neither should US service members
Sam Adams rank	Tue Mar 24 17:49:22 There's the greatest naval engagement since the Falklands and the UK can't put to sea any significant naval force. What would Nelson think? How utterly embarrassing for all involved.
jergul rank	Tue Mar 24 19:26:20 I am sure they would be there to stop the agressors, but Iran does not seem to need any help.
Seb rank	Tue Mar 24 22:30:21 Sam: Nelson would think "Why is this our war to fight?" "How utterly embarrassing for all involved" Indeed, which is why we have decided not to be. The Americans want to prat-fall on the totally unexpected issue of Iran being able to shut the straits, so be it. Either the Americans will TACO, or they will succeed in bombing Iran into opening the straits. Not our circus, not our monkeys.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Mar 24 22:46:32 Nelson would take one look at the status of the fleet and immediately flog you to death for treason. Then he would probably cry and kill himself too. What a pathetic disaster your once mighty nation has become.
Seb rank	Tue Mar 24 23:52:31 Nelson isn't really going to be in a position to offer a view on the state of the fleet. It's somewhat beyond his experience. But given the fleet is largely suffering from budget cuts driven by partaking in US instigated wars, I quite agree we need to tell you guys to fuck off and then focus on ASW.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 00:18:32 You have betrayed your heros seb.
Pillz rank	Wed Mar 25 01:16:11 Heroes are beyond seb's comprehension, tbf.
Rugian rank	Wed Mar 25 02:01:35 "But given the fleet is largely suffering from budget cuts driven by partaking in US instigated wars" blames the US for the UK not having the money for a proper fleet ignores the welfare payments has made to millions of Muslim rapists living in the UK FFS Seb.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 03:32:36 "Heroes are beyond seb's comprehension, tbf." Excellent point. Heros have honor, loyalty, bravery and usually skill. I'm not sure a socialist knows what a single one is.
Forwyn rank	Wed Mar 25 04:30:16 Reminder: the UK spent 9 billion on the Iraq War, and 22 billion on Afghanistan. Adjusted for inflation...50 billion? The UK budget in 2023 was 1.1 trillion. Seb says that 30 billion in expenditures bankrupted his military for the next twenty years. But spends half a billion every year on housing and cash for invaders.
Paramount rank	Wed Mar 25 09:10:18 They don’t have any colonies anymore. Do they need a large navy?
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 11:26:34 Rugian: Yes, because we spent the money fighting a bunch of very expensive wars for untrustworthy allies, who then decided to wage a trade war on us.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 11:28:19 Forwyn: Yes, surprisingly, running schools, hospitals and paying pensioners is more important than building a navy to support stupid American wars.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 11:29:41 The fact that Trump seems to want to replay the Dardanelles fiasco, I'm quite glad that Starmer is no Churchill.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 15:29:44 "I'm quite glad that Starmer is no Churchill." Lmfao Amazing
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 17:00:22 Sam Adams: Suspect you don't know what the Dardanelles campaign was, that it was an epic fail, and who its main proponent and architect was.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 17:00:36 Whoops, the above was to NaMBLA.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 17:18:05 Like almost all things, I know vastly more about it than you do. Basically it was a clusterfuck of British retardation, a good example of the incompetence that resides in you. The naval bombardment was a good idea that almost worked but the british cowards ran away when mines threatened. The landings were so stupid that they were almost certainly invented by your direct anscestor, and were doomed to embarrassing failure even before the first boots hit the beach. And yes it was a giant black mark on churchills career but still only a collosal retard such as yourself could possibly compare starmer favorably.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 17:22:48 NaMBLA: The US is about to do a Gallipoli. You were having orgasms about a marine landing to open the heavily mined straits. I am glad that Starmer isn't a Churchill about to sign us up for a kind if campaign that gave Churchill a "black mark".
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 17:49:13 The US is vastly more capable and intelligent than the UK ever was, the iranians more fragmented than the Turks, and the straits of hormuz are vastly less defensible than the dardenneles. It might work this time. You use your failure at the dardenneles as an excuse to be a coward. We use it to determine what to try next time. This is why you are a declining nation of losers, and why our flag is on the moon.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 18:01:10 Sure, ships can be struck from far further away than coastal batteries. Sure, infantry can now get chewed up by drones etc from miles away. I want to post the "but it just might work for us" meme. The British empire was much better at picking the right fights than the US. This is why Pax Britanica lasted a longer than pax America. But either way, it's not our fight. It's yours and the best result for the UK would be the US losing and a wave against trump and the republicans off the back of it, then the Iranian regime collapsing to a popular liberal movement from war exhaustion. This is unlikely, but the result I'll root for. Certainly I wouldn't support any UK involvement that might undermine this result.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 18:10:30 "The British empire was much better at picking the right fights than the US." Oh such wise picker of fights. You sacrificed the last full generation of British men with actual xy chromosomes by giving them all bayonets and ordering them to charge entrenched machine guns. Again and again and again. Much wise pick. Very strategy. Amazing choice. Lol "it's not our fight." Of course not. You are a coward. Nothing is your fight. Especially not those 90 million suffering Iranians who simply want to be not tortured to death by their own gestapo government.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 18:44:53 Sam: Indeed, it all went wrong when jingoist blimps decided to do something immensely stupid. But there was 110 years of unchallenged supremacy between Trafalgar and wW1, about three generations at that time. You've barely managed 70 years before screwing the pootch. One generational change of leaders and you fucked it into the ground. So now you, NaMBLA, are in ecstasy to send a MEU to do the equivalent of marching slowly towards machine guns.
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 18:45:47 "Nothing is your fight." Incorrect. There is a war coming with Russia, and possibly with the US depending how decadent it has become. Iran is not important and not our problem.
Forwyn rank	Wed Mar 25 18:52:42 "running schools, hospitals, and migrant hotels, and paying pensioners and invaders" *fixed "building a navy to support stupid American wars." Lol. You still fellate to the Falklands and defend Syrian and Libyan intervention.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Mar 25 19:15:39 "There is a war coming with Russia, and possibly with the US" Lol you are afraid to take on Irans pathetic forces yet you think you will fight Russia. Or much worse the mighty usa? Lmfao right
Pillz rank	Wed Mar 25 19:40:33 Unless the states are not willing to stomach casualties russia is the only capable military on earth right now sooo
Seb rank	Wed Mar 25 23:24:23 Forwyn: Yup, but Argentina is no threat, and we don't actually need a lot of surface combatants to intervene in Syria and Libya do we? NaMBLA: I don't think you understand the idea that not having a reason to get into a fight isn't the same as being frightened to fight. It was Napoleon who said "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake".
Forwyn rank	Wed Mar 25 23:26:24 "Argentina is no threat, and we don't actually need a lot of surface combatants" "not having a reason to get into a fight isn't the same as being frightened to fight." Interesting how you play both sides in the same comment
Pillz rank	Wed Mar 25 23:27:36 Saving 'Argentina isn't a threat' for a rainy day
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 11:32:05 Forwyn: How is that playing both sides. 1. Argentina isn't a threat. 2. The principle naval to the UK is Russian submarine activity. We need more attack subs, and more UUVs. More escort frigates is fighting yesterday's war. It's true we could probably use some more DDs the reason we went from 12 and then 8 and then 6 T45s were to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Ditto on the T26 numbers. 50bn would buy you 6 T45s, 6T26s, and 6 Astutes, with 25bn left over for running and upkeep and have kept the fleet at 1990 levels in numbers. What do we have to show for Iraq and Afghanistan - sweet fuck all in terms of outcome because the US cut and ran, and not even the gratitude of our former ally that mocks our dead, wages a trade war against us, and threatens a Cold War Russian style political subversion campaign. Complete waste of time.
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 15:34:32 Pillz: Go ahead. Comparatively the capability gap between Argentina and the UK has grown since then; and the UK is more assertive about the Falklands than before. If they decide to try again they'd be facing a stronger defence force; and a much more capable RN even if it's smaller in tonnage. Their entire fighter air force (when fully delivered 6 in service 18 on order), is 24 F-16s. It wouldn't take even the full missile load of a single type 45 to shoot all of them down. A war compliment on a Queen Elizabeth carrier would be 48 F-35s And there's 4 typhoons at port Stanley with excellent BVR capability. I don't fancy their odds even with surprise attack.
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 15:35:22 If they tried to take the Falklands it would go worse for them than last time I reckon.
jergul rank	Thu Mar 26 15:48:13 We can tell its going great in Iran by Sammy's sudden interest in all things not related to Iran.
jergul rank	Thu Mar 26 15:48:47 Argentina has even less of a navy than the UK compared to back then.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Mar 26 16:11:40 Lol jergul it might be difficult for you to understand but a brain need not be confined to a single thought.
Pillz rank	Thu Mar 26 16:15:56 How do you intend to defend the Falklands if you're defending Europe? You have threats from the east and west after all, no good Russians and thuggish Americans.
Forwyn rank	Thu Mar 26 17:00:04 "How is that playing both sides." You predicate your defense of intervention based on how seriously they can fight back, then simultaneously chickenhawk about prepping for war with Russia and the US. lol. "Intervention A is justified because we can let Islamists do the heavy lifting. Intervention B is not because some of us might die. But I also fellate to the idea of nuking NYC"
Pillz rank	Thu Mar 26 17:18:25 Not NYC, it is an Islamic metropolis. Boston perhaps
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 20:26:06 Pillz: There are 4 tornados permanently stationed in port Stanley. That's enough to take out every fighter they have. And then their ships are sitting ducks. If we needed to send an Astute down there, we could take their entire fleet. Not an issue.
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 20:28:21 Forwyn: "You predicate your defense of intervention based on how seriously they can fight back, then simultaneously chickenhawk about prepping for war with Russia and the US. lol." Let me get this straight: I point it Argentina is not threat to the UK; and that somehow undermines the point that we need to preserve our forces to fight the much more powerful Russia and possibly the US (and that these need different weapons and force structures). You are doing to have to explain to me the contradiction. I don't see it.
Forwyn rank	Thu Mar 26 20:46:14 *Oh, are you seriously saying that Argentina is not a threat right now* to sidestep the historical invasion? lmao**
jergul rank	Thu Mar 26 21:16:30 Argentina lacks force projection today forwyn. Its downsizing was way worse than the UKs.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Mar 26 21:18:12 Lol so seb very quickly went from fighting the US and Russia in his head(after admitting the Iranian navy was too much) and now is thinking maybe he take on Argentina. Lol.
Forwyn rank	Thu Mar 26 21:23:17 "Argentina lacks force projection today forwyn." I'm curious how anyone could read this statement: "You still fellate to the Falklands and defend Syrian and Libyan intervention." And think that it had anything to do with 2026 Argentina and not the Falklands fucking war. Am I in bizarro world or something?
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 21:56:13 Forwyn: I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Current investment decisions are based on current threats. We don't spend very much on wooden 1st rate ships of the line because of Trafalgar. Similarly, we don't want to invest heavily in the kind of force structure that won the Falklands conflict; the Argentine force structure is different and technology has moved on. The original invasion was a failure of deterrence. They were always going to lose, they just didn't understand that. The lesson here then is to have the right force structure to deter Russia (and also the US is it fancies a pop at Greenland). The force structure we have in the Falklands is sufficient to defeat any plausible Argentine threat. If that changes, we can talk. In the meantime, none of this matters for the strategic calculation re Iran. The US started an unnecessary war without consulting with its allies; why would we expand resources helping them US out when we need to preserve and expand our forces to deter Russia and, potentially, US action against our allies in Greenland. Why would we help you out, even if we had an extra ten escort frigates? We helped you out in Iraq and Afghanistan and now you are actively threatening us and our allies.
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 21:57:14 NaMBLA: No. We don't need to take on Argentina, they know how it ends and they won't try.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Mar 26 22:04:50 "Why would we help you out" Because you want us to shield you from Russia? Now that might not happen.
Seb rank	Thu Mar 26 22:30:53 NaMBLA: You've already said you wont. Our defense planning assumes you will not. Hell you openly laugh and denigrate the deaths of British servicemen that died in the last two US wars.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: