£££- Official cost of airstrikes against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh thread -£££

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheWanderer

Striker
No mate we negotiated the Good Friday Peace Agreement in Ireland, and as for Afghanistan, well we negotiated a peace there too - although there are signs that the Taliban is trying to break that.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8491956

So obviously the answer is bombs.
Well we should just sit back, let them develop, increase funds and weapons and their terrorist network in this case then?

I don't know the answer to winning this war, but striking at their core is surely a good start?
 

West Winger

Winger
£5 bet the Taliban will be in power (again) within 5 years.
Of course they will. Afghanistan is no better now than 14 years ago when we started there, and all we'll have done is create a power vacuum that'll be filled by a power mad, rich nutcase.

Well we should just sit back, let them develop, increase funds and weapons and their terrorist network in this case then?

I don't know the answer to winning this war, but striking at their core is surely a good start?
Striking at their core? How the fuck are 3 planes going to strike at their core?

They're raking in $33 million a month from oil - bombing random places won't stop that. We need to use the intelligence services to break the financial networks that support them, starting with the oil markets and banks that allow them to launder their money - not indiscriminately bomb things.
 

bloo71

Midfield
Of course they will. Afghanistan is no better now than 14 years ago when we started there, and all we'll have done is create a power vacuum that'll be filled by a power mad, rich nutcase.



Striking at their core? How the fuck are 3 planes going to strike at their core?

They're raking in $33 million a month from oil - bombing random places won't stop that. We need to use the intelligence services to break the financial networks that support them, starting with the oil markets and banks that allow them to launder their money - not indiscriminately bomb things.
Exactly this
 

safcforever

Striker
Its actually fucking insane how much we spend on the military.
The sad thing is they've made cut backs. They paid off a load of soldiers (a years wage and some of them have started the pension early). Very little saving in the grand scheme when you take into account the money getting wasted elsewhere in the military.
anyone who has served will tell you how much is wasted on things that are classed as expense items. It'll be in the millions because they don't need any accounting for "expense items"
 

TheWanderer

Striker
Of course they will. Afghanistan is no better now than 14 years ago when we started there, and all we'll have done is create a power vacuum that'll be filled by a power mad, rich nutcase.



Striking at their core? How the fuck are 3 planes going to strike at their core?

They're raking in $33 million a month from oil - bombing random places won't stop that. We need to use the intelligence services to break the financial networks that support them, starting with the oil markets and banks that allow them to launder their money - not indiscriminately bomb things.
Well last nights bombing raids hit the IS controlled oil fields did it not, there's a start!
And strangely enough, I have read the coalition bombs haven't targeted the oil yet, which I find strange.

It seems the UK isn't just bombing the shit out of any old place, but trying to cut off their financial income.
 

safcforever

Striker
Of course they will. Afghanistan is no better now than 14 years ago when we started there, and all we'll have done is create a power vacuum that'll be filled by a power mad, rich nutcase.



Striking at their core? How the fuck are 3 planes going to strike at their core?

They're raking in $33 million a month from oil - bombing random places won't stop that. We need to use the intelligence services to break the financial networks that support them, starting with the oil markets and banks that allow them to launder their money - not indiscriminately bomb things.
We don't want to know.

They are using oil to make their money, who is buying it? Instead of bombing anywhere they fancy why not try and hit that route instead. they're too scared to upset the Saudis and the Chinese that's why
 
1. Temporarily, even though our troops were spread too thinly and the Taliban merely moved to other areas or into Pakistan.

2. We intervened, f*cked up politically despite what seems like a best effort from the Armed Forces, a lot of people died, we are leaving, the Taliban are back in power effectively even though it's not on the news. We could have just done nowt and ignored the past 14 years in Afganistan.



Yes I know that, but it's supply and demand. If we drop more bombs we need to make or buy more and that's why I started this thread. @GalacticZorro made the same point as you. Can you substantiate how much the UK economy benefits against the cost?
Of course I can't, I've got no idea of the figures involved.

The fact is though it's money we spend anyway. We're not employing pilots instead of doctors, and we're not buying bombs instead of ambulances. These graphics getting thrown about like the one posted by @Keawyeds above are just a nonsense. It's phony propaganda for the Facebook generation.
 

PTR

Striker
Well last nights bombing raids hit the IS controlled oil fields did it not, there's a start!
And strangely enough, I have read the coalition bombs haven't targeted the oil yet, which I find strange.

It seems the UK isn't just bombing the shit out of any old place, but trying to cut off their financial income.
You have to wonder if the people working on those oil rigs are actually ISIS or not.

More likely, the civilians who used to work there, still do - just with a few ISIS blokes with guns patrolling the place. No doubt they still get paid etc, but they are not part of ISIS, surely?

So basically, we just bombed a load of civilian oil workers. Or a meringue?
 

safcforever

Striker
You have to wonder if the people working on those oil rigs are actually ISIS or not.

More likely, the civilians who used to work there, still do - just with a few ISIS blokes with guns patrolling the place. No doubt they still get paid etc, but they are not part of ISIS, surely?

So basically, we just bombed a load of civilian oil workers. Or a meringue?
This, this, this

Bombing will cause more bad than good
 

GalacticZorro

Central Defender
1. Temporarily, even though our troops were spread too thinly and the Taliban merely moved to other areas or into Pakistan.

2. We intervened, f*cked up politically despite what seems like a best effort from the Armed Forces, a lot of people died, we are leaving, the Taliban are back in power effectively even though it's not on the news. We could have just done nowt and ignored the past 14 years in Afganistan.



Yes I know that, but it's supply and demand. If we drop more bombs we need to make or buy more and that's why I started this thread. @GalacticZorro made the same point as you. Can you substantiate how much the UK economy benefits against the cost?
Well I can't , however I know it is something. Thousands of people work in the munitions sector and supporting sub-con industry. Especially here in the north east. Each of these people spend their wages in shops etc. At a wild stab in the dark guess I'd say it contributes hundreds of millions to the economy.

War is a profitable business, always has been. It's impossible to just say this missle costs 1 million , so each bomb dropped costs 1 million. I would hazard again another guess that each bomb dropped actually turns a profit for the government once all factors are accounted for. Just my opinion like.
 
Of course I can't, I've got no idea of the figures involved.

The fact is though it's money we spend anyway. We're not employing pilots instead of doctors, and we're not buying bombs instead of ambulances. These graphics getting thrown about like the one posted by @Keawyeds above are just a nonsense. It's phony propaganda for the Facebook generation.
Do you think the government budgets for 'wars'? Serious question. If we spend e.g. £50Bn to maintain the forces we would need to spend more if we actually do some fighting unless there's a contingency. The cash has to come from somewhere.

The MoD budget is to increase 0.5% over inflation and there's a new £1.5 Bn Joint Security fund.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33448383

As well as committing to meet Nato's target, he announced:

  • Spending on defence to rise in real terms - 0.5% above inflation - every year during the Parliament
  • New £1.5bn Joint Security Fund for investment in military and intelligence agencies
  • Recipients of the Victoria Cross and George Cross to see pension annuities rise from £2,129 to £10,000, paid for by bank fines
  • The government to fund a memorial to victims of terrorism overseas

When this new money is moved to one department it either comes from another or from savings made by slashing other budgets.

Well I can't , however I know it is something. Thousands of people work in the munitions sector and supporting sub-con industry. Especially here in the north east. Each of these people spend their wages in shops etc. At a wild stab in the dark guess I'd say it contributes hundreds of millions to the economy.

War is a profitable business, always has been. It's impossible to just say this missle costs 1 million , so each bomb dropped costs 1 million. I would hazard again another guess that each bomb dropped actually turns a profit for the government once all factors are accounted for. Just my opinion like.
DROP MORE BOMBS!!!!! It will pay for the NHS and HS2.
 

TheWanderer

Striker
You have to wonder if the people working on those oil rigs are actually ISIS or not.

More likely, the civilians who used to work there, still do - just with a few ISIS blokes with guns patrolling the place. No doubt they still get paid etc, but they are not part of ISIS, surely?

So basically, we just bombed a load of civilian oil workers. Or a meringue?
I'm not so sure, just having a quick look at some internet articles, it's possible that they bring in their own IS supporting workers to make these fields operational.

Also, what I didn't know. ISIL fighters get a wage!
 

GBSAFC

Striker
If anyone can be arsed we can keep a tally of how much this latest f*ck up is going to cost the UK taxpayer.

With a price tag of up to almost £1m for some missiles, British military action on IS fighters in Iraq will not come cheap.

http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer

So far:

Tornado x4 return flight from Cyprus to Syria @ 3 hours total aviation fuel.
Each Tornado carried x3 Paveway missiles = 12 @ £30,000
Aircrew salary = ???
Ground crew, logistics etc. = ???

Does this count too?:

The MoD said 93 Brimstone missiles - each costing more than £100,000 - were fired in the year to September in military operations in Iraq.

And is it worth it?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/bombing-isis-futile-air-strikes-iraq

Any accountants on here?
being able to do a pointless show of force and make themselves look like hetro men = priceless
and we may be able to flog some brimstones to suadi

were skint when it conveient for them... but we always have cash for a show of force
 

Keawyeds

Striker
Of course I can't, I've got no idea of the figures involved.

The fact is though it's money we spend anyway. We're not employing pilots instead of doctors, and we're not buying bombs instead of ambulances. These graphics getting thrown about like the one posted by @Keawyeds above are just a nonsense. It's phony propaganda for the Facebook generation.
I bet you support Trident "because it keeps people in a job".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top