>David Cameron announces 5,000-strong 'strike brigades' to take the fight to terrorists
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12010688/David-Cameron-announces-5000-strong-strike-brigades-to-take-the-fight-to-terrorists.html
>Britain's army is to be restructured to form two "strike brigades" of 5,000 soldiers which can be deployed immediately to fight terrorists and others threatening the country, the Prime Minister will announce on Monday.
"We cannot leave the burden and risk of protecting out country to others. Such action would be one key element of a comprehensive, long-term strategy to defeat Isil, in parallel with a major international effort to bring an end to the war in Syria."
For once Dave, I've no complaints.
>>56462329
C'mon fellow britkeks. Get hyped.
>>56462329
Only 5000.
Holy shit that's weak.
>>56464032
not particularly m8, 5000 is a pretty good strike force if you want them to be highly mobile and well equipped/trained, we aren't talking about an invasion of Russia here
>Do you think Britain should intervene by launching air strikes on Isil in Syria?
Yes, we have to strike at the heart of Isil 82%
No, innocent civilians will be killed 8%
Bombing Syria is too extreme, but something needs to be done 10%
>>56462329
Isn't that the guy who talked about embracing Rhamadan and appreciating the hard work of british muslims in the open gates video?
>>56464238
Will they be SAS tier? Because seriously. Mediocre training isnt gonna help 5k brits kill thousands upon thousands of sandniggers.
>>56464397
Unfortunately yes.
So this is what the cuts are paying for..
Cameron talks a mean fight all of a sudden? This is a dubious threat.
Are we talking SAS? Militia off the street? Maybe a Sharia Enforcement Team from 'refugees'?
>>56464032
Weak? 5000 British soldiers weak? Come on Jamal, think before you speak.
>>56462329
oy vey, the terrorists are coming to rape our queen and eat your children!
what we need are soldiers on our streets just in case the people -the uhh brown people I mean- suddenly decide that they hate the government!
>>56462329
Based Britian getting off its crumpet eating ass. Fuck, maybe Obongo was right, don't attack Daesh and Europe will wake the fuck up finally.
total bullshit.
difficult to see how they could legally be deployed, without UN resolutions et c.
considering the neither-confirmed-nor denied status of the current special forces in these sort of operations, this is all spin and bluster.
>>56464457
>Will they be SAS tier? Because seriously. Mediocre training isnt gonna help 5k brits kill thousands upon thousands of sandniggers.
they'd mostly likely be fast moving armoured, aircraft, helicopter and Infantry carrier units, they are not going to be going up against thousands and thousands of muslims but more likely designed to smash into a small part of the muslims and or drop directly onto specific targets
>>56464681
Rasheed
>>56464681
desu this is probably about right- by definition, these guys are to be trained in counter-insurgency in urban areas. these guys will see more use at home than abroad.
pretty pumped lads
>>56464397
also known as the prime minister of the uk
>>56464369
Bomb the absolute tits of Raqqa tbqh.
>>56464457
Probably not but they'll have close air support and shit. And 5k professional soldiers could take ISIS in basically any pitched battle imaginable.
>>56464848
But the SAS already have that role pinned down.
The British army doesn't do things twice.
>Apart from worldwarring the bosch.
>>56462329
Remove Kebab!
He also pledged £2bn to the armed forces SAS regiment. The man is a buffoon, all that is needed is to broadcast at 6pm on national television legal immunity for anyone that gases the kikes, skewers the kebab or string up the coon.
All colonist terrorism problems would be over within a week.
>>56464801
>legally
as if that has ever stopped us before
>>56462329
Holy shit dave, keep this up and i might even consider voting conservative
>>56464801
The UN is becoming more and more of a joke. It worked when the US followed the rules but since Iraq, they can't really criticise anyone else acting unilaterally.
Britain only has a 10k men strong army?
>>56465115
>5k professional soldiers could take ISIS in basically any pitched battle imaginable.
conventional military strategy dictates 3 times the numbers of attackers are required to that of the defenders, in a pitched battle type situation.
ISIS are reckoned to be 20000 to 80000 strong- you do the maths.
For a counter insurgency you need 25 troops per 100 of population. It is estimated 16 million civilian are left in Syria, so to suppress a counterinsurgency would require 4,000,000 troops.
>>56465420
No, they are just the portion of population with lowest IQ levels who volunteer to fight for Zionist.
>>56465420
When you are confirmed best trained in the world who needs numbers
Think of it as the zulu invasion
>>56465484
If we had ISIS all in one place, we'd hit them with aircraft.
>>56462329
This makes sense. It's less expensive then deploying 100k+ soldiers just to defeat a bunch of guerrillas but more than enough to curb stomp anything that ISIS could come up with.
You know, we already have a couple of those Britain.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Response_Force
Also, you're just copying the Brigade Combat Team established by the United States.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
Fuck UK... you guys used to be so badass.
>>56465420
50k combat troops IIRC. Same again as engineers, logistics and support. Total army strength is 130k which is way down on what it was in the 90s. Then Navy and RAF.
>>56464457
>Thousands upon thousands of sandnigs
Considering sand-nigs military history, and being BTFO continually by even Israel, you could probably send some angry chavs after them and you'd still secure a victory.
>>56464801
NATO commitments, we are obligated.
The UN is a joke, the UN appointed a Saudi as head of human rights, the UN called the UK the most sexist nation in the world.
The UN can go fuck itself and we do not need their approval.
>>56465484
More than likely other nations will deploy or Russian troops etc.
>>56465874
yeah I think this is what they're going for. It makes sense. Do you not have some rapid deployment force? Cause unless cold war 2 kicks up a bunch of gears, it seems this is going to be the future of war for a while.
>>56462329
I think its funny that they're planning to pay for all this new military spending by decreasing police spending. Yep, that'll reduce the odds of terrorism: fewer police.
>>56465773
That is why they wont give us that opportunity, and therefore we move to option two:
>counter-insurgency- 4,000,000 troops required.
Like the Rapid Reaction Force that already existed?
>>56466074
>Do you not have some rapid deployment force?
nm, I see>>56465876
>>56466180
Not to mention bennys for Anjhem and Jalila bin Jihad being cut to pieces.
>>56466197
The vast majority of Syrians despise ISIS and are geographically isolated from them. Say 3 million tops in ISIS territory. And with total air superiority it's much easier to hold somewhere once it's cleared. Besides, this unit will not be ready in time to fight ISIS as they are now. That falls mainly on the SAA. Though by all means we should help them with air support and by coordinating with Russia.
>>56465566
pls confirm
>>56466483
Even 3000000 is a fuck of a lot of soldiers bro. I think the total US army is about 1 mill- and again, conventional military strategy dictates that in long term conflicts, only one third of your troops are in the combat are at one time- the other two thirds are rotated out for training and/or resupply.
So, even America has at tops 300,000 troops available at any one time. And we're trying to rustle up 3 million?
This is why we haven't invaded already, and in fact are extremly unlikely too-.least of all with 5000 fucking troops.
>>56467057
I meant 3 million civillians in what ISIS call their lands. And holding land can be done mostly by airforce and milita once ISIS is removed town by town. With good survaliance and air cover, ISIS mobility is pretty shit. They won't all be gathered in one place and if they ever dared to, they'd get hit with all sorts of nasty shit. I'm not thinking for a second this is going to swing the Syrian war. But it seem practical for the kind of wars we have coming up. This is moving beyond ISIS. I predict before 2020 this force or something like it will be deployed to Nigeria and Mali. Basically taking the fight to muzzies when and where they spring up.
>>56466197
m8 they're facing a bunch of edgelord ragheads in a desert not people that know what they're doing
>>56469692
This.
Leadership and what infrastructure and equipment they have could be destroyed relatively quickly.
>>56462329
>ISIL
Cameron confirmed Obongo puppet.
>>56463925
Why? Are they removing kebab from England?
>>56464848
>>56465123
I'd say closer to the US Army Rangers
>>56464801
Isn't there already a resolution for using "all necessary force" to stop them?
>>56465484
>What is asymmetric warfare
