We have our own Foreign Legion in the form of the Gurkha's, don't we?
And secondly, is there any reason why we need nuclear weapons (and the atsronomical costs associated) other than:
(a) it shows what Big Swinging Dicks we are;
(b) the French have them?
And like them or not, nukes are also a pretty good and overall inexpensive life insurance against would-be conventional invaders. Nothing like the perspective of getting 400 of your major cities vitrified to concentrate the mind before you cross the Oder-Neisse. They don't do squat against low grade aggression or terrorists but against invasions, they work. And invasions are really expensive when you are on the receiving end. I know that good old fashioned invasions between major countries seem, err, quaint and a remote possibility but don't forget they've gone out of fashion for a reason.
I'd rather question the expense of very sophisticated conventional weapons and systems for what should be fairly low tech forces, geared toward ruggedness and flexibility. When the local uppity brown people fire a SAM or an AA gun to your low flying highly sophisticated plane, it goes boom all the same no matter the price tag on said plane.
And then, I would simply question the wisdom of the expeditionary mindset in current military thinking. I'm sure very serious and important people who decide of those things have very serious and important reasons to go in far away countries and, out of pure generosity I'm certain, deal with unruly local uppity brown people in a highly sophisticated, finely targeted, collateral-minimized, most humanitarian and more or less internationally sanctioned manner but, personally, I can't think of any. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
By the way, the entire plan sounds a lot like what the Swedish armed forces and politicians are doing. Cut all the good expensive anti-invasion stuff (fighter bombers, submarines, tanks) and replace it with lighter colonial expeditionary forces. A horrible idea to my mind as I don't think the conventional threat is any more gone now than it was in 1925, nor do I see why we should go around and intervene all over the world. Sweden is not an empire.
Thankfully, this transformation from defence against invasion to offensive intervention is also a very strong catalyst for change in the armed forces. It has led us from a drafted army to a professional one, to the reintroduction of NCO's, to having a standing amry and into all relevant NATO strucutures without any kind of public debate slowing us down. And it is laying the groundwork for a better and stronger anti-invasion defence of the future.
The top generals I have talked to are just as high on rysskräck as I am. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
is there any reason why we need nuclear weapons
The theory I was always told was mostly (a) in that it guarantees us a permanent seat on the UN security council, and so provides senior politicians with endless photo opertunities without having to get their penisis out for comparison with other world leaders. Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
Ah, but Gurkhas don't wear the képi blanc.
Well, on (a): can't include myself in the showi off Big Swinging Dicks category (I'm an alpha Mum!)
I think something to do with (b).
is there any reason why we need nuclear weapons (and the atsronomical costs associated) other than...
Off the top of my head, it's really all about making US defence industry rich. US supplies us with nuke technology. (I have a suspicion that the US blackmails Britain relentlessly, "If you don't cooperate, I won't sell you Trident replacement and you ain't gonna be a super power no more!" )
