Passing the 20,000 comment mark recently, traffic increases leading to the need for a different hosting approach and the subjects that pop up that I have covered before several times got me thinking about the structure and aims of the blog, what next for Think Defence?
With just under 900 posts and a huge wealth of knowledge in those comments I wonder if the aim of Think Defence, which was and is is to stimulate debate, get people thinking and talking about UK defence issues, has been achieved.
It is difficult to keep up and write things that are reasonable and informed and I must thank the post contributors for their valiant efforts but there are only so many hours in the day and I don’t want them top be wasted on the wrong things.
Remember, Think Defence is just a blog, we shouldn’t take it too seriously, no one is getting paid for any of this and its not RUSI or the Defence Academy.
So a few questions for everyone;
Contents
- Are our neutral stance and loose objectives still valid?
- Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities
- Is the sites organisation and navigation making good use of the wealth of knowledge in comments
- Is the mix of trivia, news, comment, history and suggestions for the future right
- UK Centric or Global
- Are there enough posts on containers and mexeflotes
- Should Cease Resistance and Join the CVF Supporters Club
Are our neutral stance and loose objectives still valid?
All I wanted when setting up Think Defence was to counter some of the ill informed nonsense that seemed to characterise the defence debate in the UK and get people engaged. To do this I have been pretty neutral, as long as people were advocating a strong debate on defence issues then that’s job done but in the recent online spats with other blogs and my ill considered threat about comment deletion that neutrality has been questioned. Now things have calmed down a bit, password reset requests and accusations of being an RAF lobbyist ceased, I wonder if in countering these I strayed from the middle path, over reacting.
Being neutral is hard because you are always fighting human nature and ingrained bias, does having a different viewpoint make you blind to logic so I could do with a reality check from readers.
Is Think Defence biased, blinkered or just different.
Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities
I know I get accused of depressing defeatism and even though I do enjoy the odd flight of fantasy the fact is some obscure blog isn’t going to change the political landscape and priorities given to defence so as painful as those realities are should we be discussing how to make best of use of what we have or banging the drum for more.
When I look at other similar blogs I see comments in the tens but on Think Defence, some articles reach into the hundreds, that tells me there is a massive well spring of knowledge and opinion out there who are interested enough to contribute, I get the feeling I am not harnessing this properly or using it to best effect.
Some of the comments are better than the posts!
How can I better organise the posts and comments for example.
I have been thinking about creating a richer category and menu system with posts grouped into subject areas, would this make accessing the content easier for new and existing readers?
Do you all follow the Think Defence twitter feed by the way, I do a daily roundup of online stories of interest, could this be expanded or used differently?
Is the mix of trivia, news, comment, history and suggestions for the future right
I tend to avoid doing too much on detailed operational news because I am far too removed to have a decent opinion and despite requests from a number of news organisations have always declined invitations to appear or comment.
Would you prefer fewer news related pieces and more of the longer posts on a less frequent schedule, more pictures and videos or fewer pieces on suggestions for the future?
Would you like a reference section for organisation, equipment and projects.
Is the mix of content right, I would like to do more history for example.
UK Centric or Global
There are lots of interesting things happening outside the UK and there are lots of great blogs discussing them.
Would you like Think Defence to have a wider outlook or would we be just duplicating already great sites?
Are there enough posts on containers and mexeflotes
No need to answer that one, of course there aren’t
Should Cease Resistance and Join the CVF Supporters Club
Ha ha, only joking!
If you have any other suggestions how Think Defence can improve then please shout up and as always, the door is always open for anyone to chip in with a guest post
TD
Loose objectives are good they allow wide ranging debate
Campaigning is for organisations so not for a blog
Problem at the moment for the site is that the blogs are overrunning old posts and charging off on topics yet to be addressed, suggestion is for a continually viewable map ? graphic of what has been covered and what will be covered with a pre post comment ability so that comments can be dropped in a bin in prior to post, hopefully helping the content provider
Mix is good but I think the historical reviews should be part of a sub section not necessarily part of the main thrust of the posts, i.e. a narrative by year and topic kept as a separate grouping.
I think that the trend should be more global since the equipment and activities of UK forces are moving in that direction, getting contributions also from people who are not UK centric/friendly (i.e. less pro than Gabby!!) may challenge us to think about our prejudices.
Also think we should be exposed to a bit of pro DfID material just to keep up with the reality of what happens on the ground (Astan etc..) in terms of targets and objectives..Human terrain etc..
Final thought, many of posts and comments have useful links maybe these could be grouped and part of the searchable material, i.e. search for a link relative to Challenger II or ?pallets.
global news is good, not only does it have an effect on the UK a lot of the time (india fighter contract)but sometimes a gem comes in from someone that i have missed.
I like the odd bit of history for example after the d-day post i was talking to my dad and he hadn’t heard of the mulberry harbour, so we had a good pops/son time going into it on t’web, Ironically finding out the bloke who did a lot of the design was from nearby and did a prototype in a nearby estruary.
I myself like the links on the “less sexy” kit, which are just as important and it’s also good for people who haven’t been inside the wire as the news only covers shiny sexy stuff, no trucks,cotainerised workshops, generators etc all of which are just as important.
carry on normal jogging!!
Perhaps we should have a forum, where various members can discuss defense related items. It would be a better alternative, to the open thread, where there are many people talking about different subjects. A forum would lead to increased bandwidth however and more maintenance issues.
“Being neutral is hard because you are always fighting human nature and ingrained bias, does having a different viewpoint make you blind to logic so I could do with a reality check from readers.
Is Think Defence biased, blinkered or just different.”
Well, I think you’re wrong, but not biased or blinkered, you have just yet to accept the holy truth of smacking people and running off.
“Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities”
Bit of both.
I realise its trebling an already large volume of work, but it might be interesting to produce three defence plans, for 1, 2 and 3% of GDP budgets.
“Is the sites organisation and navigation making good use of the wealth of knowledge in comments”
Probably not, but I’m old, I use google to search for old comments
I dont use twitter.
“despite requests from a number of news organisations have always declined invitations to appear or comment.”
Thats unfortunate, but if I remember correctly, you did say you wished to remain private.
“Is the mix of content right, I would like to do more history for example.”
History where relevent.
“Containers through the ages” as it were, rather than a random bit on the siege of badajoz.
I think TD is one of, if not the, best and most informative defence blogs there is. Well done, really appreciate the hard work that goes into keeping it going.
You are right in that there is a lot of great detail hidden in the posts and it would be useful to be able to organize key facts into an easy to search repository, which could be linked as background reading for each post.
I personally think that you cover news at the right level already. The danger of being too current is that it becomes more speculative than substance and there are plenty of other blogs doing that.
I’m pro-CVF (well, carrier air) and find containers a bore but there’s more than enough variety of subject to keep people interested so I don’t see the reason for much change.
Apart from maybe the open thread could become open forum? But I guess that’s a lot more work.
Nobody is ever unbiased.
I think Think Defence is super just as it is.
You know somewhere is a good place to be when you can have a moan or have a dust off and then move on.
Containers are always OK.
Are our neutral stance and loose objectives still valid
-Just different is the answer. Been here almost a year, read a lot of different defence/ geopolitics blogs and the participation is mainly by over-agitated (over-nationalistic, too) teen agers, or veterans sharing memories/ experiences (i.e a source, not a discussion)
- For the above reasons I welcome the open-ended approach you have taken this time (the survey last year did not correspond to how I saw the blog)
Open ended=> long answers, apologies in advance! [Forced myself to keep to a page in Word]
Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities
- The latter; BTW, the politicians must get their information somewhere; I bet this is one of the key sources
Is the sites organisation and navigation making good use of the wealth of knowledge in comments
…been thinking about creating a richer category and menu system with posts grouped into subject areas, would this make accessing the content easier for new and existing readers?
- Replace “you might also be interested in”
- With a tree, related posts primarily sorted by vintage (layers of the tree) and only secondarily (within vintages/ layers) by the strength of association of the subject matter (sensible cut off for that, though!)
Do you all follow the Think Defence twitter feed
a daily roundup of online stories of interest, could this be expanded or used differently?
- Would suffer from inflation, works well as it is (including alerting to new posts)
Is the mix of trivia, news, comment, history and suggestions for the future right?
About right, overall, but specifically
-Would you like a reference section for organisation, equipment and projects: that would be great, but keeping the discussion topics current & directed is far more important
Is the mix of content right, I would like to do more history for example
- Me, too, but under a clearly separated category (I always hesitate about adding a historical parallel, just for the fear of misdirecting the (volume of) the debate
UK Centric or Global?
There are lots of interesting things happening outside the UK and there are lots of great blogs discussing them.
- Wider outlook; only France, Netherlands, US, Oz, Canada and to some degree Scandies seem to be reference points (thanks to Gabby for bringing Italy in!)
If you have any other suggestions how Think Defence can improve then please shout up and as always, the door is always open for anyone to chip in with a guest post
- A separate (parallel) index for guest posts
- Edit window (only for the original post,before “committing” it, not for going back to it). Only if this can be done without a performance sacrifice (ie. the new hosting arrangement should look into this, b earing in mind that the format is v readable and an overview of what is happening can be achieved with reasonable effort)
- on that last note, can the comments bar be made scrollable at least for the last 24 hrs (7 days, if Santie exists?)
RE RW’s comment
“suggestion is for a continually viewable map ? graphic of what has been covered and what will be covered with a pre post comment ability so that comments can be dropped in a bin in prior to post, hopefully helping the content provider”
- this is the sort of thing I had in mind
- I just wonder if any of the “platform” providers have that sort of (technologically advanced) thing to offer?
I don’t really have any suggestions, but I’d like to echo repulse above and say thanks to TD for the hard work this blog obviously takes. Cheers TD.
BTW (not important):
- are MCM and FBOT alter egos? To rev up the discussion, if it shows any sign of dying off too early?
Campaigning for more or reflecting realities?
A bit of both. We should base requirements on the UK’s National Security Strategy and mandated Military Tasks and expose any inconsistencies between ends ways and means.
Site Organisation
I find the site time consuming to navigate and search. I like the organisation of the Small Wars Journal / Small Wars Council which I find easy to navigate and research on.
Finally – great work and keep it up!
I think on the whole you get it right, just one thing please.
Don’t campaign for more, keep it as realistic as possible. (there will not be more money, people need to deal with that, myself included!)
If whatever you or someone else who does an article suggests is doable and within the budget, then more people will (hopefully), take it seriously and think about it. Objective is to get people to think, yeah?
so…….. we’re not organising a coup d’état then? Did I get the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the way……? I’ve ordered a uniform and everything..
Does anyone fancy a go at defining a category and sub category structure that will allow improved navigation and searching through the back catalogue?
e.g.
=Defence Business
===Parliamentary Answers
===Defence Industry
===Innovation
Hi TD,
The list of tags in use now would be useful.
Such searches can only be useful through the use of multiple tags, rather than mutually exclusive categories
Wow! an edit button… I meant to add that the list of tags would be something I could try to improve on. They are not exclusive with normal indices: author; guest author… what ever
And the edit worked! There was an earlier attempt, sometime ago, that didn’t
Jumping in between meetings – site is great, don’t you go changing now…..
I will have a crack at Information Architecture for you, it’s one of my professional fields, don’t you know !
More later
Hi TD,
The list of tags in use now would be useful.
Such searches can only be useful through the use of multiple tags, rather than mutually exclusive categories
There is some bug that recycles the comment before it was edited
- I confess: I did press the add comment -button, bcz it looked like hadn’t gone thru
Further:
- “click to edit” should be taken away , say, after 10 minutes (so that everyone is commenting on the same thing)
- there is no need for that with “request deletion” but some trace (author+ time stamp?) should be left there (so that all of us won’t need to take turns thinking we are seeing things… and the ice cubes in my drink are pink elephants -type of thing)
TD
Site is about right as is for me. Ive read a number of forums blogs this was the only one that made me become an active participant. Quality of posts and comments (even a hope of you seeing the light on CVF!) made it unique. The ability to have a real discussion on capabilities without the usual mines bigger than yours is first class.
Staying in reality with a neutral piece is best. You could however be more one sided in any of the comments you make we wouldnt mind that if you wanted. Dont use twitter so never really followed the TD twitter bit.
Maybe the TD app could be your next big thing. Or being able to post pictures.
History yes indeed most times someones found the solution to modern day problems before we just forgot them and need re taught. It may nice to do a piece on some of are main partners around the world or on the 5 powers defence ties and what were exactly expected to do there.
I find this is now the first page I check when I log on to the net. It must be quite a task to keep this all up to date thanks for the efforts it a real gold mine of info maybe we should get you a photo of CVF with lots of ISO containers on the deck as a thankyou
I would say no to campaigning, though I can understand the temptation. It will undermine your strength, which is that you are not politicising the blog.
For my part I like it here because I can read and mostly understand what is written with out having ever been “inside the wire.”
I also find that if I misunderstand, need clarification or make a foolish remark it is dealt with in an adult manner rather than in a cavalier fashion (“you’re just a gopping civi!”)
So, thanks TD and keep up the good work.
Actually more on combat logistics for all the services would be good. I for one would like toknow what keeps a brigade or even a division in the fight.
RE ” being able to post pictures”
- let’s start with tables, as not all info can be shared through a link
Surely there would need to be a maximum (x times y) so that the blog format can take it
- that just puts the onus on the one posting them… maybe several tables need to be used (or some detail dropped?)
As TD has grown I have definitely become more of a lurker than a poster but this has by no means diminished TD’s value to me as a place to find reasoned arguements on defence matters.
I can only echo other posters by saying: please stay neutral. It is rare to find a forum where both sides of an arguement can coexist freely.
To that end may I suggest a debates section. What I envisage is a place where posters can post for an against a topic and then after a period of time a vote could be called to gage the consensus of TDs learned and increasingly large readership.
I am not sure if this is feasible, but I would be interested in the results
I have posted once. I feel am not informed enough to do so. But I do value the neutral aspect and read religiously.
“Do you all follow the Think Defence twitter feed by the way, I do a daily roundup of online stories of interest, could this be expanded or used differently?”
Do not use twitter, but I do use the links you provide to spot any story that I have not found myself, and I think it’s one of the (many) good features on the site. Still I think adding tags to articles would be good. Also think you should recycle some of your older posts if possible, maybe add an update or a new thought in some sort of text box, this way you can bring back older posts at key moments of time and get us following on from an older debate.
On a serious note the oppourtunity to debate freely, without an agenda (which is why I keep off sharky et al), is priceless.
On a less serious note if you want to speed up navigation, split the site into pro and anti CVF rants, on one stream and the rest on another!
I’ll just watch question time then give you my thoughts.
@ Chris B re Watching QT
Why are you being punished? What have you done?
@ Chris.B.
My god, i care about my country but i draw the line at competitive soundbite drivel. It’s like a longer version of PMQ’s.
Thanks for the feedback
Have made a few changes to the site engine room
1. At the bottom of the page is a navigation feature that improves on the older/newer links.
2. At the bottom of each post is a ‘print friendly’ button that allows an email/print/PDF option
3. At the bottom of each post is the facility to share via facebook, twitter etc
4. You can now edit your comments for 10 minutes after posting
If anyone wants to chip in with a category and sub category structure I have a few things I can do to help display older posts in a more accessible manner.
Will get to the other points later
Cheers
I like Question Time on the principal that it allows politicians to expose their stupidity, and it alos allows me to gauge which areas of the country are in dire need of mandatory lobotomy’s. Like Birmingham for example.
Has that old hag Greer just accused the Army of being rapists, did I hear that correctly
Essentially, yes.
Also, I’ve just noticed than when I try to read the comments for the Future of the Army #4, it isn’t showing any comments past June 6th.
sorted, I think
Right, down to business;
“Are our neutral stance and loose objectives still valid? All I wanted when setting up Think Defence was to counter some of the ill informed nonsense that seemed to characterise the defence debate in the UK and get people engaged.”
- I think TD does this admirably. The key is in the comments section. Leaving that unrestricted allows people from all parts to voice their opinions. Pro and con sides of the carrier/RAF/small arms debate can both put across their sides.
At the risk of sounding like I’m detracting from your articles, the comments section is one of the most vital aspects of TD. The article provides the fuel, the commentors bring the fire.
“Being neutral is hard because you are always fighting human nature and ingrained bias, does having a different viewpoint make you blind to logic so I could do with a reality check from readers.”
- You’re right, being neutral is difficult, but again, comments can help to balance this kind of thing out.
“Is Think Defence biased, blinkered or just different?”
- I think the trouble is that there is a strong Anti-RAF sentement that has been brewing on the interwebs, and anytime that you defend them it looks biased in the RAF’s favour, when in fact you’re just sticking up for one side and putting their point across. It is what it is.
“Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities”
- I think you should reflect realities, while perhaps suggesting tentatively that more should be given. Yes it is depressing, but that’s life, and it’s the viewpoint based on reality that gives TD much of its credibility. Then in the comments we can all talk about our grand schemes for collapsing DfID.
“Is the sites organisation and navigation making good use of the wealth of knowledge in comments? When I look at other similar blogs I see comments in the tens but on Think Defence, some articles reach into the hundreds, that tells me there is a massive well spring of knowledge and opinion out there who are interested enough to contribute, I get the feeling I am not harnessing this properly or using it to best effect. Some of the comments are better than the posts!”
- I think the system works ok ‘as Is’.
“I have been thinking about creating a richer category and menu system with posts grouped into subject areas, would this make accessing the content easier for new and existing readers?”
- Don’t you already have posts grouped by category? Perhaps expand the number and scope of categories?
“Do you all follow the Think Defence twitter feed by the way, I do a daily roundup of online stories of interest, could this be expanded or used differently?”
- Don’t use Twitter.
“Is the mix of trivia, news, comment, history and suggestions for the future right. I tend to avoid doing too much on detailed operational news because I am far too removed to have a decent opinion”
- I think the mix is good. I like how we can flick between articles on future equipment to stories written by some young, dashing, talented writer about the TSR2.
“… and despite requests from a number of news organisations have always declined invitations to appear or comment.”
- Tit! Talk about turning down free advertising. Maybe one day you might even make a penny or two out of the advertising. Then you can start paying contributors….
“Would you prefer fewer news related pieces and more of the longer posts on a less frequent schedule, more pictures and videos or fewer pieces on suggestions for the future?”
- Just stick with the current ad hoc nature. It has a kind of charm to it, like a mumbling grandad.
“Is the mix of content right, I would like to do more history for example.”
- History is always good.
“UK Centric or Global?”
- I think Global is handy when it relates back to us, either because of events that effect us or because of equipment we might consider buying, but predominantly I think it should stay UK focused.
“Would you like Think Defence to have a wider outlook or would we be just duplicating already great sites?”
- Duplication.
“Are there enough posts on containers and mexeflotes?”
- Just about.
“No need to answer that one”
- Now you tell me.
“Should Cease Resistance and Join the CVF Supporters Club”
- No. You can’t have a proper dialectical discussion if everyone is on the same page.
Suggestions;
- Stop tinkering,
- Learn to use the question mark key when you ask questions,
- Shoot Germane Greer,
- Shoot that guy from the Mail on Sunday who was on Question Time,
TD I think you do an excellent job with this blog! I find your article writing to be refreshingly neutral with regards to judgemental positivity and negativity, which abounds in the defence blogosphere.
You are indeed to a good professional standard with all the elements of your activity with this site. I often get the impression the commenters are not on the same wavelength with you, they don’t seem to try enough to attempt to match and compliment your very well thought efforts on this site. Sorry everyone!
I strongly think for you TD and everyone that the discussion element needs to be really improved. So I think that the comments section needs to be completely reviewed with a goal of enhancing debate, discussion, knowledge sharing, annecdotes. Structure, so that there isn’t any enormous divergence from the clear points that you and others are making. More ways to rate each others opinions. I could go on…
Clearly the main points about your site are: your excellent, almost progressive and innovative articles/posts (sorry I can’t find the words to explain the unique quality of your work), the small community who diligently read your articles and put a lot of effort into engaging with “thinking about defence”. And I think the few people who come across the site who aren’t part of the relatively small group of regulars and now and then’ners, who are impressed and become very interested, and interested in engaging as you strongly encourage visitors to do.
So I think from what you say TD on the site that for your own very part time work with the sight, that to increase your satisfaction with your goal of getting people to think and engage with a diverse group of subjects you post about, that you should improve the discussion, debate and hence learning about the subjects.
You could halfway between a debate/discussion give a big comment post with your article level input.
I understand that a structured debate discussion section would deter some from asking questions, posting wonderings, giving bits of their knowledge. But this can be avoided.
TD do you enjoy the occasional small post with great pix and videos that you do? These are good and do not detract from your other efforts and probably compliment them by giving visitors something less serious to compliment their focused interest.
TD you should consider and probably do how much extra effort expansion and change of the status quo of the site, will cause you in maintaining the standards you do.
Sorry I hope I haven’t been incomprehendible with my long windedness.
I worry that navigation at the bottom will be missed by most especially if there is a long train of comments
also noticed that some sites use a cloud tag box to give a general trend of comments – don’t know how easy this is to implement
re neutral stance and loose objectives
all good.
differences in opinion do not obviate the real sense of depth and insight that TD articles provide.
keep it.
re campaigning or reflecting reality
the latter.
where i think TD has missed this mark is in realising that this does not just mean budgets, equipment and structures.
it means politcs, and that means reflecting the political objectives defence will be bent to meet.
both of britains major parties remain 100 percent committed to using the forces for political effect, and doing so at a level compatible with our ‘great’ power status.
this isn’t just showboating, or dreaming of post-imperial granduer, this is what politicans see as the raison-d-etre of the HM forces.
this is why i question soveriegn ops at small scale, a supposedly accepted policy that i have seen no real evidence of, and completely at odds with stated FP.
it is also why i have some doubts about capability plus, for while it might deliver a flexible and well rounded capability in a scientific manner, will it be able to achieve those political objectives at a scale and effectivness required by our politicians?
most importantly, and a point you touched on in a recent army article, td must reflect the dcdc requirment for a posture that maintains enduring presence alongside rapid and temporary intervention. having all expeditionary capability tied up year on year in a desert 10000 miles away is worse than useful for our politicians.
events dear boy, events!
keep up the good work.
Thanks all, some feedback from me
@RW, what has been covered and what is about to be covered is in the new update. Will have a think about how I can collate the links by subject area, not sure this will be an easy one though as the the methods I tried were a bit rubbish
@Junior, a forum would really be a lot of work in moderation and you tend to atract the nutters and spam merchants as well so I am not going to implement one
@Dom, that sounds like an interesting post, what would the UK defence landscape look like at 1% of GDP
@andy, containers a bore, how bloody dare you, burn the witch
@ACC, the archive, tag navigation and improved categories should help. Comments are now editable but haven’t been able to create a scrollable recent comments list
@Mark, the site should work on iPhones and Android etc as an app style, rather than just a web page on a small screen. It auto detects the device and formats appropriately
@C, might be interesting to have a voting feature on an issue, will investigate for the next time I start slagging off carrriers!
@Waldo, please do not hesitate to chip in with a comment, no one here bites
@Chris.B, I agree, the comments are priceless and as I said, 20,000 of them means I want to use them better. Will try and use the ?
@Joe, long comments streams are difficult to wade through, might have a look at a comment rating system
@Jedi, appreciate what you are saying about reality but I think what I have always tried to do is match ideas with resources rather than ideas with fantasies, which is what the politicians whoe frame that reality with, you know, the whole punching about our weight nonsense.
@All, will try and put a few more global but linked to the UK articles in
I think when I organise the categories differently, things should improve
“@Dom, that sounds like an interesting post, what would the UK defence landscape look like at 1% of GDP”
It would give a budget of around $22bn, Norway and Sweden spend around $6bn each, so, depending on how its spent, a respectable force for local duties.
Finland spends even less, roughly $2bn.
All operate fairly respectable airforces, and massive reserve armies, Finland reckons it can put 350,000 well armed men into the field.
Switzerland has an even smaller budget, but anyone invading is likely to wishing for Afghan murder holes.
Might have a think about some specifics, but its very doable, if we give up any pretense of operating on our own.
i accept that we have to fight the fantasies, not least of politicans who want to play high stakes but only ‘risk’ beer money, but ultimately if the polticians* want the forces to be a political tool to leverage diplomatic effect then that is what the forces must provide.
* particularly so if this remains an interest that is accepted by the public, and as sven has made clear there is a very definable difference when the german acceptance of limited national defence, and british willingness to flout the spirit of the kellog briand pact.
Hi TD,
The edit thing is great (just DO NOT use arrow back, but need to go to the page and refresh it; wasn’t clear to me at first).
Happy to work on the tags and categories, even off line.
Hi TD & Jedi,
I think your blogs are highly synergistic:
- 5% more geopolitics (that would mainly reflect on the Defence Business side of things which is underdeveloped, anyway) on TD
- and some measure of more defence (I recognise it is a multi-topic site) on Jedi’s
Hi DJ,
A good topic!
“Finland reckons it can put 350,000 well armed men into the field”… but the defence budget is going up (from 1.4% to 1.6% even when 150,000 have been shaved off the reserves)
“Switzerland has an even smaller budget, but” everyone is sleeping with a rifle under the bed and lots of high-energy biscuits in the wardrobe cupboard
@ TD
(Sorry my writing is poorly thought out.)
Can you please just give me a little more feedback to my comment?
Do you understand my rationale about improved discussion, where it’s not just the situation we have now, which I concede does have discussion? Do you appreciate my logic with the big benefits that could result?
All the points that you write don’t seem to be acknowledged and discussed enough for my liking in the comments. There never seems to be a tangible enough result from your efforts.
It’s very clear that your articles are credible, well thought and intelligent, so if I were you, with what is going on the site, I would want people to really consider what I’m writing if it’s clearly of great almost progressive (sorry that’s a subjective opinion) quality (relative to many things in mind).
Thank you TD, the site ain’t necessarily broken whatsoever, so……
RE ” never seems to be a tangible enough result from your efforts”
- what is the result of discussion
- everyone goes their way (better informed)
- that’s what I like about the site: either learn more, or at least, be challenged about your views (even facts!)
Okay fair enough ArmChairCivvy. I guess I’m being idealistic with the virtues of discussion-you know it’s how they deal and resolve issues in organisations.
Sorry I didn’t mean any antagonism there, and I hope you didn’t express subtle negativity towards me. Probably my paranoia, lol (sorry).