Is working for the Armed Forces really indistinguishable from working in a supermarket?

The Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent. The deployment of troops into Afghanistan was purely voluntary, the first Gulf war however presented necessitous circumstances, to stop and repulse a naked aggression. Is the Supreme Court seriously suggesting that we should have waited five years to develop the necessary equipment, during which the opposition would have been developing their own countermeasures?

War, by definition is uncertain and therefore regularly fought imperfect equipment. Such rulings put a core area of sovereignty at risk, however given the way politicians have usurped their power in such matters over the last decade this ruling was inevitable. If we are to ask people to put their lives on the line we at least should ensure to a reasonable level that they can defend and care for themselves whilst they are doing it.

Following from this judgement perhaps now, the police should be permanently armed.

Once again our unelected judges show themselves to be a joke. In any event if anyone should be sued over deploying troops with defective equipment it should be War Criminal Tony Blair? Right?