| Is U.K. Defence Important? 19:49 - Sep 8 with 6431 views | Churchman |
As things stand, this country could field at most two brigades. It might last a fortnight with a little good fortune. The ‘army’ (size wise, a militia) is set to reduce to 62,000 from 74,000 this year. UK possesses about 20 surface warships. Of its five most modern only one can be at sea because there aren’t crews for the other four.
The two aircraft carriers were built with the government meddling with spec and cost cutting. They spend most of their time in harbour, not least because of their propensity to catch fire. Air force? Not much left. Our capability is less than Italy’s and on a par with Greece.
As a percentage of GDP spending will be no more than 2%, probably less with the shrinking of what’s left of the army.
Starmer promises to meet the commitment of 2.5% GDP when finances allow. I.e. never. Support for Israel is basically over and with that will come withdrawal of support for the U.K. by the US, especially if Trump get in.
Yes, yes, yes, we know what the tories and their predecessors have done since WW2 and I’ve no doubt blame will continue to be heaped on them in the decades to come.
But I’m more interested in what Starmer and co intend to actually do. We have an unstable world in which an aggressor attacked another country in Europe 2.5 years ago. Our response? Continued disarmament.
Do people think peace begets peace and as long as Sir Kier buries his nose in Putin’s rug in supplication in due course all will be well, or do we think the problem will just go away if we ignore it and pursue other perceived priorities? Does anyone really care? |  | | |  |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:07 - Sep 8 with 4574 views | EddyJ |
I suppose it depends on what kind of wars we might get drawn into in the future:
Nuclear war against another super-power. Soldiers are not really what we need in this case.
Conventional war against another super-power. Unlikely, as it would probably escalate to nuclear.
Guerilla war against a less developed country. Would we want to get drawn into another of these after Iraq and Afghanistan?
Cold war. Need spies and analysts more than soldiers.
Something new? e.g. drone warfare? [Post edited 8 Sep 2024 20:07]
|  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:16 - Sep 8 with 4533 views | NedPlimpton |
Can't say it's my particular area of knowledge or interest but this would suggest we still have one of the most powerful militaries in the world
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
I'd be more concerned about NHS, education, criminal justice etc before defence spending |  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:16 - Sep 8 with 4531 views | baxterbasics |
Whatever kinds of war we expect to get involved in, technology will likely be more important than number of bodies on the battlefield. More kit, more specialists.
But it does help to have equipment that works. |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:47 - Sep 8 with 4403 views | NedPlimpton |
Correct
Possibly complacency having grown up in relative peace time, but it definitely feels like there are bigger fish to fry domestically | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:54 - Sep 8 with 4352 views | Guthrum |
Depends what you want to do with the miltary.
If it is as an independent force, capable of fighting significant conflicts on its own, then pretty useless. But that's not how it's designed to operate. As part of a coalition - NATO (if Trump destroys it, then Europe, or something more ad-hoc) - then the UK brings useful skills and equipment to the table.
Then there are other aspects of modern warfare, such as cyber and advanced technology, in which we are at the top level and upon which quite a bit of money is spent.
"Militia" is not the right word to use, even if a fair amount of our capability is now part-time (Territorial/Reserve). Militias tend to be bulk, low-trained troops raised on a temporary basis. Whereas the British military has a core of trained professionals, quite a few of them with active service experience, plus technical specialists.
Raw numbers of soldiers are only a useful measure if you're planning on Russian-style human wave attacks. We don't - couldn't - fight on that basis. Care for our people's lives and too small a population to compete on that basis anyway. It's more what they can do and what tools they have.
When it comes to likely aggressors, we will not be defending the UK alone. As with the Cold War, the front line upon which our forces will be engaged is going to be a long way east of the Channel. If the fighting gets as far as Dover, we've already lost. |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:58 - Sep 8 with 4323 views | Nutkins_Return |
I'm not disagreeing with their being some concern with the shrinking but an increase in GDP spend isn't just going to go on people. We have around 150k across the forces before you include gurkhas (I think), reserves etc. where we are strong is we have relatively good tech and training levels comparatively. A lot of spend now would go on tech and different types of warfare.
Also I think the whole point of NATO is to have a joint military. Their is no scenario where Britain comes under attack and we face off with just our 75k army. We have the NATO military behind us.
NATO more generally needs to take very seriously the threat we are all facing of course and ensure we have the capability to meet the threat. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 21:10 - Sep 8 with 4275 views | J2BLUE |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:16 - Sep 8 by NedPlimpton |
Can't say it's my particular area of knowledge or interest but this would suggest we still have one of the most powerful militaries in the world
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
I'd be more concerned about NHS, education, criminal justice etc before defence spending |
Given the problems they are having in Ukraine, is that really accurate giving Russia a rating so close to the US? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 21:43 - Sep 8 with 4134 views | IPSWICHINIO |
"They spend most of their time in harbour, not least because of their propensity to catch fire." - This isn't true.
"Of its five most modern only one can be at sea because there aren’t crews for the other four." - This isn't true.
"Our capability is less than Italy’s and on a par with Greece." - This isn't true either. We have a very capable military, we just don't have enough mass.
If there's ever been a time to increase defence spending then it's now considering what is going on around the world, and particularly in Ukraine. People don't realise/appreciate how important defence is until you actually need it, by which point it's too late. Ironically, the massive and immediate danger is not Russia but America, if Trump gets in and the US withdraws from NATO then we will be in serious trouble (unlikely, but you never know with Trump). It's actually one of the rare fair points that Trump makes - why should America have to foot the bill for everyone else? Of course, America does partially benefit from this arrangement, but nowhere near as much as we do. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:09 - Sep 8 with 3967 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 21:43 - Sep 8 by IPSWICHINIO |
"They spend most of their time in harbour, not least because of their propensity to catch fire." - This isn't true.
"Of its five most modern only one can be at sea because there aren’t crews for the other four." - This isn't true.
"Our capability is less than Italy’s and on a par with Greece." - This isn't true either. We have a very capable military, we just don't have enough mass.
If there's ever been a time to increase defence spending then it's now considering what is going on around the world, and particularly in Ukraine. People don't realise/appreciate how important defence is until you actually need it, by which point it's too late. Ironically, the massive and immediate danger is not Russia but America, if Trump gets in and the US withdraws from NATO then we will be in serious trouble (unlikely, but you never know with Trump). It's actually one of the rare fair points that Trump makes - why should America have to foot the bill for everyone else? Of course, America does partially benefit from this arrangement, but nowhere near as much as we do. |
Paragraphs one and two was what I was told by RN personnel when in Portsmouth earlier this year when I asked about the ships tied up, including one of the carriers. Numbers for the army 74k down to a projected 62k I know is correct. But overall you may well be right. My connections with this stuff is way out of date.
Surely mass is all part of capability. I’ve no doubt the people themselves are just as excellent as ever they were. That includes the incredible intel people and those behind the scenes. This is the point of the opening post. Not to offer a view so much to ask the question. Some posters’ view is that there are more important things to spend budget on than defence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that wasn’t the case in government, as it has been in previous years.
https://www.forcesnews.com/news/uk-military-firepower-how-does-it-stack-comparis
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-unit
Anyway, your point re Trump is interesting. I suspect he will pull the US out of NATO if he can with the argument of why should America foot the bill and do all the work? What’s in it for them? Especially when a good number of countries under threat from Putin have sat on their hands and relied on the US for years.
For relative spends the U.K. is projected to spend £55.6bn 24/25 on defence including about £4bn support for Ukraine. Education £111bn and NHS/Social care about £200bn. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:43 - Sep 8 with 3900 views | Guthrum |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:09 - Sep 8 by Churchman |
Paragraphs one and two was what I was told by RN personnel when in Portsmouth earlier this year when I asked about the ships tied up, including one of the carriers. Numbers for the army 74k down to a projected 62k I know is correct. But overall you may well be right. My connections with this stuff is way out of date.
Surely mass is all part of capability. I’ve no doubt the people themselves are just as excellent as ever they were. That includes the incredible intel people and those behind the scenes. This is the point of the opening post. Not to offer a view so much to ask the question. Some posters’ view is that there are more important things to spend budget on than defence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that wasn’t the case in government, as it has been in previous years.
https://www.forcesnews.com/news/uk-military-firepower-how-does-it-stack-comparis
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-unit
Anyway, your point re Trump is interesting. I suspect he will pull the US out of NATO if he can with the argument of why should America foot the bill and do all the work? What’s in it for them? Especially when a good number of countries under threat from Putin have sat on their hands and relied on the US for years.
For relative spends the U.K. is projected to spend £55.6bn 24/25 on defence including about £4bn support for Ukraine. Education £111bn and NHS/Social care about £200bn. |
The question of "What's in it for the USA?" boils down to whether they really think they could face down a hostile coalition of Russia, China and Iran entirely on their own, with no shield in Eastern Europe*. That scenario would likely not end well for the Americans (China is a lot stronger than it was a decade ago), would certainly be extremely damaging and messy.
As they found in the early 1940s, isolationism had left the USA ill prepared for war. They would be weaker diplomatically.
The other thing is that unless the Republicans capture both houses of Congress, there will be limits on what Trump can do. It's not an autocracy, however much he wants to pretend.
* Possibly some countries turning to Russia as allies if abandoned by the US, certainly Europe going its own way. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:15 - Sep 9 with 3654 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:09 - Sep 8 by Churchman |
Paragraphs one and two was what I was told by RN personnel when in Portsmouth earlier this year when I asked about the ships tied up, including one of the carriers. Numbers for the army 74k down to a projected 62k I know is correct. But overall you may well be right. My connections with this stuff is way out of date.
Surely mass is all part of capability. I’ve no doubt the people themselves are just as excellent as ever they were. That includes the incredible intel people and those behind the scenes. This is the point of the opening post. Not to offer a view so much to ask the question. Some posters’ view is that there are more important things to spend budget on than defence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that wasn’t the case in government, as it has been in previous years.
https://www.forcesnews.com/news/uk-military-firepower-how-does-it-stack-comparis
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-unit
Anyway, your point re Trump is interesting. I suspect he will pull the US out of NATO if he can with the argument of why should America foot the bill and do all the work? What’s in it for them? Especially when a good number of countries under threat from Putin have sat on their hands and relied on the US for years.
For relative spends the U.K. is projected to spend £55.6bn 24/25 on defence including about £4bn support for Ukraine. Education £111bn and NHS/Social care about £200bn. |
I wouldn't rule anything last trump 100% but I would say it's very unlikely. More trying to push the rest for higher spending. It would be a hell of an own goal to do it. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:53 - Sep 9 with 3573 views | TractorWood |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:09 - Sep 8 by Churchman |
Paragraphs one and two was what I was told by RN personnel when in Portsmouth earlier this year when I asked about the ships tied up, including one of the carriers. Numbers for the army 74k down to a projected 62k I know is correct. But overall you may well be right. My connections with this stuff is way out of date.
Surely mass is all part of capability. I’ve no doubt the people themselves are just as excellent as ever they were. That includes the incredible intel people and those behind the scenes. This is the point of the opening post. Not to offer a view so much to ask the question. Some posters’ view is that there are more important things to spend budget on than defence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that wasn’t the case in government, as it has been in previous years.
https://www.forcesnews.com/news/uk-military-firepower-how-does-it-stack-comparis
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-unit
Anyway, your point re Trump is interesting. I suspect he will pull the US out of NATO if he can with the argument of why should America foot the bill and do all the work? What’s in it for them? Especially when a good number of countries under threat from Putin have sat on their hands and relied on the US for years.
For relative spends the U.K. is projected to spend £55.6bn 24/25 on defence including about £4bn support for Ukraine. Education £111bn and NHS/Social care about £200bn. |
'what's in it for them'
Surely global stability is the answer?
The last 2 years (to me) and the fall of Kabul before that have proven that defence spend is very important but a boots on the ground army achieves relatively little. |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:54 - Sep 9 with 3565 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 23:43 - Sep 8 by Guthrum |
The question of "What's in it for the USA?" boils down to whether they really think they could face down a hostile coalition of Russia, China and Iran entirely on their own, with no shield in Eastern Europe*. That scenario would likely not end well for the Americans (China is a lot stronger than it was a decade ago), would certainly be extremely damaging and messy.
As they found in the early 1940s, isolationism had left the USA ill prepared for war. They would be weaker diplomatically.
The other thing is that unless the Republicans capture both houses of Congress, there will be limits on what Trump can do. It's not an autocracy, however much he wants to pretend.
* Possibly some countries turning to Russia as allies if abandoned by the US, certainly Europe going its own way. |
Trump though is protectionist and isolationist. I suspect like many, he doesn’t ‘do’ history beyond what he sees in the movies.
Given the US’ military power, I don’t think those beacons of democracy Russia, China, Iran, N Korea would do more than tweak America’s tail and only if the US interferes with what it perceives to be its spheres of influence.
Is not Trump happy to see the world divided up Gillray style (‘The plumb pudding in danger’ - Napoleon and Pitt carving up the world)?. That way America can trade with those blocks, as it does with China now. If Europe fell under Russian ‘protection’, would it make a difference to them? Not in the short term.
Regarding preparedness, I don’t think the US will ever leave itself under prepared as it did in the early 1940s. It always amuses me that the US recovery is credited to Roosevelt’s New Deal. It wasn’t. Their recovery was largely down to rearmament and exporting to the likes of Britain.
And at least it responded to the totalitarian threat in the 40s. What amuses me is that in 2.5 years since Putin started swallowing Ukraine, what has the U.K. response been to its own defence? Words, promises and little real commitment.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/03/08/uk-militarys-10-year-spendi
This latter part of this article is interesting. One particular sentence says:
‘Indeed, the Defence Ministry is becoming “increasingly reliant” on allies to protect British interests, the committee said, “which carries the risk that such support might not always be available.”
Evidence suggests this government like the last think this is an acceptable risk. The question remains - why not go the whole hog and abandon defence altogether and rely on the charity of others, much as Germany did post war? The £30+ bn budget saved plus sale of assets would fill the endlessly talked about £22bn ‘black hole’ and provide much needed funding for NHS etc.
It’s an option, even if I believe it to be a stupid one.
Edit: I’m just playing devils advocate here. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 7:55]
| | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:37 - Sep 9 with 3448 views | Pendejo |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:54 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
Trump though is protectionist and isolationist. I suspect like many, he doesn’t ‘do’ history beyond what he sees in the movies.
Given the US’ military power, I don’t think those beacons of democracy Russia, China, Iran, N Korea would do more than tweak America’s tail and only if the US interferes with what it perceives to be its spheres of influence.
Is not Trump happy to see the world divided up Gillray style (‘The plumb pudding in danger’ - Napoleon and Pitt carving up the world)?. That way America can trade with those blocks, as it does with China now. If Europe fell under Russian ‘protection’, would it make a difference to them? Not in the short term.
Regarding preparedness, I don’t think the US will ever leave itself under prepared as it did in the early 1940s. It always amuses me that the US recovery is credited to Roosevelt’s New Deal. It wasn’t. Their recovery was largely down to rearmament and exporting to the likes of Britain.
And at least it responded to the totalitarian threat in the 40s. What amuses me is that in 2.5 years since Putin started swallowing Ukraine, what has the U.K. response been to its own defence? Words, promises and little real commitment.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/03/08/uk-militarys-10-year-spendi
This latter part of this article is interesting. One particular sentence says:
‘Indeed, the Defence Ministry is becoming “increasingly reliant” on allies to protect British interests, the committee said, “which carries the risk that such support might not always be available.”
Evidence suggests this government like the last think this is an acceptable risk. The question remains - why not go the whole hog and abandon defence altogether and rely on the charity of others, much as Germany did post war? The £30+ bn budget saved plus sale of assets would fill the endlessly talked about £22bn ‘black hole’ and provide much needed funding for NHS etc.
It’s an option, even if I believe it to be a stupid one.
Edit: I’m just playing devils advocate here. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 7:55]
|
Another Government Department that would find it difficult to turn a profit run down by 14 years of CONServative Government (see also Blue Light Services, NHS, etc.)
It is alleged that significant CONServative funding comes from persons of Russian influence (see also Reform), maybe on a promise of "you'll be ok", hmm.
Do we need a nuclear capability?
How likely is our green & pleasant land to be invaded?
Let's face it, to successfully take UK first you have to take a significant proportion of Western Europe.*
(* Unless you fall into the "fighting age" conspiracy of the new arrivals on the beaches)
UK Defence is important; but what does it mean / entail? |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:53 - Sep 9 with 3401 views | textbackup |
The fact that thousands of unchecked men arrive here on a monthly basis says we’ve decided to not defend ourselves particularly well, even if we spend £10b on the army and navy etc |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:02 - Sep 9 with 3357 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not sure what you mean by "Sir Kier buries his nose in Putin’s rug in supplication in due course all will be well". Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a reactionary soundbite for the hard-thinking of TWTDland?
Guthers' first reply (which strangely you haven't responded to) gives you all you need to know. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:06 - Sep 9 with 3338 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:54 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
Trump though is protectionist and isolationist. I suspect like many, he doesn’t ‘do’ history beyond what he sees in the movies.
Given the US’ military power, I don’t think those beacons of democracy Russia, China, Iran, N Korea would do more than tweak America’s tail and only if the US interferes with what it perceives to be its spheres of influence.
Is not Trump happy to see the world divided up Gillray style (‘The plumb pudding in danger’ - Napoleon and Pitt carving up the world)?. That way America can trade with those blocks, as it does with China now. If Europe fell under Russian ‘protection’, would it make a difference to them? Not in the short term.
Regarding preparedness, I don’t think the US will ever leave itself under prepared as it did in the early 1940s. It always amuses me that the US recovery is credited to Roosevelt’s New Deal. It wasn’t. Their recovery was largely down to rearmament and exporting to the likes of Britain.
And at least it responded to the totalitarian threat in the 40s. What amuses me is that in 2.5 years since Putin started swallowing Ukraine, what has the U.K. response been to its own defence? Words, promises and little real commitment.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/03/08/uk-militarys-10-year-spendi
This latter part of this article is interesting. One particular sentence says:
‘Indeed, the Defence Ministry is becoming “increasingly reliant” on allies to protect British interests, the committee said, “which carries the risk that such support might not always be available.”
Evidence suggests this government like the last think this is an acceptable risk. The question remains - why not go the whole hog and abandon defence altogether and rely on the charity of others, much as Germany did post war? The £30+ bn budget saved plus sale of assets would fill the endlessly talked about £22bn ‘black hole’ and provide much needed funding for NHS etc.
It’s an option, even if I believe it to be a stupid one.
Edit: I’m just playing devils advocate here. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 7:55]
|
Trump is an isolationist, but he’s also a populist and changes his views with the wind. If he feels public opinion is against ‘defunding NATO’ he won’t. He have his approval to the 60bn aid to Ukraine because he thought that was the way the electorate swung. Plus there’s the senate, and some sane republicans to rein him in. There are trillions of US financial assets in Europe, and from a military perspective there are nuclear assets. In the unlikely event Russia did try to roll into Europe (they have neither the funds, the manpower, or the hardware to fight such a campaign in addition to Ukraine), the US has a hell of a lot at stake.
But NATO is not just about protecting Europe’s land borders, it’s also about keeping the seas open for trade. As a huge exporter makes no sense for the US not to have allies projecting it’s power at sea.
We should also look to China as to why Trump won’t go to hard on NATO, he’s going to go down a path of confrontation with them - probably increasing trade barriers in response to the strong dollar and ‘America first’ politics. He’s not going to want to embolden the nation he sees as the biggest threat to US economic and military dominance by decoupling from his allies.
The guy is a blowhard and the rhetoric around NATO is mostly hot air to get the Europeans pulling their weight in my opinion. I cannot imagine isolation, and leaving the most powerful military alliance on the planet is a popular policy amongst the wider US public, or politicians, not with the increasing belligerence of Iran, Russia, and China. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:08 - Sep 9 with 3329 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:37 - Sep 9 by Pendejo |
Another Government Department that would find it difficult to turn a profit run down by 14 years of CONServative Government (see also Blue Light Services, NHS, etc.)
It is alleged that significant CONServative funding comes from persons of Russian influence (see also Reform), maybe on a promise of "you'll be ok", hmm.
Do we need a nuclear capability?
How likely is our green & pleasant land to be invaded?
Let's face it, to successfully take UK first you have to take a significant proportion of Western Europe.*
(* Unless you fall into the "fighting age" conspiracy of the new arrivals on the beaches)
UK Defence is important; but what does it mean / entail? |
I guess your last sentence is what I’m asking.
Yes, we all know what the last scumbags did and their predecessors, but we are in the here and now. ‘It’s the Tories fault’ will not progress anything. It is what we choose to do next that is important.
Nuclear deterrent? You cannot de-invent something so I believe it’s critical. But if you have it, you have to make your enemies (Russia and China etc) believe you will use it otherwise it’s just a dangerous toy and a waste off money.
The govt made it clear to Putin it never would. Putin made it clear he might and every decision since, such as allowing Ukraine to attack targets in Russia using U.K. weapons has been based on that. Fear - probably justified.
Are we threatened by enemies? I believe so, but many people do not. But then the willingness to believe all is well knows no limits, as shown by Labour and others’ demands to cut military spending after Chamberlain’s infamous Munich agreement in 1938. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:11 - Sep 9 with 3303 views | ElephantintheRoom |
You’re living in the past
The reason that the UK defence budget produces so little is that we have a vanity project ‘nuclear deterrent’ that renders all other forms of warfare irrelevant = assuming it works, which unfortunately it doesn’t, nor did it actually work in any test over the last decade - and includes military pensions, presumably on the basis that previous governments believed Dad’s Army.
Even if we had a functional army, air force or navy there is nothing for them to do as we no longer have an empire - nor a role of any significance on the world stage except to bomb a few terrorists who can’t fire back and occasionally and usually ill-advisedly assist the Americans with a bit of showboating in coalitions.
That is why we are in NATO - to let others do the heavy lifting | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:22 - Sep 9 with 3283 views | DJR |
I am not sure that it is appropriate to consider this issue solely in terms of British capability.
So far as I am aware, the only conflict we have been engaged in since WW2 on our own was the Falklands war. In every other conflict, we have been part of a coalition, which in the case of Libya didn't (so far as I recall) include the US.
NATO is far better armed than, say, Russia. And even if Trump casts doubt on US involvement in future conflicts, Europe as a whole is also far better armed.
That being the case, the way forward to me is to ensure our capability fits well with our allies, so that the overall capability of the allied forces (whether or not that includes the US) is sufficient to overcome whatever threat we collectively face. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 9:24]
|  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:47 - Sep 9 with 3193 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:11 - Sep 9 by ElephantintheRoom |
You’re living in the past
The reason that the UK defence budget produces so little is that we have a vanity project ‘nuclear deterrent’ that renders all other forms of warfare irrelevant = assuming it works, which unfortunately it doesn’t, nor did it actually work in any test over the last decade - and includes military pensions, presumably on the basis that previous governments believed Dad’s Army.
Even if we had a functional army, air force or navy there is nothing for them to do as we no longer have an empire - nor a role of any significance on the world stage except to bomb a few terrorists who can’t fire back and occasionally and usually ill-advisedly assist the Americans with a bit of showboating in coalitions.
That is why we are in NATO - to let others do the heavy lifting |
So your view is disarm, make better use of the money and ‘let others do the heavy lifting’. Fine, so rely on nice Mr Trump and Macron and hope a Dictator not too far away goes away and is the last?
It’s a view and that’s all the OP asks for. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:01 - Sep 9 with 3158 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:02 - Sep 9 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not sure what you mean by "Sir Kier buries his nose in Putin’s rug in supplication in due course all will be well". Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a reactionary soundbite for the hard-thinking of TWTDland?
Guthers' first reply (which strangely you haven't responded to) gives you all you need to know. |
I didn’t respond to Guthers’ post because the OP was very much a basis for discussion. I also didn’t read it properly (apols). Re-reading it I’ve upvoted it.
Sir Kier’s nose in the Axminster? Very much a stirring soundbite / theoretical outcome with zero basis - but with a question. If for theoretical argument we were to get tired and give up on defence (v unlikely) and rely on Russia to ‘protect our interests’, what price would he extract? Given how technically independent countries like Belorussia respond, I’d hate to be in that position. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:07 - Sep 9 with 3122 views | lurcher |
I wouldn't get too drawn into numbers, capability and numbers are two different things. Currently only 2 nations, the US and the UK are actually capable of fighting a war away from our home shores. The UK is about the 5th strongest military in the world and would have no problem securing air superiority over anyone else apart from the US, but that isn't an issue. Keeping hold of the oil and resources in the south Atlantic and on the Antarctic continent are crucial to the UKs ongoing economic security. |  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:09 - Sep 9 with 3118 views | Guthrum |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:54 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
Trump though is protectionist and isolationist. I suspect like many, he doesn’t ‘do’ history beyond what he sees in the movies.
Given the US’ military power, I don’t think those beacons of democracy Russia, China, Iran, N Korea would do more than tweak America’s tail and only if the US interferes with what it perceives to be its spheres of influence.
Is not Trump happy to see the world divided up Gillray style (‘The plumb pudding in danger’ - Napoleon and Pitt carving up the world)?. That way America can trade with those blocks, as it does with China now. If Europe fell under Russian ‘protection’, would it make a difference to them? Not in the short term.
Regarding preparedness, I don’t think the US will ever leave itself under prepared as it did in the early 1940s. It always amuses me that the US recovery is credited to Roosevelt’s New Deal. It wasn’t. Their recovery was largely down to rearmament and exporting to the likes of Britain.
And at least it responded to the totalitarian threat in the 40s. What amuses me is that in 2.5 years since Putin started swallowing Ukraine, what has the U.K. response been to its own defence? Words, promises and little real commitment.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/03/08/uk-militarys-10-year-spendi
This latter part of this article is interesting. One particular sentence says:
‘Indeed, the Defence Ministry is becoming “increasingly reliant” on allies to protect British interests, the committee said, “which carries the risk that such support might not always be available.”
Evidence suggests this government like the last think this is an acceptable risk. The question remains - why not go the whole hog and abandon defence altogether and rely on the charity of others, much as Germany did post war? The £30+ bn budget saved plus sale of assets would fill the endlessly talked about £22bn ‘black hole’ and provide much needed funding for NHS etc.
It’s an option, even if I believe it to be a stupid one.
Edit: I’m just playing devils advocate here. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 7:55]
|
People underrate modern China's military power at their peril. They have put a lot of work into upgrading their military. Including new technologies and weapons particularly suited to operations in their claimed sphere of influence (e.g. missile systems designed to knock out aircraft carriers). They've also done quite a bit to tackle the corruption which bedevils Russia's military.
Trump may be isolationist in one sense, but he is also spoiling for a fight with China and Iran. America without allies lacks the overseas bases for real global power projection. Abandoning Mildenhall, Rammstein, Diego Garcia and Okinawa (all on foreign soil) would leave them having to do pretty much everything from the wrong side of the Atlantic/Pacific. Where do they base the tankers to support long-range operations?
That article does not mention Ajax, the UK's new armoured fighting vehicle, development of which has been troubled - to put it mildly - and which is costing £5.5bn with still little sign of entering service. The nuclear deterrant is only one element in a great morass of budget overruns.
Direct military threats to the UK are extremely limited. Most of our current vulnerabilities are in the realms of cyber and economic warfare, plus international terrorism. Much of which is covered by security/intelligence services, not defence*. Putin not only lacks the capabilities, but also the desire to go piling into Western Europe. He is a Russian nationalist aiming to resurrect something between the Tsarist and the Soviet empires (with a decent buffer between themselves and old European enemies), not a Trotsky peddling global revolution, nor a Ghengis Khan seeking world conquest.
(West) Germany post-War got no choice on defence. They weren't allowed anything more than a lightly-armed border police until 1955. However, they were occupied by the militaries of the USA, Britain and France. It wasn't an option they took up out of convenience.
Moreover if you tried to simply "cancel" the Ministry of Defence and disband the armed forces, the expense wouldn't simply go away. Financial commitments and contracts stretch for years ahead, with penalties for cancellation. Pensions would still need to be paid. You'd be throwing a large number of people onto benefits in the short term, plus removing employment opportunities which might be the best/only ones available in very deprived areas.
* We certainly aren't delegating all of that to our allies. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
