| U.K. Defence or lack of it 09:28 - Dec 17 with 3889 views | Churchman |
Next year sometime will be the latest Strategic Defence Review. The third in four years. In the meantime, no planning, no interest just cuts. The latest rumour is that the two aircraft carriers will be sold one way or another and/or cuts elsewhere on top of cuts already announced. Attached is a paper by a couple of professors which makes interesting reading:
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/v8media/research/policy/UK_defence_review_2025_Plus_%C3
It mentions that Trump might insist that NATO countries increase spending on defence. Clearly the U.K. has no intention whatsoever in doing that. Cuts and more cuts. It isn’t the slightest bit interested in defence and hasn’t been for decades. Their actions and yet another review show that.
So the question is if Trump issues an ultimatum (which I’d do if I was him - the US spends.3.4% GDP on it), should the U.K. ignore him, the threats in the world and hope for the best, do what it ought to be doing and providing defence for itself or turn over defence to Mr Putin or that caring Chinese bloke? |  | | |  |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:47 - Dec 17 with 1303 views | bluejacko |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:49 - Dec 17 by Guthrum |
Not sure it does make us any less safe. Should anyone wish to try a nuclear strike at the UK, we can respond, the deterrence is theoretically there. Plus it does underpin our seat at the high table in terms of the UN Security Council. No longer being a nuclear armed power would jeopardise that position.
Tho it's questionable how independent the UK's nuclear force really is, being reliant upon American missiles and warheads. |
Well we are NOT dependent on American missiles and warheads! We draw our missiles from a joint pool that are maintained by the US. The warheads are ours and even now Aldermaston is working on new ones! Once those missiles are loaded on our boats the US has no say or means to interfere with a British launch. The captain on those boats actually have the authority to launch those missiles if certain criteria are met.
As for conventional forces all this talk of special forces and drones etc while being relevant you still need an Army capable of taking and holding ground which the above can’t do!
It’s no good having the best NHS (supposedly) etc in the world if you haven’t got the means to defend it!
The whole idea of NATO for us is to keep the enemy from the door,if that means fighting in Europe or wherever so be it. |  | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:38 - Dec 17 with 1266 views | NthQldITFC |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:47 - Dec 17 by bluejacko |
Well we are NOT dependent on American missiles and warheads! We draw our missiles from a joint pool that are maintained by the US. The warheads are ours and even now Aldermaston is working on new ones! Once those missiles are loaded on our boats the US has no say or means to interfere with a British launch. The captain on those boats actually have the authority to launch those missiles if certain criteria are met.
As for conventional forces all this talk of special forces and drones etc while being relevant you still need an Army capable of taking and holding ground which the above can’t do!
It’s no good having the best NHS (supposedly) etc in the world if you haven’t got the means to defend it!
The whole idea of NATO for us is to keep the enemy from the door,if that means fighting in Europe or wherever so be it. |
'The captain on those boats actually have the authority to launch those missiles if certain criteria are met.'
Isn't it if The Archers go off air for more than three minutes, or Joe Grundy uses the F Bomb or something? Then Captain Cuthbert Collywobble can hammer the red button and sod off to Australia? |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:41 - Dec 17 with 1259 views | Radlett_blue |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:47 - Dec 17 by bluejacko |
Well we are NOT dependent on American missiles and warheads! We draw our missiles from a joint pool that are maintained by the US. The warheads are ours and even now Aldermaston is working on new ones! Once those missiles are loaded on our boats the US has no say or means to interfere with a British launch. The captain on those boats actually have the authority to launch those missiles if certain criteria are met.
As for conventional forces all this talk of special forces and drones etc while being relevant you still need an Army capable of taking and holding ground which the above can’t do!
It’s no good having the best NHS (supposedly) etc in the world if you haven’t got the means to defend it!
The whole idea of NATO for us is to keep the enemy from the door,if that means fighting in Europe or wherever so be it. |
What sort of a conflict could (or should) Britain get involved in which included taking & holding ground? None that would make sense to me. If Putin's Russia is a threat to Eastern Europe, the other partners in NATO need to provide tanks & men & they spend less as a % of GDP on defence than we do. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:53 - Dec 17 with 1246 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:41 - Dec 17 by Radlett_blue |
What sort of a conflict could (or should) Britain get involved in which included taking & holding ground? None that would make sense to me. If Putin's Russia is a threat to Eastern Europe, the other partners in NATO need to provide tanks & men & they spend less as a % of GDP on defence than we do. |
The countries bordering Russia spend more as a % of GDP. Poland is aiming for 4%. Germany is increasing its spending but whether it’ll stay committed - no idea. France? Don’t know. The Iberian countries are not interested and Italy is lukewarm
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-defence-spending-2-5-of-gdp-target/#:~:tex
Bluejacko’s summary of how nuclear works etc is correct btw. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:26 - Dec 17 with 1228 views | bluejacko |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:41 - Dec 17 by Radlett_blue |
What sort of a conflict could (or should) Britain get involved in which included taking & holding ground? None that would make sense to me. If Putin's Russia is a threat to Eastern Europe, the other partners in NATO need to provide tanks & men & they spend less as a % of GDP on defence than we do. |
Any war we get involved in that is conventional will require us working along side NATO allies and we need to look after our sector of any front! We at the moment have a battle group in Estonia which if needed will have to hold ground against any adversary (guess who?)
NATO doesn’t work on members saying you do that bit and we will do that
As an aside what Ukraine has managed to do is bloody remarkable! We would have combined arms including attack helo,s deep strike and close support aircraft to help us out! They have very little to no support in that way. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 18:31]
| | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 00:52 - Dec 18 with 1141 views | Lord_Lucan |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:16 - Dec 17 by Guthrum |
There's also the matter of what the UK is spending its defence budgets on.
Do we really need giant aircraft carriers (topped with extremely expensive manned 'planes) for anything other than prestige purposes? Or are we better off spending the money on advanced drone development, cyber warfare and the like?
Britain has been unable to defend itself alone since the Napoleonic Wars - arguably not even then, given the reliance on subsidising foreign armies to distract Napoleon. Is it even feasible to attempt being self-sufficient now, while not trashing the economy?
We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783 (that didn't end well) and are unlikely to be doing so in the near future. Even if Trump pulls out of NATO*, others will construct a replacement together (e.g. the EU). It's in everybody's interest. The two superpowers and Russia might be able to go it alone, but doubtful even then. Modern technological war is just so expensive, doubly so without forward bases.
As regards boots on the ground, what is mostly needed are special forces, technicians and peacekeepers. Fewer people, but more highly trained. If the British Army is involved in trench fighting much west of the Curzon Line, we're already stuffed.
The suggestions are that UK defence spending will be maintained, with maybe a marginal increase. It's just more likely to be spent on other stuff.
* Unlikely on rational grounds, but entirely possible in a fit of pique. |
No point in having aircraft carriers if you can't afford the planes to put on them.
Although, technically of course we can afford it and we absolutely should keep them and also completely increase our ridiculous budget.
It's far easier and cheaper to deter a war than fight the fecker.
Our spend has gone down massively. Our military GDP % now includes our nuclear deterrent which it didn't used to, this Tommy Cooper trick was done by Osbourne in 2010 and no one noticed.
Trump by the way is absolutely right in what he said. [Post edited 18 Dec 2024 1:04]
|  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 00:58 - Dec 18 with 1138 views | Lord_Lucan |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:50 - Dec 17 by Churchman |
Not in my view. You cannot de-invent something like that.
For the record, Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for guarantees by US, U.K. and Russia. Where did it get them? Do you think Putin might have had second thoughts if Ukraine had retained that capability? I do.
Trusting to the good nature of dictators has never once delivered a good outcome. Retaining a deterrent is the best chance of keeping them at bay in my view.
Edit: your argument is exactly the same as that used in the 1930s by the appeasement/disarmament lobby right up to 1939. Didn’t end so well. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 14:20]
|
Ukraine had one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world and you are 100% right, the west guaranteed to defend Ukraine if they decommissioned their weapons. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 01:01 - Dec 18 with 1136 views | Lord_Lucan |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:46 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
I believe they make us less safe as they make the UK a strategic target in the event of a major conflict between the US and another major power (most likely China). I agree that there are world actors that are 'inherently bad', however they are rarely if ever inherently irrational. And other than a strategic blow to the US I don't see any rationale for a major military act of aggression against the UK, and in my opinion our nuclear weapons make that more likely rather than less. |
There will not be a conflict between China and USA, business will not allow that.
Commercially, neither country can survive without the other.
These are plain facts. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:32 - Dec 18 with 1057 views | lurcher |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:16 - Dec 17 by Guthrum |
There's also the matter of what the UK is spending its defence budgets on.
Do we really need giant aircraft carriers (topped with extremely expensive manned 'planes) for anything other than prestige purposes? Or are we better off spending the money on advanced drone development, cyber warfare and the like?
Britain has been unable to defend itself alone since the Napoleonic Wars - arguably not even then, given the reliance on subsidising foreign armies to distract Napoleon. Is it even feasible to attempt being self-sufficient now, while not trashing the economy?
We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783 (that didn't end well) and are unlikely to be doing so in the near future. Even if Trump pulls out of NATO*, others will construct a replacement together (e.g. the EU). It's in everybody's interest. The two superpowers and Russia might be able to go it alone, but doubtful even then. Modern technological war is just so expensive, doubly so without forward bases.
As regards boots on the ground, what is mostly needed are special forces, technicians and peacekeepers. Fewer people, but more highly trained. If the British Army is involved in trench fighting much west of the Curzon Line, we're already stuffed.
The suggestions are that UK defence spending will be maintained, with maybe a marginal increase. It's just more likely to be spent on other stuff.
* Unlikely on rational grounds, but entirely possible in a fit of pique. |
"We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783" > The Falklands. It might have been deemed a conflict as nobody declared war. But it was a very bloody encounter. |  | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:00 - Dec 18 with 994 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:32 - Dec 18 by lurcher |
"We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783" > The Falklands. It might have been deemed a conflict as nobody declared war. But it was a very bloody encounter. |
You could also add that because U.K. was the dominant power after 1815 through to the unification of Germany then 40 years later WW1, there was no threat.
In WW1, Britain could and did defend itself through sea power, destroyed the German economy through blockade until it finished the German army with its own which in 1918 was the best, most effective army in the world.
Even despite giving away its (and France’s) victory through neglect and appeasement, in 1940 Britain was able to defend itself. Yes, servicemen who escaped the Nazis, people from the empire/commonwealth high octane fuel and variable pitch propellers from the US helped, but essentially Britain was alone against the Germans and Italians.
In an effort to belittle what Britain managed to do, despite hobbling itself in the 30s, people fail to realise that Britain was out producing Germany by the end of 1940. Economics win wars. We chose an industrial war over throwing men at it as Putin does now. The Germans could only have won by starving Britain through uboats.
Revisionists also like to dismiss the chaos that was the Nazi state and how ramshackle their version of industrialisation actually was. Germany is a nation of engineers which is why they make such good stuff. But that doesn’t equate to mass manufacture or the problem you have when all the engineers are wasted away in the army.
The German army that invaded France was mostly horse drawn or on foot. Of the motorised equipment it had, over 30% was produced by the factories in Czechoslovakia (Skoda principally) after Chamberlain and the French sold the country out in 1938. So much for ‘peace in our time’.
Then as you rightly point out there was the Falklands | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:30 - Dec 18 with 989 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 01:01 - Dec 18 by Lord_Lucan |
There will not be a conflict between China and USA, business will not allow that.
Commercially, neither country can survive without the other.
These are plain facts. |
Agree it’s unlikely to come to all out war - but the US can easily survive without China, they export more to the Netherlands and UK combined than China. It’s very much a one way trade, which is why Trump is so bearish on the relationship. ignoring the coming trade war, Biden slapped bigger tariffs on China than anything during Trump’s first time. The EU is under pressure to follow. It’s also wrong to view China through the lens of economic success - look at the way they completely shut down the economy during Covid. Authoritarian regimes will always value ideology over economic growth as Putin has shown. The Germans tried to integrate Russia into the global economy but that proved hopelessly naive. We should be wary of thinking economic growth would stop China from persuing its goals.
The US will look to continue onshoring their supply chain which would represent the biggest risk (in a trade war). Western FDI in China has decreased over the last couple of years given the hostile legal system, threat to IP etc, geopolitical tensions, and expectations of increasing trade barriers. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:04 - Dec 18 with 936 views | bluejacko |
Excellent site for defence if you can see past the trolls😉👍
Just heard an interview with Robert Fox from the telegraph he was in Estonia with Two Tier when asked to clarify the UK defence budget by the other NATO members there he would not commit to a number, also the strategic defence review team have been told by Rachel from accounts no matter what recommendations made there will be NO money to implement anything! [Post edited 18 Dec 2024 20:20]
| | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:19 - Dec 19 with 771 views | Lord_Lucan |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:30 - Dec 18 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Agree it’s unlikely to come to all out war - but the US can easily survive without China, they export more to the Netherlands and UK combined than China. It’s very much a one way trade, which is why Trump is so bearish on the relationship. ignoring the coming trade war, Biden slapped bigger tariffs on China than anything during Trump’s first time. The EU is under pressure to follow. It’s also wrong to view China through the lens of economic success - look at the way they completely shut down the economy during Covid. Authoritarian regimes will always value ideology over economic growth as Putin has shown. The Germans tried to integrate Russia into the global economy but that proved hopelessly naive. We should be wary of thinking economic growth would stop China from persuing its goals.
The US will look to continue onshoring their supply chain which would represent the biggest risk (in a trade war). Western FDI in China has decreased over the last couple of years given the hostile legal system, threat to IP etc, geopolitical tensions, and expectations of increasing trade barriers. |
I was talking about USA requirements of imports from China.
Walmart alone buys from 30,000 Chinese factories and is estimated to spend between $50 - 100 billion with them. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:20 - Dec 19 with 740 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 17:19 - Dec 19 by Lord_Lucan |
I was talking about USA requirements of imports from China.
Walmart alone buys from 30,000 Chinese factories and is estimated to spend between $50 - 100 billion with them. |
Are you sure about those numbers - Walmart would therefore represent almost a quarter of the $450bn annual Chinese imports to the US. In which case someone at Walmart’s Risk team is definitely getting fired. Most US firms have been de-risking in respect of Chinese supply chains - trade barriers went up in Trump’s first time, and even further this year under Biden. Chinese imports have been declining year on year since 2018:-
https://www.economist.com/business/2024/12/03/how-painful-will-trumps-tariffs-be
The US will just find other (more expensive) suppliers, hence why everyone expects Trumponomics to drive inflation. [Post edited 19 Dec 2024 18:26]
| | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:28 - Dec 19 with 731 views | blueasfook |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:49 - Dec 17 by BlueBadger |
Innit. The military equivalent of a BMW on the drive and sod all in the fridge. |
What does that mean other than some soundbite you think sounds clever? Uk military is ranked 6th in the world. Which is pretty impressive considering we are a small nation. More Ill informed bollox from you I'm afraid. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:44 - Dec 19 with 712 views | Lord_Lucan |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:20 - Dec 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Are you sure about those numbers - Walmart would therefore represent almost a quarter of the $450bn annual Chinese imports to the US. In which case someone at Walmart’s Risk team is definitely getting fired. Most US firms have been de-risking in respect of Chinese supply chains - trade barriers went up in Trump’s first time, and even further this year under Biden. Chinese imports have been declining year on year since 2018:-
https://www.economist.com/business/2024/12/03/how-painful-will-trumps-tariffs-be
The US will just find other (more expensive) suppliers, hence why everyone expects Trumponomics to drive inflation. [Post edited 19 Dec 2024 18:26]
|
This report says 150 billion but I don't believe it. https://geographyfieldwork.com/WalMartImpactChina.htm
This report is more likely. "Walmart doesn’t really like to make their import numbers well known, so let’s just do some “approximate” mathematics. The estimated value of imports into the U.S. from China in 2024 is $448 billion (2023 total was $423 billion) representing approximately 18% of overall imports. Walmart accounts for approximately 11.2% of total U.S. imports from China. So, 11% of $448 billion is $49 billion"
Interestingly, Wal-Mart has 405 stores in China | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 19:32 - Dec 19 with 681 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 18:44 - Dec 19 by Lord_Lucan |
This report says 150 billion but I don't believe it. https://geographyfieldwork.com/WalMartImpactChina.htm
This report is more likely. "Walmart doesn’t really like to make their import numbers well known, so let’s just do some “approximate” mathematics. The estimated value of imports into the U.S. from China in 2024 is $448 billion (2023 total was $423 billion) representing approximately 18% of overall imports. Walmart accounts for approximately 11.2% of total U.S. imports from China. So, 11% of $448 billion is $49 billion"
Interestingly, Wal-Mart has 405 stores in China |
Wow…eggs and baskets comes to mind… | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
