Influence as with independance is a matter of degree not absolute.
In terms of the balance, I would say we're too low, but because its not that far below what would be reasonable and because the assumptions on which the
decision makes base this cutting have not been tested they can 'get away with it' over the short term. Fooling themselves that weakness can be
tolerated without consequence.
But a reasonable scale of military forces is not something that can be built overnight and what capacity to do so has itself been run down, so that only long
term planning and procurement is left.
We will fight tomorrows war with what we procure today, there will be in effect no increases possible unless that war is heavily forcast before its event and
such forcast makes it properly the domain of diplomacy and intelligence to avoid it getting to the point of war itself.
Rundown of forces is partly due to economic decline, partly due to the rise in systems costs. The old Sea Vixen was a reletively simple machine compared to a
Typhoon or F35.
The last 30 years has seen the turnaround of the UK but during this we've seen the end of the Cold War and a 'peace dividend'. It will take yet
more time to things to settle down assuming the UK economy carrys on being relatively successful. Assumptions of a 'new world order' of peace and
prosperity have in fact been demolished by events, the peace dividend has been too deep and politicians still cling to it rather than face reality.
"Britain can certainly afford 12 T45's, 24 follow on frigates, SSN/SSBN and 2-3 CVF with airgroups. Ampibious groups too."
Just to get this straight what are we arguing about New Galconda?
. Maybe I'd settle for the Formidable Class (Singapore).
