UK "Must Slash Defence Spending"

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
WillR06	UK "Must Slash Defence Spending"	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1594 (30-Jun-2009 02:43:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	More bad news from the politicos - I am reminded that the only lesson of history is that no one learns the lessons of history. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm Frankly it's everyone else's turn to be cut except defence - defence is always cut whilst everything else grows fat - it's time that changed. I am disappointed by George Robinson - I thought he was one of the good guys. Corvettes: Just say no!
shaun		#1	[-]
Posts: 312 (30-Jun-2009 03:13:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Slashed BY £24bn"? What does that leave?? Just enough to go round for a few hundred fake bear-skin hats for the Guards, a battalion of Gurkhas (we spent enough fighting Joanna Lumley, we might as well keep them around), the Catering Corps - our globally-deployable force commitment as unswervering Tier 1 allies to the US in all their overseas adventures, HMS Victory and the University Air Squadrons. Hopefully a typo. Missing decimal point? Maybe -£24bn over the next 20 years? Anyway that outburst is an indication of my frustration at the decade of gross neglect of the Armed Forces; not coughing up extra for carriers, 12 T45s, committing to 232 Typhoons, all fine, I could live with those.... just don't cut the budget beneath the minimum to keep the existing capability ticking over. Labour should wind up any of the UK's pretensions of clout at the world stage and just accept (maybe belatedly) that we are merely a broke, socially decadent, frivolous consumerist country obsessed with whether Lindsay Lohan is wearing knickers and how much sex Mel B actually has. Forget Gordon Brown chumming up to Obama as some kind of partner to usher in the new vision of the 21st century - he deservedly got a mere autograph from the Chosen One, cos that's how much regard the US and the world has for this country thanks to 12 years of a spineless, short-termist executive and a lobotomised electorate.
StevoJH		#2	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1154 (30-Jun-2009 04:12:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	shaun wrote: "Slashed BY £24bn"? What does that leave?? Just enough to go round for a few hundred fake bear-skin hats for the Guards, a battalion of Gurkhas (we spent enough fighting Joanna Lumley, we might as well keep them around), the Catering Corps - our globally-deployable force commitment as unswervering Tier 1 allies to the US in all their overseas adventures, HMS Victory and the University Air Squadrons. Hopefully a typo. Missing decimal point? Maybe -£24bn over the next 20 years? Anyway that outburst is an indication of my frustration at the decade of gross neglect of the Armed Forces; not coughing up extra for carriers, 12 T45s, committing to 232 Typhoons, all fine, I could live with those.... just don't cut the budget beneath the minimum to keep the existing capability ticking over. Labour should wind up any of the UK's pretensions of clout at the world stage and just accept (maybe belatedly) that we are merely a broke, socially decadent, frivolous consumerist country obsessed with whether Lindsay Lohan is wearing knickers and how much sex Mel B actually has. Forget Gordon Brown chumming up to Obama as some kind of partner to usher in the new vision of the 21st century - he deservedly got a mere autograph from the Chosen One, cos that's how much regard the US and the world has for this country thanks to 12 years of a spineless, short-termist executive and a lobotomised electorate. 24 billion is about a 2/3 cut isnt it? Crazy, that is all there is to say.
Obi Wan Russell		#3	[-]
Posts: 514 (30-Jun-2009 05:17:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A £24Billion cut to the defence budget means two of the three services will have to be disbanded, since all three are operating at their minimum credible level. So the learned and respected authours of this report don't appear to have done their basic research. Lord preserve us from these cretins...
civipilot		#4	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 (30-Jun-2009 06:51:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This civilian expat cant help but wonder if this "Think Tank" operates out of a cave in Pakistan...I dont think they could do any more damage to the UK if they did...
navynick		#5	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 181 (30-Jun-2009 09:08:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	this can't be a huge surprise? unfortunatly i think this is the view of most of the general public!
pymes75		#6	[-]
Posts: 1236 (30-Jun-2009 09:34:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Labour should wind up any of the UK's pretensions of clout at the world stage and just accept (maybe belatedly) that we are merely a broke, socially decadent, frivolous consumerist country obsessed with whether Lindsay Lohan is wearing knickers and how much sex Mel B actually has. Forget Gordon Brown chumming up to Obama as some kind of partner to usher in the new vision of the 21st century - he deservedly got a mere autograph from the Chosen One, cos that's how much regard the US and the world has for this country thanks to 12 years of a spineless, short-termist executive and a lobotomised electorate. I couldn't agree more! What angers me is the total disregard of the impact of what is happening to our armed forces, not only on our status in the world but also our influence and economic prosperity. People quickly forget that the UK's defence industry brings in billions of pounds, and more importantly would probably bring in more if we increased the investment in our forces. Other nations are not going to buy our equipment unless we operate them in the kind of numbers that keeps down costs and inspires confidence in the ability of our industry to continue to support them. Likewise, people also forget that defence technology is exactly the kind of high tech industry that offers the UK any kind of hope of competing for business in world markets. Most of our other 'metal bashing' industries having been in decline for decades, and it would seem these people are happy for the UK to loose even the industries where we can compete! As far as I'm concerned, if you decide to allow the UK to decline as a military power, then you consign the UK to decline even faster as an ECONOMIC power. I truly believe the two are linked and therefore the decision it is that simple. Last Edited By: pymes75 30-Jun-2009 09:36:41. Edited 1 times.
WillR06		#7	[-]
Posts: 1596 (30-Jun-2009 10:44:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	pymes75 wrote: Labour should wind up any of the UK's pretensions of clout at the world stage and just accept (maybe belatedly) that we are merely a broke, socially decadent, frivolous consumerist country obsessed with whether Lindsay Lohan is wearing knickers and how much sex Mel B actually has. Forget Gordon Brown chumming up to Obama as some kind of partner to usher in the new vision of the 21st century - he deservedly got a mere autograph from the Chosen One, cos that's how much regard the US and the world has for this country thanks to 12 years of a spineless, short-termist executive and a lobotomised electorate. I couldn't agree more! What angers me is the total disregard of the impact of what is happening to our armed forces, not only on our status in the world but also our influence and economic prosperity. People quickly forget that the UK's defence industry brings in billions of pounds, and more importantly would probably bring in more if we increased the investment in our forces. Other nations are not going to buy our equipment unless we operate them in the kind of numbers that keeps down costs and inspires confidence in the ability of our industry to continue to support them. Likewise, people also forget that defence technology is exactly the kind of high tech industry that offers the UK any kind of hope of competing for business in world markets. Most of our other 'metal bashing' industries having been in decline for decades, and it would seem these people are happy for the UK to loose even the industries where we can compete! As far as I'm concerned, if you decide to allow the UK to decline as a military power, then you consign the UK to decline even faster as an ECONOMIC power. I truly believe the two are linked and therefore the decision it is that simple. Too true. I entirely agree.
WillR06		#8	[-]
Posts: 1597 (30-Jun-2009 10:55:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	navynick wrote: this can't be a huge surprise? unfortunatly i think this is the view of most of the general public! I'm not so sure, though each service and the Armed Forces as a whole must get better at spelling out their value to the UK. I have a battered copy of BR1806, I sometimes think if the RN sent out a pamphlet with the same ideas about the value of maritime power out to every household in the UK even if a small number of people read it there would be a surge in understanding of what the Royal Navy is for. The RN is at a disadvantage compared to other services - the is a Barracks or RAF base near most places in the UK, the Navy is largely confined to five locations (nine if you include RMs) and as they deploy so often as a matter of routine aren't around so much to remind everyday folk of their existence.
Zen9		#9	[-]
Posts: 4414 (30-Jun-2009 11:07:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	But where is the link to the report? What does the report actualy say? I have my suspicions, but its clear there is a media campaign to disarm the UK. It would have at least some merit if we belived it would give more funding to Afghanistan and that it would result in a properly positive outcome. However, I'm growing rather pessamistic over Afghanistan, and if that deployment was in any way the reason why we should suddenly ditch long laid plans then its increasingly my opinion we should drop Afghanistan instead.
Kendo no sensei		#10	[-]
Posts: 635 (30-Jun-2009 11:17:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think the £24 billion is what the panel believe could be saved by drastically changing procurement for the next xx years. Whether this is: a) about reducing future expenditure, b) flogging off the tanks we have now, stopping ship/aircraft construction, etc, or c) crying about spilt milk and demanding the MoD build a time machine to stop the projects ever being approved I don't know. But it's clear they think we have too many tanks, ships, aircraft and should not try to be an independent power but one working "only" in conjunction with other powers, i.e. NATO. However, that I think they fail to note is that it is not our fault that European spending is dropping. We should co-operate with our neighbours, but until: a) they all start spending more; and b) smaller countries give up on having independent services and instead contribute to those of larger countries it's impossible anyway.
kev 99a		#11	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 661 (30-Jun-2009 11:22:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The IPPR report adds that assumptions that the US will always come to Britain's rescue are complacent and it is "delusional" to believe that the UK can act alone without closer European defence co-operation. It warns: "If we do not strengthen Nato by reinforcing its European pillar, not just on defence but on wider security issues too, the result will be neither the status quo nor some other fantasy of wider collective security co-operation." That suggests to me that we should be spending more! Most of the European armed forces do not have the high end capabilities that the US has and they are not willing to spend the money to get them either.
Colin Mc		#12	[-]
Posts: 765 (30-Jun-2009 11:51:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Have a read of the document - you can get a free PDF download of the full 144 page document. It's called "Shared Responsibilities". Seems to me it is the sort of thing you would get if you collected together a group of "land" oriented coves. Predictably they go for an increase in the Army. Their thrust is specialisation, which means that where capabilities are plentiful you do not need to put effort. You put effort into certain capabilities that you are essentially good at which in practice seems to mean army type thingies. Guess what, the things that are in plentiful supply are aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, so you need to review whether you need those. But you do need new frigates for maritime security world-wide. Incidentally, they are not saying that the Nuclear Deterrent should go but question the form it should take. My view is it is all pretty irrelevant. The real players in this, the people that matter are Liam Fox and his crew. I would not expect them to take too seriously an ex-Lib Dem leader and an ex-Labour minister plus the odd superannuated General. Personally, I would go for a small army - because large ones get you into trouble. Because you can, you go in for illegal wars while in arse-creeping mode or turn up in a country and say to the inhabitants we are here to help rebuild and we don't expect to fire a shot and get puzzled when you get turned on because you are armed foreigners in their country and seem just the same as a bunch of Russians they've just kicked out. Gen Rupert Smith laid down strict criteria for involvement and as far as I know no one has ever argued against them - Iraq and Afghanistan don't really qualify. Nevertheless, we have a result - we now have home-grown terrorist where before we had none. If I were King for a day (OK a little bit longer) I'd rediscover Expedition and the Seaborne/Airborne Concept from the 60's - which from an RN point of view is what we have now. The Army, at the sharp end, would be a bunch of highly potent air mobile brigades to work with 3 Commando Brigade. In fact if you look at Afghanistan today the Army has just cobbled together an ad hoc air mobile brigade to address the situation they find themselves in. I rest my case. Do I hear Incoming?
AndyMed		#13	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 123 (30-Jun-2009 13:06:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	kev 99a wrote: That suggests to me that we should be spending more! Most of the European armed forces do not have the high end capabilities that the US has and they are not willing to spend the money to get them either. Agreed. How on one hand can they say we should be relying on the US less, but also saying that expenditure on defence has to be cut?? My view is it is all pretty irrelevant. The real players in this, the people that matter are Liam Fox and his crew. I would not expect them to take too seriously an ex-Lib Dem leader and an ex-Labour minister plus the odd superannuated General. The problem is that this is all about the battle for public opinion and whilst Liam Fox may not take this report seriously, a large proportion of the general public certainly will. Hmmmm....£24bn. Why does that figure sound familiar? Could it possibly be the cost of replacing the nuclear deterrant (£20bn) and the cost of the new carriers (£3.9bn in old money)??
AndyMed		#14	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 124 (30-Jun-2009 13:20:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	3.It could look to some other intergovernmental grouping, such as the Commonwealth, to play a greater role or choose ad hoc arrangements for specific issues. I've always thought this a good idea and particularly so now. The threat of a ground war in Europe is now pretty much non-existent so why should we be developing defence relationships with countries that do not have the same interests as us or (barring France) the same capabilities. However, commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada have shown time and again that they are committed to the same causes that Britain usually finds important. Common ancestry is also a very important point that should not be overlooked. We should therefore work on maintianing the relationship with the US, but also on strengthening co-operation with commonwealth allies.
John1964		#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 27 (30-Jun-2009 13:29:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What kind of message is it sending to our opponents when we are constantly saying that we have to cut defence spending - it just proves to them that we haven't got the resolve to fight them. It is just so typical of our politicians that they involve us in a war and then don't want to pay for it.
AndyMed		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 125 (30-Jun-2009 13:46:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	John1964 wrote: What kind of message is it sending to our opponents when we are constantly saying that we have to cut defence spending - it just proves to them that we haven't got the resolve to fight them. It is just so typical of our politicians that they involve us in a war and then don't want to pay for it. Agreed. Particularly talk of cutting Trident. The nuclear deterrent should be above party politics and should not be discussed in public - period.
PMN1		#17	[-]
Posts: 4299 (30-Jun-2009 14:00:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ther BBC has a comments section on the story http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=6666&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20090630125435#paginator 'We are showing progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate'
StevoJH		#18	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1155 (30-Jun-2009 14:08:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Colin Mc wrote: Have a read of the document - you can get a free PDF download of the full 144 page document. It's called "Shared Responsibilities". Seems to me it is the sort of thing you would get if you collected together a group of "land" oriented coves. Predictably they go for an increase in the Army. Their thrust is specialisation, which means that where capabilities are plentiful you do not need to put effort. You put effort into certain capabilities that you are essentially good at which in practice seems to mean army type thingies. Guess what, the things that are in plentiful supply are aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, so you need to review whether you need those. But you do need new frigates for maritime security world-wide. Incidentally, they are not saying that the Nuclear Deterrent should go but question the form it should take. My view is it is all pretty irrelevant. The real players in this, the people that matter are Liam Fox and his crew. I would not expect them to take too seriously an ex-Lib Dem leader and an ex-Labour minister plus the odd superannuated General. Personally, I would go for a small army - because large ones get you into trouble. Because you can, you go in for illegal wars while in arse-creeping mode or turn up in a country and say to the inhabitants we are here to help rebuild and we don't expect to fire a shot and get puzzled when you get turned on because you are armed foreigners in their country and seem just the same as a bunch of Russians they've just kicked out. Gen Rupert Smith laid down strict criteria for involvement and as far as I know no one has ever argued against them - Iraq and Afghanistan don't really qualify. Nevertheless, we have a result - we now have home-grown terrorist where before we had none. If I were King for a day (OK a little bit longer) I'd rediscover Expedition and the Seaborne/Airborne Concept from the 60's - which from an RN point of view is what we have now. The Army, at the sharp end, would be a bunch of highly potent air mobile brigades to work with 3 Commando Brigade. In fact if you look at Afghanistan today the Army has just cobbled together an ad hoc air mobile brigade to address the situation they find themselves in. I rest my case. Do I hear Incoming? As is i count 5 Light Infantry Brigades in the regular British Forces (16th Air Assault, 11th Light Brigade, 19th Light Brigade, 52nd Infantry and 3 Commando). On top of this there are an additional 5 Mechanised or Armoured Brigades formed into two divisions with one of the Light Infantry units making up the third Brigade of 3rd Mechanised Division. So the British Army has 5 Brigades that can be rapidly Air Transported into a theatre, plus 5 brigades of Heavier forces that are good for thinks like destroying enemy Armoured Divisions. If anything they should probably consider forming Reserve Infantry Brigades out of the Territorial Army and consider deploying them overseas as formed units unless legislation prevents them from fighting overseas as formed units (as far as I can tell they have enough battalions to make up 3-4 Brigades). Any idea how strong the TA battalions are? Are they up to strength?
Phil Gollin		#19	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 3729 (30-Jun-2009 14:28:04) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The downloadable pdf is here :- http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%2Fippr%5Fshared%5Fresponsibility%2Epdf I am deeply unimpressed. It is mainly about the PRESENT assymetrical warfare (i.e. dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan WHIST ALREADY ON THE GROUND THERE). There are bits on cooperation with US, NATO and EU. Bits on home security (energy and terrorist) but (AND IT IS A BIG BUT) very litte about how a rogue state would be dealt with in future. Nothing substantive about "expeditionary warfare" (or whatever the latest buzz-words are). Nothing substantive about controlling rogue states (although it is mentioned about their increase in both numbers and relative strength). I.E. this bunch of "experts" are committing the classic historical mistake of "preparing for the last war" (even if that one is still on-going). This is a small minded report - it is not comprehensive. If they have restricted their thinking their conclusions MUST be questioned. .
kev 99a		#20	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 663 (30-Jun-2009 15:19:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Phil Gollin wrote: The downloadable pdf is here :- http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%2Fippr%5Fshared%5Fresponsibility%2Epdf I am deeply unimpressed. It is mainly about the PRESENT assymetrical warfare (i.e. dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan WHIST ALREADY ON THE GROUND THERE). There are bits on cooperation with US, NATO and EU. Bits on home security (energy and terrorist) but (AND IT IS A BIG BUT) very litte about how a rogue state would be dealt with in future. Nothing substantive about "expeditionary warfare" (or whatever the latest buzz-words are). Nothing substantive about controlling rogue states (although it is mentioned about their increase in both numbers and relative strength). I.E. this bunch of "experts" are committing the classic historical mistake of "preparing for the last war" (even if that one is still on-going). This is a small minded report - it is not comprehensive. If they have restricted their thinking their conclusions MUST be questioned. . Sounds very much like its a pro European federalisation document and roadmap for the full integration of members armed forces.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

UK "Must Slash Defence Spending"

UK "Must Slash Defence Spending"

Quick Reply