Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excuse me the RAF and the Royal Navy do actually have similar systems in the navy its called a ship and in the RAF it called a Squadron!!!!
the Public and media are very ignorrant of our armed forces because the forces are now so small that few people come into contact with them. Added to the fact that things like the Royal tournament and events to keep the armed forces in the public eye were scrapped to save money. Armed forces careers offices were closed and how often do soldiers sailors or airmen visit towns, villages etc in uniform to keep the services in the public eye?
The media also don't help by always looking for negative stories and the PC lobby trying to undermine the values and sandards that make the military what it is. Add this to the fact that most MP's and civil servants have not served in the armed forces and no wonder the armed forces are in the state they're in.
The British armed forces are now to small and badly balanced. They need investment of both money and care by the country. we are meant to have looked at what we wanted the forces to be able to do but not invested in them to give them the capibility to do it. At present its all save today for the hope of investment in the future.
the Public and media are very ignorrant of our armed forces because the forces are now so small that few people come into contact with them. Added to the fact that things like the Royal tournament and events to keep the armed forces in the public eye were scrapped to save money. Armed forces careers offices were closed and how often do soldiers sailors or airmen visit towns, villages etc in uniform to keep the services in the public eye?
The media also don't help by always looking for negative stories and the PC lobby trying to undermine the values and sandards that make the military what it is. Add this to the fact that most MP's and civil servants have not served in the armed forces and no wonder the armed forces are in the state they're in.
The British armed forces are now to small and badly balanced. They need investment of both money and care by the country. we are meant to have looked at what we wanted the forces to be able to do but not invested in them to give them the capibility to do it. At present its all save today for the hope of investment in the future.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse
But it's not the same, is it? The ship or sqadron doesn't have the same long term staff postings, at least as I understand things. The regiments, however, are an individual's focal point: whilst people will have postings away, they return to the regiment regularly and keep the affiliation even after being promoted out of the regiment if they get to that rank. (Col/Brig xxx, late the zzz regiment).
In the RN and RAF, again, as I understand it, an individual will have a number of postings to different ships/ squadrons/staff postings without the central focus provided by a regiment.
Happy to be corrected if my thinking is mistaken.
But it's not the same, is it? The ship or sqadron doesn't have the same long term staff postings, at least as I understand things. The regiments, however, are an individual's focal point: whilst people will have postings away, they return to the regiment regularly and keep the affiliation even after being promoted out of the regiment if they get to that rank. (Col/Brig xxx, late the zzz regiment).
In the RN and RAF, again, as I understand it, an individual will have a number of postings to different ships/ squadrons/staff postings without the central focus provided by a regiment.
Happy to be corrected if my thinking is mistaken.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry and all that, but I’ve got to ask how, by scrapping the Royal Tournament, you save money.
The servicemen and women taking part, get paid a handsome bounty for the evenings performance perhaps?
These personnel have taken the Queens shilling and are available, in theory at least, twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year.
So salaries will be paid weather the event takes place or not.
Wear and tear on equipment and uniforms, perhaps.
Ah that’ll be it.
I forgot that all armed forces personnel walk round b@@llock naked all day and sit on the floor playing cards, as to sit on a chair, would cause undue wear and tear. They mustn’t, under any circumstances perform any useful work, might entail replacing an expensive spark plug in the MT pool.
Cost?
What cost?
Surely you make money from the event?
Television rights to show the event.
Always a full house, so a percentage of revenue from ticket sales. A percentage from food and beverage sales, programme and memorabilia sales, and with modern technology, film the event and produce a DVD of the evening, for sale as the punters leave!
If the armed forces seriously put their heads together, they could MAKE a fortune.
Look at all the reality TV programmes that have been around of late.
I remember some years ago, the local TV station close to a certain airfield in Wiltshire, filmed for two or three weeks, and managed to produce an interesting but all too brief glimpse of life on a military airfield. Expand it, make it into a series.
Day to day stuff – expand the MT section, and turn it into a commercial enterprise, servicing and MOTs for the local community – profits to the base concerned.
Logistics – local deliveries for farms and shops – profit to the base.
Catering for the community, school / church fetes.
The list could go on and on.
But cancelling the Royal tournament due to cost savings - Please.
The servicemen and women taking part, get paid a handsome bounty for the evenings performance perhaps?
These personnel have taken the Queens shilling and are available, in theory at least, twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year.
So salaries will be paid weather the event takes place or not.
Wear and tear on equipment and uniforms, perhaps.
Ah that’ll be it.
I forgot that all armed forces personnel walk round b@@llock naked all day and sit on the floor playing cards, as to sit on a chair, would cause undue wear and tear. They mustn’t, under any circumstances perform any useful work, might entail replacing an expensive spark plug in the MT pool.
Cost?
What cost?
Surely you make money from the event?
Television rights to show the event.
Always a full house, so a percentage of revenue from ticket sales. A percentage from food and beverage sales, programme and memorabilia sales, and with modern technology, film the event and produce a DVD of the evening, for sale as the punters leave!
If the armed forces seriously put their heads together, they could MAKE a fortune.
Look at all the reality TV programmes that have been around of late.
I remember some years ago, the local TV station close to a certain airfield in Wiltshire, filmed for two or three weeks, and managed to produce an interesting but all too brief glimpse of life on a military airfield. Expand it, make it into a series.
Day to day stuff – expand the MT section, and turn it into a commercial enterprise, servicing and MOTs for the local community – profits to the base concerned.
Logistics – local deliveries for farms and shops – profit to the base.
Catering for the community, school / church fetes.
The list could go on and on.
But cancelling the Royal tournament due to cost savings - Please.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Muppet
Don't be so blinkered. I think stopping the Tournament was a crying shame - fantastic PR etc, but you cannot seriously think that it didn't put some sort of strain on things. Yes, the participants were already paid, but diversion from primary duties, lodging in London, hiring the venue, running costs, people whose job it was to plan the next one (wages etc) all add up. How many Wednesday afternoons do we get for sport in the RAF these days? Expeds? Less and less. That grips my ***t, but it is the way of things.
Don't believe that things are free, cos the bean counters will soon prove you wrong and stop the fun in other places.
As for making money. We have not been allowed to do this - legislation prevents us doing that - unfair competition etc. Also brings in liability etc. There have been ideas like this in the past - making use of 'irreducible spare capacity' - but has not come to a lot.
Don't be so blinkered. I think stopping the Tournament was a crying shame - fantastic PR etc, but you cannot seriously think that it didn't put some sort of strain on things. Yes, the participants were already paid, but diversion from primary duties, lodging in London, hiring the venue, running costs, people whose job it was to plan the next one (wages etc) all add up. How many Wednesday afternoons do we get for sport in the RAF these days? Expeds? Less and less. That grips my ***t, but it is the way of things.
Don't believe that things are free, cos the bean counters will soon prove you wrong and stop the fun in other places.
As for making money. We have not been allowed to do this - legislation prevents us doing that - unfair competition etc. Also brings in liability etc. There have been ideas like this in the past - making use of 'irreducible spare capacity' - but has not come to a lot.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, I think this country needs to get its arse kicked in a conflict. Until this happens the bean counters will keep on a stealing...
Maybe after we lose something then and only then will the powers at B decide "hmm we don't want this to happen again..lets do something about it".
Undoubtedly this will result in the loss of many lives. Maybe we should send a few of the politicians to the front lines...and take a camera.
Sorry to be flippant over this issue but I as a paid up member of the armed forces, I like others are getting increasingly cheesed off at been taken for granted.
Yes, we continue to win everything we do...but the armed forces capability is like everything else...finite and i feel we are approaching that boundary with rapid gusto.
There i've said it, good thing this forum exists else i'd be done for mutiny!
Maybe after we lose something then and only then will the powers at B decide "hmm we don't want this to happen again..lets do something about it".
Undoubtedly this will result in the loss of many lives. Maybe we should send a few of the politicians to the front lines...and take a camera.
Sorry to be flippant over this issue but I as a paid up member of the armed forces, I like others are getting increasingly cheesed off at been taken for granted.
Yes, we continue to win everything we do...but the armed forces capability is like everything else...finite and i feel we are approaching that boundary with rapid gusto.
There i've said it, good thing this forum exists else i'd be done for mutiny!
Bats & Hooded
Hey, get in line if the redundancy package is going to be similar to last time but that's the whole point. The package cost a fortune last time and spoilt the savings that were meant to be made. That is why discussions have been made to find out how they can reduce the 'costs' of cutting costs.
When you find a copy of that AP may I suggest you take it along to an auction house and get the paper that it's written on valued!!
We have always been naive in the Armed Forces and have been 'used' because of our 'can do' character. The fact that the Armed Forces were seen to be free of such back-stabbing and acts of darkness attracted such personalities to a work place where they thought they would be left to 'get the job done'. Traits such as Loyalty, Integrity (you get the picture) were banded about to instill a feeling of comradeship and pride. Now that we have seen our leader's true colours and the fact that we are disposable to the lowest bidder do they honestly expect anyone to hang around?
That's the plan of course. Why pay a 45 yr old Sqn Ldr/ Flt Lt and his boarding school allowance when a CR 25 yr old singly can do the same job. No need to talk about experience blah, the accountants bottom line is that if you are CR, you are CR.
With such leadership, loyalty and prospects I doubt the 25 yr old singly will stay around for long.
Hey, get in line if the redundancy package is going to be similar to last time but that's the whole point. The package cost a fortune last time and spoilt the savings that were meant to be made. That is why discussions have been made to find out how they can reduce the 'costs' of cutting costs.
When you find a copy of that AP may I suggest you take it along to an auction house and get the paper that it's written on valued!!
We have always been naive in the Armed Forces and have been 'used' because of our 'can do' character. The fact that the Armed Forces were seen to be free of such back-stabbing and acts of darkness attracted such personalities to a work place where they thought they would be left to 'get the job done'. Traits such as Loyalty, Integrity (you get the picture) were banded about to instill a feeling of comradeship and pride. Now that we have seen our leader's true colours and the fact that we are disposable to the lowest bidder do they honestly expect anyone to hang around?
That's the plan of course. Why pay a 45 yr old Sqn Ldr/ Flt Lt and his boarding school allowance when a CR 25 yr old singly can do the same job. No need to talk about experience blah, the accountants bottom line is that if you are CR, you are CR.
With such leadership, loyalty and prospects I doubt the 25 yr old singly will stay around for long.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arse about face!
All pay deals aside for one moment, if i may....Surely we're getting this whole thing arse about face.
There's only so much cutting back that you can do.
Why should the armed forces - in such high demand lately - be cut back on financial grounds when Government spending on Labour's Immigration policy has gone from Ł500m to Ł1.5b in just a few short years....to mention but one expensive cock-up.
Bloody bean counters and their pots!
There's only so much cutting back that you can do.
Why should the armed forces - in such high demand lately - be cut back on financial grounds when Government spending on Labour's Immigration policy has gone from Ł500m to Ł1.5b in just a few short years....to mention but one expensive cock-up.
Bloody bean counters and their pots!
You have Ł100m for defence and you run the country...
You currently spend Ł8m on humint, sigint, MI5/6.
You currently spend Ł62m on the conventional Army, Navy, Air Force.
You currently spend Ł30m on a strategic nuclear deterrent.
Now. I *think* the biggest threat to this country at the moment is something like nerve agent release on the Tube, a fishing boat full of radioactive waste & semtex sailing up the Thames or some nutter hitting me on the head at work and driving into Big Ben.
So, dealing with the biggest threats first, I want to shift money from conventional forces into the intelligence areas - don't I?
I might have a good long think about whether we need to remain a nuclear power. I might think about the costs of replacing Trident sometime in the next 20yrs and take a long lie down in a dark room. Then I think I would be happier to retain the ultimate deterrent in these times when the likes of Pakistan has it.
So do I want a couple of hundred main battle tanks sat on Salisbury plain or 20 squadrons of jolly smart Eurofighters or 2 gor blimey aircraft carriers? Or would I rather have an extra 5,000 intelligence agents in the field, some amazing sigint capability and possibly a competent robust civil defence architecture?
I want to have intelligence agents in every corner of every dodgy country around the globe. I want them expertly trained and perfectly equipped and supported. I want them to have plenty of cash to loosen tongues and I want the best and brightest not Oxbridge Shaylors.
I want to be able to read every email listen to every phone call, track every mobile and scan every computer at will and without trace. I want to be able to watch any point on the globe in minute detail 24/7 regardless of weather and I want to share and exploit the capabilities of friendly nations to achieve this.
I want to have emergency services on standby that can handle a small nuclear detonation or a biological weapons release in a major city. I want a command and control structure that really will work when the worst happens, that can lock down the country in the event of a biological attack. That can stop the deaths of tens of thousands from being the deaths of millions.
Now at present we don't have any of the above 3 paragraphs.
If you tell me that most of Typhoon, most of the heavy tank equipment and most of the surface Navy is the price. Well. I'm tempted to pay it. I think it would serve my security interests better.
Terrible shame. I would have loved to pole about in a Typhoon had I been good enough and I'm sure a ChallengerII and Type42 is equally sporting in its own way. But the threat really really really HAS changed this time. I'm weary of pat historic parallels when its been said before.
The threat is as dedicated as the the suicide bomber. The threat is totally asymetric. The threat is illogical and idealogical. The threat exists without a state and without state backing. The threat is competent.
The only defence and offense is intelligence.
The odds on failure suggest investment in civil defence.
Both these things will require a lot of money. You tell me where it should come from?
Cheers
WWW
You currently spend Ł8m on humint, sigint, MI5/6.
You currently spend Ł62m on the conventional Army, Navy, Air Force.
You currently spend Ł30m on a strategic nuclear deterrent.
Now. I *think* the biggest threat to this country at the moment is something like nerve agent release on the Tube, a fishing boat full of radioactive waste & semtex sailing up the Thames or some nutter hitting me on the head at work and driving into Big Ben.
So, dealing with the biggest threats first, I want to shift money from conventional forces into the intelligence areas - don't I?
I might have a good long think about whether we need to remain a nuclear power. I might think about the costs of replacing Trident sometime in the next 20yrs and take a long lie down in a dark room. Then I think I would be happier to retain the ultimate deterrent in these times when the likes of Pakistan has it.
So do I want a couple of hundred main battle tanks sat on Salisbury plain or 20 squadrons of jolly smart Eurofighters or 2 gor blimey aircraft carriers? Or would I rather have an extra 5,000 intelligence agents in the field, some amazing sigint capability and possibly a competent robust civil defence architecture?
I want to have intelligence agents in every corner of every dodgy country around the globe. I want them expertly trained and perfectly equipped and supported. I want them to have plenty of cash to loosen tongues and I want the best and brightest not Oxbridge Shaylors.
I want to be able to read every email listen to every phone call, track every mobile and scan every computer at will and without trace. I want to be able to watch any point on the globe in minute detail 24/7 regardless of weather and I want to share and exploit the capabilities of friendly nations to achieve this.
I want to have emergency services on standby that can handle a small nuclear detonation or a biological weapons release in a major city. I want a command and control structure that really will work when the worst happens, that can lock down the country in the event of a biological attack. That can stop the deaths of tens of thousands from being the deaths of millions.
Now at present we don't have any of the above 3 paragraphs.
If you tell me that most of Typhoon, most of the heavy tank equipment and most of the surface Navy is the price. Well. I'm tempted to pay it. I think it would serve my security interests better.
Terrible shame. I would have loved to pole about in a Typhoon had I been good enough and I'm sure a ChallengerII and Type42 is equally sporting in its own way. But the threat really really really HAS changed this time. I'm weary of pat historic parallels when its been said before.
The threat is as dedicated as the the suicide bomber. The threat is totally asymetric. The threat is illogical and idealogical. The threat exists without a state and without state backing. The threat is competent.
The only defence and offense is intelligence.
The odds on failure suggest investment in civil defence.
Both these things will require a lot of money. You tell me where it should come from?
Cheers
WWW
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why do you only have 100 million (don't have a pound sign on my Antipodean keyboard, sorry) for Defence, when you have 1.5 billion to spend on immigration?
It isn't because the nation/government/state doesn't have the money; it's because politicians choose to spend it in other areas. This is where your answer lies.
We have exactly the same situation here. Government axes an Air Combat Force which cost $80 million a year to run (on the grounds of unjustifiable expense), but happily spends 1.1 billion on Social Welfare - every month.
Get political, people. It is the bean counters and the bent politicians who need preaching at. Here, we are already converted.
Good luck, and any useful feedback from your end gratefully received in our own campaign
Top thread, WEBF
It isn't because the nation/government/state doesn't have the money; it's because politicians choose to spend it in other areas. This is where your answer lies.
We have exactly the same situation here. Government axes an Air Combat Force which cost $80 million a year to run (on the grounds of unjustifiable expense), but happily spends 1.1 billion on Social Welfare - every month.
Get political, people. It is the bean counters and the bent politicians who need preaching at. Here, we are already converted.
Good luck, and any useful feedback from your end gratefully received in our own campaign
Top thread, WEBF
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
I'd expect to hear nothing less from someone who is from that particular town. I know your profile says you are a current ATPL, but do you have a vested interest in this field? Do your wife, familiy or friends work at a certain local establishment?
Mad Mark!!!
I'd expect to hear nothing less from someone who is from that particular town. I know your profile says you are a current ATPL, but do you have a vested interest in this field? Do your wife, familiy or friends work at a certain local establishment?
Mad Mark!!!
Bluewolf - the 100 figure was purely to show percentages - obviously the Uk defence budget is in the many many billions.
Mad Mark - although as I gaze up from Weasley towers computer room I can see the rather striking new GCHQ building I don't know anyone employed there and I only moved here recently.
I'm just saying - with limited resources what would *you* choose to prioritise if you really were in the job.
Cheers
WWW
Mad Mark - although as I gaze up from Weasley towers computer room I can see the rather striking new GCHQ building I don't know anyone employed there and I only moved here recently.
I'm just saying - with limited resources what would *you* choose to prioritise if you really were in the job.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would 5000 intelligence agents have recovered the Falkland Islands, liberated Kuwait, sorted formaer Yugoslavia or overthrown Sadaam.
I would guess the US has got at least that many agents and it certainly has the money to loosen tongues. But they didn't stop 9/11! They also haven't got a clue where Bin Laden or Sadaam is and, in the meantime, troops hold the ground instead of agents.
I would guess the US has got at least that many agents and it certainly has the money to loosen tongues. But they didn't stop 9/11! They also haven't got a clue where Bin Laden or Sadaam is and, in the meantime, troops hold the ground instead of agents.
We couldn't do the Falklands again now.
We couldn't have liberated Kuwait without the US anyway.
Former Yugoslavia did not require a Typhoon, a main battle tank nor a large carrier.
Saddam was overthrown by the US with the UK helping here and there.
I'm not talking about disbanding the military nor cutting the expenditure. I am talking about hard choices, fixed budgets and the here&now.
Cheers
WWW
We couldn't have liberated Kuwait without the US anyway.
Former Yugoslavia did not require a Typhoon, a main battle tank nor a large carrier.
Saddam was overthrown by the US with the UK helping here and there.
I'm not talking about disbanding the military nor cutting the expenditure. I am talking about hard choices, fixed budgets and the here&now.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunatley Irish tempest is correct the UK will need to get its arse kicked before something positive is done and unfortunatley it will mean guys and girls will have to die....
The Bean counters of the civil service and the various over paid consultants Know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
What will happen when the UK has to mount an op without US or European support? Eg into Zimbabwe or another Falklands
and despite all the friendliness I would sugest if the argentinians thought they would get away with it they would invade again.
The Bean counters of the civil service and the various over paid consultants Know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
What will happen when the UK has to mount an op without US or European support? Eg into Zimbabwe or another Falklands
and despite all the friendliness I would sugest if the argentinians thought they would get away with it they would invade again.
We won't be able to do it so thats it. Simple.
If that means we don't get involved in various dodgy wars on behalf of the motivations of Foreign Office Mandarins then - thats un upside for johnny soldier. Sierra Leone again anyone?
Cheers
WWW
If that means we don't get involved in various dodgy wars on behalf of the motivations of Foreign Office Mandarins then - thats un upside for johnny soldier. Sierra Leone again anyone?
Cheers
WWW
Thread Starter
What proportion of UK Government spending is spent on defence? Well, judging by the Treasury figures yesterday less than SIX percent.
In terms of efficiency, by which I mean money having an effect on the cutting edge/coal face, does the MOD rank amongst Government departments? They're all good at spending public money, but to little effect.
Weasly - do you think that terrorism is the only threat to the UK? Really?
So you gather intelligence. What then? Are you going to send the terrorists a strongly worded letter telling them to bahave or they'll be sent to bed without any tea? I suspect that you would want the means to do something about it. Like the Armed Forces, perhaps?
And the Forces do gather intelligence. Not many know that it was infact a Nimrod R1 that detected four Mig29s airborne in Serbia, only to have 3 shot down by F15s being controlled by AWACS (who iniitially did not see the threats become airborne). Again most people are unaware of the MIOPS (Maritime Interdiction Operations) being carried out by naval forces from a variety of nations, including the UK, in places such as the Med, Arabian Sea, and other places.
Gathering intelligence is something the Services do all the time.
In terms of efficiency, by which I mean money having an effect on the cutting edge/coal face, does the MOD rank amongst Government departments? They're all good at spending public money, but to little effect.
Weasly - do you think that terrorism is the only threat to the UK? Really?
So you gather intelligence. What then? Are you going to send the terrorists a strongly worded letter telling them to bahave or they'll be sent to bed without any tea? I suspect that you would want the means to do something about it. Like the Armed Forces, perhaps?
And the Forces do gather intelligence. Not many know that it was infact a Nimrod R1 that detected four Mig29s airborne in Serbia, only to have 3 shot down by F15s being controlled by AWACS (who iniitially did not see the threats become airborne). Again most people are unaware of the MIOPS (Maritime Interdiction Operations) being carried out by naval forces from a variety of nations, including the UK, in places such as the Med, Arabian Sea, and other places.
Gathering intelligence is something the Services do all the time.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Six percent....wow, that would be mana from heaven. We get 1.1% nominal, and about 0.75% in real terms once the Government has finished taking back with the other hand.
As to the threats; deal with terrorism, but get real and prepare for China. The Muslim Hordes are a long way from assembling their excreta to the point of being a direct threat to Europe, but the Chinese are not.
There are 1.3 billion of them. Their population is growing by almost 50 million a year. The one-child policy has resulted in a situation where the surplus male population is now approaching 100 million.
They are a nuclear power and are entering the space race. They are technically advanced and becoming more so. They are organised, intelligent, hard working, and aggressively expansionist. They will not stop at trade. They will seek land and resources outside their own borders; food, fresh water, women, territory.
They have plans to build a fleet of aircraft carriers and are expanding their submarine capability. This is not doomsaying or fantasy or hysteria; it is happening.
India will provide a limited bulwark against China, but only within her capabilities, and only as far as suits her.
American military power is great, but not unlimited. Already it is spread thinly, and stretched in places. Taking on North Korea or Syria as well as current commitments will leave very little surplus capacity in Uncle Sam's ability to look after Britain or Europe.
If I were of a mind to apply timeframes to things, I might suggest that China will be a military threat to the sovereignty of Asian nations within 15 - 20 years, South Pacific and South-East Asian nations within 20 - 25 years, and Continental Europe within 25 - 30 years.
Enjoy the sunshine for now if you must, but don't be so naive and foolish as to believe that it will last.
As to the threats; deal with terrorism, but get real and prepare for China. The Muslim Hordes are a long way from assembling their excreta to the point of being a direct threat to Europe, but the Chinese are not.
There are 1.3 billion of them. Their population is growing by almost 50 million a year. The one-child policy has resulted in a situation where the surplus male population is now approaching 100 million.
They are a nuclear power and are entering the space race. They are technically advanced and becoming more so. They are organised, intelligent, hard working, and aggressively expansionist. They will not stop at trade. They will seek land and resources outside their own borders; food, fresh water, women, territory.
They have plans to build a fleet of aircraft carriers and are expanding their submarine capability. This is not doomsaying or fantasy or hysteria; it is happening.
India will provide a limited bulwark against China, but only within her capabilities, and only as far as suits her.
American military power is great, but not unlimited. Already it is spread thinly, and stretched in places. Taking on North Korea or Syria as well as current commitments will leave very little surplus capacity in Uncle Sam's ability to look after Britain or Europe.
If I were of a mind to apply timeframes to things, I might suggest that China will be a military threat to the sovereignty of Asian nations within 15 - 20 years, South Pacific and South-East Asian nations within 20 - 25 years, and Continental Europe within 25 - 30 years.
Enjoy the sunshine for now if you must, but don't be so naive and foolish as to believe that it will last.
Bluewolf,
Your living in the 1930's mate, not the 21st Century!
You also seem to be forgetting something called Trident.
UK is not a super power anymore. We may be the fourth richest economy on the planet but we are no where near the USA in terms of economic or military strength.
If China ever tries to become a major player on the world scene, and many political commentators note that if it did it would probably implode like the old Soviet Union did, then if it had any expansionist ambitions these would be matched and faced down by the combined strength of the free world led by the United States.
Don't forget, we (the UK) in no way could take on the Germans alone when they tried it twice in the last Century, that didn't stop us participating in a global campaign to stop them but no way could we ever have taken them on alone and won.
What makes you think China would be any different?
Also, what makes you think that China is going to be some militaristic expansionist state? They will have major challenges ahead of them, the most significant being how to hold together a huge monolithic state in the 21st Century world of instant global communication, fiscal dominance and human rights and individual expression.
Your living in the 1930's mate, not the 21st Century!
You also seem to be forgetting something called Trident.
UK is not a super power anymore. We may be the fourth richest economy on the planet but we are no where near the USA in terms of economic or military strength.
If China ever tries to become a major player on the world scene, and many political commentators note that if it did it would probably implode like the old Soviet Union did, then if it had any expansionist ambitions these would be matched and faced down by the combined strength of the free world led by the United States.
Don't forget, we (the UK) in no way could take on the Germans alone when they tried it twice in the last Century, that didn't stop us participating in a global campaign to stop them but no way could we ever have taken them on alone and won.
What makes you think China would be any different?
Also, what makes you think that China is going to be some militaristic expansionist state? They will have major challenges ahead of them, the most significant being how to hold together a huge monolithic state in the 21st Century world of instant global communication, fiscal dominance and human rights and individual expression.
