Originally Posted by
Not_a_boffin
FFS not again! This has been done to death, not least in the LibDem-led review.
1. You don't have an IND to deter Achmed the Awful and his suitcase. You deter him (insofar as you can) with a big tub of lard / pile of bacon butties. 2. That is not the threat the deterrent is aimed at. The deterrent is aimed at the threat that never really went away and is now re-emerging.
3. The alternative that people think exist - yes, you, TLAM types - actually doesn't and is non-trivial to create, operate and support.
4. Any money saved on IND will go straight to the gaping maw of skools n ospiculs, innit. There is zero chance of it being reinvested in defence.
NAB - Spot on. It is worth comparing the French military and our own, as well as population size, GDP etc. They don't have all the capabilities we have, but they do seem to be able to deliver the ones we keep bleating about not being able to afford.
And here, almost hidden away, such an apparently inconsequential thing
Originally Posted by
skua
"and a failure to meet efficiency saving targets".
is most of the issue with the Defence budget. When you make a plan based on an assumption of meeting, what are nowadays, with no low-hanging fruit or "savings" left to be had, £10 billion of "savings or efficiencies" (for which read cuts to capability) you are scuppered from the very start.