Originally Posted by pr00ne
As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that?
It was implicit in your reply to Stendec5, viz:
Originally Posted by pr00ne
As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.'
because the number deployed on current ops is a relevant fact to introduce only if you think there should be a material connection from that to the overall size of the forces. If you agree that the size of our forces should be independent of the needs of current ops, then the number deployed is absolutely irrelevant.
Your later point - 4th-biggest defence budget, why spend more? - is one I agree with entirely, although I'd be interested to see whether other nations' nuclear deterrents sit on the headline defence budget. We and the French are also in hock to our own domestic defence monopolies who sell to us late and over budget, while militaries such as India, Saudi etc (and even, it seems, Russia - French ships) buy from the same companies at preferable terms due to the power of the export market. They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....