I don't disagree at all. In the state's defence, I think, at the time, it was just the done thing. Even then, we all secretly knew the state retirement system was entirely dysfunctional, but there was mileage yet in kicking the can down the road to buy votes. No excuses, it was incredibly irresponsible, and it wasn't until the early 90's that everyone started to realise the game was up. I can't remember, but I'm pretty certain that as recently as two years or so ago, DWP obfuscated about the two different types of foundation point starter. Was its reasoning to help? I doubt it. Staff at DWP weren't properly trained and consequently, I imagine many people approaching retirement and requesting information were incorrectly briefed by call-centre staff.
Going back to your point about MoD culpability, the information was out there, in various scheme booklets, but its potential consequences were never interpreted (and why would they be?) and the implications were unforeseen. Ending 'contracting out' was the right thing to do for a much wider arc of reasons, the fillet of your pension that was attached to the contracted out element demanded a level of Guaranteed Minimum Pension that was unaffordable.
But it was only one of many reasons to be aggrieved with how all public sector pensions were going at the time (CPI/RPI revaluation etc). Another 1% pay rise continuing to decimate the value of any defined benefit pension, increasing inflation (the Trump switching off of fiscal restraint when the US job market is healthy anyway), (still) low interest rates, bond yield caps.. all point to financial repression and the governments of the world attempting to impede the markets. I'm seeing clients with defined benefit transfer values of between forty and fifty times annual,pensions at retirement.
Back to the point about financial repression and the insidious long term effect of (how many now?) years of 1% pay increases, will the PPRuNe of 2037 be asking 'why did no one advise us of the consequences of this? More importantly, why are 'we' sleepwalking into it? On a wider note, Hammond's budget was conspicuous by no references to pensions. Expect something in the next one. New, general rules of saving for retirement thumb? Expect to save for retirement for at least 45 years, start by putting away at least 12.5% per annum (if you trust AFPS enough to include in that the notional contribution, crack on) and build steadily on that level, and aim to have at least ten times your final salary set aside, when you retire.
My kids, I am certain, won't draw the miserable vestiges of what's left of their state pensions until they're seventy five. We're entering the third phase of pensions - the first was the bribe (to get knackered fifty year olds out of the mills and fields and into obscure, retirement misery until they died four years later of whatever it was they were expected to die of) to make way for the kids). The second was the sell (boomers were told that a retirement of walking through crashing surf was a forty year gin soaked, linen clad birthright), and now, the stick. Unless you look after yourself, financially, a bleak retirement in some local council dump being manhandled to the ward potty once every two days by a twenty eight year old from Asia who doesn't speak your language is the spectre.