SDSR - Can the Min Def and Joint Chiefs just say no!?

[MaroonMan4]

Rarely do I initiate a post, but......

Am I being thick here? If HMT (Mr Osborne) has decided that the MoD has all of sudden got to pay for Trident due to cost, then cannot the military just say 'no' to supporting Afghanistan due to cost.

Why don't the Joint Chiefs just offer their resignations as even I can see that this is just too far and with that poor level of funding then nothing can be achieved in the future - even with the best non-miliatry civili servant slashing costs to appease his/her treasury masters.

Is the British public truly aware of exactlywhat the implications are of this Defence review? Not one person involved in this 'review' believes that it is policy driven, but merely a method to reduce costs.

What I find slightly unnerving is that the Treasury is about to decimate (on a long term basis) an already overstretched and underfunded MoD under the belief of cost cutting, when actually the city (Goldman Sachs) believes that the UK economy will grow quicker than both the US and Eurozone.

History as shown that the economy can and will turn around quickly, but an experienced, trained and well resourced military force will take significantly longer. We are certainly not in a stable and peaceful phase in world history, so I do not see any 'peace dividends' that can truly deliver real savings.

When the SDSR axe falls in October I am not too sure that the British public will be aware that they will be very vunerable indeed and more to the point not to expect too much from its military anymore.

From my part it will be interesting to see who within the Senior Officers (2 star and above) actually stay or have the honour to resign knowing that this review based purely upon cost has now threatened the number one requirement of any UK Government, the protection and defence of the UK and its global interests.

The way that our PM is flying around the world ensuring his/the UK's 'stamp' is made on Pakistan, Turkey etc, I hope that he will not want to call on his/H M Queen's military in future to help him with his policies and influence, as he will be sorely disappointed or responsible for a British tactical failure when he requests that they act on his behalf after the previous cost cutting outcomes of the SDSR.

What am I missing?

[Wyler]

1. The British public do not really care about Defence when their jobs and lifestyles are on the line.

2. The war in Afghanistan is unpopular. The war in Iraq is seen as an outright disaster. Do not mistake support for the troops with support for Defence policy.

3. The Armed Forces in this country work for the Government. That means your boss is a politician, not a 'starred Officer'. To say no would start us down the slippery slope of some of the dodgiest countries around.

4. I cannot forsee any politician of any persuasion voting for another overseas adventure like the aformentioned for the forseeable future. That makes the Armed Forces ripe for cuts from a very big budget (in their eyes).

5. What can you do about it? Resign and/or exercise your democratic right at the Ballot Box.

6. It is about raw politics, pure and simple. All the arguments going about capability etc will fall on deaf ears. When it comes to Defence, they will protect the Defence Industry because that is an export business. That does not mean they will support you.

7. In pure military terms, the powers (mil and civil) that be at the MOD will state quite clearly that there is no conventional military threat to the UK and probably won't be in the next 50 odd years. Hence, out of Afghanistan (which will happen before the next election) and no threat means reduce the Armed Forces to no more than a critical hub that can be regenerated in the event of an emerging threat.

8. Trident will be saved because it is seen as a very big political bargaining tool.

I am not saying that I agree with all/some of the above. I just feel that the threads on here discussing capabilities are completaly missing the point. We are a very small cog in a very big and bankrupt machine. To even suggest saying no is, IMHO, pointless and misses the point. To think that, come the crunch, Joe Public will take to the streets to make sure we get our 'kit' is wide of the mark by a country mile.

Very sad times ahead.

[Op_Twenty]

I must admit that I had thought along the same lines - why should the military care about the country having a nuclear deterrent exactly? It’s a political tool for our leaders to use to effect foreign policy. The problem comes when you think that, for example, the RN might require the deterrent to maintain their budget – but you have to remember to look around the newspaper headlines – that sounded patronising, it wasn’t meant to be I promise! The treasury know that by telling the military to pay for the deterrent itself, they (the Services) will have to make significant cuts elsewhere. This is what the Government wants, to allow those cuts and subsequent ‘capability holidays’ to not be ‘completely’ attributable to the Government. Another name for it is, I suppose, ‘manufacturing consent’ where the government asks the people for their opinions on how to save money – it is then able to, when pushed, say ‘you guys gave us the ideas – we’re in this together’. Don’t listen to Goldman Sachs’ comments on the recovery, anyone but Goldmans! – they just got hit with a $600 miliion fine for lying and it’s in their interest to tell you about the recovering economy – it’s like believing everything the BBC says as an ‘impartial’ voice even though it’s directors are appointed by, wait for it – the Government (or estate agent saying ‘house prises are on the rise again – buy now!) Think also – if you were the CAS, CDS, CGS, 1SL/CNS etc, would you leave in a huff, losing all the prestige and honour that you’ve worked so hard to gain (and your peerage Lord West – not such a ‘simple sailor’ after all) or do you concentrate on your pension and your future earnings of millions advising the defence industry. You are right, though, when you say that it’s not a policy driven review, I agree- but then it never really has been. No military has ever fought with everything they’ve always wanted; they just do the best with what they have. I guess the people that will survive this will be those that just roll with the punches, not those that throw their teddies out. Drop kick the Harriers and don’t buy anymore tanks, as much fun as tanks are – The Times, which I hate btw, was saying that the RN are looking at F/A-18’s instead of the JSF to save money; again – do you think BAE Systems will let that go unchallenged, er – no - British jobs and all that. This country has gone to the dogs under a Labour Government, this is the Tories trying to patch things up – you want to know where the money’s gone then look at the Government that allowed the gap between the rich and the poor to increase at a greater rate than that of any British Government ever – a Labour Government, not exactly supporting the little man in my eyes.

You’re not missing nuffing – it’s nice to see someone posting some reasoned arguments and not just some random whingeing; I might even start reading the forum again.

Wyler's right - it's just politics buddy, just concentrate on keeping your job. Oh, and don't think about it so much - it's not personal, all industries are getting the same treatment.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Have I missed something, or has someone declared what the defence budget will be with the nuclear deterrent included? They haven't, so why are we getting all wound up right now? If there was an element of the capital cost of Trident moved across, then that would make a difference. Also - is the ND a political or military decision to hold?

[The Helpful Stacker]

The bottom line is that any senior rank who dared to say no would just be replaced with one who would say yes.

[MaroonMan4]

Wyler,

Thank you...but in reply to your comments below:

We are bankrupt now, but we will not be forever and yet in comparison to the economy, the UK military takes considerably longer to 'recover' - even if there is a defence review every 4 years.

The public maybe lacking support for Iraq/Afghanistan now, but does that mean that when/if future conflicts appear that the British public will not wonder why the UK has not been involved in protecting British interests, especially with a PM that is very much showing the British public that he is part of the world stage with his comments on Pakistan and Turkey this week?

I agree that Trident is a political tool, and not one that will actually win any tactical battles, control battle space etc, so it should be funded outside of MoD. If not UK MoD is unaffordable at whatever level of proposed cuts you look at it - HMT can have its Trident and an Italian style Gendarmerie (Mr C H I do see your point, but do you really see a capital rise in the Defence budget that would cover Trident costs?).

And finally, of course our politicians are our masters, but equally the starred ranks must surely be advising on the near and long term implications of the current proposed cost cuttingr that October will bring. We are not talking about single service rivalry here, with 20bn taken to fund Trident, then whichever cloth you wear the future protection of UK national interests is at risk (and the petty inter service squabbles of MBTs, FJs and CVFs pale into insignificance) - and some may argue that it is better to take on the threat in someone elses back yard rather than in your own.

A united and coherent Joint Chiefs advice to HMG must surely be valued, and if the starred officers believe that their professional judgement has been compromised by an overwhelming desire to cut costs then one could argue that a united resignation would establish the gravity of the situation.

Living space, water and food - that my friend is what we will be fighting for in the future and so I must disagree within the next 20 years we could possibly see UK shores and national interests threatened.

[minigundiplomat]

The bottom line is that any senior rank who dared to say no would just be replaced with one who would say yes.


Plenty to choose from.

[Talk Reaction]

... but we are bankrupt now ..... so it doesn't matter if we are in a better place in 5 or 10 years. We can't afford it and we can't afford to borrow more. It really is that black and white.

[dallas]

Living space, water and food - that my friend is what we will be fighting for in the future and so I must disagree within the next 20 years we could possibly see UK shores and national interests threatened
Threatened for what? There's nothing here! I do think that we risk losing our position at the table of 'haves' in a world of dwindling resources, but in conventional weapon terms we're no match for China, India and the other likely 'grabbers'. Post-Blair we don't know what we want to be, but on the up side we don't have much to nick.

[MaroonMan4]

Some good view points....

Personally, despite being bankrupt now I would not 'slash and burn' knowing that the future growth of the economy will happen much quicker than any desired (4 yearly) future Defence growth.

As to nothing to nick here in UK, you are assuming that we as a nation are really going to pull up the drawbridge and adopt an isolationist policy - is that what people think?

I do not get that feeling, hence my belief that despite the recent British public distaste for Iraq and Afghanistan, that when/if NATO or another Coalition force is required that the UK military will be asked to fight again. Lets ignore UK shores (and the much talked of resurgence of the Russian bear) and also the historical examples of Gib and the Falklands, but are we going to ignore Commonwealth/other nations in the future when South East Asia spills over, or when Afican nations population/resources result in war and bloodshed?

Has anyone forgotten that only in 1918 people were saying that the 'Great War' was 'the war to end all wars' - are we now saying that the UK people will not get involved with future wars?

If so, I fully accept all of the posts above, and humbly revert to a military that will do the occasional overseas NEO and/or International Disaster relief.

[RumPunch]

We really need to pull out of Afghanistan , there is no requirement or benefit of being there except the stupid excuse that it will stop terrorisn. Why dont we say we are off home , you leave us alone we wont bother you and lets end it at that . nobody else has to die.

We also save Billions , much needed to restore the country back to health

[Wyler]

MaroonMan4

The current generation of politicians do not look further than the next election. To them, that is long term.

Cameron has said we will be out of Afghanistan by 2015, the date of the next election. He cares little about the actual state of that country when we leave, just that we do with the minimum amount of egg on our face. That will, he hopes, buy votes. That and the subtle promise never to do anything like that again. Crippling us before then will mean he does not have to say 'we won't' but 'we can't'. He is in PR after all.

Everything, the short term pain etc etc is all geared to the political calendar. It's about getting power and keeping it. Pawns like you and me are nothing more than an irritation in the overall scheme of things.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I have to say that when the Chancellor said that Trident replacement costs would have to be borne by the Defence Budget, then I wondered what would happen if the MOD put Trident replacement up as a savings measure and stated that all of the conventional stuff provided a better "bang for buck" and that Trident replacement was not going to be funded in order to provide all of the other stuff we need. It is within the gift of the Defence Board.

Then it would be back to HMT and our glorious government to fund it, if that was policy. Now unfortunately the spineless bunch of politicians we have would say we need it and the Defence budget MUST fund it, therefore lots of other kit will be scrapped/not bought to pay for son of Trident. At least that way it would be a political not "military" decision.

[Pontius Navigator]

OK, suppose we go along with the whole SDSR intent - militarily.

The politicos say we need an independent deterrent; we need power projection; we need to ensure safe navigation of the seas; we need air policing of the UK air space.

The MOD says we need; SSBN; we need an amphibious facility and we need a naval air component; we need patrol craft; we need a quick reaction air policing capability.

The MOD now has to cut its cloth to purchase and operate a number of SSBN, an amphibious group, a carrier component and blue water patrol craft with a small element of interceptors.

Once that cost has been calculated they can then clothe it with additional assets such as SSN, ASW Vessels, Strike/Attack/Reconnaisance etc.

But it all stems from what the politicians deem is necessary for UK policy.

[Ali Barber]

It surely must be quicker in this day and age to resurrect a nuclear deterrent capability with missiles that just have to be aimed froim somewhere (sub-surface, land-based or in a small suitacase) than rsurrect a capability that needs currency and experience. So drop Trident and tell the Government we'll restore it with sufficient warning!

[Grimweasel]

Well, if we retire the GR4 then there is no hope of the cheaper alternative of putting the Nuke deterrent back with the RAF!! We could, of course, go down the cheaper route of the nuke tipped Tomahawk launched from the hunter/killer subs and ditch the SSBN beasts??

Or we could just stop trying to be the world police and withdraw into international obscurity and lead a sheltered life such as Sweden et al. I mean, what good has our crap foreign policy done us anyway over the past 30 years??

Great Britain - maybe 100 years ago - now Broke Britain maybe more apt...(sigh)

[robin]

Personally, I would refuse to offer up any cuts. The government is looking for someone else to make the decision and to take the blame.

The deterrent, being a strategic weapon, is not one that any of the services should bear.

I would throw the problem back to the PM and get an instruction from him. Then the blame would reside where it belongs

[kiwibrit]

If HMT (Mr Osborne) has decided that the MoD has all of sudden got to pay for Trident due to cost, then cannot the military just say 'no' to supporting Afghanistan due to cost.No.

Why don't the Joint Chiefs just offer their resignations as even I can see that this is just too far and with that poor level of funding then nothing can be achieved in the future - even with the best non-miliatry civili servant slashing costs to appease his/her treasury masters.They can resign. Huge range of possible reasons why they might not wish to.

Is the British public truly aware of exactly what the implications are of this Defence review? Not one person involved in this 'review' believes that it is policy driven, but merely a method to reduce costs.I doubt if most MPs have a Scoobly - so it would be a bit much to expect the British Public to be aware.

What I find slightly unnerving is that the Treasury is about to decimate (on a long term basis) an already overstretched and underfunded MoD under the belief of cost cutting, when actually the city (Goldman Sachs) believes that the UK economy will grow quicker than both the US and EurozoneUltimately it is in theory a decision for Parliament, but in practice a Cabinet decision as to what budget is available for the MOD.

History as shown that the economy can and will turn around quickly, but an experienced, trained and well resourced military force will take significantly longer. We are certainly not in a stable and peaceful phase in world history, so I do not see any 'peace dividends' that can truly deliver real savings.Depends what real threat in the foreseeable future is perceived.

When the SDSR axe falls in October I am not too sure that the British public will be aware that they will be very vunerable indeed and more to the point not to expect too much from its military anymore.You've already raised the question of the BP's awareness. Pointless to do so twice.

From my part it will be interesting to see who within the Senior Officers (2 star and above) actually stay or have the honour to resign knowing that this review based purely upon cost has now threatened the number one requirement of any UK Government, the protection and defence of the UK and its global interests. Why should they resign? they have fridges to fill, and children who need educating etc.

The way that our PM is flying around the world ensuring his/the UK's 'stamp' is made on Pakistan, Turkey etc, I hope that he will not want to call on his/H M Queen's military in future to help him with his policies and influence, as he will be sorely disappointed or responsible for a British tactical failure when he requests that they act on his behalf after the previous cost cutting outcomes of the SDSR.It's up to our politicians to determine how much can be made available to the military. Their successors have to cope with what is left some time in the future.

[Tom Laxey]

I think that's a good list of priorities above.

I think also significant is that those strategic capabilities need to align with industrial capabilities. Far example one might argue that if UK had cancelled Eurofighter and bought F-18s or whatever UK'd be in a 'better' ££ situation today, however maintaining UK strategic capability required maintenance of onshore development capability. I think there are similar arguments in respect of subs, warships, missiles as well.

I think what this means is that in the near-term forces capability may appear to be cut-back very severely apparently in order to allow the flow of new equipment to continue (particularly that with UK interest), but that this is like an investment which enables strategic capability to be accesible in future.

That make sense?

[The Old Fat One]

Have I missed something, or has someone declared what the defence budget will be with the nuclear deterrent included?


According to press reports, that is going to be the case going forwards.

Wyler, excellent posts, well said.

For those that are interested in this sort of thing, various economic commentators have been discussing the gap between the amount of public sector savings that need to be made against the political viability of achieving cuts of this magnitude. Such discussions and articles can be found going back over a year and all were agreed that to realise the actual amounts, the savings would have to be on a never-seen-before scale.

There is still a school of thought that a lot of the rhetoric is aimed squarely at the money markets and that the cuts just are not do-able. I'm not so sure...from where I am sitting, they appear to have the bit between their teeth and enough of a popular mandate (primarily from a thoroughly pee'd off private sector) to change the face of public sector spending for a very long time.

Hang on to your hats, it's going to be a rough ride.

[Jabba_TG12]

Maroon,

I dont mean to drag the debate down to the lowest common denominator, but I'm afraid you may be labouring under a misapprehension that the starred ranks/politicians actually give a monkeys.

As another contributor says, why should they resign, they have fridges to fill, children to educate and in the case of the outgoing CDS, a two million pound pension pot to keep safe. It would be laudable to think that the higher-ups are cut from a different cloth to the rest of the "Whats In It For Me" generation, but I'm afraid to me, actions speak louder than words.

And these actions have been reverberating for the last 20 years or so, since the end of the Cold War. The generation of senior military men/women/politico's who would have made a stand on principle is long gone I'm afraid. True, there have been resignations at Colonel and equivalent level, but these arent the guys on the 5th floor who actually have any real influence; their influence is where it matters to the troops, out in theatre or at the sharp end.

Those who make the decisions, I'm afraid, couldnt give a fig. Thats the cold hard reality. I would have liked to have thought that for all the noise he generated (most of it warranted as well, and at least he had the b*lls to stick his neck out), that Richard Dannatt would have been able to fight the services' corner, but as most of the cross-bench former military peers have found, no matter how heartfelt it may be, your concerns for your troops are only news until tomorrow when they become chip wrappers. The world moves on and prisoners get to sue the government for lack of duty of care whilst our other colleagues and former oppos are risking their necks on a daily basis. And, I've just learned, after a weekend away from the dead tree press, that Dannatt appears to have jacked it in.

Sorry mate. You're making an assumption that these guys have integrity. Their actions would indicate that they dont.

I'm not sure that the lions share of them ever had any to start with.

[Op_Twenty]

Well said...

[S76Heavy]

In the early 90's the Dutch (4 star) CDS resigned over the political plan to send a lightly armed batallion of peacekeepers to Srebrenica.
His view was they should either go in force, or not go at all.

He resigned, I think with his pension, they went ahead anyway with the tragic results now universally known.

It did not change a thing but he kept his integrity, unlike so many.

[Easy Street]

This is how the SDSR is shaping up to be spun...

Current Defence budget, minus
Swingeing cuts to all forms of conventional capability, plus
Cost of Trident and its replacement...

.... equals the biggest boost to the Defence budget in recent memory, in glorious defiance of the economic circumstances!

I think the fact that Trident was paid separately from the rest of Defence will be lost on Joe Public, and the resulting 'spike' in the Defence budget graphs will be blatantly misused for the remainder of this parliament.

[The Old Fat One]

Barman,

I'll have a pint of what he's on.

[Wyler]

Me too.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Government is looking towards Canada for the answers. They cut their Military literally to the bone on the premise that it could all be regenerated if and when the need arose. That is where we are headed.

Unfortunately, we don't have the natural resources to drive rapid economic growth to even begin to make that a reality. I think we are on the brink of losing whole capabilities forever.

There will be no stalegmites in our budget graphs, just huge stalectites.

I think the 'apparent' neglect of the Falklands is another mistake in the making. No longer participating in poorly planned hot and dusty adventures is one thing, but ignoring the potential of the FI is quite another.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Wyler,

You are referring to what the Canadian Forces (CF) call the "Decade of Darkness"; a long pay freeze, few promotions and a force reduction programme. Not a good time apparently.

However, right now the CF is growing and DND (Canadian MoD) have invested heavily in new equipment. We even have a pay rise this year, unlike my RAF pension. The CF went through painful cuts but are doing well today, maybe in the long run the same will be so for the British Forces.

I'm just glad I jumped ship when I did.

[Wyler]

Wokkadoctor. Yep, I work with a chap who bailed out as well. I think our situation is more desperate though as the whole world is on the skids and so any chance of money becoming available for the next few decades in the UK is almost nil.
That is why I believe that those capabilities cut will be gone forever.

[MaroonMan4]

So again more MoD leaks and media speculation on a significant reduction in the UK's rotary capability. Now I have not had sight of this leaked paper, and aside from Dr Fox's apparent 'U' turn on the requirement for helicopters (recorded for posterity in other recent threads), but can someone enlighten me as to what was wrong with the original FRWS?I thought that much effort had been made to ensure that the 2004 NAO report was satisfied within a recent review and reconciliation of revised costings (effectively bringing it with an affordable budget).

Therefore was all this effort only conducted last year in vain or is the SDSR actually purely a cost cutting exercise and absolutely nothing to do with current, future and emerging threats?

Any reduction in lift capability must surely be placing ground troops at risk and before Afghanistan the NAO highlighted this.


Even if we are expecting a few years/months warning for some of the future operations, helicopters and crews cannot be procured/trained in this time frame, especially for some of the specialist roles that could be lost forever with this so called 'strategic' review.

The silence over Pakistan is that the helicopter cupboard is empty. Do politicians/HMT think that activities will not be conducted concurrently (enduring campaign, SSFI (NEO) and disaster relief?).

All probable and highly suspect if taken on risk by HMG (look what happened when Labour took the NAO report on risk).

So tell me what holes the SDSR has found in FRWS then let's start talking about cutting helicopter capability.

This will bite us, the troops we support and the British public when they need helicopters.

[Biggus]

MM,

I think you got it right in your second paragraph, the SDSR is purely a cost savings exercise (in my opinion) so everyhing else you say, while possibly valid, is of no consequence.

Have a look at this....

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Dr Liam Fox outlines reform of the Ministry of Defence (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DrLiamFoxOutlinesReformOfTheMinistryOfDefence.htm)

About half way down they talk of 5 steps, which starts off with effectively how much money is saved, and works thoriugh what capability is lost as a result with associated risks.

Surely a SDR should run as follows:

Step 1 - Decide what HMG wants to be able to do in the world in terms of Defence and Foreign Policy.

Step 2 - Decide what assets/capabilities are required to fulfill the wishes established in Step 1.

Step 3 - Cost the assets/capabilities decided in Step 2.

Step 4 - If the costs calculated in Step 3 are acceptable FINE! If the costs are unacceptable revisit step 1 and decide what we are no longer going to be able to do as a nation. Trim our aspirations.

Now go through steps 1-4 repeatedly until the costs generated in step 3 are acceptable....


This doesn't appear to be what we are doing. It appears to be a case of "there is this much money, what can we still do, and what risks are we taking.....".

At least that is how it appears to me, but then I have been told before that I look at things too simply......!!!

[Squirrel 41]

Biggus,

Pretty much spot on. Properly done, the only refinement is to revisit the assumptions of how you achieve things in step 2, and once you are sure that you have the most efficient solution, conduct 3 and 4.

The "challenge" / "development opportunity" is that there is apparently some temptation by certain individuals* to "take on risk" / "think outside the box" / "(insert w*nk word here)" in step 2, "demonstrating" that step 1 can be achieved with the smaller resources available in step 3. Here lies the road to perdition! :ugh:

I'm standing by to be amazed by the fact that this hasn't happened this time round! :hmm:

S41

*Possibly brown-nosing individuals seeking to climb what's left of the greasy pole by screwing everyone else over. :*

[racedo]

MOD and HMT are just setting out their negotiating positions before they get down to it nothing more.

I would have been disappointed if HMT said we will just pay for it and MOD had to make no sacrifices.

A compromise will be reached which satisfies nobody but keeps everybody a bit happier.

[larssnowpharter]

In the many threads here on Ppprune on the subject of 'Defence Cuts'there has been a myriad of speculations and suggestions as to what can, will or should be done to reduce costs.

What I have seen little of is any sensible analysis of the threat over, say, the next 20 years.

I use 20 years as being what appears to be the procurement cycle and - possibly - the time required to generate lost force capability. In the latter case I am just guessing.

However, it is a truism that our defence capability needs to be sufficient to counter the threat.

So, what threats do we see out there over the next 20 or so years?

the sinews of war are infinite money Cicero

[Biggus]

lars,

My (limited) understanding is that you don't necessarily define a specific threat.

So for example, and its a made up one, you don't say that there is a specific threat such as an invasion by Greece of the UK in 15 years time - after they have dropped out of the Euro and invaded all of Europe in revenge for the poverty they were plunged into (apologies to any Greeks reading).

Rather, as I alluded to in my Step 1, you decide on what you want to able do, such as for example:

Conduct an amphibious landing (opposed/unopposed?) of a brigade sized force.


Whether this amphibious ability is then used downstream in the Falklands, or Denmark or Iran or Korea or Cuba or even Maine is not a required part of your crystal ball gazing. It is something you can do where ever or when ever you so require it.

As further examples, if part of what you want to do (my Step 1) is "Defend the UK from acts of terroism and cyber warfare" you do so by having certain capabilities, without being specific about where the terroism/cyber threat has orginated from or will originate from in the next 20 years.

So you go for the generic rather than the specific.

Anyway, that is my understanding. But I am a very small cog in the machine, don't now, and have never, work in MOD - and have been repeatedly told that I am too simplistic (which is ironic when you consider that the KISS principle was hammered into me repeatedly in training). :)

[MaroonMan4]

Thank you, and I mean that genuinely as sadly the Defence Intranet posts offer no opportunity for debate/discussion and there have been on the whole some well informed debate (although essentially fuelled by media and leaked papers).

I continue to have concern that it appears that we are repeating mistakes (sorry, Lessons Identified) from previous reviews.Where is the 'peace dividend' from the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and look what happened next. Do RUSI and the DG Strat gurus truly believe that the world is a safer place, and advising HMG/HMT as such?

I also do not get a warm feeling of coherence. One report says reduce helicopters, the next says reduce Para/Marine jumps from C130s as the troops will be ferried into ops in helicopters.

Smoke and mirrors.

Equally from a media reported Defence policy of forward intervention and power projection, then how on earth can HMG reconcile this political aspiration with the reality post a British military reduced to a a force that has absolutely no credible poise or posture, with no means to power project.

I really hope that the politicians stop deceiving either themselves and by default the British people and stop this grandiose talk of power projection and early intervention as based on these rumours the politicians should be telling the British public that an Italian style Gendarmerie is all that we will be able to deliver - with nuclear subs.

And if the British public are happy with this, then fine I will get my coat. But don't suddenly start bleating when Pakistan or Carlisle or expat evacuations or Northern Ireland enters a new phase, or the political aspiration for a withdraw in 2014/15 doesn't go to plan or terror does hit UK shores on a scale that could have been potentially prevented at source.

I was informed (and reported in press over the weekend) that the Coalition was beginning to fracture and that Dr Fox was preparing his resignation as he believed that that the UK should be re-investing in it's military during this period in history and not being forced by the Treasury to cut.

So perhaps my question has been answered and the 'main man' himself has the integrity and true strategic vision to see the potential threats and has the honour to say so.