Britain won't go to war without the US: Hoon

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From AOL News:

Britain is "highly unlikely" to go to war without America, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said.

Its armed forces need to be "balanced and flexible" to counter increasing threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, he said in a speech about the future of Britain's defences.

Mr Hoon denied his plans would reduce Britain's combat capabilities or spell the end for the Army's heavy armour, like the Challenger 2 tank widely used in the war in Iraq.

He said capabilities should no longer be judged by numbers of tanks or warships but by their effectiveness.

"This is not to say that we can do with less combat capability - quite the reverse," he said in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

"But it is no longer a matter of simply generating high numbers of combat forces if they cannot get to the crises in time or link up and operate effectively with other forces and allies when they do."

He added: "It is highly unlikely that the United Kingdom would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States, a judgment born of past experience, shared interest and our assessment of strategic trends."

The world would still experience unpredictable, shocking events and Britain should still ensure it had the capacity to fight in large-scale operations like Iraq, and that it could perform a variety of battlefield roles, Mr Hoon said.

Speaking ahead of the publication of a defence white paper, aimed at setting out the Government's vision for the future of the armed forces, he said he wanted them to be a "continuing force for good".

More servicemen and women were needed for areas like logistics, engineers and intelligence, the Defence Secretary said. But he stressed there was "no question of giving up the tank or of losing the ability to field significant heavy forces when required for the most demanding operations".

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd 2003, All Rights Reserved.

27/06/2003 05:58

Well this might help explain some of the decisions of the last few years......

Didn't John Nott say a similar thing in late 1981 and early 1982? And isn't this a dangerous and short sighted thing to say?

Is this inviting an attack(s) of UK interests? After all, UK interests could be attacked without directly attacking US interests, eg attacks on British merchant shipping, or the Argentines having another go at the Falkland Islands.

And doesn't it seem that as the weaker partner in the UK/US alliance we are more vulnerable to attacks against British interests worldwide because if you're a tinpot dictator and threaten US interests you will soon be facing the mighty US war machine, but if the attack UK interest Tony Blair and his merry men will make sure we can not fight back.

Doesn't this (and many of the other issues that have been discussed on PPRuNe) contradict the Defence mission?

http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/mission.htm
and http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3788.html

[E3D-Wannabe]

WEBF

Do you not agree that: -
It is important to have the logistics in place to be able to deploy forces quickly to remote locations?
If there are fewer items of equipment that the necessity to have them available for actions is increased?
That in a World of changing threats it is essential to have accurate intelligence?

In his interview with Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight 26/06/03, Mr Hoon stated that it was important to have adequate UK forces available for a number of smaller conflicts where the US was not involved.

[soddim]

Surely the most important criteria is that our defence expenditure should match the offensive ambitions of our political masters. We only suffer a deficit when they over-commit our forces. Like - now!

But then they boast about their achievements in education and the NHS and don't give them the resources either.

[SASless]

We Yanks will bring the gear....if you guys will bring the beer!

[Woff1965]

What is the point in having a few items of EFFICENT equipment if there are not enough of them to do the job.

That sort of attitude in 1940 would have meant that if Fighter Command only had 1 squadron of Spitfires it would have been OK because it was a first rate fighter and it was easier to shift 1 squadron around the UK rather than a Group .

Fortunately we had more than 1 squadron of Spits and a lot of Hurricanes too otherwise they would have been swamped on the first day! And we would all be speaking German!

[A Civilian]

This news isn't to unexpected. After Phoney Tony against his normal "im not going to stick my neck out on anything" political policy went dashing off into Iraq head first is anyone surprised at this.

Fortunately we had more than 1 squadron of Spits and a lot of Hurricanes too otherwise they would have been swamped on the first day! And we would all be speaking German!

We were swamped on the first day, organizational issues and the destroy bombers orders accounted for it check out some BoB history books from your local PL.

[Rattus]

Expect an eventual announcement of the scrapping of the large carriers project. Methinks we have just been subjected to Phase One of the preparatory softening up.

[Jimlad]

I think reading the speech that the carrier is safe. I imagine we will see a reduction in the older T42's which are aging and possibly a pair of 23's (which although old and useless will almost immediately be sold to chile!)
There was a buzz on warships1.com that the Jag fleet was for the chop as well - can anyone confirm / deny this please? If the Army and the RN are making sacrifices then what will the RAF offer up to the great gods in the treasury?

[solotk]

At first glance, I agree with WEBF

We're having this discussion on the Brown means at the moment, and trying to second guess another SDR night of the long knives.

Very shortly, our allies are going to hold us in the same contempt that Australia has for New Zealand

In other words, we are about to seriously stop pulling our weight, because we won't go to war without America?

Has anyone actually looked at this statement, and considered the ramifications?

[soddim]

Maybe we are going to pull our weight - our real weight, nothing more for a change.

[Huh??]

In other words, we are about to seriously stop pulling our weight, because we won't go to war without America?

More ominously (and interestingly) for Britain and America, the creation of a European superstate around a Franco-German axis where expanded majority voting makes it impossible to veto major initiatives means that Britain will find it impossible in future crises to go against the common "European" position as was the case with Iraq.

Under a future United States of Europe, the British government would nominally still control its foreign policy. But its ability to go it alone against the weight of the other USE member states could be severely compromised. If the EU foreign minister declares European opposition to a future war by America, the political costs of siding with the United States could be huge for a British prime minister. Even during the buildup to the Iraq war, Blair came close to losing his job by balking at the European consensus. Such foreign policy intransigence could possibly lead to marginalization within the European Union, with all the costs that could entail.

So, the question isn't will Britain go to war without America. The question is will it go to war without France and Germany.

Interesting times, indeed.

[steamchicken]

Why is it that the Right are always so exercised by national sovereignty when it covers things like agricultural subsidies, but seem not to care greatly about surrendering it to the US in things like defence? In fact, the hardest of the hard right on Europe are usually the softest on the Americans. For my part, I'd rather take more real independence of action over the polite formality of legal sovereignty. Remember, we have a legally enshrined, concrete say in anything European. But we can only ever hope for "influence" with the US. And no matter how much persuasion and influence you try, if you don't have power, then you'll get screwed if the people you are trying to influence won't listen.

Blair came close to losing his job by balking at the European consensus

Really? Not by doing the exact opposite of what the citizenry wanted? That's what it looked like at the time... This of not being able to go against a "Franco-German axis" on foreign policy issues is very silly. The recent changes in the EU have tended most of all to strengthen the position of the major states - the obsession with vetoes only makes sense if you really think all the other countries in the EU always agree with each other and are always against us. In practice, if one of the big three really doesn't like something, it only needs a couple of others to agree to get a blocking minority. Were the Iraq crisis to be replayed under the new arrangements, a common position would certainly not have been achieved unless it had been massively watered-down.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Steamchicken

Steady on mate. This thread was/is about if or not the Government considers that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to retain the capability for major expeditionary warfighting operations without the US - either unilaterally or together with other European (or other) nations.

I would probably count as being on the right but would reject the idea of losing the ability to act independantly of Washington as being totally unacceptable. Even the closest of allies will have differing needs and priorities.

Once upon a time you and I both commited considerable time an effort to campaigning (can't think of what else to call it) on one issue. That issue was (and still is) organic air defence for the Fleet. This is not a thread about this, but as was mentioned on those threads (and stated by several national newspapers, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - not to mention many retire senior officers) it could be seen as a sea change in defence policy. If you cannot deploy your forces (be they ships, helicopters, ground attack aircraft, infantry, MBTs or whatever) without the Americans providing force protection then you are an instrument of US policy instead of the home grown (and possibly differing) policies of the UK. Such a high level of dependency also reduces the influence that HM Government may have over the US.

I expect that I will get beaten to death for the above paragraph, but for me it was that that marked the turning point in the Government's thinking, from being an international player in our own right to being merely a back up for the US.

Jimlad

Those are worrying rumours about frigate/destroyer numbers. But surely you mean Type 22 batch 3s, not Type 23s. The last T23 was commisioned last year after all. And I'm not sure the T22s can be described as useless either (including the batch twos now being sold/expended as targets to reduce numbers). Incidently doesn't reducing the size of the fleet cause extra problems for the CVF project?

Solotk

One of my fears is that in an atempt to appease his party, Mr Blah will attempt to claim that Services made him commit forces to the Iraq war (Admiral ********** is a war monger and he made me do it) and as a punishment more cutbacks will occur.

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

It is worth remembering that if the European carriers are available, the Rafale and AV-8B+ can provide the BVR capability which'll be lost when the SHAR (there, I've said it...) goes. The 'if' is the key word there, of course. I don't think that it was a sea change in defence policy in quite the same way as you do - it was driven by the longstanding MoD tradition of binning useful capabilites to save a bit of money and the hope that no UK-only ops requiring CVS would arise between 2006 and JSF entry into service.

I doubt that Mr Blair would be able to get away with claiming that the services pushed him into the war. The fact that the then-CDS asked him 'Are you sure this is legal, Prime Minister?' would cause some difficulties with that line of approach.

[BlueWolf]

Prophetic words, WEBF.

Remember, NATO aside, never mind the Anglo-American special relationship, Britain did the Falklands single handed (unless you want to count one RNZN Leander taking over patrol duties for a RN frigate in the Indian Ocean so the said vessel could partake of the war).

The Yanks wouldn't help out for fear of upsetting the OAS. Whose side would Europe really be on if Spain decided it wanted Gibraltar all to itself? What kind of internal political ruction would have to aflict Espana for that to happen? How long is it - just to remind folk - since they were a military dictatorship? Not very, eh.

Why, I wonder, if those who dictate policy in this way have crystal balls of such accuracy, do they not simply concentrate on winning the Lotto? No-one can guarantee absolutely that independent action will never be required, and history suggests very strongly that it probably will.

solotk: we're working on it, honest!

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

All I can say is maybe, finally the light is dawning on the fact that we have been attempting too much and that in the grand scheme of things we are just "a small island nation".

Lets get real about this. What do we actually NEED to do? I stress NEED and not WANT.

We need to protect ourselves and our territories (Gib/Falklands and a few other bits nobody else wants).

Lets spend the obscene amounts of money that we waste on shoddy gear on Health, Education, Transport etc.

Yes I agree it will be sad. The end of an era and all that but we have to move on.

I am quite aware that I will be flamed for this but deep down you all know it needs to be said.

Cheers

BHR

[BlueWolf]

BHR, that's a fine sentiment. Unfortunately it doesn't work in real life.

In real life, regardless of which nation is in the spotlight, money "saved" from military expenditure does not end up going towards health, education, transport, fluffy bunny sanctuaries and the like.

It gets wasted by foolish, profligate politicians, on valueless flights of fancy, unnecessary social programmes (not necessary ones), and inane - and unsuccessful - attempts to "improve" people's lives by uninvited interference in them.

The end result is that the nation has an inadequate military, and STILL doesn't have adequate resourcing in health or education or fluffy bunny sanctuaries.

This was exactly the position Britain was in, in the years leading up to the Falklands situation.

By God it's hard to get supposedly intelligent people to see plain common bloody sense.

I'm not having a go, BHR, but maybe you see my point.

[BillHicksRules]

BlueWolf,

Are you actually trying to say that the money should continue to be given to the military in the amounts currently spent because that way it will not be wasted?

Surely not :(

Do I need to give you examples of the profiligate misuse of taxpayers money in the area of Defence?

I hope not

I would hate to have to mention the SA80 or the Nimrod MRA4 or the Astute Submarine or the C17 Lease programme. These are only four high vis procurement programmes. There are many more less "sexy" examples I could use.

Not wanting to have a go at you but surely more money in the non-defence pot means a greater amount being used "correctly". This is common sense. I agree that some will be wasted and that amount is likely to be more than is now. But I cannot see why you would feel it better to waste it in defence procurement than on social policy programmes. If each of these programmes helps only one person to a better life then surely that is better than throwing away another million pounds on an another SA80 "desertification" programme?

Or am I mad?

Cheers

BHR

[steamchicken]

That's what I meant - we need independent capability, and that means independent of the Yanks as well - so often, the same people who talk about "threats to our national sovereignty" concerning the EU can't wait to hand over more of it to the Americans. (The distinction is, of course, that the latter case doesn't involve formal, legal sovereignty - but what good does Mexico's sovereignty do it when it has to do what the Americans say? This is a question of practical, real independence.)

Incidentally, has it struck anyone else how loath Baron Wos has become to do anything concerning those few remaining aircraft originally developed here? After all, anything uppity like having our own ideas would be terribly inconvenient when they achieve their dream of being a wholly-owned, low labour cost contractor for Boeing. This is the problem - BAE is a pile of pony, but it's our pony and there ain't anything else. If the Brazilians can do a decent regional jet...

[T_richard]

BlueWolf "fluffy bunny sanctuaries":D :D I understand your point but I have never heard it put quite like that. Mind if I adopt the phrase (with proper credit given of course)

Personally, I think you AND BHR are both right. Money save on defense, welfare, et al is more than likely pi**ed away on some stupid NEW program that is un tested, or just badly constructed. But I think that in both of our national budgets there is plenty of that going on regardless of any significant reductions in major programs.

To the thread's point though, does anyone think there are cost reductions that could be realized by establishing a closer joint defense package. (forgive my language, military matters are not my forte'). Does the average Brit see the US as a staunch ally, or is the slagging I read on PPRUNE closer to reality. I don't see any American desire to dominate GB on defense issues in the American press, but I can't imagine any military conflict that GB would get drawn into where the American people wouldn't expect our military to back you to the hilt.

I know we provided some support, communications I think, during the Falkland War.

Am I nieve or misinformed, or what?

[Scud-U-Like]

We ought to decide whether we want to procure the best equipment at the best price or simply keep the UK arms industry ticking over (and, yes, I do think the two are mutually exclusive). Experience has shown that, when you buy big defence kit at home, you buy goods that are late, horrendously over-budget and that could probably be bettered by something bought 'off the shelf' from the Yanks. If we're going to be working cheek-by-jowl with the US for the forseeable future, we might as well have their kit too.

Incidentally, it was nice to see Geoff Hoon getting a good Paxoing.

[West Coast]

BHR
Your minimalist approach here is in conflict with your attitude elsewhere, chiefly what to do in Zimbabwe.

T richard

The answer to your question depends on which Brit you ask.

[BlueWolf]

BHR

I'm not for a moment suggesting that there aren't plenty of examples of military projects coming in ridiculously late, fantastically over budget, and nowhere near the design spec in terms of operational usefulness.
I have done my share of profiting (profiteering?) from this, and since I didn't bring ******all of it home with me, most of it stayed in circulation in the UK.

I think I understand the point you make with regard to restricted defence budgets forcing greater efficiencies in military procurements and operations; the qualms I have concerning this methodology centre on the penchant displayed by certain governmental regimes to take, take, take, from the forces, to the point where operational effectiveness is no longer possible. Insofar as this is concerned, yes, I do believe that money wasted on late, expensive, and questionably effective hardware programmes is money well spent, if, in the grand scheme of things, it ensures that sufficient resourcing is provided to the Armed Forces (of any nation) to guarantee the availability of minimum baseline capabilities.

Within these minimum capabilities I have to include the ability to operate independently of any ally or other outside source with respect to national security, interests, and foreign policy objectives.

If the social policy programmes actually work, then they are commendable and should be afforded greater priority. But there is much to suggest that many social initiatives actually make the problems worse, that they lock people into a cycle of dependence, and that people's lives are not improved in the long term.
That said, in our free western democracies, social justice is of paramount importance and we should continue to seek better ways of achieving it. However, this cannot be done at the expense of the very structures which preserve the freedom to promote this aim. Making one person's life better is of little consequence if that person does not have the the freedom to enjoy it.

Scud: Well said, Sir.

steamchicken: agree entirely.

T_richard: thank you, and be my guest
;)

[A Civilian]

>If the social policy programmes actually work, then they are commendable and should be afforded greater priority. But there is much to suggest that many social initiatives actually make the problems worse, that they lock people into a cycle of dependence, and that people's lives are not improved in the long term.

I would argue that point but since its not the topic in hand ill keep it short. If you do a basic Economics course they will tell you that social expenditure is a positive influence to the economy whereas defence expenditure is a negitive influence to an economy. This is because military/ defence funding gives no benefit to an economy at all, it is infact a massive drain as it does not contribute anything towards return of capital on your investment its simply gone forever like light being sucked into a black hole.

Of course money isnt anything especially when someone marches in and takes everying you own and burns your house down :ouch: Hence the need for a balance between the productive and negitive aspects of government spending.

If you want to talk about overly expensive military projects we all know about them hell ive even built them myself :) but you then have to ask why the government is trying to punch above its weight on military matters developing these costly gold-plated wonders (i.e. those new carriers) instead of bread and butter equipment like army radio's and stop forcing the MOD to go through a higher equipment life cycle ratio than what we can aford.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BHR

All departments of the government are wasteful when it comes to taxpayers' money. And all are plagued by bad management and incompetentance. :(

We need to protect ourselves and our territories (Gib/Falklands and a few other bits nobody else wants).

What exactly does protecting ourselves involve? Somehow I think that there is more to it than simply defending UK territory. For example, over 90% of British trade is carried by sea. Therefore it might well be said that we need to have the means to protect this shipping. The patrols in the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq were an example of this. However, the present Government does not seem to consider sea control to be an important mission - look at the decision to scrap Sea Eagle.

Last week it was reported that the UK is becoming increasingly dependant on imported natural gas for electricity generation, and that this will soon be the primary energy source. Where does/will this gas come from? Largely from either Russia or other former USSR states (and through a big pipeline) or from the middle east (in which case it is shipped by tanker). Would you agree that we have both a right and a need to protect our energy sources and the means of transport?

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

We have the right to protect to all the things you mentioned. However, our armed forces are not tasked to that. Furthermore the future procurement for the armed forces is not geared to that. This very point being made by you in your post. Therefore I have difficulty in understanding what I think was your point that we should spend more money on defence not less.

My point is why not spend the same or less but spend it better.

I look forward to your comments.

Cheers

BHR

[MarkD]

This is because military/ defence funding gives no benefit to an economy at all, it is infact a massive drain as it does not contribute anything towards return of capital on your investment its simply gone forever like light being sucked into a black hole.

Not quite Mr. Civilian, but as long as govts are afraid to tell those who whine "war for oil" that trade routes have been kept open by force for centuries and by god we're going to keep on doing it, that's how it will end up.

Now force can be only used in "human rights" causes, which *guarantees* no positive return. The forces in the Persian should be renamed "trade protection forces" with zero apologies to the pinkos.

[A Civilian]

For example, over 90% of British trade is carried by sea.

One were not a manufacturing or resource based economy anymore were a service based economy. Two there is not many British register merchant ships anymore so why would you have to defend them. Three the majority of our trade goes to Europe the next largest sector is the US two areas which we will certainly not need to defend our ships from.

UK is becoming increasingly dependant on imported natural gas

We already het electricity from France believe it or not, also whilist north sea oil and gas is decreasing its more to do with it being uneconimical to get tha oil out of the seabed rather than it not being there.

[opso]

Getting back to Hoon's comments that started this thread...

I wonder what fishing rights could be claimed by someone if they were to invade St Helena? After all, FI suddenly claimed a huge tract of the South Atlantic post '82. Assuming that St Helena could do the same, it becomes a tasty target: no airfield for us to flood our forces in through; ****** all RN left to do it that way; too far from a friendly country (and too few tankers) for the RAF to play a credible offensive role; and outside the NATO AOR, so no help from the Americans.

Hmmmm....anyone fancy signing up on a high financial return merc job? As long as we say we come from one of the 'stans nobody has ever heard of, we'll be alright.