Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Why do we need an army navy and airforce. If defence was outsourced or privatised the first thing management would do is combine it into a defence force .
Don't agree. Successful companies focus on specialising on what they are good at. Combining disperate sectors is a recipe for failure.
there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .
Whats the argument against?
The simple argument is that successful companies hire the very best and reward them accordingly.
If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia
Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.
Who says that Russia isnt a threat. If you have even the slightest understanding of Putin you will know that he is intent on recreating the Soviet union.
So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.
I suggest that you read your history books.
We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.
So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money
Don't agree. Successful companies focus on specialising on what they are good at. Combining disperate sectors is a recipe for failure.
there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .
Whats the argument against?
The simple argument is that successful companies hire the very best and reward them accordingly.
If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia
Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.
Who says that Russia isnt a threat. If you have even the slightest understanding of Putin you will know that he is intent on recreating the Soviet union.
So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.
I suggest that you read your history books.
We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.
So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money
May I suggest the above quote is edited to show what Pax said?
Before setting out such an argument, I think it would wise to ask why
(whatever). We've been told this so often that it has become widely accepted. I simply ask one question. Why do MoD senior staff and politicians flatly refuse to avoid the astronomical waste that has, effectively, become policy? (Policy, because funding is committed to both protecting those who practice it, and vilifying those who rail against it).
If I were in the Treasury, I would tell MoD (the NHS, and others) to bu**er off and only come back when they can demonstrate they're following compulsory regulations for scrutinising expenditure. The Services (and patients) shouldn't suffer, because it would take 10 minutes for the respective Secys of State to issue an edict that the next person who refuses to carry out this legal obligation will be sacked on the spot.
Before setting out such an argument, I think it would wise to ask why
we cannot afford
If I were in the Treasury, I would tell MoD (the NHS, and others) to bu**er off and only come back when they can demonstrate they're following compulsory regulations for scrutinising expenditure. The Services (and patients) shouldn't suffer, because it would take 10 minutes for the respective Secys of State to issue an edict that the next person who refuses to carry out this legal obligation will be sacked on the spot.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc - you're sailing close to the point where everything is blamed on "waste" and "inefificiencies caused by XXX" where XXX is not us but someone else - as we're YYY - substitute Military, Politicians, Civil Service, BAe, the EU, .... (either XXX or YYY but not both)
I believe "inefficiencies" are part and parcel of a democratic, dispersed decision taking system be it the NHS or the "Successor" progaramme - it's something that we just have to live with. Dictatorships have even worse long-term wastage etc.
When people say "we cannot afford" what they mean is that the public has no appetite for more spending on defence - they honestly can't see the point of much of the expenditure when they feel there are more pressing issues closer to home - their home, work and familly.
They don't believe the politicians and their constant desire for foreign adventures, they don't beleive Industry with it's lamenatable record on delivery and costings, they don't believe the armed forces are very effective against terrorism, they are scepical about statements from retired offcers saying that the sky will fall if we disband HMS Ocean/the marines/the band of the RAF
They see spending the money on the NHS, teachers, fixing potholes and getting houses for young people as a better use of the money...............
Those of us who disagree have to make the case - not on here but out there - and TBH I don't think we're winning
I believe "inefficiencies" are part and parcel of a democratic, dispersed decision taking system be it the NHS or the "Successor" progaramme - it's something that we just have to live with. Dictatorships have even worse long-term wastage etc.
When people say "we cannot afford" what they mean is that the public has no appetite for more spending on defence - they honestly can't see the point of much of the expenditure when they feel there are more pressing issues closer to home - their home, work and familly.
They don't believe the politicians and their constant desire for foreign adventures, they don't beleive Industry with it's lamenatable record on delivery and costings, they don't believe the armed forces are very effective against terrorism, they are scepical about statements from retired offcers saying that the sky will fall if we disband HMS Ocean/the marines/the band of the RAF
They see spending the money on the NHS, teachers, fixing potholes and getting houses for young people as a better use of the money...............
Those of us who disagree have to make the case - not on here but out there - and TBH I don't think we're winning
Thread Starter
Perhaps things like this need to be publicised more: RN Divers destroy wartime bomb near North Sea gas pipe
Petty Officer (Diver) Lee Sullivan, from the Royal Navy’s Portsmouth-based Southern Diving Unit 2, said: “The proximity of the bomb to the gas pipeline clearly presented a significant risk but we were able to deal with the situation quickly.
“We safely removed the bomb from the pipeline area, and then carried out a controlled demolition. Fortunately the bomb turned out to be inert, meaning it wouldn’t have posed a danger but there was no way of knowing this until we destroyed it.”
HMS Cattistock arrived on scene within 24 hours of the call and swiftly located the bomb using the ship’s remotely operated vehicle. The embarked bomb disposal divers went down to assess the device on Wednesday and confirmed it was an air-dropped 500lb bomb, likely to have been dropped by Germans in the Second World War.
Or today - RN frigate shadows Russian warship
Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset shadowed a Russian naval destroyer through the Moray Firth this weekend.
Somerset, a Plymouth-based Type 23 frigate, detected and monitored the movements of the Russian warship Vice Admiral Kulakov and her supporting tanker.
HMS Somerset had been engaged in trials of her cutting-edge sonar equipment when she received the call to locate and shadow the Russian units.
She arrived in the Moray Firth on Saturday (18 November) and escorted the ships through UK waters and north along the coast of Norway before returning to her original task.
Commander Timothy Berry, HMS Somerset's Commanding Officer, said: "As with all Royal Navy ships operating in UK waters, HMS Somerset was at a high state of alert to deal with any maritime security task such as this.
"Monitoring transits of non-NATO warships through UK territorial waters is part of what the Royal Navy does all year round to keep Britain safe.
"We now continue with our original tasking having seen the Russian ships safely through the UK's area of interest."
Or the Army helping deal with poachers killing endangered animals in Africa?
Or the RAF assets on QRA?
Petty Officer (Diver) Lee Sullivan, from the Royal Navy’s Portsmouth-based Southern Diving Unit 2, said: “The proximity of the bomb to the gas pipeline clearly presented a significant risk but we were able to deal with the situation quickly.
“We safely removed the bomb from the pipeline area, and then carried out a controlled demolition. Fortunately the bomb turned out to be inert, meaning it wouldn’t have posed a danger but there was no way of knowing this until we destroyed it.”
HMS Cattistock arrived on scene within 24 hours of the call and swiftly located the bomb using the ship’s remotely operated vehicle. The embarked bomb disposal divers went down to assess the device on Wednesday and confirmed it was an air-dropped 500lb bomb, likely to have been dropped by Germans in the Second World War.
Or today - RN frigate shadows Russian warship
Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset shadowed a Russian naval destroyer through the Moray Firth this weekend.
Somerset, a Plymouth-based Type 23 frigate, detected and monitored the movements of the Russian warship Vice Admiral Kulakov and her supporting tanker.
HMS Somerset had been engaged in trials of her cutting-edge sonar equipment when she received the call to locate and shadow the Russian units.
She arrived in the Moray Firth on Saturday (18 November) and escorted the ships through UK waters and north along the coast of Norway before returning to her original task.
Commander Timothy Berry, HMS Somerset's Commanding Officer, said: "As with all Royal Navy ships operating in UK waters, HMS Somerset was at a high state of alert to deal with any maritime security task such as this.
"Monitoring transits of non-NATO warships through UK territorial waters is part of what the Royal Navy does all year round to keep Britain safe.
"We now continue with our original tasking having seen the Russian ships safely through the UK's area of interest."
Or the Army helping deal with poachers killing endangered animals in Africa?
Or the RAF assets on QRA?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Nov 2017 at 00:16.
Thread Starter
Escorting passing Russians continued over Christmas....
With respect to recent talk of cuts of amphibious capabilities, including both the numbers of Royal Marines and the Landing Platform Docks (HM Ships Albion and Bulwark), I think it worth noting how amphibious forces are part of our commitment to NATO.
Royal Navy’s Assault Ship sails to lead NATO Task Group
This new tasking fulfills a vital contingency role for NATO in the Mediterranean. The task group will protect NATO interests by promoting security and stability in the region whilst offering options for NATO to deal with any emergent tasking.
Over the coming months, HMS Albion will undertake presence and security operations as well as conducting multi-national exercises aimed at increasing the way the navies of the task group work together.
The commander of SNMG2, Commodore Mike Utley, said: “Our role in NATO sits right at the heart of British Government policy to reinforce our commitment to international partners and their broader security.
"What better way for the UK to contribute than to lead this task group from HMS Albion - I am immensely proud to command such a highly professional and internationally diverse force.’’
With respect to recent talk of cuts of amphibious capabilities, including both the numbers of Royal Marines and the Landing Platform Docks (HM Ships Albion and Bulwark), I think it worth noting how amphibious forces are part of our commitment to NATO.
Royal Navy’s Assault Ship sails to lead NATO Task Group
This new tasking fulfills a vital contingency role for NATO in the Mediterranean. The task group will protect NATO interests by promoting security and stability in the region whilst offering options for NATO to deal with any emergent tasking.
Over the coming months, HMS Albion will undertake presence and security operations as well as conducting multi-national exercises aimed at increasing the way the navies of the task group work together.
The commander of SNMG2, Commodore Mike Utley, said: “Our role in NATO sits right at the heart of British Government policy to reinforce our commitment to international partners and their broader security.
"What better way for the UK to contribute than to lead this task group from HMS Albion - I am immensely proud to command such a highly professional and internationally diverse force.’’
Thread Starter
Sailors recognised for going beyond the call of duty - RN website
A warfare officer who ensured 650,000 tonnes of British shipping safely passed through the gauntlet of ‘missile alley’ in the Middle East is one of several sailors to receive the Queen’s Commendation for Valuable Service.
Lt Cdr Ben Martin was HMS Daring’s Principal Warfare Officer during her 2016-17 deployment to the Gulf.
The destroyer was called upon to safeguard shipping passing through the Bab el Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea following an attack on the MV Swift.
Operations lasted 50 days, throughout which the ship operated under the threat of attack by Houthi rebel-controlled coastal-defence cruise missiles and explosive boats.
Each transit of the chokepoint was conducted at the highest degree of personnel and material readiness and Lt Cdr Martin oversaw the preparations and conduct of every one.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another day, another ex-So making a point
UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News
The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".
Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently.
He said the ability to "fight and win on the front line" was being affected. And, if fresh spending wasn't announced, Britain would be morally poorer on the world stage.
His comments come 24 hours before the Chancellor's Spring Statement on the state of the public finances.
And the day after Philip Hammond said that there was "light" at the end of the austerity tunnel - possibly leaving some more headroom for spending increases. Rear Admiral Burton, who left the armed forces last autumn, told me: "If you do not spend more on defence than we currently are as a percentage of GDP, then we put at risk the fact that we are currently a credible military power, and from that we put at risk our position on the global stage."
He said that military threats were increasing from countries like Russia, from cyber warfare and from terrorist organisations.
Rear Admiral Burton, who was also NATO commander in charge of "high readiness" naval forces, argued that with Britain preparing to leave the European Union it was vital that defence spending was raised to at least 2.5% of GDP to support global trade. At present the government has a military spending target of 2% of GDP, set as the target for all members of NATO.
An increase to 2.5% would mean spending an extra £7.7bn a year on defence.
At present Russia spends more than 5% of its GDP on defence, and Britain now spends less on defence than under Tony Blair, when the figure was 2.7%.
"What worries me and worried me when I left the front line and was operating in headquarters is that some of the decisions we were making - and potentially over the next 12 months some of the decisions that will be made - will affect the ability to fight and win on the front line," he said, referring to the Modern Defence Programme Review which is looking at possible defence budget shortfalls over the next decade of £20bn. And the challenge is ensuring that we're still able to do that [fight and win] not just over the next 12 to 18 months, but that we're able to do that over the next 10 to 20 years."
The Rear Admiral is still very well connected in military circles and his comments come two weeks after General Sir Gordon Messenger, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, said that a case should be made for a "bigger defence budget". Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, is also believed to have clashed with Mr Hammond over defence spending.
The Spring Statement tomorrow is the second most important Parliamentary event on the economy after the Budget in the autumn. Mr Hammond will lay out the latest information on the state of the economy and public spending.
It is expected that the public finances will be in better shape than forecast last year, with borrowing about £10bn below the expected level. That could give the Chancellor some increased headroom on spending though it has been made clear that the Spring Statement will not focus on new commitments. Rear Admiral Burton said that he understood the needs of the NHS and the police, for example, had to be balanced by the government and that after the financial crisis the Ministry of Defence had to become more efficient and show it could spend money wisely - which it had done. But he said military threats had to be taken seriously. "Those threats are threats to our investments that we've got abroad," he said.
"So it would be easy for people to look at retired military people, of which I am one, and be critical - seeing us as defenders of totemic capabilities which have their lineage going back to the Second World War. Whether that's the Royal Marines, our amphibious capability, aircraft, tanks or regiments. But I believe that if we are to retain an edge for the military that we need, we need the sword upon which that edge can be had and that includes some of those capabilities that we've used since the Viking era and will continue to use many years ahead."
"Without them [the military] we will be unable to deter, we'll be unable to reassure and deliver retribution," he said. "And as a sovereign nation - an increasingly sovereign nation - I think that's critically important. "Our insurance policy, I believe, will be compromised and our ability to stand up for our beliefs and protect our interests will be weakened.
Changing threats
"And I think that that will make the UK of the late 2010s and early 2020s poorer, both morally and financially." Rear Admiral Burton said he understood the need for the military to show that it could spend money sensibly, and that it was now much more efficient than it had been in the past. The Treasury said that defence spending was already growing to meet the "ever changing threats" and that it was the fastest growing budget in Whitehall. "The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said. "Over the next three years, the defence budget is increasing by £1bn a year."
UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News
The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".
Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently.
He said the ability to "fight and win on the front line" was being affected. And, if fresh spending wasn't announced, Britain would be morally poorer on the world stage.
His comments come 24 hours before the Chancellor's Spring Statement on the state of the public finances.
And the day after Philip Hammond said that there was "light" at the end of the austerity tunnel - possibly leaving some more headroom for spending increases. Rear Admiral Burton, who left the armed forces last autumn, told me: "If you do not spend more on defence than we currently are as a percentage of GDP, then we put at risk the fact that we are currently a credible military power, and from that we put at risk our position on the global stage."
He said that military threats were increasing from countries like Russia, from cyber warfare and from terrorist organisations.
Rear Admiral Burton, who was also NATO commander in charge of "high readiness" naval forces, argued that with Britain preparing to leave the European Union it was vital that defence spending was raised to at least 2.5% of GDP to support global trade. At present the government has a military spending target of 2% of GDP, set as the target for all members of NATO.
An increase to 2.5% would mean spending an extra £7.7bn a year on defence.
At present Russia spends more than 5% of its GDP on defence, and Britain now spends less on defence than under Tony Blair, when the figure was 2.7%.
"What worries me and worried me when I left the front line and was operating in headquarters is that some of the decisions we were making - and potentially over the next 12 months some of the decisions that will be made - will affect the ability to fight and win on the front line," he said, referring to the Modern Defence Programme Review which is looking at possible defence budget shortfalls over the next decade of £20bn. And the challenge is ensuring that we're still able to do that [fight and win] not just over the next 12 to 18 months, but that we're able to do that over the next 10 to 20 years."
The Rear Admiral is still very well connected in military circles and his comments come two weeks after General Sir Gordon Messenger, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, said that a case should be made for a "bigger defence budget". Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, is also believed to have clashed with Mr Hammond over defence spending.
The Spring Statement tomorrow is the second most important Parliamentary event on the economy after the Budget in the autumn. Mr Hammond will lay out the latest information on the state of the economy and public spending.
It is expected that the public finances will be in better shape than forecast last year, with borrowing about £10bn below the expected level. That could give the Chancellor some increased headroom on spending though it has been made clear that the Spring Statement will not focus on new commitments. Rear Admiral Burton said that he understood the needs of the NHS and the police, for example, had to be balanced by the government and that after the financial crisis the Ministry of Defence had to become more efficient and show it could spend money wisely - which it had done. But he said military threats had to be taken seriously. "Those threats are threats to our investments that we've got abroad," he said.
"So it would be easy for people to look at retired military people, of which I am one, and be critical - seeing us as defenders of totemic capabilities which have their lineage going back to the Second World War. Whether that's the Royal Marines, our amphibious capability, aircraft, tanks or regiments. But I believe that if we are to retain an edge for the military that we need, we need the sword upon which that edge can be had and that includes some of those capabilities that we've used since the Viking era and will continue to use many years ahead."
"Without them [the military] we will be unable to deter, we'll be unable to reassure and deliver retribution," he said. "And as a sovereign nation - an increasingly sovereign nation - I think that's critically important. "Our insurance policy, I believe, will be compromised and our ability to stand up for our beliefs and protect our interests will be weakened.
Changing threats
"And I think that that will make the UK of the late 2010s and early 2020s poorer, both morally and financially." Rear Admiral Burton said he understood the need for the military to show that it could spend money sensibly, and that it was now much more efficient than it had been in the past. The Treasury said that defence spending was already growing to meet the "ever changing threats" and that it was the fastest growing budget in Whitehall. "The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said. "Over the next three years, the defence budget is increasing by £1bn a year."
It is widely know that the so called 2% of GDP figure contains a great deal of creative accountancy.
One or two senior defence officials going public about lack of defence spending would be normal but the number now making their concerns known ought to be a major national concern. But, sadly the government will continue to try to paper over the increasing cracks.
One or two senior defence officials going public about lack of defence spending would be normal but the number now making their concerns known ought to be a major national concern. But, sadly the government will continue to try to paper over the increasing cracks.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Speaking of ignorance and media reporting, it is said today the PM has accused Russia of using "Military-grade nerve agent" on British soil. I had no idea that there were non-Military grades of that stuff. Fly-spray perhaps?
Another day, another ex-So making a point
UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News
The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".
Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently....
UK military credibility 'at risk' over cuts - BBC News
The former commander of the UK's Maritime Forces has said Britain is in danger of losing its status as a "credible military power".
Rear Admiral Alex Burton told the BBC that years of budget cuts and rising military threats meant the defence budget needed to be increased urgently....
How does the old chestnut go..?
Get a Commission = they take your brain away.
Promote to Sqn Ldr = they take your mouth away.
Promote to Wg Cdr = they take your balls away.
Promote to Star rank = they give you your mouth back.
Ah, another one magically finding his voice after retirement.
How does the old chestnut go..?
Get a Commission = they take your brain away.
Promote to Sqn Ldr = they take your mouth away.
Promote to Wg Cdr = they take your balls away.
Promote to Star rank = they give you your mouth back.
How does the old chestnut go..?
Get a Commission = they take your brain away.
Promote to Sqn Ldr = they take your mouth away.
Promote to Wg Cdr = they take your balls away.
Promote to Star rank = they give you your mouth back.
And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts...
Oh hang on, you didn’t. Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
Once retired, you are of course free to express whatever views you wish. Maybe that is exactly what the Admiral is doing.
Oh hang on, you didn’t. Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
Once retired, you are of course free to express whatever views you wish. Maybe that is exactly what the Admiral is doing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Treasury said that defence spending was already growing to meet the "ever changing threats" and that it was the fastest growing budget in Whitehall. "The UK maintains the biggest defence budget in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, already exceeding NATO's 2% spending target," a spokesperson said. "Over the next three years, the defence budget is increasing by £1bn a year."
2%
Agreed, but we have a bigger challenge or management opportunity depending upon your appetite for yukspeak...
Most of the UK's modern military (on land and at sea) has operated with air (and space) supremacy since 1990, on land at divisional or brigade level, no higher.
SDSR18 - The elephant in the room. What is the UK's capability and intent to execute operations against a near-peer competitor at scale?
From my humble perspective we are in a new 'fiddling while Rome burns moment' when most actors in Middle East view their adversaries as existential threats. Western democracies are 28 years into the next 100-year war but their politicians (US-exempt) do not have that view
.
Most of the UK's modern military (on land and at sea) has operated with air (and space) supremacy since 1990, on land at divisional or brigade level, no higher.
SDSR18 - The elephant in the room. What is the UK's capability and intent to execute operations against a near-peer competitor at scale?
From my humble perspective we are in a new 'fiddling while Rome burns moment' when most actors in Middle East view their adversaries as existential threats. Western democracies are 28 years into the next 100-year war but their politicians (US-exempt) do not have that view
.
This is the standard response to anyone querying the state of our armed forces. It's as if the government believes that spending 2% of GDP is an end - or an answer - in itself and not the capability which is or is not achieved. The fact that vast sums are wasted or that the achieved bang for the buck compared to, say, Israel or [name your preferred comparator] is appalling just doesn't register. That we have e.g. a handful of ships many of which are out of action and when the few serviceable vessels are actually deployed they are under-armed, doesn't seem to matter. There appears to be no acknowledgement that there should be an agreed minimum military capability appropriate to an increasingly unstable world and then funds made available to achieve that capability. There also appears to be no acknowledgement that a credible military both deters hostile adventurism and provides reassurance to allies and trading partners resulting in increased influence and trade opportunities.
I fear we are now not far off being in that very boat, made even worse by a risk aversion and political correctness that hampers our abilities even further. My old history teacher used to tell us that in the event of WW3, we might last a week if we were lucky and were effectively just a stalling device until the US could mobilise. That was when we had several times the size of forces we have now. How long do you think we would last these days?
But at least we spend 2%. I wonder how much of that 2% makes it through to front line capability.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear we are now not far off being in that very boat, made even worse by a risk aversion and political correctness that hampers our abilities even further. My old history teacher used to tell us that in the event of WW3, we might last a week if we were lucky and were effectively just a stalling device until the US could mobilise. That was when we had several times the size of forces we have now. How long do you think we would last these days?