Times details proposed UK defence cut options
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland you may be right however I suspect defence is going to get shafted (again) whatever happens. Hopefully the chiefs can at least get people talking and thinking about capabilities, cuts and consequences?
Poor choice of word on my part old boy. I would accept a nuclear deterrent that enabled the delivery of a warhead by whatever means. I do not think it has to be a system that involves maintaining multiple warheads on multiple missiles.
Regarding the cruise missile option, if this is not feasible then I'm sure we could develop another delivery system.
Regarding the cruise missile option, if this is not feasible then I'm sure we could develop another delivery system.
Secondly, it is not too difficult to research the detail of UK IND options, capabilities, weaknesses and strengths.
OAP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding research, yes I am aware of how to research options. My point regarding cruise missiles was aimed more at another contributor who said the capability doesn't exist and would need to be developed.
Surely Russia can be expected to mock any criticism as 'fake news'. After all they have never done anything bad to anyone, ever, especially the Crimea.
"The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.
"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?
"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."
Of course, the intent he has is to raise concern in the British public, due to his desire to increase UK defence spending. However, the tone and use of words in the piece make, what could be a real present threat, into a fantasy. It superficially reads as if, the Russians are actually (x2!) doing this now. What could be a measured statement becomes absurd, allowing the Russian Defence representative to make it a joke and deny that they are doing this. So, by making an alarmist, poorly thought-out statement, the UK Defence Sec has made a fool of us and, more importantly, the question of the Russian State threat to the UK is devalued.
So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next?
OAP
Hi Stuff. Here is a quote of Gavin Williamson to the DT reported by the BBC:
"The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.
"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?
"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."
Of course, the intent he has is to raise concern in the British public, due to his desire to increase UK defence spending. However, the tone and use of words in the piece make, what could be a real present threat, into a fantasy. It superficially reads as if, the Russians are actually (x2!) doing this now. What could be a measured statement becomes absurd, allowing the Russian Defence representative to make it a joke and deny that they are doing this. So, by making an alarmist, poorly thought-out statement, the UK Defence Sec has made a fool of us and, more importantly, the question of the Russian State threat to the UK is devalued.
So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next?
OAP
"The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.
"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?
"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."
Of course, the intent he has is to raise concern in the British public, due to his desire to increase UK defence spending. However, the tone and use of words in the piece make, what could be a real present threat, into a fantasy. It superficially reads as if, the Russians are actually (x2!) doing this now. What could be a measured statement becomes absurd, allowing the Russian Defence representative to make it a joke and deny that they are doing this. So, by making an alarmist, poorly thought-out statement, the UK Defence Sec has made a fool of us and, more importantly, the question of the Russian State threat to the UK is devalued.
So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next?
OAP
Similary, many of us have fretted that defence doesn't sit higher in public consciousness. Maybe this sort of thing is what it takes. I just wish it didn't have to be quite so toe-curling in tone.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO:
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).
Nothing wrong in the attempts to raise the (defence) budget for those in charge. Would be strange to see/hear the opposite from them. However, there are many less paranoic arguments to be emphasized, especially in UK. It does not produce aircraft for some decades already (Eurofighter with 4 "parents" does not count), no serious SAMs complexes, just a few N-subs with US missiles (with only one really on-duty) etc, etc.
BTW in Russia, Britain has a very good image on average among common folks. Great British rock music, Great British football league, great history, etc. For those elder generations who were "overloaded" with higher education in "good old times" some other points can be added such as Great industrial revolution (started there), Great British classic literature, geographical discoveries/explorations and so on and so forth.
What's the use of ruining this image?
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).
Nothing wrong in the attempts to raise the (defence) budget for those in charge. Would be strange to see/hear the opposite from them. However, there are many less paranoic arguments to be emphasized, especially in UK. It does not produce aircraft for some decades already (Eurofighter with 4 "parents" does not count), no serious SAMs complexes, just a few N-subs with US missiles (with only one really on-duty) etc, etc.
BTW in Russia, Britain has a very good image on average among common folks. Great British rock music, Great British football league, great history, etc. For those elder generations who were "overloaded" with higher education in "good old times" some other points can be added such as Great industrial revolution (started there), Great British classic literature, geographical discoveries/explorations and so on and so forth.
What's the use of ruining this image?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"a few N-subs with US missiles (with only one really on-duty) et"
whereas Russia has 13 SSBN's but probably only 2 at sea at one time..................
and US missiles work whereas lets just say Russian ones have a somewhat chequered record in tests over the last few years..............................
whereas Russia has 13 SSBN's but probably only 2 at sea at one time..................
and US missiles work whereas lets just say Russian ones have a somewhat chequered record in tests over the last few years..............................
IMHO:
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).
What's the use of ruining this image?
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).
What's the use of ruining this image?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.
Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.
If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.
Then according to an article in the Daily Telegraph these could amount to a further £4.84 trillion. This would make the total government indebtedness amount to £6.56 trillion. (A trillion is a thousand billion).
According to ‘Full Fact’ each year the government pays £33 billion in interest on its debts.
If to the above is added total private household debt, which in 2017 was 1.63trillion, this makes the total £8.19 trillion Grand Total.
In short, the nation is in a similar position to Carillion just before it went bust. We are like a very big firm that is insolvent and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We are able to function on a day to day basis, but if all our creditors demanded their money back simultaneously, we would be BUST and into an Argentine style sovereign default.
That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.
Best regards,
BP.
I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.
Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.
If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.
Then according to an article in the Daily Telegraph these could amount to a further £4.84 trillion. This would make the total government indebtedness amount to £6.56 trillion. (A trillion is a thousand billion).
According to ‘Full Fact’ each year the government pays £33 billion in interest on its debts.
If to the above is added total private household debt, which in 2017 was 1.63trillion, this makes the total £8.19 trillion Grand Total.
In short, the nation is in a similar position to Carillion just before it went bust. We are like a very big firm that is insolvent and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We are able to function on a day to day basis, but if all our creditors demanded their money back simultaneously, we would be BUST and into an Argentine style sovereign default.
That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.
Best regards,
BP.
The requirement for strong defence should be independent of the economy. International threats, by their very nature, are independent of any particular nation's economic cycle.
Here in the UK the true defence spend is vanishingly small. Even if it were doubled it would still be a very small fraction of the overall economy.
Why have you listed "government stakes in RBS and Lloyds" on the liabilities side? These are assets - they may prove over time to be poor investments, but they are not debts in the sense you imply. The comparison to Carillion fails because nation states are not commercial ventures. To understand this you need to consider who that national debt is actually owed *to*.
Think that one through and you will be on the path to enlightenment...
PDR
Think that one through and you will be on the path to enlightenment...
PDR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sovereign Nations accounts are different to those of a business or a household
But THE FIRST duty of any Govt is to keep it's people safe and to rule a lawful society
Quite what that means is up to the politicians ....... choices have to be made
But THE FIRST duty of any Govt is to keep it's people safe and to rule a lawful society
Quite what that means is up to the politicians ....... choices have to be made
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the Defence Secretary is now accused of "leaking intelligence" according to today's Sunday Times... no doubt the Treasury getting their knife in in retaliation...............
I'm really getting sick of this bunch of third raters.................
I'm really getting sick of this bunch of third raters.................
