Coalition announces Strategic Defence Spending Review: opinions?

Great Debates
41

All quotes courtesy of CRSP.

No objection to this, as long as the troops are used to back fill the economic loss by base closures on the mainland. They’ve got to stay somewhere.

Good. Doesn’t go far enough, though. There’s still going to be more tanks than we’ll ever need. Should be one tank regiment and one HA, with the ability to move it, as part of a heavy brigade.

The government is buying less than previously ordered but spinning as an increase.

Idiocy of the highest order. The project was a very long-term clusterfuck, but was almost complete. What do we do now? There’s nothing like MRA4 on the books. Who needs maritime recon? An island? When this decision is reversed, there will be no remaining skill base in service, so the worst decision.

No deployment of air power anywhere until the new carriers are completed and JSF eventually works. Who are the FAA pilots that are going to hang around long enough to maybe, maybe not, get a go on the new planes?

See above

That’s no problem. The subs will last a long time, and the missiles will be part of the already agreed arrangement with the US which comes to fruition in about 30 years time.

Good

There’s little point in building two, and only deploying one. Even with two, that’s basically hanging on by skin of teeth, they need much more support, never mind fucking planes. There’s only going to be 6 Type 45 destroyers after all. The carriers don’t seem like they are going to be over-burdened by capability.

42

This will just make the UK more of a US puppet. Except instead of helping us fight bad guys, you’ll do whatever we tell you to and like it. :stuck_out_tongue:

I can see cutting ground force spending, but severely cutting the navy…for an island nation??!:smack:

43

Not to be too harsh, but that has been pretty much the role of the UK post WWII. While they’ve maintained an independent nuclear weapons program, all ballistic delivery vehicles (Polaris, Trident, the stillborne Skybolt ALBM) were provided by the United States, and both the land and naval response to Soviet threat was wholly dependent upon US leadership. Britain found herself drawn along on numerous US crusades, though she was at least wise enough not to get involved in the US crusade in Indochina.

Well, the question is how much protection Britain needs from naval attack. in the post-Cold War environment, the likelihood of a direct military threat from naval incursion seems unlikely. More probable attacks are terrorism (both domestic and foreign), space-bourne attack, and cyberwarfare against the financial and communication infrastructure. Building up an aggressive naval force is something of a Maginot line against current and projected threats. It isn’t as if the major up and coming naval powers–India and China–are going to sail around the Horn of Good Hope to hammer Littlehampton with artillery. Britain’s main naval interest is in keeping shipping lines open and free from harassment.

Stranger

44

Who would have thought that Great Britain and the United States, its errant colony and prodigal son, would be the primary collaborators in NATO?

Stranger

45

[QUOTE=amanset]
So if we already, due to past experience, don’t assume it, why are you telling us not to assume it? Utterly bizarre.
[/QUOTE]

No, the really bizarre thing is that the folks who want to kill or deeply cut your (assuming you are a Brit) military ARE making exactly that sort of calculation…or they are saying that the UK will just have to bend over and take it if anything crops up and the US decides not to play. Either that or they are naive and believe that nothing or no one will ever threaten the UK’s overseas interests.

But seemingly a lot of Euros make this same calculation along with the same assumptions…that the US will take care of the heavy lifting and the carrying of water militarily for anything outside of the very limited grasp of the EU (and, hell, even within that grasp), we’ll foot the bill because we is stupid hicks and backwoods bumpkins, and we is don’t know no bettah, plus we is crazy 'Mericas to boot. This leaves the Euros free to spend their money on what’s REALLY important…more entitlements and social programs for the deserving (a.k.a. the average Euro citizen of the EU).

It’s funny that you think it’s bizarre, because, you know, I do too. It will be funny in a sad sort of way when the US is no longer strong enough to protect the Euros, no longer spends huge amounts of our tax dollars to have a military capable of doing everything everywhere (including protecting the EU’s external interests) and they have to pony up the bucks to fend for themselves again…or they have to bend over and take it, because someone else out there wants what the Euros have. It will be funny because the Euros will have some difficult choices to make, choices we barbarian USers have had to make for decades now…do you continue to spend large amounts on ‘free’ entitlement programs, or do you spend more on the evil military? Take the US out of the equation and you may see many EU member states having to spend quite a bit on their own military…double or triple what they are spending today. Which is going to seriously cut into all those entitlement programs that they are having trouble maintaining without spending tons for things like a powerful navy or logistics capability that would allow them to project anything remotely like military force beyond their own borders.

-XT

46

In what way will the UK have to bend over and take it due to cutting tank and heavy artillery numbers down? So we don’t have maritime air support for a few years. Who cares? We just change how we defend our overseas possessions. A single Astute class submarine around the Falklands is enough to stop any maritime invasion, and a single Type 45 enough to stop any invasion by air. What possessions cannot be defended this way? Gibraltar? And seriously, who is really going to be threatening the British isles themselves? We still have the nuclear deterrant, and if Russia keeps probing our airspace, we’ll continue to send one of the 200 million billion Eurofighters we ended up ordering, just as we do now.

The only really boneheaded decision was the scrapping of Nimrod, which aside from being great at subhunting, are also regularly used in SAR missions around the British isles.

Let’s face it, to defend the British isles and our overseas possessions we do not need a military as big as we currently have. We only need a military that big if we assume we’re going to keep getting involved in debacles like Iraq and Afghanistan. No thanks.

47

This “power projection” thing is rather overblown IMHO. What can you do with an manned aircraft that you can’t do with a Tomahawk missile? Or a drone?

The future of air power is unmanned (sad though that may be). By essentially skipping a tech generation, the RN of the future may be much more effective.

The true irony here is that a Conservative British government is the one kneecapping the Royal Navy.

48

Manned aircraft are vastly more flexible and less vulnerable to jamming.

49

I think the basic error here is that you are assuming that the majority of Europeans think that anyone should be “doing this heavy lifting” or whatever you want to call it in the first place.

You just don’t seem to grasp that huge (IMHO that vast majority) of people in Europe don’t think it is required and frankly it is a bit weird that people like you seem so convinced that it is.

We are just not that into blowing other people up anymore. If you want to do it then go do it, just don’t make out we are supposed to be in some way thankful for it.

50

More flexible in what sense?

51

Could you substantiate any of that 1950s bias or is it just a PTOOMA rant?

52

If America cut its military budget, the Taliban would launch its long planned ground assault on the American homeland. We would be defenseless. We have to have military spending equal to the rest of the world or risk a terrible fate.

53

[QUOTE=amanset]
You just don’t seem to grasp that huge (IMHO that vast majority) of people in Europe don’t think it is required and frankly it is a bit weird that people like you seem so convinced that it is.
[/QUOTE]

shrug Well, hopefully that will work out for you guys then. I’m sure the world without America as a super-power will be all sweetness and light, and the the good people of Europe will be able to dream on, secure and at peace for ever after. I really hope that’s the case, as I think that the time of the US spending vast amounts of treasure on providing the big stick will end within my life time, so I guess we’ll see, no?

Yeah, 'cause we just blow folks up for the hell of it, or because we are simply barbarians. But, to be sure, you Euros don’t want any more blood on your own hands. I can see that. And really, if you don’t go around blowing folks up like us nasty Americans then everything will be goodness and light, and no one will want to take away or infringe on your own interests outside of your borders, since the world is basically a good place, full of happy folks who love you Euros nearly as much as they love us Americans for the sweet legacy you’ve left behind.

[QUOTE=Capitaine Zombie]
Could you substantiate any of that 1950s bias or is it just a PTOOMA rant?
[/QUOTE]

No, just a drunken rant on my part there…nothing to see. Sorry if I touched a nerve. I’m sure the US has really done nothing to protect any European interest since the 50’s…hell, really we never have, to be honest. It’s all about us just being blood thirsty children or militant assholes, uncultured and barbaric next to the shinning example of our European betters.

(For those who know me…yes…I fell off the wagon this weekend in several different ways. For those who care…apologies).

[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
Let’s face it, to defend the British isles and our overseas possessions we do not need a military as big as we currently have. We only need a military that big if we assume we’re going to keep getting involved in debacles like Iraq and Afghanistan. No thanks.
[/QUOTE]

The things about having a military is that, having it, you might not ever need it. It costs a hell of a lot and seems to be a waste. The trouble is, if you do need it, it’s really hard to build what you need quickly today. It’s hard to build the systems, it’s hard to retrain the people. British interests (as well as European interests in general) extend beyond your shores, even though it might not seem that way. There are a lot of strategic resources that are vital to your continued existence. Stuff like oil, for instance, or materials and resources needed to make computers, batteries or any number of other things in a modern world. Those things can be threatened, as can your basic trade, unless someone protects them with a credible force that deters others from thinking they have a shot at either taking them or extorting things from you to keep them flowing.

Maybe you are right and the British really don’t need a military capable of projecting force beyond your shores to as great an extent as you needed during your empire days. The thing is, if you DO need it, and you don’t have it, you will be sorry, and it will end up costing you a lot more in the long run…and not only in monetary terms.

At any rate, I feel like I’m hijacking the thread AND pissing off the various Euro 'dopers in this thread, neither of which I want to do. I’m not intimately familiar with the current state of the British military, and can’t really judge the actual impact these cuts will have on the UK’s strategic defense or the ability of the Brits to meet future military challenges outside of your shores. Nor do I think the US is going to go tits up in the near future, which means that no one is going to go completely off the reservation and start interdicting trade routes or stuff like that, so, given the financial and economic troubles you guys are having maybe this is for the best. I just don’t know…which is yet another good reason I shouldn’t have stuck my ignorant nose into this thread.

Carry on.

-XT

54

As an example, over the past decade which wars has Americs fought for “us” that actually needed fighting? Bear in mind that Iraq was a lie from the very beginning and Afghanistan was to track down someone that had major issues with and attacked the US.

You may not like it, but to others it does appear that you like it. The bloodthirsty glee with which the US entered Iraq, for example. And lets not forget that the military industrial complex is an intrinsic part of the US economy. Large amounts of people in the US depend on the current and future blowing up of people. This is far less true in other countries.

Well to use the British as an example, they did a pretty impressive job of not leaving their colonial past in such anyway that everyone hates them. Just look at the economic and social arrangement of the Commonwealth, for example. The fact that we all get together to do stuff (hell, we just finished the Commonwealth Games in India) speaks volumes.

The one real dark area was Northern Ireland, but then the US involvement there was diplomatic and, er, private citizens funding and arming the terrorists the British were fighting against.

One last thing, it is Europeans, darling. Please learn to type it.

55

[QUOTE=amanset]
As an example, over the past decade which wars has Americs fought for “us” that actually needed fighting? Bear in mind that Iraq was a lie from the very beginning and Afghanistan was to track down someone that had major issues with and attacked the US.
[/QUOTE]

That’s sort of the point, innit? We didn’t fight a war for Europe because no one was daft enough to start one, or to threaten Europe’s external interests. Now, perhaps it was the bad guy repellent you guys were using. Could have been, no doubt. Could have been wishful thinking too.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that I believe that Iraq or Afghanistan were somehow linked to protecting Europe (and possibly that I believe Iraq was a good idea in any case). While indirectly that could be true I suppose (Europe does have a non-zero interest in that oil stuff too, and it wasn’t in your collective interests to have a regime like Saddam’s sitting on a 5th of the total reserves any more than it was in our own), it wasn’t the point I was making. The point I was actually making is that the US protects European interests by being the 800 lb gorilla that no one really wants to fuck with, and by the fact that, hostile as some of you Euros are towards America and Americans, at higher levels we are at least nominally ‘friends’.

Oh…and Afghanistan wasn’t about simply tracking down one guy, no matter how cool his beard and hat were. It was a bit more complex than that, and it’s goals were a bit more diverse. And while I’d agree that you Euro types didn’t really have much of a stake or need to participate in Iraq (though there IS all that oil stuff there), I’d say that based on the number of countries involved in Afghanistan that at least some of the heads of state in EU-Land would disagree that they had no interests there at all. I realize that European citizens (well, some of them) don’t or can’t see the need, but really it wasn’t a good idea to have a nation state allowing an independent terrorist organization free reign to build training facilities and have a secure base to operate from.

I’m really not wanting to open up the whole Iraq can of worms in this thread, as it will just further hijack it in other directions…and other directions that have been beaten to death in the past. I’m fully aware of how a lot of Europeans look on America and Americans, though. I’m sure you are aware that you aren’t universally loved either. :stuck_out_tongue:

As to the US military industrial complex, yeah, I know it’s also a Euro buzzword…that whole WarMachine WarMachine! thingy. And, to a certain extent it’s true. The other thing that’s true is that the US got into a bunch of wars (many of them, ironically enough, caused by you European types) where we were completely unprepared and sent in untrained troops using crappy equipment to get killed in job lots before spilling enough blood and spending enough treasure to catch back up…only to rinse and repeat when the war was over and we decided to drop the whole WarMachine thing and go back to making money. After a while this got a bit old. Possibly we have gone a bit overboard with it (you know, once bitten twice shy, and we were bitten a lot more than once), and perhaps we should cut back to levels where we simply protect our own interests and let everyone else fend for themselves…that might be a good thing for us and our Euro-buddies too. It would certainly save us boatloads of money.

Not sure what you are getting at here, to be honest. If it’s that the Brits are not hated as much today, well…sure. They aren’t exactly a major superpower anymore either, and haven’t been for some time. Now the British Empire is looked back through the haze of history and looks a lot more golden and rosy today than it did when they were on top. Superpowers are generally hated, feared and in some cases even liked, depending on who you talk too. Perhaps when the US is no longer a superpower people will like us again too, and look back on our rather checkered history with more rose colored glasses. Could happen I suppose.

Sort of like Saudi private citizens funding and arming terrorists, right? And private UK citizens never did stuff like that? No doubt Ireland was a muddle…I’m not Irish, of course, but I’d say that the ‘terrorist’ label could be placed pretty much on all sides in that messed up conflict, no? You might also consider that we do have a rather large Irish population (something about a dust up involving potatoes of all things in the past…it was in all the papers at the time), who have sort of mixed feelings about the situation. Private citizens are, well, private, and can send money and funding where they like.

Why? I’m not getting paid by the letter, and typing Euro is easier…and it’s not like you are confused and don’t know who I’m talking about, right? :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

56

Yeah. Same thing could be said for the 1956 Venusian Invasion, the '74 plot by Madman Goro, Tyran of the Mole People or the '86 Hit-N-Run of the Klargan Armada.

Ha, wishful thinking, daydreaming, hallucinations, they all sound the same dont they…

So, anything to substantiate in those neverending efforts by the Mighty US to protect its clealry retarded little Euro brother against tireless attacks by hordes of Imaginary Forces?

Maybe a date? a place? At this point, even a rumour would do.

57

In what way has the Strategic Defence Review threatened any of that? The Royal Navy is more powerful today than it ever has been, even after the defence cuts. The new Type 45s that are currently being rolled out are currently the most advanced destroyers in the world, the Astute class again are the most advanced hunter-killer subs (for the time being, anyway) and we’re in the process of building the largest aircraft carriers we’ve ever built as well as a new class of frigates. Our Trident class submarines are still carrying the nuclear deterrant, and France still has theirs. It’s fantasy to suggest that Britain (and the rest of Europe, or their interests abroad) is under any sort of external threat due to trimming the defence budget.

58

No, it’s not. It’s a phrase coined by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech. It was a warning about a too-powerful military spreading fear & doubt to keep their budgets fat, not to keep the nation safe. Reading your passive-aggressive “It’s a scary world out there, but hey don’t let us stop you venturing out” crap, I’d say it was a warning that some haven’t heard.

Oh, and from the first page, when you said

several posters clearly took it to mean you meant the Liberal/Democratic party, the lesser part of the UK coalition government, might win an election outright. This is a debate about the UK, so you might want to use the appropriate meaning of the word “liberal”, even if it reduces your scary-words vocabulary by one.

59

[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
In what way has the Strategic Defence Review threatened any of that? The Royal Navy is more powerful today than it ever has been, even after the defence cuts. The new Type 45s that are currently being rolled out are currently the most advanced destroyers in the world, the Astute class again are the most advanced hunter-killer subs (for the time being, anyway) and we’re in the process of building the largest aircraft carriers we’ve ever built as well as a new class of frigates. Our Trident class submarines are still carrying the nuclear deterrant, and France still has theirs. It’s fantasy to suggest that Britain (and the rest of Europe, or their interests abroad) is under any sort of external threat due to trimming the defence budget.
[/QUOTE]

Ok then…consider it ignorance fought. I’m glad that the proposed cuts won’t impact your ability to defend yourselves or your interests abroad. That’s a good thing.

[QUOTE=jinty]
No, it’s not. It’s a phrase coined by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech. It was a warning about a too-powerful military spreading fear & doubt to keep their budgets fat, not to keep the nation safe. Reading your passive-aggressive “It’s a scary world out there, but hey don’t let us stop you venturing out” crap, I’d say it was a warning that some haven’t heard.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah…I’m aware of who made the comment. But, you know, thanks for the history lesson and all. Sorry for the let down, but it wasn’t just me being ignorant or trying to sound scary. It was actually me, drunk, trying to sound funny.

That would be odd, considering that when I made that comment I was talking about the US military. But, hey, if you want to beat me over the head with what you presume to be my ignorance of the political set up in the UK, I’m sure it will have the benefit of making you feel all superior and all, which is always a good thing. Glad I could oblige.
At any rate, as I said, and as should be clear from my comments to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party, my knowledge of the UK’s actual military capabilities and the effects of these cuts is woefully low…ignorant in truth. I’ll step out and let you guys discuss in the hope that I can learn something here and not further derail the thread.

-XT

60

No private citizens cannot send money and funding where they like. See what happens to you if you start donating money to a lot of Arab charities.

You say the U.S. has a large Irish population, so supporting murderers isn’t a big issue. Well guess what - the U.K. has a large Islamic population. I am sure you wouldn’t see anything wrong were the British government to permit fund raising for Al Qaida openly, if Al Qaida leaders were invited by MPs to be the Honorary Marshals of parades in London, and if the British refused to extradite Al Qaida murderers to the United States because we felt they were political-based freedom fighters rather than just murdering scum.