In light of the current spending review I have been wondering about the goals of the British military.
As a thought experiment what do you think the minimum force capability the UK could have but still be able to defend it’s major territory and immediately surrounding islands (ignoring Falklands etc)?
I could imagine a very limited standing force + some littoral craft, but could a civilian force be capable?
But then say we add the assorted islands and territories in, what is necessary to defend them, an aircraft carrier? Two?
This is a big unknown to me, and I guess there’s always a question of what benefit there is to retaining them.
And finally how much damage do you think would be done to world trade without the UK’s military assistance- I guess this is the most political question as I would suggest that it would force some of the worlds major exporters, Japan, Germany and China to fill the gap.
The first two questions go together I guess, the second is more what the political, economic and social consequences of such an act by the UK would be.
Why would anyone think the British are pussy enough to give up their armed forces? They’re bastards. They colonized big chunks of the planet. They gave birth to the US and we’re bastards too. They’re not all polite, tea drinking nellies. They will fuck you up.
Yes I imagine the US, Canada and Australia would defend the UK if it weas seriously threatened, but the British have enough pride to want their own defense forces.
Frankly, I forsee a general standing down of armies, in the conviction that there has been an end to war. It’ll last till all the major armies are essentially incapable of projecting force.
That’s when Saddam II will go and invade Kuwait.
I’m guessing maybe it’ll be somewhere by Russia, but you never know, it could be the French.
That’s the rub, a civilian force that is performing the role of the military is really just a military going by a different name. Costa Rica is frequently mentioned as having no military. What it *does * have however is a National Guard that is organized and equipped in the exact same manner as a military. It’s quite small, and it technically is ‘civilian,’ but it’s an army in fact if not in name. Japan also doesn’t technically doesn’t have an army, or a navy, or an air force. Due to constitutional restrictions, it has instead Self-Defense Forces that are an army, a navy, and an air force in fact if not in name that in Japan’s case are rather impressively equipped with state of the art weapons.
Um dont you mean the British Politicians, usually the military will probably give you options on what they can do , with stuff at hand, when the politicans get all generous about doing things.
I think it’s just about right at the moment. However, the Army can still be reduced. We do not need such a huge army if we’re not going to get involved in disasters like Iraq any more. This is still Cold War thinking, where we’re still set to face off a Russian invasion through Germany. A smaller army, big enough to meet our international peace keeping obligations, should suffice, and have the nice side effect that we simply can’t get involved in land wars in Asia any more.
We still need an Air Force, as Russia routinely probes our airspace (though whether we need such a huge number of interceptors is open to argument). We also need the nuclear deterrent. Keep this, and the rest of the armed forces can be reduced slightly. (And lets face it, a lot of Continental Europe is hiding behind the twin deterrents of France and the UK and Germany’s large armed forces.) Further, the RN is needed to keep sea lanes open and free from piracy, as well as protect sensitive British possessions (like the Falklands, and their reportedly impressive oil reserves).
I’d also spend some of the money saved reducing the army on the intelligence services.
1) Prevent invasion and occupation of mainland Britain and close islands
This is increasingly unlikely - the French and Germans won’t do this in my lifetime, and any other state would need to go through them to reach us. Plus the amount of US firepower stationed in the UK would give the Americans a huge incentive to provide support if needed.
**2) Prevent invasion of territories
**
Realisatically this means Falklands and Gibralter. Lots of people have complained that the lack of an aircraft carrier and a reduced navy fleet means we could not protect the Falklands if Argentina invaded.
If that did happen we might get EU support (the French could loan us a carrier), but it’s an interesting test of the pro-Trident view as to whether we’d use nukes to defend the Falklands.
The threat of a small, “dirty bomb” in the middle of Buenos Aires ought to be sufficient to prevent Argentina from trying anything, but I presume it’s not cricket to set off these devices in civilian areas.
There’s a great sketch in Yes, Prime Minister where they discuss how Trident would ever be used, and it’s hard to see when we’d ever actually deploy it.
3) Launch foreign wars of conquest / protection of assets
This is the main area where our troops reductions will hurt - but over the last 20 yrs the major engagements have been Iraq, Afghanistan and Balkans, all of which were of arguable importance to the direct safety of the UK.
4) Humanitatian aid
Important, but does it really need to be a military force that supplies this?
I know I sometimes get odd ideas, but it seems to me that if we are talking about the defence of the home nations, then the critical issue is the capability of the anglo-French forces, whether the enemy lands in Blackpool or Bordeaux. The colonies, not so much. I really don’t see Britain and France going to war against each other ever again, or failing to cooperate with maximum effort in mutual defence.
Coincidentally, Dave and Sarko seem to be reaching the same conclusion as we speak!
So you think that the major point in having an army is to prove you’re not a pussy? I’d think that nuclear weapons would be enough if that was your concern.
I mostly agree with Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party’s assessment, that a land invasion of Great Britain is a virtual impossibility even Russia, China etc don’t have the capability to launch an amphibious force that could take on even a greatly reduced British army. And that terrorism is a far greater threat to the British populace which means investing in the intelligence services would be a wiser decision, I’d imagine applying the entire defence budget to MI6 would allow for way more spying to be done on transnational threats. The question is what proportion.
So would most people agree that the prime motivation for having a large military is to get involved in distant affairs? Say Saddam the II does invade Kuwait, why should the UK care? Maybe it will inspire Saudi Arabia to actually train their armed forces worth a damn.
Also do you think that an isolationist America would affect the wisdom of this course of action - America says if you don’t protect yourselves why should we do it? And then withdraws troops from the UK, which is perfectly rational.
How large is the home field advantage of a military? I would think that even America would have difficulty (hypothetically) invading the UK due to supply lines etc. I’d like know some numbers on that actually…
There’s also Ireland. They’ll cheer us on as we give the Redcoats another lick. Heck, maybe the Scots will be rising again, and we’ll be invading England over Hadrian’s Wall.
The US ? Pish posh. You know we French will invade the UK the second it shows a hint of weakness. Why else d’you think we conned them into drilling Napoleon’s dream of a tunnel under the Channel ?
As long as the US stays militarily strong and friendly to the UK I’d say, no…they don’t NEED an armed force. The trouble is that, once you let it go it takes time, effort and lots of money to rebuild, so before making any sorts of drastic decisions you might want to take that into account.
I’d say that, based on my own limited knowledge of the UK’s strategic needs and treaty obligations and such that the current force levels are a good minimum for what they need.
Whether or not the UK should continue to have a military and at what level is ultimately going to be decided by the UK tax payer/voter. If their citizens feel they need one, then they will have one…and they will have one at whatever level those tax payers are prepared to fund it.
You very neatly express my point in the part of your post I snipped. All I’ll add is a disbelief that humans will evolve beyond war within the next century. Or millennium. Or hundred millennia.
One day, the Sauds will no longer be in charge of Saudi Arabia. When that day comes, do you really want the Saudis to have great big standing armed forces?
