Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

So she is happy to risk another row with her backbenchers? I suspect that both the new CDS and CGS will put her straight in terms of the risks that she is running.
 
We haven't been a tier 1 military power for 10 years or so, we have neither the manpower or equipment to even claim that status. we are 32nd in the list of Navies, and defintley not in the top 10 when it comes to Airframes and Army personnel. We have a defence force at best and with recruitment and retention at a low level I can only see that getting worse.
 
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.
 
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.

There is money. It just gets wasted on crap that isnt important.

The NHS isnt struggling - its extremely badly managed

Why the **** would we be losing £300m a week following Brexit? You ******* loon.


Otherwise, perfectly reasonable for May to question it.
 
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.



The vast majority of the UK population evidently cannot manage even a basic household budget. They absolutely do not comprehend the cost of NHS, education, pensions and other welfare support. Furthermore, they have, over decades, been lulled into a belief system that they can live out their entire lives whilst being funded by the state, and that any shortage of cash for nice stuff is down to government to produce. Most people cannot even visualise the world beyond their own immediate needs and desires, and are certainly not capable of comprehending great geo-political themes.

Ergo the duty of responsible government is to sensibly provide and fund the necessary institutions of state for the safety and well-being of the country, and to take those funding decisions on behalf of the electorate. Defence, more than anything else, cannot merely be left to transient public sentiment.
 
Top