Military will be made smaller.......and depend more on allies.

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
Nick Harvey says that the days of large standing armies are no longer relevant. Yeah, that's right. We couldn't hold any ground we took in Afghanistan or Iraq because our standing army wasn't big enough. Instead, the US, with its large standing army is stepping into the breech and propping our efforts up with 20,000 in Helmand . . . . only because their large standing army means that they can.

Nick Harvey is being disengenuous to the point of outright lies. He's cutting our indepedence and our ability to protect this nation, JUST like before all the last big wars this country has had to fight.

We already understand that Brown and Labour nearly bankrupted this country, and that cuts have to be made across the board, but please, please Harvey, don't package all that up in bullsh!t, and do try and avoid doing it to those that attend RUSI meetings. It's a surefire way of getting your card marked as the tw@t you obviously are.

Just a thought.
 
#3
And when we have no allies to stand by us......?
 
#4
Misguided lunacy.
The UK must be able to defend itself and its interests without reliance on some kind of mythical belief that our "allies" will help us out when the need arises.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#6
Can Mr Harvey explain how, with this smaller defence force, we will be able to look after our oil interests (oops sorry) British subjects in the Falklands? With a smaller defence force we will be hard pushed to defend parts of Britain.

Still, we have France, Germany and Italy to help defend us:rolleyes:
 

Fronty

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#7
Maybe that's the plan... Rely on our European allies to such an extent that it would make sense to fully combine with them for all things military.

I need more tea...
 
#8
Maybe that's the plan... Rely on our European allies to such an extent that it would make sense to fully combine with them for all things military.

I need more tea...
Well that was always the Labour and LibDem's idea of a well balanced and cohesive defence plan for the UK but I genuinely didn't think the Conservatives were that ****ing stupid.
 
#9
Look, our own defence is in no danger as long as we have nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them. SO why do we need a large standing army to defend an ISLAND?

I actually completely agree with this, IF it is backed up with an increase in Naval Forces. Face it, and i'm sorry to have to point this out in an Army website, but the Navy is the crucial force to our defence, not the Army and it always has been. We'd be better off served becoming Naval Specialists, and bringing a lightweight Army to the game that could be amphibious ops specialists - kick the door down with the RM, let this new light army to surge through the beachhead into the country and force our will that way - let the US, or the Germans or whoever worry about huge land forces and occupying ground for long periods. We don't need, and cannot AFFORD to get dragged into long term counter insurgencies like we have in Afghan any more - IMHO we could have pretty much the same effect in Afghan with regards to our security with far less troops on the ground - we are renowned for our SF, so lets pump more into them. Stay out of that type of conflict, we don't need to be involved to that extent.

A rambling reply but i'm rushed here ;)
Whilst I am largely in agreement with you, it doesn't say a smaller army, it says a smaller military.
That includes the RN
 
#11
I'm desperately ignoring that part ;) My main argument I guess is that we don't have to take that many cuts, but a shift in the emphasis would mean a streamlining in forces, and a true central doctrinal change to the three forces would give a strategic direction as well as meaning less equipment spread - plus people are the most expensive asset we have, so smaller 'lighter' Army = less costs. we can still be effective as a tri service it just needs to be shifted around.


Quadrennial defence reviews would be nice, too...
 
#12
A view frightening in its naivety. It seems to ignore the fact that the governments first duty is defence of the Realm.
 
#13
So, no need to worry about defending the Falklands because we have Nukes?

You are Naivety Incarnate.
 
#14
So, no need to worry about defending the Falklands because we have Nukes?

You are Naivety Incarnate.
Right on B B. Whate happens when we threaten to nuke somebody and then don't? Utter cr@ap and I hope somebody in the Andrew understands nuclear detterence a bit better than the Yeo.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
Sadly, if you think that the SDSR will impact equally on all three Services then you are amazingly naive about how things work. The Senior RN are cock-a-hoop over what is coming out of it thus far - they think that will be the big winners, and the Army the big losers. Well, no-one really wins, but he RN is probably the 'service of Choice' for Liam Fox, and that will certainly show. He's always championed the RN, and is continuing to do so.

Expect the Army to lose all sorts of capabilities, as well as lots of Soldiers, the RAF to lose stuff too, and the Navy to be left relatively unscathed. After all, we aren't going to invade anywhere for a while, and we've not had any State-on-State wars fro a while, have we? Well, apart from the Falklands, Iraq, and Serbia - but that was in the past.....
 
#16
Sadly, if you think that the SDSR will impact equally on all three Services then you are amazingly naive about how things work. The Senior RN are cock-a-hoop over what is coming out of it thus far - they think that will be the big winners, and the Army the big losers. Well, no-one really wins, but he RN is probably the 'service of Choice' for Liam Fox, and that will certainly show. He's always championed the RN, and is continuing to do so.

Expect the Army to lose all sorts of capabilities, as well as lots of Soldiers, the RAF to lose stuff too, and the Navy to be left relatively unscathed. After all, we aren't going to invade anywhere for a while, and we've not had any State-on-State wars fro a while, have we? Well, apart from the Falklands, Iraq, and Serbia - but that was in the past.....
Considering the hammer the RN has taken cut's wise from Mr Brown and Mr Blair its hardly fair to say they will be left relatively unscathed (although I get your point about this time round) as they have already been cut massively.
Taking into account the intended reduction in commitment in Afghanistan then the spending balance inevitably needs re-balancing, as it is the RN that have had the biggest capability reductions over the last 10-15 years it is probably fair that there is an atempt to look after them this time round
 
#17
Right on B B. Whate happens when we threaten to nuke somebody and then don't? Utter cr@ap and I hope somebody in the Andrew understands nuclear detterence a bit better than the Yeo.
For the purposes of discusing defence spending, should we not discount Trident in terms of it being an RN asset?
Trident is of massive importance to the country but it is a single purpose asset that just happens to be run by the RN, in someways it would be better viewed as a fourth arm of the armed forces than a slice of the RN's portion of the defence budget
Yes I know its off at a bit of a tangent!
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Quite agree with Jagman (but unable to use the "Quote" function). Trident is a political system, and (apart from King's Troop RHA) the only part of the Armed forces without a genuine 'war role'. There is no military scenario in which nuclear weapons of any sort could be used. They are, indeed, run by the Andrew, but if they were replaced by, say, a bunker-based missile could as easily be operated by the RAF or even the Royal Artillery.

What they do do, however, is force us to maintain nuclear submarines, and their associated facilities - and these are not cheap. Mind you, compared wit the likely costs of getting rid of nuclear subs, operating them for the foreseeable future is cheap. Odd, but true....
 
#19
It is all part of the coalition narrative prior to the spending reviews. Make people expect 30-40% cuts then they will thankyou for 25% cuts.

Harvey is a tiny fish in a big pond here, an appeasement posting for the Lib Dems, I would wager he has next to zero influence among the more learned SPADS, RUSI, defence staff and fox.

Though as people have pointed out the RN is not only the most important arm, its the easiest to use politically, to spread influence and it has already been cut to the bone.

I would diverge with most threads on this matter and argue that the army will cut personnel before capabilities. No matter what the political rhetoric says infantry is going to go before entirely doing away with heavy cavalry. Especially with the incoming draw down in afghanistan. The Army will most likely enter a period of lower tempo ops where capability needs to be maintained whilst numbers don't.
 
#20
It is all part of the coalition narrative prior to the spending reviews. Make people expect 30-40% cuts then they will thankyou for 25% cuts.

Harvey is a tiny fish in a big pond here, an appeasement posting for the Lib Dems, I would wager he has next to zero influence among the more learned SPADS, RUSI, defence staff and fox.

Though as people have pointed out the RN is not only the most important arm, its the easiest to use politically, to spread influence and it has already been cut to the bone.

I would diverge with most threads on this matter and argue that the army will cut personnel before capabilities. No matter what the political rhetoric says infantry is going to go before entirely doing away with heavy cavalry. Especially with the incoming draw down in afghanistan. The Army will most likely enter a period of lower tempo ops where capability needs to be maintained whilst numbers don't.
My bold, that bit is re-assuring to know!!!

I guess the truth is that if Afghanistan is not in the equation then the easiest element of all three service to reduce and re-instate if/when necessary is infantry. As you suggest, hi-tech hardware is slower to produce and train personnel for than training infantry.
And yes, I know thats a simplistic view before everybody jumps on me.

There are several looming events in the not to distant future that will be taken into account, firstly and most significantly is the reduction in the Afghan commitment, the current government has made itself perfectly clear (whatever the rights and wrongs) that there is a timetable for Afghanistan and as I don't think either the UK or the US are going to commit to future invasions quite as casually as the previous governments of both countries.
The next big factor (to my mind anyway, not taking into account the unforseen) is Falkland oil, in an ever changing world it would apear that those little islands at the other end of the South Atlantic will become of huge economic importantance to the UK and a strong RN is crucial to our interests there.


Of course, we could be at war with France or Germany by the end of the decade and everything I have said could be utter bollox....
 

Latest Threads

Top