Radical changes needed to UK Defence policy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by in_the_cheapseats, Jun 30, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    We need to start punching at the correct weight for our standing in the world.....which is not what we are doing at the moment, says a new study by the IPPR


    And some more names involved

    This report is really going to stir things up and will not, simply because of the personalities involved, be easier ignored.

    I think broadly from the very small amount of info put out in the BBC site, that the report is realistic and has merit.

    People have already talked about the need for a new stratigic review.

    I wonder how radical the next one will be.

    Face it - the Forces are an easy target in these days of shrinking budgets. This report can justify a lot of change.
  2. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

  3. Reads as a co-ordinated document on security, pity that the BBC is already reporting it as a recommendation for cuts of 24bn;

    UK 'must slash defence spending'


    The report states;

    "We point to over £24 billion of future planned defence spending that needs to be re-thought as part of a full Strategic Review of Security."

    Not, lets wipe 24bn off the budget.

    Cuts were not mentioned in the report (unless I missed it) but more of a redistribution of the monies saved if current projects are shelved, into other areas such as infrastructure security.

    But I suppose this report (sadly) will be used to justify what the government wants.
  4. Exactly it looks like the press have missread the report and have sensationalised it. I don't think it is actually saying what the press think it is.
  5. However - anybody with a bit of common sense knows how the "redistribution" will take place. It will disappear.
  6. The recommended shift from the USA to Europe is interesting and will require, if it happens, a genuine cultural revolution within the GBR armed forces.
  7. Not sure about their reccommendations for an increase in special forces. Didn't the US try this under Kennedy and end up with lots of "special forces" but most of them badly trained leading to various fcuk-ups?
  8. Ask any member of the public (or most media commentators for that matter) what fraction of central Government spending goes on Defence and I wonder how they'd answer?

    a. Defence is over half of all spending.
    b. Defence is half of all spending.
    c. Defence is a quarter of all spending.
    d. Defence is a tenth of all spending.
    e. Defence is a twentieth of all spending.

    Of course, the closest answer is e but you wouldn't think so according to most media headlines. From 'Economics Help' (link):


    Before people go overboard about cancelling major Defence projects urgently needed to replace ageing assets (especially Trident and the current aircraft carriers), I suggest they take a look at how the Defence Budget has fared over the past eight years or so in comparison with other areas of Government spending, despite the involvement of our Armed Forces in two high-intensity conflicts:

    Apart from Local Government (offset by increases in Council Tax), Defence has definitely been the poor relation in recent years and now it is being looked at for possible future reductions of £24bn? Ye Gods!

  9. Pretty pointless really, nobody currently in the world has the scale or depth of capablity as the USA. One example is the little fact that the ONLY stratigic lift aircraft in Europe are our 6 C-17's. And I can't think of anythink major that Europe as a whole needs to worry about that's in easy reach.
  10. I actually think trident does not actually need replacing.
    cold war is over buying a new system with the aim to smash through Moscow's defenses seems a bit pointless.

    a) if not exactly on friendly terms with Moscow the cold war is over
    b) there are no obvious strategic nuclear threats that deterrence would work against.
    C) Iran nk pak india israel etc etc all have more important targets than the uk
    d) world standing er?
  11. Ok, tin foil hat on now;

    I think the major crisis facing Europe in the next 10-50 years will not be from the Middle East/Indian sub-continent-although that's bad enough.-but from sub-Saharan Africa.

    The number of Africans migrating will increase exponentially (it's far more than just a trickle at the moment) Of course it's mainly economic migration at the moment but the effects of global warming on Africa is likely to increase the numbers even further.

    So Europe will have to decide whether such a population move is sustainable-if not, defence stratagy will have to change to that of policing Europe's borders and letting the rest of the world stew in their own juice (perhaps with the threat of nuclear retaliation should things get out of hand)

    Tin foil hat off now.
  12. Idistictly heard Lord Ashdown suggest on the radio this morning that we should be more reliant on the EU nations for our defence needs. Hence we should be cutting defence spending.
  13. Was this this morning on Today Jags?