A Saturday Night Question - Defence or the Welfare State?
I see on the news tonight the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, pleading for no further cuts in the defence budget. This after the government has already abandoned our carrier force and the Fleet Air Arm aircraft to go with it, and the army is to be reduced to the size of not much more than were a couple of battalions before WW2. Never mind the pathetic size of the Royal Navy ...
This is crazy! Have none of these idiots learned the lessons of the between-wars years when UK defence was so starved of resources that, but for the Channel, we'd have been over-run by Nazi Germany, just as the latter had over-run Belgium, the Netherlands and France by mid-1940. We'd now very probably be part of an all-embracing neo-Nazi Europe, with all the neo-Nazi rules that would have been entailed (no Jews, no Blacks, no Gypsies). And don't anyone imagine that even the US, with all its resources, could have invaded and reoccupied Europe without the unsinkable aircraft carrier that was Britain - by its happily geographical situation.
The fundamental issue is that, whatever else, the first duty of any government is to provide for the effective defence of its country and its citizens - and it should never, ever forget it. Of course there are many very pressing calls on other priorities. But, and I'll say it clearly, while health, education et al are all hugely important, nothing transcends the basic priority of national defence - and we are currently in danger of commiting the same inter-war follies of the 30's that led to our unpreparedness at the start of WW2.
None of which is intended to say that defence should be permitted unlimited resources. But very difficult assessments have to be made as to the possible threats which could be made looking 10 or 20 years ahead. And then, the forces which might be necessary to counter those threats must be planned and trained and put in place - despite all the many conflicting priorities which governments have to face (they did actually volunteer!). If they duck out for the sake of short-term political advantage/convenience then they are betraying us (and themselves) very badly indeed ...
All countries spend a lot of money on defense. I think it's like 20% in the USA. Wikipedia reliably* informs me that the UK has the forth largest defense budget in the world. That does seem like a lot; but then again, it's probably also one of the top targets (by other countries) too. The royal navy is a bit of an embarrassment, but then again, we don't need the navy like we used to. I don't think, if WW3 happened tomorrow, it would require the same tactics as WW1 and WW2 did.
What we do need are analysts, computers, servers; so much of the fight against this is digital now. Countries like USA, UK, NZ, Aus and Canada have an alliance that means if a war started, they would need to work together, as they have far too much investment and knowledge in each other's defense systems.
I don't know. I think the defense budget is probably just about right, right now.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Well talaiporia, of course we can juggle with percentages spent on defence (note spelling, I'm British) but what matters at the end of the day is whether any UK government has the guts to say, regardless of the almost over-riding priorities they're faced with in other areas, defence of the realm is the absolute priority - and will treat it as such. And then, only when it's suitably defended, we'll turn our attention to the other, admittedly mammoth, issues.
Tony (we could, with some of this debate, actually be living in the 1930's!) And guess just where that got us ... Grow up, governments, realise where your absolute final duty lies. Have the guts to do the fundamental things - and then you can faff around with the detail of benefits, NHS, education and all the other things which are of course of great importance - but none so much as our own self-defence.
Yes; money in $ or £, vs % of GDP, you can find a different system. Nonetheless, we do spend above average on defense, and I believe we're reasonably secure. If spending increased, I'd much rather it was spend on data and servers etc than some ships; much more useful. Frankly, by intercepting data early, we won't need to use ships or risk soldier's lives.
Milatry expenditure by GDP - we're above average. More than Canada, less than America.
And sorry, my internet is American and it underlines English spellings! (I was so sure I had it right the first time).
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Realistically the Middle East/Mahgreb is set to blow-up within 6 months or so, and its not going to be a minor dust-up. Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Syria, US, Russia, China and more are all involved to one degree or another. There are missiles and rockets that are going to be used - some on European capitals (and with biological warheads as well as others). I really don't think people are aware of what's about to happen because the media is too caught up in celebrities and fluff like "Arab Spring" which is a totally wrong take on what happened over there. Defense spending debate is intereting but realities are moving more quickly. I think people should make sure that they have food and medicines saved up because of shipping, cost of oil going through the roof, urban crises etc
Figures quoted on the Jeremy Vine show earlier today suggested figures of just over £30 billion a year on defence and £160 billion on (I think) benefits - this really is the 1930s all over again ...
And a leading article in today's Daily Telegraph slates Vince Cable's proposal to scrap a Trident replacement on the justifiable grounds that our nuclear deterrent has kept us safe from nuclear blackmail for the past 60 years; and that the replacement costs would be spread over 30 years and would provide further insurance against any future nuclear threat from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran - and the same should relations with existing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or even China turn seriously sour.
Basic truth: no matter how much your faith in human nature, if you leave your front door open and your possessions unguarded sooner or later some bad bastard will come and take advantage of you. The Telegraph also re-iterates the view which I expressed when I started this thread - that the first and most fundamental duty for any government is to provide effective defence for its citizens, despite the siren calls for more welfare and the rest.
And reverting to the nuclear issue, I've stated previously on the site that despite the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons were the most life-saving invention of the last century. Without them the US, with a little help from UK, would have had to invade the Japanese home islands in 1945 at a cost of perhaps a million more American lives and God knows how many million Japanese lives as they fought fanatically for their Emperor, whom they'd been indoctrinated to think of as a god. And, without the nuclear tripwire (whereby both sides knew that if they started something, nuclear armageddon would rapidly ensue to the cataclysmic cost of both sides) we would have had a Third World War in Europe in perhaps the late 1950s, at a cost in lives in further tens of millions on top of the 50 million of WW2.
Of course unlimited and unchecked resources cannot be thrown at defence, but it does deserve a special priority of its own. New schools, new hospitals are all of course to be welcomed, but the protection of the country and the people who are to use those benefits has to come absolutely first ...
Not entirely sure effer whether or not you're extracting the urine - but I agree with the principle, even though men pressed into the services are much less value than volunteers (I can remember the days of National Service). At least let those who are out of work through no fault of their own do something useful and positive - and the Services have in their time trained many thousands of otherwise unqualified people to become tradesmen and to have a worthwhile future in civilian life later.
And, without being in the least patronising, it's nice to know that the word defence can still be spelt correctly, even in the outermost reaches of the former Empire. And we still have the Test Matches to come shortly ...
And yes, brace yourself, we do actually have schools in the outer reaches of the Commonwealth.
Best thing I have read all day.
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
People often don't realise how many non-military items started with the military. The autofocus on digital camera began as weapons tech and sighting mechanisms. The internet itself grew out of US military program to keep bases and commanders linked in a crisis (the internet is the physical network - it was Tim Berners-Lee who created www and hypertext protocol which he linked to internet at CERN). A huge amount of tech and tech training was/is nurtured by military programs.
Now as US. UK etc go broke and cut spending the Chinese just laid claim to the whole South Chinese Sea outside immediate territorial waters of adjoining nations. China bsically just flipped off Japan, Philippines, Vietnam etc. In ME Iran has threatened to close Straight of Hormuz. Militant Muslim factions in Egypt recently took over 3 cities and threatening Suez Canal (that might get Tony going). People have taken calm seas/shipping for granted
Wow, effer, this is the second time in the past several years that we've actually agreed on something - our relationship is obviously getting serious!
And I will continue to maintain that despite the understandable pressures on government to give way to demands for further welfare spending, defence spending must remain sacrosanct. Rigorous assessments must of course be made as to possible future threats, effective counters to those threats built up and maintained and, an important military principle, something extra must be maintained as a reserve against the unexpected - which sure as hell will happen sooner or later.
Having held mainly conservative views for much of my life, I am currently appalled at the present government's willingness to give way to populist pressures and to reduce our defence capabilities to a fraction of what is realistically needed, and which will almost certainly result in us being badly caught out sooner or later. No way am I in favour of war if it can possibly be avoided, but the reality is that sooner or later it can jump out and hit you in the face - and government has to have the courage to resist the demands of those who think it will never happen and would rather have resources diverted to more everyday priorities. It would be hard for them of course, but as I've already said they did volunteer in the first place!
Tony. (As an afterthought which may be of interest, at one time in a previous incarnation I used to attend the weekly meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office and produce drafts of the minutes of those meetings for further more senior approval, which then went into the records for posterity - they'll still be there now and for the next hundred years. One of the things that particularly struck me as I listened to those meetings was just how cautious the great men, Head of MI5, MI6, GCHQ etc, were when it came to assessments which they knew would appear in the Red Book which went round government departments on a distribution strictly decided by the Secretary of the Cabinet - No 1 always to the Queen, quite rightly - and just how many caveats they placed on their assessments, if only to cover their backs. Based on that experience, I am absolutely convinced that the justification given by Messrs Blair and Campbell for the UK involvement in the first Iraq war was a calculated fudge and in no way reflected the true facts and caveats which would have appeared in the original JIC assessment (probably not to be seen for another hundred years). I therefore regard Blair as not only a particularly slimy self-seeking bastard, but also as a dishonest slimy bastard who has the lives of many British servicemen on his hands and conscience (he once actually said "I'm really a pretty nice guy" - tell that to the widows/parents who suffered).
Epic, what a good and balanced response if I can say so without appearing patronising (definitely not intended). Of course there has to be a juggling act between expenditure on defence and all the other priorities facing government. But for them the temptation always seems to be to give way to the easy populist options rather than to face up to the fundamental issue of defence of the realm. Of course most people would prefer more hospitals or schools than infantry battalions, or RN destroyers, in an ideal world. But the ideal world ain't actually like that and defence is a basic necessity ... and has to be planned well ahead, both in terms of trained manpower and of equipment which may well take years to be developed.
As to Trident, it has been tremendous value to our security over very many years and, despite the misguided bleatings of those like Vince McCabe, we most definitely need to keep it as a not-all-that-costly insurance against any possible future nuclear threat.
Tony, you realise that using all those words together has probably flagged us up on ECHELON or something, so if RYL goes down tomorrow we'll know who to blame. :P
Personally, I love physics, engineering, and I study Maths. I'm pro-trident, I think we need it. However, I think other countries, like the US, have massive weapons hauls that are unnecessary, overly costly, and quite frankly, probably overkill (no pun intended).
I still think that if more money is to be invested in defence, it does need to be in digital areas, which is increasingly where the safety of our countries lies, not in tanks, ships, planes and men. And again, I still think we spend just the right amount on defence.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Tony, you realise that using all those words together has probably flagged us up on ECHELON or something, so if RYL goes down tomorrow we'll know who to blame. :P
this is good news for me. as i plan on taking over the world it is nice to see England is helping out by making it easy for me to come in a butt phuck the lot of you. Sarah prefer for war we ship out at dawn
From the letters page of today's Telegraph (known in certain circles as the Torygraph, and not actually a paper which I normally take):
"Philip Hammond is right to put defence of the country ahead of defence of welfare. Defence of the realm is the first priority of any government, but cutting our Armed Forces and reducing orders for defence equipment could not only put the country at risk but also add to the welfare budget".
And: "While Mr Hammond's comments about the future of the defence budget are to be welcomed, I fear it is too late.
The so-called Strategic Defence Review when it came to power neutered the Armed Forces.
At a stroke, our fixed-wing carrier capability was axed, likewise a whole wing of Harrier aircraft, together with other offensive air assets.
Gone is our long-range maritime patrol fleet and the reconnaissance intelligence-gathering capability that the Nimrod gave us.
The Army is being reduced to little more than a gesture and our air defences, together with many support services, have been severely weakened.
In sum, we have effectively been disarmed and only a significant, real increase in defence spending can right these wrongs".
A further letter from an Oxford Professor queries the logic of our nuclear capability, as he's entirely entitled to do in the democracy which emerged from the sacrifices made in WW2. For myself, the logic is simple: we have at all times a submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles lurking unseen under one of the oceans. We are not in any way belligerent but if you were to be so foolish as to attack us, then be very clear - you will get several megatons of a horrendously nasty response right down your neck. Ergo, for a relatively small cost we have at least that particular threat put to bed.
As a former soldier it might be expected that I'd be pushing for defence - but I'm not just a former soldier, I'm a citizen and a taxpayer - and I want to see the difficult balance of government expenditure much more slanted towards what should be their first priority, keeping us all safe. Sadly, they are currently failing ... badly.
Tony. (Hey, whoever it was (sorry), when they finally lock me up in the Tower, I do so hope that there'll be lots of RYL visitors and that they won't just be feeding me peanuts through the bars!)
