If we're basing a defence review on the Falkands conflict then the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Just one factor to consider and an important one because lessons should of been learned. We're not a super power, but we have to keep our position internationally.
With all thats going on in the world and what the governments keep on expecting the troops to do, its crazy and outragous to cut on defence! They should be increasing the budgets, increasing troop numbers and send the troops that they say are surplas to requirments in Germany to Afghanistan and finnish the Taliban off mainly!
Labour severely neglected defence, resulting in many cuts in capability and avoidable deaths. Meanwhile the MOD was committed to an equipment programme that was not adequately funded. For example, on the carrier programme (as much a political requirement as a defence one) the MOD found itself committed to a schedule it could not afford (just six months after signing the contract under political pressure). Rather than ensure the MOD received extra funding to make up the difference, the Government's solution was to reprofile projects - basically move costs out of the present year into the future. But you can't employ shipyard workers for 5 years instead of 4 year without an increase in cost. Thus because of that single act alone the cost of the carrier project increased by nearly £800 million. This wastes even more of the Defence budget.
Hence as the National Audit Office stated this week, the overspend for 2009-2010 alone was £3.3 billion on the 30 largest projects. Last year they estimated that the gap (based on Labour projections) between what the MOD was funded for and what the MOD was committed to was £36 billion over the next ten years. In other words, on top of all the cuts experienced over the past 13 years and before any new cuts required by the comprehensive spending review are taken into account, the MOD needs to make substantial cuts just to balance the books left by Labour.
Or an example of how sending a taskforce 8000 miles to a group of rocks 250 miles off Argentina is living in the past 'glories' of a British Empire and unsustainable in the modern world.
If you opposed 1982, at least make a better effort than that lazy 'analysis'. No doubt your next post will be chock full of incorrect 'facts' about the Belgrano and the war.
Or an example of how sending a taskforce 8000 miles to a group of rocks 250 miles off Argentina is living in the past 'glories' of a British Empire and unsustainable in the modern world.
You mean sending a taskforce 8000 miles to liberate a population who wanted, were entitled to, and had every right to expect, British protection?
The build up to the Falklands Conflict was a diplomatic and military mess (based mostly on short sighed cost cutting) but the taskforce operation was one of this country's greatest achievements of the last 50 years.
we really don't know what the future holds militarily & we...as an island nation...should always be prepared for any eventuality. Has the government not read their history books? we should be able to defend oursleves in the event of attack in whatever form & not be entirely reliant on the rest of Europe & the USA to help us in our hour of need. As i say we really do not know what the future years may bring us.
You mean sending a taskforce 8000 miles to liberate a population who wanted, were entitled to, and had every right to expect, British protection?
The build up to the Falklands Conflict was a diplomatic and military mess (based mostly on short sighed cost cutting) but the taskforce operation was one of this country's greatest achievements of the last 50 years.
Yeah right the sinking of The Belgrano was truly our finest hour :rolleyes:
And whether they're entitled to protection is a matter of opinion since the Falklanders ancestors were only there as a result of Britain invading them in the first place in 1833.
Let's try a little prediction.. the Harriers will be cancelled early and the replacement aircraft will be delayed by an extra few years due to an unforseen design problem.
Well Cameron was right to finally intervene. Far far too late, shows how weak Cameron actually is. The reported spats between Osborne and Dr Fox have been ridiculous.
Cuts to defencewill have to have been made under whoever had won the election but now but I can see why defence (particularly to do with current missions in Afghanistan) would be cut less.
However, what the detail within the announced cuts in defence are will determine what everyone's reaction is to the results of the strategic defence review.
Or an example of how sending a taskforce 8000 miles to a group of rocks 250 miles off Argentina is living in the past 'glories' of a British Empire and unsustainable in the modern world.
If we're basing a defence review on the Falkands conflict then the lunatics have taken over the asylum
ayrshireman:
If you opposed 1982, at least make a better effort than that lazy 'analysis'. No doubt your next post will be chock full of incorrect 'facts' about the Belgrano and the war.
riff:
Yeah right the sinking of The Belgrano was truly our finest hour
And whether they're entitled to protection is a matter of opinion since the Falklanders ancestors were only there as a result of Britain invading them in the first place in 1833.
Or an example of how sending a taskforce 8000 miles to a group of rocks 250 miles off Argentina is living in the past 'glories' of a British Empire and unsustainable in the modern world.
Group of rocks?? The Falklands are nearly as big as Northern Ireland!
Too many of the fellow public jumping on the bandwagon while going into denial about the reality of the situation and the consequences of what they are calling for.
On Afghanistan, America could have been left to it after 9/11, but we got involved as well, took our foot off the gas prematurely to do that crazy illegal war in Iraq and allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup as a result.
If we pull out, they will soon take over Afghanistan fully once again, they are already in about 70% of that country and we are just concentrating on Kabul and Helmand (?!!!!! ) and all these people jumping on the band wagon who think by pulling out, that they will leave us alone, will soon realsie how wrong they where when the Taliban and AQ start doing world wide attacks again!
Was America/UK/Nato in Afghanistan in the 90's and up to 9/11? :rolleyes: NO! So that excuse of they just want us out of their couuntry doesn't wash either!
As for getting rid of trident, if we get rid of it, ambitious rogue countries/mad leaders willl develop either nukes or chemical weapons and without our detterent, they could well decide to use it! If that happens, all these people jumping on the band wagons will make out that they never called for the scrapping of trident and will blame the politicians for not leading and sticking to their original guns! Its so typical and predictable! :mad:
Try posting some "facts" yourself instead of lazy posts that don't actually say anything.
Fine. Your 1833 point is wrong, and your 'argument' about the Belgrano is the same incorrect and tired rubbish that has been posted numerous times and some of us who actually know the history have corrected equally.
You want to debate the actual history?.
Lets do it.
Ahhh I've just seen this on another thread. Forget it.
If we pull out, they will soon take over Afghanistan fully once again, they are already in about 70% of that country and we are just concentrating on Kabul and Helmand (?!!!!! ) and all these people jumping on the band wagon who think by pulling out, that they will leave us alone, will soon realsie how wrong they where when the Taliban and AQ start doing world wide attacks again!
I agree with this. We'd have to completey change the way we run our societies in the West and shut down Israel to satisfy these guys now.
I agree with this. We'd have to completey change the way we run our societies in the West and shut down Israel to satisfy these guys now.
If we increase the troop numbers to 250 thousand in Afghanistan from the current 140 thousand, that should go a long way towards making Afghanistan properly secure in all regions, rather than just Helmand which is still very dangerous even with al the troops their and Kabul and relying on the north to remain passive which it isn't as extremists are getting in their as well including from the ex soviet states as well now!
As for Israel, we need the US to be neutral on this matter but a 2 state solution is the only realsitic solution I would have thought along with a wider peace plan with iran involving all round security guarantees between iran/israel and the US/Europe etc.
The extremists in Afghaistan will remain extreme no matter what concessions are offered/given. Heard on reporter say the other day that the taliban went to peace talks the other day, only because the current surge of American troops is launching massive onslaughts on them every night, otherwise no way would they have participated.
Well Cameron was right to finally intervene. Far far too late, shows how weak Cameron actually is. The reported spats between Osborne and Dr Fox have been ridiculous.
Cuts to defencewill have to have been made under whoever had won the election but now but I can see why defence (particularly to do with current missions in Afghanistan) would be cut less.
However, what the detail within the announced cuts in defence are will determine what everyone's reaction is to the results of the strategic defence review.
Cuts in defence are entirely avoidable. Its always a political choice whether you save 2.5 billion or not, another choice whether you spend a higher level of GNP on defence and another choice whether you cut something else (Overseas Aid for one example)
The situation now seems to be that government is either ignoring or downplaying the risk and assuming that nothing serious will happen for 10 years. Government last made that same assumption in 1932.... The problem is that there's an awful lot more going on than the fight gainst the Taliban and al Queda that could be a problem before 2020. Most obviously. the area around Iran is a powder keg now - that could become alight at any moment and our oil supply, the oil price and world financial markets are sitting under the powderkeg or in tankers that would be sunk if it exploded. Add trouble on Nato's borders, an unstable Pakistan, an unstable Lebanon, Argentine interest again in the Falklands, conflict on Nato borders, war in Korea and its not hard now to think of why you might end up involved in major conflicts again. The Treasury might want to avoid any wars , but its not clear we will have the choice or would want not to have a say in the outcome.
The problem with the detail is that its meaningless to the public - even when the Treasury decides to take both cuts when offered 2 alternatives and the results are unsafe. Scrapping Tornado to most people doesn't mean scrap half the RAF's combat strength, having an airforce smaller than Greece and withdrawing the only strike aircraft we have that could be used against anyone but a small state. Buying 40 new JSF fighters doesn't look unreasonable - until you realise they will be replacing 200 planes and 2/3s of the existing squadrons, Israel wants 80 and even Australia can afford 100. The one, obvious ,cut too far looks like being the carrier programme where they may cut the existing Harriers to save some Tornados - leaving both the current carriers and the first of the new ones with no fighters. The logical answer is we need both types , and if you want a cut you take some Tornados and stop there - but we may get no carrier aircraft at all. Thats absurd and uneccessary - except when you are just adding up figures and calling it a strategy. The second carrier and the first of its fighters may eventually turn up in 2018 - which is somewhat optimistic if you believe we might need either before then.
When you have wars you may get involved in with minimal capabilities things are getting too dangerous. With carriers with no aircraft and too few ships to escort the carriers anyway, you are really not going to impress anyone friendly or otherwise. And, if that is the sort of nonsense logic in the defence review, imagine what its like elsewhere where they have 20-40% cuts.
. And, if that is the sort of nonsense logic in the defence review, imagine what its like elsewhere where they have 20-40% cuts.
Probably not as bad.
Defence was one of the few departments that didn't receive huge increases in funding since 1997 - indeed with Defence Inflation the budget fell in real terms. Meanwhile the additional commitments stacked up.
Considering the cuts already made in the past 13 years and the cuts required to balance the Equipment Programme, even a small percentage cut to reduce the deficit would probably have a greater cumulative impact than 25%+ cuts in those departments that saw huge increases in their budget over the same period.
Cuts in defence are entirely avoidable. Its always a political choice whether you save 2.5 billion or not, another choice whether you spend a higher level of GNP on defence and another choice whether you cut something else (Overseas Aid for one example)
The situation now seems to be that government is either ignoring or downplaying the risk and assuming that nothing serious will happen for 10 years. Government last made that same assumption in 1932.... The problem is that there's an awful lot more going on than the fight gainst the Taliban and al Queda that could be a problem before 2020. Most obviously. the area around Iran is a powder keg now - that could become alight at any moment and our oil supply, the oil price and world financial markets are sitting under the powderkeg or in tankers that would be sunk if it exploded. Add trouble on Nato's borders, an unstable Pakistan, an unstable Lebanon, Argentine interest again in the Falklands, conflict on Nato borders, war in Korea and its not hard now to think of why you might end up involved in major conflicts again. The Treasury might want to avoid any wars , but its not clear we will have the choice or would want not to have a say in the outcome.
Yes and let's not forget that China may begin to flex its military muscles and take action on its various territorial claims in south east Asia. We don't really want a fight with China as the whole world would suffer but we can, with our allies, deter them.
Yes and let's not forget that China may begin to flex its military muscles and take action on its various territorial claims in south east Asia. We don't really want a fight with China as the whole world would suffer but we can, with our allies, deter them.
Saudi Arabia has asked to buy more fighters than we will have (84 new , 70 modernised) and its replacing its Tornados one for one when we may manage 1 for 3. There's also possibly more missiles and bombs in this one order than we will have. And Cameron thinks we can be a major power with 12 fighters.....
You then have to ask why buy this and the answer is that the package is tailored to going deep into Iran and bombing a lot of targets precisely. Perhaps the Saudi's are right in thinking everything will not be quiet until 2020 plus?
Comments
Just one factor to consider and an important one because lessons should of been learned. We're not a super power, but we have to keep our position internationally.
Thankyou for that.
Clears it up nicely.:cool:;)
If you opposed 1982, at least make a better effort than that lazy 'analysis'. No doubt your next post will be chock full of incorrect 'facts' about the Belgrano and the war.
You mean sending a taskforce 8000 miles to liberate a population who wanted, were entitled to, and had every right to expect, British protection?
The build up to the Falklands Conflict was a diplomatic and military mess (based mostly on short sighed cost cutting) but the taskforce operation was one of this country's greatest achievements of the last 50 years.
it was clear as mud to me..
Yeah right the sinking of The Belgrano was truly our finest hour :rolleyes:
And whether they're entitled to protection is a matter of opinion since the Falklanders ancestors were only there as a result of Britain invading them in the first place in 1833.
Getting a cut of 5% in funding when inflation is 3% means you effectively have 8% less buying power.
Cuts to defencewill have to have been made under whoever had won the election but now but I can see why defence (particularly to do with current missions in Afghanistan) would be cut less.
However, what the detail within the announced cuts in defence are will determine what everyone's reaction is to the results of the strategic defence review.
ayrshireman:
riff:
Case proven, m'lud.
Group of rocks?? The Falklands are nearly as big as Northern Ireland!
Try posting some "facts" yourself instead of lazy posts that don't actually say anything.
EDIT:-
Ahhh I've just seen this on another thread. Forget it.
On Afghanistan, America could have been left to it after 9/11, but we got involved as well, took our foot off the gas prematurely to do that crazy illegal war in Iraq and allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup as a result.
If we pull out, they will soon take over Afghanistan fully once again, they are already in about 70% of that country and we are just concentrating on Kabul and Helmand (?!!!!!
Was America/UK/Nato in Afghanistan in the 90's and up to 9/11? :rolleyes: NO! So that excuse of they just want us out of their couuntry doesn't wash either!
As for getting rid of trident, if we get rid of it, ambitious rogue countries/mad leaders willl develop either nukes or chemical weapons and without our detterent, they could well decide to use it! If that happens, all these people jumping on the band wagons will make out that they never called for the scrapping of trident and will blame the politicians for not leading and sticking to their original guns! Its so typical and predictable! :mad:
Fine. Your 1833 point is wrong, and your 'argument' about the Belgrano is the same incorrect and tired rubbish that has been posted numerous times and some of us who actually know the history have corrected equally.
You want to debate the actual history?.
Lets do it.
Ahhh, dont wanna play now?.
If we increase the troop numbers to 250 thousand in Afghanistan from the current 140 thousand, that should go a long way towards making Afghanistan properly secure in all regions, rather than just Helmand which is still very dangerous even with al the troops their and Kabul and relying on the north to remain passive which it isn't as extremists are getting in their as well including from the ex soviet states as well now!
As for Israel, we need the US to be neutral on this matter but a 2 state solution is the only realsitic solution I would have thought along with a wider peace plan with iran involving all round security guarantees between iran/israel and the US/Europe etc.
The extremists in Afghaistan will remain extreme no matter what concessions are offered/given. Heard on reporter say the other day that the taliban went to peace talks the other day, only because the current surge of American troops is launching massive onslaughts on them every night, otherwise no way would they have participated.
Cuts in defence are entirely avoidable. Its always a political choice whether you save 2.5 billion or not, another choice whether you spend a higher level of GNP on defence and another choice whether you cut something else (Overseas Aid for one example)
The situation now seems to be that government is either ignoring or downplaying the risk and assuming that nothing serious will happen for 10 years. Government last made that same assumption in 1932.... The problem is that there's an awful lot more going on than the fight gainst the Taliban and al Queda that could be a problem before 2020. Most obviously. the area around Iran is a powder keg now - that could become alight at any moment and our oil supply, the oil price and world financial markets are sitting under the powderkeg or in tankers that would be sunk if it exploded. Add trouble on Nato's borders, an unstable Pakistan, an unstable Lebanon, Argentine interest again in the Falklands, conflict on Nato borders, war in Korea and its not hard now to think of why you might end up involved in major conflicts again. The Treasury might want to avoid any wars , but its not clear we will have the choice or would want not to have a say in the outcome.
The problem with the detail is that its meaningless to the public - even when the Treasury decides to take both cuts when offered 2 alternatives and the results are unsafe. Scrapping Tornado to most people doesn't mean scrap half the RAF's combat strength, having an airforce smaller than Greece and withdrawing the only strike aircraft we have that could be used against anyone but a small state. Buying 40 new JSF fighters doesn't look unreasonable - until you realise they will be replacing 200 planes and 2/3s of the existing squadrons, Israel wants 80 and even Australia can afford 100. The one, obvious ,cut too far looks like being the carrier programme where they may cut the existing Harriers to save some Tornados - leaving both the current carriers and the first of the new ones with no fighters. The logical answer is we need both types , and if you want a cut you take some Tornados and stop there - but we may get no carrier aircraft at all. Thats absurd and uneccessary - except when you are just adding up figures and calling it a strategy. The second carrier and the first of its fighters may eventually turn up in 2018 - which is somewhat optimistic if you believe we might need either before then.
When you have wars you may get involved in with minimal capabilities things are getting too dangerous. With carriers with no aircraft and too few ships to escort the carriers anyway, you are really not going to impress anyone friendly or otherwise. And, if that is the sort of nonsense logic in the defence review, imagine what its like elsewhere where they have 20-40% cuts.
Defence was one of the few departments that didn't receive huge increases in funding since 1997 - indeed with Defence Inflation the budget fell in real terms. Meanwhile the additional commitments stacked up.
Considering the cuts already made in the past 13 years and the cuts required to balance the Equipment Programme, even a small percentage cut to reduce the deficit would probably have a greater cumulative impact than 25%+ cuts in those departments that saw huge increases in their budget over the same period.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/10/two-reasons-why-liam-fox-lost-in-the-spending-round/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ft%2Fwestminster+%28Westminster+Blog%29
Thinking of our plane less carrier with the Treasury wanting to limit it to 12 fighters, this provoked hysterical laughter
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Saudi_Arabia_10-43.pdf
Saudi Arabia has asked to buy more fighters than we will have (84 new , 70 modernised) and its replacing its Tornados one for one when we may manage 1 for 3. There's also possibly more missiles and bombs in this one order than we will have. And Cameron thinks we can be a major power with 12 fighters.....
You then have to ask why buy this and the answer is that the package is tailored to going deep into Iran and bombing a lot of targets precisely. Perhaps the Saudi's are right in thinking everything will not be quiet until 2020 plus?