Should Britain continue to be an international defense power?

[UKMuFFiN]

we do - when was the last time made any unilateral action against other countries?

Lol good, thats what I was trying to say. The OP question seemed to be saying we couldn't do both.

I think we're going off topic now though.

[kalniel]

Ok badly worded on my part - the or in that case was meant to be more along the lines of 'having to rely on working with other countries' - ie by cutting back our military capabilities we would no longer be able to enter into theatres by ourselves (falklands, sierra leon etc.) or with the americans, and would have to work with the EU/UN/NATO *every* time we wanted to take action. At the moment the capability is there for Britain to enter theatre alone if it needs to.

[YorkieBen]

Ok badly worded on my part - the or in that case was meant to be more along the lines of 'having to rely on working with other countries' - ie by cutting back our military capabilities we would no longer be able to enter into theatres by ourselves (falklands, sierra leon etc.) or with the americans, and would have to work with the EU/UN/NATO *every* time we wanted to take action. At the moment the capability is there for Britain to enter theatre alone if it needs to.

if we tried to work with the EU or the UN (especially) we would never go anywhere.

You use the Falklands as the example - if we got rid of our capabilities to mount independent, offensive operations then Argentina could invade and we wouldn't be able to recover the Falklands - which a) has never been part of Argentina and b) is populated and by BRITISH citizens and c) has potentially alot of oil

We have overseas interests and cannot rely on the EU, NATO, the UN or USA to help us, because in the end they are not obliged to help us - and history has shown they wont if it is not in there interests (fair enough tbh)

The UN hasn't effectively intervened in anything unless they have been pushed in by the USA (Desert Storm, Korea)

the fact is there are very few countries in the world that can mount operations outside their own environment against a resisting foe - the USA, UK and France (maybe) are probably the only ones (China and Russia would struggle tbh). This is why relying on co-operation with the UN or the EU cant work - most nations dont have the necessary capabilities and if we got rid of ours...

[UKMuFFiN]

Off topic but I lived in the Falkland Islands for 5 years and love the country

[ibiris]

It would be an embarrasment to back down on their policies now. Billions has been spent on developing Typhoon and putting it into service (as well as other aircraft and equipment). If trials go okay we'll be deploying it to Afghanistan to take over from Harrier within the next 2 years.

[YorkieBen]

Off topic but I lived in the Falkland Islands for 5 years and love the country

you're very lucky. Id love to visit one day, if only to see the night sky free of pollution - ive been told that it is amazing

reducing the typhoon order is just about impossible politically and economically (loss of jobs, financial penalties)

[Andeh13]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the UN btw. Rwanda - never again! Bosnia - never again! Darfur - oh well nevermind eh? Who's next?

The UN is a toothless organisation that now only seems to exist for it's own end. Corruption is rife.

Britain is still one of the few countries in the world capable of expeditionary warfare although that capability is rapidly diminishing due to lack of funds and a hostile government - read labour party scum.

One thing is certain. Reducing our capabilities to that of merely a defence force is a folly. Look at the 1920's and 30's. It is vitally important that Britain protects it's national interest and this means we must have, AND PAY FOR, a professional armed forces. We are an island and rely on trade, therefore it's in our interest to have a capable navy and be able to "project force". It is very easy to cut capability but it is impossible to regain that experience and hardware at short notice.

We may not have any domestic threat now but who knows what may happen in 50 years time. It is not good to continually hide behind the skirts that are the US armed forces like Europe has done for the past 50 years.

I'll leave you with another saying

In order to prepare for peace you must first prepare for war.

Spot on, couldnt have said it better myself.

[SteveC]

To me, it depends very much on the economic incentive to do so. Increased military spending increases our budget deficit, which is already running comparably high.

Future labour market pressures from baby boomer retirement, increasing energy imports at higher prices due to declining North Sea oil and gas reserves, and a worsening healthcare and education situation are likely to have significant economic impact in the medium / long term.

Budget deficits can be dealt with via increasing future taxation, or inflation / devaluation of currency. As a net importer, the latter would be very unwise - all imported goods would become much more expensive (we are far from self-sufficient).

I, for one, would resent having a tax hike force me to contribute more of my earnings towards conflicts that have increasingly little to do with British interests (as far as I can tell).

[YorkieBen]

To me, it depends very much on the economic incentive to do so. Increased military spending increases our budget deficit, which is already running comparably high.

Future labour market pressures from baby boomer retirement, increasing energy imports at higher prices due to declining North Sea oil and gas reserves, and a worsening healthcare and education situation are likely to have significant economic impact in the medium / long term.

Budget deficits can be dealt with via increasing future taxation, or inflation / devaluation of currency. As a net importer, the latter would be very unwise - all imported goods would become much more expensive (we are far from self-sufficient).

I, for one, would resent having a tax hike force me to contribute more of my earnings towards conflicts that have increasingly little to do with British interests (as far as I can tell).

The thing defence spending in comparison to the NHS and education is tiny

the NHS has seen massive increases in spending in the last 10 years, unfortunately it has been grossly mismanaged.

Defence spending in the last 20 years has reduced almost 50% in real terms (as a % of wealth) - Britain's overseas interests need us to maintain a reasonable level of armed forces. The problem is defining what is Britain's interests - if we want us to keep out of all foreign conflicts then fine, but in 30 years time when the world has gone to crap dont come crying

[coco]

we are no longer a major power, lets face it we only go to war now when the president of the USA decides we do.
Even our nuclear deterrent isn't that independent considering its a usa weapons system.

[SteveC]

The thing defence spending in comparison to the NHS and education is tiny

...

The problem is defining what is Britain's interests - if we want us to keep out of all foreign conflicts then fine, but in 30 years time when the world has gone to crap dont come crying

Not entirely sure it's tiny. From the MOD:

"The UK Defence budget in 2005/06 is some £30.1Bn. In terms of monetary expenditure, this puts us second in the world on defence spending, although we are a long way behind the United States whose base Defence budget is some $400Bn.

Another comparator is defence spending as a proportion of GDP. At 2.2%, we are above at the NATO European average. We spend about the same proportion as France and more than Italy and Germany."



Defence spending is certainly less than health and education, but not quite tiny, it's approx. 31% of health, and 40% of the education budget.

As I see it, the extent of influence we hold abroad is at a very rough estimate proportional to defence spending. I'm not sure that at current levels, Britain has the resources to stop the world going to crap, and should perhaps instead concentrate on its NATO and UN obligations. Any kind of unilateralism or joint ventures with the US look to me (increasingly in the current climate) like expensive mistakes.

[YorkieBen]

Not entirely sure it's tiny. From the MOD:

"The UK Defence budget in 2005/06 is some £30.1Bn. In terms of monetary expenditure, this puts us second in the world on defence spending, although we are a long way behind the United States whose base Defence budget is some $400Bn.

Another comparator is defence spending as a proportion of GDP. At 2.2%, we are above at the NATO European average. We spend about the same proportion as France and more than Italy and Germany."



Defence spending is certainly less than health and education, but not quite tiny, it's approx. 31% of health, and 40% of the education budget.

As I see it, the extent of influence we hold abroad is at a very rough estimate proportional to defence spending. I'm not sure that at current levels, Britain has the resources to stop the world going to crap, and should perhaps instead concentrate on its NATO and UN obligations. Any kind of unilateralism or joint ventures with the US look to me (increasingly in the current climate) like expensive mistakes.

unfortunately the UN has proven to be a toothless tiger - because it requires the approval of China, Russia, the UK, France and America to do anything nothing gets done.

Sadly unilateralism or going in with partners such as America (or the EU/NATO) is the only way to get things done. The UN has never really sorted anything out militarily except the 1st Gulf War (pushed by the Americans) and Korea (same).

In addition apart from the US and to a lesser extent ourselves and to an even lesser extent the French have the ability to mount major military operations 'away from home' - the UN holds no assest so without support of such countries it is impossible - most countries do not have the air and sea transport capabilities of these militaries or have the available forces/political will - look at the German troops in Afganistan - the German govt wont let them go to the south of the country where there is the greatest need, leaving us doing the lions share with faulty ammunition etc (due to lack of funds)

Look at Darfur, Bosnia (the UN troops were useless).

NATO in its present form is obselete anyway, the treaty needs re-writing as it is purely for the dfence of Western Europe, not for humanitarian/peace keeping purposes.

Finally planning only for multi-lateral operations is a fallacy - what if we want/NEED to do something which our allies dont want to - e.g. retake the Falklands

p.s. although we are second in the world in defence spending (delcared - China's in reality is far higher by all accounts), we also have the second highest operational tempo behind the americans (by size of force probably the highest) - we are in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Falklands, Sierra Leone etc. Despite this the defence budget as a % of the GDP is about the same as it was in 1997 (and more than HALF what it was 20 years ago, and the forces have suffered due to this - look at the Royal Navy for an example - no new warships have been commissioned for years and porjected numbers of future ships have been slashed)

[SteveC]

unfortunately the UN has proven to be a toothless tiger - because it requires the approval of China, Russia, the UK, France and America to do anything nothing gets done.

Sadly unilateralism or going in with partners such as America (or the EU/NATO) is the only way to get things done.

...

Finally planning only for multi-lateral operations is a fallacy - what if we want/NEED to do something which our allies dont want to - e.g. retake the Falklands

...

p.s. although we are second in the world in defence spending (delcared - China's in reality is far higher by all accounts), we also have the second highest operational tempo behind the americans (by size of force probably the highest) - we are in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Falklands, Sierra Leone etc. Despite this the defence budget as a % of the GDP is about the same as it was in 1997 (and more than HALF what it was 20 years ago, and the forces have suffered due to this - look at the Royal Navy for an example - no new warships have been commissioned for years and porjected numbers of future ships have been slashed)

I suppose part of the appeal of multilateral solutions is that with more nations involved, the potential for opportunism and mischief-making on behalf of one single nation is diminished.

'Getting things done' is not always necessary, nor even in all cases desirable. The trouble with a 'just war' being declared on utilitarian grounds is that predicting the future is very difficult. Assuming the situation in Iraq was truly caused by benign intent on behalf of the UK / US, it is hard to argue that the situation on the ground has become nothing short of a humanitarian crisis. War is inherently unpredictable, and there is no guarantee that getting things done won't make a situation worse rather than better.

With regard to the Falklands, I would agree that some spare capacity in the defence budget is doubtless necessary to cope with such eventualities. Nevertheless, defence of Britain's overseas interests are not sufficiently large to compare with taking a greater military role on the world stage.

I agree entirely with the last point - I suppose we might disagree in our choice of solution, as I feel that our presence in some of those locations is unnecessary. Getting out of Iraq in the short term would certainly appear to lead to an alleviation of much of the suffering described.

[iranu]

and should perhaps instead concentrate on its NATO and UN obligations.

There is a large problem with this kind of thinking.

1. UN - As discussed, it's totally worthless and not fit for purpose.

2. NATO - who is actually doing the fighting in Afgan? Yep it's the English speaking peoples. USA, UK and Canada. To give them credit the Dutch are doing the business too.

Who else? err well no-one in any significant number. France and Germany are not prepared to get involved apart from lounging around the safe North. Italy? roflmao. Japan can't do anything due to their constitution (which will change).

Many other NATO members simply do not have the ability or political willingness to contribute any significant force and this is why the burden always falls on the English speaking people (ESP).

The ESP have taken the responsibility for western security and therefore the burden of men and cost since WWII - it's about time the other rich countries made a contribution, however I can't ever see that happening.

That is the reason why we must keep our defence spending at a decent level because we cannot rely on the UN and non-English speaking NATO "partners".

[YorkieBen]

not totally related to the above but kind of... and I like the video

the launch of one of the new Type 45 destroyers, of which 12 were to be built but now only 6 (or maybe 4???) will be built - thius causing each unit to cost a bomb due to r&d costs

http://www.baesystems.com/dauntless/index.htm

[madad2005]

Unfortunately, it has to be if it wishes to hold any influence in the world. I'd rather Trident was kept on english soil though.