Should Britain continue to be an international defense power?

[kalniel]

The prime minster will apparently call for a debate on whether the UK should continue it's policy of sending troops to world trouble spots after he steps down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm).

Do you think we should remain an influential power (with the increase in budget requirements that that will entail)? Or do you think it's time we stepped back and concentrated on working with other countries more to resolve world problems?

If you think we should remain a major defense power, what do you think we should cut back on to fund it? Or is increasing taxes an acceptable solution?

[snedger]

Britain has been kidding itself for decades that it still has any real world power substance.
It's time to stop pretending.
In the future, any international interventions involving Britain should only be carried out through the UN.

[pollaxe]

Britain has always punched above its weight in terms of military capability. Despite what Gordon Brown is saying (and it's just spin because he knows the Iraq war is unpopular) I think we'll continue to do what we're told to do by America, unfortunately.

[pollaxe]

Britain has been kidding itself for decades that it still has any real world power substance.
It's time to stop pretending.

I don't know that I'd agree with that - Britain is still a major player in world events. We have a big economy, an effective fighting force (overstretched and underfunded though it is) and the US is always keen to get us onboard whenever it invades somewhere!

[Funkstar]

Personally i think we should reduce the size of our military, but increase the quality and concentrate on our own defence rather than international policing.

We still have a very powerful economy so our world influence is still very strong, but we might actually get more respect internationaly if we stopped acting like little bulies sometimes.

[badass]

Britain has been kidding itself for decades that it still has any real world power substance.
It's time to stop pretending.
In the future, any international interventions involving Britain should only be carried out through the UN.

Agreed on all points.

[iranu]

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.

[charleski]

The next World War will either be US vs China or US vs the EU. If it's the 2nd, then we'll need our nukes.

But seriously, we do need to maintain the ability to project force to achieve limited and well-defined goals (which rules out the current use, obviously).

[dave87]

I think we should remain as a world power.

Those who say we're not big enough, we haven't got the resources to manage a big army - rubbish. We have never had to have numerical advantage to win anything - not in the days of the British Empire, nor now. I think we should focus on remaining as what the world's military aspires to - the highly skilled elite units we have always fostered (SAS, SBS, Air Force) and be a precision tool. Let the American's slog it out in infantry warfare - let us focus on surgical strikes, counter-terrorism. This will be where the focus will be in the not too distant future.

With regards US vs China or US vs EU - the former is unlikely and the latter is ludicrous - The US and EU may differ on fine points of policy, but they are both Liberal Democracies - faar too much alike. US vs China won't happen because the Chinese/US won't let it happen - too much risk of blowing everyone up to prove a point. The focus of the next 50-100 years will be resources and eliminating percieved supporters of anti-western forces, whether terrorist or para-military.

Dave

[YorkieBen]

Britain has been kidding itself for decades that it still has any real world power substance.
It's time to stop pretending.
In the future, any international interventions involving Britain should only be carried out through the UN.

in the international arena name countries that have more clout? Apart from America there isnt really anybody else ahead of us - China does not have the international presence yet (but it will do), Japan and Germany have their hands tied by legislation and historical problems. France couldnt give a crap (some would say this is the right attitude).

The idea of things being carried out by the UN. GIVE ME A BREAK - and study history.

The only 2 major conflicts that the UN have got involved in properly were US-led from the start - the Korean War (only becuase the USSR boycotted the vote) and the 1st Gulf War - the USSR was in meltdown.

The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Sudan, Afganistan and many other conflicts have either been ignored by the UN or the UN intervention has been a toothless tiger - in Bosnia UN peacekeepers had to watch people being killed in front of them because they could not legally intervene.

Britain is the world's fourth or fifth largest economy, and man for man were have what is widely acknowledged to be the best armed forces in the world.

Reducing the forces for home defence is out of the question - the fact is we can no longer defend our citizens - eg the Falkland Islands, whose residents are British citizens could not be retaken if Argentina took them - the Royal Navy has lost its fighter jets (been replaced by RAF ground attack jets) and there are not enough escort ships - the ones we have need replacing, and the replacements are being cut in capabilities and numbers eg - 6 Type 45 destroyers to replace 12 Type 42s

The main problem is that our defence spending in comparison to our commitments (not just the war in Iraq and Afganistan, although the fact that the much of the cash for this is coming out of the defence budget when it shouldn't be).

[chudley]

I agree with yorkie and the points he made.

Do not forget that Britain is a nuclear power, one of 8 in the world, only 5 of which are classed as official nuclear states.

this has a big presence on the international stage. We also are one of the biggest contibutors of aid to other countries, another major factor to consider in the power scale.

Althoug we may be small in comparison, when we get our backs up we do it properly, How many times have we been invaded in comparison to our succesful invasions- just go back to the days of the empire to find your answer, even though such action would not be accepted today.

[UKMuFFiN]

Do you think we should remain an influential power (with the increase in budget requirements that that will entail)? Or do you think it's time we stepped back and concentrated on working with other countries more to resolve world problems?

Does it have to be either or? I think its daft we're cutting back on the military and I like the answers from Yorkieben, Dave87 and iranu

[chuckskull]

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

Exactly what i was about to say. Currently we're allies with all the countries who could pose any threat to the UK. 50 years years ago we weren't, and 50 years from now we might not be. Governments change, as does the world. Eventually we will come to blows with another country, it's just human nature.

While i don't agree with international policing, I do agree with protecting the weak, stopping genocide and other human rights abuses, all we can do with a well trained and well funded army, more often just bringing it to the negotiating table is enough.

[kalniel]

Does it have to be either or? I think its daft we're cutting back on the military and I like the answers from Yorkieben, Dave87 and iranu

Yes it is an either or - either we maintain our military level, or we don't

I suppose the only other option is to increase our military level further

[UKMuFFiN]

Do you think we should remain an influential power (with the increase in budget requirements that that will entail)? Or do you think it's time we stepped back and concentrated on working with other countries more to resolve world problems?

Thats what I meant, Why cant we remain and influential power AND concentrate on working with other countries more to resolve problems?

[YorkieBen]

Thats what I meant, Why cant we remain and influential power AND concentrate on working with other countries more to resolve problems?

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