The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

And "states" created with western backing (Kosovo, Bosnia) are prime examples civil rights, rule of law and economic development? :dizzy2:

---

Bosnia and Kosavo are both better off now than they were, irrc the Kosovans want to build a statue of Tony Blair.

Quote:

---

Italy gave Istrians (region in Croatia Italy silently consider its own) Italian passports. If Croatia attacked Italy or commited ethnic cleansing against the undesirables, you would be ok with that?

---

Don't you mean, "If Italy attacked Croatia", which is what Russia did, or perhaps, "If Croatia attacked Istria", maybe that's what you think Georgia did.

Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing? Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Quote:

---

I'd wager still many times less compared to Serbs and other non-Albanians who were chased from Kosovo.

---

You're probably right, mainly because the war didn't last as long. In any case, Kosovo wishes to be a seperate country, but South Ossetia looks likely to be annexed to Russia.

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

---

NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

---

You're not supposed to say that. :no:

Brenus: RE: WW1 finish

A fighting retreat is not the same as full retreat. They were right to call it quits, though. The USA was pumping in millions of fresh fodder whereas Germany was running low on replacements and Germany's logistical system was having trouble getting enough food to the home front. Had they opted to shorten lines and fight on the Rhine, however, they would still have exacted a horrible toll though -- and it wasn't as though the Poilus or Tommies were all that psyched to continue at that point.

“They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo?
Of course it is not the same. It is they and it is we…

North/South Ossetians are the same people but the Serbs from Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia are not.

Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still. God protect us from the Russian Friendship: Serbian saying…
Do you really know what country the Serbs really love: France. There is one nomument in Belgrade stating: Aimons la France comme elle nous a aimé. Love France as she loved as. We can discuss of the quality of the Statue, but it is the reality.
Where is your Pan-Slavism? In YOUR mind.
Serbia is happy for any alliy she can find and who can reproach her this? (Er, I put Serbia as female -as France- but I am sure of it...).
Why Serbia is officially neutral? Why Serbia has no Russian soldiers/base?
Because Serbs feel and are Europeans.

Tip: Never give an answer in a debate; especially the wrong one.
And in general, from a near 51 years old man who made this mistake too often, never answer for somebody else.

“Giving Ossetians Russian passports”
And how is this a provocation? Or does the Georgian President think he owns his citizens?
A lot a people have double nationality in many countries (even triple in Bosnia) and that doesn’t make a reason to attack refugees.
All Croatian from Bosnia have even the right to vote in Croatia. Should we start to attack Croatia?

“Whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence” employing methods than when used against NATO soldiers make them terrorists and made Talibans looking as amateurs: Attack on Theatre, attack on schools targeting clearly children, kidnapping, hostage taking, etc…

Mind you, I do not remember a debate on how these people dare to attack Russia proper as the war is only in Chechnya…
As I can read you even approve them "wars for their independence".
So these were wars, not terrorism...

“And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo?” Kosova. Kosovo is the Serbian name (I Metohija). Kosova is the Albanian version. In employing Kosovo you recognise it is a Serbian territory.
Friendly to whom? Why Russia should recognise a State created to put a US base?

“Then you go "Serbia loves Russia" and expect the Allies to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that.":
Then you go "Kosova loves USA" and expect the Serbs to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that." See, easy to try to understand the other point of view…

Only one country can decide to recognise Kosovo as Kosova and it is Serbia.
This could be achieve by negotiation as I don’t think the Serbia are really willing to have around 2,000,000 hostile citizens in her South, and citizens very costly indeed…

I like how from the UK elections we end to speak about Russia, Kosovo and others problems.
:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.


Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

---

ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...licopters.html

Gordon Brown forced cuts on the defence budget that reduced the number of helicopters available to British forces today, Geoff Hoon told the inquiry into the Iraq war.

By James Kirkup Political Correspondent
Published: 5:50PM GMT 19 Jan 2010

The former defence secretary revealed that in 2003, Mr Brown, then the Chancellor, insisted on a reduction in Ministry of Defence spending, which forced him to make “difficult cuts” in orders for equipment including helicopters.

He also told Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war that he delayed ordering body armour for British troops going into Iraq after being told by Tony Blair not to make any visible preparations for war.

Mr Hoon, the first former Cabinet minister to give evidence at the inquiry, was defence secretary from 1999 to 2005.

The Prime Minister has rejected repeated claims that he has denied the Armed Forces the helicopters they need in Afghanistan. British commanders say that fewer British servicemen would have died in roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan if more helicopters were available

There would be more helicopters available today if Mr Brown had not made cuts in 2003, Mr Hoon told the inquiry.

He revealed that in a Whitehall row over departmental accounting, Mr Brown insisted on recouping some earlier spending from future years’ defence budgets.

Mr Hoon said: “We had to look hard at our budget and we had to make some rather difficult cuts in the future equipment programme as a result.”

“It is reasonable to assume that by now, had that budget been spent in the way that we thought we should spend it, then those helicopters would probably be coming into service any time now.”

Mr Hoon also suggested that Mr Brown never gave the MoD enough money, which was underfunded when he arrived in 1999.

He said: “In the subsequent Comprehensive Spending Review programmes, we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received.”

Mr Brown will not give evidence to the inquiry until after the general election, but Mr Hoon’s testimony will renew pressure on the Prime Minister over his support for the Armed Forces.

ARMOUR

Mr Hoon also set the scene for Mr Blair to face difficult questions when he gives evidence next week.

He told the Iraq Inquiry that he had been explicitly ordered by Downing Street in the autumn of 2002 to avoid any “overt” preparations for the conflict that was to begin the following year. When he pressed for authorisation to begin vital planning, he was told to “calm down”.

Under pressure from No 10, the Ministry of Defence delayed an order for extra sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour until November 2002.

When the war began the following year, there was not enough body armour for servicemen to have one set each. At least one soldier, Sergeant Steve Roberts, was shot dead after being told to give his armour to a colleague because there was not enough to go around.

Mr Hoon said in September 2002, he said that he and Admiral Lord Boyce, then the chief of the defence staff, were told by No 10 that they could not make preparations that might attract publicity.

“We were both made very well aware of the attitude in Downing Street towards the requirement for minimizing publicity and for avoiding the visibility of preparations,” he said. “We could not go out, either of us, and overtly prepare.”

Mr Hoon said that he and Lord Boyce had urged Mr Blair to give a clear instruction to begin preparing for war.

But the Prime Minister refused, worrying that could make it harder to agree a new United Nations Security Council Resolution on disarming Saddam.

As a result of that pressure, Mr Hoon said he did not take action on a military request to order more body armour from manufacturers until November 2002.

ah, the working mans hereoes, dependable friends of Her Majesty's Armed Forces!

......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?

“Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing?” Croatia did ethnic cleansing. Flash and Storm Operation,.

“Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing”
Shelling Refugees camps? Fortunately, The Russian Army stop this and gave a blood nose to Georgian President.
Unfortunately I would prefer NATO doing the job as Russia is not a model of democracy, but I couldn’t pick.
If only we have done this at the start in former Yugoslavia…

“NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism” I think NATO (1949) pre-exited Warsaw pact (1955)…
So, for Russian eyes “Warsaw Pact basically exists because of US Imperialism”.
Now we can start to list all the post WW2 conflicts and debate who started them, but is it really useful?

Seamus, the fighting retreat is a legend. The complete disaster / rout was avoided by the German Generals who lost the war in asking Civilians to negotiate the peace with no cards to play.

The collapse within Germany was preceded by the collapse on the front.

This is the reason why the Treaty and the conditions were so harsh.
The German Army was so badly that it wasn’t a possible threat for the Allies.
With the entrance of the USA, Germany had to face an endless supply of men and potentially material as the WW2 will show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Bosnia and Kosavo are both better off now than they were

---

Define "better off". GDP many times smaller than it was before the war, industrial production constantly declining, foreign debts are getting larger, instability, extremely expensive, complicated and ineffective administration, civil amd human rights trampled and in the case of Kosovo, sky-high crime rate, which is only natural when you put drug lords and war criminals in charge.

And after a few decades, after hundreds of thousand people are expelled, after tones of narcotics pass through and thousands of organs are sold on the black market it will probably become a better place and someone somewhere will declare a "win" for the western democracies, a proof that it all works and that everything was justified.

Quote:

---

irrc the Kosovans want to build a statue of Tony Blair.

---

Speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Don't you mean, "If Italy attacked Croatia", which is what Russia did, or perhaps, "If Croatia attacked Istria", maybe that's what you think Georgia did.

---

Actually, Georgia broke the agreement they had with South Ossetia and moved in the troops, attacking both local troops and Russian peacekeepers. Russian troops moved in and kicked them out.

But I actually meant what I said. Italy is "provoking" with offering passports. The issuing of passports is hardly a provocation. There are a lot of countries doing that. Spain issues passports to people from her ex-colonies. Does that mean Spain is trying to provoke a war with South American countries?

Quote:

---

Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing? Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

---

Thank God it ended before any ethnic cleansing could take place. We'll never know.

Quote:

---

You're probably right, mainly because the war didn't last as long. In any case, Kosovo wishes to be a seperate country, but South Ossetia looks likely to be annexed to Russia.

---

We'll see. If they wanna be a part of Russia they just might become, but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

---

Wasn't it Soviet imperialism? Those two terms are not interchangeable, even though some try to present it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':


......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?

---

What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade. :book:

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:

Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/...-ippr-aircraft

Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade. :knight:

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...r-than-ours.do

“From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.”
That is if we can pay for our armies and renew our material. Or even we have material. The tanks level is historically lower than ever...

Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…
:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade. :book:

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:

Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/...-ippr-aircraft

Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade. :knight:

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...r-than-ours.do

---

i read the IPPR report when it came it, and it is drivel.

Quote:

---

“This year, as part of a package of savings measures identified to enable the MoD to remain within ’09-10 budgets, cover outside the hurricane period has been temporarily withdrawn.”

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6994452.ece

Good to know we can't even fulfil our basic humanitarian assistance tasks because of limitations in the defence budget (not to mention the massive successes our frigate enjoyed in a counter-narcotics role when it was deployed in the area earlier in the year, a role no longer being performed).

Also a whole host of other articles floating around about defence spending in general. Seems defence may play a significant role in the election debate if this amount of news coverage and analysis continues all the way into the election campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6994452.ece

Good to know we can't even fulfil our basic humanitarian assistance tasks because of limitations in the defence budget (not to mention the massive successes our frigate enjoyed in a counter-narcotics role when it was deployed in the area earlier in the year, a role no longer being performed).

Also a whole host of other articles floating around about defence spending in general. Seems defence may play a significant role in the election debate if this amount of news coverage and analysis continues all the way into the election campaign.

---

Unless the main parties actually make a stand, it's unlikely. Especially not while the service heads are apparently at each other's throats. No politician will wade in untill it's been resolved internally, unless they are very coragious, in the political sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

No politician will wade in untill it's been resolved internally,

---

Problem is it probably won't get resolved until there is a Defence Review, which won't happen until after the election. Personally, I'm fairly happy to see some senior armed forces members finally come out and say they have basically been underfunded for some time. Makes a mockery of Brown's claim he has always fully supported the armed forces (all the more damning with Hoon's recent revelations in the Iraq enquiry).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

unless they are very coragious, in the political sense.

---

Is that a 'Yes, Minister' reference? :laugh4:

article on the Defence civil-war being conducted by the service chiefs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...the-world.html

Whitehall's civil war will decide our place in the world
The demand of Gen Sir David Richards to focus on troops over high-end technology makes sense in this current financial mess, writes Thomas Harding.

By Thomas Harding
Published: 6:40AM GMT 20 Jan 2010

On the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence, out of sight of the public, a battle is raging as fierce as any firefight in Afghanistan. In the offices of Britain's three Service chiefs, and those of the ministers and senior civil servants, pencils are being worn to the nub in drafting and redrafting arguments that will largely determine Britain's place in the world in the next few decades.

Two key speeches this week, the first by the head of the Army, Gen Sir David Richards, and the second 14 hours later by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, have set out the basic positions. Gen Richards believes the wars of tomorrow will need more troops, and less high-end technology; Stanhope argues that his Service must retain the "blue-water" capability to protect the sea lanes and fight another Falklands.

It is a debate that the public needs to hear, for what it boils down to is what kind of nation we want Britain to be – a global power that is able to influence world events, or simply a big fish in the European pond? The former requires military might, without which we could soon be dropped as America's closest ally, a relationship that gives us the stature to punch above our weight.

Having been denied a proper defence review for a decade, the Armed Forces are desperately out of shape, and need to be reorganised rapidly for the wars of the 21st century. With larger slices of the cake going to the RAF and Navy, it is only natural for the Army, which has done most of the fighting in the last decade, to want to redistribute the wealth.

Gen Richards's arguments on this theme are compelling. He claims that we can no longer afford the "exquisite" technology to fight some undefined foe with hardware equivalent to our own.

While there will be "state-on-state" wars, these will probably be fought by proxy and be similar to Afghanistan. So we have to take the risk of devoting our limited resources to the most likely and dangerous scenarios. In Afghanistan, he points out, we are using multi-billion-pound aircraft to fight insurgents armed with $50 AK47s.

Why not use the Tucano instead – a propeller-driven, well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft? After all, you could buy 16 – an entire squadron – for the cost of one Eurofighter Typhoon.

Needless to say, the other Services have a fair distance to travel before they accept this point. I put the Tucano option to RAF commanders at their headquarters in High Wycombe a year ago and was met with snorts of derision from a community whose jets clock up the cost of a Ferrari on every sortie over Afghanistan.

In the current financial mess, with the MoD facing an £8 billion black hole in its funding, we simply cannot have all we want. This means that the Services have to accept that nothing is secure in the equipment programmes. The overwhelming requirement, Gen Richards argues, is for more troops – "boots on the ground" – to occupy territory and win consent among the local population. That can't be done by a jet pilot at 25,000ft, or a submariner deep below the waves.

Other countries have seen the light – Australia, Canada and others have increased land forces by nearly 20 per cent. But it would mean accepting limits on our other capabilities: Admiral Stanhope mentioned the Falklands three times in his speech yesterday, to labour the point that we need a Navy that can slug its way through 8,000 miles of hostile waters, carrying three brigades and enough air power to defend them.

In a world flush with money, that would be helpful. But today it sounds antediluvian. Many naval officers are cringing at the billions being spent on fantastic warships that will probably never face a foe. You could buy half-a-dozen corvettes for the £1 billion Type 45 air defence destroyers, which are in any case likely to struggle against multiple attacks by fast, small boats.

What is more, all thise high-tech equipment is actually pricing Britain out of the export market: no one can afford to buy our destroyers, submarines, helicopters or aircraft carriers. If British ship-builders were churning out dozens of affordable warships, there is every chance that jobs in the industry would be sustained by foreign contracts rather than taxpayers' wallets.

And even the argument that we need to keep up with the Americans doesn't ring entirely true. Interestingly, those in the Pentagon have been discreetly sounded out about what they want from any reform to the British military. Their response was: "You don't have to be there from day one to fight your way in – but when you commit to a campaign, make sure that you are there to see it through to the end."

Last year was the toughest for the Army since Northern Ireland in 1972, with 108 fatalities in Helmand, and the public prepared for worse in 2010. The offensive is going to be taken to the Taliban, which means risk, and more casualties in the short term.

General Richards's message – which appears to be inexorably winning the argument – is that if we have to make tough choices, the best option is to structure our military around winning this kind of war, not buying fighter jets that can do multi-million-dollar handstands.

Thomas Harding is defence correspondent of 'The Daily Telegraph'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Problem is it probably won't get resolved until there is a Defence Review, which won't happen until after the election. Personally, I'm fairly happy to see some senior armed forces members finally come out and say they have basically been underfunded for some time. Makes a mockery of Brown's claim he has always fully supported the armed forces (all the more damning with Hoon's recent revelations in the Iraq enquiry).

---

It's an interesting and important discussion to be sure. You can only really prepare for what you already have experience of dealing with, and the last thing you worked on will always appear the most likely future task to respond to.

This argument is as much about what the UK armed forces are asked to do, a demand itself based on an appreciation (educated guess) of what the response the most likely next engagement(s) will require.

it's kind of another no-win situation. To retain absolute flexibility, you would hold off investing and only do so on proper evaluation of needs -but have no short term response capability. Equally, to fully commit to a single type of warfare, e.g. COIN in Afghanistan would leave you under-prepared for a conflict with a more industrialised opponent (with MBTs, air-power etc).

I'm glad I don't have to make that call!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Is that a 'Yes, Minister' reference? :laugh4:

---

indeed, it's a timeless programme :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

it's kind of another no-win situation. To retain absolute flexibility, you would hold off investing and only do so on proper evaluation of needs -but have no short term response capability. Equally, to fully commit to a single type of warfare, e.g. COIN in Afghanistan would leave you under-prepared for a conflict with a more industrialised opponent (with MBTs, air-power etc).

---

or to pose the other option; the ability to pull off the next Sierra Leone.

there is another option other than COIN that will maintain Britain as a Great Power, as stated in the first link in my sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

or to pose the other option; the ability to pull off the next Sierra Leone.

there is another option other than COIN that will maintain Britain as a Great Power, as stated in the first link in my sig.

---

So more COIN or 21st Century gunboat diplomacy/military aid? Sounds exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i read the IPPR report when it came it, and it is drivel.

---

The basic assumption seems to be that the UK is in terminal decline, that sort of thinking about your own country just isn't healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

article on the Defence civil-war being conducted by the service chiefs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...the-world.html

---

I think there are a couple of interesting points made in that article although I don't think the author really grasped them. It basically comes down to a debate of numbers vs individual capability of each platform (and by each platform I include troops).

For example, as he points out, you can have lots of less capable warships or one with a range of advanced capabilities, same with the aircraft example; numbers vs individual capability. With the more recent procurement, the balance has clearly landed on the capability side, we are getting fewer but individually more capable weapon platforms. However, I think the author misses two key points:

1) General Sir David Richards argument isn't just for more troops, it's for more specialist troops/special forces who, compared to your average soldier, cost vastly more to train and equip. He isn't advocating sticking a $50 AK47 in some random British guys hand and packing him off to Afghanistan, which would obviously be the cheapest method and (if you could get the volunteers) provide the most numbers. General Richards is therefore landing on the capability side of the numbers/capability debate too, he is just advocating the other services need to suffer to pay for the army to get increased numbers of more capable platforms.

2) I think there is an argument to be made that even if the Royal Navy and RAF only asked for less capable platforms, they would still be told to have fewer of them. You don't see other nations with massive fleets of less capable warships, they just generally have fewer, less capable warships (http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp). Why do people think the same thing wouldn't happen in the UK? You just need to look at the numbers of minehunters and offshore patrol vessels procured compared to initial requirements (both relatively cheap weapons platforms compared to the destroyers) to see this in action. In this situation, it seems natural both the Navy and RAF would push for the most capable platforms they can, in the knowledge they would only get a few of them, come what may.


This is also ignoring the fact that General Richards wants to prepare the Army for a conflict we are very unlikely to want to fight again anytime soon. Can you really see the British public supporting another long, drawn-out affair "to occupy territory and win consent among the local population"? It is too late to restructure the armed forces for Afghanistan, that boat sailed long ago and I believe it's unlikely we would get sucked into another such conflict anytime soon and, even if we did, what are the chances it would be in a landlocked country with such inhospitable terrain? There are virtually no other countries with the same environmental conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

1. I think there are a couple of interesting points made in that article although I don't think the author really grasped them. It basically comes down to a debate of numbers vs individual capability of each platform (and by each platform I include troops).

2. For example, as he points out, you can have lots of less capable warships or one with a range of advanced capabilities, same with the aircraft example; numbers vs individual capability. With the more recent procurement, the balance has clearly landed on the capability side, we are getting fewer but individually more capable weapon platforms. However, I think the author misses two key points:

3. General Sir David Richards argument isn't just for more troops, it's for more specialist troops/special forces who, compared to your average soldier, cost vastly more to train and equip. He isn't advocating sticking a $50 AK47 in some random British guys hand and packing him off to Afghanistan, which would obviously be the cheapest method and (if you could get the volunteers) provide the most numbers. General Richards is therefore landing on the capability side of the numbers/capability debate too, he is just advocating the other services need to suffer to pay for the army to get increased numbers of more capable platforms.

4. I think there is an argument to be made that even if the Royal Navy and RAF only asked for less capable platforms, they would still be told to have fewer of them. You don't see other nations with massive fleets of less capable warships, they just generally have fewer, less capable warships (http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp). Why do people think the same thing wouldn't happen in the UK? You just need to look at the numbers of minehunters and offshore patrol vessels procured compared to initial requirements (both relatively cheap weapons platforms compared to the destroyers) to see this in action. In this situation, it seems natural both the Navy and RAF would push for the most capable platforms they can, in the knowledge they would only get a few of them, come what may.

5. This is also ignoring the fact that General Richards wants to prepare the Army for a conflict we are very unlikely to want to fight again anytime soon. Can you really see the British public supporting another long, drawn-out affair "to occupy territory and win consent among the local population"? It is too late to restructure the armed forces for Afghanistan, that boat sailed long ago and I believe it's unlikely we would get sucked into another such conflict anytime soon and, even if we did, what are the chances it would be in a landlocked country with such inhospitable terrain? There are virtually no other countries with the same environmental conditions.

---

1. I disagree with the author entirely, but i am pleased the debate is getting coverage.

2. True, there is a balance to be made.

3. Absolutely, he wants the other services to pay for his expanded army, and while i'm sympathetic to shrinking the RAF i am absolutely against a RN that is any smaller, as Louis pointed out, its plain embarrassing! :whip:

4. Too true, every time the Navy have been asked to decommission a destroyer early here, and put a few frigates into 'extended readiness' there in order to ensure future equipment programs................. they get screwed, again, and again, and again.

5. Good point, this is yet another reason for Britain to head in the direction of Strategic Raiding, (in addition to the fact that it is a capability unavailable to virtually anyone else and therefore valuable), because it is quick and usually used for 'punchy' and exciting operations that the public find easier to support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The basic assumption seems to be that the UK is in terminal decline, that sort of thinking about your own country just isn't healthy.

---

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

---

too true, don't think i have read a less strategic document that the IPRR drivel Louis quotes.

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Context

There is no doubt that a defence review is well overdue and the recent announcement by the MoD that one will take place is welcome news. Whether it reports before the next general election is of course another point, any incoming Conservative government will have their own ideas. The IPPR report is not to be scoffed at because of the breadth and depth of it’s analysis. Many commentators have chosen to characterise it as left wing rubbish produced by a pet New Labour think tank. This is to do the report a disservice; it deserves some consideration even if one might not agree with its conclusions.
The report summary is split into 4 parts, a set of observations on the current security environment, a statement of principles that should underpin the UK’s response to this environment, a summary of conclusions and finally a list of its 109 recommendations.
Observations

Without seeking to repeat verbatim what the report states (go and read it yourself) they are summarise here;

• The process of globalisation and power diffusion continues
• Unstable and fragile states are growing in number and outnumber stables ones by 2 to 1
• Climate change, poverty and inequality are exacerbating the problem of instability
• Transnational criminal networks continue to expand
• A globalised neo-jihadist ideology has emerged
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons continues
• Rapid advances in information and biotechnologies have created new dependencies and vulnerabilities
• Humanity is exposed to a greater risk of pandemic
• Critical infrastructure is increasingly fragile and in private hands
• The position of the US is changing
• Individual EU nations continue to decline
• Spending constraints on security will continue and worsen

These all paint a fairly bleak picture but the report is at pains to offer some optimism and steers away from the ‘we’re all doomed’ position. It is hard to disagree with any of these observations; they apply equally to the UK and many other nations.
Principles

Underpinning the IPPR’s recommendations are 9 key principles, these being;

• The objective of national security is to protect the UK population from the full spectrum of risks
• These risks must have a wide definition including man-made and natural
• British sovereignty must be exercised responsibly
• Increases in multilateral cooperation is needed
• Extensive partnerships between the public and private sector must feature in security policy
• Demonstrating and establishing the legitimacy of state action is a strategic imperative
• A commitment to building national resilience is an integral element of national security
• A range of flexible national capabilities, both civil and military, should be forged into a cohesive whole

---

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-1/

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…
:laugh4:

---

Yes, it is clear where I get my inspiration from. ~;)

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.



Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. :cry:)
More importantly, I note that Jean-Dominique Merchet is almost 51 years old, franc-comtois, and blogs about military matters.

c toi!! It is you, isn't it, mon pote? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. :cry:)

---

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.

---

It is a weird euphemism, isn't it?

Then again, considering it is 2010, one wonders if it isn't a misleading euphemism nowadays to still speak of departments of 'education'. :wink:




Edit: ffs, try to avoid glaring spelling mistakes Louis, when lampooning declining educational standards. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-1/

---

you quote some bullet points from their introduction, how about you try these on for size:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-3/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkdefence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPPR

13. The future defence investment programme should pursue greater UK defence capability specialisation within the context of a deepening of European defence integration and the wider NATO alliance of which we are apart. We need a focus on command and control assets, tactical ground-air support, heavy lift aircraft, cyber warfare capability, and special-forces. We also need to emphasise high quality Service personnel training and an increase in overall service numbers.

---

We absolutely refute the recommendation that the UK should deepen European defence integration. Given the recent farcical EU mission to Dharfur and ongoing ‘commitment issues’ in Afghanistan our EU partners are simply too unreliable and any further integration would be beset with the same old national priorities and self interest that are the current realities. Whilst one should be under no illusions about our position in the transatlantic ‘special relationship’ we must recognise that the US, NATO and even the Commonwealth represent the future of our security. The EU is simply unable to commit to any operation where there is any serious opposition and we need to be realistic. The selection of capabilities that we need to concentrate on also seem rather ill thought through and arbitrary, lacking any real insight or recognition of where our EU partners might take up the slack in the areas we neglect. The desire to concentrate on high quality training and an increase in overall numbers is sensible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkdefence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPPR

15. The Government should thoroughly re-examine, as part of a Strategic Review of Security, its projected defence equipment requirements. This re-examination should explore all viable options for capability downgrading and quantity reductions, as well as for complete cancellation of some equipment programmes. For illustrative rather than comprehensive purposes, we suggest that programmes such as the Future Carrier, the Joint Strike Fighter, and purchases of Type 45 Destroyers and of Astute class submarines should be in the frame.

---

No programme or capability should be off limits in any review but the recommendation here is to trade off so called high end assets in favour of the unconventional capabilities discussed elsewhere, for example special-forces or close air support. Although only mentioned for illustrative purposes those in the frame would seem to centre on the maritime domain, these would not be easy choices. Without, for example, the Type 45 destroyers, any amphibious or maritime task group would be completely vulnerable to air and missile attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkdefence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPPR

17. The future of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent should be considered as an integral part of the recommended Strategic Review of Security. This should consider:

Whether, as the Commission believes is the case, a minimum UK deterrent is still needed

* The best and most cost-effective way to provide it, including consideration of whether we should replace the Trident system, as is currently planned, seek to extend the life of the current system further or decide that some other system for providing Britain’s deterrent in a nuclear armed world would be better suited to the strategic circumstances in which we then find ourselves
* The opportunity costs of maintaining our deterrent, in all its possible forms, for other sectors of the UK defence and security budget. This must take into account the costs that would be involved in decommissioning Trident and its facilities.

---

We also believe the UK nuclear capability is intimately tied into our security and status as a nation and in these matters perception IS reality. We must not be perceived, in the growing uncertainty and proliferation in the next 50 years, as going weak on our ultimate means of security. There may be more economic means of wielding the system but whatever means chosen, it must be credible, effective, instantly deployable and survivable. These factors point to a submarine launched system, i.e. Trident or its replacement.

---

wrap your laughing tackle around that oh expert on UK strategic thought. try reading the RUSI report instead, written by a real strategic think tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_U...ices_Institute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

---

If this were really true, why has the Labour government dithered so much over our 2 new aircraft carriers, cancelled some of our new submarines and destroyers and made absolutely no progress over the Future Surface Combatant (replacement for our Type 22 and 23 frigates) and our nuclear deterrent?

All it has achieved is increase the long term costs of all these projects, created uncertainty in the defence industry and put British jobs at risk as companies don't know what expertise they need to keep, if any! Most of the current UK fleet was ordered under the Conservative government, so I don't quite understand how you come to the conclusion Labour has been the one propping up our defence industry.

Just because Labour has increased spending, does not mean they have put that money to good use! As seems to be the case with all the other departments, much of the increase in government spending appears to have just been lost in bureaucracy rather than usefully spent. If you believe Labour, then the defence budget wasn't used for operations (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) but rather they were paid wholly from the contingency fund, as is normal - if this is the case then what has all this extra money you claim has been spent on defence gone? You can't really count the extra money provided from the contingency fund as extra defence spending as it is only designed to pay for the extra costs incurred due to operations, i.e. it provides no additional investment. If you don't believe Labour, then they have been skimming the defence budget to pay for operations (and lied about it), in which case they have been shortchanging the armed forces and forcing them to survive on an smaller budget than before whilst being more operationally committed. Neither scenario can really be described as caring for the armed forces.

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

---

you mean always having an answer? yes, on defence, that about sums it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

---

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus... :beam: