The UK Armed Forces

[baroldmc]

Do we still actually need the Armed Forces any more in the UK?

When did they last do anything for us that wouldn't have happened anyway?

Given that they gobble up tens of billions of quid every year, are they

up to the job?

Are "the cuts" significantly about Muggins (that's us) paying for the

military adventures they get up to abroad?

Are all those young men and women sacrificing their lives and limbs to

protect us or to protect the upper echelon of the military in their

cushy grace-and-favour lifestyles?

BaroldMc

[James Barber]

The most neutral countries on earth Switzerland and Sweden spend a similar proportion on defence forces.

History seems to tell us that at irregular intervals we need them big time and while we pretend to be a world power sitting on the UN Security Council full time we need them to help face into other conflicts.

The one aspect I suspect our defence forces aren't prepared for is another surprise total war where their capacity to expand hugely will be crucial. Hopefully this is never tested.

[Santerme]

baroldmc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do we still actually need the Armed Forces any

> more in the UK?

>

> When did they last do anything for us that

> wouldn't have happened anyway?

>

> Given that they gobble up tens of billions of

> quid every year, are they

> up to the job?

> Are "the cuts" significantly about Muggins

> (that's us) paying for the

> military adventures they get up to abroad?

>

> Are all those young men and women sacrificing

> their lives and limbs to

> protect us or to protect the upper echelon of

> the military in their

> cushy grace-and-favour lifestyles?

>

> BaroldMc

I actually cannot take a post like this serious!

[Marmora Man]

Santerme, Nor can I - however, tghere is a useful debate to be held on current and future options for our Armed Forces, and the extent to which they should be funded and to what purpose. I shall ponder and add something to this thread for a grown up discussion.

[louisiana]

Paying for ongoing military adventures has often proved to be the downfall of entire civilisations. It's a fascinating subject. See the work of Dr Joseph Tainter for example on civilisations that have collapsed (a fair few) and the analysis of why.

[Marmora Man]

It's interesting - do societies fall / fail because of undue spending on armed forces, or having declined for other reasons do they fa to aknowledge the decline and thus spend disproportionately on armed forces?

The Prime Minister has been pontificating on the situation in Egypt, yet the reality is that UK can do nothing to affect matters there or, beyond chartering a plane, support or assist UK citizens caught up in the situation out there. In previous similar breakdowns in state authority a warship or two off the coast would monitor, support, threaten as necessary and act as a safe base from which to assist Brits evacuate the area if required.

Current defence levels and commitments do not permit that option.

[david_carnell]

MamoraMan - with all due respect, and I think I've made my support and interest in the armed forces clear in the past, the last time British armed forces got involved in Egyptian affairs was a cluster-fuck. Just ask Anthony Eden.

As you say, this issue does warrant sensible debate and I'd also like to come back to it when I've had more time to think about the issue involved.

[Marmora Man]

DC - I was thinking more of an evacuation of UK citizens to ships off shore, which is an action that has long been the task of the Royal Navy. Unfortunately I doubt there are more than 2 or 3 RN ships in the Mediterranean.

[mockney piers]

Percent of GDP looks reasonable, but per capita is relatively high.

I've two issues. 1. We spend it badly. Far too many expensive projects we don't need, particularly when we immediately mothball the results. 2. The empire was a long time ago, we really don't need to throw our orb about any more, let's try not doing it for once.

Military is there for defence after all. Countries like Spain, god, even ireland still manage to contribute to the good things in the world that the armies do without doing too much of those bad things, not a bad model to follow, and frankly cheaper, and sort MM, I know you're biased in favour of submarines, but trident, big fat waste of cash that makes the world worse rather than better.

Hmm, that's more than two issues.

[????]

We are the 2nd largest exporter of Arms in the World...possibly not unconnected

[louisiana]

Augustine's law (14th?)

The problem with research that grows complex and costly is that it can

produce fewer and fewer outputs per unit of investment. Consider what happens to military

technology when it grows complex and costly. In the 1950s-1960s, for example, the U.S. produced

744 B-52 bombers. In the 1980s we produced 100 B-1 bombers. In the 1990s, when the B-2 ?stealth?

bomber went into production, we were able to afford only 20 of them. This is the result of growth

in complexity and costliness.

In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This

aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week

except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

(Augustine was CEO of Lockheed Martin at one time)

[nashoi]

But without military research we wouldn't have this forum, for that alone surely it's worth it.

Defence spending was over 30% of GDP in the Soviet Union, which did collapse, and despite record levels of spending is still only 4% in the States and even less in the UK, which won't. Our ageing population, healthcare, environment all pose much bigger problems than defence spending surely?

There's no reason why the government shouldn't have to keep justifying its spending though, particularly given the breathtaking inefficiency of MOD procurement. After the last cuts were announced the press claimed the number of troops we could maintain on a prolonged overseas mission would drop from 8000 to 6000. Is this true? Iraq and Afghanistan have both suffered from insufficient troops and equipment which has lead to British troops being somewhat ignominiously replaced by Americans at one point or another.

The last wholly successful mission by the army, I am aware of, was Operation Barras in Sierra Leone. This was carried out by Special Forces with Para support and American logistical support. Is this a more likely future for the British armed forces? Afterall, when those spending cuts were announced the only thing the Clinton seemed concerned about were any potential cuts to our nuclear deterrent and Special Forces commitments. I suppose put as simply as possible, where infantry, heavy armour or major capital projects (eg aircraft carriers) are concerned do you pass a critical point due to cutbacks where you will never have enough, so is there any point having any at all?

These are just points just picked up from the usual press and probably all cobblers, so I am curious what those of you with more specialist knowledge will make of the subject, when you've finished ruminating that is;-). An entirely suitable subject for debate though imho.

[louisiana]

Nashoi, indeed healthcare, environment, ageing population all pose huge problems. Which we shall have to deal with, come what may, probably in the face of declining oil, energy in general, and all the rest.

So what we probably cannot afford are extended military adventures in various parts of the world. They are expensive.

Lessons from history: Constantine doubled his armed forces, and massively upped his cavalry as a proportion of that. Estimated to be the most expensive decisions he took. Many consequences, including huge debasement of the currency, 50-100% taxation of agricultural surpluses, leading to a huge flight from the land ... Disastrous.

[mockney piers]

Iffy history. Roman empire and people within itm hrived during a period including and 200 odd years beyond Constantine.

Downfall (in the west) was down to military (really, read beauracratic) overstretch coupled with loss of revenue Fromm north Africa, but many generations past that, which was in many ways high point of empire.

[Brendan]

I always thought Constantine?s downfall was when he fell foul of the First of the Fallen by selling his soul to the Lords of Hell in order to trick them into curing his terminal lung cancer.

[louisiana]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Iffy history. Roman empire and people within itm

> hrived during a period including and 200 odd years

> beyond Constantine.

> Downfall (in the west) was down to military

> (really, read beauracratic) overstretch coupled

> with loss of revenue Fromm north Africa, but many

> generations past that, which was in many ways high

> point of empire.

Yes, Mockney, but fall it did, and the military/bureaocratic overstretching led to progressive fall in revenues, as over-taxed land-holders over a few generations abandoned the land (and then the progressive debasement of the currency too). Farmers were the mainstay of the empire's taxation. Yes, this happened over a period, but it happened.

The trouble with military incursions in those days was that pillage is a bit of a one-off thing in terms of benefits, and then you had to maintain military might over an expanded area over a very long period at huge expense. Today, there is no pillage benefit; except for contracts to private enterprises such as Blackwater etc. For governments (and taxpayers) there's just this huge ongoing cost. (And of course in modern times the PR disaster at home that is wholesale loss of life of soldiers. Did we learn nothing from the US incursions in Asia?) Which is why they are all desperately trying to swim away from it. Now.

[Santerme]

There is a reasoned debate to be had

I too will input once back home

[Jeremy]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The most neutral countries on earth Switzerland

> and Sweden spend a similar proportion on defence

> forces.

According to Wikipedia :

Switzerland - 0.8% of GDP

Sweden - 1.3% of GDP

UK - 2.5% of GDP

I really believe that our defence budget is way too high, and we shouldn't get involved in conflicts which needn't involve us. I don't know what has brought about this over-inflated sense of importance... maybe we just can't let go of the past.

[Huguenot]

The UK controls 3.5% of the world economy with only 0.8% of its population.

We're a nation that's utterly reliant on the resources of the rest of the world to fund this lifestyle.

This includes the coltan from the warzones of the Congo without which we'd need to give up our mobile phones, the oil from Iraq or West Africa.

If we want to get less involved, be prepared for an enormous climb down in lifestyle and living standards. There will be plenty more resource wars to come.

[Marmora Man]

I would add to above post that 90+% of our imports / exports travel by sea - making the naval contribution to our defence an important element. The fact that the RN is now too small to effectively protect shipping from Somali pirates is a telling one.

Longer, more considered post to follow.

[baroldmc]

There are all sorts of things that happen, really important things,

negative things, happening to us all the time due to the continuing

dominance and distortion of power by our Armed Forces within the UK

Establishment.

Just one of those things was the Iraqi adventure. Many of us who

became totally disillusioned with Blair over his decline from his

1997 Camelot moment to warmonger and quisling for the US, declare

that his 'psychology' is faulty.

Piffle! The British political class like to behave as the direct descendants of

the victors who sat at Yalta in 1945. After Suez in '56. we should have allowed

our colonial egos to deflate. Instead, we maintained our Armed Forces at such a

scale that they have now become the ultimate tail that wags the dog. Blair was

a major casualty of this. Their huge presence perpetuates the falsehood that

the UK can go being successfully belligerent, brandishing nuclear toys and joining

up with "Policeman" Bush and now Obama to lay waste foreign lands.

It's sad; and not only because we've got the habit of losing

BarryMc

[Huguenot]

No problem there with rewriting history to suit your purposes he Barry?

[mockney piers]

Yep, rather dodgy.

Everything I've read or heard tells me that the military would rather have not touched Iraq with a bargepole. You only need to see how post invasion they hunkered down and handed Basra over to the bandits and militias (not our proudest moment) to see just how little they wanted to be there so our politicians could bleat on about shoulders.

This was Blair's war pure and simple, it really doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Anyway, we digress.

[Brendan]

Anyway back on the point correct me if I?m wrong (and I?m sure you will) didn?t Japan abandon its military after WW2? How did that work out? I kinda understand that they have taken the idea up again now but they seemed to do pretty well over the second part of the last century. You know with Toyota and Akira and shit.

[Huguenot]

I think that's a misunderstanding of the Japanese 'miracle'.

Japan was a heavily funded vassal state of the US used as an economic weapon against Europe and a staging post against communism. The US strong armed Japan into GATT (predecessor to World Trade Organisation) despite European protests against Japanesd policies explicitly targeted at flooding export markets whilst protecting their own.

Japan didn't have to 'abandon its military', its military was the United States. The only difference was the US called the shots so long as Japan would do as it was told.

Whilst investment by the US into Japan in the 50s amounted to more than a quarter of it's GDP, the UK was placed under massive financial penalties in order to pay back US involvement in the war in Europe.

The US explicity positioned itself to control world trade through domination of global trade routes like Panama (with the Monroe doctrine) and Suez (through undermining British influence).

No-one else was looking after British interests - certainly not the US.

Post war France had been disarmed by the Germans, Germany had been disarmed by the Allies and Russia, and the UK was de facto responsible for holding up the European side of NATO.

As a consequence the UK controls what is largely viewed as the second most powerful armed forces in the world.

High UK armed spending is simply a legacy of these situations.

Sudden unilateral disarmament leaves a massive power vacuum guaranteed to cause more problems for the UK than disarmament could possibly save.

Nobody likes a war, and nor do I - but it is a benefit to see things in a historical perspective.