Britain ‘can No Longer Afford To Be A Mini-us’

[cashinmattress]

Britain ‘can no longer afford to be a mini-US’

Britain should stop trying to be “a mini-United States†and give up maintaining armed forces capable of policing world trouble spots, a report from an influential think tank said yesterday.

After a two-year review, the high-powered panel of experts said the UK simply could not afford its international role and recommended slashing £24 billion (Dh146bn) from proposed defence spending.

It also said the government should rethink its commitment to a £20bn project to update the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent.

The report, prepared by a panel brought together by the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research, is being seen as the most fundamental challenge to the UK defence strategy in 50 years.

Lord Paddy Ashdown, joint chairman of the panel and a former international high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, told the BBC yesterday: “One conclusion we arrive at is that we can no longer afford to maintain a museum of Cold War armaments.

“We can no longer afford to maintain full-spectrum armed forces capable of operating anywhere in the globe like a mini-United States.â€

Lord George Robertson, co-chairman of the panel and a former Nato secretary general, added: “In the post-9/11, post-financial crisis world, we must be smarter and more ruthless in targeting national resources as the real security risks.

“When it comes to security, national self-reliance is a dangerous fantasy. European co-operation is the only viable way forward in many areas. We need to make it work.â€

Among the proposals set out in the report is the creation of a US-style national security council and a refocusing of defence priorities, which should be aimed at combating Mumbai-style terrorist attacks and rogue states rather than conventional threats.

The report also warns that the mission in Afghanistan could fail unless it is changed to include a joint civilian-military stabilisation and reconstruction taskforce.

“The emphasis must be on responding to the shifting geopolitical landscape, and unconventional threats like climate change, energy shortages, nuclear proliferation and neo-jihadi terrorism,†the report says.

“Reliance on nuclear deterrence for long-term security is increasingly unsafe given concerns over proliferation to both state and non-state actors.â€

Planned spending on new aircraft carriers, an Anglo-American strike fighter project and on new destroyers and submarines should be cut, the report stated flatly.

Lord Ashdown said he personally favoured scrapping the Trident programme and replacing it with some other, cheaper and more flexible nuclear missile programme.

The report itself merely said Britain should “revisit†the philosophy behind Trident and added that the nation should be encouraging moves by the White House aimed, eventually, at ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Britain also needed to pursue far more comprehensive military cooperation with other European states while maintaining its “special relationship†with the United States.

“We must reach out to establish a new concordat with other nations and other global powers in order to secure a secure world in changing and turbulent circumstances,†Lord Ashdown said. “That does require new thinking.â€

The report comes at a time when all areas of public spending in Britain are under pressure because of the economic turndown.

While Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the head of the Royal Navy, has defended the building of two new large aircraft carriers from accusations that they are outdated Cold War relics, his case has not been helped by claims yesterday that the cost of the ships has risen to £5 billion from £3.9 billion in the span of a year.

Additionally, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief, has criticised many of the ministry of defence’s new equipment programmes as being “irrelevant†to modern warfare.

Bill Rammell, the defence minister, gave a guarded welcome to the report but defended the government’s military equipment programme and the Trident refurbishment plan, which is supported by the opposition Conservatives but would be scrapped by the Liberal Democrats.

“We don’t put forward proposals to invest in equipment unless we believe it is necessary,†he told the BBC. “We remain committed to the [Trident] policy we set out two years ago.

“We are talking about our national security. We constantly need to keep our position under review and we need to work for multilateral nuclear disarmament.â€

But he added: “When we look at the risks moving forward over the coming decades, we don’t believe at the moment it would be safe to fail to make decisions now which would effectively commit us to unilateral disarmament in the future, regardless of the circumstances.â€

The report’s proposal to slash £24bn from major defence procurement projects has sent shock waves through industry.

Ian Godden, the chief executive of the Society of British Aerospace Co, said: “The debate about big projects versus better conditions for troops or more boots on the ground, is a false one or at best highly risky.

“The real issue is the fact that, as a nation, we no longer adequately fund our own defence. Threats to our security do not go away simply because we are in a recession.â€

Other members of the panel that prepared the report included Lord Charles Guthrie of Craigiebank, former head of Britain’s defence staff, and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UK ambassador to the United Nations and to Iraq.

We need to stop playing at soldiering ca. 1909. End of empire.

[the flying pig]

sounds like an outstandingly good idea.

the tories would never buy it though, ever, and i very much doubt that labour would either.

[OnlyMe]

It took a high power panel two years to work that out? :angry:

[dr ray]

Lord George Robertson, co-chairman of the panel and a former Nato secretary general, (and previous Nulabour Secretary of State for Defence) added: “In the post-9/11, post-financial crisis world, we must be smarter and more ruthless in targeting national resources as the real security risks.

“When it comes to security, national self-reliance is a dangerous fantasy. European co-operation is the only viable way forward in many areas. We need to make it work.â€

Amazing how running out of money focusses the mind

[oracle]

it's an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint from a man who has himself served in the forces.

Those EU "allies" are happily chopping away at our way of life little by little.

Preparation for overt wars domestically is necessary just in case our comrades decide they are going to pull a fast one at some point.

it would seem a reasonably devious tactic to get us to deplete all our miltary gear in quagmires like afghanistsan,become embroiled in a major battle to pretty much finish us off.....with only a lip-service contribution on their part.

and when we are short of hardware and manpower,move in for the kill.

the political dismantling of our defences started more than 20 years ago by economic starvation.

so we can't become complacent one bit.

the politicians know full well what they are doing to our country,and it's about time the rest of the public did.

it's not a matter of throwing them in theatres around the world to gain hegemony,this is about defence of the realm.

as with the US adage about firearms.

better to have it and not need it.....than need it and not have it.

Edited July 2, 2009 by oracle

[oracle]

Amazing how running out of money focusses the mind

well maybe they could do something really revolutionary and divert all that salary for "LGB post-op outreach executives" into something of more value like a decent set of body armour for our soldiers.

priorities!!!!!!

[cashinmattress]

the political dismantling of our defences started more than 20 years ago by economic starvation.

so we can't become complacent one bit.

Do you not see the problem here? The money has run out.

Get used to it.

End of empire.

[okaycuckoo]

it's an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint from a man who has himself served in the forces.

Those EU "allies" are happily chopping away at our way of life little by little.

Preparation for overt wars domestically is necessary just in case our comrades decide they are going to pull a fast one at some point.

it would seem a reasonably devious tactic to get us to deplete all our miltary gear in quagmires like afghanistsan,become embroiled in a major battle to pretty much finish us off.....with only a lip-service contribution on their part.

and when we are short of hardware and manpower,move in for the kill.

the political dismantling of our defences started more than 20 years ago by economic starvation.

so we can't become complacent one bit.

the politicians know full well what they are doing to our country,and it's about time the rest of the public did.

it's not a matter of throwing them in theatres around the world to gain hegemony,this is about defence of the realm.

as with the US adage about firearms.

better to have it and not need it.....than need it and not have it.

I agree and disagree.

Function of government is to maintain property rights through the rule of law and defend the border. The EU has the rule of law and forms our border through its customs union, like it or not. Russia and Iran are lawless and predatory - our greatest enemies.

Army & navy capability should be maintained from taxes diverted to non-EU immigrants/welfare scroungers/public sector managers/bankers in general.

[oracle]

Do you not see the problem here? The money has run out.

no it hasn't.

the quantity in use needs to be redeployed,that's all.

who would you rather pay your tax money to?

a serving soldier in need of a decent bit of lifesaving kit,or a feral chav-spawn vikki pollard to spend on booze,fags and ganja?

we live in dangerous times.

Even back as far as the roman empire,the factors noted for it's demise were overspending on public works projects,cheap food,debauchery and less than industrious business.

so we're repeating exactly the same policies.....it's like somebody has an instruction manual they are working from!!

if we follow the same path we will meet the same fate,and go out with a bang.

(the aftermath of which will be recycled into religeon AKA emperor constantine)

Edited July 2, 2009 by oracle

[cashinmattress]

I agree and disagree.

Function of government is to maintain property rights through the rule of law and defend the border. The EU has the rule of law and forms our border through its customs union, like it or not. Russia and Iran are lawless and predatory - our greatest enemies.

Army & navy capability should be maintained from taxes diverted to non-EU immigrants/welfare scroungers/public sector managers/bankers in general.

We do have a requirement for a defence force to protect our sovereignty, however, do we really need to be denying our nation of the social welfare system it could be over the huge expense and moral hazard of our expeditionary forces and the pointless wars in which they are embroiled?

Whether we like it or not, we cannot compete with the US, Russia, China, India, and a host of others in the coming decades with respect to military forces.

[Coolfonz]

"hose EU "allies" are happily chopping away at our way of life little by little. Preparation for overt wars domestically is necessary just in case our comrades decide they are going to pull a fast one at some point. it would seem a reasonably devious tactic to get us to deplete all our miltary gear in quagmires like afghanistsan,become embroiled in a major battle to pretty much finish us off.....with only a lip-service contribution on their part. and when we are short of hardware and manpower,move in for the kill. the political dismantling of our defences started more than 20 years ago by economic starvation. so we can't become complacent one bit.

the politicians know full well what they are doing to our country,and it's about time the rest of the public did.

it's not a matter of throwing them in theatres around the world to gain hegemony,this is about defence of the realm.

as with the US adage about firearms.

better to have it and not need it.....than need it and not have it."

[Krackersdave]

Typical EU centric socialist tosh.

We spend 30bln on defence and a combined 250bln on welfare and the NHS.. Mini US my hairy ar$e.

Even halving the defense budget will make bugger all difference, in less than a year the saving would be pi$ssed against the wall by the welfare state. It would however send a very clear signal to the world that the UK was not willing to defend it's interests, our position in the world would shrink, our ability to practice diplomacy wiped out.

Within - 10 years the Argies would be back in the Falklands.

[cashinmattress]

no it hasn't.

the quantity in use needs to be redeployed,that's all.

who would you rather pay your tax money to?

a serving soldier in need of a decent bit of lifesaving kit,or a feral chav-spawn vikki pollard to spend on booze,fags and ganja?

we live in dangerous times.

Even back as far as the roman empire,the factors noted for it's demise were overspending on public works projects,cheap food,debauchery and less than industrious business.

so we're repeating exactly the same policies.....it's like somebody has an instruction manual they are working from!!

if we follow the same path we will meet the same fate,and go out with a bang.

(the aftermath of which will be recycled into religeon AKA emperor constantine)

We cannot afford a big military because we are unable create the revenue stream to support it.

Rafts of people starving in the street and the associated social decay and crime wave is not worth the price of a large expeditionary force. Besides, who are we going to invade and pillage in the world today? Turks and Caicos maybe?

Maybe it is time for us to get out of bed with the Americans and quit exporting death to impoverished nations around the globe?

However, it is undeniable that we are at the End of empire.

[okaycuckoo]

We do have a requirement for a defence force to protect our sovereignty, however, do we really need to be denying our nation of the social welfare system it could be over the huge expense and moral hazard of our expeditionary forces and the pointless wars in which they are embroiled?

Whether we like it or not, we cannot compete with the US, Russia, China, India, and a host of others in the coming decades with respect to military forces.

Depends on what you mean by "we".

Britain can't do it on its own, that's clear.

[jammo]

The problem is clearly that the choice of recent wars has been misguided. Had we taken the initiative and waged our own wars on oil rich countries and paid just a token tribute to our US friends, perhaps we could have taken out one or two small countries off our own bat. Seized their assets and made a little cash cow of our own by now. What is the point in having all these nuclear subs and aircraft carriers when we don't use them in anger. Surely we can threaten a few insignificant arab nations and liberate them without the US as our master. By not doing so, we become nothing more than a bouncer to the US forces in these countries, we get shit all. That's not war was meant for, we need tangible rewards for our effort. These foreigners hate us already, why not give them a good reason to, other than that we sound a bit like Americans. A last act of Great Britain? Or a new era of UK superiority which I know we have in us deep down. It wasn't so long ago, you know. Half of these thumb sucking countries can't even speak proper English, let alone man a rudimentary air force/ sea fleet, pathetic bottom feeders. They'll one day thank us for liberating them.

[okaycuckoo]

Ah, you're a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy. Good luck with that. Can be quite sore on the sphincter.

[Quagmire]

I'd much rather see Britain cancel its EU 'subscription' of 65 billion and spend that on defense. That would create jobs and give people a sense of pride in the forces again. With America's dominance sliding I think boosting defense spending would be wise - as long as its not spent on pointless wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[okaycuckoo]

I'd much rather see Britain cancel its EU 'subscription' of 65 billion and spend that on defense. That would create jobs and give people a sense of pride in the forces again. With America's dominance sliding I think boosting defense spending would be wise - as long as its not spent on pointless wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Better spent on wars in Europe?!?!?!

[The Eagle]

Russia and Iran are lawless and predatory - our greatest enemies.

Do you mind giving some evidence for this bold statement?

When was it that Iran has last invaded the UK or seriously threatened to invade it?

All I can think of is the reverse:

"In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to use Iranian railroad capacity during World War II.

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

When will you all finally wake up and realize that our primary enemies are right among us, the banksters that have been exploiting western societies for more than 100 years?!

Edited July 3, 2009 by wise_eagle

[Trampa501]

We cannot afford a big military because we are unable create the revenue stream to support it.

Rafts of people starving in the street and the associated social decay and crime wave is not worth the price of a large expeditionary force. Besides, who are we going to invade and pillage in the world today? Turks and Caicos maybe?

Maybe it is time for us to get out of bed with the Americans and quit exporting death to impoverished nations around the globe?

However, it is undeniable that we are at the End of empire.

If we were smart we'd be selling off the Falklands now - we'll have to relinquish them within 15 years anyway. However it may be politically impossible to do this now, so we'll just have to wait until it's obvious we can't defend them, and the likes of Argentina will just walk in.

[jonewer]

1. We spend 30bln on defence and a combined 250bln on welfare and the NHS.. Mini US my hairy ar$e.

2. Within - 10 years the Argies would be back in the Falklands.

1. Worth noting that the entire defence budget could be paid by the now collapsed national express rail franchise.... Defence spending is a drop in the ocean of government expenditure. And we spend more like £400bn on welfare alone, excluding the NHS and education etc... Even if we did away with all defence spending. No more Royal Navy. Cancel the RAF. Disband the British Army in its entirety... we would barely scratch the surface of government spending. The difference would be maybe a month and a half of government borrowing at todays rates.

2. Suprised they arent already there. Only have to wait a few more years until we have no fixed-wing naval aviation capacity at all. Then they can just walk in. I'd say more like 5 years.

[Markie6]

hmmm having no Army ....lol some you haven't got a clue.

History has a habbit of repeating itself and anybody who thinks we shouldn't bother being able to defend ourselves if push comes to shove isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Some on here think the world will descend into anarchy with a global systemic crash...while i don't agree entirely...who would defend us if we weren't contributing ourselves ?

Empire ended at Suez canal imo

It's easy to tell the average age of people on this forum. Most are from 1982 onwards and have little or no understanding of the sacrifices made by the previous generations. Even their parents were born after the bombs finished dropping

imho ofc

[jonewer]

If we were smart we'd be selling off the Falklands now

You should get a job with the Labour party. Why dont we sell the Isle of Wight as well, while we're at it? Sure that'll keep the parasites in Lambert&Butler and Special Brew for at least 6 months.

[PricedOutNative]

The decline of the Roman empire took decades, it went out with a whimper not a bang.

Even back as far as the roman empire,the factors noted for it's demise were overspending on public works projects,cheap food,debauchery and less than industrious business.

so we're repeating exactly the same policies.....it's like somebody has an instruction manual they are working from!!

if we follow the same path we will meet the same fate,and go out with a bang.

(the aftermath of which will be recycled into religeon AKA emperor constantine)

[Trampa501]

You should get a job with the Labour party. Why dont we sell the Isle of Wight as well, while we're at it? Sure that'll keep the parasites in Lambert&Butler and Special Brew for at least 6 months.

Lol - you think a failed state (which is what we'll be in 10 years) will be able to send a platoon across the English channel, still less a task force across the globe?