blandy Posted June 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2012 I just wonder whether or not you are planning for the last war, as is traditional. That is an excellent question, Mike.....Diplomatic power is nothing more than the shadow cast by military power, and it was ever thus. It is a good question, and I was going to answer it anyway, but reading yours as well made me answer slightly differently. Anyway, it's a good question because it is exactly the one the Gov't should be asking - namely "what do we want our armed forces for, if we want them at all. is it "to defend the UK territory from possible, conceivable (however unlikely) potential threats?, and if so what are those threats. Having decided what the threats are, you then apportion resources accordingly. or is it "to defend UK territory, plus any friendly territories... or is it "to give ourselves influence and voice in wider global "issues" - whether that be Nuclear disarmament, protecting resource supplies (Oil, water, food, gas..." or is it "to participate in international peacekeeping...." or is it a combo, or none of the above.... Once you know what you aim to have the capability to so, you can determine what men, machines, etc. you need to have. It looks like the Gov't is (again) deciding "we want X sized Army" because it'll cost Y amount, and that's what we've decided is the determining factor. They really should identify, publicly what the "defence" aims of the country are. But they won't, because I doubt they actually have any. They want to play billy big-shot, but don't want to pay the entry fee, or say "we can't afford it" or alternatively "we no longer wish to have the permanent UN council seat, we want to change what we "are" internationally and be like Germany/Switzerland/Sweden/Denmark/Spain/ whoever. Some people think we are too "warmongery", some that we must not put our children and brothers and sisters in danger, and that's fine. But the debate should be about what we want as a nation to do, and then any resourcing would be better understood and allocated. At the moment, and I don't see it changing any time soon, UK gov'ts want to bite off more than they can chew with the teeth we've got now. Edit - and Chindie, above, makes some very good comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2012 Indeed. We (government and public, imo) want our cake and to eat it, with the forces. We play at being a power, while increasingly lacking the conviction or justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2012 The more radical thinkers are talking about splitting the RAF between the army and the RN!! We could call them 'The Royal Flying Corps' and 'The Royal Naval Air Service'. I'm sure there are still a few airworthy Sopwith Camels and Bristol Fighters about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 It is a good question, and I was going to answer it anyway, but reading yours as well made me answer slightly differently. Anyway, it's a good question because it is exactly the one the Gov't should be asking - namely "what do we want our armed forces for, if we want them at all. I doubt they are starting from there. Seems to me it's more about deciding that they want to cut public spending by an arbitrary amount. Following that decision, there will then be a few rounds of debate where they allocate cuts between departments. Their initial gut feel will have suggested that certain departments can be cut quite hard, but as they look into it a bit more, they find that these assumed cuts aren't practicable for one reason or another. They also find that some possible cuts arouse unexpected opposition from within their own ranks, or turn out to cost more than they save, or would require some fundamental changes in legislation, or are otherwise not feasible. At that point, they start making bigger cuts to previously favoured areas which turn out to be more possible to cut than some things they would prefer to cut. But they don't start by defining the aims of a department and identifying the resources necessary. It's more a case of "Your cut is £x, get on and make some savings, we expect you to improve efficiency and cut back-office stuff and be innovative and show me some new thinking and make sure you still deliver all the things we want". Of course it's fantasy. Perhaps even more troublingly, the starting point of having to make cuts is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy that they aren't even starting from the right place. On the plus side, the damage that they will do to their own party morale and that of their supporters will keep them out of power for a few years. Of course they will have wreaked a fair bit of havoc by the time they are thrown out, and not all of that damage can easily be repaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 lets not pretend it was any good before these cuts, it has been an utter shithouse for decades. The only thing that got it by was the performance of the personel when the shit hit the fan. The british army has always been a tinpot organisation going back to ww1. Crap gear, mind numbing exercises, heaps of bullshit, Now it will just have less people in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 8, 2012 Seems to me it's more about deciding that they want to cut public spending by an arbitrary amount. Following that decision, there will then be a few rounds of debate where they allocate cuts between departments. Their initial gut feel will have suggested that certain departments can be cut quite hard, but as they look into it a bit more, they find that these assumed cuts aren't practicable for one reason or another. They also find that some possible cuts arouse unexpected opposition from within their own ranks, or turn out to cost more than they save, or would require some fundamental changes in legislation, or are otherwise not feasible. At that point, they start making bigger cuts to previously favoured areas which turn out to be more possible to cut than some things they would prefer to cut. But they don't start by defining the aims of a department and identifying the resources necessary. It's more a case of "Your cut is £x, get on and make some savings, we expect you to improve efficiency and cut back-office stuff and be innovative and show me some new thinking and make sure you still deliver all the things we want". Of course it's fantasy. Exactly. The SDSR ought to have done the correct thing, but was the exact opposite, starting with the notion of just cutting spending and then seeing how they could juggle things about to mainain a fig leaf of capability while trying to balance competing vested interests, considering whether or not to shut down, forever, industrial capability. I'm sure it's a complex and difficult thing to manage, and I'm equally sure the Gov't is not competent to even try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I don't see the issue. We wont be doing any heavy metal ops solo for the forseeable. I don't see why we need two brigades stocking kit we're not going to be using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts