UK Defence spending "at its lowest since the 1930s"

Kirruth

Kirruth

Active member
Britain spends less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey despite the constant demands placed on its Armed Forces, official figures show.

According to the Conservatives, defence spending as a proportion of the UK's gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930, before the UK recognised the rising threat of Nazi Germany.

Cost-cutting imposed by the Ministry of Defence is now threatening the Navy's warship-building programme and leading to unprecedented levels of disaffection among senior serving and recently retired officers.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will be challenged in the Commons today over reports of further cutbacks in the programme for new Type 45 destroyers and growing doubts on whether the Government will fulfil its promise to build two new aircraft carriers.

Julian Lewis, a Conservative defence spokesman, said last night that the Royal Navy was "bloodied, battered and on the ropes", with a "palpable feeling of betrayal" at the top as a result of a catalogue of cuts
Ministers have ordered defence chiefs to stop the leaks about equipment shortages and cutbacks to front line capability which are hitting morale.

The leaks have also infuriated the Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is being blamed for the squeeze as he prepares to take over as Prime Minister.

Rest of the story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/22/ndefence22.xml
 
Speaking personally, if they cut back the aircraft carriers and Type 45 destroyers (further), I think they should go the whole way and name the remaining ships after leading al Qaeda figures.

"I'm speaking to you from the deck of HMS Ayman al-Zawahiri. Sorry my voice is muffled, but this burka sucks."

It's extremely frustrating. Everyone would prefer the cash to be spent on schools for the kids and elderly care, but I'm afraid we're fighting two overseas wars at the moment that aren't likely to end any time soon.
 
Oi mate... sounds like the UK and Canada have some similar problems keeping fuel in the tanks. Just get the lend-lease program paid off and looking to start another are we??
 
Ahh, the telegraph and the conservatives, always putting things in context with the Nazis and WW2!

We should be boosting our military expenditure but i don't think we're in crisis city as the media and the tories are always whinging about
 
Pacifists rarely do see it that way mate. Human conflict and the motives behind it have changed little over the eons other than the materiel and the names... hence the WWII references are valid as they seem to be the only thing many Europeans are able to use as a reference point for assessing threats. Perhaps if the US hadn't shielded Europe during the Cold War and let it go hot instead there would be a more contemporary conflict with which pundits and naysayers alike could use.
 
I believe the UK needs to kick in more money for rebuilding Iraq, billions more in fact.... and I believe they need to send more Troops, so as to be more like a 50/50 split between the US and UK.
 
bulldogg said:
Pacifists rarely do see it that way mate. Human conflict and the motives behind it have changed little over the eons other than the materiel and the names... hence the WWII references are valid as they seem to be the only thing many Europeans are able to use as a reference point for assessing threats. Perhaps if the US hadn't shielded Europe during the Cold War and let it go hot instead there would be a more contemporary conflict with which pundits and naysayers alike could use.
Click to expand...

Mate, the telegraph and conservatives use the Nazis and WW2 constantly in reference to everything and anything, it gets to the point when it becomes silly,ludicrous and embarressing. I'l give you the rest for sure though


As for the 50/50 split, its not do-able, the British public would not be behind it, we'd have to squeeze the money from somewhere and curtail all other commitments. We're not a superpower and we don't have the resources to commit to such a high level unless in time of a direct extreme threat to national security. And iraq is not a direct extreme threat to Britain
 
Well, I'm pretty much aligned with Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, who said in October that British forces in Afghanistan needed reinforcements, and that Iraq was the place to take those from.

Essentially, Britain can keep around two brigades in the field outside Europe for any length of time: an armoured brigade and a light infantry (airborne/amphibious) brigade. The armoured troops are in Iraq, the light infantry are in Afghanistan.
Dannatt was making the case that Iraq should be turned over to Iraqi security and the armored forces there should be redeployed (along with their helicopters, supporting attack aircraft). The Canadians have reportedly had some success with tanks against Taliban fighters, so it seems like a reasonable idea.

My own view is that the British Armed forces should have as their priority list: 1. defence of British sovereign territory, 2. joint participation in Nato operations and 3. support for the stability and territorial integrity of the Commonwealth Countries. Support for the US outside NATO (including in Iraq) probably comes in at number 4, since the Americans don't really need our help militarily.

So, if our troops taking a battering in the NATO operation in Afghanistan, they need to be reinforced by drawing down the commitments lower down the priority list, and that means Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Kirruth said:
Well, I'm pretty much aligned with Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, who said in October that British forces in Afghanistan needed reinforcements, and that Iraq was the place to take those from.

Essentially, Britain can keep around two brigades in the field outside Europe for any length of time: an armoured brigade and a light infantry (airborne/amphibious) brigade. The armoured troops are in Iraq, the light infantry are in Afghanistan.
Dannatt was making the case that Iraq should be turned over to Iraqi security and the armored forces there should be redeployed (along with their helicopters, supporting attack aircraft). The Canadians have reportedly had some success with tanks against Taliban fighters, so it seems like a reasonable idea.

My own view is that the British Armed forces should have as their priority list: 1. defence of British sovereign territory, 2. joint participation in Nato operations and 3. support for the stability and territorial integrity of the Commonwealth Countries. Support for the US outside NATO (including in Iraq) probably comes in at number 4, since the Americans don't really need our help militarily.

So, if our troops taking a battering in the NATO operation in Afghanistan, they need to be reinforced by drawing down the commitments lower down the priority list, and that means Iraq.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question... why go into Iraq in the first place, if a NATO Defense Mission was in a different country after the United States of America was attacked?

Without the backing, and pushing publicly from the Prime Minister of England, I believe the United States would not have gone into Iraq, so in my opinion Iraq is just as much Englands problem now as it is ours in America.
 
Well, lets see. Appeasement didn't work with Japan, it didn't work with Germany, it didn't work with Italy, and it didn't work with the Soviet Union. What makes you think that it will work with Red China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and the Muslim Terrorist Fanatics!!!!!

WWIII is happening right now and everybody is back at a 1930's Pre WWII mindset of kissing the enemey's ass instead of kicking the enemy's ass.
 
People never want to believe the worst until it is so painfully obvious only the truly deaf dumb and blind are able to remain in denial.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Well, lets see. Appeasement didn't work with Japan, it didn't work with Germany, it didn't work with Italy, and it didn't work with the Soviet Union. What makes you think that it will work with Red China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and the Muslim Terrorist Fanatics!!!!!

WWIII is happening right now and everybody is back at a 1930's Pre WWII mindset of kissing the enemey's ass instead of kicking the enemy's ass.
Click to expand...

World War III without a Draft, with less than one percent of the US Population under Arms in the Military, with the US Military failing to meet manpower numbers, and all done on the cheap.
Doesn't sound good for the Home Team.
 
Gator said:
Which begs the question... why go into Iraq in the first place, if a NATO Defense Mission was in a different country after the United States of America was attacked?

Without the backing, and pushing publicly from the Prime Minister of England, I believe the United States would not have gone into Iraq, so in my opinion Iraq is just as much Englands problem now as it is ours in America.
Click to expand...

Well, there is the famous Pottery Barn principle (you break it, you own it). There is also another principle: "chaos to the King's enemies". The Iraqis are not our friends.

My view is that we are in a war with many fronts, and the troops and equipment are needed in the fighting elsewhere. There are limits to Britain's military power - it needs to focus on what it needs to do to win and bring the global conflict to an end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top