Increase Defence Spending

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Its laughable people here think they are defence experts and fail to defend their points on Cutting personal and equipment numbers ..they clearly have no clue about the threats the UK Faces
    Thoses that's say the UK Faces no threat from nation states are plain wrong ... Russia , North Korea , etc while its ture the threat over the last few years have decreased the issue has not gone away and I soon suspect the so called " Islamic state " will declare itself as a state
    But the issue also is the changing nature of warfare . It isn't simply a shoot first ask questions later approach anymore ... With warfare now turning more cyber orientated the Military has very basic equipment to handle this . Instead of directing funds straight to the " front line " as it were it needs to be invested in more modern ways of combatting the threats ( new threats ) we face ... Although a strong ground force is always required to defence the nation whenever
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, but my point is one of technology developing, so everything before... about 2010-ish (? not 100% certain on this but it's certainly this century) is irrelevant.

    I wouldn't make them all redundant - we still need some ground forces, and naturally it takes time to replace them, but I would begin a significant shift away from new hires.
    Is it? It would be if we were talking about state on state conflicts, but you've already said they don't happen. Instead we're far more likely to fight smaller scale insurgency wars. Like we've been doing for 15 years.

    And oh look. They need forces on the ground.

    And any forces on the ground need significant logistics support. They need defences, they need bases, they need comms and mechanics and command and control facilities.
    Tell you what, let's keep it simpler and call it all "an army".

    The Army has already reduced in size by 40,000 to its current size of just under 80,000. This small number to be backed up by reservists if the proverbial ever hit the fan. This is being done with the current budget.

    Now, do you want to try again on what you'd do differently? Again, do bear in mind that you cannot possibly guarantee that that will be the only type of threat we're going to face.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    A military is no use unless you know what you want it to do. You also need to have the political will to deploy it.

    I think the debacles of Afghan and Iraq have proven both of these points.


    We have no coherent defence policy, beyond deploying special forces and bombing things. You don't need 60,000,000,000 quid to fly a few planes and send in special forces.
    Britain's role as an influential world power is significantly dependent on its military strength.

    The more military personnel and materiel the UK has, the more it is capable of doing. Counter-piracy, intelligence, protecting the Falkland Islands, providing humanitarian assistance, fighting terror, acting as a deterrent, assisting NATO allies, surveying the oceans, and yes, fighting the occasional ground war... This all needs ships, aircraft, advanced weapon systems, research and development of new technology, and so on, all of which requires money. But the UK's capabilities are dwindling due to huge spending cuts. Not to mention thousands of jobs are at risk (not just in the military itself, but in the manufacturing industry, for example).

    The UK has a responsibility as a world power to contribute to global security. The US can't do it all by itself, and it's selfish to expect them to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Only 5 of 28 NATO member states are spending the recommended minimum 2% of GDP on defence. The US currently spends around 3.6% ($600 billion, ~70% of total NATO spending), and the UK 2.2% ($56 billion). Canada, my home nation, spends only 0.99% ($15 billion).

    More NATO members need to pay their fair share. Most of the burden currently falls on the US taxpayer. Its allies have grown too comfortable benefiting from its protection and intelligence gathering without pulling their own weight.

    Even though the UK spends 0.2% above the minimum 2%, it should ideally be spending closer to 3%. Not only is it one of the UK's biggest employers, but the British military plays a key role in global security and needs the budget to match.

    The UK currently spends 0.7% of its GDP (£12.2 billion) on foreign aid, more than any other EU nation. It would be a more sensible option to put half of this towards the defence budget instead, and step up the armed forces' humanitarian efforts proportionally. This has the added benefit of employing more UK citizens and supporting the UK manufacturing industry while still providing assistance and security to the developing world. More NATO states, including Canada, should follow suit.
    I feel sorry for you being Canadian, why did you's elect trudeau? He can't even get a gender balanced cabinet balanced (it's a stupid idea anyway) how is he supposed to run a country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Britain's role as an influential world power is significantly dependent on its military strength.

    But all the materiel in the world can't buy a coherent defence policy nor the public and political will to implement it.


    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Its laughable people here think they are defence experts and fail to defend their points on Cutting personal and equipment numbers ..they clearly have no clue about the threats the UK Faces
    Thoses that's say the UK Faces no threat from nation states are plain wrong ... Russia , North Korea , etc while its ture the threat over the last few years have decreased the issue has not gone away and I soon suspect the so called " Islamic state " will declare itself as a state
    But the issue also is the changing nature of warfare . It isn't simply a shoot first ask questions later approach anymore ... With warfare now turning more cyber orientated the Military has very basic equipment to handle this . Instead of directing funds straight to the " front line " as it were it needs to be invested in more modern ways of combatting the threats ( new threats ) we face ... Although a strong ground force is always required to defence the nation whenever
    A key factor to win a war is a will to take part in it, and to agree with a fact that casualties cannot be avoided. Otherwise it doesn't matter.
    One week of WWII's scale of casualties would make everybody cry these days. If one soldier dies now, it is a tragedy. Back then hundreds could die in one operation in one day, and it used to be perfectly normal.

    North Korea is hardly European problem. Russia will not be dangerous for anything exept Ukraine and Moldova, (and Georgia, maybe), as long as it's ruled by rational politicians like Putin (If there were real democracy in Russia, this would be different. Some panslavic great-Russian doctriners or post-Soviets would take over with votes of minor but significant number of voters and do a lot of mess). The Islamic State is a piece of rubbish. An army with arms from 70ties would defeat it in 4 weeks, only if there was a significant number of well commaned and determined ground forces out there.
    If there will be a war in Europe in next 15 years, it will most likely be either a civil war in the western part, or a Polish-Ukrainian war, because current "democratic" Ukrainian parliament celebrates criminals like Stepan Bandera and criminal organization UPA, while former members of SS Galizien walk around Kiev in SS uniforms and celebrate their glorious days.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    A key factor to win a war is a will to take part in it, and to agree with a fact that casualties cannot be avoided. Otherwise it doesn't matter.
    One week of WWII's scale of casualties would make everybody cry these days. If one soldier dies now, it is a tragedy. Back then hundreds could die in one operation in one day, and it used to be perfectly normal
    I'd argue the whole mindset since the First & Second World War has changed; I understand where you're coming from but, unless we're in a World War 3 type conflict, UK casualties shouldn't be anywhere near as high. The West has come to understand that it's better to expend ordinance rather than people. It's not just public opinion that would struggle to take heavy losses: I doubt, with the dwindling size of the UK armed forces, that any of the three services could handle heavy casualties & still be as operationally effective due to a lack of manpower & equipment. Whereas in WW2, the UK was producing several hundred fighter aircraft a month, now we probably produce in a year what some factories built in a day. Losing 50 Tornados, Typhoons, or Challenger 2 tanks (or even just one Type 45 Destroyer) would seriously decimate the armed forces & that's not even taking it account the losses of personnel. It now takes several years to train those in roles like pilots, W/SOs, air traffic controllers etc.
    Even the average squaddie has received far more training that your average counterpart around the world; if you think in economic terms the government has spent the best part of 14 years educating & training them before they even enlist, never-mind what training they receive in the military.

    UAV/RPAS warfare is almost the ultimate risk-free form of war; to politicians must love the fact that the UK can eliminate hostile individuals & groups with no risk to British lives using assets like Reaper.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That's what you get with Justin Trudeau

    "If you kill your enemies they win"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'd argue (...).
    I can understand what do you mean, but I would put more stress on losing manpower and will to fight.

    Of course that modern military hardware is complicated, expensive and it requires well trained users,
    so it still takes will to use it, but!, another problem is to agree to lose humans at war.

    (Original post by Tempest II)
    UAV/RPAS warfare is almost the ultimate risk-free form of war; to politicians must love the fact that the UK can eliminate hostile individuals & groups with no risk to British lives using assets like Reaper.
    That's great, but you need to use ground forces to control territory. It doesn't need to be very well trained, but it has to cover the area and be able to defeat enemy at frontline, and this means that you will have casualties. So Kurds are capable of winning with ISIS with their 3-day-training recruits, and Russians were very succesful in Georgia and Syria, using obsolete aircrafts (cleverly, they keep their best hardware in safety, in case they would need them against modern army).

    Desert Storm and invasion of Iraq prooved that western armies can destroy obsolete middle eastern forces with very little losses. The only reason why ISIS or North Korea exist, is that the west doesn't want to take losses in men, neither pay for war or for aftermath.

    I would rather bother on what Anjem Choudary will do when he is released from prison in 2021.


    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    That's what you get with Justin Trudeau

    "If you kill your enemies they win"
    Not entirely true.
    I would rather quote Sebastian Castellion:
    "To kill a man, is not to fight doctrine, but to kill a man"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Only 5 of 28 NATO member states are spending the recommended minimum 2% of GDP on defence. The US currently spends around 3.6% ($600 billion, ~70% of total NATO spending), and the UK 2.2% ($56 billion). Canada, my home nation, spends only 0.99% ($15 billion).

    More NATO members need to pay their fair share. Most of the burden currently falls on the US taxpayer. Its allies have grown too comfortable benefiting from its protection and intelligence gathering without pulling their own weight.

    Even though the UK spends 0.2% above the minimum 2%, it should ideally be spending closer to 3%. Not only is it one of the UK's biggest employers, but the British military plays a key role in global security and needs the budget to match.

    The UK currently spends 0.7% of its GDP (£12.2 billion) on foreign aid, more than any other EU nation. It would be a more sensible option to put half of this towards the defence budget instead, and step up the armed forces' humanitarian efforts proportionally. This has the added benefit of employing more UK citizens and supporting the UK manufacturing industry while still providing assistance and security to the developing world. More NATO states, including Canada, should follow suit.

    To defend from who ?
    Most developed countries have militaries strong enough to defend from threats, or take the common sense approach and keep friendly with their neighbours. A large chunk of that foreign aid goes to military aid also.
    Look at Afghanistan and Iraq, not enough investment and training was put into their troops after the wars and look how that turned out. How do you expect these countries to develop without their own effective defense systems ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Its laughable people here think they are defence experts and fail to defend their points on Cutting personal and equipment numbers ..they clearly have no clue about the threats the UK Faces
    Thoses that's say the UK Faces no threat from nation states are plain wrong ... Russia , North Korea , etc while its ture the threat over the last few years have decreased the issue has not gone away and I soon suspect the so called " Islamic state " will declare itself as a state
    But the issue also is the changing nature of warfare . It isn't simply a shoot first ask questions later approach anymore ... With warfare now turning more cyber orientated the Military has very basic equipment to handle this . Instead of directing funds straight to the " front line " as it were it needs to be invested in more modern ways of combatting the threats ( new threats ) we face ... Although a strong ground force is always required to defence the nation whenever
    I laughed hard at this post in fact.

    1. North Korea has no weaponry that can reach the UK. If it did attack eg. South Korea, Guam it would be immediately obliterated by a counter strike nuke launch.
    2.Russia... Do you think Russians are stupid ? That they will attack NATO and several much more powerful nuclear armed natons ?
    3.Islamic State declared itself a state long ago... hence the term islamic state, or even caliphate.

    However the point about cyber warfare is more relevant, cyber, ICBM and financial warfare is the future.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Desert Storm and invasion of Iraq prooved that western armies can destroy obsolete middle eastern forces with very little losses.
    Except that not the type of fighting that will happen anymore. If it was the case of rolling over a decrepit military force it would be fine. But we're talking about counter insurgency / guerrilla warfare. And people who know our very public ROE.

    (Original post by mcneill98)
    However the point about cyber warfare is more relevant, cyber, ICBM and financial warfare is the future.
    Wait, so state on state and mass war is not likely, but we should concentrate on ICBMs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If the US wants to continue to rule the world, they have to foot the bill.

    Besides, 2% of GDP for European states like the Baltics would pale in comparison to what the US can produce.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buonaparte)
    If the US wants to continue to rule the world, they have to foot the bill.

    Besides, 2% of GDP for European states like the Baltics would pale in comparison to what the US can produce.
    It doesn't matter that one person's 2% might not match another person's 2% (or why would they have that rule in the first place?), it's the basic principle that someone is willing to put money into their own protection. That's not too much to ask for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It doesn't matter that one person's 2% might not match another person's 2% (or why would they have that rule in the first place?), it's the basic principle that someone is willing to put money into their own protection. That's not too much to ask for.
    2% is still excessive for small nations which may lack development, wealth and infrastructure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buonaparte)
    2% is still excessive for small nations which may lack development, wealth and infrastructure.
    It's more the other way around: asking every nation to contribute (for example) $25 billion would unfairly penalise less wealthy nations.
    Anyway, NATO should be viewed as an insurance policy, not a charity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    A few generalisations in there. You may argue that that's the case this second, but can you say that that will definitely be the case next year, or in 5/10+ years down the line?

    You argue for cutting the Navy, but then what happens when our allies seek assistance from us on the very real security issue caused in the Med? What happens when we need to get close to a country to work out who's doing what and we don't have the cooperation of that Government, where do we base our aircraft?

    You argue that personnel aren't needed, presumably because you think all the equipment that does anything is unmanned, but you ignore the fact that all those systems need looking after, repairing, upgrading, that the many sensors they have need their output analysing and understood. If personnel are so unimportant how is that every major (and, indeed, minor) conflict we've been involved in ever has only come close to resolution once we've put boots on the ground?

    Nobody's saying the money couldn't be better spent, but sadly the one thing that nobody buy is an accurate crystal ball. If you'd like to loan the MoD yours I'm sure they'll accept.
    You seem to take quite the interest in these topics. May I ask what you do? Are you in the armed forces/uni?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    You seem to take quite the interest in these topics. May I ask what you do? Are you in the armed forces/uni?
    I try to inject a touch of reality.

    User to be in both, though been out of the former a few years, and the latter a few more years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buonaparte)
    2% is still excessive for small nations which may lack development, wealth and infrastructure.
    The first duty of any government is to guarantee the safety of it's people. 2% of the country's earning is not a ridiculous sum to ask for. It doesn't matter if that country is poor, all NATO is asking is that they take that requirement and responsibility seriously. Otherwise, don't join.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Except that not the type of fighting that will happen anymore. If it was the case of rolling over a decrepit military force it would be fine. But we're talking about counter insurgency / guerrilla warfare. And people who know our very public ROE.



    Wait, so state on state and mass war is not likely, but we should concentrate on ICBMs?
    State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

    However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
    To defend a country from an attack or invasion, a nuclear bomb is the ultimate deterrent, having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
    Keep the nuclear deterrents functional and ahead of the opponent's air defense.

    I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.