Turn on thread page Beta

S05 - Statement of Intent from the Ministry of Defence watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Departmental Review from the Ministry of Defence, TSR Government

    Ministry of Defence: Departmental Review
    Secretary of State: The Rt Hon. thehistorybore MP

    INTRODUCTION

    2015 has not been an year of comfort on the front of defence, and we do not expect that the next year shall be any easier. We currently face unprecedented threat to our own national security from militant extremism and it is strongly believed that our priority should lie in funding and maintaining the most effective possible defence. We also face instability abroad in areas that we are committed to by our allegiance with NATO, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and it is believed that if we are to address these issues at all, we must do so in the most effective way possible, with the least threat to civilians and British servicemen.

    CYBER INTELLIGENCE

    The Ministry of Defence recognises the threat that we face from cyber warfare and cyber terrorism; and therefore, a £3bn increase shall be channelled to MI5 and GCHQ (Signit Department) in connection with this mode of defence.

    ACTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST: DAESH AND THE TALIBAN.

    We are committed, along with our allies, to finding a solution to the threat to modern civilisation that is Daesh. However, the Ministry of Defence wishes to do so with the minimum possible collateral damage; the deaths of service personnel or civilians are inexcusable if there is an alternative method of attack that means it could be avoided. Therefore, there shall be a £4bn increase in funding research/development or purchase of weapons of precision warfare.

    The Ministry of Defence also recognises that the citizens of Afghanistan once again face a threat from the Taliban, particularly in Helmand province. Therefore we are committed to ensuring that the work we have done as a nation does not go to waste. The British Army shall return to Afghanistan again, not only to defeat the Taliban with weapons, but also to stamp out their support through addressing the needs of the natives. The Ministry of Defence recognises that the extremist ideology can only be extinguished by soothing discontent – aiding the construction of infrastructure and improving agriculture is a prime way of doing so. Therefore funding of £6bn shall be diverted to this cause.

    THE TERROIST THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

    The threat to British citizens from terrorist attacks on our city streets is at a level not seen for many years. The Government thus intends to divert a £1bn increase to the counter-terrorism department of MI5. The Home Department shall follow a similar initiative.

    THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT

    The Government recognises that Trident has been a highly valuable asset to our national defence network. However, the threats that we face today are not of the same nature as those that we faced when Trident was initially founded. Therefore we recognise that, whilst we must maintain a nuclear deterrent, we must also look into diverting funding to where it is necessary, and Trident (on the scale on which it operates) may well not be as cost-effective as it could be. Therefore the department intends to decrease the scale of the Trident system. Two of the Vanguard submarines shall be temporarily decommissioned and dry-docked, which shall decrease by £14bn the annual cost (from £31bn to £17bn, accounting for the cost of dry-docking and maintaining the decommissioned submarines, should a time arise that they are needed).

    The funds saved by scaling down Trident, a weapon of limited effectiveness against our current threats, will pay for defence costs against that which threatens us now; the Government believes this will be a far more effective use of the Defence Budget.


    Summary of Costing
    SPENDING INCREASES
    Cyber Intelligence: £3bn
    Middle East (Daesh): £4bn
    Middle East (Afghanistan): £6bn
    Domestic Terrorism: £1bn
    Total: £14bn

    SPENDING DECREASES
    Trident Descaling: £14bn
    Total: £14bn

    NET INCREASE: £0


    Selected Sources
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Departmental Review from the Ministry of Defence, TSR Government

    Ministry of Defence: Departmental Review
    Secretary of State: The Rt Hon. thehistorybore MP

    INTRODUCTION

    2015 has not been an year of comfort on the front of defence, and we do not expect that the next year shall be any easier. We currently face unprecedented threat to our own national security from militant extremism and it is strongly believed that our priority should lie in funding and maintaining the most effective possible defence. We also face instability abroad in areas that we are committed to by our allegiance with NATO, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and it is believed that if we are to address these issues at all, we must do so in the most effective way possible, with the least threat to civilians and British servicemen.

    CYBER INTELLIGENCE

    The Ministry of Defence recognises the threat that we face from cyber warfare and cyber terrorism; and therefore, a £3bn increase shall be channelled to MI5 and GCHQ (Signit Department) in connection with this mode of defence.

    ACTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST: DAESH AND THE TALIBAN.

    We are committed, along with our allies, to finding a solution to the threat to modern civilisation that is Daesh. However, the Ministry of Defence wishes to do so with the minimum possible collateral damage; the deaths of service personnel or civilians are inexcusable if there is an alternative method of attack that means it could be avoided. Therefore, there shall be a £4bn increase in funding research/development or purchase of weapons of precision warfare.

    The Ministry of Defence also recognises that the citizens of Afghanistan once again face a threat from the Taliban, particularly in Helmand province. Therefore we are committed to ensuring that the work we have done as a nation does not go to waste. The British Army shall return to Afghanistan again, not only to defeat the Taliban with weapons, but also to stamp out their support through addressing the needs of the natives. The Ministry of Defence recognises that the extremist ideology can only be extinguished by soothing discontent – aiding the construction of infrastructure and improving agriculture is a prime way of doing so. Therefore funding of £6bn shall be diverted to this cause.

    THE TERROIST THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

    The threat to British citizens from terrorist attacks on our city streets is at a level not seen for many years. The Government thus intends to divert a £1bn increase to the counter-terrorism department of MI5. The Home Department shall follow a similar initiative.

    THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT

    The Government recognises that Trident has been a highly valuable asset to our national defence network. However, the threats that we face today are not of the same nature as those that we faced when Trident was initially founded. Therefore we recognise that, whilst we must maintain a nuclear deterrent, we must also look into diverting funding to where it is necessary, and Trident (on the scale on which it operates) may well not be as cost-effective as it could be. Therefore the department intends to decrease the scale of the Trident system. Two of the Vanguard submarines shall be temporarily decommissioned and dry-docked, which shall decrease by £14bn the annual cost (from £31bn to £17bn, accounting for the cost of dry-docking and maintaining the decommissioned submarines, should a time arise that they are needed).

    The funds saved by scaling down Trident, a weapon of limited effectiveness against our current threats, will pay for defence costs against that which threatens us now; the Government believes this will be a far more effective use of the Defence Budget.


    Summary of Costing
    SPENDING INCREASES
    Cyber Intelligence: £3bn
    Middle East (Daesh): £4bn
    Middle East (Afghanistan): £6bn
    Domestic Terrorism: £1bn
    Total: £14bn

    SPENDING DECREASES
    Trident Descaling: £14bn
    Total: £14bn

    NET INCREASE: £0


    Selected Sources
    I believe this is an SOI rather than a review.

    Aye obviously


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I believe this is an SOI rather than a review.

    Aye obviously


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks for the update, I'll amend the thread title.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I believe this is an SOI rather than a review.

    Aye obviously
    My understanding is that this is THB's departmental review for the term, but as a non-legislative piece it can take effect without need for follow-up legislation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Utter Tosh !
    - No Mention of the RAF , RN
    - The Usual chuck money at it and hope the problems goes away
    - Degrading Trident
    - Sending Troops back in Afghan without assessing the risks . Local ground forces should be carrying out attacks against the Taliban ( trained by the UK and US Military
    Nay ! An Utter Disgrace
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Navy? Air Force? It's a good effort and I do like the bulk of it; but it is missing some rather key factors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Navy? Air Force? It's a good effort and I do like the bulk of it; but it is missing some rather key factors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have no intention of altering any of the spending for the Navy and the Airforce, nor purchase/sell/decommission anything in particular. So why mention it?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Navy? Air Force? It's a good effort and I do like the bulk of it; but it is missing some rather key factors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A Statement of Intent doesn't need to cover every single branch

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    My understanding is that this is THB's departmental review for the term, but as a non-legislative piece it can take effect without need for follow-up legislation.
    Possibly. Though if it's a review it should have covered the above too
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Thanks for the update, I'll amend the thread title.
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    My understanding is that this is THB's departmental review for the term, but as a non-legislative piece it can take effect without need for follow-up legislation.
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Possibly. Though if it's a review it should have covered the above too
    I can confirm that this is a statement of intent, and not a departmental review.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So basically scrap two submarines, save some money and throw it around where it's possibly needed… You could've put that into a single sentence. It would be splendid if the sources were cited in text so that one wouldn't have to look at all of them to make a point.

    How exactly are those billions going to be spend? I feel like you're mistaking them for pennies… What are MI5 and GCHQ going to do with £3 billion? More personnel, equipment? What about the anti-terrorist billion? Are you going to put it into surveillance, body scanners, intelligence abroad? This is a very vague review/SOI.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    I have no intention of altering any of the spending for the Navy and the Airforce, nor purchase/sell/decommission anything in particular. So why mention it?
    Trident is technically under the Navy bracket isn't it?

    But admittedly the main reason to mention it is so that the saddo's and pedants like myself don't have to trawl the internet looking for the previous years figures.

    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    A Statement of Intent doesn't need to cover every single branch
    True, although if you're going to put funding into a military it is always nice to give a rough idea of the split between the forces. Even if I wasn't changing any funding I'd provide a reminder of the old figures from the previous year.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent work, I like this a lot.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Trident is technically under the Navy bracket isn't it?

    But admittedly the main reason to mention it is so that the saddo's and pedants like myself don't have to trawl the internet looking for the previous years figures.
    It is technically, but it's the only alteration I'd make that would affect the defence budget as a whole. Perhaps I should have put it in the notes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Utter Tosh !
    - No Mention of the RAF , RN
    - The Usual chuck money at it and hope the problems goes away
    - Degrading Trident
    - Sending Troops back in Afghan without assessing the risks . Local ground forces should be carrying out attacks against the Taliban ( trained by the UK and US Military
    Nay ! An Utter Disgrace
    Well no, not exactly.

    1. This is a statement of intent; if nothing is intended to be changed, then is it worth mentioning?
    2. It isn't a case of chucking money at it and hoping it goes away; read it again. There actually is a plan.
    3. 'Degrading Trident?' Again, not exactly; we still maintain the same military capabilities, they're just not all constantly circling the globe. Should we wish to, we can have the two dry-docked submarines back in action in a very short time period; so no, you're wrong.
    4. We know what the risks are, we technically haven't withdrawn from the country anyway. This is suggesting scaling up what we already have in the country. It's frankly irrelevant who trained the Taliban; why not look at the historical context. Would you rather the Taliban or war with the Russians? I know what I would have chosen if I was head of the MoD in the 1970's. The fact is they remain a problem that needs to be swept away.

    So no, not an utter disgrace. Read the SoI, do some research, and then come back with an answer.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    It is technically, but it's the only alteration I'd make that would affect the defence budget as a whole. Perhaps I should have put it in the notes.
    Yeah, tbf it was mainly me spitting my dummy out because I had to search for stuff

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Nah, scrap defence budget. Unless it's a defence budget against rivers
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Well no, not exactly.

    1. This is a statement of intent; if nothing is intended to be changed, then is it worth mentioning?
    2. It isn't a case of chucking money at it and hoping it goes away; read it again. There actually is a plan.
    3. 'Degrading Trident?' Again, not exactly; we still maintain the same military capabilities, they're just not all constantly circling the globe. Should we wish to, we can have the two dry-docked submarines back in action in a very short time period; so no, you're wrong.
    4. We know what the risks are, we technically haven't withdrawn from the country anyway. This is suggesting scaling up what we already have in the country. It's frankly irrelevant who trained the Taliban; why not look at the historical context. Would you rather the Taliban or war with the Russians? I know what I would have chosen if I was head of the MoD in the 1970's. The fact is they remain a problem that needs to be swept away.

    So no, not an utter disgrace. Read the SoI, do some research, and then come back with an answer.
    I've read this " Statement of Intent " and its a mess . What this " SOI " does it chuck some money around into various schemes and that's it problem solved ," yes I've just invested millions of pounds into defeating terrorism , problem solved , everything is great " . Its blindly send troops back into Afghan without good enough reason to ( When we should be sending in troops to train local forces .
    You have not mentioned anything to do with the Royal Air Force or the Navy ( like they don't matter and frankly not worth the investment) when actually they need much more funding than they already receive from the MOD . I will tell you what the RAF need ( you have missed this out )
    - A new strike fleet of fighter aircrafts (f-35)
    - 9 Boeing P-8 Orion Aircrafts
    - An Extension of Tornado Aircraft
    - 2 New Typhoon Sqaudrons
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    I've read this " Statement of Intent " and its a mess . What this " SOI " does it chuck some money around into various schemes and that's it problem solved ," yes I've just invested millions of pounds into defeating terrorism , problem solved , everything is great " . Its blindly send troops back into Afghan without go enough reason to ( When we should be sending in troops to train local forces .
    You have not mentioned anything to do with the Royal Air Force or the Navy ( like they don't matter and frankly not worth the investment) when actually they need much more funding than they already receive from the MOD . I will tell you what the RAF need ( you have missed this out )
    - A new strike fleet of fighter aircrafts (f-35)
    - 9 Boeing P-8 Orion Aircrafts
    - An Extension of Tornado Aircraft
    - 2 New Typhoon Sqaudrons
    When did I say this was 'problem solved'? You think you can have rid of global terrorism in one term? No. It's a start; it's getting the money in the right place and reviewing the situation. The departments to which the money is channeled to are experts in their field, perhaps I don't wish to do their job for them?

    What do they need more funding for? Are we facing a war that requires two squadrons of Typhoons? Do we need a fleet of fighter aircraft? What will we do with them? I don't know about you but the Government aren't planning on having an aggressive foreign policy, so I feel that the money would be better spend elsewhere.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    I've read this " Statement of Intent " and its a mess . What this " SOI " does it chuck some money around into various schemes and that's it problem solved ," yes I've just invested millions of pounds into defeating terrorism , problem solved , everything is great " . Its blindly send troops back into Afghan without good enough reason to ( When we should be sending in troops to train local forces .
    You have not mentioned anything to do with the Royal Air Force or the Navy ( like they don't matter and frankly not worth the investment) when actually they need much more funding than they already receive from the MOD . I will tell you what the RAF need ( you have missed this out )
    - A new strike fleet of fighter aircrafts (f-35)
    - 9 Boeing P-8 Orion Aircrafts
    - An Extension of Tornado Aircraft
    - 2 New Typhoon Sqaudrons
    Also something to replace the Nimrods

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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.

Updated: December 31, 2015

2,319

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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

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