Should Britain remain a 'Tier One' Military Power?

Rasczak

Depending upon which news source(s) you read/listen to, in recent weeks the Defence Secretary has been locked in a battle for increased funding for the Armed Forces in an attempt to avoid some really difficult decisions - reductions in Army numbers, limiting F35 purchases to those required for Carrier Strike only and decommissioning the Amphibious Assault Landing ships.  Talk is now that the defence budget should increase to 3% of GDP (vice the current 2%).

Defence budget risks UK influence, say MPs
Government 'living a lie' over defence budget, warns former head of UK armed forces
UK defence spending must rise to keep strong U.S., NATO links - MPs
UK defence spending is national narcissism. Cut it, don't increase it | David Shariatmadari

The issues hinge around whether Britain should remain a 'Tier One' military power, namely a balanced force capable of worldwide deployment, and also to maintain credibility with the US.  The issue of the UK nuclear deterrent is, of course, often listed as paired with our role on the UN Security Council.  Meanwhile threats such as cyber are on the increase whilst we have degraded other capabilities - for example the numbers of frigates or maritime patrol aircraft - in recent years to pay for our land campaigns.

So, should Britain spend on more, less or maintain current expenditure on defence?  If the former it is broad acceptance we must tax more (or make vast cuts elsewhere). If the latter options appeal, what capabilities should be cut?  No easy (or right answers) but it will be interesting to gauge opinions...

In my view, increased taxation/spending is not the answer and the military should live within its means.

Bl4ckGryph0n

I think the landscape is changing, as such I agree they should “live” within their means and change from within.

rustybin

Trump has shown that even the most rock solid alliances have the potential to degenerate very quickly.

The obvious solution would be closer ties with Europe, but the people have voted on that one.

I watched the first episode of World War 2 in Colour on Netflix last night. Covered the 1930s. An aggressive great power with a chip on its shoulder, an isolationist USA and a France and Britain unwilling / unable to act on their own. Sounds like today.

Going all Red Storm Rising - If Russia, China and N Korea set their minds to it, they could make a massive land/power grab.

We have to be able to take care of ourselves. Thank god for Trident.

domtheone

I watched Darkest Hour last night.

I'm a noob when it comes to history but if accurate, thank god for Churchill standing up to the Germans when half of his party wanted to grovel and strike a plea with z Germans.

Anyways, if spending at least 2% of GDP qualifies as Tier 1 then i'm generally in favor.

We may have to be smarter with the cash that's all (given that we don't have much of it).

Given the size of some of the other budgets that we throw money at, it's not unreasonable, imo.

There are quite a few jobs associated with it too.

EarthRod

In times of peace a standing army/navy/airforce should be only sufficient for peace time.

If or when war is imminent or declared then conscription of people between the ages of 18 - 28 could be instigated.

Having a large military presence in times of peace is very costly and a waste of resource and money.

Rasczak

The trouble is, it's not enough - not if we want full spectrum forces, deployable worldwide, in the same scale as we have now. The defence budget is over-stretched and the proposed equipment plan is unaffordable. Something has to give - more money, and it needs to be ALOT more money, or less capability.

IronGiant

The problem with that Alan is the days when you could throw waves of cannon fodder with six weeks or less of training at the enemy have long gone.  Coupled with the fact our young men are probably less likely to stand up and be counted than our forebears and you aren't going to get very far.

Concentrating on reservists is probably a better option.

springtide

I wouldn't agree that there is any threat of any invasions in this century; it's an outdated concept now we live in such a global society.

Now we have the internet other countries know the UK has a lot of rain, the people moans a lot about stuff like Brexit, weather etc, its food cuisine is pretty bland unless "fused" with another country, they probably own most of the expensive properties, isn't wine production isn't anywhere near the top, most industries have been sold off including some of our bridges, etc, etc.

All in all an invasion by a country like China would probably be perceived as a bail out

IronGiant

trollcon level 4 alert...

EarthRod

Throw waves of cannon fodder?

Stand up and be counted?

I think you misunderstand. The days of WWI are allegedly over.

Conscription means the calling up of people, compulsory.

Also, why only 6 weeks of training?  Why not 12 weeks of training followed by specialist training. Say 4 months to become a professional soldier.