British military spending

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Does any one on this forum actually believe in the MOD's spending ideas?
I mean they have cut our air force to its smallest size EVER!
They have reduced our army size to a shadow of its size in past days!




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Does any one on this forum actually believe in the MOD's spending ideas?
I mean they have cut our air force to its smallest size EVER!
They have reduced our army size to a shadow of its size in past days!


- Sorry to disappoint DW but I do.
IMHO it is inevitable (......regardless of which political party is in gov in the UK too).

Irrespective of what may or may not be the case with 'international terrorism' there are just no credible and realistic 'threats' around now or on the horizon that remotely justify sustaining the current size/costs.....

.....and with several thousand troops gradually being 'released' from the improving northern Ireland situation (troop numbers to fall from the present approx 12000 to 4500 - 5000 politics.guardian.co.uk... ) the number of available to deploy army personnel actually rises not falls.

The UK's armed forces may have fewer numbers compared to previously yet their capability remains formidable - especially when considered along side the allies and alliances we are included along side too.

Can you really picture a situation where the UK would have to face conflict alone with a serious opponent where our relative 'size' would be a problem?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
The RAF cuts are a bit too drastic in my eyes, the army cuts i can understand where your comeing from but the whole only 4 squadrons is kind of crazy.

I think we already are going back to the old BEF idea.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The RAF cuts are a bit too drastic in my eyes,


- Fair enough DW.
I'm not going to argue......I like the idea of our RAF being as 'top flight' as possible too.

But no matter how fond I am of the RAF - and I am, very - I just can't help but agree with the last review's assessment that when our alliances are factored in we just don't face a threat big enough to require big forces at the moment.

I totally agree that moth-balling or scrapping very recently up-dated aircraft is a waste. But t'was ever so I'm afraid.

(and I sure as hell don't see 'international terrorism' as sufficient excuse to gouge the public purse and bloat out the military manufacturers any further á la the way the USA has)



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
compared to what other countries spend Britain seems in line give or take a percentage or two.



The following pie indicates the top 10 countries' share in world military spending, which in 2003 totaled almost $880 billion. The figures, compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute are compared in constant (2000) prices and market exchange rates. The top ten spenders made up 76% of all military spending in the world, while the U.S. alone made up almost half. The top 15 spenders (including Russia, India, Israel, Turkey and Brazil) made up 82% of all military spending.



Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Irrespective of what may or may not be the case with 'international terrorism' there are just no credible and realistic 'threats' around now or on the horizon that remotely justify sustaining the current size/costs..... serious opponent where our relative 'size' would be a problem?



To our knowledge there are no threats, it's always best to be prepared just in case.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
To our knowledge there are no threats,


- Well quite, but if you are spending the public's money to the tune of many many billions of £ you want to be making the best and most informed judgements possible, right?

But let's get real about this Wizard. The UK does not any longer face a potential 'enemy' with anything like the capacity of the old Soviet Union and pretending otherwise is either to have no real clue as to what the old threat was or just be delusional.


it's always best to be prepared just in case.


- I think this is more than a matter of 'just in case', eh?


In the last Spending Review the Ministry of Defence and our Armed Forces - upon whom the defence of our country depends and to whom we owe, especially in this recent period, a debt of gratitude - was awarded the largest spending increase for twenty years.



The Secretary for Defence will set out the detailed allocations of the full budget for our Armed Forces which will rise from £29.7 billion this year to £33.4 billion by 2007-08 - £3.7 billion a year higher than now. An annual average real terms increase of 1.4 per cent for defence.


www.hm-treasury.gov.uk...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Well quite, but if you are spending the public's money to the tune of many many billions of £ you want to be making the best and most informed judgements possible, right?


Sure.


But let's get real about this Wizard. The UK does not any longer face a potential 'enemy' with anything like the capacity of the old Soviet Union and pretending otherwise is either to have no real clue as to what the old threat was or just be delusional.


Calm down, i'm not delusional and i do know of the past threats that the world has faced, I simply want an armed forces that can respond to a war zone on its own if need be, what happens if the EU and the US refuse to help as they don't see the military action as worthy, how is the UK meant to respond.


I think this is more than a matter of 'just in case', eh?


And thats meant to mean



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Sure.


- Isn't agreement wonderful?



Calm down


-


Whaaa....how was I not calm?


i'm not delusional


- Well fair enough Wizard but there's an entire enormous rather obvious country that has it's many of it's people convinced otherwise and fooled into thinking they need bigger budgets than compared to when they 'faced' the USSR.


and i do know of the past threats that the world has faced,


- USSR, thousands of nuclear missiles etc etc, 10X overkill +, near nuclear armaggedon on several occassions by accident and all that.
Very scary business.


I simply want an armed forces that can respond to a war zone on its own if need be,


- Besides being incredibly rare and unlikely an event you must have had your heart gladdened by the events in Sierra Leon and the funding for such rapid reaction forces then, eh?


what happens if the EU and the US refuse to help as they don't see the military action as worthy, how is the UK meant to respond.


- .....and how many times in, say, the last 25yrs has this happened? Twice?
With the outcome each time in the UK's interests/favour, hmm?

(and even that was drawn out only cos of deciding not to use all our 'firepower')


And thats meant to mean


- That this gov has increased military spending considerably.
£30billion is a little more than just in case wouldn't you say?

....or what would you say given that (as the US example illustrates quite nicely if horrifically) that there is no such thing as 'enough'?

They pretty much outspend everyone else's miltiary budget combined and they still complain about a lack of resources.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I still dont see where all the money goes in from the MOD, I mean you would think simple squadie equipment might rank high on their list.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I agree with Sminkey. We have more than enough to take care of any threat we may face. The only problem we would have, is if the US itself went sparko and decided a regime change in Westminster was required.

(Only a small problem mind you. We would win in the end
...not one successful invasion in 1000yrs right?)

But DW, what did you mean by this:


The RAF cuts are a bit too drastic in my eyes, the army cuts i can understand where your comeing from but the whole only 4 squadrons is kind of crazy.


Four squadrons? I think we have much more than that. I can think of many squadrons off the top of my head. There are at least 4 Tornado squadrons, plus the new Eurofighters, at least one Jaguar squadron, some Harriers, the Nimords, the Hercy Birds....the list goes on....


[edit on 16/1/05 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Four squadrons? I think we have much more than that. I can think of many squadrons off the top of my head. There are at least 4 Tornado squadrons, plus the new Eurofighters, at least one Jaguar squadron, some Harriers, the Nimords, the Hercy Birds....the list goes on....


[edit on 16/1/05 by stumason]


The new plan for it outlined by the MOD is cutting back to four squadrons of eurofighteres.
Thats all the combat stuff.
I'll find the link on the BBC site....hang on...
Heres some info from another bbc story..


One RAF Tornado F-3 air defence squadron to be cut and the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons would be brought forward to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007.



[edit on 17-1-2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 17-1-2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 17-1-2005 by devilwasp]





top topics
 
0

log in

join