"Can the UK afford to defend itself?" Topic

"Events in Ukraine, and wider concern over how far Russian military aggression could go, have pushed the issue of defence up the political agenda over the last year.

The continuing turmoil in the Arab world – and in particular the horrific wars in Syria and Iraq – have further unsettled Europe's neighbourhood.

In part because of these concerns, Prime Minister David Cameron signed up to a commitment, at the Nato summit in Wales in September, to maintain UK defence spending at 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Since then, President Barack Obama has lobbied the prime minister to stick to this commitment.

But the 2% pledge has not been translated into planned budget allocations. Continuing economic growth means that the UK is, on current plans, due to fall below the Nato target in 2016…"
Full article here
bbc.com/news/uk-31692143

Amicalement
Armand

probably not

It's going to take something catastrophic to occur first.

Can it? yes, easily

Does it want to? Debatable

The UK can defend itself, but only if it doesn't need to defend the rest of the world as well.

That's the wrong question.

The correct question is, "Can Britain afford not to defend itself"?

Can the UK maintain that 2% spending? Sure. Gotta shift some $$ from other programs, though.

But the problem is that 2% is apparently nowhere near enough to actually maintain the military at a state where it's capable of successfully defending the UK.

I think it depends on what you mean by "defending the UK". Does that mean the geographical entity known as the British Isles, or does it mean protecting the UK's interests? We could simply "get by" with a coastguard and a militia to deal with local threats. However, a massive percentage of our food, energy and other day-to-day needs comes from abroad (and this figure will only get worse as our population continues to outgrow our infrastructure and resources. How far should we project our power to defend these interests? And against whom – Russia? China? Or the long, long, long grind of low level insurgency? You need different forces to deal with these different threats and maintaining all options is what is killing us right now.

Traditionally, HM Armed Forces have always been at the forefront of peace-keeping and disaster relief across the world. We could, arguably, ditch this; alternatively, we could focus on it and make it our contribution to overseas aid (which, for all the whining about "charity begins at home", buys us important influence abroad). To this end, we would need to expand engineering, medical and other logistics services. Do we want to do this?

The big question is what will the next government do and what will be its defence policy? Ignoring all the "why can't we just get along" parties, realistically we are looking at either a party that has historically been antagonistic towards HM Armed Forces, or one that wants everything done as cheaply as possible, until it comes to lining corporate pockets with expensive projects that have limited use.

For all its faults, the UK and its military services can be – and almost always are – a force for good in the world. This is an inherent part of defending ourselves, whether we like it or not. Do we want this to continue?

Against what?
Terrorism? – almost certainly
Mega killer robots from Alpha Centauri? – almost certainly not
Bogeymen from the Cold War Closet? – don't need to, but we will if arms manufacturers and their paranoid supporters whip up enough panic.

Gwydion,

I must have missed the bit where BAE started flying Tu-95s into the UK ADZ or when Lockheed-Martin invaded Ukraine…

It's almost traditional to cut the military to the bone between wars……..usually the first 'campaign' in the next war goes badly and then things get better as the politicians loosen he purse strings……….

I think it depends on what you mean by "defending the UK". Does that mean the geographical entity known as the British Isles, or does it mean protecting the UK's interests?

I would have to argue for "protecting the UK's interests".

The British Army in India was certainly well-suited to the long slog of counter-insurgency warfare.

In modern days where individual casualties have a much higher price, this means more body armor, MRAPs, etc.

Another problem is that counter-insurgency warfare requires a completely different skill set than a full-on war.

Personally, I'm in favor of 3 separate organizations and training protocols. Armored/Mechanized units are for full-on warfare, and get their primary training around such. Leg infantry are for counter-insurgency work. And then there's a mid-range formation that will either do the city-clearing and holding of territory in full-on war or the rapid-response in COIN. Currently, that formation is Strykers in the US Army.

I must have missed the bit where BAE started flying Tu-95s into the UK ADZ

Of course ADIZ are international air space and can be quite legally be flown through by BAE
Aggressive Lockheed and Boeing intel flights along the Russian border don't seem to make quite the same headlines in the Western media.

Define 'aggressive'.

What you mean by 'Along the Russian border' actually means 'within friendly sovereign airspace that happens to be adjacent to the Russian border'.

We don't fly around Norway and attempt to violate their sovereign airspace from the seaward flank, which IS what they routinely attempt to do (and have succeeded in the case of several states bordering the Baltic).

Attempts to enter Russian ADZs usually meet a VERY aggressive response, up to and including being shot down, which is why we don't do it, despite what you might believe.

No NATO recce flight knowingly enters civil controlled airspace without permission. They also do not switch off transponders. to do so is wilfully negligent, hostile and dangerous to civil aviation, as well as being illegal under international aviation law, regardless of the 'international' status of the airspace in question.

The reason that NATO willy-waving sorties don't appear in the western press is because they simply don't exist.

No NATO recce flight knowingly enters civil controlled airspace without permission. They also do not switch off transponders. to do so is wilfully negligent, hostile and dangerous to civil aviation, as well as being illegal under international aviation law, regardless of the 'international' status of the airspace in question.

You forgot "dangerous to the recce aircraft". Remember that EP-3E that was forced down in China?

Indeed, but I'd add that the EP-3E had it's transponder switched on and was obeying international law in international airspace…

You won't find any NATO aircraft making dangerous manoeuvres around Russian (or Chinese) aircraft in our ADZs, yet they seem to regard our aircraft as fair game for 'buzzing', as that Chinese pilot found to his cost. A Russian Su-27 almost rammed a Nimrod near the carrier 'Kuznetzov' shortly before the P-3 incident, in very similar circumstances and Su-27s have been misbehaving near NATO aircraft over the Baltic in recent months.

No