Can we afford to ditch 30,000 troops?

No need to waste lives in Afganishtan or money for that matter

The renowned US and UK forces cannot throw dice with those animals

Why should we consider further supporting the US war machine anyway? The US sucks UK into supporting it then when something happens not to US liking, little UK is slapped down by the law-makers and citizens of US (see recent editions of the press).

Now is the time to maintain our forces for our OWN use, not for the use of the US. If there have to be cuts to the military budgets - its obvious that the Trident replacement is put on hold, and we live to ask the Big Society what it thinks.

Ask the people of UK which they support in these difficult times. Its the trained and talented military men and women versus the little-used Trident (or is that the never-used Trident).

I vote for keeping all our forces and using them for the good of UK and OUR allies, helping those countries needing peace-makers, repairing damaged infrastructures caused by natural and man-made disasters. I don't see good use of Trident other than trying to look like a world power.

We should neither be reducing our forces or staying in Afganastan which at best can only end in withdrawing our forces without having illiminated a threat that will remain regardless of efforts of the military. The primary duty of any government is defence of the nation. The NHS and the State education system are in dire need of reform despite the highly biased views of those who work in them.

If we have nukes why do we need an army?

This is Blair's and Bushes war,

Neither of these 2 are around now SO Bring the troops home,

If Obama wants to be a warmongerer then let him use American troops.

Enough is enough.

I have long wondered at the meaning of the term ''special relationship' that we have with the U.S. of A.

It seems that it is best illustrated by the blood sacrifice that we are making and the treasure we have expended in continuing to fight in support of American interests and adventures in foreign lands.

The practical consequence of this misguided foreign policy is to exacerbate the terrorist threat to this country.

Of course we understand that Iraq has vast oil reserves and Afganistan is rich in mineral deposits, but in this regard the ''special relationship'' ceases to be applicable.

We maintain, at huge expense our independent nuclear deterrent in the form of our Trident nuclear submarine system which we need to punch above our weight.

Why we need to punch above our weight has never been explained and in any event it is widely suspected that the launch codes for our ''independent''Trident system are held by the Pentagon while we of course bear all the system costs.

America has installed a vast network of about 800 military bases in some 200 countries worldwide. In the UK alone we shelter five American bases all designated RAF from which operations against Iraq and Afganistan have been and continue to be launched.

We share a ''special relationship'' with the U.S.of A. so, as a quid pro quo, why don't we seek to establish a British base in America? The very idea is risible.

The French, our nearest neighbours were memorably described by Dubya as ''cheese eating surrender monkeys''.

France is distinguished as the only major power in Europe without American bases

Britain is by definition, part of Europe which defines us as Europeans. Let us remember that in all our future alliances.

Perhaps it is now time to review why we keep thousands of troops stationed in Germany. Both World War 2 and the Cold War are long over. A friend stationed by the Army near Hanover tells me that the soldiers didn't know which way to point their guns!

The decision is not difficult.

The Royal Navy and RAF are essential to our security.

The army can be reduced in number, and taken back to full strength at relatively short notice.

It does however take far more time to build and equip two aircraft carriers.

The two new aircraft carriers , and a nuclear deterrent are essential.

Most of the people of Britain think that the 'Special Relationship' with America is a joke.

We must alter the nature of our relationship with that ridiculous country.

I think that all of the above comments are missing the point!

The forces that this country is so rightly proud of, not only protect our interests abroad but DO deter would-be aggressors from simply walking all over us. The different branches of the services have very specific roles and cannot simply be merged together to satisfy treasury beaurocrats.

The question we should all be asking ourselves is not 'can we afford all these services' but 'can we afford NOT to have them'.

Apart from the obvious extra 30,000 jobless, there is all the extra jobs that would be lost in supporting the troops. Increasing the number of troops and opening more bases would get my vote.

@Harry - Iceland invades the Hebrides - nuke Reykjavik? (or Argentina the Falklands...) - we need a range of capabilities.

@Keith Snell - I agree. The forces have been running on fumes for a while now, constantly working at a level above that planned (and budgeted) for in the last Defence Review in the late '90s. Things are getting slightly better now Iraq has been dropped, but there is now a lot of knackered kit that needs TLC or replacement.

I hope the SDSR will define what the UK wants it's armed forces to do, the Government will provide the budget to allow that, and no future PM will be allowed to commit them above those definitions.

Unless, of course, there is an existential threat, when the forces will "do and die" as always...

Quite agree with David Ricketts (above) Simple answer is, increase funding for the three Armed Services to what is required for our countrys security. Cut all overseas aid, A lot like India (China?) don't need it any more and as for that corrupt bunch in Africa, is simply throwing money down the drain. That should save heaps! Require more, OK then don't give housing and medical services, housing benefits etc to any further immigrants who come in to the country. That will in addition save a lot more money for our boys in the Services!

Can we afford not to ?

look at this and ponder -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

UK spends close on $ 60 billion pa - the joint 3rd highest military expenditure on the planet

its obscene

and the US spends $ 600 billion = 10 x obscene

if we didnt spend so much money defending freedom, may be we could afford for EVERYONE to eat, drink, live, love, and learn how to enjoy it, without it being at someone else's expense.

Military spending is a sheer and barbaric waste of life and resources in my opinion

- and if we get get to the year 2200, we'll look back and shudder at our utterly puerile and arrogant naivety.

Modern human civilisation began in Iraq Iran and Afghanistan. The Market system of trading was invented by these cultures 4000 years ago.

How about we just give all these people a fair price for all their valuable commodities, and simply leave them to get on with their lives, which the imperial super cultures have spent the last 150 years ruining, through greed and avarice

No wonder those islamic cultures have TURNED extreme and fundamental - just look what we've done to them !

Honestly .. grow up !

Then our "brave brave" ( and yet one more "brave" from the gung ho cheer leaders ) boys ( and girls) can stay home and make music and common sense, instead of killing and being killed for a cause they dont understand, ...and doesnt even pay well even if you survive.

As Franz Kafka once put it - " stop.. stop.. stop.."

I agree with David Ricketts that we should not lose any front-line troops. However, noting the relative remuneration levels, we could perhaps keep the 30,000 pairs of boots on the ground by firing say 10,000 desk Generals from the MOD.

The national deterrent is exactly what it says on the tin & the fact that it has never been used is a justification in its own right. Scrap Trident replacement at your peril when many more rogue states are developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

We are an island nation with over 90% of our trade coming & going by sea. The UK's past success was built mainly by having a powerful and well-funded Royal Navy - nothing has changed and trade needs protecting. Rather than the continued hype about the Battle of Britain, what about the true war winner, the Battle of the Atlantic which saved us from starvation (both food & ammunition) and probable defeat.

Amalgamate the Royal Marines & the Paras - you would have a bloodbath!

Ponder this. The UK Army is about 100,000 strong. Apparently it is stretched. 10,000 are in Afghanistan and probably about 20,000 on pre and post deployment. What on earth are the other 70,000 doing? Stretched? sounds more like crass management to me.

just as a side point and a very minor we spend 45m per year on Army Cadets

I know the cadets is a good thing just like the scouts but I point this out

this one area which we could rethink

THe TA is another my TA center has on avarage 7 soilders reporting for duty on a weekday eveing

think of the cost of TA centers and the full time staff of 5 or more doing 9 til 5 work

We do need an army navy and RAF for deffence nothing more nothing less

do you know what the usarmy call our soilders SKIP RATS they look for equipment that the US have thrown away because its better than the equipment we give our soilders

Time to move on cut get rid of waesting money we simply cant aford it any more

dont cut the armed forces just put them were they are neede on our open borders and stop us being invaded by the back door. burn your pass ports or buy a dog and you live hear or say you like men.

put 30,000 troops on the borders and save the country

Given we are deploying troops in Afghanistan in much larger numbers than the rest of Europe , is it not time for continental Europe to share a higher burden for its own defence by UK pulling out the German garrison and reduce an Airforce geared to defend Europe from a mass land invasion with inordinately large and unaffordable Euro fighters? The troop withdrawal will clearly increase capital costs in UK for housing and infrastructure, if we still need them all.

The Armed Sevices need to be better co-ordinated: each of them is still geared to fighting WWII and the Cold War. The 3 service's senior officers fight their own service's corner and ensure an equal division of the Defence budget (33.3 % each), despite the army taking the brunt of the work and casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senior Officers each want there own service to have lots of kit, even if it is of no use in modern conflicts, because without the need for kit, there is no need for subordinate officers / NCOs / other ranks to operate it, and therefore no need for so many senior officers. it will be hard for the senior officers to give up all the perks and trappings of high military office: mess functions / chauffer-driven cars / high social status / knighthoods and peerages / nice pension at the end.

Army - why do we need all these tanks. The Russians are no longer in a positon to send their tank armies rolling across the European plain. Equally tanks cannot be deployed quickly to trouble spots around the globe. Follow the American example and replace tanks with a more versatile Air Cavalry (ie assault helicopters and helicopter gunships). The reason it doesn't happen at the moment is that most of the British Army's tank regiments are officered by Hooray Henrys who would regard it beneath their dignity to become part of the Army Air Corps.

RAF - all use of helicopters in support of land operations should be under the control of the army (ie as part of the Army Air Corps). Why do we need expensive bombers and the Eurofighter / Typhoon. Bombers were useful in WWII for destroying German infrastructure: today you would use cyber attack to cripple a major enemy's critical infrastructure by interupting their electricity supply and management functions (who are we likely to be facing in such a conflict any way ?).

Also BAe has just announced the development of "Tanaris": an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) - an unmanned aircraft to you and me, which will have a bomb / fighter / surveillance capability. If we ever really needed to repeat Dresden, a nuclear strike by any of several types of missile would do the job.

Royal Navy: it does not have enough amphibious assault ships to support the army in the most likely type of conflict we will have to face: operating in a regional conflict, providing a maritime base for troops and helicopters to deploy rapidly. The fiasco over the Royal Naval personnel, humiliatingly kidnapped by the Iranians a couple of years ago, indicates another problem: they have insufficient craft for operating in shallow coastal waters.

1. Withdraw from Afghanistan - In the words of Muhammad Ali No Afghan ever called me N*gger! The Enemy is closer than we think. The war has nothing to do with British Interests and the thousands of lives lost in Afghanistan and on British side far outweights the deaths that occurred during 9/11

2. Drop Trident. It's the Elephant in the Room

3. Adopt a French policy rather than this assumed lap dog "Special Relationship".

As somebody who has served in HM Armed Forces , we are always praised by the policitians in Public and cut ( i.e Spending Cuts) in the Back behind Minstry Doors.

The two largest white elephants in Britain's current defence plans are the two hugely expensive aircraft carriers, their complement of aircraft and support ships. In remembering that the Falklands' war was effectively ended by the sinking of the Belgrano and that many British troops were delivered by civilian ships, I defy anyone to put forward a future scenario in which the UK SHOULD become involved in, which requires aircraft carriers. The days of 'Britanna rules the waves' are long gone and so is the far flung empire we once ruled. Where, other than the British Isles themselves, do we need to defend? At best,Cyprus is useful for monitoring Middle East comm traffic and as a staging post to Afganistan. The illegal invasion of Iraq has proved a total failure for all concerned, whilst the war in Afganistan is half way to achieving the same conclusion.

Any real nuclear threat by Iran can be dealt with by existing United States naval power (6th Fleet) and SAC bombers.

Any similar action by N. Korea will be a problem for China and the U.S.A. to deal with. Other than on the basis of providing economic sanctions and diplomatic support, these two countries are not our business.

The Defence Review should address the requirements to defend the shores and direct interests of the UK and not those of the United States of America, or indeed the EU members of NATO.