Rush to cut defence spending and we all suffer

There's loads of scope for cuts in defence. Marching bands, memorial flight, red arrows, parachute display teams, horses, period costumes, swords, gliders (and airfields dedicated to gliding, such as RAF Syerston), personal stewards, more admirals than boats - these things can all go. Entertainment is not defence.

I'm not too worried if our armed forces are actually reduced in fighting capability - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that our armed forces can be abused and used in a manner that undermines our security.

Any defence secretary will obviously want to keep the war machine going and keep his budget as big as possible. Aren't we supposed to be part of a unified Europe? So why would we seem to be largely independant when it comes to defence? You could almost get the impression that we don't trust our European colleagues? We seem to be ranked 5th in world military strength, but why? We are a tiny island, so obviously something is very wrong here. Don't we have allies? The problem with a war machine is that, its purpose has to be justified and the only way to do that is to use it. That's why we ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan and thanks to the Americans for pushing us into it. No-one wants to see our troops get killed and cutting their front-line support isn't the point. They shouldn't be there in the first place. Its the big expensive items that need hitting first, what are we gearing up for World War 3? Stock piles of nuclear weapons we can/should never use, just what is the point, when we supposedly claim non proliferation? £43.9 Billion pounds a year some of that could surely be put to much better use? Like more free handouts to the Banks I don't think! I note the Civil Defence bill is also some £31.8 Billion also. In the US it's more tricky, Presidents that make defence cuts there tend to end up with a hole in the head!

This is the 21st century! Why do we need to go to war? Why do we need to invade other countries & bleat on about our soldiers being killed - what about the people dying in their thousands as a result of our actions.

I do not need to have government determine which country is friendly to me or not - during the apartheid government in South Africa, millions of white young men gave up their lives - what for, they are now disenfranchised as if they never were.

The men who make the decision to go to war, should be sent to the front line, not sat in their ivory towers, getting their six figure salaries, & their gold plated pension packages, while everyone else has to tighten their belts, face the prospect of being even more unpopular today than ever before.

All we need for true 'defence' is forces to safeguard our territorial waters and airspace against invasion. The rest is neocon/Blairite messianic twaddle.

The richest countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, control their borders and don't go swaggering round the world trying to impose Yooman Rites-- the ideology of international finance capitalism-- on people who never did and never will assimilate our particular set of parochial, limited and often hypocritical values.

We almost bankrupted ourselves defending the Empire and then lost it anyway. It's time our pretensions as a great global power, and the sanctimony with which they are larded, were finally laid to rest now we are almost bust again.

If we ever have to fight another real war, as opposed to the silly and futile crusades we are embroiled in nowadays, our defence budget will have to be an answering machine: 'We give in. Press 1 for our surrender in Chinese, press 2 for Arabic. Your call is being held in a queue.'

Largely agree with what has been said above!

WELL GOD HELP US ALL IF EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY FELT THE SAME WAY AS ALL THE ABOVE COMMENTS. I HAVE GROWN UP IN THIS COUNTRY IN PEACE AND SAFETY AS HAVE MY CHILDREN AND THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE STRONG MILITARY FORCES THAT ARE WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED AS THE FINEST IN THE WORLD AND THAT WE ARE ALSO PROTECTED BY OUR ONE TRUE ALLY IN THE WORLD, THE U.S.A.

I WONDER IF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DECIMATE OUR FORCES HAVE THOUGHT OF THE KNOCK ON EFFECT TO OUR INDUSTRY (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT). THE DEFENCE INDUSTRY EMPLOYS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AT ALL SKILL LEVELS AND EARNS HUGE SUMS IN EXPORTS AROUND THE WORLD.

I HOPE MY GRANDCHILDREN HAVE THE CHANCE TO GROW UP IN A PEACEFUL, FREE COUNTRY BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO WEAKEN OUR DEFENCES, I FEAR THEY MAY NOT.

PRAY THAT WE KEEP STRONG IF YOU VALUE OUR WAY OF LIFE AS MUCH AS I DO

David Ricketts,I do not want to see our defences decimated,but why do we, as a nation have to be in the forefront of any battles/skirmishes/wars that happen.We no longer have an Empire and it is about time we faced up to the fact that we cannot afford to be a big global military force.By all means defend the country,but stop running around the world like 'Billy Big Bollocks' pretending we can afford to follow and sniff America's arse wherever that nation takes us!

The Military should face cuts without a doubt,but in a measured and sensible way.

Grumpy Old Man.......What a pity you fail to understand the fact that we still have interests all around the world which allow us to live in peace and relative prosperity.

You say 'by all means defend our country' but we are an island and need both air and naval bases outside this island to defend ourselves and retaliate against anyone who might want to damage our overseas assets. Defence is a complex business which you obviously have NO understanding of.

May I also remind you that, but for the Americans, we would have most certainly lost the Second World War whether you like it or not. I am fed up with people like you criticising the USA at every opportunity and I will be eternally grateful for the sacrifices of that great nation which allow us all to live in peace to this day.

May I also say that is a pity that you cannot write a reply to this forum without resorting to gutter language. That just shows me and others, the type of person you are. Thank God you're not running the country.

I completely agree with Grumpy's fruity comments!!

We are at best a nation which has been tainted by past glories (if you could call disenfranchising millions of people across several continents, within their own borders, but have we learnt our lesson?

Nothing America does is straightforward - they are a nation born out of colonial history, who seem to believe that they are the greatest nation on this earth - how on earth does an entire nation believe it is right to invade foreign countries, based on lies, getting other countries (like UK) to sign up to what might in the fullness of time, be seen as illegal activities!

We know from past history that organisations like the CIA & FBI have been implicated in illegal actions in countries outside the borders of the USA - why do we feel the need to join them in their terrorism?

Why is it that soldiers from other countries are terrorists, but our soldiers are heroes? Why have we not learn that Afghanistan is not an area that can be brought under anyone's control? The terrain, the lack of infrastructure, the lack of any educational facilities for anyone (let alone women) especially in the very rural & remote parts of the country where there are no roads all mean that we are fighting a war where no one can win - the taliban will be back when our soldiers are brought back, & it will all have been in vain!

I understand that there are many military families in the world, who see no wrong in what they are doing, but is it not time to dispel the myth that to fight for your country is not noble - it is not noble to kill someone simply because your government happens to fund the killing.

Military families across the world will probably condemn my attitude towards them, but how can anyone in the 21st century arm themselves, with the knowledge that during their career, they will have to pull the trigger, taking someone's life.

We spend millions on our health care, yet seem willing to spend billions on arming ourselves to the teeth to demonstrate our superiority, while ready to kill those who do not subscribe to our way of life.

It is deeply disturbing that killing someone is taken so lightly by the army - how one earth do people who kill reconcile themselves to the laws of religion?

In the ordinary world, when someone takes another's life, they face the penalty of the society they live in; the perpetrator faces psychiatric analysis to check if they are mentally deficient in any way - well, this may sound insane to others, but how much of a soldiers actions are condoned because his country expects him to kill? Are we not allowing psychotics to legally carry out acts that would be condemned in day to day life?

Harking back to WWI & WWII is hardly the way forward - most of the soldiers who participated in these wars are nearly dead themselves, having come to a natural end - I do not believe many of them would support all the other wars we have been engaged in since then.

The UK is at the forefront in promoting human rights - the paradox is that if you are not a UK citizen, then you are denied this right by the actions of our governments. How on earth do we live with our conscience?

I know for a fact that liars like Blair & Bush will get their come uppance, if not in this world, surely, if there is a god, thenin their next. No one can order the invasion of another country (& all the deaths this has caused on both sides) & not pay for it, ever!

David Ricketts,you have absolutely no idea of the type of person I am and you also have no idea of my background including my career.You therefore should not assume that I have no understanding of defence.

I f you read my comments properly,I say that 1.) we cannot afford to be a big global military force.2.)Leaving out my Anglo-Saxon language,we should not be USA's poodle.3.) we should face military cuts in a measured and sensible way.4.)We should continue to defend the country.5.)I do not want to see our defences decimated.

Whilst you may not agree with my sentiments,plenty of people do....that is democracy.

Finally,I am also glad I am not running the country,but please take note that David Cameron IS and he basically agrees with the majority of what I have said.What are you going to be about that?

David,I do not know you,so I won't necessarily assume you are a rather pompous, easily offended old so and so....but you might be!

Happy to use my own given names

Strategically, we need to recognise an inconvenient truth. For two centuries, punctuated by two world wars, we have been able to take for granted the freedom of the seas and the airspace over them under the aegis of the Pax Britannica, morphing gracefully into the Pax Americana with continuing Anglo-French assistance. Competitors are developing capabilities which, newly, can dispute this benign maritime stability; and we need to remember always that capability is the mother of intention. Is grand international warfare a thing of the past, being economically mutually crippling? Certainly that was the view amongst the great powers around 1900.

In a note to me earlier this year, the eminent historian Professor N A M Rodger of All Souls College Oxford wrote "I see a once stable world order which has been progressively breaking up since 1990, and whose collapse is hastened by the rise of new powers combining in various degrees military power and political weakness. Parallels with Europe post 1970 suggest themselves, and do not inspire confidence. I expect the situation to get a lot more dangerous than it is now, maybe quickly. I do not rule out the possibility that the US will react, as it did in the 1930s, by running away and leaving others to face the dangers alone. On the other hand, I am optimistic that the public and politicians will respond when they understand the danger; the question is whether they will respond in time.".

On 13 May 1901 Mr Winston Churchill remarked in the House of Commons “Whereas any European power has to support a vast army first of all, we in this fortunate, happy island, relieved by our insular position of a double burden, may turn our undivided efforts and attention to the Fleet, Why should we sacrifice a game in which we are sure to win to play a game in which we are bound to lose?”

Of course we need a sensible and capable Army, and not a large one. But the Navy is another matter. The UK is heavily dependant upon imports of food, fuel and raw materials, supported by ‘just-in-time’ logistics and low stockpiles. Some 95% of the UK’s trade moves by sea, a figure stable historically and reasonably valid for projection. We need at least eight Liquid Natural Gas tankers to unload each day to satisfy the UK's winter demand. As North Sea (including Norwegian) fields deplete, this requirement will increase inexorably.

Whilst direct UK shipping registration has declined in half a century by orders of magnitude, in recent years there has been an increase. It may not be well understood that London remains the hub of world shipping. Lloyds of London is the largest ship and cargo insurer, and in aggregate London is host to seven of the ten largest shipping insurance firms worldwide. Together with the London Stock Exchange’s particular specialities, the UK is thus the western nation whose higher financial systems are most dependent upon the sea, an economy profoundly entwined in the actual transactions which govern the movement of shipping.

Interruptions to trade passage by sea, for instance of hydrocarbons, would have a near-immediate and profound affect on the functioning of the country and the wellbeing of the populous, with many collateral and damaging business consequences. Don't be 'Sea Blind', O City!

It is perfectly true and correct that the shape and spending on any nation's Armed Forces should be based on a country's Defence Policy which should include relevent parts of its Foreign Policy. First and foremost in shaping that policy is the protection of the UK, its citizens and their property and likewise its interests in the Falkland Islands. Secondly to identify the source of a likely threat to those two entities. All other areas which have a British presence military and/or civilian such as Cyprus, Gibraltar should have no role in the UK Defence Policy. Germany must take responsibility for its own defence. Thus, given that the UK is in essence an aircraft carrier, there is no need for an otherwise very well equipped navy to include such extremely expensive vessels. If the Falkland Islands were to be invaded again, nuclear powered submarines armed with cruise missiles and torpedoes could easily destroy all invading shipping and destroy as necessary parts of major cities in the country to which they belong, until a total withdrawal takes plsce. If countries like America wish to start wars in foreign parts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which present no threat to the UK and its interests(contrary to the propaganda promoted by various politicians at home ((including a Prime Minister)) and abroad), then so be it. On this basis, massive savings can be made to allow the ultimate British deterrent to be maintained - a nuclear powered submarine force armed with nuclear missiles, operating independently of authorisation by the U.S.A.

In cases where a British military presence is need as part of a coalition force on humanitarian grounds, existing British civil aircraft can be used/adapted to transport men(including a parachute regiment)and equipment, to any part of the world, within 24-48 hrs.

The RAF would be used to defend the U.K. with suitably equipped aircraft whilst a surface to air misile defence force could be formed as part of the Army to defend the country from attacks by missiles and aircraft.

GD-C's solution is the Fortress Britain approach, and an exceedingly inflexible version of it. The UK's prosperity depends upon trade. Perhaps GD-C might care to read my original piece in this exchange of views carefully and explain how we are sensibly to maintain influence/protection over the huge volume of international maritime trade, upon which we depend to a greater degree than any other major economy except (roughly equally) Japan, whilst depending upon the defence policy he advocates. Please do not imagine that we can rely upon the USA unconditionally and for ever.

As a footnote, GD-C's idea of the speed by which we can react by air to major contingencies abroad other than at token level is exaggerated. Such operations depend upon maritime logistics. The same applies to expensive airfieldsthat we currently maintain in host nations - vulnerable to ill-wishers, as the casualty rates sadly affirm . The most valuable early support for luckless Haiti following its catastrophic earthquake came from US aircraft carriers and amphibious forces; likewise to Aceh (the worst-hit populus) following the Tsunami. The general view of the vulnerability of aircraft carriers is, incidentally, greatly exaggerated in the public mind, just as the flexibility of their utility is under-rated. And, unlike fixed land air bases, they are tough to locate, let alone to hit.