Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Ìý

Commentators discuss the defence spending review which, the Â鶹ԼÅÄ has learned, may delay the decision on replacing the nuclear deterrent Trident until after the next election.

the delay a failure in leadership:

“Either Trident is necessary for the nation’s defence or it is not. If it is, delay will put the country at risk because the Trident submarines may become unusable before the replacement is ready. If you take the view that Trident is a luxury that the UK can no longer afford, then this delay in taking the decision merely costs more money.
Ìý
“It is hardly leadership to dodge a decision like this, just to avoid a row between Coalition partners.�

that decisions on what is cut should not be rushed:

“It's not the ‘money-driven’ approach that is at fault in the new review. You could argue the opposite. There is nothing like cash limits to clarify the mind and force hard decisions, as every private company knows. The problem, rather, is the politics. If haste is of the essence, then the government will avoid harsh options and try to balance as best it can the claims of competing interests. The Defence Select Committee wants more time because, a creature of the defence establishment, it believes that the public will oppose cuts given the chorus of fear aroused by the voices of the military. That would be disastrous. We need more time for debate so that clamour about the multitude of 'threats' can be stilled, the pathetic outbreak of inter-service bad-mouthing can be ended, and a fundamental review really can take place."

The wasted money in defence spending in the past to argue the cuts could be a good thing:

“Yesterday the Commons defence committee issued a report objecting to the speed of the defence review. Serious mistakes will be made as a result, it argued. But in defence, serious mistakes have already been made. The point is to rectify them, and that means accepting pressure to buy less and do less. Arguably George Osborne has done more than CND to reduce the billions squandered on nuclear weapons by demanding, for the first time, that they are counted as part of the defence budget. Britain still behaves as a global military power, but the old glory has gone.�

Ex SAS commanders their suggestion for savings in the army, with less focus on big weapons and more on technology:

“It is vital that we recognise now that the UK’s Forces are too heavy on equipment and manpower and too light on the essential components of an information-based military system to be effective. We lack efficient networked decision-making, well-placed surveillance, the capability to conduct simultaneous and precision strikes against our opponents, the ability to occupy the information/ media space, and the capability to protect both communications and strategic leadership.�

Conservative MP his fears about the dangers of predicting the next battle and advocates increasing the significance of the Territorial Army:

“One of the problems is that the Ministry of Defense and its predecessors have always gotten Britain's strategic threats wrong. We prepare to fight the French, and end up fighting the Germans. We prepare to fight the Russians, and end up fighting the Argentines. We prepare to fight on the central European plains, and end up fighting in the deserts of the Middle East and Central Asia. We prepare for high-intensity armored warfare, and end up mounting counterinsurgency operations.
Ìý
“So the most dangerous route the government could take would be to try and guess what comes next, and construct a narrow military solution tailored to the predicted threat. Yet that will be their temptation, given their otherwise sensible goals of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The intelligent route would be to design a military option that is not only cost-effective, but also flexible enough to respond to a wide range of threats. That argues strongly for a reserve-based solution."

that on the same day a 20% cut in defence spending was announced, David Cameron announced the international aid budget would not be cut:

“Giving aid to the poor and needy in the Third World is a fashionable cause - never mind that much of it is ineffectual, if it is not siphoned off by corrupt rulers. Making an argument that aid could be cut back - which they know in their hearts it could - is judged dangerously controversial.
Ìý
“So much for principle! Though Mr Cameron may be holding his head up high now, basking in the knowledge that he is being seen to act in a good way, he will be holding his head in shame if he leaves our Armed Forces unable to defend this country.�

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•

Ìý

Ìý