Perspicacious as always, thank you. However I am increasingly of the opinion that all our problems are downstream of an education system totally captured by forces that seem to want to destroy our culture. Today the Times carries a report of a school aiming for excellence under attack for being too strict. Reversing this will take generations, which I don’t think we have. Cue Private Frazer.
You seem to be proposing something quite entrepreneurial, like small engineering businesses are run. Can you really see the Great British State ever allowing that? Really?
While I agree our defence forces must relate to our foreign policy there are two key areas in any military force - first personal and second equipment.
While as outlined by Pete all our military kit is hopelessly not fit for purpose with our MOD and Top Brass constantly fighting the last war the recruitment and retention of service personal in abysmal and it matters not what kit you have if there are no happy troops to man them.
Look at the 2011 Armed Forces Covenant and you see how our governments for some time have NOT honoured it which it a large part of the reason recruitment and retention is so bad.
Finally the most pressing defence situation we face as a nation is the defence of our own island and borders and the ability to deal with serious civil unrest in our towns and cities.
On ALL fronts our defence needs are totally inadequate and our new PM is more concerned with opening a No 10 office in Manchester than preparing our armed forces to defend the very fabric of our society.
In all the talk of defence spending etc I sense the same fallacies that have beset all of the major political choices that have been made since the dawn of the digital age; mistaking the work that can done in the virtual and data world without considering the limits imposed by the physical world.
Unless I’ve greatly misunderstood the nature of the technological advances that have been made we still need bodies, clothed and equipped and armed to patrol, hold ground and maintain order behind the lines of any front line engagement - we used to call them soldiers. They need feeding and supplying which in itself is a task that requires further personnel. They also would require training and a significant reserve to compensate for attrition. Just as we can kid ourselves we can build windmills off the coast that provide intermittent energy without a back up or a means to deliver that energy (which cannot be stored at scale) if we make the right policy decisions we seem to have convinced ourselves we can somehow make a tiny army perform in a large theatre of operations indefinitely by the correct application of technology.
As you have said we need to be clear what our foreign policy objectives are, how they serve the security of the nation and then build the forces that allow us to achieve those objectives. That’s not what we have done for a long long while preferring moral posturing whilst being increasingly incapable of backing those postures up with credible application of force if necessary. Lions lead by donkeys, but donkeys that bray about freedom and cosplay as Churchill and Roosevelt whilst the lions get fewer and fewer and more badly equipped and supported.
I think a military disaster is on the cards that will cause the current regime of idiots to collapse.
We no longer have control of our country on the home front so what’s the point trying to defend from outside attacks which may not happen? Anyway, maybe a Russian invasion is preferable to an Islamic Republic of Great Britain?
When the USSR collapsed there was an opportunity to get a bit closer to Russia. It didn’t happen because the West (USA/NATO) didn’t want it.
Ukraine was regarded as Russian territory, so ignored whilst Poland, Hungary Czech Republic etc were attractive, not least as a buffer zone for the West.
Money is made from war and Ukraine is an ideal war zone.
Little Western investment, a natural mistrust between Russia/Ukraine, few financial consequences if war is lost, as Ukraine isn’t a Western asset, an ideal war.
The UK is bellicose over Ukraine, but there is no defence investment.
The Russians are well aware that our politicians are full of hot air.
A 3rd World War? Why? Russia can humiliate the UK anytime it wants. Our defences are threadbare.
When Biden was voted out his globalist agenda disappeared too. European/British governments thought, given time, Trump could be persuaded to toe the Globalist line (or might end up dead anyway?).
Trump is an Anglo file, but our government(s) despise him. If UK politics change Trump or his successor will welcome the UK.
As for the Russian threat? A new non globalist government should stop money going to Ukraine.
If we can’t afford our own defence we can’t afford supporting Ukraine.
As for France and its support of migrants coming to the UK?
Le Pen has already said she will stop illegal migration to France so UK boats will stop and the UK government will have to give a nod and a wink to Belgium instead (yes I think migrant boats are a Fabian plan in progress).
The industrial capacity of the UK is diabolical and it goes back to the Thatcher years. She sacrificed our industrial base for protection of the City of London.
As for boots on ground in Iran? I don’t see Trump doing anything except as a limited backer of an Iranian patriotic upraising, so the Iraq situation won’t occur.
There are those who think that the Ukraine war is a way of weakening Russia till it collapses,
The vacuum that leaves is a financial gold mine but a political nightmare, don’t go there.
Russia in Africa? Look at Afghanistan - not a situation to be revisited/ Russia should leave Africa for its own well being. If Islam wants to take over, it can be dealt with, without armed forces.
Africa and war are synonymous / keep away. Any future British government has to reduce debt. After stopping migration it’s the number one priority.
Smashing debt means no money for foreign aid which is paid for from borrowing. It has to stop.
If the pound becomes worthless, we can’t provide aid anyway.
The first priority for defence is at home. There are a number of predictions of civil war in the UK.
In such a situation, doubling/trebling the army is essential, as is large numbers of small reconnaissance and attack drones.
Let Eastern Europe deal with Russia. Countries like Poland and Hungary have good relations with the USA so can get guarantees from Trump (and successor) to back them up. What on Earth is the UK to do when our defences are defunct? Spending to defend Eastern Europe from Russia is as irrelevant as spending money to defend West Africa from Nigeria.
Accepting the use of drones in a civil war we don’t know how effective they will be in a conventional (type) war.
I wouldn’t give up on air superiority though.
If you can neutralise anti aircraft defences (with drones) you can destroy the oppositions supply lines for drones and that allows the use of low tech platforms like Vietnam era CH47 gunships to shoot down any opposition drones in a battlefield or geographic area.
As you say drone build up can be spotted with the right detection systems. Whether you use ECM or ‘Spooky’ type aircraft to stop attacks before they start, the capability isn’t a big cost.
I’ve a feeling the use of drones is over rated the way the 1957 Defence White Paper over rated missiles.
As for defence procurement, if you can remove the MOD from the armed forces purchasing process - I’d love to hear what you would do.
I’m all for it.
The new PM is not going to be a success (i hope I’m wrong).
All I see is greater controls of the people, anger of the people, increasing civil unrest and a further distancing from the USA.
Perspicacious as always, thank you. However I am increasingly of the opinion that all our problems are downstream of an education system totally captured by forces that seem to want to destroy our culture. Today the Times carries a report of a school aiming for excellence under attack for being too strict. Reversing this will take generations, which I don’t think we have. Cue Private Frazer.
But Fraser was right, wasn't he? Just 60 years too early.
You seem to be proposing something quite entrepreneurial, like small engineering businesses are run. Can you really see the Great British State ever allowing that? Really?
While I agree our defence forces must relate to our foreign policy there are two key areas in any military force - first personal and second equipment.
While as outlined by Pete all our military kit is hopelessly not fit for purpose with our MOD and Top Brass constantly fighting the last war the recruitment and retention of service personal in abysmal and it matters not what kit you have if there are no happy troops to man them.
Look at the 2011 Armed Forces Covenant and you see how our governments for some time have NOT honoured it which it a large part of the reason recruitment and retention is so bad.
Finally the most pressing defence situation we face as a nation is the defence of our own island and borders and the ability to deal with serious civil unrest in our towns and cities.
On ALL fronts our defence needs are totally inadequate and our new PM is more concerned with opening a No 10 office in Manchester than preparing our armed forces to defend the very fabric of our society.
In all the talk of defence spending etc I sense the same fallacies that have beset all of the major political choices that have been made since the dawn of the digital age; mistaking the work that can done in the virtual and data world without considering the limits imposed by the physical world.
Unless I’ve greatly misunderstood the nature of the technological advances that have been made we still need bodies, clothed and equipped and armed to patrol, hold ground and maintain order behind the lines of any front line engagement - we used to call them soldiers. They need feeding and supplying which in itself is a task that requires further personnel. They also would require training and a significant reserve to compensate for attrition. Just as we can kid ourselves we can build windmills off the coast that provide intermittent energy without a back up or a means to deliver that energy (which cannot be stored at scale) if we make the right policy decisions we seem to have convinced ourselves we can somehow make a tiny army perform in a large theatre of operations indefinitely by the correct application of technology.
As you have said we need to be clear what our foreign policy objectives are, how they serve the security of the nation and then build the forces that allow us to achieve those objectives. That’s not what we have done for a long long while preferring moral posturing whilst being increasingly incapable of backing those postures up with credible application of force if necessary. Lions lead by donkeys, but donkeys that bray about freedom and cosplay as Churchill and Roosevelt whilst the lions get fewer and fewer and more badly equipped and supported.
I think a military disaster is on the cards that will cause the current regime of idiots to collapse.
We no longer have control of our country on the home front so what’s the point trying to defend from outside attacks which may not happen? Anyway, maybe a Russian invasion is preferable to an Islamic Republic of Great Britain?
When the USSR collapsed there was an opportunity to get a bit closer to Russia. It didn’t happen because the West (USA/NATO) didn’t want it.
Ukraine was regarded as Russian territory, so ignored whilst Poland, Hungary Czech Republic etc were attractive, not least as a buffer zone for the West.
Money is made from war and Ukraine is an ideal war zone.
Little Western investment, a natural mistrust between Russia/Ukraine, few financial consequences if war is lost, as Ukraine isn’t a Western asset, an ideal war.
The UK is bellicose over Ukraine, but there is no defence investment.
The Russians are well aware that our politicians are full of hot air.
A 3rd World War? Why? Russia can humiliate the UK anytime it wants. Our defences are threadbare.
When Biden was voted out his globalist agenda disappeared too. European/British governments thought, given time, Trump could be persuaded to toe the Globalist line (or might end up dead anyway?).
Trump is an Anglo file, but our government(s) despise him. If UK politics change Trump or his successor will welcome the UK.
As for the Russian threat? A new non globalist government should stop money going to Ukraine.
If we can’t afford our own defence we can’t afford supporting Ukraine.
As for France and its support of migrants coming to the UK?
Le Pen has already said she will stop illegal migration to France so UK boats will stop and the UK government will have to give a nod and a wink to Belgium instead (yes I think migrant boats are a Fabian plan in progress).
The industrial capacity of the UK is diabolical and it goes back to the Thatcher years. She sacrificed our industrial base for protection of the City of London.
As for boots on ground in Iran? I don’t see Trump doing anything except as a limited backer of an Iranian patriotic upraising, so the Iraq situation won’t occur.
There are those who think that the Ukraine war is a way of weakening Russia till it collapses,
The vacuum that leaves is a financial gold mine but a political nightmare, don’t go there.
Russia in Africa? Look at Afghanistan - not a situation to be revisited/ Russia should leave Africa for its own well being. If Islam wants to take over, it can be dealt with, without armed forces.
Africa and war are synonymous / keep away. Any future British government has to reduce debt. After stopping migration it’s the number one priority.
Smashing debt means no money for foreign aid which is paid for from borrowing. It has to stop.
If the pound becomes worthless, we can’t provide aid anyway.
The first priority for defence is at home. There are a number of predictions of civil war in the UK.
In such a situation, doubling/trebling the army is essential, as is large numbers of small reconnaissance and attack drones.
Let Eastern Europe deal with Russia. Countries like Poland and Hungary have good relations with the USA so can get guarantees from Trump (and successor) to back them up. What on Earth is the UK to do when our defences are defunct? Spending to defend Eastern Europe from Russia is as irrelevant as spending money to defend West Africa from Nigeria.
Accepting the use of drones in a civil war we don’t know how effective they will be in a conventional (type) war.
I wouldn’t give up on air superiority though.
If you can neutralise anti aircraft defences (with drones) you can destroy the oppositions supply lines for drones and that allows the use of low tech platforms like Vietnam era CH47 gunships to shoot down any opposition drones in a battlefield or geographic area.
As you say drone build up can be spotted with the right detection systems. Whether you use ECM or ‘Spooky’ type aircraft to stop attacks before they start, the capability isn’t a big cost.
I’ve a feeling the use of drones is over rated the way the 1957 Defence White Paper over rated missiles.
As for defence procurement, if you can remove the MOD from the armed forces purchasing process - I’d love to hear what you would do.
I’m all for it.
The new PM is not going to be a success (i hope I’m wrong).
All I see is greater controls of the people, anger of the people, increasing civil unrest and a further distancing from the USA.
Yes, we’re in trouble.