Defence cuts........A huge mistake!!!

[J-DAM10]

Mr. Cameron, Dr. Fox and the remainder of our Government are turning our military capability into a joke.
If the Government have their way, the UK will no longer be a military power and will not be able to defend ourselves or others. It would seem that that the Government are only interested in the short term gains that the cuts would achieve (a quick buck), and ignoring, or not even considering, the long term catastrophies that they could cause.
One only has to look at the crisis in Africa and the Middle East to be reminded of how volitile and violent our World is. With only one aircraft carrier, a massive reduction in attack jets and the loss of roughly 12,000 troops from the three services, the Government are depleting our capability to react to any situation.
Does anybody else agree that the SDSR should be re-opened and these cuts scrapped as a matter of international and national security?

[askyourgran]

I agree J-DAM we are a small island nation and our defences should be maintained.The Middle East and Africa is in turmoil. Several Asian countries are building nuclear deterrents including Korea and India. I can't understand the mentality of our Government scrapping aircraft carriers and cutting back on our Armed Services. IMHO we are being left wide open at home and abroad, with our police forces now in jeopardy.

[Gromit]

The truth is, we have been punching above our weight for the ladt 50 years. Post Empire, our forces remained very high compared to other comparable nations. We are a very small island on this planet yet we maintain the 5th largest military capability.

It may do our ego good to be the world's policeman, but we cannot afford it. Police are being cut, nurses are losing their jobs, yet we can spend money policing Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not really have any dependancies any more, they are grown up and able to look after themselves. We should spend more securing tnese shores, and not some far off ones.

[birdie1971]

Gromit - “... We should spend more securing these shores, and not some far off ones.”

As an island nation, this means having a capable navy and air force with ships suitable for deployment in order to protect ourselves and our allies. This includes cruisers, frigates, subs, aircraft carriers (preferably with aircraft on them), destroyers, etc.

Scaling down out military capacity is potentially disastrous as is cutting back on our police force. This is short term politics at its very worst.

We were once a world power Gromit. And as a consequence of that and of living in enlightened times, it is seen as 'the decent thing to do' to protect those countries and communities that we once colonised if they cannot protect themselves. This is the legacy of our imperialistic past and we cannot and should not walk away from it. For example, the Falkland Islands were invaded back in 1982 and we went to war with Argentina. Were a similar invasion to happen tomorrow, I doubt that we would be able to do the same again.

But I don't suppose that matters because, after all, these particular British people do live a very long way away...

[WELSHYORKIE]

I agree with what you are saying J-DAM. If we had another Falklands what will Cameron - do just give it back to the Argies? We are being to made a laughing stock by this Government. Only problem is, do we really have a viable alternative? The Tories, in my humble opinion, seem to be cutting too hard, too soon. I don't normally get involved in politics but I would have thought a longer term strategy would be far better than these swingeing cuts we are all having to endure (unless you've just had a multi-million bonus from the bank).

[Gromit]

Birdie1971

When we ruled an Empire we could afford it. We cannot keep on protecting the Commonwealth for ever, and most don't want our interference. Last weeks' debacle in a land we once ruled demonstrated that they don't want us.

The reality is that we are now small fry on the world stage. And no, we cannot keep spending on an oversized military in case a little island somewhere, someday gets attacked. Unfortunate, but true.

[bazwillrun]

All part of the bigger picture, EU Superstate, they wont want us having all this military might, too much of a threat to them and their future plans where we are concerned.

[I.Don No]

the only positive note on this is that maybe, just maybe, we will keep our fluffing noses out of problems that the USA don't want to be seen to be involved in.

[Bobbisox]

and yet, here they are getting itchy fingers to meddle in the Middle East J-D

[Gromit]

Western economies are run on oil which is why we cannot stop ourselves from meddling in other countries (if they have oil). All the justification that Gadafi is a dictator and stealing his country's wealth applies tenfold to Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but not being an oil rich country, we don't send boats, and undercover diplomats and the SAS.

Maybe we should just stop supporting ALL dictators and absolute monarchs. Our current cherry picking of despots we support and those we don't is confusing and inconsistant.

[andy-hughes]

Maybe it's time to accept that a little more diplomacy and a little less invasion is what will make the world a safer place to live in.

[anotheoldgit]

Regarding being the world's policeman, I must agree with Gromit on this one.

But I disagree with the amount of cuts, thin out some of the top brass and get rid of some outdated military hardware, would be enough.

[McMouse]

We've got to cut our coat according to the cloth.....can't afford the military hardware that is for prestige rather than defence. Take for example Trident....in any scenario just who would we nuke?

[Quizmonster]

So, Gromit, how much oil did we acquire by intervening in Kosovo? And, if we got loads of it by intervening in Iraq, why don't the government use the vast stocks they must have hidden away somewhere to reduce the price of petrol?

[Quizmonster]

I should have added above re the actual question...you could hardly make it up what they're doing to our armed forces. They destroy the Royal Navy one month by leaving them effectively carrier-less and the RAF the next by decommissioning Harriers, cutting up Nimrods, ending pilot-training and sacking people by e-mail. And now they propose a no-fly zone over Libya! Have they any idea what a no-fly zone actually IS?

[andy-hughes]

Good morning QM - hope i find you well?

I am not sure of the technical explanation of the term 'no fly zone' but I do know that we won;t be enforcing one - the planes which would undertake this role are being decommissioned at the end of April!

[youngmafbog]

Rare I agree with Gromit, but on this one I do.

We cannot go on living in the past, we need to learn to keep out and let others do it if required.
Our armed forces are far too large which enables our leaders to use them in business we would do well to keep out of. Smaller forces would mean they could not longer do that, it does not necessarily follow that we could not defend. Defence and attack are two different thinkgs.

I would like to see us revert to smaller elite troops instead, the sort we can deploy quickly and get out quickly mainly to retirve hostages etc. We need a Navy but smaller frigates are certainly to order of the day, mainiting large expensive aircraft carries 'just in case' the Argies invade is ludicrous.

[anotheoldgit]

I personally think aircraft carriers are useful, friendly airstrips are not always available, so what better than a mobile airstrip.

[Paveway-IV]

I don't agree with J-DAM10 in some aspects.

The SDSR is nothing new. In the past ie (Maggie Thatcher era) there were cuts, lay offs and equiptment sold. We managed just fine in the Falklands, NI troubles and The Gulf War to name a few. We do need the CUTS however i prefer the use the word MODERNISE.

Most of the Army Personal cuts are people who are nearing the end of there time served, the long term sick and injuried and volunteers. Afghanistan is not affected as it comes out of a special budget and warned off/just come back/out there now personal are not effected.

Navy/RAF i dont agree with. PM Cameron is too quick to get rid of the Harrier and ARC Royal. The Harrier is as iconic as the SPITFIRE and to just completely terminate it was and is a dark day in British History. Also to sell all Harriers to the Americans just rubs salt into the wound.
With the Arc Royal we should'nt decomission Arc Royal until its replacment has been built and is fully running. Remember we are a island and in both world wars we were nearly staved into submission.

[rov1100]

When was the last time that Switzerland was invaded. They may not have oil but they seem to control the world's finances.