UK Defence Force General discussion

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The pommy Conservative Party have promised "extensive review integrating defence, security and foreign policy" if elected. Apparently the Labour Party have promised a defence review as well. We know where the Labour Party one would lead, especially a Corbyn lead one. However, a Johnson lead govt is another story. Would Boris adhere to the recent Conservative mantra of austerity or would he be bold, change and spend on defence? The election is 8 days away, so we don't have long to wait for a result.

UK Conservatives propose far-reaching defense review if elected

I can think of at least two Conservative defence reviews in the past which were far reaching with global impacts.

One under Duncan Sandy's and one under John Nott.

If anyone is under the impression that the Conservative party have defence nailed as a policy I'd just blow a rude raspberry ..

Neither party has covered themselves in glory over the decades I fear.
 

DouglasLees

Member
I can think of at least two Conservative defence reviews in the past which were far reaching with global impacts.

One under Duncan Sandy's and one under John Nott.

If anyone is under the impression that the Conservative party have defence nailed as a policy I'd just blow a rude raspberry ..

Neither party has covered themselves in glory over the decades I fear.
On that happy note, I can’t remember the last time the Conservative Party actually conserved anything. ...

In the context of the Armed Forces, under their watch the policies of deconstruction have been pursued with greater vigour and intensity than under New Labour (remember that lot?).
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
On that happy note, I can’t remember the last time the Conservative Party actually conserved anything. ...

In the context of the Armed Forces, under their watch the policies of deconstruction have been pursued with greater vigour and intensity than under New Labour (remember that lot?).
I think this about covers it.

 

DouglasLees

Member

Tabby Cat

New Member
Mod edit: Member banned and content deleted following account creation to circumvent a prior Permanent Ban.
-Preceptor
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Mod edit: Member banned and content deleted following account creation to circumvent a prior Permanent Ban.
-Preceptor
G'day @Tabby Cat Welcome to the forum. I am struggling to see what, if anything, your post has to do with Russian strategic weapons, apart from being a possible target, and that is not the purpose of this thread. That's why I have moved it to the appropriate thread. I am further finding it difficult to ascertain any link between the current situation of their HRH the Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Russian strategic weapons. Even the highly versatile Edmund Blackadder would be flummoxed there. We don't take kindly to social gossip here, especially when it is related to a veteran who did 2 tours in Afghanistan, and went on to found, and is still very actively involved, in the Invictus Games for wounded and disable veterans.

I would argue that nations that are allied and / or friendly with the US should have always been prepared to be able to defend themselves with out US support. Not to do so is strategic blundering of a high order because history has shown us that sometimes our allies are not always in a position to materially aid us. Australia and NZ learned that in 1941. It also appears that the US may be entering a period of isolationism with Trump attempting to find ways of reducing US defence comments overseas, and I read in the weekend that Democrat contender Bernie Sanders would, if he won the White House, reduce the US defence commitments overseas. Now Sanders has to win the democrat primaries first, but 2016 showed that stranger things have happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm struggling to think of a recent war of choice in which the UK has fought alongside the US, which wasn't in itself precipitated by a US call to arms.

Can't think of one. The UK on the other hand has fought a couple of useful actions independently of the US in the last thirty years, Sierra Leone I think standing as a good example of what a useful mix of inventive interpretation of orders, creative use of local forces and a will to win can bring to the table.

One thing I'd like to tackle in passing is the apparent belief that Brexit will produce a more outward looking view - Brexit is largely an inwardly nationalistic movement and it's likely why so much foreign money was poured into advertising campaigns targeting some key voters and trying to persuade them that Brexit was a good idea and a no deal Brexit was perfectly acceptable - simply put, Brexit would likely weaken the UK' s position on the world stage.

The future ? We're still a key member of various treaty organisations, still a permanent security council member and still have global presence. Russia is a European problem to solve and you can see that is appreciated quite clearly by the sudden increase in key purchases by various countries in NATO (Turkey's spare slots for F35 didn't sit around for long!)

We'll have to wait and see what this all brings.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
One thing I'd like to tackle in passing is the apparent belief that Brexit will produce a more outward looking view - Brexit is largely an inwardly nationalistic movement and it's likely why so much foreign money was poured into advertising campaigns targeting some key voters and trying to persuade them that Brexit was a good idea and a no deal Brexit was perfectly acceptable - simply put, Brexit would likely weaken the UK' s position on the world stage.

We'll have to wait and see what this all brings.
Exactly. With US & Indian officials & politicians drooling over the improved terms (for their countries) they expect to get, we can see what trade deal negotiations should be like.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One thing I'd like to tackle in passing is the apparent belief that Brexit will produce a more outward looking view - Brexit is largely an inwardly nationalistic movement and it's likely why so much foreign money was poured into advertising campaigns targeting some key voters and trying to persuade them that Brexit was a good idea and a no deal Brexit was perfectly acceptable - simply put, Brexit would likely weaken the UK' s position on the world stage
We'll have to wait and see what this all brings.
Brexit will result in Britain having a more outward view, trade circumstance will demand it.
For too long she has been totally embroiled in EU politics, regulatory and economic matters, this has been the pragmatic approach caused by EU membership.
Since Britain abandoned the Commonwealth to side with the EU Commonwealth countries have readjusted. Yes the adjustment was very painful for a number of years but it opened doors to the rest of the world and I have no doubt that Aus and NZ for instance, ultimately were better off for the split just as the UK will be on leaving Europe.
This doesn’t mean there won’t be new and existing trade opportunities with the EU just that a UK Trade Dept must negotiate new terms free of the regulatory constraints of the past.
Britain has asked for help from the Australian Department of Trade (DFAT - Foreign Affairs and Trade) to provide help with negotiating FTAs with non EU others. DFAT has successfully negotiated FTAs with Japan, ROK, China, the Trans Pacific Partnership and others and currently completing deals with India and Indonesia so it has a wealth of recent experience.
As Britain’s own experience matures Trade deals with numerous non euro partners will flourish and her political partnership with such countries will grow because of it. Just as the Commonwealth thrived and survived once we were discarded, so will the UK.

Non of this presumes that Britain has totally ignored others because of the EU, simply that a change of emphasis will result from the realpolitik.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32
Brexit will result in Britain having a more outward view, trade circumstance will demand it.
For too long she has been totally embroiled in EU politics, regulatory and economic matters, this has been the pragmatic approach caused by EU membership.
Since Britain abandoned the Commonwealth to side with the EU Commonwealth countries have readjusted. Yes the adjustment was very painful for a number of years but it opened doors to the rest of the world and I have no doubt that Aus and NZ for instance, ultimately were better off for the split just as the UK will be on leaving Europe.
This doesn’t mean there won’t be new and existing trade opportunities with the EU just that a UK Trade Dept must negotiate new terms free of the regulatory constraints of the past.
Britain has asked for help from the Australian Department of Trade (DFAT - Foreign Affairs and Trade) to provide help with negotiating FTAs with non EU others. DFAT has successfully negotiated FTAs with Japan, ROK, China, the Trans Pacific Partnership and others and currently completing deals with India and Indonesia so it has a wealth of recent experience.
As Britain’s own experience matures Trade deals with numerous non euro partners will flourish and her political partnership with such countries will grow because of it. Just as the Commonwealth thrived and survived once we were discarded, so will the UK.

Non of this presumes that Britain has totally ignored others because of the EU, simply that a change of emphasis will result from the realpolitik.

Isn’t that counter productive since AU/UK are about to have there own meetings in regards to a FTA
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Isn’t that counter productive since AU/UK are about to have there own meetings in regards to a FTA
The UK has also obtained help from the NZ MFAT for negotiating trade deals as well, so you could be facing Kiwi negotiators across the negotiating table.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
I'm struggling to think of a recent war of choice in which the UK has fought alongside the US, which wasn't in itself precipitated by a US call to arms.

Can't think of one. The UK on the other hand has fought a couple of useful actions independently of the US in the last thirty years, Sierra Leone I think standing as a good example of what a useful mix of inventive interpretation of orders, creative use of local forces and a will to win can bring to the table.

One thing I'd like to tackle in passing is the apparent belief that Brexit will produce a more outward looking view - Brexit is largely an inwardly nationalistic movement and it's likely why so much foreign money was poured into advertising campaigns targeting some key voters and trying to persuade them that Brexit was a good idea and a no deal Brexit was perfectly acceptable - simply put, Brexit would likely weaken the UK' s position on the world stage.

The future ? We're still a key member of various treaty organisations, still a permanent security council member and still have global presence. Russia is a European problem to solve and you can see that is appreciated quite clearly by the sudden increase in key purchases by various countries in NATO (Turkey's spare slots for F35 didn't sit around for long!)

We'll have to wait and see what this all brings.

The Faulklands ring a bell?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Faulklands ring a bell?
I would not really consider the Falklands War a "war of choice", unless one feels that the UK responding with military and naval force to the invasion of several British Overseas Territories constitutes a "war of choice."
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm struggling to think of a recent war of choice in which the UK has fought alongside the US, which wasn't in itself precipitated by a US call to arms.

Can't think of one. The UK on the other hand has fought a couple of useful actions independently of the US in the last thirty years, Sierra Leone I think standing as a good example of what a useful mix of inventive interpretation of orders, creative use of local forces and a will to win can bring to the table.
Yep, I can think of one or three:
  1. The ill fated Suez War of 1956 after Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal. Britain and France did a sneaky deal with Israel about attacking Egypt in the Sinai so that Britain and France could mask their intentions of invading the canal zone as protection of the waterway during hostilities, when in fact it was a hostile takeover of assets.
  2. The Malayan conflict.
  3. The Borneo Confrontation, or as the Indonesians call it, Konfrontasi.
The Falklands War was legitimate defence against foreign invasion of sovereign territory.
One thing I'd like to tackle in passing is the apparent belief that Brexit will produce a more outward looking view - Brexit is largely an inwardly nationalistic movement and it's likely why so much foreign money was poured into advertising campaigns targeting some key voters and trying to persuade them that Brexit was a good idea and a no deal Brexit was perfectly acceptable - simply put, Brexit would likely weaken the UK' s position on the world stage.
Ah but wasn't the UK joining the EU the continuation of a 500 year plan? Must be a change in the plan. :D
The future ? We're still a key member of various treaty organisations, still a permanent security council member and still have global presence. Russia is a European problem to solve and you can see that is appreciated quite clearly by the sudden increase in key purchases by various countries in NATO (Turkey's spare slots for F35 didn't sit around for long!)

We'll have to wait and see what this all brings.
Well apparently the Defence Secretary is having sleepless nights: What keeps Britain’s defense secretary up at night? due to his concerns that the US may be withdrawing from leadership of western defence. As the article rightly supposes, funding will be a substantial issue, especially after the cuts from the various SDRS. As me mum in law says - all mouth and trousers.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
2020 Armistice Day interview by UKCDF Sir Nick Carter. He discusses wide range of issues including possibility of 3rd World War.

 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
I see that Dominic Cummings has departed No 10 and is no longer Boris's chief advisor. Wonder what impact that will have on the defence review that he was doing for Boris.
I actually think that Cummings' role was going to be limited given that the long-term spending plan has been postponed until next year due to Covid-19. The only reason he was in a position to be involved with the defence review was because other personnel were out of place and hadn't moved in to fill the void. So even if he had stayed on there's no guarantee he would have had a say in the longer term plans.

If there are any major changes announced in the defence review they'll be largely unfunded until next year, giving ample time to reverse course if necessary.
 
Top