Britain Military Forces On Cusp Of Major Change

[dalsingh101]

Great news in my opinion. Now we have to see who the next emerging set of jerks with a taste for world domination are.....

No more Iraq-scale operations after cuts

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-more-iraqscale-operations-after-cuts-2110527.html

PA

Britain will be unable in future to mount operations on the scale of the current intervention in Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq, the Government disclosed today as it set out plans to cut spending on the armed forces.

David Cameron confirmed that warships, fast jet fighters and thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen would face the axe as he unveiled details of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in the House of Commons.

Under the revised planning assumptions in the SDSR, the forces will be able to mount one enduring brigade-level operation, with up to 6,500 personnel, compared to the 10,000 currently deployed in Afghanistan, plus two smaller interventions.

Alternatively they will be able to mount a one-off, timed-limited major intervention - "with sufficient warning" - of up to three brigades with around 30,000 personnel - two thirds of the force deployed to Iraq in 2003.

Mr Cameron also announced a scaling back of the Trident nuclear deterrent, cutting the stockpile of warheads from 160 to 120 and the maximum number of warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40.

He confirmed the key "main gate" decision on the renewal of the missile-carrying submarine fleet would be put back until after the general election in 2016 - leaving open the possibility that it could be abandoned by a future government.

Mr Cameron told the Commons that while the UK needed to retain the ability to mount operations overseas, strategy had become "over-reliant on military intervention" and that in future the emphasis would be on preventing conflicts.

"Britain has punched above its weight in the world and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come," he said.

"But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security."

However the SDSR was dismissed by Labour leader Ed Miliband as a cost-cutting exercise which failed to address the security needs of the country.

"It is a spending review dressed up as a defence review, it has been chaotically conducted, it has been hastily prepared and it is simply not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs," he said.

Mr Cameron said that the cuts represented a real terms reduction of "only 8%" in the defence spending over the next four years and that Britain would continue to meet its Nato target of committing 2% of GDP to defence.

However officials refused to say whether operational spending in Afghanistan would now count towards the target. Previously only the core defence budget has been counted.

In the key decisions facing the three services, the Army will:-

* Cut the number of troops by around 7,000, taking it to 95,000 by 2015;

* Reduce its holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;

* Cut the number of deployable brigades by one, as it re-structures to five multi-role brigades.

The Royal Navy will:-

* Get its two planned new aircraft carriers while scrapping the existing HMS Ark Royal with immediate effect;

* Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious while retaining one as a helicopter platform:

* Cut its surface fleet of frigates and destroyers from 23 to 19;

* Reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000.

The RAF will:-

* Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;

* Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;

* Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.

The cuts to aircraft mean that the RAF will no longer require three of its bases, including Kinloss in Scotland.

However some of the bases could still be retained to accommodate the 20,000 troops currently stationed in Germany, who will be brought back to the UK by 2020.

A study of the bases of all three services is expected to report in the early part of next year.

Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.

The SDSR did include some increases in capability - including 12 new Chinook transport helicopters, more armoured vehicles and additional investment in special forces.

Officials confirmed that no infantry battalions would be cut as long as the Army remained engaged on major combat operations in Afghanistan.

The most controversial element of the plan has however been the programme to build the new aircraft carriers, even though there will be no aircraft to fly from them for ten years.

Mr Cameron blamed the "appalling legacy" of the previous Labour government which meant that it would be more expensive to cancel the second boat than to build it.

While both ships will now go ahead, one will be put on "extended readiness" - effectively mothballed - and may be sold off.

Officials confirmed that, with the axing of HMS Ark Royal and the Harriers, the UK would have no fixed-wing aircraft carrier capability until 2020 when the new US-built Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) becomes available.

The operational carrier will now be fitted with catapult and arrestor gear - "cat and trap" - enabling the acquisition of the cheaper, more capable carrier-variant of the JSF rather than the short take-off, vertical landing version.

The change also will mean that US and French aircraft will now be able to operate from carriers, which would otherwise not have been possible.

No final decision has been taken on the number of JSFs that will be bought, although the SDSR said that the operational carrier would normally carry 12 rather than the 36 originally envisaged.

The SDSR was tonight strongly attacked by a former chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, who said the measures would be viewed with "dismay" by service men and women.

"I cannot say I welcome the statement on this cash-driven defence review and I certainly can't possibly dignify it with the word 'strategic'," he told the House of Lords.

Earlier, Mr Cameron was given a taste of the pain being felt within the forces when he was directly challenged by Lieutenant Commander Kris Ward, a Harrier pilot, during a visit to Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood.

"I have flown 140 odd missions in Afghanistan, and I am now potentially facing unemployment," he told the Prime Minister. "How am I supposed to feel about that, please, sir?"

Edited October 21, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Mithar]

Unless Britain is facing any invasion from a European country, I don't see why this Island nation (which is a natural defense in itself) needed such a huge budget for it's military. The decision taken by the current British government is a great decisions indeed. Just wish the US did the same thing and focus only on it's own land mass instead of acting like world police.

[dalsingh101]

Unless Britain is facing any invasion from a European country, I don't see why this Island nation (which is a natural defense in itself) needed such a huge budget for it's military.

Well they like to 'punch above their weight' but recent events have led to them being pretty much knocked to the canvas with an economic crisis coupled with wars they really can't afford to be in. The answer to your question is that these guys are so used to sticking their noses in other people's business over the last few centuries that they liked to keep a big military machine available to keep the option for doing this type of thing open.

The decision taken by the current British government is a great decisions indeed.

Don't kid yourself, it wasn't born of moral considerations but ਮਜਬੂਰੀ. The truth is that they have been compelled into doing this. Let's hope the sun has finally set on these asshole's neo-imperial ambitions.

Just wish the US did the same thing and focus only on it's own land mass instead of acting like world police.

We got a new East India Company type organisation in the Republicans I think. My worry is about these guys going into warmonger mode as soon as they get back in power again. I think people in that party have links with the arms industry that makes war even more profitable and attractive for them?

[shaheediyan]

The US is seeing the start of the end as a superpower.

China is the 'sleeping dragon'. It has business interests in almost every corner of the planet - it's appetite is insatiable.

[amardeep]

Most economics believe that the US will go bankrupt in 2020. I sense a snap of power from China and India going to war with each other

Edited October 23, 2010 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

India couldn't handle war with China.

India couldn't handle a war with anyone who is determined probably.

Pussies.

If they did get to that situation, all of a sudden they would be looking at Panjab to supply soldiers after having abused it for so long.

If they let Pakistan walk over them like that, how do you think they would deal with a war with China (which would be supported by Paks in all likelihood in anycase).

India is going to be the Anglosphere's biaatch of the season. That may not be too bad as hopefully living standards of the poor will eventually improve. By this I mean the real poor, not a Panjabi farmer who can't afford to give his daughter an over the top, fancy pants wedding type poor. But the other kind.

Edited October 23, 2010 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

you probably mean the poverty as soon as you go a little south of agra....

[kdsingh80]

Most economics believe that the US will go bankrupt in 2020. I sense a snap of power from China and India going to war with each other

There is no reason for China and India to go on war with Each other.China is manufactoring hub While India is much more in service sector.Both countries are totally dependant on Foreign investment From USA and Europe Any war will kill the economic development of Both countries.So as long as White men are bring truck loads of Dollars ,both these countries will remain happy.

[kdsingh80]

If they let Pakistan walk over them like that, how do you think they would deal with a war with China (which would be supported by Paks in all likelihood in anycase).

I have several times heard this arguement ,but the Other side of story is Pak has truck loads of nukes which they developed With help of Chinese and USA always give them military aid.Several times they have threatened India that they will not hesistate to Nuke India if India attack them

Could you please suggest what will be better strategy to Deal with pak ?

In the days of cold war USA was much more developed Than Soviet Yet they never dared to attack soviet because they were afraid that if Soviet Nuke them or some of their friends in Europe then those countries would had been ruined for ever.And what was the net result Soviet died its own Death

[amardeep]

Kdsingh: The economics believe that US will go bankrupt meaning that using india and china as a manufacture company will decrease extensively. With the only super power in the world gone, dont you think the other emerging two will fight for this seat? i sure to think so.

[dalsingh101]

Kdsingh: The economics believe that US will go bankrupt meaning that using india and china as a manufacture company will decrease extensively. With the only super power in the world gone, dont you think the other emerging two will fight for this seat? i sure to think so.

India doesn't have the psychology and stomach for war, unless it is against its own people. China would win hands down.

What we would probably get is the disintegration of India into different nations? It's pretty fragile as it is now, can you imagine what it will be like with weakened western 'allies' who are known to desert the arselicking babus the very moment it suits them.

I mean look at what Poland had to learn regarding the British promise of support in the case of a German invasion.......

Indians are messed up because they have no grasp of global political reality and age old strong sycophantic tendencies. What India needs to get into its head is that NO ONE actually likes a weak toady, but sometimes they will put up with one for temporary purposes. Once the purpose is served or needs change, the sycophant, hitherto being treated with some degree of respect gets show what is truly thought of him/her.

KDS - You asked me what India should do.

They should do exactly what Guru Gobind Singh did to organise and uplift Sikhs physically, spiritually, psychologically, organizationally in the modern context. India is like a crafty but foolish old woman who keeps the pot boiling with various infights within her own family in order to keep her matriarchy perpetuated - totally oblivious to the fact that outsiders are congregating around the house whilst they argue, to give them all a good beating and rob the house.

Besides, putting a few eggs in non Anglosphere baskets wouldn't hurt now would it?

Edited October 23, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

KDS - You asked me what India should do.

They should do exactly what Guru Gobind Singh did to organise and uplift Sikhs physically, spiritually, psychologically, organizationally in the modern context. India is like a crafty but foolish old woman who keeps the pot boiling with various infights within her own family in order to keep her matriarchy perpetuated - totally oblivious to the fact that outsiders are congregating around the house whilst they argue, to give them all a good beating and rob the house.

Not sure if that analogy works? lol

India is no China where one ethnicity Dominates the entire china.India as a united country even after 63 Years is no short of miracle.Infights in this type of society is very common.

What you are saying RSS exactly tries to do but there version of Religion or upliftment is not acceptable to majority ,that is why You don't find them in 3 states of South India

The problems of India are unique and there solution should be unique,but rushing into war With Pak getting yourself nuked is plain stupidity.Even if India nuke Pak in retalition the casulities in heavily populated states of India which include Punjab because of Nuclear attacks are going to be so High

that the entire world will be shocked.

[kdsingh80]

Kdsingh: The economics believe that US will go bankrupt meaning that using india and china as a manufacture company will decrease extensively. With the only super power in the world gone, dont you think the other emerging two will fight for this seat? i sure to think so.

My dear Amardeep

Do you want to say that companies of USA and Europe that are making huge profits in India and China will go bankrupt? Which economic school is telling this.USA can go Bankrupt but its capitalistic companies That have branches around the world could hardly go bankrupt.

Also we should not forget that best technologies in world still lies With USa ,european and japanese companies.so there is no chance of these companies going bankrupt.Countries like India and China cannot even manufactore their own fighter planes and commercial planes.

[dalsingh101]

The problems of India are unique and there solution should be unique,but rushing into war With Pak getting yourself nuked is plain stupidity.Even if India nuke Pak in retalition the casulities in heavily populated states of India which include Punjab because of Nuclear attacks are going to be so High that the entire world will be shocked.

I think India being new to the nuclear game is more scared than other nations who've had them for a while.

But they probably have a bit more reason to be given the type of animals across the border.

Other nations could be expected to never use their nuclear weapons unless it was the last resort. I don't know if Paks have the type of common sense we can rely on for this.

The other thing is given India's inherent cowardice, it is really sad to think that they may live in perpetual fear of a nuclear strike from Paks and be shoved about like their ancestors were because of it.

It is embarrassing to the max. Maybe it is better to perish in a nuclear conflict than live that type of existence?

[kdsingh80]

I think India being new to the nuclear game is more scared than other nations who've had them for a while.

But they probably have a bit more reason to be given the type of animals across the border.

Other nations could be expected to never use their nuclear weapons unless it was the last resort. I don't know if Paks have the type of common sense we can rely on for this.

The other thing is given India's inherent cowardice, it is really sad to think that they may live in perpetual fear of a nuclear strike from Paks and be shoved about like their ancestors were because of it.

It is embarrassing to the max. Maybe it is better to perish in a nuclear conflict than live that type of existence?

Well there is reason to be scared.Hardly any country in world has enemy that is

in it neighbourhood and and have stocks of world most deadly weapons of mass destruction.And moreover no one knows who is in control of nuclear weapons.

Whether it is Pak government ,ISI or some Jihadi's

Also you can look at arabs that how much they hate israel with alliance they can easily overpower israel ,but Israel's nuclear capabilty is its best defence.

It is because of that Arabs can't do anything.

You can say that Indians were cowards as they lost most battles against muslims

but what about Arabs ? Why can't they wipe out a tiny country Israel,though Arabs were known as great fighters who conquered and converted many countries in history

[kdsingh80]

Other nations could be expected to never use their nuclear weapons unless it was the last resort. I don't know if Paks have the type of common sense we can rely on for this.

India offered them no first use agreement but they clearly rejected that,It shows their intention that in any situation they will not hesistate to use Nuclear weapons.

[dalsingh101]

India offered them no first use agreement but they clearly rejected that,It shows their intention that in any situation they will not hesistate to use Nuclear weapons.

Do you think they aren't as worried about being nuked themselves?

[kdsingh80]

Do you think they aren't as worried about being nuked themselves?

Well I don't think they worried about nukes as much as Indians.India can defeat them in war without nukes so Why will India nuke them? It is always weaker countries that threaten stronger countries with nukes.Of course If chinese army will advance to Indian territory then India might threaten China with nukes.

[dalsingh101]

Also seriously contemplate that they may well have a good understanding of the Indian mentality (i.e. scared), and be purposefully acting threateningly with their nukes knowing that Hindustanis will be paralyzed in fear from it.

[kdsingh80]

Also seriously contemplate that they may well have a good understanding of the Indian mentality (i.e. scared), and be purposefully acting threateningly with their nukes knowing that Hindustanis will be paralyzed in fear from it.

But this fear is genuine When you have an islamic fanatic neighbour Where you don't know when any mad mullah can grab the power then you have to be concerned aboutit.

http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/28/top12.htm

BTW above is the news where sikh organisations in UK have asked India and Pakistan to spare sikh homeland incase of nuclear war war.Are you also going to say that sikhs are paralyizing in fear

[dalsingh101]

You can only do one thing under these circumstances KDS. Accept God's will and carry on with life. If God sees fit to annihilate Panjab, nothing anyone can do will change that.

Yes, I have pondered upon this before. All I can say it that Sikhi will survive outside of its birthplace in the diaspora.