The Future of the Armed Forces

For discussions on politics and current events.
Post Reply
Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by Tony Williams »

This evening (Sat 21 Jan) at 9.00 pm on the BBC Parliament channel is the first of a lecture series called "Speaker's House", which will feature Julian Lewis MP (Conservative chairman of the Defence Select Committee) speaking on the subject "The Future of the Armed Forces".

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by Tony Williams »

My edited notes on the presentations:
Julian Lewis

We cannot predict the next war (recent wars were all unexpected) so it is essential to adopt flexibility in organising, equipping and training the armed forces.

The MoD has identified three tiers of warfare to prepare for, in priority order:

1. Terrorism, cyber warfare, and becoming involved in conflicts between other states

2. Chemical, biological and nuclear warfare (low probability but high impact)

3. Defence against a conventional military attack (low priority, but a serious problem if it occurs).

Russia had not been considered a serious threat until recently, but its resurgence should give a higher priority to defence against conventional attack.

The UK has preserved a full spectrum of capability but with a budget far below that of crisis levels. In 1963 6% of GDP was spent on defence; the same on welfare and similar sums on education and health. Now only 2% is spent on defence – the education budget is 2.5x larger, health is 4x and welfare 6x. Until the end of the Cold War the defence budget had been 4.3-5.1% of GDP. The NATO figure of 2% is a minimum, not a target.

Defence against nuclear war is satisfactory with the decision to order new Trident subs, but conventional deterrence is more difficult – we need strong armed forces and a strong alliance, in which the USA's involvement is essential. WW1 and WW2 may never had taken place if the aggressors had known that the US would immediately intervene against them. However, the NATO 'freeriders' who spent less than 2% on defence need to increase their funding.

The Heads of the Services are not sufficiently involved in strategic planning, leading to governments making unrealistic commitments without funding them. We are currently not spending nearly enough on conventional defence. Our defence forces are an insurance policy and we need to pay the premium!

It is being suggested that David Cameron might be NATO's next Secretary-General, but that would not be a good idea as he had shown poor judgement in military matters while Prime Minister.

To counter Islamic extremists we need to apply force selectively, and not base our actions on wishful thinking. We can't impose our western values until countries are ready for that, and we should stay out of Islamic countries and not get involved in the Shia/Sunni conflicts.

We should not apply civilian law to military situations, as is now happening (e.g. Northern Ireland, going back 40+ years – soldiers being faced with legal action); this has major consequences for morale and recruitment. There should be a Statute of Limitations for Northern Ireland.

----------------------------

Response by Deborah Haynes, The Times Defence Editor

We should have world-class armed forces, but the viability of our defence is in question given the funding gap – there is not enough money to meet the government's ambitions, yet the MoD is still having to make more cuts.

The new aircraft carriers are fine, but what about affording enough F-35s to go on them (still supposed to be 138 bought) and affording the crews to man both?

It is difficult to get a sense of how much money is really needed. £178 billion is supposed to be spent on equipment over the next ten years but this gives no sense of how much is needed, and whether or not spending represents value for money or is being misspent and wasted. The defence industries 'run rings around' the MoD.

The government often defers expenditure on projects to save money in the short term but this leads to increased costs in the long term. Military chiefs seem to be cowed by their political masters, only speaking out after they have retired.

The MoD does not seem to be planning, or even talking about, defence against potential Russian aggression.

We need to invest much more in future technologies – spending on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence is only on a small scale.
-------------------------------
I can't say I heard anything to disagree with. I think that the armed forces are in a worse state than the general public realises, and are in danger of becoming a paper tiger if they get hollowed out any more.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The MoD has identified three tiers of warfare to prepare for, let me paraphrase:

1. Terrorism, cyber warfare, and becoming involved in conflicts between other states; on-going, ie. Business as Usual

2. Chemical, biological and nuclear warfare (low probability but high impact)

3. Defence against a conventional military attack (low priority, but err, could be really serious).
Here we see that it really is a good idea to incorporate Intelligence into the defence effort/ spending budget. Regardless, Cameroon for Head of NATO?? Should you not have a track record to qualify for a post -in these days it seems not!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The Heads of the Services are not sufficiently involved in strategic planning, leading to governments making unrealistic commitments without funding them. We are currently not spending nearly enough on conventional defence. Our defence forces are an insurance policy and we need to pay the premium!
Let me take Dec 1968, and then compare with Dec 2018:
" the West and East fought to determine if the world would be dominated by free-market democracy or totalitarian socialism.
Political reforms in Czechoslovakia were met with brutal suppression by Soviet forces.
In the West, Paris was plagued by riots and the United States was shocked and polarized by [protests against] the impasse"

So what's different? The fleeting moment of a unipolar world came and went.
Brutal repression is being applied (in a more subtle way) across the border as this time Ukraine wants to break free "from the orbit".
Paris is the same as before, and there is a double-impasse in the US: not just between the parties, but also the Executive and the Lawmakers (the third part of the triangle having been turned into a battlefield).

So going back to the quote:
- yes, we do need to pay for the insurance policy (and we do need to revise the risk appraisal, what to insure against, as the world around us is morphing fast
- but what would not cost a lot of money is the other point made: improving the interface between politicians and other folks who have a remit of strategic planning (and are, thus, trusted with 10-20 year spending plans and commitments).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Tony Williams wrote:My edited notes on the presentations:
Julian Lewis


The UK has preserved a full spectrum of capability but with a budget far below that of crisis levels. In 1963 6% of GDP was spent on defence; the same on welfare and similar sums on education and health. Now only 2% is spent on defence – the education budget is 2.5x larger, health is 4x and welfare 6x. Until the end of the Cold War the defence budget had been 4.3-5.1% of GDP. The NATO figure of 2% is a minimum, not a target.
THIS. :thumbup:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

abc123 wrote:Now only 2% is spent on defence – the education budget is 2.5x larger, health is 4x and welfare 6x.
Let's see now, with a calculator we can assess the same priorities as set in Russia:
military spending in 2018 to 2.771 trillion, but will grow again afterward, to 2.808 trillion in 2020.
- a trillion (rbls) below the 2016 peak, when the unsustainability became evident (for everyone)

let us take the pre-crisis year of 2013, when the federal budget provided 607 billion rubles for education. It was 597 billion in 2016 and 630 billion in 2017. In 2018, that number will be 653 billion rubles, and in 2020 it will be 668 billion. As readers may remember, prices have already risen by a factor of 1.5. The implication? Dramatic cuts to education have occurred since 2013.

The health care situation looks even worse: 494 billion rubles in 2013, 506 billion in 2016, 452 billion in 2017, 460 billion in 2018, and 499 billion in 2020. So the numbers, again, have remained level, but what this amounts to, due to inflation, is far less.

In real terms, pensions will continue to shrink, which has been admitted by the authorities: for example the head of the Accounting Chamber, Tatyana Golikova, predicts a decrease of 2.7 percent.
- The deficit will be financed from borrowings and the National Welfare Fund (starting in 2018, the National Welfare Fund will incorporate the Reserve Fund, which will, in fact, confirm that the National Welfare Fund is certainly not an instrument of long-term investment for the benefit of future generations, contrary to previous claims).[ The part in italics is just code for the Reserve Fund having been emptied, so no need to declare that when you do a "merger"]
- The National Welfare Fund will hold a little more than 4 trillion rubles, and it is unclear how this money could finance the 2019–2020 deficit of 8.3 trillion, even taking into account new borrowings of 1.8 trillion rubles.

And as there is no one to borrow from (China might give advances for future energy shipments)
- there will be no welfare, going forward
- and printing money will be the obvious solution. Should the Central Bank Governor object, well: fire the person... simple :) as that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Don't see what Russia has with this discussion? I don't see anybody proposed 4-5% of GDP as in Russia. But 2,1% is obviously not enough for current ambitions of HMG.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

abc123 wrote:anybody proposed 4-5% [ :thumbup: ] of GDP as in Russia
Also, the example of turning policing into a paramilitary, with expenditure to match might be worthwhile of study [as an option :lol: for us, too]?

If 2.7 -3.7 trillion translates to 4-5%, will have to take the calculator out, again, to see what this translates to:
"Police spending rose from 1 trillion, 487 billion in 2013 to 1.898 trillion in 2016, 1.977 trillion in 2017, 2.108 trillion in 2018, and 2.140 trillion in 2020."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
abc123 wrote:anybody proposed 4-5% [ :thumbup: ] of GDP as in Russia
Also, the example of turning policing into a paramilitary, with expenditure to match might be worthwhile of study [as an option :lol: for us, too]?

If 2.7 -3.7 trillion translates to 4-5%, will have to take the calculator out, again, to see what this translates to:
"Police spending rose from 1 trillion, 487 billion in 2013 to 1.898 trillion in 2016, 1.977 trillion in 2017, 2.108 trillion in 2018, and 2.140 trillion in 2020."
How the hell would I know how much they spend? I know what I'm reading on internet.
And again, don't see what Russia has with this discussion?

Also, please quote me where I said that the UK has to spend 4-5% ( or more ) percent on defence or that the UK has to turn policing into paramilitary?

BUT, I have oftenly said that if UK ( and the West ) are in such horrible danger of Russia ( or/and China ) than 2% of GDP spending isn't enough. Or, on the other hand, if it is enough, than the danger isn't so horrible after all.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The Future of the Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:If 2.7 -3.7 trillion [in defence spending] translates to 4-5% [of Russian GNP], will have to take the calculator out, again, to see what this translates to:
"Police spending rose from 1 trillion, 487 billion in 2013 to 1.898 trillion in 2016, 1.977 trillion in 2017, 2.108 trillion in 2018, and 2.140 trillion in 2020."
This trend of spending massively, in order to have a Third Reich -type of control (with which comes the potential for manipulation... e.g. for brinkmanship and willingness to contemplate major wars) is replicated elsewhere, and the Hungarian - walking in the footsteps of Kafka - has made the so far most interesting talk in Davos, where everyone else seems to be consumed by trade war and Brexit:
"More broadly, Mr Soros cautioned that repressive regimes could utilise technology [esp. AI] to control their citizens, in what he called "a mortal threat to open societies".

But it is his philanthropic and political activities that have made him a divisive figure in the US, Europe and beyond.
He has spent billions of his own money funding human rights projects and liberal democratic ventures around the world, and has become a frequent target for criticism by right-wing groups due to his support for liberal causes."
- quote from the Beep's comment on this warning of sleep-walking into a kafka-esque future. Not too different from his previous year's speech on Facebook (& Co), just that state actors are now seen to be marching to the fore
- both the US and Chinese militaries are spending massively on AI (and cross-fertilisation with other uses, like by police and paramilitaries dedicated to internal control, is not a far-fetched possibility)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply