My once-in-a-generation cut? The armed forces. All of them

[Blue_Tires]

My once-in-a-generation cut? The armed forces. All of themWe are safer than at any time since the Norman conquest. Yet £45bn is spent defending Britain against fantasy enemies


I say cut defence. I don't mean nibble at it or slice it. I mean cut it, all £45bn of it. George Osborne yesterday asked the nation "for once in a generation" to think the unthinkable, to offer not just percentage cuts but "whether government needs to provide certain public services at all".

What do we really get from the army, the navy and the air force beyond soldiers dying in distant wars and a tingle when the band marches by? Is the tingle worth £45bn, more than the total spent on schools? Why does Osborne "ringfence" defence when everyone knows its budget is a bankruptcy waiting to happen, when Labour ministers bought the wrong kit for wars that they insisted it fight?

Osborne cannot believe the armed forces are so vital or so efficient as to be excused the star chamber's "fundamental re-evaluation of their role". He knows their management and procurement have long been an insult to the taxpayer. The reason for his timidity must be that, like David Cameron, he is a young man scared of old generals.

I was content to be expensively defended against the threat of global communism. With the end of the cold war in the 1990s that threat vanished. In its place was a fantasy proposition, that some unspecified but potent "enemy" lurked in the seas and skies around Britain. Where is it?

Each incoming government since 1990 has held so-called defence reviews "to match capabilities to policy objectives". I helped with one in 1997, and it was rubbish from start to finish, a cosmetic attempt to justify the colossal procurements then in train, and in such a way that any cut would present Labour as "soft" on defence.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Robertson, the then defence secretary were terrified into submission. They agreed to a parody of generals fighting the last war but one. They bought new destroyers to defeat the U-boat menace. They bought new carriers to save the British empire. They bought Eurofighters to duel with Russian air aces. Trident submarines with nuclear warheads went on cruising the deep, deterring no one, just so Blair could walk tall at conferences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/08/cuts-armed-services-fantasy-enemies

[Arctic Dave]

1. HELL YES! CUT! CUT! CUT!

Fuck the MIC. They are the biggest waste of treasure the world has ever known.

[phusion]

2. 45 billion pouinds?

that's it?! We only wish we were spending that much on defense in the US.

[Hawkowl]

4. The US spends more than the ENTIRE WORLD

Yes, that's right. We spend more on "defense" than the entire world COMBINED. Don't forget that 80% of the Dept. of Energy's budget is really spent on nuclear weapons in addition to the Defense Department.

Yet, with all this money, we still can not defeat a nation of goat herders and poppy growers after eight years.

[proteus_lives]

3. All the armed forces? Madness.

And that's why it won't happen but every service could use a financial overhaul.

[Sherman A1]

5. I wouldn't cut all of them.

An overall cut by 50% would be a great start. I would however, increase the size of The Coast Guard, perhaps by transferring Navy and Air Force assets and personnel to them. I would also increase the size of NOAA to assist with it's environmental work & research. Some naval assets could be modified to a humanitarian mission profile for work in such disasters as Haiti and alike.

Then we need to really pour on the effort with the savings to transfer those industries and personnel into building green technology to replace oil & coal.

Also such infrastructure projects as are needed would be another area in which to transfer the savings.

But, it will never happen.

:-(

[The Wizard]

8. Your suggestions are realistic

but will only happen when other lobbyists can figure out how to get more money in Swiss bank accounts than the current crop of defense contractors bribing our law makers.

[Sherman A1]

9. Precisely

Well Said!

I wouldn't really mind if a company such as BP or alike made huge sums of money from renewable energies. As long as I can get back and forth to work without breaking my budget.

The problem is just like the RailRoads of the 1950's era. They thought they were in the RR business, however they were wrong, they were in the transportation industry and missed opportunities to grow passenger rail, losing that to autos and eventually airlines.

The BP's, Exxon's etc think they are in the oil business, when they are really in the energy business and need to be at the cutting edge of development of alternate fuels transitioning from oil.

But, as you said, no one will do anything until they can find a way to get more money out of the government than our defense contractors do.

[Alcibiades]

6. Defense spending is a kind of jobs program

The modern post-industrial nations have not been particularly good at figuring out what to do with the men who formerly would have worked at factories, but now cannot, because the factories have been shipped to China. One of the few good options for them for a career with good benefits is the military. Of course, much of what the military does doesn't contribute to the productive economy, but is instead parasitic upon it: it would be great if the UK, or the US, could come up with a way to employ these young men and women more productively.

[Blue_Tires]

7. I agree there needs to be some jobs program to make up the shortfall

but the contractors, suppliers, etc., have for decades been immense black holes of graft, cost overruns, backroom deals and every other manner of taxpayer waste...