UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[Hereward]

47 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Improving our national defence always sounds good, but it is unclear why a dramatic increase in investment is required. Britain currently spends more money on its defence than most countries in the world. As a percentage of GDP we are seventh, behind only Saudi Arabia, Russia (and that figure is contentious, it appears Russia spends somewhat less than that), the USA, South Korea, India and Australia, and somewhat ahead of France and a lot further ahead than Turkey and Brazil. At this rate we are operating or about to be operating two aircraft carriers more advanced than any in the world bar the USA's, we have a fleet of the most advanced aircraft in the world (delivered a bit late, but still), some of the most advanced destroyers and a reasonably formidable battery of vehicles. We also have a nuclear deterrent. We are far more than capable of defending the British Isles and our overseas assets (the Falklands are arguably the most defended-per-head-of-population location in the world).

In those areas where we face a significant enemy, such as Eastern Europe and the Baltics, we are part of a very large and capable multinational military alliance capable of bringing overwhelming force to bear on that threat, to the point where there really isn't much of a realistic threat. This is especially true given that Russia's crumbling economy means it can't sustain its military spending, and has prevented them from pursuing next-generation technology such as their new generation of tanks (which they built a dozen of and then stopped because they're far too expensive). The threat from that quarter appears to have receded in recent years.

We probably do need a new generation of tanks and submarines, and increasing our armed forces back to over 100,000 would give us some spare capacity in case of an unexpected commitment arising, but I'm not seeing a massive gap in British capability that urgently needs tens of billions of pounds hurled into it right now ahead of other, much-more neglected areas of spending such as education and council budgets, which have been effectively crippled for a decade straight.

I do agree that the last four years have taught us that relying on America for our protection is not a good idea, but we never really did that anyway. Due to the simple issue of budgets and manpower, we do need to align with other countries against significant threats, and it if isn't the USA then it's going to be Europe. Fortunately, it appears that the next four years at least should be a return to the international status quo. 

This is misleading on many levels. We operate two aircraft carriers, the cost of which has crippled the navy, and which are of zero benefit to the defence of the UK; we are an aircraft carrier. They are only of use for foreign adventures, which I'm pretty sure the left has lost interest in post-Iraq, despite Sierra Leone, and we don't have the ships to protect. As the Russians have explicitly said, they're just two big targets costing a hypersonic missile each.

As for Russia, I don't know what you are talking about. I have spent most of the last 25 years examining Russia capability, and nothing you said is true. They continue to upgrade their forces, declining economy or not, and continue to explicitly threaten to use them, and then actually use them. As a wise woman said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Lastly, the only way you could possibly think that there is a return to the status quo is if you don't know what is going on. Russia and Turkey could go to war at any moment over the Caucasus or Syria or Libya, the only thing saving us is how much Putin and Erdogan admire each other's sheer arseholiness.  Russia is moving into Africa, so is China and Turkey. Turkey has effectively taken control of Libya, and is now trying to move into Chad and Mali. Egypt is on the verge of war with Turkey and Ethiopia, France and Turkey are at loggerheads. And that's just places where we have direct interests. Let's not even discuss China and the belt and road,

Also, we don't need new tanks. Tanks are the new knights. They are utterly useless against an advanced enemy, as even the Armenian-Azeri conflict proves. What we need are UAVs, We currently lag so far behind Turkey, Saudi, the UAE and China that it's not even funny.

Edit to what I think is your edit: If you think Biden's election is a return to the status quo, you are fooling yourself, or perhaps not, as Obama withdrew American influence from a great many places. Either way, American isolationism has accelerated and the US electorate has shown no desire whatsoever to reverse that. We, and everyone else allied to them, are largely on our own.

 

[Hereward]

36 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I don’t know if any of you have read a newspaper recently, but the ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rising. More sea means more waves, and I’ll be damned if they don’t need someone to rule them!

Congratulations, you now appear as a footnote in the dictionary definition of virtue signalling.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

I am utterly unsurprised. Your refusal to accept the view of the "experts" is noted, though funny how the disdain for refusal to accept the expert view disappears when the experts don't align with your preconceptions. I disagree. 

This seems unnecessarily harsh, and a little puzzling to me, quite honestly. Like, there's a use of "experts" in quotations marks, so I went back and checked, but neither you or I have used the word, so... not sure what that's indicating? If you're saying that you have more expertise than I do in this, I probably agree, but you didn't really cite or refer to any specifics in previous posts. Honestly, just 'I disagree' would have been all that's needed.

Quote

What makes you think we are adequately defended, apart from wishful thing, and what is more, depending on others to provide the security we can't be bothered to provide ourselves?

I'm not necessarily saying we're adequately defended - I'm saying I am not aware of any threats that are a, best countered by more warships and also b, so imminent and serious that they should be at the absolute top of the nation's priority list while, to be frank, people are going hungry and critical public services including healthcare are gravely underfunded and have been for some time.

Quote

The comment of foreign-flagged ships makes no sense. The US has no merchant marine to speak of, are you therefore suggesting that it doesn't, or shouldn't, or has no interest in, or isn't allowed to protect the sea lanes?

I'll certainly grant that there have been incidents in recent years where the Royal Navy have had to protect the sea lanes. I'm just not convinced, again, that these are at the top of the national priority list, or justify this level of expenditure. (Though that level, I'm aware, has been overstated for effect.)

Quote

Picking up my earlier point, when you say that "International security and stability does more to protect import shipping, surely, than a big navy", aren't you just saying someone else's navy, in this case the utterly unreliable Americans, should provide the security gratis, and we can therefore just forget about it? I am restraining myself here on SNP policy n free-riding.

No, I'm saying that international law and co-operation in the common interest is just as important as guns: and that countries with far smaller navies do not appear to be collapsing for the lack of warships.

[The Anti-Targ]

If you want a military to be a bulwark against China and Russia and to replace an increasingly isolating USA then you pretty much need all of Europe (including the UK) to establish its own military. The amount of hardware the UK alone can put into the field even if it optimises every branch for the modern military conflict doesn't amount to jack shite.

And whatever boogeyman fears some people might have, if anyone is going to invade the UK with actual boots and equipment on the ground shit will have already gone so far sideways (including the USA being a self-imploded smoking ruin) that you'll be buggered anyway. So the main reason to have a significant military is for overseas adventures. The amount of military you need (esp with the nuclear deterrant) to keep mainland UK safe from foreign military invasion is almost certainly less than what you have already.

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

This seems unnecessarily harsh, and a little puzzling to me, quite honestly. Like, there's a use of "experts" in quotations marks, so I went back and checked, but neither you or I have used the word, so... not sure what that's indicating? If you're saying that you have more expertise than I do in this, I probably agree, but you didn't really cite or refer to any specifics in previous posts. Honestly, just 'I disagree' would have been all that's needed.

I'm not necessarily saying we're adequately defended - I'm saying I am not aware of any threats that are a, best countered by more warships and also b, so imminent and serious that they should be at the absolute top of the nation's priority list while, to be frank, people are going hungry and critical public services including healthcare are gravely underfunded and have been for some time.

I'll certainly grant that there have been incidents in recent years where the Royal Navy have had to protect the sea lanes. I'm just not convinced, again, that these are at the top of the national priority list, or justify this level of expenditure. (Though that level, I'm aware, has been overstated for effect.)

No, I'm saying that international law and co-operation in the common interest is just as important as guns: and that countries with far smaller navies do not appear to be collapsing for the lack of it.

I apologise for the quotes. It's not something I would accept in the analysis I review. However, I don't think I disagree is enough. It has been a theme on this board that the right ignores experts, and I'm just pointing out that the left does too, when it doesn't agree with them. 

On your second point, we disagree, though not fundamentally, unless you think that I don't care about hunger or critical public services. The fact that you are not aware of threats does not negate them, particularly as the means to counter them takes years to address. 

On your last point, we fundamentally disagree. Expectations of international law and cooperation are the result of a shared capability and dedication to enforce them, which we no longer have. Without that, you have post-1935 League of Nations..

[Hereward]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want a military to be a bulwark against China and Russia and to replace an increasingly isolating USA then you pretty much need all of Europe (including the UK) to establish its own military. The amount of hardware the UK alone can put into the field even if it optimises every branch for the modern military conflict doesn't amount to jack shite.

And whatever boogeyman fears some people might have, if anyone is going to invade the UK with actual boots and equipment on the ground shit will have already gone so far sideways (including the USA being a self-imploded smoking ruin) that you'll be buggered anyway. So the main reason to have a significant military is for overseas adventures. The amount of military you need (esp with the nuclear deterrant) to keep mainland UK safe from foreign military invasion is almost certainly less than what you have already.

While true in parts, that's a defeatist argument. If the only shot in your gun is a nuclear one, then no one is going to believe you'd use it. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

29 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Congratulations, you now appear as a footnote in the dictionary definition of virtue signalling.

And it only cost us £16.5bn!

[The Anti-Targ]

Just now, Hereward said:

While true in parts, that's a defeatist argument. If the only shot in your gun is a nuclear one, then no one is going to believe you'd use it. 

It's hardly your only shot. You'll be lobbing conventional cruise missiles from the comfort of your own harbours before any invading vessel gets inside your EEZ. Because you have a great big moat, the only thing you really need to prevent loss of territorial integrity is air superiority. It's a simple thing to say and much harder to achieve, but if you really want to gear up for someone trying to come and kick down your door then it's air superiority you need to focus on.

The chunnel as the only land route to the UK can be defended by Ena Sharples ghost (RIP) and a couple of bovver boys, if you don't want to just blow it up and collapse it of course.

What you really need to think about is the niche you will fill when you actually do need to leave home and get into military action somewhere else. Because you will never be the principle provider of military hardware and personnel in any significant theatre of conflict.

[Hereward]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's hardly your only shot. You'll be lobbing conventional cruise missiles from the comfort of your own harbours before any invading vessel gets inside your EEZ. Because you have a great big moat, the only thing you really need to prevent loss of territorial integrity is air superiority. It's a simple thing to say and much harder to achieve, but if you really want to gear up for someone trying to come and kick down your door then it's air superiority you need to focus on.

The chunnel as the only land route to the UK can be defended by Ena Sharples ghost (RIP) and a couple of bovver boys, if you don't want to just blow it up and collapse it of course.

What you really need to think about is the niche you will fill when you actually do need to leave home and get into military action somewhere else. Because you will never be the principle provider of military hardware and personnel in any significant theatre of conflict.

No, as in 1940 air superiority is a just a prerequisite. You need it and naval superiority.

[Hereward]

10 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

And it only cost us £16.5bn!

You're right. It's only 30% of the subsidy to Scotland!

[Werthead]

 

Quote

This is misleading on many levels. We operate two aircraft carriers, the cost of which has crippled the navy, and which are of zero benefit to the defence of the UK; we are an aircraft carrier. They are only of use for foreign adventures, which I'm pretty sure the left has lost interest in post-Iraq, despite Sierra Leone, and we don't have the ships to protect. As the Russians have explicitly said, they're just two big targets costing a hypersonic missile each.

I think it's Britain's overall taste for foreign adventures which has left us and that's from both the left and right. Well-supported peacekeeping missions, sure, but the British public has lost all interest in us wading into overseas conflicts on any basis other than overwhelming need and a genuine threat to the British state or interests, which has not existed for some time.

Hypersonic missiles are definitely the way forwards for naval warfare and that's one area Britain should be focusing on, but I don't believe they're even mentioned in this review (and FCASW is still a decade off, I believe, and they haven't even settled on it being hypersonic as opposed to a stealthier version of Storm Shadow).

Quote

As for Russia, I don't know what you are talking about. I have spent most of the last 25 years examining Russia capability, and nothing you said is true. They continue to upgrade their forces, declining economy or not, and continue to explicitly threaten to use them, and then actually use them. As a wise woman said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

They continue to try to upgrade their forces and they keep running into the problem that they can't afford what they want to do. They designed the T-14 Armata, an extremely formidable machine which did genuinely cause consternation in the West, but they can't afford to actually build it. There's about a dozen in current use and they have another 100 on order and that's it. They terminated their main production run of thousands because they couldn't afford it. Ironically, they scared the French and Germans into accelerating their joint next-generation battlefield weapons programme, which they can actually afford to build.

What Russia done is build up a pretty enormous reservoir of conventional and somewhat older equipment on a large scale over a very long period of time (since the post-Georgia 2008 review), accompanied by some modern weaponry. This looks utterly formidable - and there is no doubt it could cause immense damage if deployed - but they have no way of replacing it at speed. For that reason their current strategy is built around areas where it's much harder to prove Russian involvement (cyberwarfare, targeted overseas assassinations, supporting pro-Russia rebels in neighbouring countries, interfering in elections) or using allied forces to fight for them (in Syria) whilst using a bare minimum of their own hardware. Russia wants to avoid any kind of large-scale engagement where they would risk losing troops and weapons in a war of attrition, because their economy cannot support that kind of loss, and they know it.

You're right that Putin is not afraid to use his forces, but it's also the case that Putin knows where he can afford to use his forces, and that's in Ukraine (and only just, in support of local forces) and Syria and in his backyard. It's not in the Baltic States or Poland, where he knows Russia runs the risk of a comprehensive defeat.

They won't start a war with Turkey, but they will certainly finish one that Turkey starts (the current Turkish government might just be stupid enough to oblige them), which would not trigger the involvement of NATO. Russia is, for all its faults, an extremely rational actor under Putin and knows exactly where to put its focus, and that isn't on a direct military confrontation with anyone remotely at or above their technological level.

Russia worries me but it does not terrify me, and it won't until its economy starts booming in a way to support its military ambition. Of course, that is only really possible if Russia becomes a more democratic, open and economically cooperative country and not a gangster state.

All of that said, if Putin is on his way out, that does leave the question of what a successor might do.

Quote

Lastly, the only way you could possibly think that there is a return to the status quo is if you don't know what is going on. Russia and Turkey could go to war at any moment over the Caucasus or Syria or Libya, the only thing saving us is how much Putin and Erdogan admire each other's sheer arseholiness.  Russia is moving into Africa, so is China and Turkey. Turkey has effectively taken control of Libya, and is now trying to move into Chad and Mali. Egypt is on the verge of war with Turkey and Ethiopia, France and Turkey are at loggerheads. And that's just places where we have direct interests. Let's not even discuss China and the belt and road,

I meant the status quo of a rationally-led United States returning to its key allied military commitments (particularly NATO) and there being certainty and trust in the USA for the next four years.

Clearly there are a lot of military threats and problems around the globe right now, such as the ones you name plus a pissed-off North Korea (which humoured Trump for three years but didn't get anything concrete out of it), plus the not-non-existent chance Trump might just bomb Iran for shits and giggles in the next few weeks before leaving office (or giving Israel the green light to do the same). However, with a sane United States in the picture in the short term, these threats are less likely to explode into outright conflict (he said, optimistically).

Admittedly that leaves us the headache of what happens in 2024 if someone even more imbecilic than Trump takes office and withdraws the United States from NATO on their first day in office, but that's a theoretical problem at the moment.

Quote

Lastly, we don't need new tanks. Tanks are the new knights. They are utterly useless against an advanced enemy, as even the Armenian-Azeri conflict proves. What we need are UAVs, We currently lag so far behind Turkey, Saudi, the UAE and China that it's not even funny.

We are one of the world's largest importers of UAVs from elsewhere, but yes, British native UAV capability is a bit shit, to put it mildly.

Quote

It's hardly your only shot. You'll be lobbing conventional cruise missiles from the comfort of your own harbours before any invading vessel gets inside your EEZ. Because you have a great big moat, the only thing you really need to prevent loss of territorial integrity is air superiority. It's a simple thing to say and much harder to achieve, but if you really want to gear up for someone trying to come and kick down your door then it's air superiority you need to focus on.

Britain has a pretty big air defence gap against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles like the Zircon, and no likely way of defending against them without major technological anti-aircraft weapons improvements. The Zircon isn't operational yet, fortunately, but it's been (allegedly) successfully field-tested twice this year, hitting targets more than 500 km away at more than Mach 8. Sky Sabre's effectiveness against hypersonic missiles seems doubtful (plus you'd need to expand the AA coverage to most of the country, which is a huge undertaking). 

Our own cruise missile capability is decent (we have a big stock of Storm Shadows) but Russian AA capability is extremely strong, and if you believe the Russians (note: never believe the Russians) their AAs have shot down more than two-thirds of all cruise missiles fired by US and UK forces in Syria. We need better cruise missiles.

Of course, if Russia and Britain get to the point of actually lobbing missiles against one another's homelands and fleets, we might as well give up and drop the nukes and get it all over with, because the world would be pretty screwed by that point.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

54 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I meant the status quo of a rationally-led United States returning to its key allied military commitments (particularly NATO) and there being certainty and trust in the USA for the next four years.

Trust is a very pricey commodity. Hard to gain, easy to lose. The rational of the European leaders (and rightly so) is, the US went off the rails by electing that unqualified isolationist windbag, so what's stopping them from electing another one in four years? So of course there's a need for the EU to step up their collective military capabilities. It was bound to do that anyway at some point, if it wants to be considered Global Power that is a counterweight to the US. Part of it, also includes being able to deal with problems in its own backyard. The common European army outside the UK would've always vetoed, Macron had proposed after the Brexit vote. The US were disengaging from the global stage under Obama (Dubya's Iraq adventures might have had something to do with that). And it was Obama who made the European countries commit to higher defense spending. The target of 2% of the GDP in Germany, which the orange one kept on banging on about in a very silly, obnoxious and annoying way. But he was not wrong on substance. Germany had committed to that. While military spending is obviously not really a fetish of mine, I can see the necessity. So I am not that surprised the UK has decided to renew/upgrade theri equipment as well.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 11/18/2020 at 8:41 PM, ants said:

In Australia, the right wing party is called the Liberal party!  Historically the liberals and the right were aligned, although the right dominates moreso now days.  

True.

Far-right extremists do often lump in liberal with being left-wing simply due to certain positions on social issues and immigration.

Because their(far-right extremists), economic policies are often less salient than the brand of identity politics they push.

On 11/19/2020 at 6:56 PM, ants said:

They generally stand with progressives on individual rights for minorities, abortion, etc.,

Honestly, if you call for your for small government these things should be a given.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

Russia worries me but it does not terrify me, and it won't until its economy starts booming in a way to support its military ambition. Of course, that is only really possible if Russia becomes a more democratic, open and economically cooperative country and not a gangster state.

 

What is your argument for that?

That Democracy is necessary for Russia’s economy to start booming?

[polishgenius]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

All of that said, if Putin is on his way out, that does leave the question of what a successor might do.

 

Yeah even with my Polish head on Russia is a problem rather than a threat at this point but if Putin leaves and Russia either falls apart completely is replaced by someone less controlled, that's terrifying. They don't need to be actually be able to fulfill their aims to cause real trouble if they start real shit, and either of those situations could allow people to have their hands on their hardware that really, really shouldn't.

[A wilding]

Personally I think the main danger Russia poses at the moment its its demonstrated power to disrupt and damage Western democracies by hacking social media and other online activities. If some of the defence spending promised for "cyber warfare" gets spent on investigating and countering that, it will be money well spent. Sadly, past history shows it is more likely to go on maintaining yet closer surveillance of UK citizens.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What is your argument for that?

That Democracy is necessary for Russia’s economy to start booming?

No. But some of Russia's current economic troubles are down to sanctions imposed over the years. If Russia was to stop acting like an arsehole, reduce interference in other countries, have freer and fairer elections etc, then all of that would encourage the USA and EU to ease or lift sanctions on Russia. A lot of the rest of the troubles are down to corruption (back in 2011 analysts suggested that 20%+ of Russia's military budget was lost in corruption, bribes and other illegal activities), which requires much more systemic internal reform.

Obviously you can have centralised, authoritarian governments with a great economy (like China) but Russia hasn't gone in that direction either.

[mormont]

All of this is interesting but I don't want to lose sight of the aspect of this I was initially raising: which is, whatever the arguments pro or anti the defence increase, the government are saying there's money for that but nothing for key workers* who've got us through the pandemic, nothing for an anti-bullying program that's proven to have saved LGBT+ kids and costs less than they wasted on a single PPE contract, nothing for the crippled court system, nothing for other critical issues. This is their spending priority.

I wouldn't be complaining about spending money on warships per se: I'm complaining about the choices here on what the country can and can't afford. If anyone wants to defend that particular choice, go ahead.

 

* even if they exempt the NHS, think of how many other key workers in the public sector got us through this. Care home workers. Council staff. Teachers. All getting nothing.

[Werthead]

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

All of this is interesting but I don't want to lose sight of the aspect of this I was initially raising: which is, whatever the arguments pro or anti the defence increase, the government are saying there's money for that but nothing for key workers* who've got us through the pandemic, nothing for an anti-bullying program that's proven to have saved LGBT+ kids and costs less than they wasted on a single PPE contract, nothing for the crippled court system, nothing for other critical issues. This is their spending priority.

I wouldn't be complaining about spending money on warships per se: I'm complaining about the choices here on what the country can and can't afford. If anyone wants to defend that particular choice, go ahead.

* even if they exempt the NHS, think of how many other key workers in the public sector got us through this. Care home workers. Council staff. Teachers. All getting nothing.

Oh, agreed. The magic money tree flowers for yet more tax breaks for the rich, more warships and HS2, but it abruptly droops when it comes to payments for teachers, care home workers, councils and the disabled.

All of course made worse after ten straight years of savage cuts to every department, and creative ways to slash spending in the NHS without it looking like they were slashing it.

[Raja]

For those who have a hard time imagining what the illness is like/ haven't been close to it

Quote

There is another glum look from the staff when I ask about his chances of survival - they've seen too much this year to expect anything other than the worst.

They find it hard to believe that some people believe this virus has gone away - or that it isn't as serious as suggested.

I'm told about the taxi driver who died with his 10-year-old son watching through the nearby door, hands pressed helplessly against the glass.