We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Is UK military funding becoming an issue-that-matters? Following on from Johnathan Pearce’s article yesterday, I see more and more articles in the media about the issue of Britain’s military being asked to fight two wars without proper funding by a government which seem to know sweet FA about military affairs. Is this a sign that the issue is gaining some wider political traction? If so, I expect to see Dave Cameron suddenly develop an interest in military matters (perhaps a Tory spokesman will soon ask why the UK treasury has been skimping on military equipment funding and thus failing to fit more eco-friendly engine in the army’s clapped out Warrior APCs).
Cynical? Moi?
As a minarchist (rather than an anarchist) I regard managing the military as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and thus find myself in the unfamiliar role of arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour… how weird is that?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Before calling for a tax increase, it might be wise to look at just how the Ministry of Defence spends its money. Bill Kincaid wrote a book, “A Dinosaur in Whitehall”, which – although now 9 years old – still has a lot of truth in it. Procurement procedure is wasteful, with procurement officers not operating by the project, but for a two year period – so they are encouraged to minimise the costs for *their two years* rather than try and get the project result that the armed forces need. Not to mention our armed forces are being used for “post-conflict reconstruction”. Bringing societies phoenix-like from the ashes is not the job of a military, nor should it be – the job of a military is to preserve one society at the cost of another.
We need to accept that political correctness has removed our ability as a nation to believe that the outgroup is less worthy than the ingroup, leading in turn to some sort of crazed ineffectual paternal policy (“Your country sucks! We’ll fix it! But our country sucks more and we’re full of self-hate and can’t sustain any sort of war effort!”).
Back when this world had Great Powers, the loss of a thousand soldiers over a three year war would have been seen as an incredible victory. The destruction of a strong Islamic country, resulting in an Islamic civil war (possibly without end) in one of the holiest countries in the Muslim world and thereby crushing the possibility of a unified Caliphate for generations, would have been seen as a great success.
Our army, at least, is reasonably well-prepared for a proper war. The sort of war where you go somewhere, blow stuff up, and come home. Our navy badly needs more funds (we can’t really project force, and we have too few ships to guard our pointless aircraft carriers – if we even keep both, instead of giving one to the EU). No country with a society based on Christianity is prepared to fight a modern war based on ethnicity, because the society refuses to accept that people who are different, dislike each other. It’s natural to hate people who are different – they compete with you for resources. Evolution has instilled us with those principles so we can try and propagate genes. It’s not natural to go and help one group of people (who are different from you) fight another group (more different from you than they are from the first group). Out of the last seven wars the US has fought, all of them were to protect a non-Christian minority, and all of them went badly.
But we don’t need more tax money for the armed forces, we need to spend it better and try and restrict ourselves to goals that we can sell in the mainstream liepapers.
Here on the other side of the pond I’m scratching my head and trying to figure out who would get my vote were I a Brit and interested in a strong military.
I mean, sure, Cameron will start to tack right if it makes sense politically, but one can hardly fault your cynicism. If, by some miracle, he becomes Prime Minister, I would be surprised to see any sign of underlying convictions of any sort.
Good grief! I was not calling for a tax increase but rather more money to fund the military, which is not the same thing at all. Things would be vastly improved (and not just for the military) by abolishing the DTI, ending state funded education and scrapping the NHS and giving half the savings to the MOD…
I am well aware of the problems there, so simply firing half the civilians working for the MOD would be a nice first step.
I assume you did not notice the Balkan War that started in 1991. The societies in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia are considerably more ‘Christian’ than, say, Britain.
I’m not convinced more cash is required. As an example the navy has plenty of £50m type 23 frigates, originally designed for countering the (now non existent) Soviet submarine fleet, while the army has to use crappy land-rovers to face a very existent terrorist threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would suggest someone knowledgeable who is able to take on vested interests within the armed services would be as useful as a few billion, the chance of that person being a politician is zero.
Things would be vastly improved (and not just for the military) by abolishing the DTI, ending state funded education and scrapping the NHS and giving half the savings to the MOD…
I should say so, since it would mean increasing the defence budget two or three fold.
Our military spending priorities are bizarre. We need better basic equipment for the army (boots, rifles, cooking equipment, radios), not new aircraft carriers or a Trident replacement. The Eurofighter is a useless cold war relic that should have been cancelled (I’m convinced we only bought it to keep the French and Germans happy) allowing us to buy more JSFs which are better for close troop support.
I agree we need more funding if we choose to maintain current deployment levels, but I can’t for the life of me see why that is necessary. I don’t just mean the war in Iraq but also all the UN missions we are involved in around the world.
Mark Adams,
You are so wrong. OK, the army needs more basic provision. Very few few people here will object to that. New carriers and a trident rpelacement are absolutely vital if any bugger is to take us even vaguely seriously.
Your bizarre comments on the Tiffy vs. the Lightning II (did you even know it has a proper name now?) show a complete ignorance of military aviation. The Tiffy is not exactly a cold-war relic. It is no more that than any other modern fighter plane about. To a certain extent they are all “cold war relics”. You have to bear in mind that there is a considerable lead-time in the development of top-line combat aircraft. We cannot know exactly what the future holds. The capacity to fight a conventional war may well prove vital in the future and just giving up all our heavy metal to create a military solely design for COIN would be bloody stupid.
The Typhoon has the capacity to carry a payload which can really hurt. The F-35B doesn’t. The Lightning II can carry two 1000lb bombs without compromising it’s (semi) stealth capability. It is nowhere near the Typhoon in the air-superiority role (certainly not when and if the Tiffys get upgraded engines, Meteor missiles, a working gun and the planned AESA radar).
Is the F-35B better for CAS against ragged-assed Taleban anyway? I fail to see how an essentially slower (semi) stealth fighter is better than a (vaguely) stealth fighter seeing as how their idea of hi-tech is an AK-47 and a prayer mat. Given that the only advantage the F-35B has over the Typhoon is it’s greater radar-stealth (as long as it sticks with the piss-weak armament of a brace of 1000lb bombs internally – more, carried externally, and stealth goes out the window) it strikes me that, against, the likes of the Taleban, Stealth isn’t much of an issue. They don’t even have sodding electricity in most of Afghanistan much less radar…
We need the Typhoon. We need an air-superioty jet because we don’t have the slightest idea what is around the next corner but we do absolutely know that in any war ruling the skies is better than not ruling them. The Tiffy will be just as good as the F-35B at close support, if not better. It is also a plane that can take on the best fighters (assuming HMG keeps up the upgrade program) and win, mostly and we need that because we might once again come up against a country with an air-force.
Admittedly it’s no Raptor, but that’s a cold war dinosaur as much as the Tiffy and it’s abso-bloody-lutely expensive.
Finally. We didn’t keep up the EF program for the French and Germans. The French bailed out very early on because they demanded carrier compatibility and the lead design and manufacture role. They went on to develop the Rafale. The Germans almost bailed out due to the costs of re-unification but we kept them in. I remember the Sun at the time ran a campaign to say sod off to the Krauts, go it alone and call it the Spitfire II.
I don’t think that the general level of funding for the armed forces will ever be an issue that resonates with the electorate. Sure, from time to time there will be succesful tabloid-led campaigns to get better pieces of certain types of equipment, but I just don’t detect public interest in discussions about the “correct” level of spending as a %age of GDP.
While I don’t have a dog in this fight, surely the UK can find the cash to properly support her men in the field.
Otherwise show your troops respect and disband your Army instead of sending them in to harms way with second rate equipment and poor supplies. When the lives of the troops are on the line it is not too much to expect those who send them in to battle provide them with the best equipment and supplies the nation can provide.
Unfortunately we always come up against the stumbling block of public relations when it comes to UK military funding. The Royal Navy has some seriously brilliant PR staffers who are constantly able to dazzle Labour ministers into increasing their funding, such as the 2 new rather unecessary aircraft carriers for the RN, when they could have bought 2 mothballed US ones and refurbished them for less than 20% of the price, the proposed new Trident replacement and so on. Similarly for the RAF who never seem to go short of the very best equipment and logistics – the RAF regiment’s gear is the envy of many Army line units for example.
As usual the Army gets left well behind in the queue so that they have to share body armour – Christmas present lists this year are again kevlar plates for the older waistcoat CBA or (for £470+ each) the Lvl IIIa CBA (like the US Interceptor) with all-round protection and which can shatter a 7.62 bullet. This month the MoD has introduced a “new” APC called the Bulldog, complete with boiler and (wait for it) full aircon. Only problem is that it isn’t a new type of fighting vehicle, just an FV432 (production ceased in 1971) refurbished, painted in desert colours and shipped out to Iraq quickly so that nobody will notice that ‘the borrowers’ are using 46 year old vehicles.
My mistake, then. Apologies. I read “arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour” as arguing for tax increases. A redeployment of more money is a far less radical idea.
I should have qualified that with “western liberal” or “non-Iron Curtain” – or possibly “interventionist”.
No carrier capability? We are an Island…so we build a fighter that means we need to buy our carrier planes from the US…very lovely. I hear the US are not even guaranteeing true VTOL (the vids look erie…like some hunting wasp laying an egg). No Concorde, no VTOL fighter…are we going backwards?
It is good to have multiple sources, but it should be for the right reasons, plus we need to maintain our own aircraft and not rely on outside (ie US) tech support. If we don’t…we truly will become “Air Strip One”.
As for army equipment…how many kevlar plates for one Prescott’s non-job admin budget?
p.s. the links to Leopard deployment were fascinating. The Cougars also seem thoroughly sorted (are they related to those vehicles we used to see used by the Police in Aparteid SA?). I suspect the Landies were just too good for too long and one gets complacent. Bit like mounted vs mechanised cavalry, I suppose. I do wonder if the SAS will retain some V8 petrols, though, as they are superior for covert ops, I (dont) hear.
I await some Footballer to drive up Loughton High St in a Cougar. If it were Dalston High St, it would be understandable…
Whilst I have to admit to having a personal bias here, it really annoys me that the infantry have junk rifles and sub-standard ammo, whilst the paramilitary wing of the Labour party ponce about with shiny new MP7s, SIG 552s and the like – plenty of money for them, none for basic working kit for the military.
– an aside here, if I may. Ships, like aircraft, have a projected service life, and they wear-out – and one must remember that the U.S. chose to mothball those carriers (rather than refurbish them at 20% the cost of a new one) themselves.
“Used” ships may seem a bargain, but there’s a reason they’re being flogged so cheaply. They’ve “over’ed the bounding main” for decades, and were tied-up by their present owners because they’re tired. Hulls fatigue and rust, electronics are far behind the cutting edge (and nobody remembers how to fix them), pumps and winches and main engines are becoming increasingly troublesome and breaking-down more often. You can dig them all out and replace them at (usually, far greater than) projected cost, and then the shakedown cruise lasts years and turns-into a long, costly tow home when something unexpected gives-up-the-ghost. And spare parts inventories are non-existent, and mostly “refurbished” and therefore half worn-out themselves. You end-up with an untrustworthy ship – a situation to be avoided in wartime.
The Canadian experience with the UK’s Upholder Class submarines, is a good illustration of the quagmire you can end-up in by buying used to save a buck. They are now ~about~ as good as they once were, but the overhauls have been ruinously expensive, including scrounging (or having custom-made at BIG mark-ups) parts that are no longer commercially available, to fix systems that are obsolescent at best. And they don’t spend nearly as much time at sea as was originally projected, and when they are at sea, their crews don’t get much sleep.
Better to buy new. And seeing that another thread on Samizdata examines the growing distrust of Russia’s resurgence and ambitions, perhaps having a couple aircraft carriers in one’s pocket could prove to be a good thing.
New carriers and a trident rpelacement are absolutely vital if any bugger is to take us even vaguely seriously.
You want to spend billions of taxpayers’ money so the other countries won’t make fun of us? My concern is not national pride but what we actually need to defend ourselves.
You seem to be taking the precautionary principle to an extreme. We should be defending ourselves against realistic threats on the horizon. We don’t need a Tornado replacement because the Warsaw Pact doesn’t exist any more. If a threat appears were we need such an aircraft then we can buy someone else’s.
The only reason I mention the JSF is because we can use it in countries that don’t have runways – which seems like something we may be forced to do in the future.
Deream-on children. There ain’t no votes in defence spending. The only reason the media are making an issue of this is that it is a convienient way to attack the government. Can you really see the Guardin/BBC lefties extending the rhetoric to include increased spending on the military?
By take us seriously, I didn’t mean “not make fun of us”. I meant have a foreign policy that is taken seriously. Big difference. Nukes are a necessary back-stop with the likes of Iran (and the DPRK) getting arsey. Giving up the big-stick will be seen as appalling weakness. Personally I’d favour fitting a tac-nuke to Storm Shadow as well for sub-strategic purposes.
You suggest we may have to fight in lands without airstrips. I suspect carriers might be rather useful for that, don’t you?
I meant have a foreign policy that is taken seriously.
Japan tends to be taken rather seriously. Our foreign policy should be one of free commerce and avoidance of foreign entanglement. The rest of the world is not our problem.
Nukes are a necessary back-stop with the likes of Iran (and the DPRK) getting arsey
There is a difference between having nukes and having Trident. We need submarines only if we have an enemy with a massive nuclear strike capability.
You suggest we may have to fight in lands without airstrips. I suspect carriers might be rather useful for that, don’t you?
Not if they’re landlocked.
Hi i was in the army and its about time the SA80 was removed from service as its not a great rifle and can let you down when you need it most as it gets a fast carbon build up and becomes as good as bat as it will not work and firing pins break. i was lucky as i had the LSW and could ask rifle men for there firing pin and they gave it to me (i think there mad as id say go jump) as that were the bat comes in . we need to put more money into the army ……………….