UK slashes armed forces by 10 percent

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: CNN.com

London, England (CNN) -- The United Kingdom will cut its armed forces by 17,000 people -- about 10 percent of its uniformed manpower -- in the next five years, Prime Minister David Cameron announced Tuesday.

The military will also immediately retire its flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, as the government slashes budgets.

"Defense cannot continue on unaffordable footing," the government said in a statement explaining the Strategic Defense and Security Review, as the exercise was called.

"Tough decisions are required to reconfigure our armed forces to confront future threats whilst we also tackle the 38 billion pound (about $60 billion) deficit that has accumulated in the 12 years since the last Defense Review," Fox said.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/19/uk.defense.cuts/index.html?hpt=T2

---

Wouldn't it be great if the US of A would follow suit?

[The Northerner]

1. GOOD! Now if only our policies would follow suit or exceed

[bossy22]

3. yes- but for a different reason

they are cutting their land forces by 10% and so should we- but in turn send that money to recapatilize our naval forces. There is no need for the US to have such a large armed forces but their is pressing need to keep a dominant navy (especially in the western pacific).

[xchrom]

2. So what's happening to the budget for R&D and new weapons

Procurement?

[bossy22]

4. thats being cut too

in fact they are going to end up selling one of their aircraft carriers that are in the process of being built.

[xchrom]

5. Thank you for the info. Nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

6. obscenity

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending





http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

Government Spending in United Kingdom Fiscal Year 2010:

Pensions £117 billion
Health Care + £120 billion
Education + £86 billion
Defence + £44 billion
Welfare + £109 billion
Protection + £35 billion
Transport + £22 billion
General Government + £25 billion
Other Spending + £84 billion
Interest + £31 billion
Balance + £-3 billion
Total Spending = £669 billion
Public Net Debt + £772 billion

So even though the UK spends only roughly 1/15 its budget on defense, they still see the need to cut back.

The military industrial complex is so fucking powerful in the US, with weapons manufacturing spread out to most every State, they would raise bloody murder (pun intended) along with their political puppets in Washington and the News media if there were ever a suggestion to CUT spending rather than increase it.

I sometimes wonder what an (even more) amazing country the USA could be today if they would've spent even half of that budget in the last half century on things like free university tuition, massive investments in alternative energy, rapid transit, and a well funded public health care system.

It is obscene what the US spends on ways to kill humans. It has gone so far beyond the pale of "self defence" it is laughable if it weren't so destructive.

[bossy22]

7. misleading charts

it would be better to compare the % of GDP that is spent by both countries in regards to each sector. Remember, some things that are funded at the national level in the UK are funded at the state lever in the U.S.- for example education (last time i checked eduction constituted double the GDP percentage that defense does)

and anyway pure terratorial defense doesnt cut it anyway in this global economy- the UK has the luxury of cutting defense because it assumes that the U.S. will be there to cover their slack- remember a few months ago when they said they could lease harrier jets from the U.S. to fill their carriers?

Here is more truth- if most of western europe increased their defense spending by just a little we could probably cut ours

[Romulox]

11. Oh brother. Yes. We're out there "defending" Western Europe from all that prosperity.

And we're doing it by borrowing! Truly, a move straight out of Sun Tzu! :eyes: :silly:

[bossy22]

13. actually most of the deficit was not caused by defense

its caused by a decrease in tax revenue and an increase in govt spending due to economic stimulus measures and other bail outs

Its not defending a territory but more an economic interest. I find the lack of strategic thinking depth on this board staggering at times

[Romulox]

22. We have an "economic interest" in subsidizing the standard of living in Western Union

such that it is far superior to our own?

"I find the lack of strategic thinking depth on this board staggering at times"

Likewise basic logic and composition skill; you're really not making much sense.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. Bollocks! as they say in one part of Europe.

There is an orgy of military spending the world over. Europe can take care of itself and has been able to for some time now. The biggest spending orgy is in the good ole USA, so much so that OF COURSE the UK would rather lease some of the superfluous military equipment that the US pumps out weekly, if it is cheaper for them, why wouldn't they?

What is misleading about a chart that show where your tax dollars go? How would it be much different if we just looked at pure GDP numbers? If US based multinationals, like oil companies, arms dealers, war reconstruction corps rake in billions, it ups the GDP and creates a smaller looking % for military spending, but that is a poor indicator of how it hits the average taxpayer.

Here is another angle to think about courtesy of one of the true Democrats in office Alan Grayson from his online chat here earlier:

"For one thing, I explain that the war in Iraq alone has consumed 8% of our entire national wealth, accumulated over more than two centuries ($4 trillion out of $50 trillion). I guess the question is, why don't others point this out? And that's a very good question."

Military spending is crippling the USA from 'being all that it can be' to steal the army's own phrase.

[XemaSab]

8. I have an idea! I have an idea!

We tell everyone that we're spending the money on 83rd generation tactical lasers, or some shit like that, and instead we spend the money on schools. :D

[bossy22]

12. in my opinion schools have gotten enough

we spend more per student and as a percentage of GDP on education than any other western nation. When it comes to public school school spending we are tied with switzerland for number 1 on a per capita basis- i dont think money is the issue here

[leveymg]

21. The issue is that acquired wealth determines educational outcomes. The rich generally get far better

facilities, teachers, and enrichment activities than the poor, from an earlier age. Poverty and Inequality in "the land of plenty", that's the problem.

[Bragi]

23. ++++ /nt

[Romulox]

9. How much has President Obama *increased* military spending during his term?

It's a significant amount, I know.

[Kolesar]

15. More Afghanistan spending this year...it will go down

And the amount spent on Iraq is definitely decreasing now that 2/3 of "our troops" are out of Iraq.

[bossy22]

17. yeah

you can't forget that a good portion of that money is on operating expenses such as fighting the wars rather than the base budget.

[AlbertCat]

10. Perhaps....

...we could now at least stop spending money on fighting the Soviet Union... maybe....

And the military could go back to cooking its own food and building its own barracks ....and providing security for US diplomats.

We'd save a bundle.

[bossy22]

14. and what about china?

to ignore china in this discussion is just downright silly

[AlbertCat]

20. and what about china?

What about China?

I don't think stopping the manufacture of weapons designed to fight against Soviet technology will give China an edge.

[Odin2005]

16. We need to do that here.

if I were in charge the Pentagon would be the Triangle by the time I was done with it.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Britain announces major military cutbacks

Britain announces major military cutbacks
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 6:00 PM

LONDON - Washington's closest ally unveiled its deepest military cuts since the end of the Cold War, with a cash-strapped Britain announcing Tuesday that it will withdraw thousands of troops from continental Europe, decommission warships, mothball an entire class of fighter jets and delay upgrading its nuclear arsenal.

The cutbacks would not affect the war in Afghanistan, where British troops make up the second-largest contingent after the United States. Britain said it would invest in more helicopters and armored vehicles to aid military operations there. By also committing to boost combat-ready special forces, officials here are seeking to reassure the Pentagon that Britain will still retain its global role as deputy to Washington's sheriff.

Nevertheless, Britain's most sweeping military review in more than a decade is set to further diminish this nation's military might, particularly as a maritime power. For Washington, the moves amount to a tactical scaling down of military ambition by the one European ally consistently willing to back the United States with firepower in international conflicts, and comes at a time when other NATO members including Germany are also making substantial military cuts.

Senior Pentagon officials were largely supportive of Britain's decisions and expressed confidence that British forces would continue to play a leading role in dealing with problems such as terrorism, the Afghan war, cyber attacks and nuclear proliferation. "We are confident that the U.K. will continue to have the capacity to provide top-tier fighting forces in Afghanistan and other future missions in defense of our shared interests and security," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon's top spokesman.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101904810.html

[irislake]

19. That is going to make Hilary FURIOUS!

FUR-EE-US!

Do they not believe Bin Laden and his henchmen are living in luxury in Pakistan and need to have the rat-shit bombed out of them before they can escape to Iran? Followed by Venezuela?

But I am getting ahead of myself.