Jeneral2885
(598 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-22-11 03:52 PM
Original message |
Should the SDSR be re-opened? |
|
Yes or no? Dicussion welcomed. (I can't create a poll due to restrictions). Some websites of interest: (all navy focused though): http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/http://www.thenavycampaign.com/http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/
|
T_i_B
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 06:17 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm kinda of the opinion that defence cuts are best achieved as a result of peace breaking out, and that requires a successful foreign policy first.
Cuts in MoD spending are not exactly easy when we are trying to fight wars.
|
oldironside
(835 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. While it's not exactly a popular view on the left... |
|
... I tend to agree with you. It's a dangerous, unpredictable old world and you can't conjur up effective military forces like a rabbit out of a hat. While we all love peace, we have to be prepared for the worst. Still, if we hadn't followed that arsehole into Irak...
|
non sociopath skin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Indeed. Blair and Cameron's wars have queered the pitch. |
|
The end of the Cold War should have brought about a more rational Defence policy.
Ike made a lot of sense all those years ago, didn't he?
Ah, to be old enough to remember when Republicans could talk sense.
The Skin
|
fedsron2us
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Agreed. To enjoy a peace dividend it is advisable not to start any wars. |
|
Edited on Thu Jun-23-11 05:10 PM by fedsron2us
BTW as a maritime nation I think Britain would be best advised to follow the principle established centuries ago which was to keep the navy as large as can be afforded and the standing army as small as possible. Naval forces by their nature are never going to get you bogged down in disasters like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is logistically and politically much easier to withdraw ships than armies once committed.
|
Spider Jerusalem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
eliminating aircraft carrier capability and retiring the remaining Harriers may seem to make sense from a cost-cutting perspective but it seems most profoundly unwise not to retain force-projection capability (especially when Argentina are likely to make more noise over the Falklands, now that there may be oil there; see also the current Libyan adventure). Seems especially unwise when the replacement carriers and aircraft aren't due in service for a decade.
I suspect that the next general election will probably include the spectacle of Labour running to the right of the Tories on defence.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message |