Has Britain Resigned?
Discussion
A most interesting and thought provoking short article here: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/magazine/the-day-tha...
Article quoted from the Independent, but quoted by them from a Washington Post article.
We certainly get some glowing credit, but what of the future? If we ignore our defence stature, that security council seat will look more and more in jeopardy.
Article quoted from the Independent, but quoted by them from a Washington Post article.
We certainly get some glowing credit, but what of the future? If we ignore our defence stature, that security council seat will look more and more in jeopardy.
The article finishes up stating:
"It is a paradox, readily apparent to visitors to Britain, that London continues to thrive as a global hub, increasingly cosmopolitan and worldly. More than a third of Londoners were born outside the United Kingdom. And this government has been more than willing to travel around the world petitioning for investment, whether it be Chinese, Russian or Arab. That is fine as a strategy for an aspiring entrepôt or financial haven, but Britain is not Luxembourg. It is, even now, a country with the talent, history and capacity to shape the international order. Which is why the inward turn of the United Kingdom is a tragedy not just for it but for all of us."
What the Americans see as a tragedy most Brits probably see as a welcome change. Perhaps it's time to move on and leave 'shaping the international order' to others.
"It is a paradox, readily apparent to visitors to Britain, that London continues to thrive as a global hub, increasingly cosmopolitan and worldly. More than a third of Londoners were born outside the United Kingdom. And this government has been more than willing to travel around the world petitioning for investment, whether it be Chinese, Russian or Arab. That is fine as a strategy for an aspiring entrepôt or financial haven, but Britain is not Luxembourg. It is, even now, a country with the talent, history and capacity to shape the international order. Which is why the inward turn of the United Kingdom is a tragedy not just for it but for all of us."
What the Americans see as a tragedy most Brits probably see as a welcome change. Perhaps it's time to move on and leave 'shaping the international order' to others.
Asterix said:
There's an argument for becoming even more parochial as the article suggests.
We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact we are a G7 nation ?We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact even if the Scots had buggered off we'd still be in serious contention to stay in the top 10 ...
the US are butthurt that we are no longer their no 1 mate on their stupid Excursions of Mass Distraction...
mph1977 said:
Asterix said:
There's an argument for becoming even more parochial as the article suggests.
We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact we are a G7 nation ?We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact even if the Scots had buggered off we'd still be in serious contention to stay in the top 10 ...
the US are butthurt that we are no longer their no 1 mate on their stupid Excursions of Mass Distraction...
Asterix said:
mph1977 said:
Asterix said:
There's an argument for becoming even more parochial as the article suggests.
We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact we are a G7 nation ?We're in no-mans land at the moment. Physically too small to project any significant power and mentally (thinking) too large so costing a fortune.
despite the fact even if the Scots had buggered off we'd still be in serious contention to stay in the top 10 ...
the US are butthurt that we are no longer their no 1 mate on their stupid Excursions of Mass Distraction...
So I don't think that is much to worry about.
The problem is people often view military size by the number of people in the military, which is not a great way to go.
We have some of the best technology out there and we sell it to the rest of the world. When it comes to military technology that we sell we are one of the best, if not the best.
We still spend more on defence than nearly every other country apart from a few.
Most of the negative articles are often lobbied by the military suppliers, as they want a commitment to 2%, but we spend over 2% anyway. We could cut the budget by £3B and we would still be in the 2% area and as GDP is increasing could cut even more.
My main concern, if true, is the reduction in spending having a greater effect on military capability/power projection, just like the NHS I feel the military is "top heavy" with pen pushers and managerial structures that are either inefficient or simply not needed, time for a clean out IMO and not just a reshuffle.
As a small island off the coast of Europe our interests were always in preventing one power dominating the continent and being free to trade around the world.
We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
JagLover said:
As a small island off the coast of Europe our interests were always in preventing one power dominating the continent and being free to trade around the world.
We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
Good point, well made. My sentiments exactly. We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
Chebble said:
JagLover said:
As a small island off the coast of Europe our interests were always in preventing one power dominating the continent and being free to trade around the world.
We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
Good point, well made. My sentiments exactly. We fought hard for centuries to achieve this and always managed, sometimes by the skin of our teeth, to achieve this.
For the moment both of these aims are secure. Europe is at peace and the very idea of war in Western and central Europe is inconceivable.
For the most part we are free to trade anywhere in the world.
What essential aims would be secured by a more active British involvement in the world?. Intervening in places like Syria is a humanitarian mission not an essential national interest.
This is not the end of history, radical Islam is on the rise, and is inside the gates. China will probably seek to dominate Asia before the 21st century is out. For now though our interests are best served by maintaining a nuclear deterrent and armed forces that can be scaled up in a decade or so if the world becomes a more threatening place.
What irritates me about the anti military brigade (pardon the pun) is that the peace we enjoy now was bought and paid for by the / our military, If it was not, we would currently have an irate little chap with a small moustache under his nose in charge here.
Yet at almost every turn, they want to do away with the very people who achieved the peace we now enjoy. The anti military brigade are just short sighted idiots, who ignore history, at theirs, and our peril.
Yet at almost every turn, they want to do away with the very people who achieved the peace we now enjoy. The anti military brigade are just short sighted idiots, who ignore history, at theirs, and our peril.
Pan Pan Pan said:
What irritates me about the anti military brigade (pardon the pun) is that the peace we enjoy now was bought and paid for by the / our military, If it was not, we would currently have an irate little chap with a small moustache under his nose in charge here.
It would be a remarkable achievement if he was considering how old he'd be by now. 
ks, memories of past indiscretions, NIMBYs, and a self-entitled population.I hope so. 70 years of attempting to maintain the image of a superpower hasn't really been kind. We should have the ability to defend ourselves and our interests but we should not be following the US into Iraq, or getting involved in what appears to be a Russia-EU power struggle over Ukraine.
AJS- said:
I hope so. 70 years of attempting to maintain the image of a superpower hasn't really been kind. We should have the ability to defend ourselves and our interests but we should not be following the US into Iraq, or getting involved in what appears to be a Russia-EU power struggle over Ukraine.
Not sure I agree. Would the USA have stayed in NATO without the UK pulling her weight? It stopped the USSR from expending further and has kept the peace in Europe since the late 1940's.Could we have defended the Falklands without spending a fair amount on defence? As an Island nation, dependent on maintaining the shipping lanes for our survival, we need a powerful Navy amongst other things. Its not just the image of a superpower, we are a superpower. The USA is now classed as a hyperpower.
s2art said:
AJS- said:
I hope so. 70 years of attempting to maintain the image of a superpower hasn't really been kind. We should have the ability to defend ourselves and our interests but we should not be following the US into Iraq, or getting involved in what appears to be a Russia-EU power struggle over Ukraine.
Not sure I agree. Would the USA have stayed in NATO without the UK pulling her weight? It stopped the USSR from expending further and has kept the peace in Europe since the late 1940's.Could we have defended the Falklands without spending a fair amount on defence? As an Island nation, dependent on maintaining the shipping lanes for our survival, we need a powerful Navy amongst other things. Its not just the image of a superpower, we are a superpower. The USA is now classed as a hyperpower.
In some ways technology has dome much to replace larger numbers of personnel, but keeping adequate numbers in all branches of the military is vital. Just keeping a force for `now' is about as short sighted as it is possible to get.
I don't claim any particular expertise in defence matters but I would imagine it's more a question of how you defend it thatln overall spending. Out decade plus adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan was enormously costly and at best unproductive. We narrowly avoided what would surely have been a repeat in Syria, and stoked the flames of Libya, as if to prove we had not learned anything from our previous experience.
Yet could we actually defend the Falklands now? I would imagine aircraft carriers would be a big help and I understand we don't currently have any operational.
I don't wish for us to become Switzerland. I simply think that the first and only real priority for military spending should be defence of the UK and it's territories such as the Falklands, rather than playing geopolitics.
Yet could we actually defend the Falklands now? I would imagine aircraft carriers would be a big help and I understand we don't currently have any operational.
I don't wish for us to become Switzerland. I simply think that the first and only real priority for military spending should be defence of the UK and it's territories such as the Falklands, rather than playing geopolitics.
AJS- said:
I don't wish for us to become Switzerland. I simply think that the first and only real priority for military spending should be defence of the UK and it's territories such as the Falklands, rather than playing geopolitics.
I'd agree. Which is why I think it's a shame that we can't even run proper anti sub/ anti ship patrols around our coastline anymore.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff