What's the point of Defence Cuts?

[Lord Sovereign]

Seriously.

What in the ever living fuck is the point of them?

Defence Cuts save pretty much bugger all in terms of money whilst crippling the Armed Forces just in time for tomorrow's war. Defence Cuts dismembered the Royal Navy throughout the later 20th century, which then put all the wrong ideas in Argentina's head. With a strong Royal Navy, they'd never have dared go near the Falklands. Almost like hard power is useful...

I can only fathom that they are done so a government can look like it's being "fiscal" and responsible with the nation's money. Because if they actually were responsible, they'd have taken a lot of ineffective (and vastly more expensive) social programs to the chopping block long ago.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

In theory it's suppose to cut back on spending by forcing the Pentagon to cut some of their more useless projects.

In reality however that doesn't happen, and the Pentagon cut's soldiers wages or anything else to keep these useless or otherwise bloated projects. (Did we really need to invest money into a 'gay bomb' or monkey experiment's?)

 

[Zachowon]

Because "To much" is being spent on the military and not enough on social things

 

[Lord Sovereign]

In theory it's suppose to cut back on spending by forcing the Pentagon to cut some of their more useless projects.

In reality however that doesn't happen, and the Pentagon cut's soldiers wages or anything else to keep these useless or otherwise bloated projects. (Did we really need to invest money into a 'gay bomb' or monkey experiment's?)

So instead of cuts, it sounds like an audit is needed? Chop out the useless projects and put the money back into wages and more bloody tanks.

 

[Zachowon]

So instead of cuts, it sounds like an audit is needed? Chop out the useless projects and put the money back into wages and more bloody tanks.

I thought the UK were getting rod of old tanks they no longer use

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I thought the UK were getting rod of old tanks they no longer use

They might be, but this thread is more about Defence Cuts in general. As far as I'm concerned, you should only scrap old kit when you've got its replacement. Hence why I think the scrapping of the Invincible class aircraft carriers was an obscene act of stupidity.

 

[Zachowon]

They might be, but this thread is more about Defence Cuts in general. As far as I'm concerned, you should only scrap old kit when you've got its replacement. Hence why I think the scrapping of the Invincible class aircraft carriers was an obscene act of stupidity.

The US got rid of its M60s even if they had more then Abrams because they were obsolete

 

[Knowledgeispower]

The point is the fact that politicians in this day and age have no brain cells as related to how useful a strong military can be in all sorts of situations and would rather spend the money on social programs to buy votes and pork belly programs for their friends and backers

 

[Argent]

It can be an easy target for Politicians especially more left leaning ones. You are right that generally it is a drop in the bucket compared to social programs

Take a country like Britain which while having cuts still has one of the better militaries around. They have not fought a major war since WWII and honestly do not need the military of their Empire. Most of their overseas commitments are in safe zones. No one is going to hit their holding in the Caribbean aka America's pond. The other tend to be tiny Isalnd no cares about outside if the beaches make a nice vacation spot. The only real two holdings out side of the Home Islands that have any contention are the Falkland and Gibraltar. Spain is pretty much next door and since post WWII the fac th that Britain is in NATO and Spain's tiny military means all they are going to is grumble. Now the Falklands do show that the perceived weakness can be a problem. But Argentina could not take them after massive cuts and Britain still having allies on call.

So the general position is that the military is unneeded when you have to make more government housing and f UK and your health care and pensions. Cutting that billion dollar carrier may not make a real difference but sure does look good to a public that thinks a large military is unneeded.

You also tend to see the more military is uneeded in Eourpe and mainly Western Europe at that from what I have seen. Which makes for an easy target. South America and Asian countries tend expanding their military or at least maintain them at current levels. They also have not have the advantage of sitting behind the U.S. Army for 70ish years. While it takes a lot of flak from certain circles there is a lot of truth that America has subsidized Europe's defense. There is a reason that so few countries can meet a minimum spending on their military after decades. Thoughtout the Cold War we stationed massive amount of troops and provided training to logistics. Amercia has taken the lead from making sure sea lanes stay open and leading interventions in the Middle East. But that shield is going away and may be gone over the next decade.

So there is also the question of what role the military should play. Just look at any thread about the E.U. and how lots of posters talk about how they don't need hard power projection to the Middle East let alone a place like the South China Sea. There is a big belief that Nuclear Weapons and an army mainly made up of light infantry will be fine. After all they only plan of fighting a defensive war. America has had the opinion that it is better to fight them over there then over here for a long time but that is not a universal opinion. We will see massive changes over the next few decades

Personally I think the problems of a weak military are self evident when France needed massive support for operations in Libya which is right next door or how a strong army could have stopped the Syrian war cold and ended the refugee problem that has been plaguing Eourpe for years now. The simple fact is that is that anyone that wants to be a world power must be able to back that up with force. Yes things like a large united market and "soft" power can help but at the end of the day you need to remind people that you can back up you words w I'll th actions. Otherwise you get your own countries listening to the world power across the ocean instead of your own Prime Minster. This is something both China and Russai understand but in general the EU doesn't.

 

[Zachowon]

It can be an easy target for Politicians especially more left leaning ones. You are right that generally it is a drop in the bucket compared to social programs

Take a country like Britain which while having cuts still has one of the better militaries around. They have not fought a major war since WWII and honestly do not need the military of their Empire. Most of their overseas commitments are in safe zones. No one is going to hit their holding in the Caribbean aka America's pond. The other tend to be tiny Isalnd no cares about outside if the beaches make a nice vacation spot. The only real two holdings out side of the Home Islands that have any contention are the Falkland and Gibraltar. Spain is pretty much next door and since post WWII the fac th that Britain is in NATO and Spain's tiny military means all they are going to is grumble. Now the Falklands do show that the perceived weakness can be a problem. But Argentina could not take them after massive cuts and Britain still having allies on call.

So the general position is that the military is unneeded when you have to make more government housing and f UK and your health care and pensions. Cutting that billion dollar carrier may not make a real difference but sure does look good to a public that thinks a large military is unneeded.

You also tend to see the more military is uneeded in Eourpe and mainly Western Europe at that from what I have seen. Which makes for an easy target. South America and Asian countries tend expanding their military or at least maintain them at current levels. They also have not have the advantage of sitting behind the U.S. Army for 70ish years. While it takes a lot of flak from certain circles there is a lot of truth that America has subsidized Europe's defense. There is a reason that so few countries can meet a minimum spending on their military after decades. Thoughtout the Cold War we stationed massive amount of troops and provided training to logistics. Amercia has taken the lead from making sure sea lanes stay open and leading interventions in the Middle East. But that shield is going away and may be gone over the next decade.

So there is also the question of what role the military should play. Just look at any thread about the E.U. and how lots of posters talk about how they don't need hard power projection to the Middle East let alone a place like the South China Sea. There is a big belief that Nuclear Weapons and an army mainly made up of light infantry will be fine. After all they only plan of fighting a defensive war. America has had the opinion that it is better to fight them over there then over here for a long time but that is not a universal opinion. We will see massive changes over the next few decades

Personally I think the problems of a weak military are self evident when France needed massive support for operations in Libya which is right next door or how a strong army could have stopped the Syrian war cold and ended the refugee problem that has been plaguing Eourpe for years now. The simple fact is that is that anyone that wants to be a world power must be able to back that up with force. Yes things like a large united market and "soft" power can help but at the end of the day you need to remind people that you can back up you words w I'll th actions. Otherwise you get your own countries listening to the world power across the ocean instead of your own Prime Minster. This is something both China and Russai understand but in general the EU doesn't.

France still has one of the largest militaries in Western Europe. Whjich shows just how low it has fallen

 

[Firebat]

Defence Cuts save pretty much bugger all in terms of money whilst crippling the Armed Forces just in time for tomorrow's war. Defence Cuts dismembered the Royal Navy throughout the later 20th century, which then put all the wrong ideas in Argentina's head. With a strong Royal Navy, they'd never have dared go near the Falklands. Almost like hard power is useful...

UK would never be able to afford 1st or 2nd navy in the world after abolition of the empire and RN did manage Argentinians.
Almost like you can manage third-world wanna be conquerors and not waste billions for decades at the same time.

What in the ever living fuck is the point of them?

The point is to not end up like Soviet Union.

 

[absenceofmalice]

"America will handle it."

 

[PsihoKekec]

France still has one of the largest militaries in Western Europe.

And they are regularly involved in interventions in their former colonies (thus defending the Nestle profit margin).

The defense cuts are usually to show that the president or prime minister is doing something about the finances and allows financing of pork barrel projects closer to their hearts. They also tend to cut actually military capabilities a lot more than the layers of bureaucratic detritus, bureaucracy tends to emerge from every round of cuts or austerity stronger than ever. For example, in Slovenia in the aftermath of 2008 economic crisis spending cuts, the number of soldiers and policemen decreased, while the number of bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of interior increased.

 

[Argent]

UK would never be able to afford 1st or 2nd navy in the world after abolition of the empire and RN did manage Argentinians.
Almost like you can manage third-world wanna be conquerors and not waste billions for decades at the same time.

They also never should have allowed Argentina to land on the Falkland island. Britain does not need to have an Amercian or future China sized Navy. But they did need a bigger military then they had durning the 80s or at least better positioned. Generally I think with some extra escorts they are fine with what they have as long as the maintain and upgrade as needed. The problem comes is that when large capital expenditures like subs and carriers come up you need to have a population that is willing to spend the money to replace them. The Britsh military has to the fact that it is going to be one of the first targets for cuts over third rail things like health care. There is a reason why the new carriers have ramps instead of catapults.

Most of Europes problems is not that they didn't continue Cold War level spending but that they have dragged out replacing gear or have downsized so far they can no longer operate as an independent entity outside of their own continental borders. Which is fine for countries like Germany or Belgium that do have anyone unfriendly across a boarder but ones like France and Britain do still need to maintain a certain level or expect some tough fights.

You also have to accept that a military without an expeditionary force ability limits your options on the global stage. This means that messes like Syria will be decided by Amercia and Russia despite the EU having more problems form the conflict.

Overall most of Europe's armies make the idea of conquering them to costly to consider even if I would not trust being under a different countries nuclear umbrella as a deterrent. You never know what could happen when the chips are down and maybe France or Amercia are willing to trade Warsaw if it means New York and Paris are fine.

It is just that I see a lot of complaining from Eurpeans about American military actions. Both doing to much like Iraq or not enough like in Syria. The thing is that the EU could match America if they had the political will to do so. They have a strong defense industry, technical ability and manpower to have a military equal to Amercia. They could effect change and not have to worry about if America cares enough to go droning or put boots of the ground. They easily could have had the ability to go bomb ISIS without any Amercian involvement. But they lack the political will, turn projects into jobs programs like the Eurofighter, and allow massive military cuts. Which is fine but don't be surprised when others that have the big stick get to decide things and you don't like the outcome.

France still has one of the largest militaries in Western Europe. Whjich shows just how low it has fallen

True but France can at least still maintain it overseas holdings. Granted I think the French government is learning that they have stretched themselves to thin as they have had troubles supporting their recent actions in Africa and come against hard limits without U.S. help for actions in Syria and Libya.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

So the general position is that the military is unneeded when you have to make more government housing and f UK and your health care and pensions. Cutting that billion dollar carrier may not make a real difference but sure does look good to a public that thinks a large military is unneeded.

That might be what the politicians think, not so much what the general public actually think. The man in the street probably believes Defence Cuts have gone a little too far. Due to humans being oddly rational creatures, there's also a likely acceptance that the military is more important than a lot of things and should have more spent on it.

But, as Brexit has proved, our elite haven't got a fucking clue what the man on the street thinks.

UK would never be able to afford 1st or 2nd navy in the world after abolition of the empire

Britain could absolutely afford the 3rd of 4th fleet in the world, perhaps even the 2nd if China's ambitions go tits up.

Militaries are not as expensive as some think.

The point is to not end up like Soviet Union.

Strawman.

The USSR spent absurd amounts on its armed forces, and didn't get much bang for their buck at all. Spending the money is good, but you've got to spend it wisely. Besides, I'm not bloody asking for about 10% of GDP to be spent on a peacetime army. No one who wants to expand the Royal Navy does.

 

[Marduk]

Personally I think the problems of a weak military are self evident when France needed massive support for operations in Libya which is right next door or how a strong army could have stopped the Syrian war cold and ended the refugee problem that has been plaguing Eourpe for years now.

Hahaha nope.
It would have been Europe's Iraq then, Europe would be stuck there for ages just like USA is in Iraq, while taking in any migrant that shows up, and you would be laughing your ass off at the irony of that.
Europe's refugee problem has everything to do with its leftie legal-political-cultural establishment. That's why despite the whole NATO keeping Afghanistan on life support, Europe is still getting.... Afghan refugees!
Who in turn have made themselves quite infamous in the poster boy countries of that establishment to add insult to injury.

The simple fact is that is that anyone that wants to be a world power must be able to back that up with force. Yes things like a large united market and "soft" power can help but at the end of the day you need to remind people that you can back up you words w I'll th actions. Otherwise you get your own countries listening to the world power across the ocean instead of your own Prime Minster. This is something both China and Russai understand but in general the EU doesn't.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, and not the source of the problem.
A strong projection capability is a dangerous thing to give an establishment that has no good idea what to do with it, good chance they will do something utterly stupid with it and get it stuck running a costly "peacekeeping mission" in the first sandbox they get pointed at by hysterical media and NGOs.
See: Libya. On one hand they did avoid getting stuck, on the other hand it did turn into pretty much the worst case scenario waved around as an argument for not intervening in such things.

 

[Firebat]

They also never should have allowed Argentina to land on the Falkland island.

So now the bar has shifted from being able to defeat the enemy to being able to defeat the enemy so fast it won't be able to do anything. That's not gonna work on the budget.
Even back when British Empire was a premier military power, people did invade British territories and British had to concentrate forces before taking them back. You can't be overwhelmingly strong everywhere all the time.

Britain could absolutely afford the 3rd of 4th fleet in the world, perhaps even the 2nd if China's ambitions go tits up

Maybe 4th, but that's very much a maybe.
The general trend is that more nations would like to have and can afford real navies while Britain's relative share in world economy is going to be less. Plus there is a looming threat of Britain being cut down to England and Wales, so the future prospects of Britain as major naval power are in question.

Strawman.

Seeing how you reject any defense cuts ever, that's not a strawman, but a reasonable observation.
Especially since Soviet military spent a fourth of its manpower (and who knows how much of its budget) doing civilian jobs like road construction, harvesting etc.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Because here's a secret that Europe found out and the US has forgotten: improving the civilian economy has an RoI that is several orders of magnitude better than more military spending. Basically, a better civilian economy equals more money for the military. This is usually done through a mix of small business assistance programs, infrastructure programs, and the like.

Problem is, the RoI of improving the civilian economy is decreasing as automation becomes more and more common...

 

[Argent]

So now the bar has shifted from being able to defeat the enemy to being able to defeat the enemy so fast it won't be able to do anything. That's not gonna work on the budget.
Even back when British Empire was a premier military power, people did invade British territories and British had to concentrate forces before taking them back. You can't be overwhelmingly strong everywhere all the time.

Not a goal post shift.

A power of Britain's level even post Empire should have been able to make sure that Argentina never got as far as they did. It all ties into the main point I have been making and having a small military is fine but you have to accept the downsides.

By the late 70s Britain was down to a minimal navy and looking at more cuts. They had plans for sell off ships, only had escort carriers that could fly Harriers and many ships stuck in dock needing parts and repairs. It was a popular move to cut the military and shift spending else where after all NATO(Amercia) would be there to handle the heavy lifting. Like you said the Empire was gone and they had a moat with Western Eourpe as a buffer against the USSR.

But imagine if Britain could of had a Carrier Group on station or been able to surge the size of the garrison before the fighting. Argentina would have ran away with out firing a shot or ended running back with their tail between their legs. Even doing simple freedom of navigation exercises would have probably stopped the war before it began.

Britain didn't need to be strong everywhere. No one was going after their holdings in the Caribbean. The only contested holdings Britain has outside of some disgruntled former natives without power are the Falklands and Gibraltar. Gibraltar is close enough that even the limited military of of late 70s could have protected it. The only other holdings Britain had at the time that was under threat was the Falklands. They only had to be strong in two places the Home Islands and the Falklands. Everthing else only needed minimal protection at best.

If they want to have the cuts and smaller Navy then Britain has to accept that they will be reliant on Aliies aka America's good will or in for a longer war. Britain strained it self to keep the Falklands because they lacked the ability to launch large scale operations easily on the other side of the world. They where lucky that Argentina was a two bit power. In general Whitehall thought the same as they canceled the decommissioning or sell off of several ships. They stopped planned cuts to the Royal Navy and in general increased maintenance of existing ships. The political situation changed in Britain. The military was no longer an easy target for budget cuts. The public wanted to see their goverment defend Britain even their few far flung holdings.

But the main point is the military for Western Europe is generally seen as unnned expect for defense so it is a popular target in budget cuts and easy to get a PR win for the government. It is a popular move and with large portions of the general public agreeing so the governments keep cutting and not expending money to replace worn out gear.

I am sure that you will see this change if Amercia continues it retreat from the world stage and the Middle East continues to destabilize. If the public lic see a new threat to themselves or it effect their daily lifes then cutting the military will be a death sentence for Politicians.

 

[Vargas Fan]

And how would Britain have been able to have a Carrier group or naval group 'on station' in the Falklands. There was, and indeed still is not no permanent naval base there. The next nearest territory seems to have been South Georgia which was also taken. Then you had Ascension Island which although British at that time was largely used by the US as a tracking station, and neither South Georgia or Ascension had a port. It just isnt practical to keep a sizeable force down there at that time 'just in case'.