Part 2 – A post about what future threats we might face
At the heart of any defence and security review must be some analysis of the future.
Of course, if anyone can predict the future then I would ask them for next week’s lottery numbers. A flippant point perhaps, but it is important to realise that the world is and will be unpredictable.
If we are to maintain security and promote our interests in this unpredictable world then almost by definition we have to have a flexible capability that can meet any combination of futures.
However, and this is the rub, that wide ranging flexible capability requires a degree of funding that in the absence of a serious near home large scale threat is simply not acceptable to society. We might see crowds lining the streets of Wootton Bassett or buying Help4Heroes wrist bands but come the crunch, the nation would rather spend its wealth on other things.
The conventional wisdom is to decide what we want from the armed forces and then fund appropriately but this approach whilst eminently sensible is simply never going to work in a world of competing budgetary pressures.
The alternative approach is to decide a budget and do the best we can.
How can you square the circle of a limited budget and an unpredictable future?
This is a multi stage process
Step 1 – Accept that you cannot have it all
Step 2 – Try and make sensible predictions about likely futures
Step 3 – Bet what family silver you have on these likely futures whilst hedging as much as possible against the unlikely but still possible
The future is made of the same stuff as the present – Simone Weil
The nature of human conflict is the same as ever, competition for resources, disagreements on politics or religion or conflicts of economics. The context within which conflict operates changes but its fundamental nature remains the same, one party imposing its will on another.
It is easy for commentators and authors to say what type of enemy we might face based on what has gone before but the future, as has been, proven by history, cannot be fully predicted.
History is also a fickle teacher, drawing lessons from the past does not always provide a reliable indicator of the future.
Post cold war, the reality is varied and frequent actions across a wide geographic spectrum against an assortment of adversaries, none of which are likely to be able to conventionally match us.
These actions can include major combat such as the Falklands conflict or the first Gulf war; counter terrorist operations, peace keeping, humanitarian relief and support to the civilian authority.
Defence policy assumes that we can meet most opponents abroad and do much of the fighting away from the UK.
Only a fool would put all our eggs into one basket and organise totally for one type of threat, it is not a sensible option.. The future is uncertain, who could have predicted 9/11 and its security implications.
How will our forces be used in the future, what missions will they be expected to carry out and where in the world will they need to operate?
These questions dominate defence planning and the political aspect that informs these deliberations.
As I have already stated, one cannot fully predict the future but a reasonable description of likely trends, events and conditions can be made;
Competition for finite resources such as water, fuel, metals and minerals will likely increase, creating a source of conflict
Globalisation, climate change (regardless of cause) and increasing economic inequality will create risks that may need to be addressed by the application of military capability, not necessarily violent force
Urbanisation of the world population will continue but conflict may be prevalent in all terrains
Ethnicity and religion will continue to be a source of conflict. Expansionist and increasingly CBRN capable nations may represent a significant threat to our security via direct use, proliferation and sponsored use of these weapons
Islamic fundamentalism is likely to present significant and overriding challenges in the short and medium term
Information technologies will continue to be a source of both benefit and detrimental effect. Dependence on technology will increase
Exploration, exploitation and dependence, therefore potential for conflict, will increase in so called common spaces; the oceans, the poles, space and cyberspace
The rise of citizen journalism, single issue pressure groups, easy access to image/internet/video technologies and increasingly diminished news cycles will create challenges for all military forces
The threat to UK territory from other sovereign nations is diminished in comparison with earlier periods. It can be reasonably argued that interstate conflict is less likely in the context of increasing globalisation and the homogenisation of nations..
UK forces will be increasingly unlikely to be deployed unilaterally except for the smallest operations. Our historic allegiance and loyalty to the USA and NATO is likely to continue but increasing demands from the EU will also form inform our planning and operational outputs
Conflicts may not include solely military participants but paramilitaries, terrorists, private contractors or just ‘angry civilians’
The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council which places certain obligations on us
The people of the world will increasingly look to the developed nations to ‘do something’ in areas of conflict or to relieve suffering, this may translate into increasing demands for non violent interventions because military forces are trained, capable of rapid and uniform action with a range of applicable skill sets and capabilities
A number of previously less capable military powers are in an economic or political ascendancy and building their forces, for example China, Venezuela, Brazil, India and Iran
Perception about what are acceptable casualty levels, civilian involvement and even what weapons are ‘fair and humane’ will continue to pose challenges for Western forces when potential enemies are likely to have less concern for these issues.
UK forces will likely operate with a wide range of other nations military and non military ‘actors’ to coin a new phrase.
A full range of weapons, ranging from small arms to advanced fighters will continue to proliferate as both the ability to finance purchases and system development will be prevalent in many nations.
Afghanistan and its environs cannot be ignored in any strategy
These factors point to a turbulent future but as a nation we have serious monetary and social issues that have an equal pull on the public purse.
The next post in this series will examine our place in the world, ambitions and a response to these threats that will inform the reshaping of our armed forces.
Future Threats
A Post about what Future Threats *WE* may face.
Although I would agree many of your points are future threats, they are not future threats to us.
Diverting The Litani or The Nile would force Israel or Egypt into a war against whoever diverted it, whoever lost would likely face famine, but it
wouldn’t threaten us.
A war between Iran and Iraq over sea passage and oil fields wouldn’t threaten us directly, but we could be dragged into it.
Climate Change, cooling, will drive hundreds of millions into starvation, but isn’t a threat to us, it will probably kick off a few more Balkans Genocides, but it still isn’t a threat to us.
At the peak of Empire, the UK controlled 30% of world GDP and the welfare state didn’t exist, the UK now controls 3% of world GDP and a quarter of that goes on welfare payments.
Then, there was a passable argument, not mine, that we should use our vast strength to fix the world.
Now? We’d be poorer than a combined India/Brazil, with what vast strength are we supposed to fix the world?
I hereby name me fool.
What threats does the UK face?
In order or most serious but least likely
Well, the most serious and least likely, is an invasion of the home islands.
Then an invasion of a West of Suez Territory
Invasion of an East of Suez territory
National Action against our merchant shipping
None National Piracy or Terrorism
Those are threats to the UK.
Not that I dont expect PR obsessed pols to throw our forces at any and all problems anyway, but still, we should be expressing the opinion that Soldiers are not aid workers.
Dominic – your sense of what we might constitute as a ‘threat’ to the UK seems a little conservative:
“A war between Iran and Iraq over sea passage and oil fields wouldn’t threaten us directly, but we could be dragged into it.” – Really ? So how come I spent my first ever RN deployment escorting tankers through the Straits of Hormuz and have a General Service Medal (with Bar) for spending a total of 14 months (on 3 ships) doing MCM during the last Iran – Iraq war ?
Have you not heard the politicians banding around the term “energy security” ? Anything that threatens our oil or natural gas supply threatens the country or the interests of the country.
So should we be discussing threats to the UK National Interest or perceived threats to the EU and / or NATO ?
Should we include the political dimension more to the front and centre ? The threats might not change if we give up our seat on the UNSC but our responses could ?
But, quick response before leaving for a meeting, threats are:
1. Maritime – piracy, terrorism, impingement of free trade on the global commons, proliferation of advanced threats (SSK and ASM’s to name but 2), deliberate denial of choke points, eco-terrorism (deliberate pollution etc)
The general point I was trying to make is that in an increasingly homogonous world with natural disasters being no respector of boundaries and the interconnectedness of countries the liklihood is that some conflict in a far away place is likely to have some effect at home or to the interests of the UK
This recognition and the desire to fight our enemies in their back yard not ours means that the expeditionary nature of what our armed forces do is a theme that will continue.
Dominic makes the point that soldiers are not aid workers but if that is what their training and capability allows them to be then AS LONG AS IT IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST what is wrong with armed social work?
One thing I will be exploring in the forthcoming posts is the need to integrate overseas aid with security, trade or resource provision. We are not a do gooding ‘force for good’ and need to only deploy when it is in the clear national interest
Indeed, if armed force is simply the continuation of diplomacy by other means, then ‘soft’ power projection through disaster relief and the kind of specialised ‘aid’ that can be delivered by military engineers etc is very pertinent.
As I did not get past maritime threats last time…..
2. Air defence threats – is there any serious threat to the British Isles from a resurgent Russia ? Or any other threat that is not covered by NATO ADS ? If not then air defence of maritime and deployed forces against threats ranging from conventional fixed wing tac-air, armed helo’s and more likely rocket artillery and short to medium range ballistic missiles.
3. Ground threats – more slanted towards unconventional/ guerrilla / insurgency from “non-state actors” than “nation on nation” conflict ? Proliferation of mines (inc. IED), effective large calibre small arms, infantry rockets and mortars, anti-armour weapons etc.
4. Non-conventional threats – NBC based terrorism at home and abroad (dirty bombs etc), religious extremism (at home and abroad), other domestic terrorist threats (Irish republican, eco, white supremacist etc). Cyber warfare, against civilian, critical national infrastructure and military and government assets. Psychological operations threats against UK civ-pol and military.
5. The nuclear threat – more from rogue states than from Russia / China / India / Israel. So what is the appropriate response if Iran supplies materials to a “terrorist” organisation that nukes Hull by sailing the device into the docks on a merchant ship ?
Apologies for slipping away from laying out the threats to asking more questions.
Just in reply to the first bits replying to me.
Jed
I did say we could, and probably would, be dragged into another Iran Iraq war, and that our international shipping could be threatened, both by none state players, and state players.
Admin
As long as it is in the national interest, fine.
Our foreign aid work is usualy not in the national interest.
Genocide in Rwanda and Famine in Ethiopia are very sad, but the costs for us to fix them far outweigh the benefits.
Why were our forces somehow reponsible for rescueing everyone caught in the boxing day tsunami?
Sure, if it happened in the UK, use them, but elsewhere? We simply cant afford to.
Once upon a time, we could say “slavery is bad, any overt slave trading will bring down the wrath of the Royal Navy upon you”, and the world jumped in fear, thats just beyond us now.
My comment was mostly inspired by this line paragraph
“The people of the world will increasingly look to the developed nations to ‘do something’ in areas of conflict or to relieve suffering, this may translate into increasing demands for non violent interventions because military forces are trained, capable of rapid and uniform action with a range of applicable skill sets and capabilities”
If the people of the world expect the UK to deploy 100 peacekeepers, they should expect China to deploy 200, the US 700, France to deploy 100 and Brazil 50.
“So what is the appropriate response if Iran supplies materials to a “terrorist” organisation that nukes Hull by sailing the device into the docks on a merchant ship?”
The complete and total nuclear annihilation of Iran.
There can not be any other response.