Another guest post from AJ
It has now been almost a year since Prime Minister David Cameron, flanked by the Defence Secretary Liam Fox, announced the outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) – a review that had been long in the waiting since 1998, and frequently called for.
While this review was always going to be difficult, with a heavily reported £30-6 billion black hole to plug, on top of Treasury imposed budget restrictions, could the Prime Minister have envisaged when he came into office how much of a long term and continuous headache the defence brief has become? The Arab Spring and the Libya effort aside, there have been some strategic and harsh cuts implemented over the past year with many more headline grabbing cuts to come – such as the Naval redundancies being implemented last week. This drip drip of bad news is starting to have detrimental ramifications with the public at large and traditional Conservative voters. It is suddenly conceivable that the public may soon back Labour on defence policy.;
The recent BAE cuts only serve to highlight the situation the Prime Minister finds himself regarding defence. Not only are members of the armed services, and 25 000 civilian MOD staff being cut, but the private sector is making swingeing cuts in localised areas up and down the country.
To look externally only serves to intensify the defence problem the PM is facing. We were told in June by Fox that the cost of the Libyan intervention would be absorbed by The Treasury. However it has now emerged that no additional funding will be made available for vital repairs and replenishments. This funding will now be diverted from the training and operation budgets of the armed forces which are already being hammered by cuts and redundancies. As Janes Defence Weekly (28 Sept) righty points out this raises huge concerns over the long term readiness of the armed forces going forward on a national and global scale.
This brings me to my next point regarding the UKs changing global presence., Jim Murphy, the Shadow Secretary for Defence used his party conference speech to focus on the armed forces. But he summed up the current global position effectively:
“Defence is becoming more expensive, more intricate and more unpredictable. The contest for clean water supply and population growth demand our attention alongside terrorism and cyber attack. In recent years we have seen states fail and in recent months we have seen governments fall. We are confronted by violent groups and malevolent individuals determined to do us harm. The pace of change is quickening. Wars amongst the people rather than across borders will be increasingly common. There are 27 States of Concern, from Chad to Uzbekistan. Today there is no opt-out. David Cameron is learning that on the job.”
There is therefore an increasingly dangerous global dynamic, yet worryingly there are a growing number of voices that are saying the UK is at a tipping point in the global scheme of things. The voices attest that our once superior power and position is waning; that the UK is relinquishing its global role in order to balance the books in time for the next general election in 2015.
This is an interesting argument, with many third party voices raising concerns, including the recently published United Kingdom National Defence Association report titled Inconvenient Truths, compiled by defence industry luminaries such as Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon and Sir Michael Rose. But the argument is made all the more forceful as these voices also come from within. For instance, Bernard Jenkins, Conservative MP and former Shadow Secretary of Defence (2001-2003), who has co-authored an influential pamphlet titled The Tipping Point: British National Strategy and the UK’s Future World Role; or The House of Commons Defence Committee, chaired by Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, which published, on August 3rd 2011, a strongly evidenced report entitled ‘The Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy’
The commons select committee concludes that:
“The latest National Security Strategy is an improvement on earlier versions but we have major concerns regarding the realism of its statement of the UK’s position in the world and its influence. There is a clear contradiction in the short to medium term between the NSC’s statement “that Britain’s national interest requires the rejection of any notion of the shrinkage of UK influence in the world” and the Government’s overriding strategic aim of reducing the UK’s budget deficit. Despite the stated intention of rejecting any notion of the shrinkage of influence, our witnesses have forcefully told us that the UK’s global influence is shrinking.”
Similarly, the Bernard Jenkins pamphlet concludes:
“The United Kingdom is currently at a strategic tipping point. At stake is whether we wish to maintain our position as a global power with a global role, or whether we wish to become by default just another European country with only a regional one. A decline to regional-power status is not an inevitability; it is a choice, and one based upon erroneous assumptions about the nature of the geopolitical environment in which we operate, and the UK’s proper place within it.”
Is the UK flattering to deceive with its heavy and forceful involvement in Libya?
While Cameron may be taking plaudits for forcing the NATO agenda on Libya and pushing for a no fly zone, leading to the ultimate deposing of Gaddafi, many of the cuts that were due to come into effect were delayed for this war. For example the Nimrod intelligence gathering aircraft, which were all due to be scrapped remained in service for three additional months; as did HMS Cumberland, as well as a number of air-to-air refuelling aircraft and Hercules transport aircraft. There is a debate surrounding whether the UK could have been so forceful had the original cuts been delivered, rather than delayed; and to whether the UK would even have had the capability.
Either way, there are those that think the cuts are diminishing the UK power in the world and so far, a year after the cuts were announced and explained, there has not been a solid enough counter argument to allay these fears. These voices are growing louder; loud enough for Liam Fox to address this impending issue head on at the Conservative Party Conference.
There is no poltical will to address issues such as defence in either a long term or a planned way. Historically post 1945 the largest defence cuts have come under Conservative administrations. Ironically the only period of sustained increase in defence spending has come under the Wilson/Callhaghan era when they signed up to a NATO agreement to increase defence soending by 3% per anum. I think unless David Cameron fears his postiion is threatened by his low level of defence spending he will not budge. The armed forces (especially the Royal Navy and RAF) are clsoe to being dysfunctional because they are not large enough to give a good career structure for their personnel (eg only 11 Submarines, not enough to keep a significant cadre of trained and motivated submariners). It willl take a sysmic shift in the political agenda to change this and I dont see it coming any time soon. Sadly I think we have reached the tipping point and our leading poliiticians simply don`t care or are unable to grasp the significance of it all.
I can`t see any changein david Camerons attitde to defence and the Defence budget, unless he feels his personal position is under threat. Ironically since 1945 only under the Labour Goverment of Wilson and Callaghan has there been any sustained raise in defence spending and that was under a NATO agreement to raise it by 3% per anum. I think we have reached a tipping point and our leading politicians don`t care or realise the significance of it all.
Thanks, a very good summary of where we are today.
My fear is this: a group of people in government have already decided that the ‘European regional power’ option is the way they will take us, they just can’t face running it past the public, or making a strategic case for it.
We saw this approach from New Labour on mass immigration – they always made a purely economic case for it, since they assumed that the political argument was too hard to sell, but it turned out to have been a deliberate shift towards multiculturalism. http://tgr.ph/9Wea0S
Whether you agree with their aims or not, it’s the smokescreen that’s the issue.
So is a similar smokescreen being applied to defence? Well, strutting on the global stage doesn’t bring the votes like it used to thanks to Iraq & Afghanistan, and I honestly don’t think the politicians want the responsibility that comes with power. It may be that simple.
I hope I’m just being paranoid after too many months of gloomy news. Time will tell!
No need to wait for too long – November will be the reporting time for the content of Anglo-French defence cooperation
- will there be other content than nuclear (badly stretching the resources of both partners)and some export-minded joint projects (like UAVs, as the Americans have handed the global market to Israel by imposing too many technology restrictions)
“Defence is becoming more expensive, more intricate and more unpredictable. The contest for clean water supply and population growth demand our attention alongside terrorism and cyber attack. In recent years we have seen states fail and in recent months we have seen governments fall. We are confronted by violent groups and malevolent individuals determined to do us harm. The pace of change is quickening. Wars amongst the people rather than across borders will be increasingly common. There are 27 States of Concern, from Chad to Uzbekistan. Today there is no opt-out. David Cameron is learning that on the job.”
I’m sorry but thats just bollocks.
There has never been a single moment in time when every man woman and child has had unfettered access to clean water.
Even at the very height of our power, when 40% of the world economy paid taxes to Her Majesties Government, we didnt have a policy on the water supply in Uzbekistan, or Megalomanic Dreams of enforcing said policy.
80-50 Years ago, Soviet and Chinese armed, trained and funded revolts were raging across the empire, and they were seen to be or little relevence, and yet now, the border between Irreleventia and WhoGivesACrapistan is deemed a national security issue.
Rubbish.
The Military is in dire straights, but thats because its lacked a job and a direction since the USSR collapsed, before that, its job was, “twat Ivan senseless around Fulda”, now its job is “be a force for good in the world” which frankly covers everything from shooting Russians to helping old ladies cross the road.
Cameron might be forced to change his plans somewhat, but its pure fantasy to believe that two extra infantry battalions or another C17 mean diddly squat in the big picture.
The armed forces require a sensible goal, and that goal needs to be followed by a sensible discussion about whats required to get there, with sacred cow firmly on the menu.
Whether thats an armed coast guard, a couple of wings of fighters and 500,000 infantrymen or 70 Capital Ships and 50,000 infantrymen would depend on the job description.
Which really is what the armed forces need more than anything else.
Hmm, this has dragged on a bit, I might come back to it.
Rec
The UK has more submarines than many navies have ships. Brazil has 10 surface warships, the Danes have 8.
Yes they have a few patrol craft as well, but calling them warships is like calling a bloke with snorklers a submarine.
The Armed forces has a clear mission. For the Army that mission set is obvious and mostly public: provide x capabilities at y notice for z time.
The context of the mission, its scope and its nature are entirely political decisions. And they will reflect the political makeup at the time and the prevailing thought and context. That has been the case since the year dot and it is not going to change now.
What you seek is not a mission for the armed forces, they have those, you want the politicians to have a set foreign policy and mission, which you will never get in a narrow sense because we live in a democracy with a turnover of governing officials with different thoughts and ideals.
In a very broad sense there is a mission, it is the time tested desire for global stability to aid trade and prosperity and maintaining a balance of power. These are over-arching, almost sub-conscious policies that all governments strive for.
Don’t know what to say really; there is nothing new here really to comment on.
Salami slicing doesn’t work. The UK needs to concentrate on what it does best with reference to its geography. The UK needs to stop carrying the likes of Japan and Germany. The British public, well those that care, need to stop viewing defence through a WW2 lens. The wheels are coming off Europe and who would be surprised if the US turns it back on Europe?
Phil
Thats a means, not an ends, its exactly the problem I was highlighting.
I’ve continued the brain dump on the open thread
Whats a means to an end? I don’t understand.
I know I am probably a minority on this site, but as far as I’m concerned; the day we stop trying to be a ‘World power’; is the day we start taking our defence and security seriously.
I think you confuse world power with a need to have power in the world. There is a difference.
Phil
I think I am not the only one. The ability to ‘Wog slap’ does not of itself buy a seat at the table of any of the worlds great panjanderums.
Such power as we have, does not grow out the barrel of a gun.
What I would like to see in the debate is more about our interests and how we can protect/promote them rather than some vague notions about our place in the world that all we seem to get nowadays. The world has changed and we need to recognise this
TD
Ok I’m Game.
Lets start by looking at the UK.
As a rough discription. I will take a stab at:
1) 5th ranked world economy both in income and high in per capita income
2)High in the lists for trading economy.
3) (Depending on how you slice it), top banking economy in the world. Centre of world shipping industry.
4) Island nation, happily quartered in what has been for the last 50 years perhaps the quetest part of the globe, and since 1990 perhaps the safest.
5) Likely threats of invasion/ coercion by neighbours or near neighbours realitically nil. No one stands ready to crush our jeweled throne benieth their sandled feet….
6) Historical (and useful) connections arround the world enabling all of the above and a certain reputaion for a degree fairness etc in dealing with other nations (Much weakened and abused of late). which give us an ‘In’ in many areas other nations are jelous of.
7) One of the leading members of NATO and various European organisations that make us part of some strong alliences both millitarily and Economically.
So all pretty good but
8) Dependant on raw material and food imports. (A succession of govts since the fall of the wall have put paid to the stategic independance of supply in both)
9) All of the above however needs protecting in some way.
10) We are required to ‘Keep our end up’ in all those alliances.
11) various stupid decisions have made us a target for the current vogue for religious terrorism home grown and foreign.
The question surely is: –
What millitary capabilty that is within our rescources can do this.
UKPLC needs to be at the heart of everything we do.
Abroad
1) At the lowest defence level Td’s forward presence squadrons of mixed ‘light’ capable joint bases in those geographical areas that are important to us, seem to me to a lot towards this.
They SHOULD buy good will and a degree of influence, (the kind you get by cooperating with friends rather than by playing former colonial boss / rich white guy).
The should improve the profile of Our armed forces and UKPLC.
They should offer the abilty to protect Uk’s interrests to some degree from the non state actors, Pirates smugglers and their sometimes fellow travelling terrorists.
2) Hand in hand we need to expand every source of intellegence both (high and low tec) to keep
a head of the game.
3) Either in cooperation with allies or on our own if need be, we should be able to retain and expand our capability, deal with small scale millitary threats to our direct interrests. and destruction to a degree against such regimes who try it on. Our own capability should be restricted to strategic raiding.(yea I know)
4) we should play an active role in peacekeeping as part of those alliances.
5) However very few of our allies are frankly up to keeping their end up in Nato etc at the moment. (To the degree we seem to think we should). Almost all are cutting back to some degree. We should be wary of thinking that as we cannot do much of this on our own, we will retain for long the capability to do it as part of an allience. Europe as a continent lacks strategic reach outside the med.
6) Sorry but the American century is over, sooner or later they will start pulling their horns in In Europe to begin with but it will happen elswhere eventually. We are going to have to face the big wide world without mummy to hold our hand. Sooner rather than later. e.g The US is feeling the cost of Afghanistan finacially, with it’s crippling debt which will 120% of GDP soon and rising.
Home.
1) Whilst there are no existential threats to the UK form forign states (except bogey men to frighten the children) there is a substantial terrorist threat. UK based forces neeed to be trained equiped and allingned to deal with this by land sea and air. I know the cries of ‘What the Bwifflesnesshire Rangers who fought at Minden reduced to mere Gendarmarie!! Never! Followed by campaign in local press ,,,
2) Naval forces and Airforces need to be set up to deal with 9/11 and Mumbai style attacks. (whatever other capability they possess). (The RN will need a lot more patrol ships than it has,
In short this is not the views of a ‘Little Englander’ just someone who understands that, (if I may paraphrase both the Bible and the T shirt that lampooned it)
The World is the valley of the shadow of death, we walk it, but we are no longer anywhere near being the ‘meanest son off a bitch in the whole valley’
We are in fact going to have to learn to be light on our feet, live off our wits and be tough enough to look after ourselves for those fight we have to have. Having carefully measured our oponents first.
We hae to stop seeing the world as our plaything that we have to have an opinion on everything and role in everything and crucially if there is a fight going on we have to have a peice of it.
In short regain those attitudes and abilities which brought us an Empire in the first place.
Now pick the bones out of that lot, I am away for the next 2 days so you can all have fun calling me all the names under the sun untill Thursday.
PS
I have tried not to get involved in discussions of kit. Not relevent at this level of discussion.
If the above perspective is challanged I would love to se how others on this site see it and why, also how they would edefend the Uk within their view.
i have not got into kit or force structure or(God help us) the need for CVF, etc etc I amd tryong to establish a baseline of
1)what UK is now and
2)needs to be in the future
3)then carry out my own strategic defence review!
We can argue about T45/cvf/ Simms F35 , size of army RN etc etc later!
I guess the problem I have, looking at the UK and its defence needs is this….
Who’s going to take us on?
I don’t mean, who thinks they’re tough enough, rather, who actually stands to benefit by shutting down British trade of some form or another?
China?
Please. China is dependent on foreign trade (and investment). What cause would they have to disrupt their own trade routes?
Russia?
It doesn’t have the power to take on the whole of Europe, let alone Europe plus the United States. Whatever we think of our neighbours across the channel, if they were in trouble at home we would pitch in, as would every other European nation.
Argentina?
Not that we particularly want to go down this path again, most plans for an Argentine rerun of “that war” mostly exist in complete fantasy land.
There really are no serious threats to us, to our neighbours, or any other major ally of ours. The power struggle in the South China Sea is more of a scuffle than a Cold war.
For me it all comes down to our government. What are their plans? To keep getting involved in everyone elses wars? Is Libya the way of the future, or would Cameron et al have preferred to have sent in the ground troops if they had them available in sufficient numbers.
I’m also growing increasingly sceptical of the need for the Carribean patrols etc. What gets intercepted is just a fraction of what actually gets through. A more coherent domestic plan, and better cooperation with the Jamaican, Spanish and Colombian authorities would probably have more of an impact on the drugs war.
There’s a lot of questions that need answering before you can really say “we’ve reached the right force balance” or “we need more” etc.
Auntie was interviewing Afghans on it’s 10 o’clock slot tonight, and it seems none of them outside of Kabul really seem to give much of a shit about us or us helping them.
I just think it’s getting harder by the day to justify certain elements of defence spending.
An interesting post, in respect IXION on the British economy 4/10, the UK made a decision long ago to emphasise a services economy (banking, insurance, ‘the çity’ generally) unfortunately that is a fundamentally unbalanced economy where the earnings of the city have to support a majority(?) of the population who are not benefitting from the ‘city of London’. Germany by comparision has always defied the economic experts and emphasised a more balanced economy, and it shows. In the circumstances, in hard financial times, it is not surprising that ‘cost centres’ in the UK such as Defence are suffering.
Looking at SDSR 2010, it comes into the classic political exercise of ‘harsh measures’ needed to ‘restore health’ with the usual hint of ‘better times’ in future. Standard politics in short.
Your real problem is what happens when you get to the next SDSR and your parts of the world economy has not improved in real terms?
Looking at Europe, the USA, Japan you see a sea of debt. Since the Global Financal Crisis much of what has happened is a massive game of pass the (debt) parcel, from banks to countries, to trading zones. The debt hasn’t gone away and will continue to act as an anchor until it is written off against real growth……which will take (a lot) of time.
The only question at the moment is:
What are your real Defence priorities? What can you afford? None of which equates to what you may want or even what you may need.
P.S. I am not being smug out here, Australia has an equally unbalanced economy. We are utterly dependant on Asian demand for raw materials. If Asian demand slows we will have our very own SDSR 2010. Worse, for the first time in our history we are moving into an epoc where our major trading partners (the source of our wealth) are not our major strategic (military)partners.
Maybe we should all remember the old Chinese curse ‘may you live in interesting times’.
Phil
Ends – What you want to do.
Means – How you wish to accomplish it.
Having 36 infantry battalions is a means, like having 36 hammers, its a way to do something.
If you have no idea what you wish to do, theres very little arguement against instead stocking 35 hammers.
Ixion
Abroad 6.
I’m afraid I disagree, it is not the US century thats ending, its the European half a millenium.
The US is pulling out of EUrope because we are fast ceasing to matter.
EUropes share of world GDP keeps on falling, in just the last 40 years, 10% of world GDP left Europe and went to east asia.
Chris B
Chinas long term strategy is a greater east asian co prosperity sphere.
They want everything west of Hawaii to the east African coast, which they want most of.
This will then lock out outside trade.
Its basicaly the British Empire of the 30′s in operation, theres a reason Brtish school children learn about the great depression in Kansas not Lancashire.
Russia doesnt need the power to take on all of Europe, Europe isnt united, its swiftly breaking apart, High levels of the German government are in crisis planning for pulling out of the EURO (Yes, they are), Norways has signed quite unfair treaties over Northern Resources, because they know if Russia took them by force, Europe wouldnt go to war the matter, thats one of the “hard” missions I could give to the Navy, be capable of confining the Russian Fleet to port during war, and to take every opportunity to harrass them outside the Barants during peace.
Argentina is not a threat.
But the South American Union IS.
Granted, it doesnt exist at the moment, but Chavez is holding on by a wing and a prayer, he could easily be toppled by a military coup that likes us even less. Add in Argentina, Brazil and bolizia, and the security situation loooks very different.
The South China sea isnt currently a warzone, but it sure as hell has the makings of one.
Aussie Johnno
Dont believe the bullshit
The German Economy is 27.9% Industrial
The UK Economy is 22.1% Industrial.
The “mighty” German Indstrial economy consumes 29.7% of the workforce, whereas its service sector consumes 67.8%
The German Banking sector has a higher leverage percentage than the UK’s, meaning our “casino” economy, is actualy built on firmer foundations….
Its not just “the west” thats in debt, Chinas debts are enormous, its dollar peg destructive and its assets near default.
Hi DJ,
Have you noticed that China’s external reserves match the write-offs they have made and are continually doing in transferring the dinosaur state enterprise resources to other sectors.
Their dollar peg is relative, rather than absolute, which is the case for many of their neighbours. If they move too quickly all the outsourcing flows start to go to Vietnam & the likes (where labour costs are lower).
I share your concern about S China Sea as bullying the smaller neighbours and daring the USA can be observed.Taiwan is old hat.
But thats not how it works in real life. The Government of the day decides what needs doing in consultation with the forces regarding if they can do it. If it takes four years to make a hammer, you have to plan well ahead. The tail has to wag the dog in this instance. The mission set is very clear and links into the threat analysis and the minimum level of force deemed necessary to meet the likely threats.
Europe is only diminshing in US interests because the threats to Europe are diminishing. Europe is fundamental to the prosperity of the US. So is the Pacific sphere and the Middle East. The US is in the same situation as Britain in 1939 but with the advantage that there is no direct threat to one of their areas of interest so it can fortuitously concentrate it’s efforts on the other two. As time goes by I see the US having to regenerate a 2 war strategy with massed land forces in Europe and naval and airforces in the Pacific with the Middle East diminishing in importance in itself.
Phil
“The Government of the day decides what needs doing”
But thats exactly what doesnt happen.
The government of the day does not do that.
36 Infantry battalions is not a task, its car before horse.
Phil, spot on.
The new DEW line runs from here to Poland, to Romania, to 6th Fleet (and possibly one or two Gulf actors signing up; they have ordered the hardware).
The remaining heavy bde in Germany is a token gesture, the two others are Europe-based only because they then have more beneficial jumping points. At the same time, Europe has only been asked for a token contribution to the missile defence shield.
The operational command in Korea has been relinquished to the Koreans and the US is busily looking into how to get their land forces away from there, without sending a wrong signal.
Middle East is more complex because there has to be some presence on the ground, to be credible. Bush Administration built massive bases in Iraq (partly to be able to vacate in Saudi Arabia)but the Obama Administration seems to think differently (how exactly for that broader area, still unclear, because of the preoccupation with Afghanistan… next elections not that far)
I really dont understand how you think there is a better way to do it? There is no one large specific threat. There are however lots of threats to our interests which are diverse and global. The days of saying we need x number of battalions to defend this part of North Germany are long, long over. The forces no longer have the simple task of planning for specific geographical threats. When you don’t know what the job is going to be you need a diverse tool bag. That’s the reality of the current multi polar world.
@ DomJ
“Chinas long term strategy is a greater east asian co prosperity sphere. They want everything west of Hawaii to the east African coast, which they want most of.This will then lock out outside trade.”
– ??? Chinas income is dependent on outside suppliers and consumers. They need oil and raw materials from outside Asia, and they need consumers in the West to buy their products. To shut out the West would be as good as shooting themselves in the head. Your point makes no sense. It’s the anti-thesis of China’s economic strategy.
“Russia doesnt need the power to take on all of Europe, Europe isnt united, its swiftly breaking apart, High levels of the German government are in crisis planning for pulling out of the EURO (Yes, they are)”
– No, no they’re not. Sorry fella, but you seem very ill informed as to what the Euro is and what it means. German exports inside the Euro zone make up between 60-70% of all their exports. Their industry is reliant on the Euro. The Euro was created for the benefit of Germany, and to an extent France.
This is why the German government is so keen to bail out Greece and keep the Eurozone together. The loss of the Euro zone would give poor countries in Europe the chance to compete properly with Germany in the manufacturing industries.
High ranking German government officials may be planning in case the Euro Zone collapses, but it is very much in their interest to support and gorw the Euro zone. Like China shutting out western trade, Germany pulling out of the euro would be like shooting itself in the head.
It makes absolutely no sense.
“Norways has signed quite unfair treaties over Northern Resources, because they know if Russia took them by force, Europe wouldnt go to war the matter,”
– ?? Really? Europe would just sit on the sidelines and watch a neighbouring country be invaded by Russia without helping out? Despite the fact this would set a dangerous precedent?
Are you really sure about this?
Because I’m pretty bloody sure that if Russia was planning to invade Norway then European leaders would start rallying the troops behind closed doors, and any attempt to invade Norway would be met by a furious backlash from other European nations, followed by US aggression.
In fact, your suggestion that Norway could be invaded without repercussion probably ranks up there on the insanity level alongside your plans for bombing Argentine dams.
“But the South American Union IS.” (a threat)
– Don’t count on it. South America is unified in the same way that the Middle East is.
“Add in Argentina, Brazil and bolizia,”
– I’m presuming you mean Bolivia, but there we go. There is a distinct divide between South and North inside South America, and even then Chile is an abberation. Much of the northen part of South America associates itself closer with Central America than the south, and not a lot of people particularly trust Brazil. A unified South America is a long, long, long, way away.
“The South China sea isnt currently a warzone, but it sure as hell has the makings of one”
– None of the players there can afford it. A war zone shuts down their trade and makes them look unattractive. Investors will look elsewhere for their manufacturing. Nigeria is growing rapidly and it’s only a quick trip down south. South Africa has much potential to live up to. As does Angola. Eastern Europe could do with the business and Mexico is investing in its manufacturing base, as are other Central American nations.
So China and its neighbours cant afford a war in the South China Sea. We may eventually see some tense stand offs and some unintentional clashes, but not a war. Ultimately all parties understand now that, like with the resource situation under the Arctic, they’re all going to have to agree on a settlement. All that will happen in the next few years is everyone posturing to earn a slightly better slot on the final table.
There will be no war over the South China Sea.
Phil
My particular “strategic mission” would go something along the lines of “conduct an unsupported forced entry amphibious assault to land a MRB/PD force sustainable for 60 days with 30 days notice against a Tier 2 Opponant. Mount a distant Blockade and win the “Sea/Air” battle against a Tier 1 opponant”
And then the few extra bits and bobs, like harrasing Russian Submarines past Svalbaard as a standing task, and being capable of forcing their fleet back to port.
ChrisB
Chinas Long Term Strategy is a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
I think its a doomed strategy, but it is what they intend.
Disagree if you wish, but you are wrong.
****
Edit, I dont think its doomed, it is doomed, but that isnt stopping them trying
****
Germany is not “keen” to bail out Greece.
You can regurgitate the BBC economics news as much as you wish. My sources say otherwise, and mine have a track record of being right. The BBC is still screaming subprime is contained…
If you are interested, the most accurate sites out there are Ambrose at the DT, Ward at Hat4UK, and a few of the less crazies at Market Oracle and Zero Hedge.
And when I say I accurate, I mean, if you go back 5 years and read what they said, and what the Guardian said, the Guardian is wrong, and they were right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11299024
Yep, nothing like a Norwegian surrender in that map…
“– Don’t count on it. South America is unified in the same way that the Middle East is.”
And how many of our middle eastern territories did we manage to hold onto exactly?
People dont have to like each other to hate us.
“– None of the players there can afford it.”
East Africa, The Middle East and East Asia/Oceana account for about 20% of world GDP.
“Ultimately all parties understand now that, like with the resource situation under the Arctic, they’re all going to have to agree on a settlement”
I sat down with Mr Hitler, and I found him to be a very reasonable man, a man who does not want war, we came to an agreement, that will create piece in our time?
“There will be no war over the South China Sea.”
No, but there will be a war in it and the Indian Oceans.
Have a read of
“Potential Effects of Chinese Aerospace Capabilities on U.S. Air Force Operations” by a dude called Hagen.
“Chinas Long Term Strategy is a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
I think its a doomed strategy, but it is what they intend.
Disagree if you wish, but you are wrong.”
– No Dom, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how China earns its money. What shop on the high street would exclude all of its customers, except those who live within a mile radius?
China is absolutely economically tied to the West. While they’d like to gain additional influence over the Pacific, they’re not about to exclude other countries, countries that have been pouring billions into their economy, from trading there.
“Germany is not “keen” to bail out Greece,”
– That’s funny, being that their government in the last week agreed an expansion of the bailout plan.
“My sources say otherwise…”
– Then your sources are chronically misinformed. Germany is the central hub of the Euro zone for a reason, because it was built for their benefit.
I shouldn’t have to point this out, but basically every economist in the Western world right now understands that Germany profits long term from the Euro zone and would very much like to keep it that way. A few back bench rebels and rumblings on the street does not remove the fact that Germany needs the Euro zone more than the other way around. This is basic economics Dom, German economic policy 101. I’m sorry, but you need to strongly reassess your sources.
“http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11299024
Yep, nothing like a Norwegian surrender in that map…”
– Wait what? What were you just saying about not believing everything on the BBC news? And then you go and quote the BBC news???
And more to he point, you fail to even look at the diagram while espousing your rubbish at me. You call it a Norwegian surrender? I look at that map and I see a line drawn half way between the positions that both sides claimed. That’s called a mutual agreement, an almost perfect middle ground settlement. If anything, given Norways size, that is a Norwegian win!
“People dont have to like each other to hate us,”
- To form a union they have to like each other to certain degree and see a mutual benefit in being together. Right now most South American nations are decidedly hostile to one another. Again, this is basic geopolitics, foundation level stuff.
“– None of the players there can afford it.”
East Africa, The Middle East and East Asia/Oceana account for about 20% of world GDP.”
- And your point is? A war in the South China Sea would cut off all their trade. The west would lose confidence in them and imported raw materials would be at risk.
They can’t afford a war not in the sense of not having the money to start one, but not being able to afford the consequences of one.
“I sat down with Mr Hitler, and I found him to be a very reasonable man, a man who does not want war, we came to an agreement, that will create piece in our time?”
- Does this mean that the discussion has to end automatically, because you brought Hitler up?
What does Hitler have to do with this anyway? Dom if you can’t be arsed to sit down and look at the facts and to understand how these things work then just bow out of the discussion.
“No, but there will be a war in it and the Indian Oceans.”
– No, there really wont be. Stop reading the hyperbole that is designed to scare the shit out American congressmen.
Dom
Those are the sort of planning assumptions the military use now. Go and look in SDR98 and you can see the different tasks and different force levels. They are all there. Force packages are planned down to man and bullet.
Hi Phil,
I was at first impressed with ” different tasks and different force levels. They are all there. Force packages are planned down to man and bullet.”
- that was a long time ago
- I tested the scenarios and the packages, and the deployability we have been given a chance to observe for real, against real events… it all smacks of McKinsey “help” = experts in creating platforms that look real (closest equivalent: Disney)
No they’re planned like that now. The Force Elements are precisely modelled. Whether or not that is the force deployed for a particular task is another matter but the planning is done and there has to be benchmark assumptions. I only used SDR98 because it’s easily searchable and has the tables in the back of it obviously things have changed since then.
The military has a whole host of staff books, tables and plans for different types of operations and force elements. What Dom is suggesting is exactly what we do now except his tasks are different but that’s a different discussion. The point is there are clear tasks the military plan for. But there are also flexible elements to these plans.
As for mickey mouse. We live in a real world things aren’t easy shit happens. No plan survives first contact. But you still need to plan.
ChrisB
Read some Chinese History.
Exclusion of everything foreign is normal, apart from a few brief forays into the world.
The idea that the CCP sees asswembling iPods for $4 is chinas future would be funny if I wasnt so sure you actualy believe that.
“That’s funny, being that their government in the last week agreed an expansion of the bailout plan.”
If you say thats what happened….
Did you check out any of the sources I suggested?
“What does Hitler have to do with this anyway?”
I was gently ribbing your childish view.
I was paraphrasing the “peace in our time” success….
Phil
The SDR was never funded though, and the SDSR is nothing like it.
Nor did the SDR come up with threats, it came up with assets required, and, well, we saw how quickly they were scrapped.
The SDSR said 12 Darings, but, well, whats the difference between 12 and 6? None really, when you get down to it one number is just as good as any other. Its not like there are are threats to match it against.
Now, if we to say, the Navy must be able to wrest control over the skies of Egypt, that would be quite different, because that is a solid target, with solid capabilities, and you cant just say, oh, wait, actualy, we only need half the destroyers we thought we did….
The world has changed again. For the moment there are very few tangible state threats. But there are a myriad of intangible and unforeseen threats to our interests. History has shown time and time and time again that you cannot reliably predict future conflicts. We prepared for war against the Soviets from 1981 but instead fought in Northern Ireland, the Gulf and the Falklands! The force packages must be responsive. Plan for specific eventualities at the cost of others and you will get caught out. Guaranteed. So we have a more general planning base. There’s no point planning for anything else at the moment.
Yes things changed under SDR so what? It was over a decade ago. Like I said it was merely mentioned to show you public domain task/asset tables that were easily searched.
@ DomJ
This isn’t even really worth the time and effort. This information is freely available in the public domain and anyone that matters already knows it but, here we go….
“The idea that the CCP sees assembling iPods for $4 is chinas future would be funny if I wasnt so sure you actualy believe that.”
– Chinas economy is built on a slightly bizarre model of extended growth, for reasons that are unimportant to this discussion, but simply put it all depends on exports.
So yes, the Chinese are happy making iPods for $4 each. That is how their entire economy is built. They are 100% dependent on the outside world to sustain their growth model. They’ve spent years devaluing their currency and indirectly funding US lending to keep that economy churning over and to keep it buying Chinese goods.
I don’t see how you could not understand this? This knowledge is freely available.
“If you say thats what happened….”
– What? There was a vote, an open, public vote in their parliament. Unless you’re saying that none of their MPs understood what they were voting for, or that all the worlds economists didn’t understand it, or that the global financial sector didn’t understand it, or that all the global reporting on the subject was misinformed.
You’re basically saying that you and perhaps three or four of your friends know something that the entire world doesn’t, that somehow details slipped out that only you guys had the insight to understand and nobody else.
Here, I’ll lay it out for you Dom:
The German Bundestag voted to approve new powers for the European-wide fund for helping euro zone countries in trouble; 523 for, 85 against, 3 abstentions.
The European Financial Stability Facility (or EFSF) will boost bailout guarantees to 440 billion euros. Germany would be liabl for about 210 billion euros of the fund.
Now tell me what that is, if it’s not the German government trying to prop up the Eurozone? And what about your claims that the German government was strongly opposed? 523 for, 85 against, 3 abstain. That’s over a 5:1 ratio in favour of the plan.
They may not be excited about, or slapping each other on the back, but they understand that the Euro zone was their making, for their benefit, and they are prepared to grudingly prop it up to secure their long term interests.
So Dom, what is this brilliant and deep insight that your friends possess, that the rest of the world is lacking?
Hmm?
“I was gently ribbing your childish view.
I was paraphrasing the “peace in our time” success….”
– As a way of trying to prove that governments wouldn’t do something as civil as come to agreements over things like oil field territories…. just seconds after you posted a link to an article about a deal between Norway and Russia over oil fields?
You undermined your own argument in the same post. And you’re calling me a child? You can’t even read and understand what you’re posting, contradicting yourself in your own replies, but you feel haughty enough to take a jibe at me? I would reassess your position Dom.