Defence Review Overview

[pug]

Forgive me but I thought the cold war ended 20 or so years ago

Why is it people still think we are in danger of being invaded by Russia

the biggest threat to the UK is from radicalised individuals hell bent on death and destruction not from other countries , and a 1000 typhoons would do nothing to protect us from this sort of attack

do we need an effective well equipped military force ? yes absolutely, do we need something to fight against an enemy that is many times the size? no. because the chance of any of that happening is so small to be negligible.

Was it not always the case that in the event of a soviet/eastern bloc attack the only way to stop it would have been a nuclear option as the west never had enough planes/tanks etc to fight a conventional war for much more than a few days in the face of underwhelming opposition forces

We might not be invaded, but Ukraine was and if it had been a NATO member we could have gone to war with Russia based on the Article 5 obligation - an attack on one is an attack on all. Defence is not just about defending your own country if you are a NATO member, its about helping others.

I think it’s probably well accepted that such posturing should not be allowed to escalate, if it did then NATO will have failed in its objective. If Ukraine was a member I doubt if Russia would have invaded, but it’s not, so I don’t see your point.

MAD is still a thing, with even more advanced technology it’s probably more so now than during the Cold War. A likely reason behind the current pan to expand the nuke inventory in Britain. This must never be used in anger at ANY cost! A larger scale mobilisation of conventional arms could risk tipping the scale, whereas soft power is probably safer and more effective, that’s where I see our potential strength as a member of NATO.

[Vulcanone]

Some do have short memories- Remember the NATO E-3s deployed to the USA after 9/11

Not exactly a full blown war mind

[pug]

Some do have short memories- Remember the NATO E-3s deployed to the USA after 9/11

Not exactly a full blown war mind

Not sure I understand your point? They were deployed to bridge a cap, as USA had assets deployed elsewhere, and were used as a knee jerk reaction to ‘protect US airspace’ against highjacked civilian aircraft. Was deemed unnecessary once more stringent civilian aviation security was implemented. It was also nearly 20 years ago. 12 years before that there was still a Berlin Wall. Times have changed.

[Vulcanone]

Because at the time I recall Article 5 was mentioned. However its a long time now and not at the front of the memory banks...

[TonyO]

Forgive me but I thought the cold war ended 20 or so years ago

Why is it people still think we are in danger of being invaded by Russia

the biggest threat to the UK is from radicalised individuals hell bent on death and destruction not from other countries , and a 1000 typhoons would do nothing to protect us from this sort of attack

do we need an effective well equipped military force ? yes absolutely, do we need something to fight against an enemy that is many times the size? no. because the chance of any of that happening is so small to be negligible.

Was it not always the case that in the event of a soviet/eastern bloc attack the only way to stop it would have been a nuclear option as the west never had enough planes/tanks etc to fight a conventional war for much more than a few days in the face of underwhelming opposition forces

We might not be invaded, but Ukraine was and if it had been a NATO member we could have gone to war with Russia based on the Article 5 obligation - an attack on one is an attack on all. Defence is not just about defending your own country if you are a NATO member, its about helping others.

I think it’s probably well accepted that such posturing should not be allowed to escalate, if it did then NATO will have failed in its objective. If Ukraine was a member I doubt if Russia would have invaded, but it’s not, so I don’t see your point.

MAD is still a thing, with even more advanced technology it’s probably more so now than during the Cold War. A likely reason behind the current pan to expand the nuke inventory in Britain. This must never be used in anger at ANY cost! A larger scale mobilisation of conventional arms could risk tipping the scale, whereas soft power is probably safer and more effective, that’s where I see our potential strength as a member of NATO.

Good point, I think the review actually addresses your point that we aren't going to be invaded by Russia any time soon, but also that we cannot be a world policeman anymore, we can only do what we can afford to do. We still need to be able to push back against Russia conventionally or otherwise.

[nellis6]

You were doing so well until you asked the question about what the RAF were using to drop tac nukes these days.

Fairly sure some enthusiasts still think its the 1990s.

[page_verify]

I think some view of geopolitics here are also still based on that era?

There's a good report here which explains how Russia could easily turn the world order upside down by making NATO look militarily weak, the EU look economically weak, and the world stage look politically weak simply by sending a few troops into one of five small countries that for many years no one thought about twice. Russia has never 'invaded' a NATO nor an EU country before, but it believes its people may sometimes want it to. Nasty times ahead.


Russia's Hostile Measures in Europe - Understanding the Threat
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1793.html

[Vulcanone]

Thanks Page verify, some folks are somewhat short sighted I fear....

You never know what is around the next corner unless you have a crystal ball

[pug]

I think some view of geopolitics here are also still based on that era?

There's a good report here which explains how Russia could easily turn the world order upside down by making NATO look militarily weak, the EU look economically weak, and the world stage look politically weak simply by sending a few troops into one of five small countries that for many years no one thought about twice. Russia has never 'invaded' a NATO nor an EU country before, but it believes its people may sometimes want it to. Nasty times ahead.


Russia's Hostile Measures in Europe - Understanding the Threat
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1793.html

Always be a skeptic of your sources.... RAND conclusions are problematic in a geopolitical context.

[page_verify]

I think some view of geopolitics here are also still based on that era?

There's a good report here which explains how Russia could easily turn the world order upside down by making NATO look militarily weak, the EU look economically weak, and the world stage look politically weak simply by sending a few troops into one of five small countries that for many years no one thought about twice. Russia has never 'invaded' a NATO nor an EU country before, but it believes its people may sometimes want it to. Nasty times ahead.


Russia's Hostile Measures in Europe - Understanding the Threat
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1793.html

Always be a skeptic of your sources.... RAND conclusions are problematic in a geopolitical context.

Indeed, there will always be a 'better' source of information. In this instance though, I'm happy that RAND's view is more likely to be accurate than some of those in this thread.

[pug]

I think some view of geopolitics here are also still based on that era?

There's a good report here which explains how Russia could easily turn the world order upside down by making NATO look militarily weak, the EU look economically weak, and the world stage look politically weak simply by sending a few troops into one of five small countries that for many years no one thought about twice. Russia has never 'invaded' a NATO nor an EU country before, but it believes its people may sometimes want it to. Nasty times ahead.


Russia's Hostile Measures in Europe - Understanding the Threat
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1793.html

Always be a skeptic of your sources.... RAND conclusions are problematic in a geopolitical context.

Indeed, there will always be a 'better' source of information. In this instance though, I'm happy that RAND's view is more likely to be accurate than some of those in this thread.

If you wish, however you must not forget that this very same Corporation have been advising Japan to invest heavily in its strike capability in response to North Korea, and to who’s benefit? It wouldn’t be the American military industrial complex would it? Surely not!

Perhaps a more balanced and unbiased appraisal would be more appropriate if you’re trying to blow our arguments out of the water.

How about starting with a horses mouth assessment;

https://www.cpni.gov.uk/national-security-threats

I refer you to my previous post regarding MAD. It’s undeniably still a thing, hence the move to invest heavily in U.K. nuclear capability. Mobilisation of the military by conventional means is therefore ineffective and arguably somewhat irresponsible, as per the latest defence overhaul.

I disagree with most of what this current Government stands for, Brexit being my main issue. However, it can’t be denied that Britain’s Global sphere of influence has been diminished significantly by this move towards ‘independence’, and it needs a modern military capability to make its narrowing commitments tenable.

If there is to be a ‘Cold War 2’ - as you seem to be alluding - then I see Britain only playing a bit part in it this time around, if at all.

I think we all agree that diplomacy should usurp military might when we factor in nuclear arms, it would be foolish at the very least to believe otherwise.

[page_verify]

How about starting with a horses mouth assessment;

https://www.cpni.gov.uk/national-security-threats

If there is to be a ‘Cold War 2’ - as you seem to be alluding - then I see Britain only playing a bit part in it this time around, if at all.

CPNI is an extension of MI5, which is why your link primarily gives a view of the internal threats within UK. I always consider the FCDO's view to understand the geopolitics, which you could argue was provided in the Defence in a Competitive Age report. Nonetheless, while RAND's recommendations may favour highlighting action which the US could take, its initial analysis and findings are sufficiently factual, rather than opinionated, to meet my needs. Nonetheless, I also subscribe to Geopolitical Futures to understand its perspective.

The UK is already playing more than a bit part in the makings of any new Cold War, I just think the media has made the public assume a country's contribution is measured by tanks, troops, and aircraft. Just like in the 1950s, intelligence, espionage, and nuclear weapon knowledge are our 'tanks' and 'troops'.

Ta ta.

[pug]

How about starting with a horses mouth assessment;

https://www.cpni.gov.uk/national-security-threats

If there is to be a ‘Cold War 2’ - as you seem to be alluding - then I see Britain only playing a bit part in it this time around, if at all.

CPNI is an extension of MI5, which is why your link primarily gives a view of the internal threats within UK. I always consider the FCDO's view to understand the geopolitics, which you could argue was provided in the Defence in a Competitive Age report. Nonetheless, while RAND's recommendations may favour highlighting action which the US could take, its initial analysis and findings are sufficiently factual, rather than opinionated, to meet my needs. Nonetheless, I also subscribe to Geopolitical Futures to understand its perspective.

The UK is already playing more than a bit part in the makings of any new Cold War, I just think the media has made the public assume a country's contribution is measured by tanks, troops, and aircraft. Just like in the 1950s, intelligence, espionage, and nuclear weapon knowledge are our 'tanks' and 'troops'.

Ta ta.

Indeed, and I agree with your last paragraph entirely. If you were to scroll back to what has been said along this thread you would see that a knee jerk reaction from some is to suggest we should be investing heavily in conventional warfare apparatus, which for the purposes of this forum is aircraft! It is also alluded to the old trope of what would happen if we were invaded tomorrow... My argument is that our threats are not of invasion by conventional means, and therefore defence spending must be focussed on domestic threats and overseas commitments, which unfortunately don’t involve large fleets of aircraft. So in effect we both agree...

[Crusty]

Shouldnt this be Titled' Defence Cuts Overview' ?

No.

I hear Aldi have an offer on Sense of humour transplants this week...I wouldn't hang about though

[Nighthawke]

Straight answer to a straight question. Do Aldi offer home delivery not that I need such a transplant as I already have one Would it be COVID safe?

[Canberra TT.18]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 62.article

Up to 44 new helicopter could be bought, replacing Puma, Dauphin, Bell212 and Griffin.

[capercaillie]

Lovely accurate stuff there from Flight Global.

[cat1]

this has to be the most informative and interesting topic that I have seen in a while
with the exemption of the apparent FG time travelers who seem to appear from time to time

[Covey]

Up to 44 new helicopter could be bought

The active words here are 'up to'. The number will be decided when they understand the costs from the bid and negotiation process with the remainder to be taken up as attrition replacements as and when the need (and funding) arises.

[Canberra TT.18]

News on additional A400s.
Well no additional A400s.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... affordable