-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hey buddy, can you spare a P-3???
- Thread starter helolumpy
- Start date
Completely agree with the above, esp. bolded. Unfortunately, it is exactly these who will be making those decisions.
Re: your theoretical nation-state--that's exactly the kind of choice I'm talking about. We choose our strategic priorities, and they have a price tag. Someday our choices might change.
A necessary evil when living in a constitutional republic with civilian control of the armed forces.
Militaries have always been politicized. They are one of the longest enduring enterprises of governments. The United States could conceivably develop a legislative culture that finds it taboo to politicize the military budget, but it would only last as long as Senators and Congressmen were willing to honor that tradition. The unfortunate trend since the end of WWII has been that if you vote against defense spending youre going to be harassed for it by your Republican opponent 2/4/6 years later
Fixed that for you. Research the Bay of Pigs . . .
Democrats haven't always been anti-defense. Witness Presidents Roosevelt (fils) and Truman . . .
We had a few bounce birds with them a few years ago, we were using un-moded C's with a lot of the guts pulled out, and the reserves had some too. We even had a UP-3B and a VP-3A up until about 2000, those were really old........
A lot has been made about the UK getting by on the skin of it's teeth with the Falklands but a year or two would not have changed things drastically. While the HMS Ark Royal would have likely been decomm'd and the HMS Invincible getting ready to go 'down under' if not already there they did have two more carriers being built and had made a commitment to a Navy Harrier force already. The QEII and the other liner used to transport the bulk of the troops of the landing force, the Canberra, were both doing duty for which they had intended for them in time of war, troop transport. Most of the supplies were also transported by civilian ships too like the Atlantic Conveyer, which was sunk with a significant portion of supplies onboard in an Exocet strike. Just like we transport most of our supplies and even people by civilian crewed and/or charter aircraft or ships. They just took them a little closer than we do. As for the Vulcan bombers, the Victors were only tankers by then, their three measly strikes were of very low consequence with only one bomb hitting it's mark. More a propaganda ploy than anything else. All of this is also not including the great restraint the UK used in not employing one it's most effective assets, submarines. A single Navy ship sunk put their whole fleet back in port, they could have done much more damage.
While the decline of the British military is lamentable to a degree why do they need to maintain an outsized force that does much more than defend it's own shores? They have definitely punched above their own weight for years and will continue to do so, albeit on a smaller scale. Why do they need to still be so big?
The same reason we do. Nature abhors a vacuum. If power is not in their hands, it will be in
someone else's. Nations have no permanent alliances; only permanent interests.
Bingo.
What vacuum? What power in their hands? After they gave up their colonies, withdrew their protection of their former protectorates in the Persian Gulf in 1971 along with aligning themselves closer to the European 'community' the 'power' they hold and exert isn't exactly overarching or even significant anymore in most places. They have served as an adjunct to our power for the past few years and frankly don't have that many permanent interests that require their military anymore. They have more than sufficient forces to protect their own interests and territory, Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Falklands included, even with all of the cuts their armed forces have gone and will continue to go through.
So while many may be a bit wistful of the days that the Royal Navy ruled the waves times have changed and they simply cannot afford the forces that many think that they should have. While having a reliable and competent ally in a fight is very nice they have to look after their own interests first which may or may not include the necessity for carriers, MPA aircraft and other capabilities that have been cut.
We filled the vacuum the left years ago and while they are a great help, to put it bluntly we don't need them to help fill it.
Thats all well and good, but what if they wanted to fight somewhere we don't?
My fist skipper at the ROTC unit was a SWO logistician and she mentioned on more than one occasion that many of our allies can't just go off and fight their own wars if we don't help them out. Canada was the prime example. Which is fine, when was the last time that anyone was even upset with America Jr. much less fight a war against them without the United States? But still it speaks to the declining power of the European nations.
There may come a day when US public opinion and a reform minded president decide to pull our forces from Europe. With the slow but sure recovery of Russia, and the explosive nature of Chinese growth, don't you think it might be important for Europe to be self sustaining?
Why would the Brits need to go off and fight a distant war on their own? Other than the Falklands they don't have any direct interests under threat and they have sufficient forces there to defend it.
I would argue that there are very few allies, maybe two (and that still includes the UK), that can mount and sustain a conventional conflict/war on their own and that would be stretching it for them. Simply put, no other country can match our capability to mount and sustain military ops like we can, and why should they? Our NATO allies in Europe can defend their own countries well enough. It may surprise you that we have encouraged most NATO countries to concentrate on particular capabilities instead of a traditionally balanced force since most NATO countries cannot afford that sort of military anymore. Given that a direct threat to almost all European NATO countries will threaten others it makes perfect sense.
And it is not likely that Russia will 'recover' to credibly threaten NATO with anything but nukes any time in the next few decades, or longer. Saddled with pervasive corruption and a military that relies largely on poorly trained and a shrinking pool of conscripts as well as rapidly aging and obsolescent equipment they can bully around neighbors like Georgia but not much else.
So again, why does the UK need a military so outsized from what it needs when all it has done is augment US, NATO or allied operations for almost 30 years? Keeping in mind that they can still defend all of their territory, Falklands included, even with all their recent defence cuts. With few defense obligations beyond NATO and their own territory, where is the need?
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
We have a long way to go before we get to the UK's state of the Navy... we have roughly 3x the amount of ships, with vastly more tonnage and personnel.
The flip side of the equation is that if every European nation maintains a military that is incapable of starting a war against another nation, then what's the threat that requires us to maintain a relatively large military force? Obviously we'd like to, but do we need to? We filled the power gap left by the UK, but unlike the UK we don't have a plethora of colonies to tax to maintain this military force. While no country will be able to match our direct military capabilities in the near future, the economic weight that comes along with it might sink us sooner than anything else.
What we have proved over the past 10 years is that our military is very well equipped, well manned, and well-trained for its primary function -- going overseas and kicking ass. What we're not well equipped, well manned, and well trained for is sticking around to rebuild the place.
Yes, we're a big military. Yes, we're far bigger than anyone else. We also have far bigger commitments than anyone else. And no one needs to be as 'big' as we are to raise a ruckus in their own neighborhood. Iran can close the SOH with mines and speedboats - they don't need eleven carriers or B-2's. A bunch of Somali teenagers in fiberglass boats are keeping billion-dollar destroyers busy. Never mind the Tawan Straits and the Spratlys. And that's just the problems that exist at this moment. You're equating sheer size with capability, and they're not the same.
Capability atrophies a lot faster (and less obviously) than the size of your force, and it's a lot harder to rebuild a capability than simply expand the numerical size. Returning to the original topic, Britain lost the capability for power projection years ago. Now they're giving up on indigenous MPA, which is amazing for an island nation that's almost been starved out twice in the last 100 years.
You and Flash are correct that Britain doesn't need to duplicate what the US can do - assuming that their policy decisions and interests will always be in line with our own. For example, the UK and France are pushing for more direct intervention in Libya, but they can't do any more than they are without our assent and cooperation...in other words, they've effectively given us veto power over their foreign policy. Canada long ago made the decision to reduce the CAF to a force just big enough to contribute to NORAD and the UN, on the assumption that Canadian security and interests would always be welded to the US; now their northern coast is becoming a potential major sealane and resource area, and they're dscovering how expensive and difficult it is to rebuild the ability to patrol and defend it.
We're already heading in the direction of giving up on amphibious assault, and not without reason...it's expensive and it's been a long time since Inchon. Carriers make great targets in budget crunches, and most of us on this board know 11 carriers doesn't equate to 11 boats at sea. The bulk of the strategic bomber force is old and so far the replacement is a wish; anyone think the new bomber will be a quick and trouble-free acquisition process? Is it difficult to imagine the program falling apart, retiring the BUFFs without a relief, and winding up with a few squadrons of aging B-1's and the handful of B-2's we have now? And we've got an Army and Marine Corps that has a generation of junior officers and NCO's that have become highly experienced and extremely good at COIN and light-infantry fighting, but our gear is trashed...where do we get the money to 'recapatalize' the force?
I think we're heading down the road of our capabilities slowly moldering away wihtout realizing it. I think in 50 years we'll wind up with a garrison force - still professional and good at what we do, but with a limited set of capabilities. Giving up capabilities means giving up options, and options drive your policy.
This is the point I was driving at. You're right who cares if England doesn't have its own MPA, or this capability, or that capability, when the US and UK agree on policy and want to go fight in the same place. But the one time England feels a need to go somewhere else, they cant. They simply cant unless we agree and basically give them permission and the keys to the car.
We aren't their parents. And no it doesn't 'surprise' me that we asked them to give up full capabilities, but it does disappoint me. You might be able to make the argument 25 years ago that the US was needed because of the USSR, but in the post Cold War, we dont need to be the invincible shield of Europe. They need to learn to take care of and defend themselves. If they get into trouble, sure lets go help them out. But why should we shoulder the 90% of the burden to defend Western Civilization? Especially when 80% of those countries snub their nose at us at any chance they get.
...because no one can answer that question until it happens. After WWI they asked the same thing, came to the same conclusion as you, and it's one of the reasons they almost ended up a part of Germany.
The only difference if they are wrong today vs. yesteryear, is a conventional war will most likely be over a lot quicker. As we've seen the world is constantly getting smaller and even if you cut the typical procurement/production length by a factor of five, no one is going to have time to ramp up production of MPA, carriers, jets, bombers, etc.
It amazes me how ignorant the rest of the world is to how much of the stability enjoyed over the last twenty years is thanks to the United States. They criticize our military spending, accuse us of being warmongers, and tell us we should spend more on social programs, yet don't realize their ability to spend so little on defense and at the same time enjoy such security, is thanks to us. As we've seen in Libya with cruise missile and bomb shortages, they'd be hopeless in any sort of conflict, let alone a major one, without out our aid.
Our very presence is the only reason the question "Why do they need to still be so big?" when referring to a island nation that already has no carriers, no MPA, no conventional bombers, and less than 200 attack/fighter aircraft, isn't totally absurd.
People have just accepted this current world as a peaceable one without ever identifying the reason. If/when the United States relinquishes the role of world police man they are in for a rude and abrupt wakeup call.