Increase defence spending.

I want to increase UK defence spending to £70 billion a year or 3.8% of GDP.

Increasing the Royal Navy to 159 ships and boats.
Increase the Army to 250,000 troops including territorials and Para's.
Increase the Air force capabilities with more drones and battlefield aircraft.
Increase the Royal Marines to 10,000 and have them as their own branch of the military.

I will explain further if asked.

 

Ein Volk, ein Reich, eine Königin
[video=youtube;gwg6o4jEho8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwg6o4jEho8[/video]​

 

Germany was a army based expantionist power, Britain was a naval bases colonial power. So how are my views like that of the NAZI's?

 

expansionism, colonialism = same thing

Why would you need more army in such times? The country is so indebted too. Students there have to pay 9000 a year already and you want more army...

 

It's a wonderful idea if it takes some of the load off of US forces, especially with UK proximity to Europe, northern Africa and the middle east.

 

I find this extremely offensive.

[video=youtube;gwg6o4jEho8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gwg6o4jEho8[/video]

 

It won't be the concern of the US as to what we do with our armed forces.

 

All I was implying is that if the UK has a larger and even more capable military it would lessen the requirements of others in coalition type situations. The same would apply to any other ally.

 

Fair enough.

 

I am curious about your further explanation.

I don't know the current level of military spending or troop numbers of the UK though, so its hard to know the economic impact of the increase you are suggesting.

But what would be the best role for a more powerful military and what would the payback be?

 

No they aren't the same thing. One is domination and the other control. To expand is to dominate something else destroying it while doing so. Colonialism is controlling and other culture and people without destroying it.

No an army, but a larger navy and marines because we are threatened by many countries and need to defend our interests around the world. The countries is indebted because of students, NHS, Welfare, Public Education and Pensions, not defence.

 

Well the government spend impact would mean increased cuts to welfare, NHS, education and pensions. So we could increase defence spending to £70 billion. Currently the UK spends about 2.1% of GDP on defence. It will have about 320,000 people in all 3 branches of the military by 2020. Currently has about 370,000.

Don't think of the military in military terms, think it is foreign policy terms. So much of the navy increase will be on frigates and corvettes which will be used for anti-piracy operations in east and west africa. The increased sealift and amphibious capabilities would be used in relief operations like what the US is doing in the Philippines. So this would be the main capability increase. These capabilities provide vital foreign policy objectives and economic trade. That goes hand in hand with the hard power capabilities like carriers, cruisers, destroyers, heavy fire support ships, nuclear power submarines. It would mean the UK being able to increase it's influence and interests around the world, increasing the UK's power and wealth.

 

Ships use guns in the same manner tanks do and for similar purposes. Colonialism is controlling other cultures and people without destroying it? We're talking about the same navy that was used for drug trafficking, right? The navy that got millions of Chinese addicted and bombarded civilian coasts when Chinese law refused the drug. Think about the Opium Wars... And they blame Colombia today. Colombia is not any different, it's just two centuries behind that's all.

 

The Opium wars were about power, but drugs. Then followed the scrable for China with many European powers getting involved.

 

I don't think so.
The first opium war was about keeping Chinese trade open. Particularly for opium which actually made Company rule in India profitable.

Only Britain was the involved in that war. And yes there were traders from other parts of the world doing exactly the same for example the US ships would buy their opium in Turkey to ship in to Canton but they weren't belligerents.

The boxer rebellion is much closer to your statement.

 

The Opium war about teaching the Chinese a lesson, that they shouldn't mess with Britain. Needless to say they blockaded Chinese ports and sent small raiding parties ashore when needed. Then sent a langer army from India and took Chinese territory forcing them to allow trade. However trade of Opium was just an add on. The main objective was power.

 

A very big bonus. If you look up Company rule in India then you'll find that because it was because of the opium trade the Indian presidencies became profitable.
In the early 19th century India was the biggest drain on company finances.

China at this stage was not a credible power in the region.

The batteries along the Pearl river to be more precise but that's by the by.

Please elaborate.

 

What do they sing in GB these days? "Britannia RULED the waves." as in past tense!

They need to regain their former glory....

 

Ok if some takes your goods you are trying to sell and burns them, giving you no compensation what do you do. You would go round and give them a fat lip to make sure they don't do it again and pay you compensation. That is what I mean by the objective was power.

 

No people still sing Rule Britannia it just doesn't mean anything.

It is more about holding the territory and interests the UK has than regaining anything.

 

That would mean that the punitive measures were just as much about keeping China open as it was about dominance.

So both power and trade arguments seem to be mutually linked.

Anyway I'm largely in favour of your defence expansion idea with a couple of suggestions.
The expansion of the RM would mean that they would have to dilute the training requirements as unlike the US marines, the RM is an elite commando force and not a regular infantry formation.

I would suggest that instead of a dramatic expansion of the Army that an "Auxilia" force be established to take over the more menial duties.
This could be made up of commonwealth citizens as well school leavers. I would also make is so that the salaries are low in order to make it affordable.
And I would make sure that it would be a credit to anyone applying for citizenship rather than an automatic right.

Although at this time I don't think it's financially feasible.

 

Well the Royal Marines I would change their requirements with the increased numbers and assets to become more like the Royal Marines of old. With the use of raiding parties, elite regular troops and amphobious assult. I would keep the specialist teams within the Royal Marine like the sniper teams. They would have their own budget, land based vehicles and air support. The Para's could take on their current role within the army.

The army idea is interesting and could work well, but likely those troops would be used in real wars overseas because they are no British. I also would rather have a smaller professional army that is very well equipped, than an larger force which is a mixed bag. However with all this, it would be upto the military to decide what they spend the money on given the requirements the government gives to them.

 

I was under the impression that they still do those things and do have their own vehicles or at least have easy access to them.

I think any future decision to use them would be made hesitantly as it would look bad in the papers if Auxilia troops died. Not to mention the we would be accused of neo-coloniaism.

What could be done for an Auxilia force is to dedicate a regiment or two towards garrison duties which would effectively mean that would be the closest that they would have to be for serious danger.

If an auxilia were formed then we could more or less keep the army size that we already have whilst negating any lack of potency caused by having a small professional core of soldiers supported by the aforementioned Auxilia.

I think it would be interesting to see what the senior soldiers think about this.

 

What a load of Tom tit.
The aircraft carriers which we cannot afford aircraft because of the mod corruption.
Paying for american Nuclear missiles paid for by the uk government which we cannot aim or fire.
The British forces are nick named, the borrowers, and aptly named.
The second reading of subscription is being forced through your parliament on march, no need for any increase of TA forces.
Illegal Military forces, used to murder unarmed civilians.
Your nation going hungry your nation suffering from diseases not seen since WW2, aye you want yer Heid examined.

Highlander

 

No the QE has mothballed because we don't have the delivery of F35B's so it makes sense to do so because a carrier without planes is not that useful.

Yes we can. We have nuclear armed submarines on constant patrol and they are capable.
And it was cheaper to buy from the US than manufacturing on our own.

Oh please

This is almost comical