Increase defence spending.

Like I said these aren't nation states. It would be like declaring war on the weather.
But yes, generally speaking a declaration precedes war however there are examples of where this has not occurred despite engaging with the forces of another nation.

It would also be irresponsible to go to war without gaining a profit from war (x)
This is why there are such as things as war bonds which are voluntary and issued when necessary.

 

Having studied economics I can tell you that is far from an exact science.

But imagine if factory x which produces not much but has the ability to produce more because it just mothballed a part of the factory and then it suddenly gets an order to produce more then it's no problem.

But you could also look at if from another viewpoint. A civilian can't purchase military equipment so therefore the factories sell only to the military so therefore your not redirecting anything from civil production.

You might however see a change in prices in raw materials.

 

Can War on a for-profit basis ever be moral under any form of socialism, but not capitalism? It is one reason for wartime tax rates in order to win the conflict even if only by attrition.

 

No. What I was trying to imply by that was if you wanted absolute fiscal responsibility during a war then that war should make a profit at the expense of the other state.

Look this topic is about the hypothetical procurement of military equipment and the expansion of the military budget in the UK and not new taxes.

As for attrition. Well if you look at wars in the last century you'll find quite a few examples of where an army with a low budget has beaten another which has had an extremely big budget.

Sometimes money doesn't determine who's going to win a war.

 

How fiscally responsible is it to increase spending without paying for it with wartime tax rates? Is debt financing a more fiscally sound option, for any venture in public sector military intervention in private sector markets.

 

VERY.

I've already given you quite a few answers which are more than satisfactory.
Now please stop this as it is off topic and there tons of other avenues in which you approach this subject and if none are available then I suggest that you make your own topic.

Now don't expect any further responses.

 

I agree to disagree; but, ok.

 

Its easy, however, to quantify effects and test hypothesis. Its easy to show, for example, how military expenditure goes hand in hand with stunted growth. You can only refer to specific examples where that isn't the case: industrialisation issues (where military offsets are used to aid economic development; although the evidence is actually rather weak) and spin-off technologies (which tend to be focused on the US but are ultimately reliant on the level of economies of scale beyond a tiny island like the UK)

Britain certainly will suffer from losing valuable scientists and engineers. This is even more so today as defence economists have increasingly shifted to the concept of spin-in technologies (where R&D becomes about finding military use for civilian technologies such that there is little additional value to the economy)

 

3 carriers
2 LHD
2 ASW fast helicopter destroyers
2 LPD
4 LSD
2 Mobile artillery ships
6 AAW cruisers
6 AAW destroyers
6 Multi-purpose destroyers
16 ASW frigates
12 Multi-role modular corvettes
10 SSN
10 SSK
4 SSBN
6 Fast at sea replenishment ships
4 Solid supply ships
2 tankers
2 Icebreakers
4 Off-shore patrol ships
6 Missile boats
20 In-shore patrol boats
16 minesweepers
1 ship repair vessel
2 hospital ships
8 Sea lift cargo ships
2 Multi-purpose survey vessels
2 Ocean survey ships
1 Coastal survey ship
HMS Victory and HMS Bristol
163 Commissioned Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxillary ships.

 

What strategic goals are you planning to accomplish with the Peoples' tax monies?

 

Would anyone mind if I borrow, dnsmith's, signature line for propaganda and rhetoric purposes, in this thread?

 

Have the best navy in Europe and be capable of fighting a war with independent military capabilities.

Move British inflence and hard power East of Suez and control the Mediterranean as part of that.

Increase operations in the South Atlantic and Caribbean, mainly anti-piracy and anti-drug operations. Increase navy capabilities in the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Be able to aid the Norwegians and Danish in a war against the Russians without US help. Be able to defeat the Russian navy in the North sea if it trys to breakout.

Increase disaster relief operations and effectiveness.

 

Your lot give Israel welfare money, by the billions of dollars and both above and below the table.
I won't mention the trillions of military equipment, but what about the roads, the walls, the financial subsidy of corporate head offices, the R&D facilities again subsidised, Americans are starving, but AIPAC sponsored senators filth columnists who use your money to build illegal settlement on stolen lands.

Regards
Highlander

 

Ok. What does this have to do with UK defence spending?

 

The empire is thankfully gone, get used to it.

 

Seriously I propose a navy smaller than that for the US, Russia, Japan, China and India, so you think I want the empire back. No, I just want to sustain the UK's role in the world, protect and increase it's overseas interests on accordance with allies like the US, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

 

No need. Better to have a unified EU military with Britain contributing. Such massive spending by a country in decline isn't warranted.

 

Why so the UK doesn't have any control over what it spends the money on? Relitive decline and much slower than the rest of the EU because was are by far the most independent part of it with most British people including myself wanting to leave. Also I want to stop the decline and for the UK to hold it's current position by spending £70 billion a year on defence amoung other things.

What capabilities and military equipment would the EU military have and what would but it's strategic goals? Would it replace NATO?

 

Britain wouldn't be able to maintain spending close to 4% of its GDP on defence AND keep the welfare state. The Yanks chose a massive military over universal welfare. Britain did the opposite post 1945. The British want a well funded NHS, not carrier fleets in the South Pacific.

Besides, if the Scots leave after next year, along with its North Sea oil revenue, the rump UK won't be able to spend 70 billion on an unneeded military, not when the current 40 billion being spent is already being squeezed by Tory cuts. The only way you would be able to afford such a grandiose scheme is to massively increase taxes, and it's not as if Britain is a low tax economy as it is.

 

I know that is why I want to get rid of the welfare state mainly because having it destroy's economic choice and freedom. The Americans didn't choose massive military spending they had no other logicial choice, main because the Europeans have cut and cut and cut military spending to a level where they can't even take on 40% of what the US on it's own can do. I mean the whole rest of NATO, is 40% of the US capability just in the Mediterranean. The British people did chose Attlee over churchill, but they haven't got what they wanted, so we need to chance to free market and free trade capitalism. No the British want very good, cheap healthcare, they are living in a dream world. I don't want carriers in the South Pacific either, however I want the military capability to one their and keep it their independent of any other nation.

The Scottish aren't going to vote to leave. If the rUK did what I think is best and had a free market and free trade, then it could afford the £70 billion a year at about 5% of GDP. It is being squeezed because they refuse to cut foreign aid, education and NHS, not because the military doesn't need more capabilities to meet the strategic goals the government has given them. As for if the military I listed is needed, it is unneeded until it is needed and when it is needed you don't have it. So need of military at this current time is a bad argument. No my list isn't grandiose, rather what I think the UK needs to meet as many strategic requirements as possible. My other list is much more grandiose, which is my dream royal navy list.

What capabilities and military equipment would the EU military have and what would be it's strategic goals? Would it replace NATO?

 

A complete pipe dream. The British people quite like their free healthcare, welfare, education, subsidised childcare and all the other trappings of the welfare state. You are in the minority.

As for your last paragraph can I ask what strategic goals would a massive British military possess? What rationale is there for having three carriers, a huge navy and other relics of a bygone age? You're simply not living in the real world!

 

I do think that we need a bigger navy but I believe that the navy that william walker has proposed would catapult the UK to world power which means it's also affordable.

But I do think that increasing the total number of destroyer and frigate class ships to around 40 would be adequate to our needs.

I do also support the need to improve our maritime logistical vehicles.
I would also support having the current QE carrier but also having a pair of multi role helicopter carrier ships.

This would allow us to comfortably defend the Falklands as well as other overseas territories and dependencies as well as contribute to international efforts.

Ultimately the RN should be about quality rather than quantity as is the case with the other branches of the Armed Forces.

 

The idea that healthcare, welfare, education and childcare is free that is what is a complete pipe dream. I can make argument for why government controlling those thing is bad, but the basic argument against it is that people can't steal from each other, so why can people elect others to parliament to do it for them? It is my view that government healthcare, welfare, education and childcare should be ilegal and is a violation of the peoples rights as people who don't wish to pay for government doing these things and would rather get it themselves are forced to do so by threat of asset freezes and inprisonment. Taxation is morally wrong and limits people's choice and freedom from government. So really majority rule doesn't apply on this or any other issue as people have their natural rights above the law of any king or parliament.

Have the best navy in Europe and be capable of fighting a war with independent military capabilities.

Move British inflence and hard power East of Suez and control the Mediterranean as part of that.

Increase operations in the South Atlantic and Caribbean, mainly anti-piracy and anti-drug operations. Increase navy capabilities in the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Be able to aid the Norwegians and Danish in a war against the Russians without US help. Be able to defeat the Russian navy in the North sea if it trys to breakout.

Increase disaster relief operations and effectiveness.

You need 3 carriers to have atleast one operation. The navy I listed isn't huge, it is medium sized compared to what the Russians, Chinese, Americans, Indians, Japan are building 200 plus ship navies. The navy I want would do nothing more than sustain our current position and give our navy new capabilities to counter the increased size of other navies. I am living in the real world, I study and research for atleast 3 hours a day on ships from other countries and their capabilities, anyone who thinks the current plan for the navy is going to see the UK in its current position in the coming 30 years isn't living in the real world.

 

We really only need 19 escorts to protect our larger assets. 2 carrier, 1 LPH, 2 LPD, 3 LSD's. Of which only 5 are operational at any one time. So we currently have enough escorts and don't need more. We should they use modular corvettes for general operations instead of the frigates and destroyers, using money saved from buying less F-35's. If not then the currently planned navy is to smaller to meet our current operation requirements. We may not even get any FSS repenishment ships and cut one the tanker we have. I think the plan replace the River class with 3 upgraded Clyde class ships is stupid and been done for political reasons, there ships are very very limted in their armaments and range. For the helicopter carriers to replace Ocean we could just have a couple Mistral class LHD's built to save money.

The governments idea of a small professional and mobile is just speak for cutting capabilities. They try and say it is what the Americans are doing, but they have just redone their plans and are building more less costly ships instead of build new ones. They have also replaced their Tarawa class LHA's with the America class of the same numbers. The Indians, Japanese, Brazilians, Turkish, Indonesians, Chinese and Russians are all increasing spending and building more and more ships. While we cut capabilities or a have plans to replace our current capabilities.

 

Wouldn't that impair our abilities I mean corvettes don't really have the same range as a frigate or destroyer.

I'm a bit dubious about the F35's. I think that if we could maybe upgrade our harriers and then they be mixed with the carrier's planes.

Sounds good.

I'd say that it's half and half, kind of a distraction from the main issue of downsizing.

Well I wouldn't worry too much about India, Turkey, Indonesia or Brazil.
India doesn't have the technology that we do although I've little doubt that they will make up for it in enthusiasm.
And I don't see Turkey or Brazil needing a strong blue water navy.
As for Indonesia I can understand that it would want to have a serious share of the south Asian waters but not that much as world projecting power.

The Chinese may close the technology gap fairly soon and yes I can understand that the Russians could be taken seriously and more so in the future.