Posts
With the announcement that a defence review will not take place before the next general election the armed forces must continue with levels of equipment decided in the last strategic defence review in 1998. The world has changed considerably since then.
The following is from the Telegraph: - Future of big military projects under threat
In a tacit admission that the defence budget will be squeezed in the years ahead, the Ministry of Defence yesterday announced a defence Green Paper early next year.
It will pave the way for a full Strategic Defence Review after the election.
The announcement means that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a fundamental re-examination of Britain's defence forces and strategy in the next parliament.
The MoD announcement follows a string of predictions from senior military figures that a shrinking defence budget will force Britain to reconsider its place in the world, including its role as a nuclear power.
Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that the full review "will be designed to ensure that we develop and maintain Armed Forces appropriate to the challenges we face and the aims we set ourselves as a nation."
However, the MoD insisted that the decision to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent will not be revisited by the review. That triggered claims the review could not truly consider the fundamental questions about Britain's strategic position.
Gordon Brown has pledged to replace the Trident system, which is due to retire in 2024. The replacement, likely to cost more than £24 billion over its lifetime, is unpopular with many Labour MPs and activists who believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The Royal United Services Institute last week predicted defence cuts of more than 15 per cent in the six years after the election, deep reductions that would force plans for significant new weapons and vehicles to be abandoned.
The defence industry contractors are one of the most successful areas of the British economy. They are massive exporters of manufactured goods. From an economic perspective alone it seems to me wrong to remove support from one of the best performing economic sectors.
From a defence point of view I have read that the size and readiness of the armed forces is insufficient. More cuts here does not make sense.
The tactic of putting of the next strategic defence review until after the next general election, while clearly being done for reasons of political expediency, leaves the UK with disillusioned service personnel and military chiefs in an unenviable position as they have to continue to juggle war time priorities with peacetime resources.
