not going to change anytime soon
as you say, we should reduce the amount of spending on the forces, and some of the big defense projects. I mean the eurofighter, who are we going to use those against that we haven't already got treaties with, or can overpower with our existing ones, as well as the trident replacement.
however, i reckon that we'll continue to have a large ground based army, not only for political muscle and existing agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, and our "special" relationship with the US, but for the future, especially Argentina, now that they've found oil offshore.
As you say, we should be funnelling money not only into cyberwarfare (especially with the number of attacks from China), but also into drones, since that will allow us to reduce costs if we're going to continue in pointless wars.
(
flapmeister knows where your mum lives, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:08,
Reply)
I disagree about the army.
You don't need a large army: you need a disproportionately well-trained and equipped one. I take your point about the Malvinas - but there's NATO and the UN to act as policeman there (assuming you think they ought to be British anyway, and assuming you think it'd make any difference at all in the long run) - and the WHO.
With peak oil on the horizon, there'll be a big shift away from petrochemical resources around the world; and when that happens, noone'll be fighting over oil wells anyway. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
Besides: if there ever was a serious threat to the UK's integrity, and assuming you give a toss about that, conventional re-armament'd be quite easy within a few years.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19,
Reply)