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.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)
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.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)