| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| defence spending | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Thursday, 22. November 2012, 20:42 (144 Views) | |
| paul | Thursday, 22. November 2012, 20:42 Post #1 |
|
Is the current government's defence budget immoral? We are heavily taxed as a nation to provide a defence regime against what threat? How does the rest of europe's defence budgets compare. Heavy taxation means less money for the poor in our society. Confused! |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 22. November 2012, 21:54 Post #2 |
|
It is a very very difficult question. Having lived through the 1930s when unemployment was perhaps a greater proportion than now and the question of rearmament was very much to the fore I think I can provide ideas. The Peace Pledge Union and supporters of their ideas said that building-up the arms industries and military forces would entice Herr Hitler, Signor Mussolini and others to atttack us as well as divert money from more constructive purposes. As the decade wore on and the threat of war loomed very much our government started to build up arms and introduced National Service. However, obviously, we were not strong enough by Summer 1940. Then the Communist Party bombarded us with: 'Stop the imperialist war with Germany!' because of the Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact --- until Germany attacked the USSR and then it was: 'Start the Second Front NOW!'. I certainly think Iraq and Afghanistan are unwise decisions! |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 23. November 2012, 00:00 Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Paul, what is the amount in sterling of our government's defence budget? What percentage is it, of the total national budget? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Friday, 23. November 2012, 00:11 Post #4 |
|
To save everyone looking this up, the figures for fiscal 2013 are: £36.6 bn i.e about 7% of total central government spending. These figures and the figures for other heads of expenditure can be found at http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_defence_spending_30.html |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 23. November 2012, 01:28 Post #5 |
![]()
Administrator
|
That is useful Bernard. On there, there is a link to a pie chart. 55% of the total budget goes on pensions, health and welfare. That surprised me, considering the number of letters in the media suggesting hardly anything is spent on them. Link to pie chart I have no problem with 7% going on defence. Having high quality armed forces minimises the risk of major threat. I am thankful that twice, our forces and allies have saved Europe from tyranny. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Friday, 23. November 2012, 12:07 Post #6 |
|
Without wishing to drag this thread off whatever the real topic is, I think that both World Wars were won by conscripts with materiel developed and manufactured once hostilities had started. The professionals nearly lost WW1 and squandered conscript lives. The professional army was defeated by 1940 and in effect new armed forces had to be conjured into being after Dunkirk, I don't doubt the value of an efficient defence capability. I doubt the usefulness of a hugely expensive nuclear arsenal (a doubt shared by the most senior officers according to a recent report). I doubt the usefulness of an aircraft carrier without aircraft, perhaps even of an aircraft carrier with 'planes. The inevitable problem with having armed forces is that governments seem to think they need to use them. Without getting into the humanitarian arguments for and against British involvement in (e.g.) Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, I do not think the case has been made that any of these engagements have anything to do with the defence of the realm. Phantom WMDs do not qualify under this head for me. I would like to see some account of what our armed forces are for in 2012 and how they are properly configured for that purpose. I do not expect to see one. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Friday, 23. November 2012, 14:02 Post #7 |
![]()
|
OSB you are inaccurate on several counts. 1. The BEF stopped the German advance at Mons. the French however had decided to run to protect Paris leaving the BEF with an exposed right flank which they protected during the retreat along the Marne before rallying the French and advancing to Ypres, the Germans made no further significant advances until the spring of 1918 when the ran the length of their supply lines and were then driven back. 2. In 1940 the BEF took up its prepared defences in Belgium to discover that once again the French had abandoned them on the right flank, on this occasion the GOC decided to defy the orders given by the Politicians and his French commanding officer and ordered the BEF to withdraw along its line of supply to the Channel Ports. The Professional Royal Navy then secured their evacuation assisted by boats commandeered form the merchant marine, civilians,and largely crewed by RN personnel ensured that a high number were rescued from several ports, romantic fiction and propaganda accentuated the role played by the "Little Boats" and thanks in part to an excellent film staring John Mills the importance of Dunkirk. All of this was assisted by the professional RAF who sacrificed themselves in missions behind the lines disrupting the German lines of communications, bombing bridges and generally harassing the German Advance, something for which they received no credit at the time. 3 The idiocy of Winston Churchill wasted a large part of the professional Army on a fool hardy expedition in Norway while he was First Lord of the Admaralty, and he managed to dodge the bullet and was undeservedly made PM. Though had Lord Halifax been given the job Britain would have surrendered, Europe would now be dominated by the NAZIs and we would not now be concerned with matters in the Middle East because the State of Israel would not exist nor would any Jew be left in Europe, or Homosexuals, Gypsies, Socialists and who knows who who would have been next on the list. 4. The Spitfire, Hurricane, Wellington Bomber all pre-date 1939 as did the Manchester III better known as the Lancaster first flew in 1939 in response to an Air Ministry order for a new bomber in 1937, The Royal Navy had been largely re-equipped with modern cruisers and battleships during the 1930s and a large number of new destroyers and submarines. and the Army had been recently mechanised with vehicles and equipment that were better than anything then available, including their tanks, unfortunately they did not have enough tanks and most were left behind in France in 1940.However the main advances in RADAR and SONAR had been developed long before the war and with the integrated control network operated by the RAF and the Royal Observer Corps that ensured the Luftwaffe were unable to gain control of the air, which was essential if any invasion was to succeed, not that the RN would have allowed a significant invasion force cross the Channel or the North Sea. 5 A further large part of the Professional Army was sacrificed, again on the orders of Churchill, in a pointless expedition in Greece and Crete. I could go on but the point is that the popular myth that the army of the First world war was led by fools and saved by the conscripts is just that a myth, the truth is that the Generals of WW1 were by and large very effective, and were largely betrayed by political interference, a fate the Germans also suffered. The Politicians ordered the attack on the Somme in July 1916 to relieve the French who were suffering a defeat at Verdun and were near to mutiny, why because unlike the British Armed Forces the French army was made up almost entirely of Conscripts who were badly trained and badly led. A few romantic heroes emerged during the war as they do in all wars however the majority of the force was commanded and staffed by professionals, the result of which was that mail, food,water, ammunition, R&R camps and a range of other less romantic things happened. Above all the Conscripts were trained by the professionals. The Defence of the UK has long been built around the principle of a small professional force that can be rapidly reinforced by a trained militia, Yeomanry which became the TA in the early 1900s and the RN has also always been smaller than some because it has the capacity to be expanded at short notice by a professionally trained merchant fleet and fleet auxiliary. In short what happened in 1914 and 1940 in terms of the mass mobilisation of the UK Defence forces was exactly what was planned and meant to happen. The small professional army thwarted the initial assault and held the reigns until the TA and auxiliary forces came forward and the conscript force being then trained by the veteran professionals. As time passed the Conscripts began to produce NCOs and Officers of their own, largely recruited from those who had served in the OTC, Cadet Forces and the Scouting associations, in other words men who in their youth had experience of leadership and training in discipline and personal survival and endurance skills. (Which is why today the government continues to assist the funding of many youth organisations such as the ATC, CCF, Sea Cadets, ACF and the Scouting Movement.) I am sorry to rant on but I am fed up with the ignorant way in which people continue to trot out the falsehood that the BEF in 1914 and the BEF in 1939 were badly led, poorly equipped and failed in their primary duty, they did not, had they done so, Wir möchten nun alle unter Deutsch Kontrolle. Oh and before you start on the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong, might I just state that by December 1941 the British and Commonwealth forces were already committed in North Africa and Winston Churchill had made the decision to reduce the strength of the RAF, the Army and the RN in the Far East and had also failed to ensure a proper structure of Command and Control. But I have distracted this thread long enough. Oh and Paul, the defence budget covers all aspects of defence, including the intelligence network and the development of counter cyber terrorism and many other aspects of unsung and unseen activities that ensure that you and I are safe from those who for personal greed and misguided devotion to causes that would ensure that we would not be free to engage in this cyber debate. In the good old days are enemies were easily identified today they are less obvious but since the withdraw of the UKs Airborne Maritime patrols and the reduction of the RN presence in the Indian Ocean over the past 15 years there has been a noticeable rise in piracy, since the removal of some monitoring services and the reduction of naval patrols in the Mediterranean there has been an increase in people trafficking, this has also risen in the Former Colony of Hong Kong. No one wants to pay for defence and some people save money by putting a cheaper lock on their house or paying a lower premium for contents insurance but they then winge on the many chat shows and cheep press about how they have been robbed or how the floods have ruined everything, etc... Edited by Penfold, Saturday, 24. November 2012, 12:15.
|
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Friday, 23. November 2012, 14:04 Post #8 |
![]()
|
TOMMY by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide. Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind", But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind. You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Friday, 23. November 2012, 17:03 Post #9 |
|
Thank you for that, Penfold. I will not respond as I agree that this is not the place for an extended discussion about the military history of the 20th century. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Friday, 23. November 2012, 17:20 Post #10 |
![]()
|
Thanks OSB, the debate fills several libraries already. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Friday, 23. November 2012, 18:01 Post #11 |
![]()
|
There is some truth in this that some governments are too ready to use troops rather than negotiate, for example putting them on standby to force prison officers to adopt a particular position, covering fire-fighting duties and covering for the police in areas such as Northern Ireland, Cyprus and parts of Africa during colonial times. As for aircraft carriers, with or without aircraft, they are conveniently providing employment but militarily are of no use with out a very large surface fleet to protect them and long range reconnaissance aircraft to protect them from the submarine threat, so a waste of money but then I would expect a Navy person to offer a different view, there role in the Falkland Islands was invaluable but only because at the time there were no land based aircraft to defend the Falklands, today there are and a well rehearsed air-air refuelling reinforcement plan in place, not to mention a sizeable land force to counter any invasion already in place as opposed to a handful of marines with only light equipment in 1982, or put another way their now exists a professional force in the Falklands whereas in 1982 there was only an ill-equipped and badly trained militia and a small regular force that protected the Governor. The problem however is that the defence of the realm depends upon being ready for the unexpected as well as the obvious thus one needs to have a depth of resources and training as well as a verity of contingency plans. As for Iraq and other place in recent times, we need oil and the supply of oil, until we reduce that dependence we will be involved in Middle Eastern Politics and the fallout of that. Defence of the Realm is often best done before the enemy come over the horizon for once they are on the horizon it is usually to late. Protecting supply lines of strategic resources such as oil is important to the economic stability of the nation how much of the defence budget can be offset by the price of oil being secured is something I can only guess at but I would not like to be paying the prices needed if we did not have some control over our supply. When we reduce dependency there will be other things we need to protect, we once fought wars for control of the rubber trade, trade routes for tea, spices and cloth. Defence of the Realm is more than just putting a fence around England and saying politely, please be nice to us. I wish it were other wise and I pray that one day we will be able to share the resources of this earth more equitably until then we need the military. Edited by Penfold, Friday, 23. November 2012, 18:01.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








8:36 PM Jul 11