The British Military Future?
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 12 January 2007
Today Mr Blair posed a question about where British priorities lay militarily speaking and later answered them (in his opinion) without waiting for any response elsewhere!
Should Britain retain a relatively heavy weight military punch or come into line with other European Nations' levels of military expenditure and accept that she no longer is a Superpower as she was in the days of Empire, perhaps eighty years ago?
Mr Blair suggested that we should retain the heavy weight approach, so that we can maintain a "pro-active" approach to dealing with the problems of the world in Britain's interests. It is one view, but as it happens it has not been mine for twenty five years, when the idea of massive reductions in military expenditure were proposed by the Conservatives in the early nineteen eighties.
I have two reasons for believing we should come into line with the rest of Europe on this. Firstly we need to sort out whether it is more important to sort out the Saddam Huseins of this world [we simply cannot take on every tyrant in any case] or make sure our schools and hospitals are adequately run, and secondly:
We do not seem to be able to run an independant Foreign Policy from the USA. If we could make no significant contribution to their position by supposting them militarily, giving them some semblance of moral respectability in their crazy adventures, they would soon loose interest in us, which in my view would by now a very good thing. The other issue is that a big military gives the Prime Minister of the day extra-ordinary power as War is a question of the Royal Prerogative and not a question for Parliamentary democratic intervention and steadying. Thus if we get a megalomaniac, and even dishonest Prime Minister we are stuck with being in a War situation, however unpopular this might be with the voting population in UK.
In reality our Prime Minister's support of the Bush Administration's Neo-con inspired invasion of Iraq, with all the veiled lies and half truths, would never have been possible if we had had the level of military expenditure that the rest of Europe has. I am sure that no European country has come out of this worse than the UK as a result.
Of course it would require a different set up accross the European defence organisations as though Russia is no longer the threat she was in Cold War Days, it is pointless to roll over and let any neigbour potentially threaten us militarily. But the present [and certainly future] gas supply issues with Russia will not be sorted out by military action. They cannot be.
So my position is that over a ten year time scale the UK should reduce its level of GDP spent on military matters to the EU average, while we plan a truly Pan European Army. I am sure that a very small highly professional British Military would still be a formidable force, but not one capable of doing anything significant to back up the madder policies of the worst aspects of the US ruling elite.
It is one view, and I would be grateful if others including the many military gentlemen here would add theirs, and even debate the ideas outlined above.
Sincerely from Fredrik, who is a British Subject, born in UK, but of a Norwegain mother and English father.
Should Britain retain a relatively heavy weight military punch or come into line with other European Nations' levels of military expenditure and accept that she no longer is a Superpower as she was in the days of Empire, perhaps eighty years ago?
Mr Blair suggested that we should retain the heavy weight approach, so that we can maintain a "pro-active" approach to dealing with the problems of the world in Britain's interests. It is one view, but as it happens it has not been mine for twenty five years, when the idea of massive reductions in military expenditure were proposed by the Conservatives in the early nineteen eighties.
I have two reasons for believing we should come into line with the rest of Europe on this. Firstly we need to sort out whether it is more important to sort out the Saddam Huseins of this world [we simply cannot take on every tyrant in any case] or make sure our schools and hospitals are adequately run, and secondly:
We do not seem to be able to run an independant Foreign Policy from the USA. If we could make no significant contribution to their position by supposting them militarily, giving them some semblance of moral respectability in their crazy adventures, they would soon loose interest in us, which in my view would by now a very good thing. The other issue is that a big military gives the Prime Minister of the day extra-ordinary power as War is a question of the Royal Prerogative and not a question for Parliamentary democratic intervention and steadying. Thus if we get a megalomaniac, and even dishonest Prime Minister we are stuck with being in a War situation, however unpopular this might be with the voting population in UK.
In reality our Prime Minister's support of the Bush Administration's Neo-con inspired invasion of Iraq, with all the veiled lies and half truths, would never have been possible if we had had the level of military expenditure that the rest of Europe has. I am sure that no European country has come out of this worse than the UK as a result.
Of course it would require a different set up accross the European defence organisations as though Russia is no longer the threat she was in Cold War Days, it is pointless to roll over and let any neigbour potentially threaten us militarily. But the present [and certainly future] gas supply issues with Russia will not be sorted out by military action. They cannot be.
So my position is that over a ten year time scale the UK should reduce its level of GDP spent on military matters to the EU average, while we plan a truly Pan European Army. I am sure that a very small highly professional British Military would still be a formidable force, but not one capable of doing anything significant to back up the madder policies of the worst aspects of the US ruling elite.
It is one view, and I would be grateful if others including the many military gentlemen here would add theirs, and even debate the ideas outlined above.
Sincerely from Fredrik, who is a British Subject, born in UK, but of a Norwegain mother and English father.
Predictably, Tony Blair is virtually alone among world leaders in supporting George Bush's "new strategy" for Iraq. Blair says the plan "makes ense". Is this the same Tony Blair who barely one month ago welcomed the Iraq Study Group's report, saying, "It is practical, it's clear, and it offers also the way of bringing people together"? The ISG report called for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and dialogue with Iran and Syria -- in other words, the opposite of Bush's "new strategy."
There is one group that has always had the power to stop Blair's compulsive subservience to George Bush: members of parliament. So far, the majority have acquiesced in every stage of Blair's warmongering. On 24 January, Iraq will be debated and voted on in parliament. I pray that MPs now know that they must not repeat their abject performance on 31 October 2006, when only 12 Labour MPs voted for an inquiry into the whole Iraq disaster.
There is nothing "new" about George Bush's latest plans for Iraq. The same
strategy has been used repeatedly, twice before in Baghdad, in Falluja, in Ramadi, in Tal Afar and many other places. The intention and the result have always been the same. Devastating military force aimed at pacifying a town or
city doesn't achieve its aim but turns much of the target into rubble, slaughters countless civilians, drives thousands from their homes and destroys the local infrastructure. We saw the same thing last year when the US sponsored terrorist state of Israel committed mass murder of innocent civilians in Beirut.
This time the consequences have the potential to be more horrific than anything we have seen before in Iraq. The main aim of the "new strategy" is to destroy the resistance to the US occupation which has made Sadr City, home to two
million of Baghdad's poorest citizens, a virtual no-go area for the occupying army. This is a dramatic escalation of the Iraq war but the Bush plans don't stop there. The "new strategy" includes open threats against Syria and Iran,
which - coupled with the leaks that show Israeli has it own plans for bombing Iran - means that we may be on the brink of a Middle East conflagration with results too horrendous to contemplate.
The "new strategy" is George Bush's last throw of the dice, aimed at disproving what everyone else knows: America has lost the Iraq war. It was always unwinnable and there never was an exit strategy.
We have been here before, as Senator Hagel from Bush's own Party reminded us when he said the "new strategy" "represents the most dangerous foreign policy since Vietnam. In 1968, America had clearly lost in Vietnam but it was six more bloody years, in which two million people were
killed, before the US military was driven out.
Seventy per cent of Americans and over 70 per cent of Iraqis oppose the "new strategy". In Britain, over 60 per cent of people have consistently opposed Tony Blair's warmongering and his slavish support for George Bush. Bush & Blair are war criminals - pure, plain and simple.
MORE WAR CRIMES IN SOMALIA - George Bush's bombing of Somalia this week broke innumerable international laws but you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media, which hasn't questioned the legality of a bombing campaign that has devastated four villages, killing over 100 Somali civilians, without any indication that any of the supposed Al-Qaeda targets of the bombing were killed. (How can this be? According to Tarquin Maynard-Portly the media reports everything
) This is yet another indication of the barbarity that has characterised much of Bush's foreign policy. These Somali civilians were killed by attacks which were to a large extent publicity exercises aimed at softening opposition to the "new strategy" in Iraq and an attempt by Bush to re-assert his "right" to order mass slaughter anywhere he pleases in his bogus "war on terror". Even the British would not have used such a ferocious display of high tech weaponry they would have put assets in on the ground to quietly achieve their aim – the American way is always the way of the bully and it concerns me greatly that Britian is becoming more like the US every day.
There is one group that has always had the power to stop Blair's compulsive subservience to George Bush: members of parliament. So far, the majority have acquiesced in every stage of Blair's warmongering. On 24 January, Iraq will be debated and voted on in parliament. I pray that MPs now know that they must not repeat their abject performance on 31 October 2006, when only 12 Labour MPs voted for an inquiry into the whole Iraq disaster.
There is nothing "new" about George Bush's latest plans for Iraq. The same
strategy has been used repeatedly, twice before in Baghdad, in Falluja, in Ramadi, in Tal Afar and many other places. The intention and the result have always been the same. Devastating military force aimed at pacifying a town or
city doesn't achieve its aim but turns much of the target into rubble, slaughters countless civilians, drives thousands from their homes and destroys the local infrastructure. We saw the same thing last year when the US sponsored terrorist state of Israel committed mass murder of innocent civilians in Beirut.
This time the consequences have the potential to be more horrific than anything we have seen before in Iraq. The main aim of the "new strategy" is to destroy the resistance to the US occupation which has made Sadr City, home to two
million of Baghdad's poorest citizens, a virtual no-go area for the occupying army. This is a dramatic escalation of the Iraq war but the Bush plans don't stop there. The "new strategy" includes open threats against Syria and Iran,
which - coupled with the leaks that show Israeli has it own plans for bombing Iran - means that we may be on the brink of a Middle East conflagration with results too horrendous to contemplate.
The "new strategy" is George Bush's last throw of the dice, aimed at disproving what everyone else knows: America has lost the Iraq war. It was always unwinnable and there never was an exit strategy.
We have been here before, as Senator Hagel from Bush's own Party reminded us when he said the "new strategy" "represents the most dangerous foreign policy since Vietnam. In 1968, America had clearly lost in Vietnam but it was six more bloody years, in which two million people were
killed, before the US military was driven out.
Seventy per cent of Americans and over 70 per cent of Iraqis oppose the "new strategy". In Britain, over 60 per cent of people have consistently opposed Tony Blair's warmongering and his slavish support for George Bush. Bush & Blair are war criminals - pure, plain and simple.
MORE WAR CRIMES IN SOMALIA - George Bush's bombing of Somalia this week broke innumerable international laws but you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media, which hasn't questioned the legality of a bombing campaign that has devastated four villages, killing over 100 Somali civilians, without any indication that any of the supposed Al-Qaeda targets of the bombing were killed. (How can this be? According to Tarquin Maynard-Portly the media reports everything
) This is yet another indication of the barbarity that has characterised much of Bush's foreign policy. These Somali civilians were killed by attacks which were to a large extent publicity exercises aimed at softening opposition to the "new strategy" in Iraq and an attempt by Bush to re-assert his "right" to order mass slaughter anywhere he pleases in his bogus "war on terror". Even the British would not have used such a ferocious display of high tech weaponry they would have put assets in on the ground to quietly achieve their aim – the American way is always the way of the bully and it concerns me greatly that Britian is becoming more like the US every day.Given the fact that the Trident software system sits on Windows servers and not something more secure like Unix it is known that the US has a backdoor to the system. 
Little bit about Trident...
System; Degree of dependency
Warhead
The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.
Arming, fusing and firing system
This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.
High-explosive (HE)
This starts the nuclear explosion. The UK uses a different HE to the USA. Key explosives calculations for the US warhead cannot simply be duplicated so US labs assess the UK HE's long-term performance.
Neutron generator
This initiates nuclear fission. The neutron generator used in UK warheads is the MC4380, which is manufactured in the USA and acquired 'off the shelf'.
Gas reservoir
This supplies tritium to boost the fission process. It is most likely that the reservoir used in UK warheads is manufactured in the USA. UK gas reservoirs are filled with tritium in the USA.
Re-entry body shell
This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.
The D5 missile
The UK does not own its Trident missiles - they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.
Guidance system
The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
Submarines
UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.
Navigation
The high accuracy of the Trident D5 missile depends on the submarine's position being precisely determined. This is achieved using two systems: GPS, which relies on satellites, and the Electrostatically Supported Giro Navigation System (ESGN), which uses gyroscopes. In both cases UK Trident submarines uses the same US system as the US Navy submarines. The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.
Targeting
Target packages are designed and formatting tapes produced on shore, then stored on the submarine - using US software at each stage.
Onshore targeting
The software installed in the computers at the Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre in London is based on US models and is probably derived from the US Navy's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Integrated Planning System.
Weather and gravity data
The US Navy supplies local gravitational information and forecasts of weather over targets, both of which are vital to high missile accuracy, to US and UK submarines.
Fire control system (FCS)
Used to assign targets to the warheads on the submarines. UK submarines carry a slightly different model to that on US submarines. However, all the hardware and software used by the system is US-produced. The hardware is produced by General Dynamics Defense Systems. The contracts show that the UK uses similar, if not quite identical, software.
Management
British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.
Research and development
There is extensive cooperation between Aldermaston and America's nuclear weapon laboratories - Los Alamos in New Mexico and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California.
Testing
The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
Beanoncutandpastefromaverybigdocument
System; Degree of dependency
Warhead
The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.
Arming, fusing and firing system
This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.
High-explosive (HE)
This starts the nuclear explosion. The UK uses a different HE to the USA. Key explosives calculations for the US warhead cannot simply be duplicated so US labs assess the UK HE's long-term performance.
Neutron generator
This initiates nuclear fission. The neutron generator used in UK warheads is the MC4380, which is manufactured in the USA and acquired 'off the shelf'.
Gas reservoir
This supplies tritium to boost the fission process. It is most likely that the reservoir used in UK warheads is manufactured in the USA. UK gas reservoirs are filled with tritium in the USA.
Re-entry body shell
This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.
The D5 missile
The UK does not own its Trident missiles - they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.
Guidance system
The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
Submarines
UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.
Navigation
The high accuracy of the Trident D5 missile depends on the submarine's position being precisely determined. This is achieved using two systems: GPS, which relies on satellites, and the Electrostatically Supported Giro Navigation System (ESGN), which uses gyroscopes. In both cases UK Trident submarines uses the same US system as the US Navy submarines. The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.
Targeting
Target packages are designed and formatting tapes produced on shore, then stored on the submarine - using US software at each stage.
Onshore targeting
The software installed in the computers at the Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre in London is based on US models and is probably derived from the US Navy's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Integrated Planning System.
Weather and gravity data
The US Navy supplies local gravitational information and forecasts of weather over targets, both of which are vital to high missile accuracy, to US and UK submarines.
Fire control system (FCS)
Used to assign targets to the warheads on the submarines. UK submarines carry a slightly different model to that on US submarines. However, all the hardware and software used by the system is US-produced. The hardware is produced by General Dynamics Defense Systems. The contracts show that the UK uses similar, if not quite identical, software.
Management
British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.
Research and development
There is extensive cooperation between Aldermaston and America's nuclear weapon laboratories - Los Alamos in New Mexico and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California.
Testing
The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
Beanoncutandpastefromaverybigdocument