[Closed] If we cut our military budget by 4%, we could match Dutch bike spending

Perhaps it could be taken as a cut from the budget of one of the less over-stretched and more wasteful departments first.

Surely if the Dutch were to reduce their spending on bikes they could get some really cool military hardware too?

Perhaps it could be taken as a cut from the budget of one of the less over-stretched and more wasteful departments first.

Like the DfT? 🙂

S&J, can you point to a public sector body that's spent £200 billion on a single project? 😯

[img] [/img]

A single project that was designed for a role that no longer exists and is not needed now.

Well the NHS computer system is already at £20 billion and it doesn't actually work, so give it a few more years and I am sure it will get to 200 billion

You'd think no one here at heard of the armada.

One cut in military spending and we'll all be speaking Spanish.

Perhaps it could be taken as a cut from the budget of one of the less over-stretched and more wasteful departments first.

Spain's military budget is half what ours is, so we should be pretty safe.

Maybe speaking French then

France spend less than us too. America's military spending dwarfs ours, but we speak like them already.

The US would only need to cut theirs by 2%, and they'd still outspend the rest of the world combined!

But if the Spanish and French ganged up together we'd be stuffed right?

There's got to be a reason to keep spending the money.......

S&J, can you point to a public sector body that's spent £200 billion on a single project?

£200billion. Oh come now, feeling generous with the noughts? Try £20billion, with a large amount of tax (on profits earned by private companies involved) generated from that spend being returned to the Treasury. A similar amount to the £20billion spent on an NHS computer system that still doesn't work properly. At least the Typhoon can do its job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the defence budget (and the overall public sector budget), as long as its task-linked. We currently have a budget based on 1997 assumptions funding operations well beyond that which it was projected to fund. Equipment is getting knackered, rapidly and one day, unless taskings are seriously cutback, it will all need replacing at even larger cost to the tax-payer.

Don't spend now and it'll cost a seriously eye-watering amount later.

One cut in military spending and we'll all be speaking Spanish.

Ola, Chiquita!!

That's not actually a bad idea...

A single project that was designed for a role that no longer exists and is not needed now.

So you've added oracle to the list of things you claim an expertise in, alongside plastic-jockness, an inability to ever admit to being wrong or not actually knowing what you are talking about?

Of course when those defence assumptions were made in 1997 they just knew we were going to end up in Afghanistan one day and the woeful lack of preparation and funding for such an operation was all part of the big plan was it?

a large amount of tax (on profits earned by private companies involved)

Isn't every arms job basically subsidised to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds by the tax payer anyway?

Projects to scrap: NHS computer system, ID Cards, Trident.

But if the Spanish and French ganged up together we'd be stuffed right?

Try £20billion

Yeah, there is a mistake in my original post. But wasn't £20 billion the amount that it got to before the MoD stopped giving any more information about the costs? Not the final figure.

Isn't every arms job basically subsidised to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds by the tax payer anyway?

You could say pretty much the same about any private sector industry that supports a branch of the British public sector.

Huge government subsidies via the NHS for British pharmaceutical companies that refuse to sell HIV/Aids treatment drugs at affordable prices in Africa anyone?

how much would we need to cut to match Dutch deviant sex aid and reccy drugs spending though?

But wasn't £20 billion the amount that it got to before the MoD stopped giving any more information about the costs?

And the £20billion I quoted for the NHS computer system was the 2006 price. Any idea where it is now?

Seems the costs of most government projects spiral upwards, mainly due to political wangling.

Sooty - my understanding is that it was intended to be an interceptor for Soviet fighters so needed to climb fast but did not need endurance which actually does not meet current requirements?

Of course if you say it meets our current needs pewrfectly then I bow to your superior knowledge

From the telegraph:

Critics of Eurofighter-Typhoon argue that it is a Cold War relic that has consumed far too much of the MoD's scarce resources.

Conceived 20 years ago to combat agile Soviet fighters, the aircraft, made by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, is only now entering squadron service after delays and doubts over its future. The RAF wants to use it in Afghanistan next year.

S&J, you're correct of course when you say that the winners out of both the NHS and the military are the contractors. Some of whom are downright morally repugnant, whether they be Glaxo or Halliburton.

The difference is that the NHS helps millions of people every day, while our military actions abroad, while I wish the best to everyone on the front lines, are mostly undertaken for reasons that are frankly indefensible.

Sooty - my understanding is that it was intended to be an interceptor for Soviet fighters so needed to climb fast but did not need endurance which actually does not meet current requirements?

Your understanding (and that of the rag you quote) are wrong.

The Typhoon was [i]always[/i] designed as a multi-role fighter [b]for the British[/b] with roles as both an air superiority aircraft ( such a role requires endurance in order to stay on station and 'dominate' the air as well as speed and thus it has bags of both) and a ground attack aircraft.

It was ordered to replace the Tornado F3 (which was always a stop-gap aircraft that had little of the attributes required for a useful air superiority aircraft) and also the Jaguar GR1 (later GR4) in the CAS and GA roles.

Where yourself (and the press constantly) have made the mistake is mixing up the intended role of the RAF for the aircraft (multi role) with that of the Spanish, German and Italian air forces (purely air defence). Of course perhaps its more economical to do as the other main participant countries have chosen to do and have separate aircraft fleets with their own support, training and logistical infrastructures for each of the roles the RAF have planned for the Typhoon, although seeing as a few of them have now changed their minds and have asked for at least austere GA capability it seems not.

...are mostly undertaken for reasons that are frankly indefensible.

And that is a matter for the politicians who send the military off on these various operations, not the military itself. Of course seeing as its a political decision, politicians who are put into power by the likes of you and I, would you then wish to deny the forces of the crown appropriate equipment to carry out their tasks?

Well there you go. something new every day.

politicians who are put into power by the likes of you and I

With a bit of a push from the right backers...

would you then wish to deny the forces of the crown appropriate equipment to carry out their tasks?

If we're spending twice a much as some European countries, yet the front line soldiers are running out of bullets and boots, doesn't that suggest that the armed forces aren't as efficient as you're making out?

And before this thread gets completely sidetracked, I'd be interested to see how strong the correlation is between investment in infrastructure and uptake of cycling. Particularly in the UK, where the facilities that we can install seem pretty limited in the grand scheme of things.

If we're spending twice a much as some European countries, yet the front line soldiers are running out of bullets and boots, doesn't that suggest that the armed forces aren't as efficient as you're making out?

If you could just point out those other European nations that are operating at anywhere near the intensity of British forces in places such as Afghanistan I could draw my own conclusion...

I don't know this stuff properly, but it looks to me as if our defence budget is too small, but also that much of it is wasted on hardware that doesn't really do what seems to be needed.

Huge sums getting spent on giant fleet carriers when there are clearly not enough helicopters. Excellent main battle tanks that aren't used and death-trap Snatch landrovers that get blown up every week. Nuclear missiles and not enough infantry.

The sum spent on promoting cycling is, of course, too small. But it ought to come out of the NHS budget as it would generate savings for that budget in the long-term, rather than out of defence, where it will have no impact whatsoever.

Demanding that defence is clipped to spend it all on 3-speed bikes with big baskets is just classic lentil-weaver talk. 😀

This is of course a huge argument and IMO a lot of the issues are because successive Governments have not defined properly what our armed forces are for but instead made up policy on the hoof or in a reactive way. Trident is the most obvious example of this.

So firstly we need to decide what our armed forces are for and what they are going to be used for then make sensible decisions about the equipment we need.

I am absolutely convinced that defence spending could be reduced dramatically without risk to the people of this island - but situations such as Afghanistan or the interventions in Yugoslavia would be impossible to do.

Sensible strategic decision making and a move away from prestige projects such as trident would save significant moneys

TJ - I fully agree.

Unfortunately ownership of instantly bottled sunshine , on tap and via a pretty much unstoppable means is probably the only reason this increasingly irrelevant country of ours remains a world player and permanent member of the UN security council. I can't see any government ever giving that up.

[i]TandemJeremy - Member
From the telegraph:[/i]

Well I never thought I'd see comrade Jemery using a quote from the telegraph to back up another of his flights of fantasy 😉

Hilldodger - why don't you go and boil your head.

Calm down McDearie, time for a tweak is it.....
😛

sorry S&J you seem to have gotten carried away with yourself there.

great speech mind. factually inaccurate simply to support an internerd argument. well i never.

Demanding that defence is clipped to spend it all on 3-speed bikes with big baskets is just classic lentil-weaver talk.

Guilty 🙂

(The owner of the linked site is actually a basket weaver.)

SootyandJim, remind me exactly what we're doing in Afghanistan again?