in my personal opinion if such cuts were made, at least 30% of any savings made should be spread evenly throughout the armed forces, with emphasis being placed on expanding each force without top priority being given to the Army then the Navy.

should read "with top priority being given to the army then the navy"

apologies

A strategic deterrent is a poor use of money until you need it. Then it is too late to look for one. Has NATO made the holding of nuclear weapons by individual member states obsolete? I think the sudden switch in foreign policy under Barack Obama has shown this not to be the same. Someone else's finger could be on the button, or it could just be giving us the bird.

 

It is only when the wider uses of defence spending come into play that any spending on conventional forces at all makes sense. The conduct and pursuit of foreign policy by other means. Sometimes you just want a firm 'no' instead of mutual annihilation. Sometimes 'stop' needs to be more than just a word.

 

I would argue that we can't afford the large army and that the navy and air force should be limited to what is required to break through defences of a minor state not worth the kudos of a nuclear stand-off.

 

I realise that we are in  a land war in Asia at present. That old empire staple, The Afghan War. A sure sign that your foreign policy is broken and that, unless you have the budget of the richest state on the planet, that you have over-reached your grasp.

 

To an extent land forces allow such mistakes. If we didn't do COIN and stabilisation missions we wouldn't be in this war. That said, never say never and COIN can be won. I just don't think we should have our force mix and ability to conduct a productive foreign policy limited by the cost of poor strategic choices.

 

Britain has always been a naval power. The advent of air power hasn't seen that go, just now it is joined by an air requirement. First choice should be naval air. Even if space forces come into play we will still need to watch over mineral rights, trade and supply links. These now include airspace, cyberspace and satellites and might conceivably include beyond earth orbit mineral rights in future.

 

Land forces are a poor use of scarce resources. I would hope that a strategic review looks to defend from terrorism (or monopolise oil) closer to home. Nuclear weapons need credible delivery systems or they are a hollow threat. Any cuts in this area need to take that into account. I do think we could reduce the level of nukes as long as we retain the delivery system (ie keep the subs and at least some ICB missiles).

 

Credible delivery is approaching a tipping point soon. The time will come when ICBMs can be intercepted to a more or less reliable degree. The instabilities that causes don't bear thinking about.