<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PM Brown promises &#8216;barbeque summer&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:59:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fantasy Shipbuilding, British Version &#171; New Wars</title>
		<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/comment-page-1/#comment-4279</link>
		<dc:creator>Fantasy Shipbuilding, British Version &#171; New Wars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3290#comment-4279</guid>
		<description>[...] Kings of War, David Betz sums it up nicely. This is fantasy politics. There just isn’t enough money to do these [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Kings of War, David Betz sums it up nicely. This is fantasy politics. There just isn’t enough money to do these [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Betz</title>
		<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/comment-page-1/#comment-4268</link>
		<dc:creator>David Betz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3290#comment-4268</guid>
		<description>&#039;...sack nine of every ten star-rank officers, make do with the Typhoons and Tridents we have, and cancel the carriers that will never be built anyhow.&#039;

I agree with the first. It seems to me there&#039;s a cohort of really good junior officers at the bottom and a handful of good ones at the top but in the middle is a stubborn belt of bureaucratic cellulite that nothing seems able to shift--certainly not, thus far, the actualities of fighting a war. It&#039;s a bureaucratic monster that nothing can change, regardless of who is pressing. 

On the second, I&#039;m afraid that we have no choice but to accept that the 20 billion spent on Eurofighter is basically wasted. The best that can be hoped is that the Saudis or someone--anyone?--will take them off us for a decent price. 

On the third, I agree. I don&#039;t really understand the pressing need for a son of Trident. If the existing one can be updated for a fraction of the cost then that seems to me a good idea.

But on the last despite many reservations I must admit that I&#039;ve changed my mind on these carriers. It seems to me that they bring a lot of capability that isn&#039;t easy to be substituted. I admit that I am not a sea power expert but I&#039;m increasingly swayed by the arguments of those who are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;&#8230;sack nine of every ten star-rank officers, make do with the Typhoons and Tridents we have, and cancel the carriers that will never be built anyhow.&#8217;</p>
<p>I agree with the first. It seems to me there&#8217;s a cohort of really good junior officers at the bottom and a handful of good ones at the top but in the middle is a stubborn belt of bureaucratic cellulite that nothing seems able to shift&#8211;certainly not, thus far, the actualities of fighting a war. It&#8217;s a bureaucratic monster that nothing can change, regardless of who is pressing. </p>
<p>On the second, I&#8217;m afraid that we have no choice but to accept that the 20 billion spent on Eurofighter is basically wasted. The best that can be hoped is that the Saudis or someone&#8211;anyone?&#8211;will take them off us for a decent price. </p>
<p>On the third, I agree. I don&#8217;t really understand the pressing need for a son of Trident. If the existing one can be updated for a fraction of the cost then that seems to me a good idea.</p>
<p>But on the last despite many reservations I must admit that I&#8217;ve changed my mind on these carriers. It seems to me that they bring a lot of capability that isn&#8217;t easy to be substituted. I admit that I am not a sea power expert but I&#8217;m increasingly swayed by the arguments of those who are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noel Falconer</title>
		<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/comment-page-1/#comment-4262</link>
		<dc:creator>Noel Falconer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3290#comment-4262</guid>
		<description>In my field, defence, I know how to HALVE expenditure without the slightest loss of capability - sack nine of every ten star-rank officers, make do with the Typhoons and Tridents we have, and cancel the carriers that will never be built anyhow.

Specialists in other areas may not quite match this, but there&#039;s no lack of skeletons in cupboards, nor of need to clear those out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my field, defence, I know how to HALVE expenditure without the slightest loss of capability &#8211; sack nine of every ten star-rank officers, make do with the Typhoons and Tridents we have, and cancel the carriers that will never be built anyhow.</p>
<p>Specialists in other areas may not quite match this, but there&#8217;s no lack of skeletons in cupboards, nor of need to clear those out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Betz</title>
		<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/comment-page-1/#comment-4260</link>
		<dc:creator>David Betz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:57:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3290#comment-4260</guid>
		<description>For sure it is all relative. Relative to the United States the UK spends quite a bit less as a percentage of GDP. The US has averaged a little over 4 % over the last ten years (down from over 5 in the latter days of the Cold War) whereas the UK currently is about 2.4 % now and averaged about that over the last decade (down from about 5 % in the &#039;80s).

More data than you can shake a stick at is to be found at SIPRI:

http://www.sipri.org/databases

Personally, I would double defence spending--not as a means of avoiding defence reform but because I think it&#039;s just too low. The money could be found in our bloated national health and welfare systems which have really eaten the budget. There is no way, however, that this is going to happen. Utterly politically non-starting. The best estimate of future UK defence spending is Malcolm Chalmers&#039; recent Whitehall paper:

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_Working_Paper_1.pdf

Best case scenario is that funding will fall about 11 % between now and 2016 and there are good reasons to suspect cuts will be deeper.

To me, this is what makes these &#039;pledges&#039; so risible. They are so obviously made in bad faith.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For sure it is all relative. Relative to the United States the UK spends quite a bit less as a percentage of GDP. The US has averaged a little over 4 % over the last ten years (down from over 5 in the latter days of the Cold War) whereas the UK currently is about 2.4 % now and averaged about that over the last decade (down from about 5 % in the &#8217;80s).</p>
<p>More data than you can shake a stick at is to be found at SIPRI:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sipri.org/databases" rel="nofollow">http://www.sipri.org/databases</a></p>
<p>Personally, I would double defence spending&#8211;not as a means of avoiding defence reform but because I think it&#8217;s just too low. The money could be found in our bloated national health and welfare systems which have really eaten the budget. There is no way, however, that this is going to happen. Utterly politically non-starting. The best estimate of future UK defence spending is Malcolm Chalmers&#8217; recent Whitehall paper:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_Working_Paper_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_Working_Paper_1.pdf</a></p>
<p>Best case scenario is that funding will fall about 11 % between now and 2016 and there are good reasons to suspect cuts will be deeper.</p>
<p>To me, this is what makes these &#8216;pledges&#8217; so risible. They are so obviously made in bad faith.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Formerly Grant</title>
		<link>http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/pm-brown-promises-barbeque-summer/comment-page-1/#comment-4256</link>
		<dc:creator>Formerly Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3290#comment-4256</guid>
		<description>Has anyone seriously, honestly and thoroughly looked at how much the United Kingdom&#039;s forces spend on what?

On another note, it&#039;s still a bit of a shock to me to hear those terms put as &#039;high&#039;. In the U.S we&#039;re looking at hundreds of billions of dollars. I suppose we&#039;ll have to get ready for this sort of thing in the long run.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone seriously, honestly and thoroughly looked at how much the United Kingdom&#8217;s forces spend on what?</p>
<p>On another note, it&#8217;s still a bit of a shock to me to hear those terms put as &#8216;high&#8217;. In the U.S we&#8217;re looking at hundreds of billions of dollars. I suppose we&#8217;ll have to get ready for this sort of thing in the long run.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

