Carriers and Trident, or Body Armor?
This is well out of my normal terrain, but a couple weeks ago a high profile commission reported on the future priorities of UK defense spending. The commission, operating out of the Institute for Public Policy Research and led by a couple Lords (in this case Ashdown, the former LibDem leader and all purpose go-to guy, and Robertson, a former Defense Secretary) argued against big ticket items, such as the Trident nuclear deterrent and the two planned aircraft carriers.
There is a lot about this that is logical. This island I live on is running a bit short on cash, the MoD is perennially underfunded, and stories are common that the soldier on the ground is under-equipped, (though see here for a counterpoint), to the point where it now may even be considered criminal under EU Human Rights law. If more money can be shifted to offering these guys and gals better kit, then all the better.
However, it’s an open question, and well beyond my expertise (even when I fake it), as to whether or not the UK requires a nuclear deterrent, and I’m interested in hearing opinions on this matter. On the carriers, I have a more emotional reaction: I grew up in a navy town (from which I understandably fled as soon as I could), Plymouth is a navy town, and FFS this is the Royal Navy we’re discussing. Replacing their current three fake carriers with two that are almost real carriers makes sense in terms of both my emotional well being, and the admittedly far less important criterion of force projection.
That said, there’s not a lot of money floating around the UK these days (even though the Bank of England is trying to make up for that through the beautifully termed quantitative easing), and these are my tax dollars not at work. It’s probably best to outfit the front line soldiers with proper kit than invest in big ticket items.
But what do I know?