Does cutting defence put your country at risk?

In a time when a few determined terrorists with box cutters can kill thousands and change the world forever, expensive standing armies are an anachronism we can no longer afford. Perhaps the reasons for the cuts are wrong but the end result will be for the best.

My country - England - is at risk because it is part of the "UK". The UK government's big Britisher delusions of grandeur and its idiotic desire to continue "punching above our weight" is what threatens England.

England would be better off in all ways as an independent nation.

There is no doubt that the world has changed as the world shifted from being bi-polar to Multi-Polar and the threats have changed along with it.
Increased demands for human intelligence, unmanned drones, better electronic surveillance and "boots on the ground" have not quite obsoleted the Carrier Battle Group as power needs to be projected around the world.
As a knee jerk response the Western Democracies are paring back their defense budgets.
What we need to do is maintain the current levels while policy planner step back and look at the causes of conflict today (Poverty, Ignorance, Cults celebrating Death, starvation, lawless nations) and how as a world we solve them. If we do not, sooner or later the exploding 3rd world birth rate will overwhelm the First World.
That means we would have to do uncomfortable things that will make people howl and ignore the bleeding heart cries to simply transfer wealth from the West to the 3rd world.
In a nuclear age I do not think we can continue to ignore or allow:
Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa which has been turned into a basket case.
Yemen is the new al-Queda breeding ground
Somalia...need I say more?
How can we allow Pakistan to have "lawless" areas and still be called a country?
....and so many more.
Perhaps the International Monetary Crisis is the catalyst to finally coalesce a plan to save our own lives by saving others rather than by increasing our military budgets.
I think if we simply cut military budgets we are hastening the day we will wake up to find a nuclear 9/11 at our doors.

One of effects of the defence cuts in the UK has been to greatly increase the costs of helicopter hire to the National Health Service for casualty transfer, so doctor friends tell me. This sort of cost increase raises the risk of death and injury to people inside the UK. It seems ironic that people's lives inside a country should be put on the line to save them from threats to their health from external forces. All over the World, particularly in places like Africa, the health and welfare of citizens is neglected in favour of national 'defence' spending. One can only wonder that trimming defence spending and reallocating the money back to the people who make it in the first place can only be a good thing all round. If everyone reduced arms spending the World would be a safer place.

What is important is to work out what the threat against you is and then arm for that.

Cutting budgets in itself doesn't expose the country to risk. You could triple the number ships in a Navy but if the threat is cyber based or land based (as the recent British review found) then it doesn't do you any good.

How would I like to see my country's budget cut?
When our government talks about defence, they usually mean our interference in countries which would like to see the backs of all foreign troops. Our armed forces are, more often than not, being misused as a “Foreign Legion” for the interests of the USA. This has nothing to do with defence, but a lot to do with NATO which no longer has a reason for existence. Social benefits do not need to be cut, if the British army just be used for what it is there for, that is, to defend our country!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If reductions in defense spending are reactionary, then they are mistakenly made. Best defensive practice requires a reasoned assessment of opposing threats. While it is impossible fully to predict the behaviors of small numbers of people, it is useful to remember that a potential enemy is most probably as capable as oneself. Thus, the ways in which one can be harmed are likely similar to the ways in which one is able to do harm. The question is simple to answer: A nation can do no better than to establish a defense that is the equal of its best offense.
g

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Is it a coincidence that europe is doing this with their militaries now that it's pretty inevitable that the republicans will win congress and not cut the size of the US military, meaning that the US will once again take up the burden of defense for the west? Also seems possible that the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers that are to replace the Invincible class carriers, or even if not, the UK will be without active carriers for what, 4-9 years until the Queen Elizabeth is completed? Is it responsible for a nation that thinks of itself as a world power to give up what little carrier groups it has?

Defence cuts have to be thought through extremely carefully especially as there are terrorists determined to create havoc in Afghanistan. Defence cuts would send the wrong signals to callous terrorists like al Qaeda and would give them the pschological advantage. Defence cuts by one nation could have huge ramifications on joint security coordination. The stakes are extremely high.

Not much that can match the wasteful spending in defence. Sec. Clinton is worried because of the US contractors assoicated with British military spending. The Defence agencies act like the soical programs in presenting symbolic cuts that they believe will spur the people to their side. Private contractors are worried about their plush jobs and high pay for things that should cost less by half. Nothing more disgusting than justifying expenditures on the backs of soldiers that see little or no benefit from it all. Probably will reduce forces rather than reduce contractors.

Hilary Clinton should not be too worried, U.K. and Europe has enough capabilities along with NATO for defence purposes. Some measure of cutbacks have become necessary for economic reasons. However the main thret is not being attack by another country, but the increasing thret from beligerant terrorist organisations who infiltrate countries and do the best to spread terror where ever they can.

At risk of what? Making room for the US to play a bigger military role worldwide. Even to have more US bases on British soil protecting British seas and air. Definite risk.

Risk? Not really. The US taxpayer will still be there, taking care of the "heavy lifting" aspects of that function for the UK. As it does for other NATO countries, not to mention NZ and Australia.

In fact, the UK military has been operating on a much more global scale than their current size warrants. If the British military confined its operations closer to home, like the other NATO countries do (except the US), I would not find that too surprising or too alarming.

Perhaps this goes more to a "loss of prestige" question?

The US should do some scaling back too, for what it's worth.

Is the warrior class a dying breed? Will drones and robotic armies fight battles in the near future? Robotic soldiers do not return home physically disabled for life nor do they suffer post trauma stress due to combat. Paying benefits to physically and mentally disabled veterans cost the government a lot of money.Some veterns have to fight for benefits and some end up homeless on the streets, at least they do in US.Ideally, a warrior is a protector and defender of those who cannot defend themselves. Will a robot be programmed in the same way as a human soldier? What of the civilians who are caught up in war zones who suffer death and disabilities from drones or robotic soldiers? It seems only fair if the warrior class is replaced by robots than human populaces should be spared the ravages of war.Technology could create robotic people.Robots fighting robots, sparing human populations the ravages of war.

Cut in defence budget in my country? Oh yes, I am for this all the way. Most people in my country will support this because the money being spent on defence as at now is not being seen anyway and we will not delude ourselves into thinking it will be seen until certain infrastructures are put in place. So yes, cut defence budget if it will translate to better infrastructure- power, good transport network e.t.c.

Eventually certain units won't be able to operate anymore and certain functions cannot be executed anymore. I think there should be a limit to how far cuts should go as this isn't the first round of cuts and it won't be the last. I wonder how long Europe can keep applying cuts until the Americans say "screw it, we're getting out of there, we're not going to pay for their defense" and how long it'll be after that before the Russians think they should "protect their interests" in the Baltic states and Ukraine (just like they did in Georgia).

In this uncertain global climate defence cuts is a big mistake. Sure look at how the money is spent and clean it up, but to shut down whole bases, or Harrier Airports, put Ark Royal to bed, and throw thousands of professionals on to an already full scrapheap, is so shortsighted! By the way, we obviously need aircraft carriers otherwise why are they building two more?

The Government must be so arrogantly Sure that the Nation can do without our full defence compliment, yet this 'sureness' is based on balancing the books and nothing more! ...Let's hope we never get to the point where we HAVE to live-out their assumptions.

we must cut it by large scale .because budgets for defence are accelerating compared to other life saving sectores.we rather need to start apeacefull means to aproach terrorists.how could developement comes if terrorists continue like this and governments build their defence aheade.we cant win each other by money.

We missed the chance when the Cold war ended to organise defence on a global basis with armed forces under international command. If troops were not based in their own country, but most were based in other countries, as part of an international force, war would be impossible. New weapons would be totally unnecessary.Troop number could be tiny and training up to modern standards of humanity. Local governments would not be able to use troops against their own people, and there would always be an international force on the ground to deal with armed insurgencies. Yes, I know it wouldn't be easy, and now the moment has gone. What a pity our leaders are always so selfish and short sighted. Maybe that is because all governments are really just direct descendants from the days when robber chiefs ruled the World.

@ 16, Angelica Adams

Nice idea Angelica (Robot soldiers) but if they are cutting an airbase and a puny aircraft carrier because they can't afford them how will they pay for Robotics? I think it's cheaper to pay war-disabled humans the benefits.. An *I Robot/Terminator* style army will probably cost as much as putting a Space Station on Jupiter, plus we are no-where near robotic mobility let alone thinking, decision making, Robotic Star-War clones! (I do like the idea though, and we ARE heading that way, but possibly not for another 100 years!)

Like some of the other comments on here, it is very easy to say ..we're alright Jack, there's always NATO/Europe/USA etc to bail us out in times of need? er... excuse me?
- GET REAL PEOPLE !

Never underestimate *War*! Our friends today may be our enemies tomorrow and could quickly remove all support in favour of themselves! We forget so quickly that is our land first and foremost and just like a house with walls, we HAVE to take responsibility for it and for our security, and those cutting corners on defence purely for the sake of 'money', are behaving in a very arrogant, dangerous and shortsighted way.