Julian Lewis
We cannot predict the next war (recent wars were all unexpected) so it is essential to adopt flexibility in organising, equipping and training the armed forces.
The MoD has identified three tiers of warfare to prepare for, in priority order:
1. Terrorism, cyber warfare, and becoming involved in conflicts between other states
2. Chemical, biological and nuclear warfare (low probability but high impact)
3. Defence against a conventional military attack (low priority, but a serious problem if it occurs).
Russia had not been considered a serious threat until recently, but its resurgence should give a higher priority to defence against conventional attack.
The UK has preserved a full spectrum of capability but with a budget far below that of crisis levels. In 1963 6% of GDP was spent on defence; the same on welfare and similar sums on education and health. Now only 2% is spent on defence – the education budget is 2.5x larger, health is 4x and welfare 6x. Until the end of the Cold War the defence budget had been 4.3-5.1% of GDP. The NATO figure of 2% is a minimum, not a target.
Defence against nuclear war is satisfactory with the decision to order new Trident subs, but conventional deterrence is more difficult – we need strong armed forces and a strong alliance, in which the USA's involvement is essential. WW1 and WW2 may never had taken place if the aggressors had known that the US would immediately intervene against them. However, the NATO 'freeriders' who spent less than 2% on defence need to increase their funding.
The Heads of the Services are not sufficiently involved in strategic planning, leading to governments making unrealistic commitments without funding them. We are currently not spending nearly enough on conventional defence. Our defence forces are an insurance policy and we need to pay the premium!
It is being suggested that David Cameron might be NATO's next Secretary-General, but that would not be a good idea as he had shown poor judgement in military matters while Prime Minister.
To counter Islamic extremists we need to apply force selectively, and not base our actions on wishful thinking. We can't impose our western values until countries are ready for that, and we should stay out of Islamic countries and not get involved in the Shia/Sunni conflicts.
We should not apply civilian law to military situations, as is now happening (e.g. Northern Ireland, going back 40+ years – soldiers being faced with legal action); this has major consequences for morale and recruitment. There should be a Statute of Limitations for Northern Ireland.
----------------------------
Response by Deborah Haynes, The Times Defence Editor
We should have world-class armed forces, but the viability of our defence is in question given the funding gap – there is not enough money to meet the government's ambitions, yet the MoD is still having to make more cuts.
The new aircraft carriers are fine, but what about affording enough F-35s to go on them (still supposed to be 138 bought) and affording the crews to man both?
It is difficult to get a sense of how much money is really needed. £178 billion is supposed to be spent on equipment over the next ten years but this gives no sense of how much is needed, and whether or not spending represents value for money or is being misspent and wasted. The defence industries 'run rings around' the MoD.
The government often defers expenditure on projects to save money in the short term but this leads to increased costs in the long term. Military chiefs seem to be cowed by their political masters, only speaking out after they have retired.
The MoD does not seem to be planning, or even talking about, defence against potential Russian aggression.
We need to invest much more in future technologies – spending on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence is only on a small scale.
-------------------------------
