Your Options for Change

[zen]

It's 1990 and what decisions would you change from history?

 

[Tony Williams]

1. Beef up the defences of Kuwait to make it clear to Saddam that any attempt to seize it will mean war.

2. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.

3. Introduce tighter security on all commercial airlines.

 

[riggerrob]

More economic, medical, irrigation, etc. aid to moderate Afghani shuras. Stronger traditional leaders will reduce opportunities for extreme Taliban.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=Tony Williams]1. Beef up the defences of Kuwait[/quote]

Bit late for that even in Jan 1990. Can't afford to offend our murderous ally in Baghdad, after all.

[quote author=Tony Williams]2. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.[/quote]

But that's Socialism!

[quote author=Tony Williams]3. Introduce tighter security on all commercial airlines.[/quote]

Or rather, introduce the rules on bladed implements in carry-on luggage that existed in Europe on 10 Sept 2001 [and before] in the US!

 

[sferrin]

1. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.

2. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.

3. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.

4. Prosecute anybody who hires illegal aliens, up to and including board members.

5. Prohibit pols from buying votes by taking a procurement vacation re. military hardware. ("The Cold War is over" was the magic phrase that let the pols buy voters with money that should have been used preventing the trainwreck we now have to deal with.)

 

[sferrin]

[quote author=Tony Williams]2. Stop banks from issuing housing loans to people who can never repay them, and tighten up their regulations generally.

But that's Socialism![/quote]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

 

[zen]

Options for Change, UK 1990 defence review.
Cut total personnel by 18%
Cut Army down to 120,000
Halved strength in Germany
Cut RAf Wildenrath and RAF Gutersloh
Cut the F4 fleet.
Cut UK warning and monitoring and the Royal Observer Corps.
Cut Brimstone missile.
Cut Nimrod numbers down.
Cut Frigate and destroyer mix from 50 to 40.

W-class SSN appears to be shelved. This clearly means the SSN force will reduce below 18.

Eurofighter effort meets futher delays.

Tank numbers are I seem to recall rationalised, or that might be after the Gulf War, when actual availability was exposed as being rather less than claimed.

It's possible there was a previous idea of producing stretched Type 23s, but this unclear to me and might just be rumour. A decision for 10 hulls unstretched is made at this time.

Contest for ASRAAM began this year despite the cuts.

I'll try to add more later.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=sferrin] [quote author=von hitchofen] But that's Socialism![/quote]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.
[/quote]

It means whatever you want it to mean, nowadays, especially when a government tries to stop somebody from making a profit.

No-one would have come up with Mortgage-Backed Securities or Collateralised Debt Obligations, if they weren't making money from it.

Even self-styled "socialists" haven't got much of clue about what the word means, any more.

 

[sferrin]

[quote author=sferrin] [quote author=von hitchofen] But that's Socialism!

I don't think that word means what you think it does.
[/quote]

It means whatever you want it to mean, nowadays, especially when a government tries to stop somebody from making a profit.
[/quote]

That's not what happened. The government FORCED banks to give loans to people they knew couldn't pay them back. So they found a way to make money off it (that's what banks do). The taxpayer got stuck with the bill. So basically the government forcing socialist policies (everybody gets something regardless of their ability to produce) onto the banks is what caused the melt down.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=sferrin] The government FORCED banks to give loans to people they knew couldn't pay them back.[/quote]

Which government? Of which country? ;D

By what method did it FORCE them? At gunpoint?

How did that government stand to benefit by enforcing such a policy?



The main thesis of this thread is, I assume based on alternate choices in defence procurement.

The obvious fact emerging is that changes to that would make no difference, and all the change suggest thus far are economic, law enforcement and foreign policy ones.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Options for Change in the UK? Go the full FU.That is the original Francis Urquhart from the original House of Cards. As PM FU introduced conscription of unemployed youth and built up a massive British Army (To Play the King). As to why? Its a matter of playing to one's strenghs. The British and Irish do many things well and many things poorly but I'm sure we can all agree they produce first class infantry battalions. The post Cold War world needs first rate infantry that can be deployed and supported by someone able and willing to use them.The British could be the professional peacekeepers of the world. But not for their own national interst but for the needs of the international community (and paid for by such). They would be far more effective than UN peacekeepers and more politically acceptable than mercs or heavy handed US forces. FMYR, Somalia, Rwanda, DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone,, Sri Lanka, Bougainville, East Timor, Haiti, GWOT, etc all would have much better outcomes if a UK inf div (+) was en route within hours/days of things going to crap.

 

[zen]

You mean a return to empire or at least the 'white man's burden' ?

 

[von hitchofen]

As PM FU introduced conscription of unemployed youth and built up a massive British Army (To Play the King). As to why?

What, in spite of the end of the Cold War, and the so-called Peace Dividend?

It will cost more to feed, clothe, supply and house the conscripts than is consumed by Unemployment Benefit c.1990, so it's a political non-starter even before you get to the objections of the Services Chiefs, the Armed Forces themselves and the electorate.

From wikipedia

The early 1990s recession was officially the longest in Britain since the Great Depression some 60 years earlier. However, the recession of the early 1980s brought a sharper fall in output and an even greater rise and level of unemployment. Unemployment in Britain rose from 1,600,000 to nearly 3,000,000 between April 1990 and February 1993

Do women and the over-forties get conscripted, too? And Muslims?

The British and Irish do many things well

Do they get sent to serve in Operation BANNER, too? Can't see that being popular. Won't get many conscripted from the Falls Road or Free Derry

Where does the money come from to build/renovate the barracks to house them, to begin with? Increased taxes?

Any politician who tries push this policy through in 1990 would have a severely truncated career.

As you point out, the idea originates from a work of fiction.

 

[marauder2048]

* Declare a moratorium on NATO/EU expansion for at least 20 years
* Clearly delineate with a well defined treaty the Russian sphere of influence
* Facilitate Irish and Korean re-unification
* End the deliberate depression of oil prices by the Gulf Arabs (an Anti-Soviet tactic the US encouraged)
* "Resettle" Arab volunteers of the Afghan war
* Secure Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights secured by treaties and perhaps neutral Turkish forces
* Ratifiy START Treaty that eliminates mobile missiles: MX rail garrison, B-2, SRAM II, Seawolf move ahead at 80% of POR quantities
* Stick with A-12 or Tomcat21 (F-14D being the fallback)
* Get the US Army to accept USAF Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak's offer: fixed-wing CAS aircrat in exchange for Patriot and ATACMS.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You mean a return to empire or at least the 'white man's burden' ?

I wrote a sentence or two explaining how this would not be the case. Which should imply to you that I did not mean that very thing. Of course this is based on the assumption that you read and understood the argument. I shall try not to have such high expectations of you in the future.

 

[zen]

Options for Change is a UK policy document outlining the changes for the post 1990 MoD.

Not sure what the US parallel was called, but if you want to start a thread on that, go right ahead.

 

[zen]

You mean a return to empire or at least the 'white man's burden' ?

I wrote a sentence or two explaining how this would not be the case. Which should imply to you that I did not mean that very thing. Of course this is based on the assumption that you read and understood the argument. I shall try not to have such high expectations of you in the future.

I think the latter term 'whitemans burdern' does rather cover the idea of the UK being the enforcement arm of the UN and rather shows how unacceptable to just about everyone the idea would be.
Most would oppose it as clandestine imperialism.
Some would oppose it because it's in the UN's name. Including large sections of the US.
Some would even oppose it out of jealousy...I'm thinking of France there.
UK populace would oppose it because they'd end up paying for it in cash and would definitely pay for it in blood. UN is not a reliable creature.

Furthermore, if this is done via the UNSC, it relies on China not vetoing things, and is of fixed duration while Russia is in a mess.

It's frankly a bit off topic.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As PM FU introduced conscription of unemployed youth and built up a massive British Army (To Play the King). As to why?

What <snip pointless lower order objections> a work of fiction

Sometimes the safe thing's just too safe and sensible. Some games are just too intersting to resist.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

UK being the enforcement arm of the UN

I never said that.

Anyone can take a brief point and redefine it to match their predertermined and slanted opinion on the issue. And of course there will always be someone objecting to anything that looks like their interpretation of something they thouht happened in history they didn't like. But in the past 20 years The Duty to Protect has been more hamstrung by a lack of means to protect than concern for how Snowflakes will interpret it from their Safe Places.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=marauder2048]Clearly delineate with a well defined treaty the Russian sphere of influence[/quote]

Which future Russian governments will ignore.

[quote author=marauder2048]Facilitate Irish and Korean re-unification[/quote]

Kim Il-sung will be pleased! More US support for the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein, too? Nice

[quote author=marauder2048]NATO Turkish forces[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

[quote author=marauder2048]Get the US Army to accept USAF Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak's offer: fixed-wing CAS aircraft in exchange for Patriot and ATACMS.[/quote]

A very sensible and well-thought-out policy - which is why it was never adopted!

What can a stealthy, ridiculously expensive A-12 do that an F/A-18, F-14D, or F-117A can't?

Do CVN-74, 75, 76, 77 get cancelled to pay for it?

Or does something else get cut?

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=Abraham Gubler]Sometimes the safe thing's just too safe and sensible. Some games are just too intersting to resist.
[/quote]

As sensible ideas go, yours is about as sensible as cancelling the EF2000 and the L85 and issuing the RAF and Army with TIE fighters and Lightsabres.

Anyone who suggested conscription, at that time would be dismissed as politically insane, just as much as issuing Operational Requirement for TIE Fighters.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=zen]UK populace would oppose it because they'd end up paying for it in cash and would definitely pay for it in blood. UN is not a reliable creature[/quote]

Not to mention the Treasury!

The whole point of Options for Change was cutting defence spending, not increasing it, irrespective of Operation Granby. As was Front Line First, which followed in 1994

Even so I would scrap the F-4 Phantom as OTL, AND the SEPECAT Jaguar [or sell them to India & Oman], and buy Hawk 200s and armed Tucanos EMB-314 analogues instead

I'd have a BAe Hawk replacement programme in place much sooner, too.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

[quote author=Abraham Gubler]Sometimes the safe thing's just too safe and sensible. Some games are just too intersting to resist.

As sensible ideas go, yours is about as sensible as cancelling the EF2000 and the L85 and issuing the RAF and Army with TIE fighters and Lightsabres.

Anyone who suggested conscription, at that time would be dismissed as politically insane, just as much as issuing Operational Requirement for TIE Fighters.
[/quote]

So it would be as likely as the UK replacing council rates with a per head charge to pay for local services? Never happen right?

 

[von hitchofen]

No, a flat tax for local taxation is entirely plausible - but think of how long it lasted, and how many political careers it terminated.

Conscription would be precisely the same...

Expensive, hugely unpopular (after all, the electorates children might get turned into pink mist by PIRA), and a nightmare to administer.

 

[starviking]

The British and Irish do many things well

Do they get sent to serve in Operation BANNER, too? Can't see that being popular. Won't get many conscripted from the Falls Road or Free Derry

Well, the UDR and the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment which replaced them did serve in Northern Ireland. However, the other Irish regiments didn't serve there at first, and even when that rule was changed, deployments were on a case-by-case basis. See section 705 of this link for details:

http://www.vilaweb.cat/media/attach/vwedts/docs/op_banner_analysis_released.pdf

As for conscription, it has never been applied to NI, given the problems it caused in 1917 in the whole of Ireland.

 

[starviking]

* Facilitate Irish and Korean re-unification

How? The only way Irish re-unification is going to happen is if the vast majority of the people of the North and South want it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, a flat tax for local taxation is entirely plausible - but think of how long it lasted, and how many political careers it terminated.

Conscription would be precisely the same...

Expensive, hugely unpopular (after all, the electorates children might get turned into pink mist by PIRA), and a nightmare to administer.

No one said it would be easy. But seriously do you honestly think that anyone, including myself, doesn't realiase it would be a very difficult policy to implement. If you were familiar with the TV show I was referring too you might have a better frame of reference for how different things were in that imaginary universe. They actually had a political leader who was more than just immoral and self centered. He also had the courage to implement and the intellectual capacity to understand major change plus a sense of humour. Things that are unfortunately all to often lacking in both politics and online forums.

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=Abraham Gubler] He also had the courage to implement and the intellectual capacity to understand major change plus a sense of humour. Things that are unfortunately all to often lacking in both politics and online forums.
[/quote]

Characters in works of fiction have neither courage nor a sense of humour.

On the grounds they don't exist in the real world.

The author who created them may or may not, but that is by the bye

If someone states something that is

• ahistorical,
  
• illogical,
  
• and implausable

I will point out its ahistoricism, illogicality, and implausibility. Whether there are laughs in it or not.

How you choose to defend your dumb idea is up to you.

You appear to have chosen 'incoherently'

 

[von hitchofen]

[quote author=starviking]As for conscription, it has never been applied to NI, given the problems it caused in 1917 in the whole of Ireland.
[/quote]

I was just pointing out that conscription, in 1990, was the antithesis of a sensible idea, bearing in mind where those conscripts would be deployed.

Any Secretary of State for Defence who suggested it would be promptly replaced by someone a little less insane.

 

[zen]

Fine, we'll do this the hard way.

Moderators please lock this thread, I have clearly made a mistake in the initial post and will try again later when I have the time (if ever) to set this out properly.
It has been hijacked for effectively off topic discussions, which frankly others should start their own threads on.

 

[Archibald]

Having Nikolai Ryzhkov elected president of Russia instead of Yeltsin.

 

[Volkodav]

Quite an enjoyable read.

On the Full FU option, I must say I loved the original three series from the UK and just how manipulative old Francis was, that aside something similar could have been achieved without conscription.

Options for change severely cut the size of the British army but the general staff fought tooth and nail to keep as much armour (including wheeled mech) as possible at the same time as many other nations deliberately increased the ratio of "light forces" to traditional cold war "heavy forces". Maybe the UK could have further reduced the number of regular heavy formations, maybe even moving some of the capability to the Territorial Army or even making a percentage of regular Armoured and Mechanised units reserve or composite regular/reserve, or even cadre/reserve and ploughed the remaining budget into rapidly deployable marines, airborne / airmobile and light infantry brigades with minimal light armour. Fewer job losses in the military, fewer base closures, smaller detrimental economic effect and there would still be a very substantial saving from the expensive armour and support gear laid up in reserve or disposed of.

What would these troops do? Peace keeping and HADR, which the UN pays nations to do, it was actually a significant source of income for the likes of Fiji, Nigeria, Uganda, Pakistan, Jordan etc. Not sure but it wouldn't surprise me if France, Australia, NZ and Canada were reimbursed for many of their UN deployments. Whitemans burden? hardly, more good global citizenship and I don't imagine civilians who have lost loved ones to brutal criminals and zealots would really care what nationality the people wearing the blue helmets were, so long as they were disciplined and part of the solution and not the problem. In fact in certain situations the people concerned would much rather being protected by effective, well trained and disciplined first world troops than some of the alternatives who have looked at peace keeping tours as a form of sex tourism. Besides, its been a long time since the British, or most western armies for that matter, could be called "white" or even specifically "Christian", that's the thing with multiculturism in the west, there are lots of proud British, French, Dutch, Germans, Americans, etc. etc. whose parents, grand parents, etc. were very proud some thing else.