How it Works0 min ago
Do We Need A Department Of Homeland Security?
12 Answers
With the security services success in twarting the bomb plot they are demonstrating a real ability to safeguard these Islands.
On the other hand we are constantly hearing stories of lack of resources in border control and Mismanagement in the department of Defense.
Is it time to take an axe to the MOD and split it into 2?
A department for homeland security comprising of groups like MI5, the Border Agency and appropiate parts of the armed forces on one hand
On the other hand a military department controlling foreign activities, peacekeeping etc.
Then at least we'd see how much we were spending on securing these Islands and how much was being spent flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away
On the other hand we are constantly hearing stories of lack of resources in border control and Mismanagement in the department of Defense.
Is it time to take an axe to the MOD and split it into 2?
A department for homeland security comprising of groups like MI5, the Border Agency and appropiate parts of the armed forces on one hand
On the other hand a military department controlling foreign activities, peacekeeping etc.
Then at least we'd see how much we were spending on securing these Islands and how much was being spent flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We are being told there is alack of resources but that's more a lack of direction of resources. We pay £120bn in benefits,£80bn NHS, £10bn for overseas aid and £12bn to the EU gravy train. Let's make some better usage of those funds. However to answer the question, yes there is an argument to split the current MOD, the problem is that knowing the way the public sector works, they'll probably just introduce another 2000 job layer of management to adminster the operation, more expense.
/// Then at least we'd see how much we were spending on securing these Islands and how much was being spent flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away ///
Mmmmm! Money being spent flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away eh?
There must be squadrons upon squadrons of them, all flying around just doing nothing then Jake?
If you are talking about those in Afghanistan, I think you would have a different attitude if you happened to have sustained life threatening wounds and there wasn't a helicopter there to take you to safety so as to receive medical attention?
But then such as you wouldn't be in that situation, unless of course you are fit and of military age, then who knows?
Mmmmm! Money being spent flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away eh?
There must be squadrons upon squadrons of them, all flying around just doing nothing then Jake?
If you are talking about those in Afghanistan, I think you would have a different attitude if you happened to have sustained life threatening wounds and there wasn't a helicopter there to take you to safety so as to receive medical attention?
But then such as you wouldn't be in that situation, unless of course you are fit and of military age, then who knows?
Jake - I don't really see what your proposed reorganisation would add to anything.
For one thing, it assumes (as does the existing infrastructure, but to a far lesser degree) a fairly clear-cut distinction between threats abroad and threats at home. Seems reasonable, but this is something that security forces have long had trouble putting into practice. The available records we have of MI5 or MI6's operations during WW2, for instance, indicate frequent overlapping of remits and infighting that derived from this.
Furthermore, assuming that something is less dangerous because it is far away really isn't a valid assumption in the modern world. Regardless of whether you agree with the campaign in Afghanistan or not (and most people seem not to), it does largely seem to have been motivated by a response to 9/11 and a desire to attack those responsible. Foreign and domestic threats are often interconnected and based on what limited evidence we have, dividing the response to them too deeply doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record.
For one thing, it assumes (as does the existing infrastructure, but to a far lesser degree) a fairly clear-cut distinction between threats abroad and threats at home. Seems reasonable, but this is something that security forces have long had trouble putting into practice. The available records we have of MI5 or MI6's operations during WW2, for instance, indicate frequent overlapping of remits and infighting that derived from this.
Furthermore, assuming that something is less dangerous because it is far away really isn't a valid assumption in the modern world. Regardless of whether you agree with the campaign in Afghanistan or not (and most people seem not to), it does largely seem to have been motivated by a response to 9/11 and a desire to attack those responsible. Foreign and domestic threats are often interconnected and based on what limited evidence we have, dividing the response to them too deeply doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record.
AB Editor
/// AOG, I think your comments are wilfully misunderstanding Jake's posting. ///
Really Ed? nice when one gets public support from the Ed himself.
I wasn't wilfully misunderstanding Jake's posting, as you wrongfully accused me of, because I wasn't addressing his point on splitting the department of Defence, I was simply counter attacking his rather silly statement on the money being spent on "flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away".
Perhaps Ed you also care to make a comment on that part of Jake's posting as well?
Completely off the subject I admit, but please may I take this opportunity of asking you why my name change has still not taken
place ?
/// AOG, I think your comments are wilfully misunderstanding Jake's posting. ///
Really Ed? nice when one gets public support from the Ed himself.
I wasn't wilfully misunderstanding Jake's posting, as you wrongfully accused me of, because I wasn't addressing his point on splitting the department of Defence, I was simply counter attacking his rather silly statement on the money being spent on "flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away".
Perhaps Ed you also care to make a comment on that part of Jake's posting as well?
Completely off the subject I admit, but please may I take this opportunity of asking you why my name change has still not taken
place ?
having a Ministry of Defence separate from a War Ministry, each doing what it says on the tin, would upset those in the Department of Circumlocution, but it mightn't be a bad idea. Nebulous things such as the war on terror and other abstract nouns, might be better seen as what they are, domestic defensive measures
// I was simply counter attacking his rather silly statement on the money being spent on "flying around in helicopters thousands of miles away". //
I think the remark reflects his belief that an army has no business being abroad (as this represents an aggressive position) and should be a domestic defence force only.
I'm not sure what he'd do if there was a group of youths throwing stones at his windows from the other side of the street. Stand on the front lawn trying to bat them away with a tennis racket presumably.
I think the remark reflects his belief that an army has no business being abroad (as this represents an aggressive position) and should be a domestic defence force only.
I'm not sure what he'd do if there was a group of youths throwing stones at his windows from the other side of the street. Stand on the front lawn trying to bat them away with a tennis racket presumably.
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.