The idea that in future Britain would not have any armed services will alarm many people and will, politically, be very difficult. 

However, let’s undertake a short thought experiment.  When was the last time that Britain was invaded?  So, is it likely that any country would try to invade in the foreseeable future?  Would France, say, see it as a golden opportunity to renew the hundred years war, what could they possibly gain from such an invasion?  Lots of debt, few, if any, useful resources and an ageing population. 

The threat from terrorism will continue, the potential threat from nuclear attack will continue, but we do not need the armed forces to counter either of these.   The need for a unilateral nuclear deterrent is also unclear.  The most likely nuclear attack would be by terrorists with no effective target to retaliate against.   If we were to undergo a nuclear attacked by another state, would we have a moral right to unleash Armageddon in that country?  The results would mean huge loss of life to ordinary people not involved in the decision, and probably not in control of their own political system anyway.

The wide ranging effects of such a nuclear attack would almost certainly mean considerable loss of life and contamination within neighbouring countries.  The deterrence of having a nuclear capability was useful after the second world war and during the cold war when some countries may have been deterred from armed expansion, but now it will not deter terrorists and probably have little deterrence on rogue states whom are mad enough to launch such an attack. 

Keeping close ties with China and India and helping keep the world peace through our diplomacy and commonsense values are certainly our best, (and most cost effective), options.  The rise of China and India as superpowers is unstoppable.  Even if we had a strong nuclear deterrence, we would be unable to use this deterrence in the event of say China invading Taiwan.  For a while now, there has not been any effective armed response that Britain could mount against these expanding economies.

Our active role within NATO should be scaled back to a minimum level providing just strategic assistance. In the new world order, if Governments wish to deploy peace-keeping forces in remote parts of the world the new superpowers should resource this. Britain has already played its role in this respect and can continue to play a diplomatic and strategic role that fits the new world order.

What about our overseas protectorates?  Are we seriously considering spending £44bn a year on protecting the Falklands? Even if there are oil resources around it? (And CST plan moves the UK away from reliance on oil).  Britain’s diplomacy is again our best resource to deal with these issues in the twenty first century.

The Armed Services

By showing that we are willing to participate in the new world order we can remain the elder statesmen.  CST ’s reforms, along with increasing exports, (leading to improving prosperity at home), will demonstrate to the world that Britain still leads in political governance with a model for a sustainable, fair and strong society. 

This example will have far more impact than all of our soldiers currently wasting their lives in unwinnable campaigns.   We should demonstrate this new global commitment over time by reducing our armed forces to a small, (but highly effective), UK based emergency force to deploy within UK or to assist in overseas disasters. This will also save most of the £44bn per annum that we spend on our armed services. 

We should also expect the US to continue to be troubled by their reducing world superpower status.  Britain must let the US make its own foreign policy mistakes from now on.

In summary therefore, we need neither the armed services nor a nuclear deterrence. As a consequence we can redeploy the costs and technical resources to the key reforms for Energy, Transport, Education, Welfare & Prison’s helping enable the long term success of the UK.