Johnny - I don't think militaries should "justify the effort".
The military responds to civilian tasking.
So, tell me what you think the military should be able to do, and I'll give you a cost. It won't be cheap. But it will be derived from the civilian tasking. That's the purpose of defense white papers and national strategies. Most folks have never read them but that's where the spending programs derive their justification: national objectives and priorities.
Canada withdrew from having carriers in the 1960s because of the the cost. Right after they killed the Avro Arrow. The civilian government didn't want to spend the money, and so, accepted the reduction in capability and world influence.
The U.K. decided a decade ago that carriers were worth the cost to restore their influence and give them operational flexibility. That decision was conceived by liberals, supported by conservatives, and has been through several governments since, but is still on track because it was directed by civilian leadership.
Germany doesn't have much of a surface navy, but their stated strategy is to be able to completely control the Baltic. They build the best submarines in the world for that mission, and that capability suits their strategy perfectly. They spend very little on defense, and the german people are OK with being unable to project power.
Strategy drives military capability requirements. That strategy comes from civilians leadership, and should reflect the will of the people.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...ew_web_only.pdf
The military responds to civilian tasking.
So, tell me what you think the military should be able to do, and I'll give you a cost. It won't be cheap. But it will be derived from the civilian tasking. That's the purpose of defense white papers and national strategies. Most folks have never read them but that's where the spending programs derive their justification: national objectives and priorities.
Canada withdrew from having carriers in the 1960s because of the the cost. Right after they killed the Avro Arrow. The civilian government didn't want to spend the money, and so, accepted the reduction in capability and world influence.
The U.K. decided a decade ago that carriers were worth the cost to restore their influence and give them operational flexibility. That decision was conceived by liberals, supported by conservatives, and has been through several governments since, but is still on track because it was directed by civilian leadership.
Germany doesn't have much of a surface navy, but their stated strategy is to be able to completely control the Baltic. They build the best submarines in the world for that mission, and that capability suits their strategy perfectly. They spend very little on defense, and the german people are OK with being unable to project power.
Strategy drives military capability requirements. That strategy comes from civilians leadership, and should reflect the will of the people.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...ew_web_only.pdf
Last edited: