France to reduce armed forces by a fifth

[FarCenter]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90a29448-3bcb-11dd-9cb2-0000779fd2ac.html

By Ben Hall in Paris

Published: June 16 2008 19:42 | Last updated: June 16 2008 19:42

France is to reduce its armed forces by almost a fifth and close scores of bases under a defence overhaul that will increase spending on spy satellites, cruise missiles and transport.

...

France will reduce its army to 88,000 deployable troops – roughly akin to British land forces – but will increase spending on technology and intelligence. In total some 54,000 jobs across all services are due to go.

The document marks a change of direction in several respects from existing French defence doctrine. It confirms France’s intention fully to rejoin Nato’s integrated military command structure, while maintaining complete control over its nuclear strike capability. “This differentiation no longer has its raison d’être,” said an official who helped draw up the white paper.

...

Intelligence and anticipation of threats will play a greater role with spending on satellite technology to double to €700m ($1.08bn, £552m) a year. From 2015 France will start to put in place a ballistic missile detection system using infra-red sensors on satellites and long-range radar to be fully operational by 2020. It wants other countries to join in the project.

...

Priorities will include developing France’s own cruise missile, a fleet of six submarines to fire them, and armoured personnel carriers for the army,

...

Defence spending, which in 2008 amounts to €30bn or 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, will be frozen in real terms until 2012, and will then rise by 1 percentage point ahead of inflation until 2014.

...

[KamaAina]

1. Vive la France!

:bounce:

And to think, their leader is considered a right-winger, by their standards.

[Canuckistanian]

2. France is #19 in per capita military participation

For perspective, America is #32.

#1? North Korea.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_arm_per_percap-military-army-personnel-per-capita

[izquierdista]

4. That's a rather warped statistic

When you add in defense contractors and sub-contractors and National Guard and Reserves and civilian personnel and Border Patrol and so on, I'm sure that "per capita military participation" goes up. The Pentagon sure has the budget to have lots more heads on the payroll than it appears.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. black budget....we have no idea what that amount is, but it's certainly

no less than 50 billion, maybe a LOT more

where do you think all that unaccounted-for pentagon cash went?

[izquierdista]

7. I know where it went

Contractors. If the government suspended all of its weapons contracts, told the workers of the military industrial complex to not show up at work some day, the number of unemployed would look like 1932 all over again.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. speaking metaphorically there, shoulda used quotes

they all know where it went. it went to their future bosses, partners, etc.

just a big old hideyhole/future bankroll/nestfeathering scheme. nobody wants to spoil anybody else's party for fear of getting their own pooped

[dysfunctional press]

3. we need to do a lot of the same things- close foreign bases, reduce unnecessary purchases, etc...

our defense budget is going to crush us. it CAN MUST be reduced.

too bad obama doesn't seem to think so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

...Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." ...

[Gabi Hayes]

10. what are you, crazy? this is ALL we have....we need MORE:

that's barely enough to fend off another attack by Grenada or Panama, si?

In The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson mentioned the existence of at least 725 known U.S. bases in 153 countries, besides hundreds more in this country. He also believes we have secret bases so the real total could be much higher and now likely is with all the new bases we're building in Iraq, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and plans for Africa.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QMEfFxAXOf0J:www.apfn.net/Messageboard/12-05-06/discussion.cgi.177.html+US+military+bases+around+the+world+177+chalmers+johnson&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

love the header at top of link:
Stephen Lendman
DU USED AS WEAPONS - A WILLFUL ACT OF GENOCIDE
Sun Nov 26, 2006 18:00

[Wiley50]

5. Bush has gone through many fifths and has reduced our armed forces greatly n/t

[Doctor Cynic]

9. In other news, the White Flag Factory is laying off 2000 workers.