Alternate 80s Britain: How would the services cope?

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,642
Reaction score
5,537
Margaret Thatcher's defeat to Michael Foot in Britain's 1983 general election came as no surprise to television pundits.
Rising unemployment and failure to reduce inflation despite government cuts, including to the Armed Forces had made the public fed up and willing to try a new course.
Prime Minister Foot and his cabinet agreed that although Britain would remain in NATO, nuclear weapons would be removed from British soil and the nuclear Deterrent phased out over two years.
The Royal Navy argued that its nuclear submarines had detered an Argentine takeover of the Falklands in 1982 after the Chief of the Naval Staff had leaked to the Argentine Embassy in London that RN submarines were in the South Atlantic. Defence Secretary Nott asked for his immediate resignation. The Foot administration offered him his job back.
Although Michael Foot was a lifelong opponent of nuclear weapons he accepted the need for conventional forces. To reassure the US and NATO he appointed the veteran Denis Healey to his old job as Defence Secretary.
Healey was not surprised to learn that the Service chiefs were willing to see the back of nuclear weapons, as long as conventional alternatives were provided.
The Army asked for an additional Corps to reinforce British Army of the Rhine.
The RAF asked for new UK based fighters and SAMs to protect from Soviet Fencers and Floggers .
The RN asked for additional escorts to support NATO reinforcements across the Atlantic.
Foot was willing to meet these requests as they provided more jobs for UK industry and helped reduce unemployment.
US Defense Secretary Weinberger agreed to the withdrawal of F111 aircraft and the removal of SSBNs from Holy.Loch provided that the UK accepted additional conventional aircraft like F15 and A10 instead and provided additional ASW assets to NATO.
 
No Falklands War, means Nott remains in the MoD. His plan stands and is being implemented prior to the election.

Foot will be faced with an RN focusing on SSNs, the surface fleet heading for retirement or sale and Type 23 being just a TAS tug built to frigate standards.

Any change Foot could effect isn't going to start until 1984 at best.

Dismantling the Deterrent, is going to cost a fortune and take decades. No savings will accrue, and plenty of scope for scandalous disasters.

The strongest case for anything new is the Army tactical SAM requirement. Not Rapier, more likely a development of Sea Wolf.

The IW80 rifle program is likely to bumble along, but at least lacks the pressure to privatise the industry.
 
I cant see Foot keeping us in NATO. I'd see a more neutral stance. So we would end up more like Ireland, but with some old tanks, and old aircraft. As mentioned, all the costs of closing the bases etc, would be paid for from the defence budget. Sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviets, and voila, no more Army of the Rhine. More Foreign aid, so more landrovers.

Foot would invest in British Leyland, probably see an Alegro Rally car, and we would keep buying Golf's......

But maybe more money for education, and redevelopment - but would it have worked......
 
Back
Top Bottom