National security priorities: your say

Oor Wullie

3 main threats to Britain

1. Gordon Brown
2. Peter Mandelson
3. Harriet Harman

Rhoda Klapp

The political class. for doing away with democracy

The EU, ditto

Too much immigration with not enough assimilation. Fragmenting the nation.

This could be fun, I wonder what the rest will come up with.

strapworld

1. Muslim Fundementalism.
which is obvious.

2. The enemy within.
Muslim fundimentalists willing to fight for the Taliban against the UK and still live here. A true, trained, enemy within.

3. Uncontrolled immigration and lack of REAL border control.

We have no idea how many immigrants have entered the country/ how many illegal immigrants are here. This is changing the nature of towns and cities making them foreign lands! This cannot go on without some form of rejection by the White British.
A total disaster waiting to explode- ignored by politicians of all parties- save one!

Frankland Macdonald Wood

What are the three major threats to Britain as seen now?

A good question at any time.

Mass Immigration and the effect upon the homogeneity of the British Way of Life is prime to me. Britain is a far cry from the Post War victorious but financially ruined and grey land that I grew up in. That was a safer, nicer place with better values, better leadership and better aspirations. Getting back to basics as John Major rightly pointed out, is a prime need. A complete ban on immigration would be a helpful start.

Second cause for concern is Sound Money. If we can't trust our currency all else is as nothing. We must concern ourselves with efficiency, probity, honesty, saving and living inside our personal and national incomes. The fall in the value of Sterling and the massive drop in interset rates has been a savage tax on the old, the savers and expats. Concern for those in work and those who save should take precedence over non-contributors and borrowers.

Thirdly, I am concerned by the damage done by the Green lobby. I am quite unconvinced about climate change and other specious fashionable 'Green' nonsense. Most other countries are ignoring this or paying cynical lip service only. Britain is as usual the 'stupid country' taking it all seriously and doing massive damage to its economy and individual budgets because of, in essence', nothing'.

Hysteria

My top three would be

1 - Loss of nationhood and independence

2 - Islamic fundamentalism

3 - Global Warming - not that itself but the stupid policies enacted to deal with it !!!!!

Stop the coward from Kirkcaldy

For the next 10+ years, I'd predict the following:

1. Financial Bankruptcy
2. Islamic extremism / collapsing social cohesion
3. Dying democracy due to EU federalism and wilful Parliamentary emasculation of sovereignty

C

"But what do you think an updated UK National Security Strategy should say?"

I think you are asking the wrong question. The right question is: what are the current, emerging and potential threats to the UK; how much do we want to influence internationally; and what are our international responsibilities and interests?

If you start from a subjective premise then you will end up with a National Security structure that doesn't match the reality.

Nicholas

The unholy trinity:-

1. Subversive communists in government pursuing national socialist policies (Brown & Gang)
2. Subversive communists in the public sector (Common Purpose)
3. Subversive communists in the BBC

All our most deadly enemies are already inside the wire and running the war room. Have been for years. The external "threats" just provide them with the excuses they need to entrench themselves in power and in our lives.

Britain is China in reverse. A once liberal, free market economy whose government has adopted communist authoritarianism in its policies, actual and aspired.

Short the UK

1. Deep economic stagnation.

2. EU bureaucracy.

3. Russia.

These three impinge on democracy and economic security.

We were conned on Iraq and any halfwit can see that Afghanistan is a graveyard. Tony "the messiah" Blair thought history began with him, hence "our boys" are dying in vain.

Tiberius

1. Islamism, particularly because of the home-grown threat.

2. The Labour party, because of its proven tendency towards economic incompetence.

3. The ECHR, because of its divisiveness and stifling effect on our institutions.

Bryan

Failure of educational system. Dumbing down of educational standards in accordance with anti-elitist dogma has ensured our current and future generations cannot compete in world markets.

Mendacity of corporate and governmental bodies. Honest debate requires too much effort and understanding from the audience. Image is everything, and “core values” are no longer relevant.

Stalinist-style government. Attempted micromanagement of society has excused individuals of any sense of responsibility. Tick the boxes and fuck the outcomes.

Andy

1 Destroying the indigenous culture in favour of multiculturalism.
2 Open borders.
3 Political correctness.

1 It destroys social cohesion.
2 Nobody knows who's here or where.
3 Nobody can discuss the above problems.

emil

Anyone who watched Torchwood could see our security strategy in a nutshell.

The only question is how much tax, and loss of liberty, this lot will cost us this time.

Francis

1) The media - subversion of our political system and culture by giving the loudest voice to those who should be listened to the least, dangerous propaganda and the suppression of thought and debate.

2)Immigration - too many reasons to mention but including settling our enemies among us, destrcution of our environment, standard of living and social cohesion, not to mention the destruciton of the very nation itself, breaking the link between people, land and state that is implicit in the idea of the country of "Britain".

3)"David Cameron's Conservatives" - for failing to provide a meaningful alternative to Blairism and a real change in direction for the country, preferring instead the management of decline.

Jim

1. Financial Collapse
2. Collapse of our oil production
3. Our government

I'm not overly worried about immigration, when we suffer financial collapse a lot of immigrants will leave.
As it becomes clearer oil production is collapsing the remaining immigrants will be turned on, as the impoverished fight over a rapidly diminishing cake.
Then the government, as instead of relaxing regulation to encourage a creative response to our problems they are more likely to become more authoritarian, thus limiting our ability to adapt.

Edward Sutherland.

1.UK-based Islamist terrorists (As we've seen from 07/07, they're already here and have no loyalty to this country)
2.Uncontrolled mass immigration (It's changing this country out of all recognition)
3.Russia (Deeply undemocratic and with a stranglehold on European gas supplies).

9

Rhoda Klapp

Well, a kind of consensus. I can't think it will go down well with Mr. Korski.

I wish I'd added trans-nationalist busybodies, but one must prioritize.

4ntarctic

1 Labour for forcing us to take part in an unnecessary and immoral war.

2 Labour for letting our economy collapse.

3 Labour for letting our nation become socially dead.

Archie Wedderspoon

1. Mahometry
2. Socialism
3. The lack of will to do anything about 1 and 2.

RW

I must disagree with Oor Wullie.

The top three threats to Britain are:

1) Peter Mandelson.
2) Peter Mandelson.
3) Gordon Brown.

Chris Rose

1. Brussels
2. Militant Islam
3. Global warming hysteria

MartinW

1. Immigration
2. Islamic terrorism
3. EU

Major Plonquer

The three major threats to the UK are 'Brown-Balls-Mandelson" - which interestingly is a clever anagram 'Blown, Smells and Baron'

Victor NW Kent

It is hard to add anything to the points already made and the comment by Frankland MacDonald Wood is masterly.

It all comes down to resources. We waste too much money, we do not look after our water supply, our electrical generation grid will collapse within 10 years, we do not store much of our summer production of natural gas [we sell it off cheaply], uncontrolled immigration dilutes the resources of the NHS, police, schools, social services.

Apart from that we are engaged in a costly military adventure that we cannot afford, financially or politically, and that will leave us with mud on our faces.

David Bouvier

Lets step back and think about security...

Clearly there is a concern of domestic unrest arising from integration issues, political failure, and the risk of economic decline while self-indulgent welfare and regulatory policies persist. I worry about the guttering flame of liberty that here is so close to going out, and I worry about a collective inability to accept that we have to earn a living in the world. But this is an issue of political failure that requires a political solution - rather than a security priority. I don't want a security policy focussed on domestic oppression.

But lets not forget:

Russian imperialism, aggression, internal oppression, etc. They are actively seeking political power in Europe using all methods from control of resources to assasination, to direct military force. This requires policies on security as well as economy of supply of key internationally-traded commodities and products, but also reserve nuclear forces and an adequate conventional military force.

Nuclear proliferation amongst the fruit-loop states such as Iran, N. Korea, etc. Particularly given their apparent willingness to contemplate use, and potential links with terror networks.

Terrorism (Islamic, green or other) killing people or disrupting free activity, whether domestic or international. But need a smart response, not domestic oppression.

Michael Booth

"Policy Planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter..."
an unfortunate name considering her role, don't you think?

The Bellman

Soft threats:

1. Moral relativism in domestic and international policy that leads us to privilige airy socialist notions of 'progress' above clear national strategic interest. Hence domestic demographic collapse and dependence upon mass immigration.

2. Short-termism and the lack of fibre necessary to see things through to the end - characterised by this govt's obsession with the media cycle instead of the economic cycle.

3. The appalling absence of historical understanding and curiosity among those who presume to govern us, leading to bad laws and decisions; and their inability to make and sustain a convincing case to the electorate about the uses and consequences of military force.

Hard threats:
1. The links between organised crime and international terrorism.

2. Espionage - political, commercial/industrial, and cultural (the long march through the institutions of Marxians).

3. Russia - particularly in energy security terms, but also its perenial inability to distinguish between persuasion and coercion.

Andrew K

1) Scotland
2) Belgium
3) Rhyl

Arthur

Three main threats:

1. Immigration: destroying the political and cultural cohesion of the country which leads to the breakdown of order and consensus. This is already leading to conflict and it will get worse.

2. Dismantling of nation states: nation states are where people accept strangers because they are informed by the same political and cultural inheritance. This is essential for law, order and consensual government to endure. The EU is the main destroyer of the nation state.

3. Resource dependence on unstable parts of the world: we remain dependent for oil on the Middle East and gas in Russia. But we are also more and more dependent on other countries for food and other staple products. This makes us vulnerable.

William Pitt

1.Revolutionary France
2. The newly formed "United States"
3. Charles James Fox

Trevorsden

Priorities? 8 dead in one day show where our priorities ought to be

TrevorsDen

Let me add on from my earlier post.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda represent a significant terrorist threat. if their sphere of influence spreads to a nuclear Pakistan the threat becomes even more serious and unpredictable.

So the West needs to be in Afghanistan. But our government is failing badly in two key areas.
It is woefully bereft in securing the support of the wider nation and it (plus an inept MoD) is badly badly lacking in providing the means to physically prosecute the war (its not necessarily money - its lack of competence) and it is disgracefully lacking in will and competence in gaining the wider support of NATO and the EU.

The disgrace is not simply that our soldiers are dying (and some of them needlessly) it is the real danger that they will end up dying for no purpose.

John Smith

3 main threats:
1: David Cameron
2: Nigel Farage
3: Gordon Brown

Verity

Strapworld says, regarding mass immigration to our tiny country, "A total disaster waiting to explode- ignored by politicians of all parties- save one!"

Not ignored by all politicians, Strapworld. Created, deliberately and with malice and hatred, by the politicians in the socialist/Gramsci/Trotsky group.

Hysteria writes: "1 - Loss of nationhood and independence." It wasn't lost, Hysteria. It was deliberately given away by the socialists with hatred and spite.

Nicholas nails it totally in his three points.

And the three most dangerous people:

1. Tony Blair. He's still working under the radar.

2. Peter Mandelson.

3. David Cameron (if, by great ill fortune, he gets into office) for he will continue the policies, although they will be disguised, of the two above.

Most dangerous organisation: Common Purpose. If a real Conservative, i.e., not Cameron, gets in at the next election, Common Purpose has to have bright, bright lights shone on it. Ultimately, it should be probably be made illegal.

Neville

Er, the updated national security strategy was published more just over a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_security.aspx

Matt W

1) Economy - we must make UK really enterprising again to survive in the world and generate revenue.
2) Good governance - our systems in the UK are a muddle, inefficient, over centralised and bureaucratically target orientated.
3) Coherence - the UK needs to be more focused in terms of most people being united in purpose, values, education and direction.

NB without these all the other stuff about terrorism etc is just rubbish and of questionable importance anyway as there has always been foreign political instability, that is the norm.

Colin

1. Energy security:

Without it, we are in deep trouble. Having to rely on Russia and other potentially hostile states for our energy is a mistake.We should get cracking and build a modern, strategic nuclear generation capability.

2. Dormant, domestic terrorists:

As we have seen, a handful of determined, well motivated and malign individuals can inflict serious damage. Our inability to assimilate or, effectively infiltrate the communities that produce these people, intent on destroying our way of life, leaves us blind to the dangers that lie ahead. The combination of political stupidity and cowardliness has created a ticking time bomb.

3. Global population growth:

In 1959 the population of the planet was circa 2.5 billion. Today it is circa 7 billion. By 2050, it is predicted to be in the region of 9 billion. What this adds up to is mass population migration, from south to north and from east to west, as hundreds of millions of people seek a way out of poverty, hunger and harms way. Many of them will beat a path to our shores.

egh

1. Communism: the euSSR
2. Communism: the henchmen of the euSSR in Westminster and Education
3. Communism: the immigration policy of the euSSR.

Rhoda Klapp

The disconnect shows its ugly face again. The official document linked by Neville has really nothing in common with the vast majority of comments here. Are we all paranoid?

Personally, I'm not much worried by Islamic terrorism conig here from overseas. Firstly, our own terrorists seem to be a bigger danger, and secondly, the risk of the odd bomb or bullet is nothing like the threat to the country as a whole from creeping peaceful encroachment. Only the latter can really harm the nation.

The Huntsman

1. The EU and all its works
2. Socialism of any kind
3. Allowing our defence forces to be run down

Verity

egh writes:
1. Communism: the euSSR
2. Communism: the henchmen of the euSSR in Westminster and Education
3. Communism: the immigration policy of the euSSR.

I would add a fourth: Communism/One Worlderism: Common Purpose.

Ruairidh

This is tricky as I think that in some of the most threatening scenarios the UK has relatively little power to intervene. For example the most likely scenario leading to a nuclear armed AQ is the decent into failed status of Pakistan and the consequent loss of their nuclear weapons. Is this something we can counter with a UK National Security policy? Not really. In a similar vein Iran shows itself to be both highly unstable and on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. Can the UK expect to influence events? Not really. In both these examples an active and declared policy of intervention and influence would have precisely the opposite effect from that intended. There is also much mention of things which have a detrimental effect on the UK but are not in the homeland security and defence remit (eg national debt) so I’m going to rule them out as well. OK here goes:

1) The campaign against Al Qaida and Islamism; hunting down individuals and groups through international cooperation.
Al Qaida retains the ambition of launching mass casualty attacks against the UK. Since 2001 it has been on the back foot. It is depleted and under pressure but we need to maintain that. That means hunting down the groups and individuals wherever we find them through military means where appropriate and intelligence means everywhere else. This means dealing with unsavoury regimes along the way. Remember that the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers got their training and direction in Pakistan. That means we need to be shutting down terrorist organisations in Pakistan and working closely with the Pakistanis. An important angle here is that we do not cut our intelligence services off at the knees. David Davis’ accusations of ‘outsourcing’ torture have the potential (if you follow his logic) to lead to a system where MI5 and SIS are not allowed to liaise at all with a power that uses torture. As this includes every country with a Muslim majority such an outcome would be disastrous.

2) A policy of avoiding failed states and rebuilding those that have fallen.
An important reason for the relative (ie relative to their ambitions) failure of AQ since 9/11 to attack the west AQ has been its lack of a safe haven. Denied safe havens in its old haunts of Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan it is also now persecuted across the Muslim world. Left alone they would reform, rebuild and plan more attacks against the west. It is important that we maintain this pressure. That means providing help and advice to countries that want it so as to avoid more failed states but also being robust when AQ appears to have found a new home. (The US backed Ethiopian action in Somalia being a good example) This will be a tricky one because in cases like Iran and Pakistan they need to want our help before we can offer it and even then our involvement may be destabilising.

3) Rehabilitating big brother. Finding the security liberty equilibrium.
There is a fear around the UK public that this government has gone to far in its development of large databases and new powers. Some of these complaints are reasonable but others are not. Any new government will be under pressure to repeal and reject much of what Labour did. However they need to make sure they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example I think it is fair to say that ID cards should go along with bans on the right to protest but eBorders, IMP and the DNA database are crucial tools of our law enforcement and should be kept. I have confidence that the Tories have sensible instincts here but the danger is that they do not take the public with them and are then forced later on to cull critical programmes to keep loons like Mr Davis happy.

Rhoda Klapp

Well, how about that Champagne? So many similar entries, and most of them not PC at all. I certainly wouldn't nominate the official security review for a prize.

I think there IS a consensus for most of our threats being from within, one way or another.

On the other hand, one of Rhoda's most favourite principles is 'You don't see the one that gets you'. Our biggest threat is the one we haven't anticipated yet. We didn't see the banking collapse.
MPs didn't see the expenses scandal, or didn't rate it highly. What is it now, that the political class don't see, and therefore do not categorise as a threat?

Charles Turpin

3 main threats to Britain:
1. "Climate change" hysteria
2. The Labour Government
3. Gordon Brown

Rhoda Klapp

Well?

FJ Borky

1. The Dutch
2. Global Tepidity
3. Dangerously Unregulated Swarth

Colin

Who won then?