Democracies
Geostrategic Power - Instruments ..Spies, Lies, and Algorithms (2022) ..
Strongest Military - USA ..
Tools of Political Warfare ..
Strongest Military - USA ..
Tools of Political Warfare ..
Ruscia
Xina's Imperialistic Ambitions
Friday, July 31, 2020
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Air Ministry - Adastral House
After the formation of the Air Ministry in 1918, its headquarters was on Kingsway; one of two identical buildings opposite Bush House became Adastral House, the name being derived from the RAF motto. This remained the home of the Air Ministry through WW2, and the roof of the building in 1940 during The Blitz is where, while fire-watching, Arthur Harris, made the remark about the bombing to a companion, "Well, they are sowing the wind...".
Air Ministry and British aerospace industry ..
War Ministries WW2 ..
Secretaries of State for Air, 1919–1946
Winston Churchill - 10 January 1919 to 1 April 1921
Air Ministry and British aerospace industry ..
War Ministries WW2 ..
Secretaries of State for Air, 1919–1946
Winston Churchill - 10 January 1919 to 1 April 1921
Frederick Edward Guest - 1 April 1921 to 19 October 1922
Sir Samuel Hoare 31 October 1922 22 to January 1924
Christopher Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson 22 January 1924 to 3 November 1924
Christopher Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson 22 January 1924 to 3 November 1924
Sir Samuel Hoare 6 November 1924 to 4 June 1929
Christopher Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson 1929 5 October to 1930† (R101 disaster)
William Mackenzie, 1st Baron Amulree 14 October 1930 to 5 November 1931
Christopher Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson 1929 5 October to 1930† (R101 disaster)
William Mackenzie, 1st Baron Amulree 14 October 1930 to 5 November 1931
Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry 5 November 1931 to 7 June 1935
Philip Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Viscount Swinton 7 June 1935 to 16 May 1938
Sir Kingsley Wood 6 May 1938 to 3 April 1940
Sir Samuel Hoare, 3 April 1940 to 11 May 1940
Sir Archibald Sinclair 11 May 1940 to 23 May 1945
Philip Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Viscount Swinton 7 June 1935 to 16 May 1938
Sir Kingsley Wood 6 May 1938 to 3 April 1940
Sir Samuel Hoare, 3 April 1940 to 11 May 1940
Sir Archibald Sinclair 11 May 1940 to 23 May 1945
Harold Macmillan 25 May 1945 to 26 July 1945
William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate 3 August 1945 to 4 October
1946
William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate 3 August 1945 to 4 October
1946
Monday, July 27, 2020
British re-armament - 1934 to 1939
.
1934-1939 How Britain Prepared For WW2: Price Of Empire | War Stories > . 1938 Britain Manufactures Armaments (1938) - British Pathé > .
1931-1951 Britain's Preparation for War - RogersHx > .>> WW2 >>>History of the Second World War - Hx WW2 Podcast >> .
1931-1951 Britain's Preparation for War - RogersHx > .>> WW2 >>>History of the Second World War - Hx WW2 Podcast >> .
In British history re-armament covers the period between 1934 and 1939, when a substantial programme of re-arming the nation was undertaken.
After WW1, dubbed "the war to end all wars", Britain (along with many other nations) had wound down its military capability. The Ten Year Rule said that a "great war" was not expected in the next ten years; this policy was abandoned in 1932.
Germany was not considered a threat during the 1920s, but the situation changed radically when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and withdrew Germany from the League of Nations and the Geneva Disarmament conference.
In October 1933, when the failure of the Disarmament Conference was evident, a Defence Requirements Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed to examine the worst deficiencies of the armed forces. The group first considered the Far East, but soon looked at dangers nearer home.
Even in the mid-1930s the Royal Air Force's front-line fighters were biplanes, little different from those employed in World War I. The Re-Armament Programme enabled the RAF to acquire modern monoplanes, like the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, such that sufficient numbers were available to defend the UK in the Battle of Britain in 1940, during the early stages of World War II.
Re-armament also led to the Royal Navy acquiring five new battleships of the King George V class, and modernising existing battleships to varying extents. Whereas ships such as HMS Renown and HMS Warspite were completely modernised, others such as HMS Hood, the Nelson class, the Royal Sovereign class, HMS Barham, and HMS Repulse were largely unmodernised - lacking improvements to horizontal armour, large command towers and new machinery.
Equally importantly, aircraft carriers of the Illustrious class and a series of large cruiser classes were ordered and expedited.
The British Army was supplied with modern tanks and weapons e.g. howitzers, and the Royal Ordnance Factories were equipped to produce munitions on a large scale.
Government-backed "Shadow Factories", generally privately owned but subsidised by the government, were established to increase the capacity of private industry; some were also built by the government. Similarly Agency Factories supplemented the Royal Ordnance Factories.
After WW1, dubbed "the war to end all wars", Britain (along with many other nations) had wound down its military capability. The Ten Year Rule said that a "great war" was not expected in the next ten years; this policy was abandoned in 1932.
Germany was not considered a threat during the 1920s, but the situation changed radically when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and withdrew Germany from the League of Nations and the Geneva Disarmament conference.
In October 1933, when the failure of the Disarmament Conference was evident, a Defence Requirements Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed to examine the worst deficiencies of the armed forces. The group first considered the Far East, but soon looked at dangers nearer home.
Even in the mid-1930s the Royal Air Force's front-line fighters were biplanes, little different from those employed in World War I. The Re-Armament Programme enabled the RAF to acquire modern monoplanes, like the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, such that sufficient numbers were available to defend the UK in the Battle of Britain in 1940, during the early stages of World War II.
Re-armament also led to the Royal Navy acquiring five new battleships of the King George V class, and modernising existing battleships to varying extents. Whereas ships such as HMS Renown and HMS Warspite were completely modernised, others such as HMS Hood, the Nelson class, the Royal Sovereign class, HMS Barham, and HMS Repulse were largely unmodernised - lacking improvements to horizontal armour, large command towers and new machinery.
Equally importantly, aircraft carriers of the Illustrious class and a series of large cruiser classes were ordered and expedited.
The British Army was supplied with modern tanks and weapons e.g. howitzers, and the Royal Ordnance Factories were equipped to produce munitions on a large scale.
Government-backed "Shadow Factories", generally privately owned but subsidised by the government, were established to increase the capacity of private industry; some were also built by the government. Similarly Agency Factories supplemented the Royal Ordnance Factories.
Budgets (Military)
2021 Why Does the US Spend So Much On Defense? - CoCa > .
24-11-10 Ranking USA's Most Important Military Bases - Aaron Watson > .
24-9-8 Ruscian War Economy 2024: sanctions, inflation, mounting risks - Perun > .
24-8-13 Economics of War - CNBC I > .
24-5-14 USA+NATO: MIC & Strategic Power vs XIR - OBF > .
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
24-1-20 Can Ruscia win the military production race? - Anders > .
23-12-5 Most Dangerous [XIR] Moment: America’s Role in the Pacific | Hoover > .
23-10-28 Poland's military dream: A tank too far? - Geo Perspective > .
23-10-6 Poland orders US HIMARS & SK Chunmoo systems - Binkov > .
23-9-18 South Korean Factories Churning Out Armaments for NATO | WSJ > .
23-9-10 Industrial Competition & Consolidation, Military Procurement - Perun > .
23-9-5 Strategic Autonomy: Will Europe Ever Be Able to Defend Itself? | Waro > .
23-8-31 Poland: powerhouse in the making - Caspian > .
23-8-20 NATO's Rearmament & Spending - NATO's R-U Response - Perun > .
23-8-13 Game Theory Of Military Spending | EcEx > .
Why military aid to Ukraine has a positive effect on Western economies: In the short term, the increase in military spending due to the war in Ukraine has a stimulating effect on the GDP of the Western allies’ countries. This was reported by Ukrainian media, quoting the National Bank of Ukraine’s Inflation Report (July 2023). Various factors have been mentioned in the report.
According to the report, one US dollar spent by donor governments on military needs generates $0.79-0.87 of GDP in these countries within one to two years, and the overall positive effect does not disappear even after five years.
There are several additional positive effects for nations providing military aid to Ukraine, such as the possibility of sharing military experience, more efficient allocation of defence resources, a boost for arms exporters, and increased productivity due to additional investment in research and development.
23-7-31 Ruscia Cannibalizing Its Economy - Still Not Enough - gtbt > . skip > .
23-7-28 Why America Needs a Space Force - McBeth > .
23-7-25 Can Germany Really Become Europe's Great Military Power? - Waro > .
23-7-18 Futureproofing for changing threats; Defence Command Paper - Forces > .
23-7-9 How Wars End - Negotiations, Coercion, War Termination Theory - Perun > .
23-6-18 Procurement vs Efficacy - Requirements, R&D pitfalls - Perun > .
23-3-19 Britain's Shrinking Military - Cold War to Cash-Strapped Shadow - mfp > .
23-2-20 Military spending: UK may offer some insights - CNBC > .
23-1-26 Germany's military in dire state. Fix? | DW > .
23-1-22 Politics Can Destroy Armies: Factionalism & R-U War - Perun > .
23-1-13 No more doubts for the West | Ukraine weaponized (subs) - Katz > .
23-1-8 War Economies - Russia and Ukraine won't collapse tomorrow - Perun > .
22-11-27 Polish military modernisation & buying Korean kit - Perun > .
22-10-24 National Military Spending - Circles > .
22-10-5 US Military’s Massive Global Transportation System - Wendover > .
22-9-4 6 Months of Ukraine War - Economics, Endurance, Energy War - Perun > .
22-8-6 How Many BCTs can the US Army Form for a Large Scale War? - CoCa > .
22-7-22 Poland could become strongest land force in the EU - Binkov > .
22-7-21 How the economy of Russia is dying (English subtitles) - Максим Кац > .
22-12-29 German Rearmament: Is it going wrong? - mah > .
22-6-29 2022 adjusted MoD's Military Budget - UK > .
22-6-23 Germany's $100 Billion Military Upgrade - CaspianReport > .
22-6-19 Economics of war - Russia vs Ukraine - sanctions, shelling - Perun > .
22-5-11 Lend Lease 2.0 - Ukraine's 'Arsenal of Democracy?' - Perun > .
22-4-14 Lithuanian Army Ready For War? Task & Purpose > .
22-3-31 Germany: Where did the 100 billion go? - mah > .
22-3-30 How will Germany spend its massive €100 billion military budget? | DW > .
22-3-24 Ukraine's War Economy - Into Europe > .
22-3-14 How the Ukraine invasion drives military spending worldwide | DW > .
2022 Defense Budgets by Country 2022 - Military Spending - Mega 3D > .
21-12-25 Economics of War - Learn Economics > .
2022 Fort Bragg: Largest Military Base in the World - Megaprojects > . skip ad > .
24-3-6 EU Defense Union: How Far Should We Integrate? - Simple > . skip > .24-2-20 Why Europe is Reinstating Conscription - TLDR > .23-12-23 Future of EU Defense: NATO or the EU? (ft. UEF) - Simple > .
The DoD is prioritizing China as the top pacing priority, as it remains the only U.S. competitor able to combine its economic, diplomatic, military, and technologic power to mount a sustained challenge to the international system. The rapid development and operational focus of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constitutes a significant and long-term security threat to the United States and to our allies and partners. This threat is a consequence of nearly two decades of intense effort by China to modernize and reform the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and other forces into an increasingly capable joint force able to conduct the full range of military operations across every warfighting domain.
In addition to a significant buildup and modernization of its strategic forces, the PLA is advancing its capabilities and concepts for conducting information, cyber, space, and counterspace operations. China is also mobilizing vast resources to become a global leader in emerging technologies and is leveraging those advances in support of its military modernization.
1960-2020 Percentage of GDP going to Defense Budget - Stats > .
24-3-31 Global Arms Exports - Winners, losers, trends in race to rearm - Perun > .
24-1-24 Importance of 155mm shells - WSJ > .
> EuM - European Defense >> EU Army?
24-5-17 Poland Preparing for War - T&P > .
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
exercitus pecūnia - pro libertate >> .
00:00 - Intro (22-3-31)
00:45 - Topics of this video
01:33 - German F-35
05:37 - Defense planning announcement
07:09 - Germany's shopping list
11:36 - €100bn: Setup
13:49 - €100bn: Analysis
20:01 - Outro
exercitus pecūnia - pro libertate >> .
Geostrategic Projection
Funding NATO ..
On 22-3-1 Germany announced €100 billion for the Armed Forces and an increase to +2% GDP on military spending one month ago.
00:45 - Topics of this video
01:33 - German F-35
05:37 - Defense planning announcement
07:09 - Germany's shopping list
11:36 - €100bn: Setup
13:49 - €100bn: Analysis
20:01 - Outro
China has made clear that it expects the PLA to be a global military actor capable of securing China’s growing overseas interests and advancing other PRC objectives abroad. These changes are accompanied by aggressive and at times coercive activities that seek to expand the PRC’s military influence by forging closer ties with foreign militaries, developing overseas military bases, and expanding the PLA’s presence worldwide.
China’s robust military modernization activities have, in recent decades, sought to erode the ability of U.S. forces to project power in the region, and China has continued to accelerate the development of capabilities specifically designed to counter key U.S. strategic and operational advantages. The continued erosion of U.S. military advantages relative to China remains the most significant risk to U.S. security interests. If left unimpeded, this continued erosion could fundamentally challenge our ability to achieve U.S. defense objectives and to defend the sovereignty of our allies, the consequence of which would be to limit DoD’s ability to underpin other U.S. instruments of power.
According to the report, one US dollar spent by donor governments on military needs generates $0.79-0.87 of GDP in these countries within one to two years, and the overall positive effect does not disappear even after five years.
There are several additional positive effects for nations providing military aid to Ukraine, such as the possibility of sharing military experience, more efficient allocation of defence resources, a boost for arms exporters, and increased productivity due to additional investment in research and development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Krumblin Rubble 2025
. 24-11-21 [Ruscia’s Economy Krumblin: Sanctions, Stagflation, Instability] - UATV > . Ruscist Arms Industry 24-12-17 Russia’s Arms I...
