Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T02:19:42.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United Kingdom National Security and Defence Dependence: The Technological Dimension*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Martin Edmonds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

AS RECENT EXPERIENCE IN THE GULF WAR HAS AGAIN confirmed, dependence on foreign supply of military equipment and munitions can lead to an alarming vulnerability. At risk are the national armed forces and their effective prosecution of combat, and since in any military engagement, the place, dimensions, duration, and intensity of battle are not necessarily of their choosing, a second level of salience is added to this risk. A key lesson of the Falklands and Gulf wars, arguably the two most technologically intensive wars to date, is that modern weapons depend crucially on a comprehensive array of logistic support and its timely delivery and reliability.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1991 , pp. 427 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Frankland, N., ‘Bombing: the RAF case’ in Pitt, B. (ed.), The Second World War, Vol. 6, No. 2, London, Purnell, p. 2271 Google Scholar.

2 ‘The Secret History of the War; 1, The Black Hole’, Newsweek International, 18 March 1991, pp. 19–20.

3 Committee of Enquiry into the aircraft industry, The Plowden Report, House of Commons, Cmnd 2853, 1964–5.

4 Kolodjiez, E., The Making and Marketing of Arms, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1987, Chapter 3, pp. 135–209 Google Scholar.

5 Costello, R., Bolstering Defense Industrial Competitiveness: Preserving our Heritage, Washington DC, Department of Defense, 07 1988, pp. 13–23 Google Scholar.

6 Catrina, Christian, Arms Transfers and Defendence, London, Taylor & Francis, 1988, pp. 307–15Google Scholar.

7 Smith, Dan, The Defence of the Realm in the 1980s, London, Groom Helm, 1980, pp. 149–50Google Scholar.

8 Baylis, John, ‘The evolution of British defence policy’ in Edmonds, M. (ed.), The Defence Equation, London, Brassey’s, 1986, pp. 19–33 Google Scholar.

9 Durrell-Young, Thomas, ‘The “Old Dominions” and their policies of defence independence’, Defense Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 74–5Google Scholar. See also references to subcommittees (a) – (d) in ABCA Standardisation Programme., Washington, 1987.

10 Edmonds, Martin, ‘International collaboration in weapons procurement: the Anglo-French case’, International Affairs, 04 1967, p. 256 Google Scholar.

11 Matthew Uttley, ‘British helicopter production 1945–1960: a case study of technology transfer and market dominance’, Science and Public Policy, August 1991.

12 Snyder, William P., The Politics of British Defence Policy, Ohio, Benn, 1964, p. 27 Google Scholar.

13 Salmon, Trevor C., ‘Britain’s nuclear deterrent force: changing environment’ in Edmonds, M. (ed.), The Defence Equation, London, Brasseys, p. 52 Google Scholar.

14 Dillon, G. M., Dependence and Deterrence, London, Gower, 1983, pp. 162–3Google Scholar.

15 Wood, Derek, Project Cancelled, London, Macdonald, 1975, pp. 149–224 Google Scholar.

16 Wilson, Andrew, The Concorde fiasco, London, Penguin, 1973, pp. 31–2Google Scholar.

17 Edmonds, Martin, ‘International military equipment procurement partnerships: the basic issues’ in Edmonds, M. (ed.), International Arms Procurement, New York, Pergamon, 1981, pp. 13–14 Google Scholar.

18 Basujz, William, ‘Multiple actors, multiple objectives’ in Edmonds, M. (ed.), ibid, pp. 195–205 Google Scholar.

19 Broadbent, Sir Ewan, The Military and Government, London, Macmillan, 1988, pp. 45–6Google Scholar.

20 ibid., p. 169.

21 Stewart, M., ‘Defence procurement in Britain’, Royal United Services Institution Journal for Defence Studies, Winter 1988, pp. 43–5Google Scholar; also, Stewart, M., ‘Future defence needs: the new challenges for the defence industry’, RUSI Journal, Summer 1990, p. 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 IEPG, Towards a Stronger Europe, Brussels, 1986. Also, IEPR Gleneagles Communique on EUCLID defence research programme initiatives, 1989.

23 Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Defence R & D: A National Resource, London, HMSO, 1989, p. 30.

24 Defence Research Agency, Framework Document, London, MOD, 1991, p. 2. See also Gummett, P., Edmonds, M., Hartley, K. and Walker, W., Future Relations Between Defence and Civil Science and Technology (The POST Report), London, SPSG, 1991, Chapter 3, para. 5 Google Scholar.

25 For example, Gummett, Philip, ‘Defence’ in Longman Guide to World Science and Technology, London, Longmans, 1991 (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

26 General Accounting Office, Industrial Base: Significance of DOD’s Foreign Dependence, Report GAO/NSIAD-91–93, Washington DC, USGPO, January, 1991, p. 4.

27 Edmonds, M., Hayhurst, G. and Uttley, M., ‘Defence-critical technology, dependence and civil conversion: the challenge to the UK technological base’ (mimeo), Lancaster University, Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, 1990, p. 9 Google Scholar.

28 Carnegie Commission on Science Technology and Government, New Thinking and American Defense Technology, New York, Carnegie Corporation, August 1990.