Risk, Threat, Security - and Parliament
Jun 2008, Vol. 153, No. 3
By Hugh Berrington
Berrington responds to the article by Lord Salisbury and Gwyn Prins from the February 2008 RUSI Journal. ‘Risk, Threat and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom’, aroused widespread comment, much of it highly favourable. The argument is complex but essentially charges that there has been a failure of analysis which has led to ‘flabby and bogus strategic thinking’; this failure poses special dangers. The authors see this defect as more damaging to British security than the weakening of Britain’s armed forces, itself bad enough, caused by a decade ‘of over-use, under-funding and general under-provision’.
Add your comments
By Hugh Berrington
Berrington responds to the article by Lord Salisbury and Gwyn Prins from the February 2008 RUSI Journal. ‘Risk, Threat and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom’, aroused widespread comment, much of it highly favourable. The argument is complex but essentially charges that there has been a failure of analysis which has led to ‘flabby and bogus strategic thinking’; this failure poses special dangers. The authors see this defect as more damaging to British security than the weakening of Britain’s armed forces, itself bad enough, caused by a decade ‘of over-use, under-funding and general under-provision’.
You need 4 credits to access this item
If you are a member or registered user, please login
Not already a member and have not yet registered?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2008 RUSI