Prime Minister David Cameron has stepped in to mediate between the Treasury -- which initially demanded defence cuts of up to 20 percent -- and military chiefs who warn that cuts over four percent could endanger national security.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has been another long-term opponent of heavy reductions -- in a leaked letter to Cameron last month, he warned of a fierce backlash if "draconian" cuts were made while Britain was at war in Afghanistan.

Even US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has weighed into the debate, saying she was worried by the prospect of defence cuts in Britain, the second-biggest supplier of foreign troops in Afghanistan after the US.

After Cameron's intervention, the 42 billion euro (59 billion dollar) defence budget now faces likely cuts of seven or eight percent in the defence review to be unveiled Monday and Tuesday ahead of Wednesday's overall spending review, the BBC reported.

This is likely to mean that plans for two new aircraft carriers will be followed through and modernisation of the Trident nuclear deterrent will go ahead.

Troop reductions in the army are likely to be deferred due to the unpopular war in Afghanistan, where there are around 10,000 British forces, second only to the US contingent.

But Cameron has said troops will be withdrawn from combat roles in Afghanistan by 2015.

Ahead of the big announcements, questions are being raised about what such reductions will mean for Britain's place in the world.

The country has a long military history of which many are still proud and some experts say this is under threat in future.

One compared the potential importance of the spending review to Britain's decision in the 1960s to pull out of bases in places like Malaysia, Singapore and Yemen, seen as an acknowledgement of the decline of Britain's empire.

"A moment of choice for British defence decision-makers as significant for its foreign policy as the decision to withdraw from east of Suez in the 1960s is fast approaching," said Malcolm Chalmers of defence think-tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Military chiefs have also voiced concern.

"There is no doubt that at least for a while, we will find it more difficult to do all the things we want to do," Sir David Richards, incoming head of the armed forces, said recently.

But others play such concerns down, saying that Britain is reconfiguring itself to become a more internationally engaged presence and that this role would not be affected by cuts.

"You can cut probably most of the tanks... the UK can cut its aircraft in half and still have a projecting capacity which remains pretty serious," Robin Niblett, director of international affairs think-tank Chatham House, told AFP.

He said the government wanted to "reposition the UK to be genuinely part of a G20 world" -- the group of nations which includes major powers as well as emerging nations.

"We cannot play in the same league ultimately as America, obviously, or China or even India," Niblett added.

One example of this is a France-Britain summit on November 2 when the two countries will discuss joint defence deals.

Whatever the realities, some Britons may find it hard to accept a reduced status for a country whose recent leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, have continued to see a leading role for the country on the world stage.

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News