SECRET
SECRET
129. Where the alternative approaches do not affect major
capabilities, the savings that would be achieved by their adoption
would be either minimal or non-existent and not worth the disruption
they would cause. However in those cases where the savings would
be such as to permit an attempt to make a change in strategic
emphasis by a substantial switch of resources, the consequences
would be serious. Major capabilities, already reduced below the
Critical level, would have to be abandoned in order to restore
others to an adequate level. Such major re-structuring would not
only unbalance the UK's contribution to the Alliance and its
strategy but would also aggravate the existing weaknesses in NATO
capabilities in those areas from which resources had been diverted.
Unless other members of the Alliance were to agree to make good the
resulting deficiencies, NATO capabilities and strategy would be
undermined. Such a major restructuring could be considered only
as part of an agreed and long term NATO rationalisation programme.
Rationalisation and specialisation are covered more fully in Annex 0.
130. Even from a purely national point of view, a substantial switch
of resources could not be recommended since it would involve the
abandonment of an element or elements of capability which could not
be re-created within the likely timescale of any possible change in
the threat.
131. In the equipment procurement area, it might be possible to
make a major cut-back in RD with a consequent increase in the
purchase of equipment from abroad. Such a measure would not cause
fundamental or direct damage to NATO's military capability, but
would harm collaborative projects, seriously affect industry,
76
SECRET
SECRET