NHS cyber attack ..

BigLicks67

Most of the computers currently at use in my Trust look like they were found in a skip. Completely digitised patient records are the stuff of utopian dreams and we (fortunately, as it happens) still have hard copies/real patient files to use when the 1980's based network collapses. This is the problem with 2 party government, all decisions are based on short termism and the opportunism of both political parties.  

Fretwired

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS), was created within the Cabinet Office to act as a single public sector-wide purchasing and commercial operation. I doubt the contract renewal ever went across May or Hunt's respective desks.

According to Sarah Hurrell, commercial director for IT and telecoms at the CCS, the Microsoft XP extended support contract saved at least £20m, compared with individual departments negotiating their own deals. She said it made no sense for each organisation to pay separately to have access to the same security fixes, when each patch could be made available across the public sector to everyone who needs it.

"This allows us to have continuity for eligible public sector organisations as they migrate to other operating systems," she said.

One condition for any public sector body wishing to take advantage of the extended support is that they have a "robust plan" in place to move off Windows XP, Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 within a year.

"This is a 12-month breathing space," said Hurrell. "No one wants to be on an end-of-life infrastructure. We will make sure people have plans that stand up to scrutiny."

Microsoft said that the new deal should not mean that public sector bodies put off plans to migrate away from the older software products.

"Many organisations have made good progress in moving to a modern desktop operating system and have successfully mitigated the risk that running Windows XP will bring. However, some organisations will not have moved off Windows XP by 8 April (2014)," said a Microsoft spokeswoman. 

"We have made an agreement with the Crown Commercial Service to provide eligible UK public sector organisations with the ability to download security updates to Windows XP, Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 for one year until April 8 2015. Agreements such as these do not remove the need to move off Windows XP as soon as possible."

It's not like NHS organisations weren't warned. Many migrated, some didn't. Since the heads of these NHS Trusts earn massive salaries with gold plated pensions I want to see some heads rolling. It's to easy to blame the government when it now appears this is not a cash issue - Microsoft were offering free licences - apathy and incompetence spring to mind. It's 2017 FFS.

Drew_TNBD

Myranda said:

monquixote said:

Nitefly said:

I'm reminded of the Y2K fiasco...

Surely this is the opposite?

In that no one bothered to prepare, but the cost will be huge, rather than everyone prepared the shit out of things, but cost virtually nothing (in damages)?

Fretwired said:

Labour on the offensive:

Labour's five questions for Hunt over NHS cyber-attack

Labour has called on Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to outline the "immediate steps" the government is taking to improve NHS cyber-security.

In a letter to Mr Hunt, shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth says the incident "highlights the risk to data security within our modern health service and reinforces the need for cyber-security to be at the heart of government planning".

While condemning the criminals who carried out yesterday's attack that put patient well-being at risk, Mr Ashworth wants the government to respond to the following questions:

• Why NHS organisations failed to act on a critical note from Microsoft two months ago?
• What additional resources are being given to the NHS to bring the situation under control as soon as possible?
• What arrangements are currently in place to protect the NHS against cyber-attacks?
• Whether the government will launch a full, independent inquiry into the events of yesterday?
• What reassurance is there that patient data has not been accessed or compromised?

Apparently the reason Hunt has remained silent is the fact that cyber attacks come under the remit of the Home Office ... you couldn't make this up.

People in glass houses... Labour spent billions failing to upgrade the NHS computer system - so much wasted money that it's the number one example of IT project failures - estimates between £12 billion and £19 billion for a database - which was scrapped... (found a reference to £12 billion, and lectures at uni place it at "up to £19 billion" I don't have access to last years lecture notes so can't check if there's a reference)  

I mean, there will be people in the labour party now who were directly responsible for the worlds largest IT fuck-up so throwing rocks about this security fubar might dredge up the fact that had there not been billions thrown down the toilet there *might* have been plenty for upgrading systems so XP wasn't involved... or perhaps enough money to train staff at the NHS to not open every email attachment and click on every link... or both...

BURN THE TORY SYMPATHIZER!!!

bingefeller

BigLicks67 said:

Most of the computers currently at use in my Trust look like they were found in a skip. Completely digitised patient records are the stuff of utopian dreams and we (fortunately, as it happens) still have hard copies/real patient files to use when the 1980's based network collapses. This is the problem with 2 party government, all decisions are based on short termism and the opportunism of both political parties.  

I thought digitised records were standard across the uk?  We have had digital records since 2013.   

ArchtopDave

bingefeller said:

BigLicks67 said:

Most of the computers currently at use in my Trust look like they were found in a skip. Completely digitised patient records are the stuff of utopian dreams and we (fortunately, as it happens) still have hard copies/real patient files to use when the 1980's based network collapses. This is the problem with 2 party government, all decisions are based on short termism and the opportunism of both political parties.  

I thought digitised records were standard across the uk?  We have had digital records since 2013.   

@BigLicks67 is quite right. The guy in charge of my own Hospital's IT Department admitted some months ago that 80% of the Hospital's computers were over 6 years old. Mine has a very early Pentium Chip in it. 

Been to the Hospital this morning. The computer system is running, but everything apart from the two clinically related modules has been shut down as a precaution, so no access to e-mail, documents, etc. No good to me as I'd planned a paperwork day, so I've come home as I can at least do some of this work at home.

57Deluxe

Methinks this is the work of Kim Jong Un

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/161118_FT_north-korea-computer.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

Evilmags

Microsoft just put a very scathing statement regarding the US governments inability to hold on to its weapons ed software 

Fretwired

57Deluxe said:

Methinks this is the work of Kim Jong Un

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/161118_FT_north-korea-computer.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

I doubt it .. N Korea hasn't even upgraded to Windows XP yet .. they are still on Windows ME. Just look at that monitor.

BigLicks67

bingefeller said:

BigLicks67 said:

Most of the computers currently at use in my Trust look like they were found in a skip. Completely digitised patient records are the stuff of utopian dreams and we (fortunately, as it happens) still have hard copies/real patient files to use when the 1980's based network collapses. This is the problem with 2 party government, all decisions are based on short termism and the opportunism of both political parties.  

I thought digitised records were standard across the uk?  We have had digital records since 2013.   

Some Trusts have been outsourcing work to third party scanning companies to put historical patient data on the system, however, most just settle for inputting current notes as and when the patient attends hospital. So when I say the records are not completely digitised that's what I mean.

bingefeller

Fretwired said:

57Deluxe said:

Methinks this is the work of Kim Jong Un

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/161118_FT_north-korea-computer.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

I doubt it .. N Korea hasn't even upgraded to Windows XP yet .. they are still on Windows ME. Just look at that monitor.

lol @57Deluxe's joke came true.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4508736/North-Korea-global-cyber-hac.html

Who are you 57deluxe?  Who do you work for??!  Your employers fate will be decided upon your next actions.  

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

The problem is the contract - the main contractors continue to be paid years after the contract was terminated. Same thing with the aircraft carriers - it was too expensive to cancel them .. we have idiots negotiating contracts.

The carrier thing might have been on purpose.  When the TSR2 aircraft was cancelled the government didn't just cancel it but ordered the destruction of as much tooling, drawings etc. as they could to stop a future government restarting the program.  Doing the opposite, i.e. making the contract impossible to cancel, might make sense to whoever ordered them.

No - if I was being cruel I'd have said it was Brown as much of the work was carried out in his constituency. In reality its BAE - they have a hold over government (high quality British jobs) so the contracts usually have compensation clauses in the event of cancellation to ensure the workers aren't sacked etc.

Hang on - thats "yes" not "no".

It was on purpose.  It's nothing to do with idiots and everything to do with vested interests when the contracts are being drawn up.  BAE do have a hold over government because if we stop buying their ships, all their staff get sacked and we lose the ability to indigenously build warships, just like we lost the ability to indigenously build hi-tech fighters after the TSR2 cancellation and going off to try and buy the F-111.

I'm not picking holes in your argument to be funny, but I think its an important distinction, there is an argument for buying defense equipment we dont especially need to maintain the industry.  Its hard to justify the same thing with the massive global companies that were involved in NPFIT.

NPFIT was arguably idiotic, and very misguided.  The carriers are legitimate defense assets.  Not to mention we are likely to end up with two useable carriers out of it.

Myranda

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

The problem is the contract - the main contractors continue to be paid years after the contract was terminated. Same thing with the aircraft carriers - it was too expensive to cancel them .. we have idiots negotiating contracts.

The carrier thing might have been on purpose.  When the TSR2 aircraft was cancelled the government didn't just cancel it but ordered the destruction of as much tooling, drawings etc. as they could to stop a future government restarting the program.  Doing the opposite, i.e. making the contract impossible to cancel, might make sense to whoever ordered them.

No - if I was being cruel I'd have said it was Brown as much of the work was carried out in his constituency. In reality its BAE - they have a hold over government (high quality British jobs) so the contracts usually have compensation clauses in the event of cancellation to ensure the workers aren't sacked etc.

Hang on - thats "yes" not "no".

It was on purpose.  It's nothing to do with idiots and everything to do with vested interests when the contracts are being drawn up.  BAE do have a hold over government because if we stop buying their ships, all their staff get sacked and we lose the ability to indigenously build warships, just like we lost the ability to indigenously build hi-tech fighters after the TSR2 cancellation and going off to try and buy the F-111.

I'm not picking holes in your argument to be funny, but I think its an important distinction, there is an argument for buying defense equipment we dont especially need to maintain the industry.  Its hard to justify the same thing with the massive global companies that were involved in NPFIT.

NPFIT was arguably idiotic, and very misguided.  The carriers are legitimate defense assets.  Not to mention we are likely to end up with two useable carriers out of it.

Don't we end up with 1 plus some money, as the other is to be rented to the French?

darthed1981

Myranda said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

The problem is the contract - the main contractors continue to be paid years after the contract was terminated. Same thing with the aircraft carriers - it was too expensive to cancel them .. we have idiots negotiating contracts.

The carrier thing might have been on purpose.  When the TSR2 aircraft was cancelled the government didn't just cancel it but ordered the destruction of as much tooling, drawings etc. as they could to stop a future government restarting the program.  Doing the opposite, i.e. making the contract impossible to cancel, might make sense to whoever ordered them.

No - if I was being cruel I'd have said it was Brown as much of the work was carried out in his constituency. In reality its BAE - they have a hold over government (high quality British jobs) so the contracts usually have compensation clauses in the event of cancellation to ensure the workers aren't sacked etc.

Hang on - thats "yes" not "no".

It was on purpose.  It's nothing to do with idiots and everything to do with vested interests when the contracts are being drawn up.  BAE do have a hold over government because if we stop buying their ships, all their staff get sacked and we lose the ability to indigenously build warships, just like we lost the ability to indigenously build hi-tech fighters after the TSR2 cancellation and going off to try and buy the F-111.

I'm not picking holes in your argument to be funny, but I think its an important distinction, there is an argument for buying defense equipment we dont especially need to maintain the industry.  Its hard to justify the same thing with the massive global companies that were involved in NPFIT.

NPFIT was arguably idiotic, and very misguided.  The carriers are legitimate defense assets.  Not to mention we are likely to end up with two useable carriers out of it.

Don't we end up with 1 plus some money, as the other is to be rented to the French?

No, the French have their own carrier, the Charles De Gaulle, we are going to commission both as HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales.  The French carrier aircraft are not compatible with our carriers in any case.  Our carriers can support only F-35B and helicopters.

Practically speaking, warships are very highly strung, you need at least two if you want one available at all times as the other will be in refit or repair.  Only in times of great emergency (like a Falklands type situation) would we consider deploying both.

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

The problem is the contract - the main contractors continue to be paid years after the contract was terminated. Same thing with the aircraft carriers - it was too expensive to cancel them .. we have idiots negotiating contracts.

The carrier thing might have been on purpose.  When the TSR2 aircraft was cancelled the government didn't just cancel it but ordered the destruction of as much tooling, drawings etc. as they could to stop a future government restarting the program.  Doing the opposite, i.e. making the contract impossible to cancel, might make sense to whoever ordered them.

No - if I was being cruel I'd have said it was Brown as much of the work was carried out in his constituency. In reality its BAE - they have a hold over government (high quality British jobs) so the contracts usually have compensation clauses in the event of cancellation to ensure the workers aren't sacked etc.

Hang on - thats "yes" not "no".

It was on purpose.  It's nothing to do with idiots and everything to do with vested interests when the contracts are being drawn up.  BAE do have a hold over government because if we stop buying their ships, all their staff get sacked and we lose the ability to indigenously build warships, just like we lost the ability to indigenously build hi-tech fighters after the TSR2 cancellation and going off to try and buy the F-111.

I'm not picking holes in your argument to be funny, but I think its an important distinction, there is an argument for buying defense equipment we dont especially need to maintain the industry.  Its hard to justify the same thing with the massive global companies that were involved in NPFIT.

NPFIT was arguably idiotic, and very misguided.  The carriers are legitimate defense assets.  Not to mention we are likely to end up with two useable carriers out of it.

Two white elephants that may never sail to war (I think the Tories will sell at least one of them) as the navy doesn't have enough air defence or anti sub frigates to protect them. The F35B represents poor value for money - it doesn't have sufficient range or payload . Should have opted for digital catapults and the naval version of the F35A. The aircraft carriers had their armour removed to save money and a chunk of their defensive systems.

Another great British government/BAE cock-up in a long line of cock-ups in defence procurement.

Fretwired

Myranda said:

Don't we end up with 1 plus some money, as the other is to be rented to the French?

The French won't take one as they don't operate jump jets. The British carriers don't have catapults so the French Rafale jets can't use them.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

The problem is the contract - the main contractors continue to be paid years after the contract was terminated. Same thing with the aircraft carriers - it was too expensive to cancel them .. we have idiots negotiating contracts.

The carrier thing might have been on purpose.  When the TSR2 aircraft was cancelled the government didn't just cancel it but ordered the destruction of as much tooling, drawings etc. as they could to stop a future government restarting the program.  Doing the opposite, i.e. making the contract impossible to cancel, might make sense to whoever ordered them.

No - if I was being cruel I'd have said it was Brown as much of the work was carried out in his constituency. In reality its BAE - they have a hold over government (high quality British jobs) so the contracts usually have compensation clauses in the event of cancellation to ensure the workers aren't sacked etc.

Hang on - thats "yes" not "no".

It was on purpose.  It's nothing to do with idiots and everything to do with vested interests when the contracts are being drawn up.  BAE do have a hold over government because if we stop buying their ships, all their staff get sacked and we lose the ability to indigenously build warships, just like we lost the ability to indigenously build hi-tech fighters after the TSR2 cancellation and going off to try and buy the F-111.

I'm not picking holes in your argument to be funny, but I think its an important distinction, there is an argument for buying defense equipment we dont especially need to maintain the industry.  Its hard to justify the same thing with the massive global companies that were involved in NPFIT.

NPFIT was arguably idiotic, and very misguided.  The carriers are legitimate defense assets.  Not to mention we are likely to end up with two useable carriers out of it.

Two white elephants that may never sail to war (I think the Tories will sell at least one of them) as the navy doesn't have enough air defence or anti sub frigates to protect them. The F35B represents poor value for money - it doesn't have sufficient range or payload . Should have opted for digital catapults and the naval version of the F35A. The aircraft carriers had their armour removed to save money and a chunk of their defensive systems.

Another great British government/BAE cock-up in a long line of cock-ups in defence procurement.

See I'm sorry and I'm a lefty as well on some level, but that stuff just isn't true.

Hopefully the carriers will not sail to war, it would be nice to avoid one, but that doesn't inherently mean they aren't valuable.  Very few countries on the planet would go head-to-head with a Royal Navy task group with 24 F-35B on one of these, when in service properly, they will give us a capability second only to the US.

Yes, the RN does not have enough escort ships, but effective defense of a QE in a moderately hostile area would mean 1 T45 and two T23/26, plus probably one or two subs on patrol.  Certainly a chunk of the capability available at any one time.  The problem is really the other way around though, when your pricey assets are off protecting your mission-critical, who hunts pirates, smugglers and performs humanitarian work, and makes up the numbers in war?  This is the stated purpose of the T31 frigate, but I suspect they will still build a ship that is too expensive.  The RN really needs a class of cheap disposable frigates, but have been asked to keep their ships so long, they cant do what they used to and just use the old ones, because they all end up crocked.

The F-35C was considered, and in fact yes, there was an argument for cats and traps as it would mean you could pack out the air group with E2 and F-18G to add extra capabilities.  However those would involve off-the-shelf purchase of US gear, something that is considered politically unnacceptable as it supplies no "British jobs", unlike systems like Merlins with Crowsnest etc.

The new catapult systems are currently being tested on the new US carrier and is proving very troublesome, and STOVL carriers are much easier to commission and run.  F-35B is not as effective as F-35C pound for pound, but the US marines are happy enough with it.

I dont disagree defense procurement is inefficient and wasteful, but these are likely to end up very fine ships.  The new Astute class subs have apparently proven very effective when compared to the new US subs, the T23 frigates are regarded as very fine ships, and the T45 is a highly respected anti-air platform, dodgy engines notwithstanding.

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

See I'm sorry and I'm a lefty as well on some level, but that stuff just isn't true.

Hopefully the carriers will not sail to war, it would be nice to avoid one, but that doesn't inherently mean they aren't valuable.  Very few countries on the planet would go head-to-head with a Royal Navy task group with 24 F-35B on one of these, when in service properly, they will give us a capability second only to the US.

Yes, the RN does not have enough escort ships, but effective defense of a QE in a moderately hostile area would mean 1 T45 and two T23/26, plus probably one or two subs on patrol.  Certainly a chunk of the capability available at any one time.  The problem is really the other way around though, when your pricey assets are off protecting your mission-critical, who hunts pirates, smugglers and performs humanitarian work, and makes up the numbers in war?  This is the stated purpose of the T31 frigate, but I suspect they will still build a ship that is too expensive.  The RN really needs a class of cheap disposable frigates, but have been asked to keep their ships so long, they cant do what they used to and just use the old ones, because they all end up crocked.

The F-35C was considered, and in fact yes, there was an argument for cats and traps as it would mean you could pack out the air group with E2 and F-18G to add extra capabilities.  However those would involve off-the-shelf purchase of US gear, something that is considered politically unnacceptable as it supplies no "British jobs", unlike systems like Merlins with Crowsnest etc.

The new catapult systems are currently being tested on the new US carrier and is proving very troublesome, and STOVL carriers are much easier to commission and run.  F-35B is not as effective as F-35C pound for pound, but the US marines are happy enough with it.

I dont disagree defense procurement is inefficient and wasteful, but these are likely to end up very fine ships.  The new Astute class subs have apparently proven very effective when compared to the new US subs, the T23 frigates are regarded as very fine ships, and the T45 is a highly respected anti-air platform, dodgy engines notwithstanding.

What you're saying is they'd be fine for kicking the shit out of Johnny Foreigner in Syria who has no air defence or a navy but will be on a fast track to the bottom of the sea if we face Russia or China. We don't need aircraft carriers for Syria and we don't need a US style capability. In short we don't need aircraft carriers - its a vanity project.

The US and Russians/Indians are testing hypersonic missiles which could be in service by the early 2020s.  These things are interesting as modern radar can't track them, they can move randomly and the US navy is scared shitless as one hit from one will destroy any ship on the planet. They are also cheap so a 'swarm' attack will overwhelm a task group ..

https://www.rt.com/news/335993-russia-tests-hypersonic-missiles/

As for pirates you really don't need a multi-billion pound frigate - you could build something much cheaper that will do the job and carry a couple of Apache helicopters. As for humanitarian aid a frigate is useless. Just repurpose HMS Ocean with it's helicopters and medical bays.

As for waste the MoD bought Yeovil-assembled Apache helicopters at tripe the US export price just to preserve UK jobs - cost a fortune. I think all those jobs have pretty much gone now. And BAE doesn't make much - it screws money out of the government to preserve skills by repairing stuff.  And it sold its share in Airbus so all those highly skilled jobs making wings are slowly being relocated in other EU countries.

And the bits the UK makes for the F35 can go in any of them. Rolls Royce have the lift system for the jump jet - an expensive reason to go for jump jets just to protect jobs. And the US Marines have a different requirement from the Royal Navy.

Unfortunately, the pound has tanked against the dollar so lets see how many jets we actually get - that's if they ever work.

Evilmags

Don´fret, Jezza will defend us with vegetable patches. 

Fretwired

Evilmags said:

Don´fret, Jezza will defend us with vegetable patches. 

He might have to .. ships with engines that don't work in warm water, frigates and subs without missiles .. utter shambles.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

What you're saying is they'd be fine for kicking the shit out of Johnny Foreigner in Syria who has no air defence or a navy but will be on a fast track to the bottom of the sea if we face Russia or China. We don't need aircraft carriers for Syria and we don't need a US style capability. In short we don't need aircraft carriers - its a vanity project.

The US and Russians/Indians are testing hypersonic missiles which could be in service by the early 2020s.  These things are interesting as modern radar can't track them, they can move randomly and the US navy is scared shitless as one hit from one will destroy any ship on the planet. They are also cheap so a 'swarm' attack will overwhelm a task group ..

https://www.rt.com/news/335993-russia-tests-hypersonic-missiles/

As for pirates you really don't need a multi-billion pound frigate - you could build something much cheaper that will do the job and carry a couple of Apache helicopters. As for humanitarian aid a frigate is useless. Just repurpose HMS Ocean with it's helicopters and medical bays.

As for waste the MoD bought Yeovil-assembled Apache helicopters at tripe the US export price just to preserve UK jobs - cost a fortune. I think all those jobs have pretty much gone now. And BAE doesn't make much - it screws money out of the government to preserve skills by repairing stuff.  And it sold its share in Airbus so all those highly skilled jobs making wings are slowly being relocated in other EU countries.

And the bits the UK makes for the F35 can go in any of them. Rolls Royce have the lift system for the jump jet - an expensive reason to go for jump jets just to protect jobs. And the US Marines have a different requirement from the Royal Navy.

Unfortunately, the pound has tanked against the dollar so lets see how many jets we actually get - that's if they ever work.

1. We can't face Russia or China on our own in any case, so its not relevant.  As part of a large task group with other western ships, we could fight the Russians or Chinese.  There is also the middle ground of a country that has defense capabilities but which can be effectively opposed by a proportion of ours in their back yard, like Argentina in 1982.  Whether we need carriers or not is not a function of THESE carriers, but where you consider our position as a military power.  That's a bit out of scope?

2.  Yes, hypersonic missiles are a huge threat to large high-value ships, that is why they are being built.  At the same time we are modernising our missile systems so they can intercept high-velocity ballistic missiles, move and countermove, its just how military tech works.

3.  No you don't need a multi-billion pound frigate, like I said the T31 frigate is only a good idea if you keep them cheap.  If not, then we likely won't get as many of them as we probably need.  Between the T31 and the new patrol ships, hopefully the Navy can fill the gaps created by the CBG being deployed.

4.  Yes, but politically you stop spending that money and you lose the ability to build those things.  The argument to have chosen many years ago when there was still the option to double down and build everything ourselves like the French chose to is at least as strong as the argument to just buy off the shelf.

5.  The Royal Navy doesn't think the US Marines have a different requirement so why do you think they do?  Yes like I said there was actually a strong argument for CATOBAR, but it isnt what we have and like I said, the US Marines seem pretty happy with F-35.

6.  Well, ultimately the RAF and RN will probably want more than they get, but it depends on our level of international commitment.  There is as you said a level of vanity to it based on Trident, our permanent security council seat and the goodwill bought by WW2 and our significant international aid programs.  There is a political desire to "punch above our weight" and the ability to keep a carrier group on constant deployment sure sits with that.

I'm not sure we disagree that much on the details here, if you are saying that spending billions on miitary equipment when the NHS is struggling to keep its head above water doesn't seem right, well no, it doesn't. 

However I do believe that we have to either invest in keeping top tier military capability so we can go in alongside the US as a junior but very capable partner, or we dont but accept that means we lose our seat at the top table.