Gregg Smith:

*All policies come from the BNP website. I'm not making these up*

Defence
►Policy #1 - Strengthen our conventional forces;
Ok a good one considering the situation we're in at the minute with minimal turnaround between Tours and a shortage in troops. Currently the UK has a military of ~240,000 (Not including Reserves that number 195,000) of which:

• 39,000 are in the RN
• 112,000 are in the Army
• 43,000 are in the RAF

The Number has increased from 189,000 in 2006.

The BNP don't really expand on this policy (shock horror) So let's assume "Strengthening" means increasing manpower and equipment.

That means paying for more personnel, their training, food, uniform, accommodation and equipment. The military have a return of Service (compulsory service on completion of training) for the Navy it is about 2 years, simply because putting a person through the system costs a lot of money. Now the Economy section of the BNP makes no real mention of budgets for individual departments, but going off their other defence policies they will be saving some money by pulling out of operations. However this still won't cover the cost for multiplying the military. At the minute all new ratings (Non officers) go to HMS Raleigh in Torpoint, at this time for the waiting lists for Ratings go from 9 months to 30 months.

As for strengthening them through better equipment see Policy #2

►Policy#2 - Retain a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent and produce all our weaponry in Britain;
It's hard to see what they mean by Independent, there were reports in the papers over attempts by France to share the Deterrent but even an infant can see that wouldn't work. At the Minute the Deterrent is ran by the Royal Navy and the Trident system, and has a pretty effective fail-safe, should Brown lose the plot and want to Nuke the Sun Headquarters.
It could be argued that by independent they mean "home-made"

Firstly a British-made nuke;

Well we already have this and it isn't likely to change if trident does get replaced.  Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) is responsible for the design, manufacture and support of warheads for the United Kingdoms Nuclear deterrent.  AWE plc is responsible for the day-to-day operations of AWE. AWE plc is owned by the British Government and managed by Jacobs engineering group, LockheadMartinUK and Serco through AWE Management Ltd who hold a 25 year contract. Also let us not forget the many NATO bases that have the Early warning system WE will need.

On a more serious note the cost of the Trident system amounted to $14bn (adjusted for inflation original cost $9bn) and the Government has announced it will upgrade the Trident system to extend the life of the weapons.

As for British Made weapons, clearly just an extension of the "British Jobs" nonsense.
The Challenger 2 MBT is British, as is the AS90 Self Propelled gun. Our ships are made in Britain.
The BNP haven't quite grasped the idea of equipping soldiers. It's not about where it's from but it's about getting the best, our Missiles are all American because they're tried and tested and work. Our Fighter comes from a European consortium because it would be cheaper than getting a home grown plane designed and built and guess what? It's the best.
Our new vehicles are Italian, but again because they fit the criteria the MOD were looking for, and again worked out cheaper than getting BAE to design, build and test it. And knowing BAE it will be overpriced and overdue. (Apparently Front line troops in Afghanistan have just received their first shipment of BAE muskets ordered in 1780)

►Policy #3\#4
-Refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peacekeeping’ missions in parts of the world where no   British interests are at stake;
-Only commit British forces when British national interests are at stake;

A sound idea considering the situation in Afghanistan and what happened in Iraq. However this seems to be another "We hate brown people" message.

Peacekeeping is what stops 'peacekeeping' becoming 'having to go over there and kick arse'. It's there for a reason, and I really shouldn't have to explain why stopping peacekeeping is bad.

But I will say:
The reason the British Military is so good is because the training has come from 60 odd years of having to do 'peacekeeping'. It's what stops us turning into the US Military - 'good for a fight, piss poor for anything else'
As for 'British Interests' any event will inevitably harm British interests, be it an oil company in Nigeria or an engineering firm in Bosnia. Isolationism has been tried by many countries (including us) and in all occasions it has failed spectacularly.

All this talk of only interfering is an echo of the line "A quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing" said by Chamberlain on the Sudetenland crisis, and we know how that ended.

►Is It Viable?
Yes. But keeping our head in the sand means it's easier for something to bite you in the arse.

►Policy #5 - Preserve and restore our historic County Regiments;
The county regiments were an easy way to raise troops, you get them from a specific area and you don't have to waste time getting them to know each other, and is also a hanger on from when we had Scotland breathing down our necks and the French. The County regiments were amalgamated into more flexible units. But to be honest it's just a policy to hark back to the days of 'Queen Victoria and Michael Caine shooting a few '****' before breakfast. A pointless idea that will cost a lot and increase paperwork for the sake of tradition.

►Policy #6 - Bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since political developments make both commitments obsolete;
NATO was formed after WW2 to protect Europe from the Soviet Threat, It's also why there's a sizeable presence in Germany.
It could be argued that since Soviet Russia is no more and there's no imminent threat to Germany there's no reason to be there. However at the minute there is no place in the UK to house them. Also NATO was engaged in the Balklands and is in Afganistan now.

►Is It Viable?
Yes.

As a result of Policy #7 there will be plenty of space to stick the Germany forces back in the UK, although I think becoming a pariah state for going it alone with our Nukes means we won't bring them back, more like Dunkirk II: Electric Boogalloo.

As for NATO, It can be said that pulling out would work as there's no Soviets. However let's not forget it's more than a big organisation it's an actual military alliance. When New York was still on Fire NATO sat and said "Yes it's a deceleration of war, we're all in it so let's go" Hence you have all these other countries in Afghanistan. NATO whether they like it or not is relevant. Also even with a "strengthened conventional force" we would find it difficult to actually fight a well equipped enemy.

►Policy#7 - Close all foreign military bases on British soil;
Nice wording from our Nick. In reality they are not foreign bases, they are ours but we let them out to the US so they have somewhere closer to all the action. Although as I said with Policy 6, they will be abandoned once we go all Dr. Strangelove on the world. Currently the 'Bases' include RAF Mildenhall and RAF Menwith Hill (Vitally Important Intelligence facility Joint UK-US). In reality the number of bases is minuscule and are in the process of being scaled back.

►Is It Viable?
Given the BNP's other Foreign/Defence policies it would be a case of the US pulling out to avoid the cataclysmic s*itstorm that would head our way. Also seeing as the BNP are against the US/UK alliance.
The US will simply redeploy what is here to other bases in Europe. A minor inconvenience at most

►Policy#8 - Restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.
This is like something straight out of a certain right-wing daily paper. It's clearly tied in with policy #1 in strengthening our forces. However the idea is shouted down by the top soldiers. Many argue (mostly those who have done it or those who are too old to avoid the draft) that it will help straighten out the youth of today. Many other countries have a conscription style system in place, and in some it does work, although if implemented here it would be a victim of costing an arm and a leg. However in the event of a major war - who would you rather have on side; A group of motivated volunteers -or- a group of people who don't want to be there.

►And there we have it.
The BNP clearly have no idea what they're talking about on yet another issue of national importance. The BNP will essentially turn us into a rogue state with a massive Army, but with shoddy gear and a lot of very annoyed people.
The Economy would never be able to take the strain of these policies let alone ALL the policies.

I wouldn't trust these guys to run a toy army, let alone an armed army that are fighting Al Qaeda (which apparently Andrew Brons thinks doesn't exist). Give them a nuke.  Brilliant get ready to be invaded by the US.