| U.K. Defence or lack of it 09:28 - Dec 17 with 3888 views | Churchman |
Next year sometime will be the latest Strategic Defence Review. The third in four years. In the meantime, no planning, no interest just cuts. The latest rumour is that the two aircraft carriers will be sold one way or another and/or cuts elsewhere on top of cuts already announced. Attached is a paper by a couple of professors which makes interesting reading:
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/v8media/research/policy/UK_defence_review_2025_Plus_%C3
It mentions that Trump might insist that NATO countries increase spending on defence. Clearly the U.K. has no intention whatsoever in doing that. Cuts and more cuts. It isn’t the slightest bit interested in defence and hasn’t been for decades. Their actions and yet another review show that.
So the question is if Trump issues an ultimatum (which I’d do if I was him - the US spends.3.4% GDP on it), should the U.K. ignore him, the threats in the world and hope for the best, do what it ought to be doing and providing defence for itself or turn over defence to Mr Putin or that caring Chinese bloke? |  | | |  |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 09:51 - Dec 17 with 2509 views | Blueschev |
It's just bluster from Trump. The US doesn't invest in NATO out of the kindness of it's heart, they do it to ensure they remain at the top of the tree.
Why do we need to spend more on defence? We already spend a fortune to continue to delude ourselves that we're a world power. |  | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:10 - Dec 17 with 2447 views | DJR |
For context, European defence spending in 2023 was £430 billion (around 2% of GDP).
https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-western-and-central-eur
In contrast, the Russian budget for 2025, which was published on Sunday, allocates about $126 billion (13.5 trillion rubles) to national defence – amounting to 32.5% of government spending.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/01/russian-defence-spending-rises-to-
In the unlikely event of Trump leaving NATO (and thus not being bound by the obligation to defend), maybe this just points to better integration and specialisation of national European forces. But talk in this country of a European army causes a backlash.
At the end of the day, however, the UK can't do it all on its own, and it needs to realise it is not the global power it once was. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 10:11]
|  | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:14 - Dec 17 with 2427 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 09:51 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
It's just bluster from Trump. The US doesn't invest in NATO out of the kindness of it's heart, they do it to ensure they remain at the top of the tree.
Why do we need to spend more on defence? We already spend a fortune to continue to delude ourselves that we're a world power. |
I don’t think you will find anyone in this country that thinks we are a ‘world power’. That ended by 1945 and even Churchill recognised the UKs waning influence in the world back then.
This is really about whether or not we need defence against external threats, whether we try to continue leeching off the Americans who are going for isolation or whether we spend sufficient to protect our own interests.
Do we need to be aware of Russia and China influence? Is that a myth? Is Ukraine Russia-lite so who cares? Should we adopt Appeasement and save the money as they did in the 1930s? Just thoughts but ones that surely underpin any review, even pointless ones like next years.
I read your response as abandon spending on defence, use the money on other things and hope for the best. An opinion shared by many in and out of government. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:16 - Dec 17 with 2426 views | Guthrum |
There's also the matter of what the UK is spending its defence budgets on.
Do we really need giant aircraft carriers (topped with extremely expensive manned 'planes) for anything other than prestige purposes? Or are we better off spending the money on advanced drone development, cyber warfare and the like?
Britain has been unable to defend itself alone since the Napoleonic Wars - arguably not even then, given the reliance on subsidising foreign armies to distract Napoleon. Is it even feasible to attempt being self-sufficient now, while not trashing the economy?
We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783 (that didn't end well) and are unlikely to be doing so in the near future. Even if Trump pulls out of NATO*, others will construct a replacement together (e.g. the EU). It's in everybody's interest. The two superpowers and Russia might be able to go it alone, but doubtful even then. Modern technological war is just so expensive, doubly so without forward bases.
As regards boots on the ground, what is mostly needed are special forces, technicians and peacekeepers. Fewer people, but more highly trained. If the British Army is involved in trench fighting much west of the Curzon Line, we're already stuffed.
The suggestions are that UK defence spending will be maintained, with maybe a marginal increase. It's just more likely to be spent on other stuff.
* Unlikely on rational grounds, but entirely possible in a fit of pique. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:22 - Dec 17 with 2383 views | DJR |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 09:51 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
It's just bluster from Trump. The US doesn't invest in NATO out of the kindness of it's heart, they do it to ensure they remain at the top of the tree.
Why do we need to spend more on defence? We already spend a fortune to continue to delude ourselves that we're a world power. |
Trump is generally all over the place, and I think there is an element of deliberation with this, as well as his being Quixotic.
Take Tik Tok which he tried to ban when President. It now looks like he has had second thoughts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo
At a press conference on Monday, Trump said his administration would "take a look at TikTok".
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points," he said.
"There are those that say that TikTok has something to do with that. TikTok had an impact."
A majority of 18 to 29-year-olds backed Trump's Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris, in November, but the vote did see a significant swing towards Trump among young voters since the 2020 election.
Trump only joined TikTok in June, but gained millions of followers on the platform over the course of the campaign. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:25 - Dec 17 with 2361 views | BlueBadger |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:22 - Dec 17 by DJR |
Trump is generally all over the place, and I think there is an element of deliberation with this, as well as his being Quixotic.
Take Tik Tok which he tried to ban when President. It now looks like he has had second thoughts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo
At a press conference on Monday, Trump said his administration would "take a look at TikTok".
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points," he said.
"There are those that say that TikTok has something to do with that. TikTok had an impact."
A majority of 18 to 29-year-olds backed Trump's Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris, in November, but the vote did see a significant swing towards Trump among young voters since the 2020 election.
Trump only joined TikTok in June, but gained millions of followers on the platform over the course of the campaign. |
Pure coincidence c of course that TikTok is now THE app for spreading conspiracy böllocks and misinformation, of course. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:25 - Dec 17 with 2363 views | Radlett_blue |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:16 - Dec 17 by Guthrum |
There's also the matter of what the UK is spending its defence budgets on.
Do we really need giant aircraft carriers (topped with extremely expensive manned 'planes) for anything other than prestige purposes? Or are we better off spending the money on advanced drone development, cyber warfare and the like?
Britain has been unable to defend itself alone since the Napoleonic Wars - arguably not even then, given the reliance on subsidising foreign armies to distract Napoleon. Is it even feasible to attempt being self-sufficient now, while not trashing the economy?
We haven't fought a major war alone since 1783 (that didn't end well) and are unlikely to be doing so in the near future. Even if Trump pulls out of NATO*, others will construct a replacement together (e.g. the EU). It's in everybody's interest. The two superpowers and Russia might be able to go it alone, but doubtful even then. Modern technological war is just so expensive, doubly so without forward bases.
As regards boots on the ground, what is mostly needed are special forces, technicians and peacekeepers. Fewer people, but more highly trained. If the British Army is involved in trench fighting much west of the Curzon Line, we're already stuffed.
The suggestions are that UK defence spending will be maintained, with maybe a marginal increase. It's just more likely to be spent on other stuff.
* Unlikely on rational grounds, but entirely possible in a fit of pique. |
The aircraft carriers were a ridiculous vanity project, especially because we couldn't afford the planes or the support ships. Their only conceivable use would be for us to add numbers & some political legitimacy to one of the US's many ill-advised foreign incursions. I don't think we should spend MORE on defence - it's fairly non-productive & we already have one of the larger defence budgets in the world, but we should spend it better, on drones, cyber warfare etc &if selling the white elephant carriers is part of that, so much the better. The point of NATO is to stand up to local bullies like Putin & Trump is right that if NATO is to remain effective, the like of Germany & France need to spend more, but that won't be popular with voters as the money has to come from cuts elsewhere or higher taxes. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:29 - Dec 17 with 2345 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:10 - Dec 17 by DJR |
For context, European defence spending in 2023 was £430 billion (around 2% of GDP).
https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-western-and-central-eur
In contrast, the Russian budget for 2025, which was published on Sunday, allocates about $126 billion (13.5 trillion rubles) to national defence – amounting to 32.5% of government spending.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/01/russian-defence-spending-rises-to-
In the unlikely event of Trump leaving NATO (and thus not being bound by the obligation to defend), maybe this just points to better integration and specialisation of national European forces. But talk in this country of a European army causes a backlash.
At the end of the day, however, the UK can't do it all on its own, and it needs to realise it is not the global power it once was. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 10:11]
|
Nobody in this country beyond that bog rag the daily express or outside it sees us as a global power. The hollowing out of U.K. defence for decades alone proves that. We spend 2.3% GDP, but have parasite-like relied totally on the US for years. Not as much as the likes of Germany who hid behind their constitution but even so those days are coming to an end.
There will be no European army. Nobody is interested any more than anyone would accept what’s left of our army (about one functioning Division with no transport) risking their lives for Poland or anywhere else.
The EU talks about it, but nah, won’t happen. As soon as Putin gets what he wants, the Germans and Italians will be scuttling to the Kremlin for cheap oil and the last thing they’ll be interested in is defence.
The question remains, do we abandon defence as they probably will and put the £53bn to better use while hoping for the best or not. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 11:32 - Dec 17 with 2262 views | Swansea_Blue |
Just stick Burgess in there. Job done.
It's hard to justify defense spending on conventional weapons and equipment like aircraft carriers when the public purse is being stretched imo. What gives? NHS, policing, judiciary - they're all knackered too.
Edit - I see Guthers has already addressed the point about aircraft carriers. I nearly mentioned cyber threats. There has been quite a lot of noise in the media recently about how underprepared we are. It was a huge issue at work. It's surprising where these threats target sometimes. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 11:34]
|  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:07 - Dec 17 with 2144 views | NthQldITFC |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 11:32 - Dec 17 by Swansea_Blue |
Just stick Burgess in there. Job done.
It's hard to justify defense spending on conventional weapons and equipment like aircraft carriers when the public purse is being stretched imo. What gives? NHS, policing, judiciary - they're all knackered too.
Edit - I see Guthers has already addressed the point about aircraft carriers. I nearly mentioned cyber threats. There has been quite a lot of noise in the media recently about how underprepared we are. It was a huge issue at work. It's surprising where these threats target sometimes. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 11:34]
|
Cyber warfare, drones, special forces, intelligence, small but efficient professional land forces ready for quick deployment plus a well-trained reserve (National Service maybe?), nuclear subs with medium/long range missiles which don't require a massive flotilla to keep them anything like safe - these, Shirley, are the sensible investments, not the vanity projects.
But is it so relatively expensive to defend a country these days simply because the military-industrial complex is infinitely more highly geared as an industrial-privateMoneyGrabbing complex, full of government-sponsored, public money-stripping wanchors? Basically, like everything else. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:20 - Dec 17 with 2116 views | giant_stow |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:07 - Dec 17 by NthQldITFC |
Cyber warfare, drones, special forces, intelligence, small but efficient professional land forces ready for quick deployment plus a well-trained reserve (National Service maybe?), nuclear subs with medium/long range missiles which don't require a massive flotilla to keep them anything like safe - these, Shirley, are the sensible investments, not the vanity projects.
But is it so relatively expensive to defend a country these days simply because the military-industrial complex is infinitely more highly geared as an industrial-privateMoneyGrabbing complex, full of government-sponsored, public money-stripping wanchors? Basically, like everything else. |
Re your last para, it feels like it costs us more to put together armed forces than other countries. We have one of the biggest defense budgets in the world, so where does it all go?
Can just be the aircraft carriers - are we still paying for all officers' kids to go to private school?
Edit: re the wider point of security provision, it seems things are coming to a head - I'd rather prepare for that, than ignore it and hope for the best. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 13:22]
|  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:33 - Dec 17 with 2073 views | BlueBadger |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:20 - Dec 17 by giant_stow |
Re your last para, it feels like it costs us more to put together armed forces than other countries. We have one of the biggest defense budgets in the world, so where does it all go?
Can just be the aircraft carriers - are we still paying for all officers' kids to go to private school?
Edit: re the wider point of security provision, it seems things are coming to a head - I'd rather prepare for that, than ignore it and hope for the best. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 13:22]
|
Recruitment for the past few years has been handled by Crapita, who have over charged and under delivered. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:36 - Dec 17 with 2067 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:20 - Dec 17 by giant_stow |
Re your last para, it feels like it costs us more to put together armed forces than other countries. We have one of the biggest defense budgets in the world, so where does it all go?
Can just be the aircraft carriers - are we still paying for all officers' kids to go to private school?
Edit: re the wider point of security provision, it seems things are coming to a head - I'd rather prepare for that, than ignore it and hope for the best. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 13:22]
|
The breakdown is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660d4b5197e60600112b2218/MOD_Defe
I think you are against the majority on here and of course the current and previous governments that don’t see it as a priority and are in the hope for the best camp. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:36 - Dec 17 with 2066 views | NthQldITFC |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:33 - Dec 17 by BlueBadger |
Recruitment for the past few years has been handled by Crapita, who have over charged and under delivered. |
Privatisation sucks. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:37 - Dec 17 with 2070 views | Blueschev |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:07 - Dec 17 by NthQldITFC |
Cyber warfare, drones, special forces, intelligence, small but efficient professional land forces ready for quick deployment plus a well-trained reserve (National Service maybe?), nuclear subs with medium/long range missiles which don't require a massive flotilla to keep them anything like safe - these, Shirley, are the sensible investments, not the vanity projects.
But is it so relatively expensive to defend a country these days simply because the military-industrial complex is infinitely more highly geared as an industrial-privateMoneyGrabbing complex, full of government-sponsored, public money-stripping wanchors? Basically, like everything else. |
Isn't our nuclear capability the biggest vanity project of all? I can't see how it does anything other than to make us far less safe. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:44 - Dec 17 with 2049 views | chicoazul |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:07 - Dec 17 by NthQldITFC |
Cyber warfare, drones, special forces, intelligence, small but efficient professional land forces ready for quick deployment plus a well-trained reserve (National Service maybe?), nuclear subs with medium/long range missiles which don't require a massive flotilla to keep them anything like safe - these, Shirley, are the sensible investments, not the vanity projects.
But is it so relatively expensive to defend a country these days simply because the military-industrial complex is infinitely more highly geared as an industrial-privateMoneyGrabbing complex, full of government-sponsored, public money-stripping wanchors? Basically, like everything else. |
Have you researched the carbon costs of armies similar to how you describe? If not you should. |  |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:49 - Dec 17 with 2036 views | Guthrum |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:37 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
Isn't our nuclear capability the biggest vanity project of all? I can't see how it does anything other than to make us far less safe. |
Not sure it does make us any less safe. Should anyone wish to try a nuclear strike at the UK, we can respond, the deterrence is theoretically there. Plus it does underpin our seat at the high table in terms of the UN Security Council. No longer being a nuclear armed power would jeopardise that position.
Tho it's questionable how independent the UK's nuclear force really is, being reliant upon American missiles and warheads. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:49 - Dec 17 with 2034 views | BlueBadger |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:37 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
Isn't our nuclear capability the biggest vanity project of all? I can't see how it does anything other than to make us far less safe. |
Innit. The military equivalent of a BMW on the drive and sod all in the fridge. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:50 - Dec 17 with 2034 views | Churchman |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:37 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
Isn't our nuclear capability the biggest vanity project of all? I can't see how it does anything other than to make us far less safe. |
Not in my view. You cannot de-invent something like that.
For the record, Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for guarantees by US, U.K. and Russia. Where did it get them? Do you think Putin might have had second thoughts if Ukraine had retained that capability? I do.
Trusting to the good nature of dictators has never once delivered a good outcome. Retaining a deterrent is the best chance of keeping them at bay in my view.
Edit: your argument is exactly the same as that used in the 1930s by the appeasement/disarmament lobby right up to 1939. Didn’t end so well. [Post edited 17 Dec 2024 14:20]
| | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:08 - Dec 17 with 2011 views | NthQldITFC |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:44 - Dec 17 by chicoazul |
Have you researched the carbon costs of armies similar to how you describe? If not you should. |
Good point. | |
| |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:34 - Dec 17 with 1961 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 13:37 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
Isn't our nuclear capability the biggest vanity project of all? I can't see how it does anything other than to make us far less safe. |
Does it, or did it prevent all our conventional war in the Cold War. It’s also meant all Putin’s nuclear sabre rattling is merely hollow. Imagine a world where only sociopaths like Putin had access to nuclear weapons. The problem for me with complete pacifism, is it neglects to aknowledge that some people are just ‘inherently bad’. Some people just want to watch the world burn…Interested how you came to the conclusion it makes us more UNSAFE?
I do agree with your point that US hegemony is reliant on NATO and allies (especially with the manpower and improving technology at China’s disposal. Trump isn’t (yet) a dictator and not a chance the political class or corporate America would accept their withdrawal. I’m not sure why people take the rumblings of trump, a man who changes opinions by the hour seriously. Biden is barely cognisant- proof the President doesn’t really run the US. |  | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:46 - Dec 17 with 1940 views | Blueschev |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:34 - Dec 17 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Does it, or did it prevent all our conventional war in the Cold War. It’s also meant all Putin’s nuclear sabre rattling is merely hollow. Imagine a world where only sociopaths like Putin had access to nuclear weapons. The problem for me with complete pacifism, is it neglects to aknowledge that some people are just ‘inherently bad’. Some people just want to watch the world burn…Interested how you came to the conclusion it makes us more UNSAFE?
I do agree with your point that US hegemony is reliant on NATO and allies (especially with the manpower and improving technology at China’s disposal. Trump isn’t (yet) a dictator and not a chance the political class or corporate America would accept their withdrawal. I’m not sure why people take the rumblings of trump, a man who changes opinions by the hour seriously. Biden is barely cognisant- proof the President doesn’t really run the US. |
I believe they make us less safe as they make the UK a strategic target in the event of a major conflict between the US and another major power (most likely China). I agree that there are world actors that are 'inherently bad', however they are rarely if ever inherently irrational. And other than a strategic blow to the US I don't see any rationale for a major military act of aggression against the UK, and in my opinion our nuclear weapons make that more likely rather than less. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:06 - Dec 17 with 1871 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 14:46 - Dec 17 by Blueschev |
I believe they make us less safe as they make the UK a strategic target in the event of a major conflict between the US and another major power (most likely China). I agree that there are world actors that are 'inherently bad', however they are rarely if ever inherently irrational. And other than a strategic blow to the US I don't see any rationale for a major military act of aggression against the UK, and in my opinion our nuclear weapons make that more likely rather than less. |
I guess it’s a game of opinions at this point, but I just don’t see how that holds up in reality. China and Russia attack us daily (in hybrid warfare), I fail to see how removing our nukes makes more conventional attacks less likely. Not a chance Russia would have invaded a nuclear armed Ukraine (because to your point these bad actors are bad, but largely not mad).
In terms of strategic rationale, there would be the chance to cripple our infrastructure (energy/transport/communications) as Russia are doing in Ukraine, as well as economic warfare. This isn’t just a Russia v US thing - we’re in a new Cold War era of liberal democracy v authoritarianism. | | | |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 16:32 - Dec 17 with 1844 views | DJR |
| U.K. Defence or lack of it on 10:25 - Dec 17 by BlueBadger |
Pure coincidence c of course that TikTok is now THE app for spreading conspiracy böllocks and misinformation, of course. |
And the fact that Trump appears now to be supporting Tik Tok, indicates his "transactional", as opposed to principled, nature. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
