|
|
Post by sword on Oct 24, 2022 14:20:30 GMT
Currently we spend about 2% of our entire GDP on "defence spending". Our economy is in crisis with the likelihood of severe spending cuts to the likes of health, education and welfare highly likely. Those services are all currently in crisis. The lesson of Ukraine is that the one "enemy" that appeared to pose a threat to the UK has turned out to be a paper tiger. They cant win a ground war against their neighbour. It is surely inconceivable that they could make their way across Europe to invade and conquer the UK. It is hard to think of another credible threat. Truss promised that defence spending would be increased to 3%. Wallace is still pushing for that. What are your views on how much we should spend on "defence" a) 1.5% b) 2% c) 3% d) some other figure Perhaps you should think before you type, why did Hitler invade his neighbours, simple he had the Military might to do so he had modern weapons and modern war planes fighting ships and submarines they did not, a well-armed nation is less likely to be attacked by another. We do not have a large standing Army, Navy or Airforce but we do have four Nuclear Subs which is our deterrent, why do you think Mad Dog Putin attacked the Ukraine, because they had disposed of their nuclear weapons, and he thought he could just roll his tanks right into Kyiv within days, if the Ukraine had joined Nato, he may not have invaded Ukraine As soon as we can we and can afford it we need to bolster up our defences and Armed Forces which will not be cheap, providing that Mad Dog Putin does not go nuclear before we can, he may start a World War that nobody can win, China is on the brink of invading Tiawan if they do the Yanks will come to their aid as will Nato Glad you mentioned Nazi Germany,did you know they were not even supposed to have an airforce or armed forces of any real value after WW1,now i wonder why they were allowed to create a state of the art armed forces before WW2? the answer won't be pretty. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 24, 2022 14:23:38 GMT
As they say ignorance is bliss, so no wonder you are so happy Dappy.
Feel free to ignore these facts on North Korean, they have been developing building and testing nuclear weapons for at least 20 years it is estimated that they have enough Fissile material to build about six or seven nuclear weapons every year.
The have been building and testing Missiles for years, only a few weeks ago they tested a long-range missile that landed in the Sea of Japan.
They also have a store of chemical and biological weapons
China has huge Military Capabilities
We do not have the capability to be the world's Policeman; we have not been since the end of WW2 and the British Empire ended
|
|
|
|
Post by sword on Oct 24, 2022 14:23:51 GMT
This forum just gets better by the minute.
Whyl whats wrong with having a substaial well trained TA to defefend this land against invasion look at Switzerland cant say they have a substiaial armed service especally during ww2 Because its not about defending this Country,its about business and projecting power against other Countries if recent history is anything to go by. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 24, 2022 15:21:27 GMT
Given that the world is getting more unstable by the day a rise in spending to 3% is long overdue.
The proviso is that everyone in MOD procurement is sacked and only experienced members of the military can make spending decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 24, 2022 15:41:29 GMT
As they say ignorance is bliss, so no wonder you are so happy Dappy. Feel free to ignore these facts on North Korean, they have been developing building and testing nuclear weapons for at least 20 years it is estimated that they have enough Fissile material to build about six or seven nuclear weapons every year. The have been building and testing Missiles for years, only a few weeks ago they tested a long-range missile that landed in the Sea of Japan. They also have a store of chemical and biological weapons China has huge Military Capabilities We do not have the capability to be the world's Policeman; we have not been since the end of WW2 and the British Empire ended I was waiting for you to get to your point. You never did. |
|
|
|
Post by sword on Oct 24, 2022 15:43:11 GMT
Given that the world is getting more unstable by the day a rise in spending to 3% is long overdue. The proviso is that everyone in MOD procurement is sacked and only experienced members of the military can make spending decisions. We are some of those making it unstable,do you have shares in British Aerospace LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 24, 2022 15:50:29 GMT
Given that the world is getting more unstable by the day a rise in spending to 3% is long overdue. The proviso is that everyone in MOD procurement is sacked and only experienced members of the military can make spending decisions. Yes, I agree |
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 24, 2022 15:55:30 GMT
Currently we spend about 2% of our entire GDP on "defence spending". Our economy is in crisis with the likelihood of severe spending cuts to the likes of health, education and welfare highly likely. Those services are all currently in crisis. The lesson of Ukraine is that the one "enemy" that appeared to pose a threat to the UK has turned out to be a paper tiger. They cant win a ground war against their neighbour. It is surely inconceivable that they could make their way across Europe to invade and conquer the UK. It is hard to think of another credible threat. Truss promised that defence spending would be increased to 3%. Wallace is still pushing for that. What are your views on how much we should spend on "defence" a) 1.5% b) 2% c) 3% d) some other figure I would keep defence spending as it is dappy but I would stop funding wars especially in Ukraine and push for talks there which means we don't send over billions in military aid which defacto boosts defence spending here in real terms as that money can go into our own stockpile instead. Defence should be for our borders only and our nuclear deterrent prevents the need to increase more defence spending in any case due to MAD. In fact sending arms to Ukraine actually is a bigger risk to our security as pushing Russia into a corner means they will take bigger risks which could push us into the conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 24, 2022 16:35:54 GMT
Currently we spend about 2% of our entire GDP on "defence spending". Our economy is in crisis with the likelihood of severe spending cuts to the likes of health, education and welfare highly likely. Those services are all currently in crisis. The lesson of Ukraine is that the one "enemy" that appeared to pose a threat to the UK has turned out to be a paper tiger. They cant win a ground war against their neighbour. It is surely inconceivable that they could make their way across Europe to invade and conquer the UK. It is hard to think of another credible threat. Truss promised that defence spending would be increased to 3%. Wallace is still pushing for that. What are your views on how much we should spend on "defence" a) 1.5% b) 2% c) 3% d) some other figure I would keep defence spending as it is dappy but I would stop funding wars especially in Ukraine and push for talks there which means we don't send over billions in military aid which defacto boosts defence spending here in real terms as that money can go into our own stockpile instead. Defence should be for our borders only and our nuclear deterrent prevents the need to increase more defence spending in any case due to MAD. In fact sending arms to Ukraine actually is a bigger risk to our security as pushing Russia into a corner means they will take bigger risks which could push us into the conflict. The point with Ukraine is that its better to stop Russian territorial expansion in Ukraine rather than try and stop it with NATO troops at the Suwałki Gap. |
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 24, 2022 17:02:21 GMT
I would keep defence spending as it is dappy but I would stop funding wars especially in Ukraine and push for talks there which means we don't send over billions in military aid which defacto boosts defence spending here in real terms as that money can go into our own stockpile instead. Defence should be for our borders only and our nuclear deterrent prevents the need to increase more defence spending in any case due to MAD. In fact sending arms to Ukraine actually is a bigger risk to our security as pushing Russia into a corner means they will take bigger risks which could push us into the conflict. The point with Ukraine is that its better to stop Russian territorial expansion in Ukraine rather than try and stop it with NATO troops at the Suwałki Gap. There is no point with Ukraine to the West but to burn up Russian artillery to such an extent that they cannot go further into Europe than the Donbass which now is the case. At some point Ukraine will be dumped like the Kurds were when the cost of arming them becomes unsustainable which for the UK at least may have been passed now. The truth is where the fighting is taking place has been in a civil war for the past eight years and rather than funding Ukraine into pushing Russia back further (if that is even possible once they have taken Kherson) we should be pushing for talks because the Ukrainians that are being affected by the fighting, many are Russian speakers who are pro Moscow along with those who are pro Keiv. Russia has indicated they are willing to talk so I don't understand why we aren't pushing that. This conflict can't be won on the battlefield given this is a war of heritage so the only ending that is possible under peace is a resolution. The quicker the West understand that, the better our economy will be. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 24, 2022 18:46:49 GMT
Given that the world is getting more unstable by the day a rise in spending to 3% is long overdue. The proviso is that everyone in MOD procurement is sacked and only experienced members of the military can make spending decisions. Yes, I agree  I guess you both have shares in Boeing, LockMart and BAE Systems (and others) who'd then have a licence to print (even more) money without proper constraint. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 24, 2022 19:00:04 GMT
No don't like planes or flying, but I do have shares in large companies
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 24, 2022 19:14:55 GMT
From about 1980 onwards the MoD (under Peter Levene) was stripped of so many of the professionals in its procurement divisions that knew a thing or five hundred about what to procure and what to look out for in offerings. So much power was transferred to the large Prime Contractors that could make fortunes out of changes as the neutered MoD kept asking for changes.
All part of a 'save £millions waste £Billions' fiasco. The MoD can never know years in advance what exactly it wants because the rile of MoD Procurement is to equip and support our fighting forces with equipment and services to counter ever developing and changing threats. MoD Procurement changes are inevitable and the MoD needs more not zero detail aware equipment experts to counter 'send money' change responses. Filling it with people from the forces would just be a recipe for 'oh just buy what we see the Yanks using' and the Yanks are very good at screwing customers for changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 24, 2022 21:03:24 GMT
The point with Ukraine is that its better to stop Russian territorial expansion in Ukraine rather than try and stop it with NATO troops at the Suwałki Gap. There is no point with Ukraine to the West but to burn up Russian artillery to such an extent that they cannot go further into Europe than the Donbass which now is the case. At some point Ukraine will be dumped like the Kurds were when the cost of arming them becomes unsustainable which for the UK at least may have been passed now. The truth is where the fighting is taking place has been in a civil war for the past eight years and rather than funding Ukraine into pushing Russia back further (if that is even possible once they have taken Kherson) we should be pushing for talks because the Ukrainians that are being affected by the fighting, many are Russian speakers who are pro Moscow along with those who are pro Keiv. Russia has indicated they are willing to talk so I don't understand why we aren't pushing that. This conflict can't be won on the battlefield given this is a war of heritage so the only ending that is possible under peace is a resolution. The quicker the West understand that, the better our economy will be. As far as authoritarian dictatorships are concerned Might is Right. Democracies must never allow themselves to become second best to such dictatorships. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 24, 2022 21:11:41 GMT
Are you suggesting you believe it is possible that China or Iran or North Korea will sail around the world and invade the UK? I don't think that is what is meant. Iran or NK may be able to get themselves into a position where they might use force backed by nuclear weapons in situations that could draw others into the conflict, 'if might is right' wins the day. |
|
