Increase Defence Spending

Original post by Dandaman1

Even though the UK spends 0.2% above the minimum 2%, it should ideally be spending closer to 3%. Not only is it one of the UK's biggest employers, but the British military plays a key role in global security and needs the budget to match

Unless you're counting all the tertiary things that work alongside the military but aren't really part of it, it's no longer that big. Barely 150,000 people. Most big supermarket chains employ more.

There also needs to be clearer guidance on what constitutes "defence spending". The UK only manages to spend more than its 2% by including the budget for the foreign and domestic intelligence services. There has been some debate about whether we could include defence pensions in the spending pot, which could result in a colossal spending cut if it was accepted.

Reply 4

Charzhino

If only a fraction of these billions were spent on space exploration and technology through cooperation not divisions.*

Reply 5

Original post by Charzhino

If only a fraction of these billions were spent on space exploration and technology through cooperation not divisions.*

Well. It is. The US currently spends about $8-10b a year on its space related projects. And that's not including NASA (who's budget is a further $20b).

Reply 6

Tempest II

16

Original post by Charzhino

If only a fraction of these billions were spent on space exploration and technology through cooperation not divisions.*

Plenty of individuals and groups out there would complain about that if it did happen. Greenpeace would probably tie themselves to the launchpad protesting how we shouldn't be wasting money on space exploration while there's poverty in the world.

I do think the government could spend more on Defence but they're going to be reluctant to raise taxes or take funding away from other areas such as welfare, healthcare, education
etc which could be potential vote winners/losers come the next election.

Reply 7

user73867

Original post by Dandaman1

x.

A military is no use unless you know what you want it to do. You also need to have the political will to deploy it.

I think the debacles of Afghan and Iraq have proven both of these points.

We have no coherent defence policy, beyond deploying special forces and bombing things. You don't need 60,000,000,000 quid to fly a few planes and send in special forces.

Reply 8

The problem is that most current military spending is targeted in a way which tackles the threats of the 20th century, not the 21st. We barely need protection against sovereign states any more; certainly, we don't need more than 2 or 3 states in NATO with a nuclear deterrent (though every member state should contribute financially). Military personnel are barely needed any more, and the Navy should be cut back pretty majorly as well. Then, without spending more, we can tackle the problems which actually exist in modern times.

Reply 9

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

The problem is that most current military spending is targeted in a way which tackles the threats of the 20th century, not the 21st. We barely need protection against sovereign states any more; certainly, we don't need more than 2 or 3 states in NATO with a nuclear deterrent (though every member state should contribute financially). Military personnel are barely needed any more, and the Navy should be cut back pretty majorly as well. Then, without spending more, we can tackle the problems which actually exist in modern times.

A few generalisations in there. You may argue that that's the case this second, but can you say that that will definitely be the case next year, or in 5/10+ years down the line?

You argue for cutting the Navy, but then what happens when our allies seek assistance from us on the very real security issue caused in the Med? What happens when we need to get close to a country to work out who's doing what and we don't have the cooperation of that Government, where do we base our aircraft?

You argue that personnel aren't needed, presumably because you think all the equipment that does anything is unmanned, but you ignore the fact that all those systems need looking after, repairing, upgrading, that the many sensors they have need their output analysing and understood. If personnel are so unimportant how is that every major (and, indeed, minor) conflict we've been involved in ever has only come close to resolution once we've put boots on the ground?

Nobody's saying the money couldn't be better spent, but sadly the one thing that nobody buy is an accurate crystal ball. If you'd like to loan the MoD yours I'm sure they'll accept.

Reply 10

Original post by Drewski

A few generalisations in there. You may argue that that's the case this second, but can you say that that will definitely be the case next year, or in 5/10+ years down the line?

You argue for cutting the Navy, but then what happens when our allies seek assistance from us on the very real security issue caused in the Med? What happens when we need to get close to a country to work out who's doing what and we don't have the cooperation of that Government, where do we base our aircraft?

You argue that personnel aren't needed, presumably because you think all the equipment that does anything is unmanned, but you ignore the fact that all those systems need looking after, repairing, upgrading, that the many sensors they have need their output analysing and understood. If personnel are so unimportant how is that every major (and, indeed, minor) conflict we've been involved in ever has only come close to resolution once we've put boots on the ground?

Nobody's saying the money couldn't be better spent, but sadly the one thing that nobody buy is an accurate crystal ball. If you'd like to loan the MoD yours I'm sure they'll accept.

I accept I can't perfectly predict the future. However, it's pretty much undeniable that there are some anachronisms in how the army is constructed. There's no need, for instance, for them to recruit thousands of 16-18 year olds with poor academic qualifications.

Reply 11

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

I accept I can't perfectly predict the future. However, it's pretty much undeniable that there are some anachronisms in how the army is constructed. There's no need, for instance, for them to recruit thousands of 16-18 year olds with poor academic qualifications.

Firstly, the number is barely 1000, let alone "thousands", so do try to do some research if you're going to moan about something.
Secondly, they're not recruited because they have poor academics, however unlike the rest of the world of work, poor academics aren't something that can (or should) prevent someone from doing something. Those that do join with poor academics invariably go on to pass higher qualifications putting them at least on par with their peers.
Third, while people are allowed in under the age of 18 they're not allowed to do anything other than train. They're not even allowed to leave the UK on exercise.

It's their choice, they have to get parental permission to join and they can leave at any time.

The extreme few that are in barely cost the army any money, so in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty silly thing to get caught up on.

Reply 12

Original post by Drewski

Firstly, the number is barely 1000, let alone "thousands", so do try to do some research if you're going to moan about something.
Secondly, they're not recruited because they have poor academics, however unlike the rest of the world of work, poor academics aren't something that can (or should) prevent someone from doing something. Those that do join with poor academics invariably go on to pass higher qualifications putting them at least on par with their peers.
Third, while people are allowed in under the age of 18 they're not allowed to do anything other than train. They're not even allowed to leave the UK on exercise.

It's their choice, they have to get parental permission to join and they can leave at any time.

The extreme few that are in barely cost the army any money, so in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty silly thing to get caught up on.

That's just one single anachronism I'm pointing to. If anything is a waste, it's worth getting caught up on.

And the point about 'poor academics' isn't saying 'this is why they're recruited' - it's to say that they're increasingly unsuitable for the military needs of the country.

Reply 13

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

That's just one single anachronism I'm pointing to. If anything is a waste, it's worth getting caught up on.

And the point about 'poor academics' isn't saying 'this is why they're recruited' - it's to say that they're increasingly unsuitable for the military needs of the country.

Except they're not. I don't know what you're basing that on. Nobody does things at school that makes them particularly suitable to being a pilot, but they're pretty useful. Virtually nobody joins the forces as a fully trained engineer or mechanic, yet we have a few thousand of them and they're pretty handy.

Those guys who get in with "the poor academics" join to do a specific job and they're jobs that are necessary and needed. What's the alternative?

Reply 14

user73867

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

And the point about 'poor academics' isn't saying 'this is why they're recruited' - it's to say that they're increasingly unsuitable for the military needs of the country.

Are they?

I look around at lads who didn't do much in school but are quite willing to sacrifice for their country (Not just their lives, but being treated badly, ordered about, being away from their families for months on end etc)

Similarly, most of the people I went to school with are now self-serving Oxbridge graduates in London or with decent prospects at good companies. If any of them did join the military, they wouldn't consider going in without a commission.

One thing the military does do very well is make a scruffy 16 year old into a professional with discipline and respect.

I don't deny the military roles are getting increasingly more technical, and rightly so. There's no need to be snobby about it, however.

SS

Reply 15

Original post by Supersaps

Are they?

I look around at lads who didn't do much in school but are quite willing to sacrifice for their country (Not just their lives, but being treated badly, ordered about, being away from their families for months on end etc)

Similarly, most of the people I went to school with are now self-serving Oxbridge graduates in London or with decent prospects at good companies. If any of them did join the military, they wouldn't consider going in without a commission.

One thing the military does do very well is make a scruffy 16 year old into a professional with discipline and respect.

I don't deny the military roles are getting increasingly more technical, and rightly so. There's no need to be snobby about it, however.

SS

In what sense is what I've said snobbery? My point is merely that I suspect we currently over-employ people in this category due to the slow speed of change of any military policy, and we should therefore shift away from it.

Reply 16

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

In what sense is what I've said snobbery? My point is merely that I suspect we currently over-employ people in this category due to the slow speed of change of any military policy, and we should therefore shift away from it.

And what category is it they're fulfilling that you think we don't need?

Reply 17

Original post by Drewski

And what category is it they're fulfilling that you think we don't need?

Ground forces.

Reply 18

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

Ground forces.

So "the army", all 80,000 of them? Made redundant in one move?

Again, completely ignoring the fact that no conflict on earth has ever been solved without them.

Do you have a background in the forces or any concept or understanding of what it is they actually do?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 19