Why isn't Britain spending more on defence?

Do you think we should introduce press gangs as well toom all of these?

Why?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Good idea! Then we can Trafalgar the Russian and Chinese navies.

We should really have at least three carriers and about 40-50 frigates and destroyers along with about 5 guided missile cruisers.

To restore the Pax Britannia.

Naval warfare has got very technologically driven. The navy's cirrently struggling to Tecruit.

They should stop refusing to admit shortsighted people then.

Whaaaaaaaaa! And where is the money to construct and run those ships going to come from?

You got any change in your pocket?

Raise taxes and cut public spending in other areas.

But as I asked before. To what end?

For what reason do you want to cut spending on Education, Healthcare, Social Security, Infrastructure in order to fund a military expansion? What is the aim of this military expansion? And would the cost to the economy be worth it?

Because we are led by populists who follow public opinion rather than representatives who act based on informed consent. We also have too many people who think that Britain must relegate itself to being a minor power.

Got to agree on that, we can't sustain a massive naval force like we have done in the past, especially considering the manpower costs of a larger navy.

Higher levels of automation and changes since Future Reserves 2020 mean labour costs in the next decade should come down somewhat, however we risk trading full time skilled personnel for a part time semi-skilled force which may reduce the abilities of our vessels in combat and humanitarian situations.

I'd say a tad more spending on reserve training wouldn't go a miss.

Why don't we have them then? Instead of wasting money on the JSF?

The British military as it is could still easily hold its own against Russia. Our troops are better trained, better equipped and more experienced. We are also part of the greatest international alliance the world has ever seen.

Considering the billions that we're spending on the Trident programme alone, I think it's difficult to claim that we're not spending enough as it is.

With regards to ISIS, I think it would take either a catastrophic terrorist attack (9/11, etc) or a massive territorial gains for ISIS before NATO would increase the levels of response.

If Russia violated the sovereignty of a NATO member state I think we would see NATO take severe action.

Short term spending cuts to try balance to the budget without thought of the implications it will have on long term British strategic capability.

To be fair though once the new Queen Elizabeth carriers are launched, that along with the RAF and Trident is more than enough to ensure our security. However our ability to help global partners is being severely hampered by the defence cuts. The days of the UK being able to contribute to two international tasks forces like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is long over.

We should really have at least three carriers and about 40-50 frigates and destroyers along with about 5 guided missile cruisers.

So we can deal with ISIS and Putin when no one else has the balls to.

Is this what's happened though? Or is it that the UK simply can't afford both a Trident missile system and conventional weapons any more, at least, not in the way it used to? Even the Tories seem to think so, so it can hardly be a matter of pandering to populism.

Trident is a staggeringly vast waste of money, but what is that compared to keeping the US defence industry sweet (they make most of the money on it) and the Security Council seat? I joke of course. The whole concept of the Security Council is a nonsense and to maintain the absurd fantasy that we are somehow a great power even sillier.

Then there's NATO - which of course lost its purpose immediately the Cold War ended, yet strangely, stuck around. Nothing to do with the need to maintain all those weapons sales and industries. And of course, seeking to exploit Russia's difficulties with Ukraine and make out that Putin wants to start WWIII is also nothing at all to do with boosting arms production or the Generals seeking to re-energise their budgets.

So we can deal with ISIS and Putin when no one else has the balls to.

Apparently we can't defend ourselves and yet none of the politicians want to talk about defence. Even the tories want another round of defence cuts after the election and yet the general consensus is that we have cut back much too far already.

Is this what's happened though? Or is it that the UK simply can't afford both a Trident missile system and conventional weapons any more, at least, not in the way it used to? Even the Tories seem to think so, so it can hardly be a matter of pandering to populism.

Trident is a staggeringly vast waste of money, but what is that compared to keeping the US defence industry sweet (they make most of the money on it) and the Security Council seat? I joke of course. The whole concept of the Security Council is a nonsense and to maintain the absurd fantasy that we are somehow a great power even sillier.

Then there's NATO - which of course lost its purpose immediately the Cold War ended, yet strangely, stuck around. Nothing to do with the need to maintain all those weapons sales and industries. And of course, seeking to exploit Russia's difficulties with Ukraine and make out that Putin wants to start WWIII is also nothing at all to do with boosting arms production or the Generals seeking to re-energise their budgets.

But the French have nukes so therefore Britain must also.

Numbers are the problem on the ground. At air and sea a UK-France combination would crush Russia.

100,000 full time army of which 30,000 should be special forces.