Turn on thread page Beta

UK military spending. Up or down? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Spend more or less?
    More
    63
    77.78%
    Less
    18
    22.22%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Question for you all. Would you like to see UK military spending increase or decrease?

    Give reasons for your answer and if you would like the UK to spend less, what would you spend the extra money on?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Considerin how high our commitments are, increase, no doubt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Considerin how high our commitments are, increase, no doubt.
    Do you have an argument against simple stopping these commitments and THEN spending less?

    Are you in favour of maintaining our current level or military 'might', hence requiring approx £34 billion to maintain. Or if our commitments stop (and we return to the relative peace before 9/11) are you in favour of spending far less?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    We can't just stop commitments; they're commitments.


    We didn't have relative peace before 9/11, and I don't believe that if we pull out, we will see any decrease in international terrorism (in fact I believe the opposite). I also think if we pulled out it would be a terrible blow to (a) our USA relationship and (b) our credibility.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We cannot presume that if we drop our current commitments, we will have no need for a military. The price of maintenance is much lower than the cost of inability, I should think.

    In comparison with the majority of the Government's budget, military spending is a very good use of the taxpayers money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    John !!, I was not trying to suggest we simply stop out commitment. We are at war atm so cutting funding is off the table.

    But say we finished in both Iraq and Afganistan next month, would you be for increasing or decreasing our overal defence spending?

    I am trying to see if people think the money can be better spent. Maybe someone thinks we should spend £30 billion on getting the Arab world on side instead of bombing? Maybe someone thinks we need to double the size of the fleet.

    that sort of stuff.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    While it would be great if we could get rid of our military, while the world remains even slightly unpredictable it is a necessary evil. Reducing in size across the board is counter-productive as there is a certain critical mass required to remain effective. The funny thing is that in cash terms, Britain has the second biggest defence allocation in the world. Henceforth, I don't really think that it should be decreased, but the money should be pumped into the areas of the military that are more important and require better funding than they do currently.

    The highest priority item, in my opinion, is to acknowledge and pressure the UK government to acknowledge that Britain is not in the "first strike" business, and that it has no enemy capable of a warlike action for which a submarine-launched ICBM with a nuclear warhead is the correct response.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    First strike capability will be handled by the new CVF carriers, F-35's and the new Astute subs, within the next 15years the UK will have a top notch first strike capability. Which is nice.

    However its important to remember that these projects are funded outside of the normal budget (they are an addition to the normal funding per year).

    There is also an argument that you can develop a cheap military that can threaten, and strike but does not have an invasion/occupation capacity. This would be far cheaper (no tanks and a much smaller infantry base). Basically the CVF's, the current fleet for the navy and more (and longer range) bombers.

    "Hay Mr Iran, not doing what we say? Bye bye goes all your power plants and water works then"
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Our main problem seems to be recruits, not funding.

    Also, Varsity: I fear it would take a bribe far larger than even the combined GDP of the entire Western world to get the Arab world "on side".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno, we do ok with Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi.

    We would get allot of people onside by sorting Palatine as well.

    Recruitment isn't that much of a problem, especially because there is VERY nasty campaign going on in Iraq. once we pull out the army will get its numbers back up easy enough.

    Seems most people so far are in favor of spending what we do, if not more. I find this suprising.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    I dunno, we do ok with Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi.

    We would get allot of people onside by sorting Palatine as well.

    Recruitment isn't that much of a problem, especially because there is VERY nasty campaign going on in Iraq. once we pull out the army will get its numbers back up easy enough.

    Seems most people so far are in favor of spending what we do, if not more. I find this suprising.

    Its not surprising we get on with Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, because these countries have the black gold that civilisation is dependent on. Id be willing to bet it takes a fair while for recruitment to spring back up since people have memories, and there have been many indications by many politicians that the UK is going to be that kind of interventionist force in the future.

    Im in favour of more spending simply for the benefit of the guys on the ground. Theyre doing a difficult job and no matter how you look at it theyre normally getting the **** end of the stick.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    Do you have an argument against simple stopping these commitments and THEN spending less?

    Are you in favour of maintaining our current level or military 'might', hence requiring approx £34 billion to maintain. Or if our commitments stop (and we return to the relative peace before 9/11) are you in favour of spending far less?
    I don't think we were spending far less before 9/11
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    I dunno, we do ok with Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi.
    Yes and no. Their governments like us, but their people don't.
    We would get allot of people onside by sorting Palatine as well.
    *refrains from making smart-alecky comment*
    Recruitment isn't that much of a problem, especially because there is VERY nasty campaign going on in Iraq.
    Eh? Arguably, that's why recruitment is a problem.
    once we pull out the army will get its numbers back up easy enough.

    Seems most people so far are in favor of spending what we do, if not more. I find this suprising.
    Maybe that's because they don't think the world is as safe a place as you apparently do. Britain's ability to punch way above its weight on the world stage is at least partly due to a military power-projection ability second only to the United States with which to protect its interests. Example: The Falklands War.

    In fact, it seems that in general you're taking quite a simplistic approach to the issues involved here. "Sorting" the Palestinian question is not as easy as all that, and even if we somehow managed it that would by no means bring all the Arabs onside. Similarly, pulling out of Iraq will not repair the damage it has done to the Armed Forces overnight. Even if we did so tomorrow, people would still be more reluctant to join up for a good while.

    (Original post by Varsity)
    There is also an argument that you can develop a cheap military that can threaten, and strike but does not have an invasion/occupation capacity. This would be far cheaper (no tanks and a much smaller infantry base). Basically the CVF's, the current fleet for the navy and more (and longer range) bombers.
    If every country did that, where would NATO and similar organisations end up? Up the creek, that's where.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiom)
    The highest priority item, in my opinion, is to acknowledge and pressure the UK government to acknowledge that Britain is not in the "first strike" business, and that it has no enemy capable of a warlike action for which a submarine-launched ICBM with a nuclear warhead is the correct response.
    Nice in theory, perhaps, but in the world of political pressure groups, which is far more black and white than the world of political discussion, the only way you'd have a chance in hell of getting heard at all would be to hitch your wagon to a totally anti-military group.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    We would get people "onside" by pulling out? Maybe. But then that's why I made the subtle clause "I don't believe that if we pull out, we will see any decrease in international terrorism". So we pull out, we may be attacked less, but our ALLIES and FRIENDS will be attacked more, should they not pull out.

    If they do pull out as well, they leave Iraq open to revolution perhaps. Then Israel comes under pressure, and we are in a worse position than before the war began.

    Why do you think 9/11 happened? It was a massive terrorist attack and we weren't even in Afghanistan or Iraq at the time. So the idea that a withdrawl will reduce terrorism is naive at best.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john !!)
    Why do you think 9/11 happened?
    Good question. Does anyone know? Did anyone even ask?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    INCREASE.

    We must endeavour to maintain eternal vigilance against the wiles of the Perfidious Hun. Let Freddie Foreigner tremble at the might of our navy, let him marvel at the veritable jungle of fluffiness in our Guardsmen's bearskin hats.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Let Freddie Foreigner tremble at the might of our navy
    Faisal, possibly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Given that the spending per head wasn't up to scratch before Iraq and Afghanistan, it's definitely got to be an increase. However, we certainly shouldn't aim for the ridiculous - and indeed counter-productive - levels of the US.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    we certainly shouldn't aim for the ridiculous - and indeed counter-productive - levels of the US.
    How so?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.