With the announcement that defence spending is to increase to 2.5% of GDP while foreign aid is to be cut to pay for it, what would you spend it on and is it a better investment than supporting struggling populations?
1 Like
@JustCallMeFlight made a point a few days ago
that I partially agree with
With us being so cash strapped, and the nation having some clear priorities ( Peace in Europe, doing Something about Immigration, The NHS, Justice) We have to look at things in a harsh light.
To put a positive spin on it, the MOD has always loved getting ORs from lower income families, so job creation i guess?
Given the choice, I think the focus should be on conventional warfare, Infantry troops, AFV, MBT, and Warships
additionally we need an affordable RAF, so yes, develop tempest, but we need more planes, and Typhoon is probably to expensive
Oh and Subs 
1 Like
GPJs and chip hats (with medal ribbons on both) for all RAFAC personnel (including cadets)
4 Likes
you sick freak…
A decent overtime bonus/renumeration package for air traffic controllers and AEF pilots so we can get cadets flying on a weekend again
2 Likes
This assumes we actually have a growing economy. 2.5% of very little or nothing isn’t going to help much!
1 Like
The UK has the sixth highest GDP in the world so, while it’s not growing much at the moment, it is 2.5% of 3.4 trillion USD (source: GDP (current US$) - United Kingdom | Data)
In comparison, the US spends 3.4% of 27 tn USD, China 1.7% of 17 tn and Russia 6% of 2 tn.
Russia’s GDP is only the 11th largest in the world but they spend a lot more of their GDP on their military, 109 bn USD. Interestly, UK, Germany and France combined spend 210 bn USD and if you add smaller aligned European countries, the total is about 350 bn.
2 Likes
108 billion of which can be purchased as engraved, commemorative jewellery and tchotchkes.
It would be worth looking at how other countries allocate their spend as we don’t seem to get as much bang for the buck (pun intended).
I read that 0.8% of GDP goes on the nuclear enterprise, and isn’t a large part of the MOD budget now pensions? The nuclear budget was separate some years back.
Lord Richards was talking today about the Navy going from 55 to some 12 escort vessels since the Falklands. That indicates the scale of the problem. Even automation can’t compensate for that loss of mass.
I think we need to look at what we are actually willing to do and prepare for that, we also need to as Chaimberlain did in the 1930’s look at what had the longest lead times and invest in that.
Blokes with rifles are relatively cheap and easier to train than fast jet pilots and build time for ships is significantly higher than for anything else.
If it comes to a major land war in Europe what are we realistically going to send? For both Op Granby in 1991 and Op Telic in 2003 the teeth came down the 1st Armoured Division (2 Armoured Brigades in 1991, 1 Armoured Brigade with 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault Brigades in 2003). Even back to the Falklands in 1982 we only sent 2 Infantry Brigades.
With that in mind I think we need to be looking to make sure we have the kit and people for 1 very good and very modern Armoured Divison (with all the supporting assets that come with it).
From an RN point of view, if it’s the Russians we are worried about their Navy is a joke and we probably don’t need to invest heavily there, if it’s China we could use a few more escorts and a couple more Astutes, but then if Australia is sorting it’s Submarine game out maybe not.
For the RAF, more airframes would be nice, with the US now being an unrealisable ally I wouldn’t look to increase our buy in F-35, joint projects with our neighbours, Harrier, Tornado and Typhoon has worked well in the past so put our money into Tempest.
1 Like
2.5% isn’t even going to make what force structure we have work to it’s fullest capability.
It’s not enough to make the make the full carrier strike package work, and get the armoured force going, and get 16X at full whack, and have the Typhoon force playing at full steam with munitions stockpile deep enough for an actual war - and then all the development stuf, GCAP etc…
3.5% just to get our house in order - if you want to start plugging holes left by the US when they leave, or are so unreliable that they may as well have left - then you’re looking at us, France, Poland, Finland and Italy spending 5%.
1 Like
Whilst I don’t want to sound like HQAC… Space and cyber are the new kids on the block - but also need investment! Likewise, as we’ve already seen, protection and defence of comms infrastructure and energy security.
We know that Vlad has been actively mapping, plotting and probing our Comms and data links - as well as those of Europe. And no amount of tanks and tempests are going to protect (or restore) them.
1 Like
Should the funding come from the foreign aid budget though. What about the projection of soft power or are we deluded in thinking that the UK is still a major world power?
Some say a lot of aid gets syphoned off by corruption in what are now called emerging economies (3rd world) into the pockets of dictators.
Will pulling that money have any real impact?
My eye is twitching…
Third World has never been an economic term, but always a geopolitical term instead. During the Cold War both Ireland and Sweden were Third World Countries, whilst Pakistan was a First World Country.
First World were countries aligned with the West, Second World were countries aligned with Russia/Soviets and Third World was anyone who was neutral or part of the non-aligned movement.
It’s an important distinction to make as it influences the decision on which countries to offer what aid to, as most aid has been traditionally used to support the donor country’s political aims rather than to support development or poverty alleviation. This is why Mugabe’s Zimbabwe was able to gain so much aid from both First and Second world countries.
The terms used for an so-called emerging economy today vary depending on agency, but emerging economy, lesser developed countries (LDCs) and Global South are all common.
Signed,
Your resident international development/aid worker.
1 Like
As the resident Thatcherite, I would say no, soft power is incredibly important and as US farmers are currently finding out lots of the money we give out in aid is actually spent here.
That being said where else are they going to get it from, politically Tax hikes are out as are cuts domestically, this at least might win over some of those old “red wall” voters who abandoned Labour over Brexit.
The country needs a grown up debate about what we want from the state and what we are prepared to pay for it, I don’t see that happening anytime this Millenium though.
1 Like
Firstly, I’m shocked at myself for finding agreement with a Thatcherite…
However, with humour out the way, I think we actually need a little more than this. Britain these days doesn’t really seem to have any form of national identity - we don’t know who we are. “British Values” are espoused a lot, but what are those values on a national level? How do we embody those values once we’ve determined them?
Many of the values that people claim represent the UK don’t actually fit with reality. We’re apparently open, friendly and welcoming yet we have far-right riots against people who come here. We’re welcoming of international opportunities and trade, yet we cut off our most lucrative partnerships with our nearest trading partners. We say we’re tolerant yet we demonise people who are our political opposites. Political leaders say we’re tough on migration yet we have the highest net migration figures in history. They say we take care of those poorer than ourselves yet they cut the development budget to one of its lowest ratios in history.
All of the points above can be implemented in both good and bad ways, the point overall is that who we say we are and the actions that we take are not congurant at the strategic level.
Britain has a serious identity crisis than malicious actors are using to drive internal divisions and halt any kind of real societal progress. I think much of this crisis stems, originally at least, from the collapse of the Empire (something that, for all of its wrongs, did give the country an identity and purpose) and that we’re still witnessing the reverberations of that.
Quite how this is fixed I don’t know, but it is something that must be considered with some urgency given the mulitlateral threats facing the country at this point in history.
1 Like
I think it’s delusional to think that we’re still a major international player. We don’t have the economic, political or military power to influence the really big players and economies. China, USA seem to be the big two now. We trail far behind them.
With climate change issues for example, our contribution to global warming is tiny in comparison. Same with economic and military power. We are no longer the world leaders in anything of consequence.
I would beg to differ. Language evolves, and whether it’s what the original meaning was, people now regularly use Third World to refer to poorer underdeveloped countries.
1 Like
This isn’t what I was taught in my international politics degree. We were told the first world had industrialisation and democracy (i.e. the West), the second world had industrialisation but not democracy (USSR, China, etc.), and the third world was the rest. Under this definition, Ireland and Sweden are first world and Pakistan would have been second world until quite recently.
1 Like
Same with my politics degree.
With the US running headlong into the second world.
2 Likes