Increasing defence spending: have we lost our “societal understanding of war”.

[rickyrickygrimes]

General Sir Patrick Sanders (former head of the British Armed Forces) said he believed there was no “societal understanding of war” in the UK and that this is a big problem looking at the rapidly changing geopolitical situation - not least the likely withdrawal of the US from NATO and the ongoing war in Europe.

What do you think? I'm 52 now, born and raised in Scotland though have lived elsewhere (in Europe) for 20 years now. I have no personal, direct experience of war. My parents don't either, they are in their mid 70s. My grandparents obviously lived through it, but both my grandfathers were in reserved occupations so did not fight. One of my grans was a nurse in London during WW2 which definitely marked her for life, she had some horrific stories.

We (my family) are very fortunate, I guess, to have never been forced to think about war. But also, we never really talked about defence as if it was an important thing to do, to support, to commit to - and the sacrifice that it entails. We've been able to be quite dismissive about war and defence. My family are all quite lefty-liberal - ideas like patriotism, joining the Army, blindly following orders, being willing to kill other human beings etc are not something I've been brought up to value.

But it looks like war or conflict is coming, and that we in the UK / Europe are woefully unprepared in every way. If we are to increase spending on defence to 2 or 3 or more % of GDP, that's going to have an impact on health, education, welfare spending - and the public will only accept this if they believe that defence is more important than these other things.

Where do you stand? Do you support increased defence spending? How do you view the armed forces and the 'importance' of being able to defend the UK and its allies? Does your family or your social circle have any 'societal understanding of war'?

We definitely need to spend more money on defence however the biggest problem we have atm is recruitment and retention. DH served in the RAF for 35yrs, DS1 has been in the army for 10yrs and is actively looking at leaving. Out of the men he joined up with there’s only him and 3 others still in. We can thrown all the money in the world at it, but until they address that we aren’t recruiting the people to cover those who leave, it’s pointless.

Most major wars over the last 40 years involve infantry doing the final work. Bayonets are standard issue still.

Many israelis have to live at home for years and then get a loan from parents in order to buy and many still can't afford to. Their housing crisid esp in central israel makes london look cheap..After October 7 happened I read on mumsnet that some posters' Israeli DHs wanted to fly home from UK to serve.

It is because they know the threat is existential. With us it isn't existential yet but Ukraine is what Czechkoslovakia was in the 1930s..if it is full blown European war then it is existential.

It is difficult to invade Switzerland they are surrounded by mountains. We are now apparently the leader of the free world (according to Australia) so if there is a world war we will fight and our men will die and possibly our civilians as well

I am from a country where every man is conscripted and serves 2 years mostly in combat roles and does reservist training until 40. We are the world's last surviving city state (other than Monaco and Vatican city which are way smaller)and we need a citizens army or we will probably not last 100 years given the state of the world. I am pregnant with a son now and will not give my child my citizenship as I know in all likelihood if there ever was a war and my home country was involved, he would be sent to the front line even if he has medical problems as I know people with medical issues who were still in combat roles .

My dh had childhood epilepsy (and still has minor seizures) plus other inherited medical conditions and I doubt will ever be conscripted as a brit even in total war. Ironically i think it would be safer for my only child in the uk as I can't imagine uk government sending someone with inherited medical issues to the front line.

Switzerland had a unique geopolitical position. It was and still is a 'safebox' in times of war for physical items including gold, gems and artwork. That was always the case for rich Europeans on any side and therefore allowing Switzerland to remain neutral was an insurance policy for the rich.

In World War II, if young men hadn’t laid down their lives, there would be no free speech, and this country would be unrecognizable. A new world order would have been established. They didn’t die just for the King or a paycheck. They fought for their mates, their loved ones, and the hope that this country would have a future. If, in five or ten years, our young men don’t step up, it could mean the end of everything we take for granted.

Yes, we need to spend more on defense—ideally reaching 3% of GDP by next year if we want any hope of being prepared for a potential global conflict between 2030 and 2035.
The urgency comes from the long procurement timelines required to design and build high-quality vehicles, ships, and weapons. This process can take anywhere from 2 to 10 years. A simple way to accelerate readiness is to purchase more of what we already have, which could reduce procurement timelines to under six months for vehicle deliveries. Aircraft would take longer due to their complex production, while ships, whether we like it or not, will take the longest. Many ship production lines have been shut down for years, leaving us with no choice but to invest in the new ship classes entering service over the next five years.
However, having more equipment isn’t enough—we also need personnel to operate it. In terms of defense priorities, the RAF and Navy are our most critical assets, but to seize and hold territory, we need a significantly larger army.

To strengthen our land forces, I propose increasing the professional army to 100,000 troops. Additionally, I would implement a Territorial Army system, with a selective draft designed to minimize economic disruption. Draftees would undergo one month of paid basic training before returning to their civilian jobs, followed by weekly training sessions to maintain and enhance their military skills. By training 10,000 personnel per month, we could build a reserve force of over 200,000 soldiers within five years while only actively paying for the 10,000 in training at any given time In peace time. This approach provides a high return on investment, ensuring a well-trained force at a fraction of the cost. (Obviously if war kicks off these extra soldiers would all be paid the propper rate)

Finally, to fully realize this plan, we must invest in additional equipment. If implemented, this strategy would make our military a formidable and respected force in the eyes of both allies and adversaries.

Exactly mate. You can't take land without infantry. As much as drones have had a massive effect in Ukraine you can't use just drones to hold territory you need men on the ground. The day that you can use just drones and robots to take ground is the end of us because war will become meaningless and I fear advanced AI would be able to take over.

Britain has the 2nd largest defence industry in the world the only way it will get bigger is if we buy more of what we are already buying. The idea that we only buy u.s equipment is definitely not true, a majority is British.

This, in a nutshell. Our public spending is very very very heavily skewed toward benefits and the NHS - social/health issues, basically. There are enormous savings to be made there, but literally no party wants to go near it as the British public are so needy/dependant it would instantly inspire talk of ‘eugenics’ and ‘killing people off’ etc

Does the UK need to seize and hold territory though? In any kind of Eastern European conflict today the UK's main contribution isnt going to be ground forces. It's not going to be invaded by land or sea for the foreseeable so doesn't need to reclaim territory as Ukraine does. Infantry aren't much use against drones or strategic conventional weapons.

I agree getting back to 100K is a good idea but don't quite see the need for a draft and huge reserves.

One look at the situation in Ukraine will show you that is not the case.

Defence has been systematically hollowed out by various governments over the last few decades. If people knew the actual number of troops available to fight,they would be horrified. We no longer technically have an army..not enough personnel to meet the definition.

We are extremely vulnerable at the moment due to constant cutbacks. You might be someone who thinks we should be spending our money on schools and hospitals rather than on the Military,but who is going to protect these schools and hospitals when the enemy come calling?

Yes yes yes! Without defense getting sorted, we will ultimately have nothing left to defend.

I'm in disbelief reading this, how can it be a possibility even 😞

I didn't say we do, I said the US is good at off loading.

There are gaps in our production and we will certainly have to buy from elsewhere. The real issue is whether the government will trigger the political will to order defence to go into overdrive. It needs to happen 9am on 24 February 2025, not wait until 2030.

Because people have become far too absorbed in their own lives and back yards to have any interest in what’s happening elsewhere.

I started a similar thread the other day which was quite insightful.

I favour increasing taxes a bit but it's spread across everyone, everyone needs to contribute something

Well, it's true isn't it. Our society is fat, lazy and apathetic. We have less cultural confidence, social cohesion and patriotism than we've ever had before. 🤷🏼‍♀️ It doesn't add up to me.

Maybe anyone who fights can get one of these houses that Angela is building?

We shouldn't send young people to fight initially, we don't have enough of them. Send older people first, many argue they are healthier than the young anyway!

Our public spending is very very very heavily skewed toward benefits and the NHS - social/health issues, basically. There are enormous savings to be made there, but literally no party wants to go near it as the British public are so needy/dependant it would instantly inspire talk of ‘eugenics’ and ‘killing people off’ etc

But that's the outcome of an ageing population

I would rather go to the front lines than my son. But realistically the army won't want to spend money on training me (a middle age woman with breaky bones and bad eyesight) to drive a tank or do hand to hand combat with Russians. Most of the wealthier people in the UK are older. They might be willing to die for their country. But it won't help. Paying a little bit.extra tax is how they can help. And most rich people aren't psychopaths and lots care about their country deep deep down.

Short of tying my son up I also couldn't stop him from signing up to the army at the age of 18 if he wanted. You could spend 18 years brainwashing your child that pacifism is always right only for them to join the army the second their country is threatened. My grandfather was raised a Quaker, from a long line of Quakers and he volunteered to fight in WW2 as a teenager.

There is also an argument that sometimes deterrence is enough - young people in a country with a strong well funded army are less likely to need to fight to defend it than if the army was underfunded.

No it isn’t. Our population is ageing, but non-age related benefits are frankly at scary levels.

I will repeat: we spend more on disability benefits alone than we do the entire military.

Why is defending Ukraine America rather than Europe’s problem? Why should America fork out when Europe doesn’t?

I heard on the radio that we have been spoilt in the UK and we've had a short peace but in reality in most of history we have been at war and we just need a decent army so people won't think we are weak. Thank goodness we have a nuclear detterant