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'?

Are you a high earner?

thanks

I think a lot of people forget it involves a new era of defence ie cyber and tech in addition to 'traditional' war. Not just to save from boots on the ground or aerial attacks, but to protect the core infrastructure of the country.

I don't have an understanding of war. I think my war is bad let's all be peaceful stance has been allowed to develop with the luxury of someone else sorting out defence.

Nobody will invade us. We shouldn't invade others.

Ask Belgium about neutrality and how much good it is. “In Flanders Fields…”
(for clarity, perhaps I need to state that Flanders is in, is one half of, Belgium).

Re Greenland and war, the big killer is climate, or perhaps you didn’t know about the history of attempted Norse settling there? It’s never been a highly populated place. No one has ever settled permanently in Antarctica either. It hasn’t mattered enough to fight wars over until minerals became precious, scarce and needed in quantity for an expanded population with modern technology.

Sadly, given human populations v resources, and various (largely male) human tendencies, soldiers and defence has always been needed to create the Paxes behind the frontiers. The country has been lax, as has Europe: let’s not forget which country was strongly against a European force being created.

Ps study of history is a bit of an antidote to the social laxity on matters of defence. I believe that real study of history (as opposed to the heritage industry) has been discouraged, to enable elitist neoliberal economies to grow, but that’s arguable.

I was actually surprised at how little we spend. When I was younger I feel like the figure was 3%. It’s hard to figure out how we get all those extra billions. Struggle to raise taxes big costs are social care, welfare state, NHS which one do you want to cut to pay for defence?

Absolutely this. It's good to see this thread because the truth is that the public must get behind defence spending. No point having nice stuff if it gets bombed into oblivion with nobody able to use it. Now that the US looks more like a hostile antagonist than an ally it's even more important.

Well, that’s the end of our foreign policy and defence problems

I live in the area of two barracks and grew up with children from a different army base coming in and out of our school. Since then one base has closed, one is closing and only one will remain. Against that backdrop it’s hard for people to see tax money going into defence, because it’s not going towards bases and careers we can see in our communities. I guess it’s going to huge global companies to buy tech….

Do you think that's the extent of the threat, physical invasion?

I think we should get the Yanks out of the UK

@username299 what do you mean by this? Can you give examples

I totally support it. Walk gently and carry a big stick is the motto for a peaceful life. The only thing bullies understand is a bloody nose. It’s not nice, but the alternative is unthinkable.

Where have I said it should?

Essentially, this. It’s easy to be a pacifist when someone elsewhere is defending our walls. And when you have no living memory of needing to defend the walls.

This is clearly a public opinion shaping thread! Drip feeding us fear and then acceptance of war. War is a very profitable industry and with Trump threatening to make peace in the Ukraine the war machine is worried.

Spoken like somebody who has spent too much time on social media.

It’s Ukraine, not The Ukraine

People aren't apposed to peace, some just don't agree that agreeing to handover a % of a sovereign nations land on their behalf and forcing them to sign over half of their natural minerals to appease a hostile country who invaded them is that impressive as a 'peace deal'. Which country do you think massively benefits from war financially by the way? Are you suggesting the US wants no part of the 'war machine'?

We have nuclear weapons.
The ability to destroy a country who attacks us with powerful nuclear weapons.

But we know we won't use them because if we do use them, they will get used against us, leading to the destruction of the UK.

And the destruction of the country that used them against us.

We won't give them up - but they are expensive.

We do need to get smart about defense - but we work well with our European Allies. It's not just the UK against Russia.

I took your comment about the US offloading their defence expenditure into others to imply that they shouldn’t do that. Apologies if I misunderstood. In my opinion Europe should defend Europe, and we’ve been the ones offloading that to the US.

Europe should defend Europe

The struggles of Byzantium and the machinations of Venice and Rome/ politics in north Europe (I’m not an expert, and I’d be here all day trying to explain players and plays) may be a useful time to recall.

And most of them seem to have anxiety/ ADHD so would be excluded from conscription. Every one of my close circle of friends' kids have either mh or physical health issues,. Two of my own kids have anxiety.

This gets trotted out, but any examples of this? The US have been shrinking the number of troops that they have on European bases for years, and the bases they have now are tactical for them and help with projection rather than protection. They contribute 17% towards NATO which whilst sizable, as the only country for which article 5 has been invoked which led to plenty of NATO countries spending billions & losing service men and women and given theit size seems reasonable. A lot of military aid ends up back in American businesses, they are part of 5 eyes but not the entirety.