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'?

If it came to conscription and shit was hitting the fan they would still be drafted, just in certain roles.

I haven't followed this hugely, but I understand the states (and the UK) signed some agreement when Ukraine gave up its own nuclear deterrent.

Europe has also spent more on Ukraine than the US has, so not sure where the why aren't we paying comes from. A lot of the US aid has been their near expiry weapons or military supplies from US companies, not simply cash.

Or when you've served in the army and become homeless the goverment leave you to rot

And look whats happened to our country! Do you think they would say it was worth it? Young people are wiser

The whole point of investing in defence is as deterrence, so that we decrease the risk that our young people would ever have to fight

The way Britain is going noone will want to.

Europe a a whole, but why should the US pay more for defence

Because the US chooses to, both historically and currently. Do you really truly thing that the US has decided its defence budget around Europe?

We used to be allies and the US has been quashing a European army for years as it saw it as a threat. Dictators who wish to expand their nations through aggression are usually seen as a threat to democratic societies. Therefore it is conducive to work together to eliminate the threat.

The global economy is faltering and global military expenditure is one of the areas of increased investment - $2.4 TRILLION dollars in 2023 alone. Trump’s actions are about stimulating demand for US defence products and services. Follow the money.

I've just come back from watching the new Captain America film there was four adverts for joining the RAF and Navy, none for the army. Four is alot I don't ever remember seeing this many before. I'm worried now as I have a very bright nearly 18 year old hopefully off to uni in the Summer but who is also a sergeant in the air cadets and working towards his ppl. I hope the talk of conscription is fear mongering to get the public behind more defence spending.

@Perzival I don't think it is scare-mongering. I do think we are potentially looking at a form of National Service which is something different.

Edit: quote disappeared so aimed at Username299

Tell me you are oblivious to just how reliant we are on the US without telling me you are oblivious.

Getting rid of the US would leave a large portion of the airforce obsolete.
Wars/conflicts aren't just won by attack/front line equipment. A large portion is down to Intelligence.

Without the US, the UK would have zero 5th generation stealth aircraft - The F-35 is a US program.
We binned the Tornadoes before the F-35s were FOC.
Without the F-35s we would be left with the Typhoon Sqns at Lossie and Conningsby.

Now let's look at ISTAR that is essential and pertinent part of air power during conflict and more importantly peace time:

Again, we binned off Sentinel and Sentry before either any replacement or the replacement was ready.

So currently:
. E7 - Not at IOC yet and still being developed with the Aussies alongside US tech.
. P8 Poseidon - Partnership and project with the US
. Reaper/Protector: US partnership and reliance on US tech
. RJ - US partnership
. Shadow - US origin

Transport aircraft?
. Voyager - multinational luckily (passenger build so no kit)
. Atlas - multinational but unreliable
. C-17 - US partnership
. Dessault Envy - French made and under civil contract until 2026... only acquired 2 and business jet size... so not big enough to transport kit/equipment.

So without the US, we would be limited on how much kit we could transport and move places. Atlas doesn't compare size wise or serviceability wise.

So how do we replace all that?

Newsflash, Germany’s conservatives are saying they’ve won. While many of us here understand concerns about immigration, Russia has been flooding Germany with propaganda pushing the right wing and the conservatives have got to be better for Ukraine than the German far right, I think. Far right in second place which gives them a strong voice though.

Germany hasn’t stressed military might fpr many years for good reason but that may be changing,

Yes, it's changing rapidly.

I saw that too and was pleased. The big issue as I see it there is the indirect influence of Russia, via energy. The amount of AI interference suggests that Russia also see Germany as a bit vulnerable socially.

Npt sure what the solution is; I think quite simply the entire world cannot afford the reliance on tech that has been built, nor can the issues raised by mass immigration be ignored any longer. The battle lines are being drawn, it seems to me. Whether we want to tolerate war or not, the decision to start it does not rest with us.

The decision to fund increased defence spending in the UK by cutting international aid seems shortsighted though. I guess it’s more politically palatable than cutting health, welfare, education. We are willing to sacrifice future gains from development / cooperation with friendly countries, rather than sacrifice anything closer to home - yet.

One thing I do hope will be a consequence is a return to talking about "energy security" rather than net zero being the dominant/only part of the public energy debate.

It's not about gas/coal vs renewables but about making sure we have a combination that can continue to supply us even in a range of conflict scenarios.

@OneAmberFinch yes!

One thing I do hope will be a consequence is a return to talking about "energy security" rather than net zero being the dominant/only part of the public energy debate.

I said this a year or so ago. We need to think about energy security, food security and security just generally.

It takes so long for politicians to get with it. It's an easy one

Energy security is closer to reality when we become less reliant on foreign oil and gas. Imagine being no longer beholden to the likes of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Do you think I disagree with that?

@ImAChangeling that's still different to net zero though

In a pretty major way as one would suggest we get energy security with our own gas and oil licences and the other would be to scrap new ones

Licensing UK oil and gas projects will not bring energy bills down because it will be sold on the global markets. So no advantage there.

Burning more oil and gas will also make climate change worse. Resulting in catastrophic costs for the economy in the medium term, more misery. I do some work with insurers and this is the reality.

Green energy is the way to go- it avoids a lot of the downsides and also reduces our dependency on Russia/Saudi etc.