To think that we should spend less on defence

[Blightfitting]

Interesting article in the paper today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/01/britain-military-spending-defence-keir-starmer

It chimes with my thinking recently. Why is it that people are completely convinced that we need to spend way more on defence (and thus cut or borrow or raise taxes at home)? Why is the conversation not more nuanced?

How can Russia simultaneously be so shit that it can't beat Ukraine in 4.5yrs and also a looming threat to us?

I get that they can fight a shadow war, with cyber attacks and lone-wolves and infrastructure stuff. But the way to stop these things isn't aircraft carriers and tanks! Ukraine are holding their own using teeny tiny cheap drones, so why do we need to spend billions on battleships? And don't get me started on Trident. Why do we need to have so many nuclear weapons when surely one will do?

I honestly don't get it. Yes we need to be capable of defending ourselves, but the proposed ways of doing this seem bizarre and insanely costly relative to the actual threats we face. AIBU?

I'm no hawk, however I have to admit I was always sceptical about the 'peace dividend'. And even if the fall of the Soviet Union was a reason to cut spending, the speed and degree with which the reduction in defence spending happened was premature at minumum.

There may not be numerous states or other bad actors waiting to invade us but there are certainly many who wish us harm and who are and would be all to willing to act to see harm happen. To see a decent well funded and equipped defence is a prerequiste of a healthy state. There are many things a healthy state has to invest in, that it may not want to (miltary capability, security services, prisons) but to fail to do so is foolhardy. Very much Si vis pacem, para bellum. Thanks for the quote @MeanMrMustardSeed

Yeah it’s the NATO thing - we need to do our part if necessary and for that regretfully we need a certain level of defense spending. We’ve seen that we can no longer rely on the US to do anything sensible.

I dont like it at all but I can see the logic.

A while ago (long before the current Ukraine conflict), we went on a Balkan Cruise. We naively thought Russia's threat was long over. We were very surprised when we visited Finland to see that they still were clearly prepared for conflict with Russia and that they clearly regarded their long Russian border as a significant threat as at that time weren't protected by NATO as they hadn't been admitted, so were taking their own very visible precautions such as military ships, artillery placements on land to protect sea channels, etc.

I’ve no evidence but to me that’s a war of convenience, Russia = bad. Ukraine = good. The proxy war.
Sanctioning Russia and supplying weapons to Ukraine.
I have no doubt that Russia is a super power. I don’t know what this dance with Ukraine is about or why it’s tolerated by Russia with Europe and America interfering all too willing to spend any amount no limit helping the Ukrainian people.
I saw video footage of a hotel in Odessa it was all happening there, doubtful Somali, Congo or Palestine have the type of luxury Ukraine enjoys during the war.
My DD friend in school, takes a trip back regularly with his family and leaves again, he’s fighting age but okay to visit

It must be an example of this brainwashing we keep hearing about.

The Saxons took Britain from the once unstoppable Romans. They wrote that when they arrived, the Romans were no longer in fighting shape and had put their weapons aside in favour of hot baths.
When we don’t spend on defence and have a suitably armed standing army, we’re fucked.
No one can say what the next conflict might look like, we need to have a basic level of preparation. Unfortunately funding cuts and poor spending decisions mean we don’t have that.
We’ve handed over so much of our stuff to Ukraine. And still haven’t fully stopped Russia. It’s blisteringly naive to think Russia aren’t a threat if they chose to turn their attention elsewhere. The current stalemate is maintained by the whole of Europe.

We should not produce any more nuclear weapons or anything capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. Defensive dome technology and drones plus improving cyber security yes but never anything that adds to nuclear arms in any way .

We are an island surrounded by sea?? If we were to have a physical attack, which alot of countries are capable of, how do you suppose we fight/protect it??

I've read today that US intelligence says Russia is preparing an attack on Poland. May be true, may be false but the world we live in is very dangerous and getting more so. We need to be prepared to stand alone to defend ourselves, at the moment we are absolutely not.

You're aware of the deterrent value of having nuclear weapons though? That the reason that Iran was attacked by the US, but North Korea hasn't been is because one already has nukes and the other doesn't.

No defensive dome is completely impenetrable, you're much better off having a reason not to be attacked in the first place.

Yes this

to be honest, I think we also need to boost/ progress the capabilities and capacity of British defence manufacturing. We can’t rely on buying from the us

It might be tax money, but if invested in uk manufacturing it’s to some extent beneficial to the uk economy

Being an island does give a degree of natural defence, it doesn’t make you more vulnerable

I’m aware of the MAD theory yes but I still don’t think we should have them , I don’t think any country should . The risks are too high and we can’t rely on the assumption that they will only ever be a deterrent.

I honestly don’t get it - yes that’s obvious OP

Defence needs to be a top priority. The world is in about as dangerous a place as it can be and the first duty of government is to protect its citizens

Mmmm Guardian reader … says it all really, falling for their twaddle.
I spent 25 years working in Defence, and the reality of warfare would be markedly different than the majority of civilians might imagine. And if the worse should happen, it would affect each and every one of us. The conflict thinking people worry about won’t happen on some distant shore, it’ll likely wipe out London.
I’d agree that some purchasing decisions (Ajax APV) haven’t worked out for the best, but we need to maintain a capability and that means money.

But countries do. You can't pretend they don't, so you're suggesting the impossible.

As a military wife who’s been battling with the military housing people for 2 years due to mould in our property, I’m mainly pissed off the money that was promised to improving military housing has been taken away to fund it.

They’re going to have few serving personnel left if they don’t sort out housing. We’ve known plenty of people leave for this reason and on the verge of this ourselves.

I don't think everything can be replaced by drones. I am also really sceptical that we need an aircraft carrier to defend ourselves. If someone was attacking the UK by sea or by air, then we already have a giant aircraft carrier. It's called the UK. Likewise the Falklands actually needs and has a military presence. But there are airfields there. If the threat is Russia then any major attack would likely be overland and require land and air based army.
We are an Island nation we need a navy, and destroyers and frigates etc. but I can't see the point of a giant aircraft carrier except

• Because America demands we provide an aircraft carrier when we next help in whatever I'll conceived invasion plan they come up with next
• Because France has and we want a bigger one than France. See also HS2 becoming about having "the fastest rail in Europe" rather than increasing capacity and costs ballooning
• As a political boon to MPs with shipbuilding constituenciea
• Because the Lord Admiral wants a big boat to show of what a big boy he is.

That's the problem with the military demanding the UK cuts spending in other areas to fund increased defence. I would be on board with it more, and with making sacrifices, if they were also prepared to be sensible about what we really need and make difficult decisions. But it's going to hurt if real people are suffering badly from cuts and the armed forces are funnelling that money straight into the pockets of defense contractors with very little to show.

I’m not pretending , I’m fully aware that many countries have nuclear weapons. I know it but I dont agree with it and im sceptical about the theory of MAD. There could come a point where a country wants to use them and doesn’t care who goes down with them and MAD won’t be the ultimate deterrent that people have been led to believe. Nuclear weapons are not something I believe have any place on Earth.

They’re going to have few serving personnel left if they don’t sort out housing

That's possibly the reason behind some of the enthusiasm for drones and various uncrewed systems, regardless of how effective they may or may not be.

Great bit of irresponsible drivel from the Guardian. The brainwashed will suck it up as they normally do. Always focusing their worry and offence in the wrong places. The background on Jenkins makes very interesting reading. He wants to hand back the Falklands, was in charge of the woke National Trust but thinks he knows more than high ranking military commanders. Joke.

The Saxons took Britain from the once unstoppable Romans.

Most of the Roman soldiers had already left. The Saxons were fighting Roman-British 'civilians' (though of course 'civilians' were not really a thing back then)

I am basically something of a pacifist, but I would be happy to fund more human troops. Get young men enrolled, get them fit and trained and give them a future. So much better than them being fat and useless NEETs.
They would then also then be a reserve of trained men in the general adult population, should we ever need them.

Unfortunately, the direction of travel is in the other direction - spend on drones and unmanned technology, minimise staffing levels. This is all about funnelling tax-payers money into the hands of arms manufacturers and big business, rather than paying good wages (and supplying good housing) to masses of ordinary soldiers.

How do you suppose we tackle the drones, pelt them with a catapult?? Russians are always in our airspace and waters (we dont hear about the majority in the media) if Russia and Ukraine have taught us anything, its that they will use maximum force. Cyber attacks are the least of our worries I think.

Ive only been out a couple of years but I know so so many people who are cutting loose as soon as they are pensionable. The housing is a disgrace, the wage (given the hours we are expected to do when away from home for an extra £3/400 a month) puts the junior soldiers at less than minimum wage. Many I know have left to go onto cyber or the rigs.

Now we are having to bend to the snowflake culture so theres a distinct lack of discipline, integrity and respect......When you are then left with no experience or expertise, how do you fight a war??

What annoys me is, and @Blightfitting has done it on this thread, is so many people think that one of my sons should get all the money and equipment he needs to do his job because he chose to be a nurse. Yet the other one should just scrimp and scrape with the dregs chucked at him because he chose to join the army. They should both get what they need.

The problem is the Tory Govt cut the forces right back to the bone because apparently the threat level was different back then, but there was no forethought for when it changed. And, during that time they didn’t fix the houses either so now we’re in an absolute mess that’s going to cost billions and take years to get us out of.