UK at war within 1000 days

[HumbleStumble]

Wes Streeting has said Britain must be ready for war in 1,000 days. This combined with the advice to stockpile while you can is highly inflammatory and worrying. AIBU to think that if there is a specific threat he should be specific? If it's a nuclear threat then he should say. We are lucky to have access to what is effectively a bunker but what can you do if you live in a bedsit in the London borough of suburbia?

Many aren’t fleeing persecution though? Or at least 62% aren’t, bearing mind that at the last count earlier this year only 38% were actually successful in their asylum applications. Had they been in danger, they would have been granted asylum at first attempt. They might not agree with their regimes, but unless they’re in danger, then their asylum applications aren’t valid.

There's a budget coming up. This is to justify more billions being sent to Ukraine, whilst more Brits struggle with rising costs and taxes.

Whilst I agree with big business CEO's getting paid massive bonuses is abhorrent. The reality is that Thames Water has 16m customers, each customer would have to pay another 25p a year to cover his bonus. The pay increase of MPs results in another £3.5m needed from a population of 70m.

Wish I could agree with this more than once.

people need to realise sharp that the fact we import so much food and prioritise development over agriculture is the thing that will kill massive swathes of the population if/when it really kicks off.

Timing is everything in politics! It’s no coincidence that, just a few days before the budget, we’ve been told to ‘stock up’ and now to prepare for ‘war in 1000’ days.

With the ‘fear’ factor now placed uppermost in everyone’s minds, the government is preparing us for some sort of tax increase in the budget … to pay for defence.

A cynical, clever ploy🤷‍♀️

Ukraine aside the budget is likely to be a factor. Streeting wants more, he probably doesn’t already have it. Scaring the public with headlines is just a side effect.

But haven't the Tories been arguing for increasing defence spending too?

Seeing you ask, thousands of men who hate this country and us, see us as sub human and have religious permission to destroy us.

Agree. I think a lot of us are very nervous about the upcoming budget. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a proper socialist government in power, and although many of us suspect what’s coming, it’s not going to be good news for anyone who owns a business or isn’t on Welfare. Burnham might try to just do a soft launch this budget then hit harder the next time round.

That is true of most countries around the world at the moment though - look at Israel, Sudan, Russia etc etc

You mean AI, presumably.

@HumbleStumble Please tell us more about your bunker. Is it a nuclear bunker or some other kind of bunker? How many people have access to it?

The Americans are no longer protecting Europe. It's obvious to everyone that we need to spend a lot more on defence.

Yeah but those ordinary people don’t ever seem to stand up and say that

I agree the defence system need to be improved/reinforced and with the modern warfare equipment , tanks and artillery etc seem to be no longer a real tool used in warfare so much.
Putin/Russia despite all their rhetoric have not been able to win this conflict as they thought and one might assume that they realise that they are not quite the force they thought they were before attacking Ukraine. Ukraine has shown stalwart determination to thwart the Russian advance and it appears there is almost a stalemate on the battlefield at the moment it is all about missiles and drones from both sides. Indeed Ukraine has really made an impact on the Russian public with their attacks on Russian targets so that the Russian public are now very aware that this conflict can and will affect them.
In light of this it seems to me there is less likelihood that Russia will want to take on a larger conflict with NATO where it is outgunned in many ways by the shear numbers and geography. If they were to use a nuclear weapon they would get the same and more with interest most likely so it would be a one time deployment and then mankind would be almost if dead as a consequence, so that is not "winning" either.
So at the moment they test what other ways (non nuclear and non combative) they can deploy to cause unrest and confusion within the NATO group. Most of what they say right now is rhetoric but I accept we need to be ready to refute any attack or challenge. Continued support for Ukraine will help as at some point , if not already, others in Russia will see the conflict as pointless and costly and just about saving face for Putin. Trump is not really helping the situation trying to play both camps at the same time. Rather there should be discussion to try and persuade Russia that they will not win this conflict and it will just continue to fester and cause loss of life and damage in their own country and for the sake of what???

Thank you for this

We are often told that Ukraine is fighting for all of us

However the rationale is never explained properly

He did say he'd resign if he didn't get the amount of spending he wanted to I guess we can expect his resignation next week. Regardless, Wes and the rest of the government are very likely to be history in 1,000 days so it won't be his problem to deal with.

The 1,000 days thing is clearly a soundbite. If he is talking about cyberattacks, why couldn’t that happen now? What is the 1,000 days thing wait for?

Someone upthread said the statement was foreshadowing a tax increase to pay for increased defence. That seems reasonable and I guess that plan to increase it gradually over the next three years.

I just don’t really understand who these enemies are meant to be. I guess he is thinking either Iran or Russia. Well, I suspect both wars will be settled in 1,000 days time, so it is more likely to be sooner that we are attacked, if it’s going to happen at all.

The obsession of the UK with Ukraine seems bizarre. It has minimal importance to us geopolitically and this is somewhere where the EU should be sticking their necks out if they regard it as important, not the UK. As for Iran, I guess the U.S have made it, to some extent, our business, as we do still need gulf oil. However, again, we don’t have to lead.

There seems to be something of the warrior about every new PM we get. The only problem is that, while making ourselves a target, we don’t have great defence.

Why should individual Muslims have to do that? Anyway, organisations representing them do so so. For example:

"The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply concerned by reports of a violent attack at a synagogue in Manchester today on the holy day of Yom Kippur.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the Jewish community at this difficult time. That this incident has taken place on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, makes it all the more distressing.

As a Muslim community we stand in solidarity against any terrorists who aim to take the lives of worshippers and call on the wider police force to ensure safety for all communities involved"

I wouldn't be so sure

They might not like the welfare cuts and/or higher tax that is needed to pay for it.

What have voting intentions to do with principles?

He resigned because the then chancellor did not give him the needed increase for defence.

He has to resign if the increase is not reached in his budget, otherwise who did he resign at all?

I wouldn't imagine I'd ever read something like that on here - until I came across posters who are so obsessed with the boats and so driven by hostility to anyone who's brown and Muslim.

But the last World War DID involve tanks rolling over borders. He was just distinguishing what modern warfare would look like.

To my knowledge, there were no martian attacks ...

An army is already amongst us.