Contradiction between 3 days of supplies v defence spending

[Scuttlingupabove]

It's all a bit weird. We are now supposed to have 3 days of provisions in case "something" happens. The Government has told us to. The German government has given a comprehensive list to the German population for supplies per capita but they have said for 10 days.

And yet there's no corresponding rise in UK defence spending and nothing has been done on an urgent basis. Despite the former Defence Secretary resigning because we aren't defended adequately. Whereas European defence spending is increasing massively in many countries. We haven't secured our borders either even though we are aware that Russian subs are hovering over our sea cables.

If we are being told we need to survive on our own, potentially presumably this is due to an attack of some sort. So why aren't we rearming quickly so we try and deter this attack from happening?

This does seem very disconnected thinking. We always assume governments know what they are doing but I'm not confident this one does.

Perhaps it is a natural disaster. Like Ebola which apparently is currently out of control in the countries that have epidemics. In which case we definitely will need an increase in the army to keep people under control.

I just don't believe its suddenly simple government advice out of the blue. We had that during covid.

They are connected I reckon as the gov cutbacks to the defence budget mean that we have to take measures ourselves. We are filling the infrastructure gap to some degree..perhaps..🤔

There could be an English channel between Russia and Ukraine but it wouldn't stop the war ... missile capabilities are immense!

Whilst it's true that Russia has been mapping the ocean floor (including all our cables and pipelines) for over 50yrs, under Putin, this deep sea research department has effectively been built up into an ocean intelligence agency in its own right, with the world's biggest fleet of covert sub-sea vessels, including nuclear stealth submarines. Which should worry absolutely everyone, and is newsworthy.

In addition to the above, they operate a ghost fleet of at least 400 oil tankers, to circumvent sanctions, and another 2,000 smaller vessels. The oil tankers are both a serious security risk and an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen.

OP, I agree with @notimagain , but think your question about contradictions is a bit of a mute point. We don't have underground bunkers/cities like some other European countries, we don't have a homogeneous society that will unite under pressure, and we don't have citizens used to national service, let alone actually willing to fight to defend their country. So if a traditional war were to happen, everyone would be pretty screwed. It just makes sense to be as prepared (for anything) as you can be. So get at least 3 days worth of supplies, pack a go bag, get a bike as a form of transport (if money and space allow) and hope for the best.

sigh

Most of that war is being fought on land

Many years ago, public health research revealed that we should all be aiming to eat at least ten different portions of fruit and vegetables a day. The government watered this down to “five a day” because it knew that an impossible target would simply cause people to switch off and ignore the message.

Three days’ water and supplies feels like this to me. It’s within reach, even if you’re in an apartment . It prompts a conversation in the nation at large. A lot of people will actually end up with far more than 3 days’ supplies.

I dont think it is just about war, it could be another problem, like an AI cyber attack.

I cannot imagine governments would suggest such a thing without good reason.

if for example the food transport systems logistics were interfered with, then no food would move.

i remember covid and how shops were stripped bare.

i am not by any stretch of the imagination off grid but I could do it, if pressed.

i have a log burner and a years worth of cured wood.

i have an outdoor brick oven

i have a camping stove and two full gas tanks

i have a wild camping cook kit that runs on methylated spirits

i have three water butts and sterilising tablets

i have yeast.

i have a big bag of flour, and lots of dried pulses

i grow my own food and have onions and garlic, apples etc in store.

i could go on.

all by accident not because of the government recommendations.

i suspect I would have to accommodate other family members who are not prepared.

so have a selection of tents too. Lol

must go and buy a wind up radio and some more torches, and endless bog rolls

i don't have a point really.

I think it's both of these things although 3 days will be maybe ok for the loss of power but will be pretty useless if we are attacked.

I think you might also need a gun to keep people away from your supplies! We've got a couple which might be useful in case things get bad (having read the books...)

I agree. The solution would be of course proper defence and defence spending like we had during the Cold War. One reason we weren't attacked then is because we had a decent military. And the US was the World's policeman. Things seem to have flipped. And the government now uses legal warfare against our own troops so no wonder no one wants to fight for us. All very depressing.

we should be spending more on defence but we can’t afford it. Asking people to prepare for a range of possible scenarios costs the government very little- in fact it arguably saves money by putting more of the responsibility for preparations onto individuals.

Off to get a BB gun lol

Quote "The Uk would be top of the list to get nuked simply for those reasons."

And -

"So take the UK out first. Thats fairly logical for any enemy of Europe"

I don't see either of these things as logical at all. Because MAD. The UK has nukes, and we have at least one Trident equipped sub at sea all the time, And as other people have said, we are in NATO. Anyone nuking the UK would be into MAD territory. Mutually assured destruction.

Quote "Apparently tricky to invade although thousands seem to be able to and they seem to have invented drones."

What do you mean thousands are able to ? Thousands of who ?

And you mention drones. That is worth talking about. But first this point -

What does the UK need to defend, on it's own ( outwith NATO)? I would say the Falklands. So we should set that as the bare minimum. Could we defend it ? Maybe, maybe not. I think more to the not. So that has to be fixed.

But how to defend it ? Given you have mentioned drones. Drones have changed warfare. The UK has the class 45 destroyer. One of the best in the world. Very expensive. And we have seen from Malta the fleet is not ready. Needs sorting. But the Type 45 was designed in the pre drone era, with the Falklands war in mind. It is designed for defending against anti ship missiles. But drones have changed warfare now. Because drones are cheap. The type 45 can deal with Exocets, but not drone swarms. Not enough ammo. They can only carry about 48 sea viper missiles. And that is fine if defending against very expensive anti-ship missiles. But not cheap as chips drones. The sea viper missiles are $1-2 million a pop. And even if we spent billions on buying ammo for the Type 45, they still can't defend against drones, because the ships need to reload.

And we are seeing this in the Gulf at the moment. Even the US, with the largest military in the world, can't defend against drone swarms.

And the UK is working on anti drone systems. They have to. Because they have changed warfare.

So when you say spend more, what is it you want to spend more on ?

Tanks ? That's fair enough. But as we are an island, we need to get the tanks there. So we need lots of transport ships. But transport ships and drones are not a good mix ( Thinking Falklands here). But the tanks we have can be sent to Europe if needed to help other NATO nations, that also have lots of tanks (across the Channel by ferry, a long way from the battle, then by rail or road)

But again. Western tanks have evolved into very expensive fighting machines. And not there are drone swarms with shaped charges. Things have changed.

As you are the one saying spend more, spend more. Can you say what to spend it on ?

Your post is long and I don't have a huge amount of time to go through each point. Apologies.

Do we currently have effective borders? No. As thousands of people have entered illegally.

Do we know our nuclear subs still work? Becuase it seems a lot of our military hardware doesn't at the moment. When was the last test? The Russians know where the subs are. A preemptive strike would neutralise the UK which would take out a significant player. If it got to that and we were at war. If I was Russia we would be top of their target list.

I will leave it to the military to say what they need. Neither you or I are experts clearly and I don't intend or would be able to carry out a military review with you on MN as to what types of things are needed. But the military chiefs all say we are not adequately defended, there is creative accounting with expenditure and little urgency shown by the government despite the threats. So I take their word for it.

John Healey as Defence Secretary resigned over the lack of defence spending so clearly it was inadequate under Keir Starmer. But under Andy Burnham, as defence spending hasnt increased, John Healey as chancellor presumably now considers it to be adequate. What has changed?

I think the most pressing thing to spend money on for the UK is intelligence and counter terrorism. The people we are in danger from aren't doing old fashioned warfare. They are doing things like paying people already in the UK to plot terrorist attacks, create disruption, cyber warfare etc. Apparently the MoD is massively wasteful so that needs to be looked at too. Another problem with NATO is that the US bankrolls it. If they get fed up Europe will have to raise defence spending otherwise MAD will be useless because no one in Europe will be able to defend it.

One thing to maybe bear in mind is the size of the British Army....Ok "we" have the channel but on some of the prepper threads similar to this there's been talk of three days being the magic figure because that's how long it would take to get the Army on the streets to help distribute food, water etc.

Has anyone actually looked at the numbers and realised not every town, let alone every street, is going to get personalised service.

But none of that is new so why now?

Quote "Do we currently have effective borders? No. As thousands of people have entered illegally."

And what do small boats have to do with the military? That's not their job. That is civilian stuff.

And here is a thing with that. If the UK had a carrier battle group in the channel and they came across a small boat, the UNCLOS and SOLAS international law comes in to play. And assistance must be rendered if needed, and if safe to do so.

Why are you mixing military and civilian functions ?

@ScuttlingupaboveHave you completely missed the news stories about the cyber attacks on grocery story chain freezers and refrigerators in France, followed by more this week in 7 more countries (Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Finland)? Attacking the food chain is a new capability and AI will make it worse.

Stop snivelling and whining and get a small stock in, instead of sitting in your arse waiting for the army to rescue you.

Firstly the government havent said that its because of freezers. They havent said much about anything at all.

Secondly who is to say I havent already stocked up on food (and cartridges). Storm Arwen knocked us out for well over a week and we all went through covid so we know the drill. No whinging here. Thats not the point of the thread though. You are implying we cant rely on the army and need to rely on ourselves. If thats what the government mean by telling us to stock up thats interesting. Andy Burnham is spending money on reparations, Chagos (if he can), EU poorer nations. But not on defending his own people. Complacent. Thats what the UK government is. (As is anyone who believes what politicians say, in my opinion only of course).

We cant stop people coming in who we don't want. Thats generally the definition of an invasion. It doesnt need to be military. Although Iranian operatives are coming in that way according to MI6. Fairly obvious way to come in under the radar.

Why are you labouring this point, out of interest? Are you pro illegal migration?

Exactly.
I bet the govermment know of specific threat(s) but arent willing to spend money on defence as the backbenchers are mostly insane very left wing and won't allow it. Why else has John Healey been neutered and now wont spend the money he wanted to under Keir Starmer but now doesnt want to under Andy Burnham even though he is Chancellor.

It's you that mentioned it.

Do you have a link that says Iran are using small boats ? I remember it was something Farage suggested, but I don't think I saw it in the main press.

And the definition of an invasion, a military invasion, usually involves guns, tanks, planes... and so on.

So you think they should have foreseen a specific cyberattack scenario and carefully explained it to you in small words so you would appreciate that soldiers aren’t going to be able to bring you extra fish fingers and tinned beans in case of food supply chain disruption?

Good thing most of the country is calmer and more pragmatic than you are. I bet if there’s a flood you wail about GCHQ not popping by in a rowboat, too.

You can have an invasion of anything unwanted. I mentioned it as an example of the poor defences of this country and its borders.

Iran smuggling agents into UK as Channel migrants

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/24/iran-smuggling-agents-into-uk-as-channel-migrants/

No idea if you can open it but the Home Office were involved so its easily researched if you want.

If you wanted to come in to this country undetected to commit particular acts against the UK, how would you go about it?