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.

3 days is the length of time you have to stay inside before nuclear fall out falls to earth. Only recently found that out having assumed the air would be contaminated for ages. Obviously whether yould actually want to come out of your house is another matter...

Exactly. And yet there is money for Chagos and reparations and poorer EU countries apparantly. But not enough for defence so we all need to do our bit and stay inside for 3 days until....something...This is my point. Why get to that stage. Why not have an adequate deterrent like we had a few decades ago. We are complacent and our (actually, the governments of recent stripes) priorities are wrong.

Its like covid never happened and we all needed teaching again 🤣.

It could quite conceivably be bombs. Why not? Or sabotage in the form of physical attacks which have already started to be carried out by the Russians in the UK.

Three days might be valid in some circumstances but there's a heck of a lot of "it depends".

Those "it depends".being for example where you were relative to the nearest burst and what type of weapon was involved, whether they burst at altitude vs. Ground level..there's also the issue that fallout won't suddenly stop at the end of day x, whatever that is, but it might have decayed to levels where brief exposure to the outside world is acceptable.

Three days might be a figure the general public might be willing to prepare for and might be able to envisage but the reality is anybody's guess...it's also a reasonable stab at a handy timescale to envisage in the event of a non-nuclear issue, so that might be why HMG is keen on using it.

Yes, same. Scary times with leaflets coming through the door about how to survive nuclear fallout!

Ive read The Road. I'm thinking I may not actually leave the house after the 3 days are up...

I have got an air pistol. I shot a rat with it once.

Nice one! You could skin it and cook it on an outdoor spit.

Firstly, I thought we were the only country in Europe except France that still have a significant military. This was referenced a lot during Brexit. So if other countries are increasing theirs a lot, its from a low baseline. Especially Germany whose whole reconstitution was based around having no military!

The other point is that even the USA has been doing emergency prepping announcements, they're nowhere near Russia regards a Ukraine land war and Trump seems to be a Russian asset.

Its much more likely to be preparation for increasingly likely extreme weather events or AI cyber attacks.

It doesn't..

Thing is, it's easy to blame the Tories for under investing for years. But it is not really all down to that, Because the carriers were orderd under labour. So the tories inherited ships that were very expensive to run. Same with the orher supposrt ship needed to make a carrier group.

So it is defense decisions taken decade ago that have an impact today.

And the thing with carriers as you know, is you really need 3 for them to be effective. 1 at sea, one training, one in dry dock. But we could only afford 2, then they then tried reduced to one, but cos of how defencecontracts work, it costs as much to cancell as take delivery, so we have 2. And we can't put a battle group to sea alone, because when you add the destroyers, frigates, subs and RFA replenishers needed, it is massively expenside. So we need allies to do the battle group. And that takes time and planning. And that is before we even mention ski jump or catapult.

And in the meantime, warfare has changed. And really what is needed, I think, are a bunch of cheepish frigates bristling with CIWS systems to deal with drone swarms. And a cheap anti missile/ drone system that does not exist anywhere.

Same with planes. The decision was taken to go with missiles rather than guns. Pretty much world wide, decades ago. But actually, now guns are needed because drones, So the US used A10s in the gulf. But they are suscetable to modern MANPADS, So we are in the position now, as I see it, that airforces now need a plane that does not exist.

And we can't just magic things that take decades to design and make out of thin air.

Goodness me. You are throwing everything into the pot here. What does Chagos and foreign aide have to do with defence.

Quote " Why not have an adequate deterrent like we had a few decades ago.".

We do. It is called Trident, and we done the deal to buy it years ago. Or lease it more like. Because we share the missile pool with the US, We do our own warheads and subs. And we are pretty good at the subs. The warheads are ours, made in Aldemaston and Burghfield.

So yes, we actually have the exact same deterrance as we had decades ago. Unless you are going back to the V bomber fleet. And who retired the V bombers and bought Trident.... that was Thatcher. That's how far back Trident goes. And it still costs us billions to pay towards upgrades to Trident, to keep it in service to 2060 or so. 820 billion GBP expected cost as at 2023 ( That includes the subs etc).

Re subs. We have a steady state stream of making them in Cumbria. And to try to help with the cost, there is likes of the AKUS deal. That goes back to Sunak . These things take decades.

And did you miss the news last week that the UK has 3 of it's 4 ballistic subs at sea ?

By the way, the last few times we test launched Trident, they failed. But that is not as bad as it sounds, because of the priciples of MAD. Only one, or a few, needs to work, for MAD to stand.

Also a point worth noting. Germany are looking at maybe doing a share of cost deal with the UK or France on nukes. Because of Trump not being stable. Link for that below. MAD principles at work again.

Germany won’t build nukes but could flash French, UK weapons to deter foes, Merz says - Defense News

Don't you read the defense news to keep up to date with all this stuff ? Or are you hankering after the glory days of the UK Vulcan fleet. Is that what Farage is saying ? Bring back the Vulcan, best of British.

. And who retired the V bombers and bought Trident.... that was Thatcher. That's how far back Trident goes.

I think care needs to be taken with the detail of the history here.

The UK V Force stopped holding the strategic nuclear deterrent role in 1969 when the UK Polaris equipped submarine fleet became operational, so well pre-Thatcher.

The aircraft did continue in service for quite some time after that with the Vulcan having a sub-strategic nuclear role and a conventional role (and then briefly as a tanker) until '84, the Victor went on longer as a tanker

Trident (the Polaris replacement) was initially a subject of negotiations between the US and the Labour government back in the late 70s, with that process continuing under the Thatcher administration.

Thanks for the correction. It goes to show how policy does take decades, and how decisions then effect now.

I think the trident subs are on their second generation, the third being worked on now.

And when we get Trump saying he is upgrading US nukes etc, he is pretty much talking out his arse. Because that can't be done in his 2 week timescales. It takes decades.

every company has to step up their own cyber security

Goodness me. You are throwing everything into the pot here. What does Chagos and foreign aide have to do with defence.
It was an example of money we do apparrntly have to splash on, in my view unnecessary things that the tax payer would prefer be spent elsewhere. Like defence. Chagos is of course relevant to defence (why give it to a country strongly aligned with China) and would.cost us billions better spent on defence than giving it to Mauritas. They still havent rxplained why this should happen). Describing reparations and giving money to poorer EU countries as "foreign aid" is a stretch. In my opinion only of course.

MAD only works if you have rational players. Which we had when nuclear weapons were controlled by rational enemies (which the Soviets were). We now have proliferation and states such as N Korea have them. A lot of nuclear weapons disappeared when the USSR broke up. Iran while not currently possessing nuclear weapons wasn't far off amd is probably thinking the US might not be its best friend and may attack again. If a country's leaders thinks its under existential threat (I get why the US doesnt want to push Putin too far although thats the only thing I get with their current policy) then they may use nukes as a last resort. I dont think we can rely on MAD as strong a deterrent as it once was.

No idea what Farage is saying. I'm not a Reform supporter. Why bring him into it? I do remember seeing a Vulcan fly over my head at the Biggin Hill Airshow as a child though. Along with other old aircraft. Was great!

And if the other bugets were reduced, and the money given to defense, what do you think it should be spent on ?

When you say this " We now have proliferation and states such as N Korea have them.". I have to ask, 1- where is the proliferation , and 2, what can the UK spend money on to counteract the DPRK, that is litterarly on the other side of the world ?

The DPRK are not thought to have a delivery system. And their nuke tests were low yield I recall. So what do you think the UK should do ?

Nuke proliferation is a possibility yes. Because of Trump. Nations such as South Korea, Japan, and Germany are now discussing it, because Trump can't be relied on. He is destroying the USA's atanding in the world.

Next is this, quote " I dont think we can rely on MAD as strong a deterrent as it once was.". Why ? Is Putin under existinal threat ? Has that even been suggested by any government, that Putin be removed ? Apart from Ukraine perhaps.

Are you saying that Trident is a waste of UK money ? After all, why pay for it if MAD no longer applies. So what should that money saved be spent on ?

This is all I am asking. That if you think the UK government have defense spend all wrong, what do you think they should spending on ?

Personally this.

I feel the threat to infrastructure is more about weather, supply & demand, hacking, general failures, that sort of thing.

It’s good to have a bit of resilience in our pockets. Prevents unnecessary panic and chaos, for some at least, which ultimately puts extra pressure and strain on the response resources, it can target those who really need it then.

Rather a middle class privilege though in a way, to have the money, and space, for extra to be kicking around…

I've read that several times and am still not sure what point you're trying to make.

We don't use firepower on dingies.

Not yet, no. So is that the only solution to stopping them?

I didn't say they were conspiracy theories. I said that you had presented a
"conspiracy theorist grade list of threats". It's the torrent of random 'possibilities' that makes it all so Henny Penny.

So which one in your view isnt a possibility? Because that one will be the conspiracy theory. Im.not sure what you mean by saying they arent conspiracy theories but are "conspiracy theorist grade list". They either are conspiracy theories or they're not.

I think they are all reasonable possibilities and aren't mutually exclusive either.

Sabotage to UK infrastructure eg arson attacks have already been carried out by FSB sponsored operatives. Would this be a defence and security services issue? Because those departments say they are hugely underfunded and stretched.

National security can't come at the expense of social security, I suppose. Benefits musn't be cut so everyone is on their own in an emergency which could potentially be avoided if the government concentrated less on social security and more on national security.

I went to Costco yesterday for some dried mango. When I got there, people were actually running out with trollies laden with water and toilet roll. I thought there was a fire alarm at first.

The check out queue was all the way to the back and then it curved back round again to the milk aisle. The couple in front of me had six trays of bottled water and nothing else. Not even any salted caramel crispys.