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.

I think a nuclear defence is a good thing. I studied international relations and zero sum game as much as the next person. I get it. You raised MAD as a reason nuclear war will not occur. I argued that N Korea/iran may have changed that as a reliable calculation.

MAD worked when there were two superpowers balancing each other. One is no longer a super power but is run by a criminal who has no way of stepping down and who has seen the fate of other dictators recently if they are defeated. MAD may not concern him if he has little to lose or if NATO miscalculate and make him think he is under attack. The other still is a superpower run by a criminal who doesn't seem to understand the consequences of his actions and who has also weakened the western alliance. Both those situations are changes in the status quo re nuclear calculations. I would suggest. We will be building those nuclear bunkers again and getting in supplies for 3 days!

Pretty sure it will be a cyber attack. It will bring down the grid and therefore any access to our bank accounts, systems and processes. Anything dependent upon the internet or electricity will be temporarily unavailable.

Iran do not have a nuke.

So you have no ideas on what UK defense spending is needed to counter North Korea, other than bunkers again.

And it seems MAD works with Putin. Because A, because he has not nuked Ukraine, and B, there are no nations calling for his existance to be ended.

Iran do not have a nuke.

Iran were close to a nuke. And will presumambly now be even keener to get one.

So you have no ideas on what UK defense spending is needed

You continue listing the things you think we need. Again, Alan. I have no comment on anything like that that you have written on this thread as I am not an expert in military procurement and neither are you. As mentioned several times already I simply rely on the views of the former heads of the military and security services that more needs to be done.. This seems a circular argument going no where which you continue to labour. Please don't continue I beg you!! 🤣. You will get the same answer.

And it seems MAD works with Putin. Because A, because he has not nuked Ukraine, and B, there are no nations calling for his existance to be ended.
Now this is finally an intersting point. Putin hasnt fired a nuclear weapon presumably due to unpredictable weather blowing fall out back to him. But as I have already said, if he is pushed into a corner, Ukraine start encroaching on Russia, NATO miscalculates or he just feels cornered like his childhood rat with no way out he may do something catastrophic. NATO obviously realises this but we cannot predict what he may do for sepf preservation and it doesnt need to be NATO. China has always had an eye on recovering territory taken by the Russians. Is Putin such a good man he wouldnt want to go down in flames with everyone else? No one knows.

Iran were close to a nuke. And will presumambly now be even keener to get one.

Kinda depends on who you listen to. Has Iran been months away from a nuke for 34 years? There's a lot of propaganda on this topic.

Quote " Now this is finally an intersting point. Putin hasnt fired a nuclear weapon presumably due to unpredictable weather blowing fall out back to him. "

That's a hell of a presumption there. That Putin is no longer bound by MAD because of the wind direction.

Re where you think the UK needs to spend on defense, in your opening post you said "And yet there's no corresponding rise in UK defence spending and nothing has been done on an urgent basis". I am just asking what you think the rise should be spent on, seeing as you appear to think their should be a rise.

Or you could say where the generals say it is needed.

Edit to add. You did post that Iran had a nuke, and now you have changed to they almost had a nuke. You do appear to be throwing what you can in the pot to just criticise the UK military budget. The 6th highest in the world.

I said that Iran may have changed the reliability of MAD as a calculation. I dont think I said they had a nuke? I said they nearly had one. Youve misunderstood. Presumambly all efforts will be made to get one now. Ive explained already why I think that nuclear proliferation changes the calculations.

Do you think Putin wouldn't launch a nuclear attack if things were existential for him?

Agreed there is propaganda. Iran are allies of Russia after all. Would Putin want a nuclear armed Iran? Iran will want a nuke now to deter another attack by the US. Just like N Korea as they have seen how it works well.

What on earth are you on about ? There are no leaflets coming through the door about how to survive nuclear fallout.....or is this sarcasm? I can't tell anymore on these 'lets all panic and go mental threads' 😂

Thing is, things have not been made existinal for him, likely because he has nukes. So MAD works.

Trump on the other hand. There appears to be a danger he want's to drop one on Iran's Pickaxe Mountain. The world order has indeed changed in the last couple of years, because of Trump.

I was replying @Hopefulsalmon who mentioned the Cold War. That was in the 1970's and 80's. A much, much scarier time. Leaflets were posted through doors about surviving nuclear fallout and we did drills at school on what to do in the event of a nuclear strike. That may have been just were I grew up which was very a very military area.

🤣🤣🤣

You think we don't already have a considerable number of foreign operatives on our shore already, we do!! The channel is no longer a barrier.

Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying. That makes sense now 😀

However close to a nuke Iran were or were not, it seems to me that they will be going into hyperdrive to get nukes now.
And the US public have given a very good indication that a renewed war with Iran would be political suicide.
Slow hand clap Trump. Slow hand clap.

Us spending more money on defence won’t prevent an attack. We’ve already got enough nukes ourselves to render the planet uninhabitable, let alone the numbers across NATO, Russia, Israel. Defence spending hasn’t deterred Russia, America or Israel from invading other countries. It won’t deter it from happening here.

Borders can’t be ‘secured’ from cyber, air or sea attack. However much money you throw at it.

The best defence against attacks on other countries would be sharing money and resources fairly across the globe and us setting ourselves free from fossil fuel slavery - give everyone free, renewable energy.

The only ones benefiting from pouring more money into defence are arms dealers.

Have the snows started in Moscow yet?

Also, stop handing out money for nothing, to illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel. This would go a long way to funding our security!