Originally Posted by
Heathrow Harry
Boffin - I came to the conclusion several years ago that 2% just isn't enough for the UK
We've taken a NATO "aspiration" which includes countries who have never had a significant armed forces or out of area history (Denmark, NL, Belgium etc) and turned it into a hard & fast rule that is ruining our defences
Any historic view would suggest 3 or even 3.5% is required - and that's without adding in the SSBN
Alternatively, what if 2% is sufficient but we just aren’t spending 2% on capability and personnel? i.e. is what we are seeing now the result of fudging 2% through slight of hand and accounting practices so sharp Carillion would think twice and this is simply the net result of masking underinvestment through politics?