Originally Posted by
pax britanica
Its 2023 , Bad guys stille xist , ie Russia but at the same time they seem to be extremely incompetent .
Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe
A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.
Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line
So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.
I don’t think this properly respects hierarchy of needs.
Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement.
We have an aging population and ever more sophisticated and expensive treatments.
The demand for health services is insatiable and will never recede.
We could take the defense budget to zero and it still wouldn’t “fix” the NHS.
The defense budget didn’t cause the problems the NHS is facing and can’t solve them either.
You are minimizing a far more impactful risk to solve a less severe but more easily apparent risk that your approach still doesn’t solve anyway.