I have always thought that the instability resulting from the end of the Cold War (and the end of the USSR) required higher defence spending rather than less.
In Cold War days, nuclear deterrence worked, and relatively small conventional forces were 'big enough' for contingencies and to buy time for negotiation.
So when the Cold War ended what did we do? Encouraged Joe Public to expect a peace dividend and reduced our defence spending accordingly. And just to make sure we were doubly f*cked, we disbanded useful assets like FJ squadrons, did nothing significant to improve rapid deployment and OOA forces and equipment and instead retained irrelvant but glamorous assets like SSBNs and massed 'big armour' units in Germany.
Even if the worst thing that we might face was a repeat of Granby, we need bigger, better equipped forces. And if WW3 is round the corner, then.....
So we're agreed on the need to resolutely discourage further cuts, on this thread, so far.
But what about the other half of the equation raised by FEBA. Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?
Oops!