The British Army could seize Bruges



We are, as a NATO member meant to spend at least 2% of gdp on defence. That’s not a lot for our security like.
 
DavyC said:
We are, as a NATO member meant to spend at least 2% of gdp on defence. That’s not a lot for our security like.
Click to expand...

We spent 1.9% last year so not far off. Loads of NATO members don’t spend anywhere near 2% of GDP.

Why do they need more than 50 billion?
 
DavyC said:
Would you rather we didn’t have a decent armed forces?
Click to expand...

Given we spend the 7th highest amount in the world on our armed forces I’d say we do.

If not, the people in charge of spending the money are doing a pretty shit job.

If the army would struggle to take Bruges when Belgium don’t spend a 10th of what we do, that reflects pretty poorly on the UK armed forces.
 
Aye and the head of the army of the only worlds superpower once told us a naval invasion of the falklands was an impossibility. Other than not being able to compete with manpower our soldiers are up there with the very best, if not the best trained in the world.
 
Pop said:
We do look strong. There is never enough money for the public sector to waste.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I’d happily exempt you from taxes as long as you’d be happy with receiving no direct public funded services.

You’d be bawling your eyes out if your house caught fire and the fire brigade wouldn’t come, or if you needed surgery but couldn’t afford it.

In the meantime, continue to slate the public services you haven’t got a clue about.
 
girojim said:
Maybe if we stop invading countries and launching needless wars we wouldn't need to spend so much
Click to expand...
Quite right throughout my life starting from the Korean War our troops have almost constantly been engaged in some armed conflict. We did manage to keep our nose out of Vietnam but we had Malaya , Suez, Cyprus , Kenya , Aden , Ireland , Falklands ,Iran (twice) and Afghanistan
 
Frijj said:
:lol:

I’d happily exempt you from taxes as long as you’d be happy with receiving no direct public funded services.

You’d be bawling your eyes out if your house caught fire and the fire brigade wouldn’t come, or if you needed surgery but couldn’t afford it.

In the meantime, continue to slate the public services you haven’t got a clue about.
Click to expand...

My point is, the UK armed forces are very well funded compared to the rest of the world, I’ve given several examples.

This leads me to believe that the ex general is lying or they are very wasteful.

What have I said that is wrong? Very unliberal of you not understand my differing opinion comrade.
 
Last edited:
Pop said:
We spent 1.9% last year so not far off. Loads of NATO members don’t spend anywhere near 2% of GDP.

Why do they need more than 50 billion?
Click to expand...
That 1.9% is made up of a lot of creative accounting covering stuff like civil service pensions in the MoD - not actual spending on military equipment.
We're in a state where if something did happen we'd be very hard pushed to do anything of consequence, and that includes defending outselves. The air cover for the UK is minimal, our Navy has been gutted to the state that we're building two aircraft carriers, stripping the rest of the surface fleet on promises of the never never - all the while not having enough personnel to actually man both carriers.

Geronimo said:
Don't think we do.

The US have it all wrapped up.

Russia for example wouldn't even contemplate moving against the UK
Click to expand...
Not directly but if they went after the Baltic states (after Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea have shown how they'll do it) we are in no position to actually abide by our Article 5 treaty obligations.
The US are rightly saying to the rest of NATO time to pay your way and stop relying on us picking up the slack to deter action and people think they are being unreasonable.
 
Frijj said:
We can’t really hope to compete with Russia, China or the US though can we? We just don’t have the manpower.

They have territories in the Carribean and South Pacific iirc
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with having a well funded and equipped military? It's not all about being ready to fight China or Russia on our own; it's about, at least in my opinion, being able to support our allies where necessary and ensure the independence of other countries, the former Eastern Bloc states being the prime example at the moment. Also, inb4 Iraq and illegal wars etc.

Keawyeds said:
We should spend more on taking care of what we have rather than being poised to attack.
If the big bombs start falling we're all fucked anyway. Might as well help out the NHS and other services
Bomb Pollish
Click to expand...

Facetious argument really, why bother doing anything at all? After all, if the big bombs start falling...
 

Back
Top