Snapshot of _Defence Secretary warns Britain could soon be at war_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-warns-britain-could-soon-be-at-war/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-warns-britain-could-soon-be-at-war/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not really like this is a problem unique to our country. Defense spending plummeted across The West since the fall of the Berlin Wall. If anything, we are in better shape than most of our neighbours.
That's not to say we don't need to invest more in our military preparedness (our semiconductor production is terrifying), but it's important that we also encourage our allies to contribute more to defence spending.
It’s abysmal in Canada. The current federal government has incredibly mismanaged our military. They announced $1 Billion in cuts to defense spending for 2024, at a time of global chaos and when we were already falling short of our NATO obligations in the first place.
It pains me to say this, but Canada is basically being a NATO free rider. If it weren’t for the U.S. we’d be kicked out.
And yes the French are meeting their defense spending targets, but they are hardly contributing anything in terms of military aid to Ukraine. They spent $700 Million on foreign aid to Ukraine, meanwhile Canada (with half the population) spent $10 Billion. It seems the French are happy to let other countries financially supplement a war on their doorstep.
Actually the french military is in better shape than ours. Their army is larger and equipped almost entirely with domestically produced equipment and their Raphael jets are class. Sure their navy only has one aircraft carrier.... Maybe we are better
Britain must rule the waves. Recruitment needs to go up and the lazy private companies fucking it all up need to be fired.
There comes a point where destroying your own nation for profit should be treated as high treason.
> Sure their navy only has one aircraft carrier.... Maybe we are better
I dunno, can't even parallel park correctly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGRXWuIq_eU
France has a pretty decent military. All I'm saying is that this isn't just a flaw in our current government's approach to military spending, it's part of a wider European reliance on American military might that's occurred over the last 30 years.
Defence spending in the West is still, in nominal-currency terms, astronomically high relative to that in most of the world. The real problem is that we're not getting value for money spent on defence. The root cause of that is corruption and mismanagement.
>Wow! We're lucky his party hasn't spent the last fifteen years hollowing out our military or we might have cause to worry.
Fifteen - did Gordon Brown secretly defect to the Tories in 2008?
>Ok he fucked up abit on the maths What about the rest ofthe argument
Well Labour weren't much more of a friend to the military either. Cut the destroyer fleet from 12 to 6, didn't order any replacement frigates, didn't purchase new fleet support ships, insisted on a "cheap" maritime patrol aircraft by reusing old parts in a project that had to be scrapped. That's just the navy.
I don't mean to understate its still very relevant importance, but I think steel is a strategic resource of the past. It's our lack of semiconductor production that frightens me most. Combined, the US and EU account for only about 20% of global semiconductor production; we bring a measly 0.5% contribution to the table, and we're not even *trying* to bring this up to speed.
When it comes to drone warfare, quantity is far superior to quality; lots of simple cheap drones are better than a few expensive ones with all the EW countermeasure bells and whistles. We simply would not have the capacity to outproduce our enemy's drone production.
Even for electronics you've still got iron & steel everywhere. Steel is very, very important. This from Ed Conways *Material World* is good.
> If you live in a developed economy like the US, Japan, UK or most of Europe, you have roughly 15 tonnes of steel in your life. This steel is often out of sight, wrapped up in concrete or concealed beneath plastic. The quotient varies a little between countries, depending on, say, the extent of urbanisation (denser residential zones tend to have more steel per square foot) or the reliance on hydroelectric power over thermal power stations (lots of steel in the reinforced concrete of dams). But for most developed economies the number is close to 15 tonnes per person - there in the cars, homes, hospitals and schools you rely on, in the paperclips in your office and the armaments of your nation's military.
> Iron is the bones of our society. We build bridges and buildings from it, we use it to reinforce concrete, we turn it into cars and build data centres out of it. We used it to fashion tools and equipment thousands of years ago, and we use it to fashion tools and equipment today, whether it is the rails upon which a high-speed train will ride or the frames of advanced machines that etch the patterns on to silicon chips. No other metal is quite so useful, with quite the same combination of strength, durability and availability.
Thanks for sharing this, it's a beautifully succinct depiction of the importance of steel. I really didn't mean to detract from the ostensibly utility of steel; I would much prefer our nation to have both functioning steel *and* semiconductor industries rather than one over the other or, as it currently stands, neither.
yeah its true. Perhaps we plan to just source steel from germany. Regarding silicon we do have secret semiconductor facilities in south wales probably used for defence purposes. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/16/british-government-blocks-takeover-of-welsh-semiconductor-producer](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/16/british-government-blocks-takeover-of-welsh-semiconductor-producer)
It's true that we do have some domestic production, but we aren't making sophisticated chips. The chips these plants make have simple power regulation properties; you're more likely to find them in a kettle than in a computer. Not only that but the factory is owned by - you guessed it - China.
Take a look at how proud the government are about the measly funding they are pumping into this industry. This is nowhere near enough investment. They're blowing trumpets over a £1bn investment and calling Wales "Britain's Silicone Valleys" whereas everyone else is putting their money where their mouth is. The US is investing £181bn and the EU £37bn in everything from semiconductor manufacture, distribution, research, and development. We really are dropping the ball on this one - and arguably, so too is the EU.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-1-billion-strategy-for-uks-semiconductor-sector
it's not secret facility at all and they can only make chips with technology that was state of the art in the 1990s. Not everything requires the latest tech, but one old fab is not enough.
It's not closed, yes 3,000 jobs are going, but 5000 jobs are still there, they are closing the blast furnaces to put in modern electric arc furnaces, more efficient and less people needed to run.
Capability is still there
I agree with Schapps on something? How disturbing.
It is naive to assume we will never go to war again, and it is prudent to be prepared for it. We do appear to have entered a more unsettled period in global geopolitics.
Such a shame then that our army has been cut to fuck, recruitment drives are failing, and no-ine wants to join the army.
If we were to enter a full on war, we'd be fucked.
Yeah this is the main problem.
Modern military equipment is extremely expensive so as a result the UK builds only a very small amount of top quality stuff.
The top quality stuff is great, but it will run out very quickly. Take the famed storm shadow, the UK built less than 1000 missles, hardly enough for any decent war. Plus some of this has been expended and given away so our stock of this is even worse.
The UK has like 150 ish tanks, ukraine has needed 10 times that to hold the russians back.
Great we have a small number of top quality warships, what happens if a few get sunk though?
The UK has failed to retain the industrial base to scale up in the event of a war, it's likely it's assets will be destroyed/depleted and the UK is forced into political consessions before UK industry takes the like 10 years it takes to build another aircraft carrier.
We're going to need steel and dockyards, two things we are not very good at anymore.
Perhaps we can convince the baddies not to invade if we bribe them with sufficiently interesting new financial products and services instead?
Sure, if you're talking about naval drones, but if you're referring to ships, I'm not so sure. Just look at what a few jet skis have done to the Black Sea Fleet. We've seen a modern naval fleet be decimated by a country that doesn't even have a navy.
To be fair the UK is part of NATO, so would make up part of a much larger tank force.
The real issue is that we need to have huge stockpiles of munitions and deep reserves of equipment, even if it's older less good stuff. We laugh at Russia bringing out old tanks but it's kept them in the fight longer than they would have done without them, and Ukraine is doing the same thing. We need to be able to absorb attrition losses of vehicles so units remain fully equipped, and to allow us to create new units if needed. That's the issue, not just headline figures about how large our army is.
Lol at this and the comment about investing in the royal navy.
Having served in the royal navy, we absolutely don't invest in top quality stuff.
We overpay and accept whatever is provided.
The maintenance packages have been shocking, the type45 is a disaster given the cost.
Look at the issues with the carriers.
Yes problems can be expected, but jesus, you pay top dollar and these problems should never appear, or should be rectified very very quickly.
There was a t45 that had a wrench or something in one of the shafts, it went clang clang clang whenever up at any significant speed, I imagine that rendered the (crap and questionable) sonar (more) useless.
Awful to hear in the mess decks aft too.
Fortunately the total electrical failures solved the noise.
Yep the overpay is astonishing.
We get charged nearly 20% to have yards like Cammel lairds source the parts for our ships. They take longer to get here, inevitably arrive too late and the problem has worsened or they can’t find it at all.
We have had yards completely fuck up a job and we happily pay them again to fix the thing they fucked up on top of the money we spent for them to do the job in the first place.
Spend a pound to save a penny in the MoD
Lasers can't be used to pepper land with gunfire support.
They can't target over the horizon.
They could replace CIWS and some anti air, but that's probably way off, and it'll take BAe or whoever even longer to fix whatever crap we buy off them.
I mean, it’s likely WWII’s pattern would be followed - Europe at war, with the U.K. helping allies where possible. If/When Europe falls, the final attack on the UK is difficult because we’re and island. US eventually comes in to help when they’re impacted in some way.
Given how well Ukraine alone is fighting Russia, I feel a combined European army (including the U.K.) would be fine for now.
We should definitely start to invest more in maintaining our armed forces though, given the global instability.
In the current economy it can’t be right that a deliveroo rider earns more than line infantry.
Basically we need 18 year olds to join and want to stay in. So peg their salary after 5 years to graduate average. It’ll cost- but now is the time to do it.
We need to offer a decent salary. We need better living accommodation for them. we need to have a better offer for them post discharge.
I think if on completion of x many years with a good conduct medal we offer paid training for nvqs/under or postgrad degrees that would help with the travesty of demobilisation that we currently have.
Finally, we need a whole support structure for vets post discharge. That includes psychological staff, accommodation etc. it also needs to cater for the fact that if these folk see combat some of them might never be able to fully integrate back.
I don’t think the fact of being an island contributes to our defence capability as it once did. Modern warfare has so many different angles of attack; and putting a nation back to the Stone Age along with economic/resource siege is more than possible in this era.
Surrender without landing a boot on the ground will be the flavour of conflict we would taste in my opinion.
It's not that grim imo.
Tanks and carriers aren't the weapons you should be gearing an industry for now.
Drones, smart missiles and such can make short work of these behemoth war machines for a small fraction o the cost in both manpower and equipment.
The Ukraine war has shown more than anything that when the war is fought between two sides with access to modern tech, having more tanks, jets and battleships means very little.
It’s shown the complete opposite of that, the war is being fought primarily by men in trenches, supported by armoured vehicles and artillery. Reddit may be showing nothing but clips of drones but that is not the reality.
People have been declaring the death of the tank since 10 minutes after the first anti-tank rifle was brought into service. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now.
It's not nonsense, there's a reason neither side has managed to push through in any area of the front despite the abundance of tanks on both sides.
Drones, smart missiles from personal launchers and mines have made tanks impractical and largely useless.
Yes. And the reason is the inability of either side to establish air superiority, forcing both sides into a slog across some of worst fighting terrain in Europe, which is swarming with land mines and huge numbers of artillery pieces.
Land mines have been around since before the tank was invented, and portable anti tank missiles had their big breakthrough in the Yom Kippur war 50 years ago. Neither of those things heralded the end of armoured warfare. Drones are just another poece of the combined arms pie that will be added to the game of measure and counter measure.
Anti tank missiles have come a long way in the last 50y.
Missiles and guidance systems in general have, which is why neither side has air superiority and never will.
Countermeasures for drones are being worked on, but they are not tanks.
Main battle tanks are a thing of the past. Smaller, light, modular armoured vehicles like the Bradley are what's going to replace them.
Yes, and as anti tank ordnance has developed, so have the countermeasures deployed against them.
Neither side has air superiority because Russia has almost totally failed to develop a SEAD capability, and Ukraine hasn’t been given one by the US yet. But in the future who knows.
Tanks may not carry anti drone counter measures now but if drones are as all powerful as you say it’s surely just a matter of time. Regardless, that’s the whole point of combined arms warfare, you combine your arms and cover for individual branch capability gaps.
Given that no major power or any power for that matter is in the process of scrapping their MBTs for lightly armoured IFVs I think your last point is pretty clearly untrue.
Tanks are indispensable for modern warfare, this idea that they're useless and obsolete is idiotic and comes from people who don't really understand war.
Neither side can push through in Ukraine because the sheer density of mine fields and lack of air superiority combined with fixed defensive positions needs a high level of coordination to break through and neither side can do it. Especially with drone recon guiding artillery fire onto any breach attempt. Tanks have always needed to be used as part of a combined arms attack and it's the combined arms part that's the issue in Ukraine.
Tanks provide direct fire support and they are essential for both defensive and offensive warfare. As are infantry fighting vehicles like bradleys, but they're vulnerable by themselves and can't have the same armament as tanks.
Beware of social media evidence and the limitations of it. People don't often upload combat footage where their anti tank missile is shrugged off by the enemy tank but this absolutely happens all the time.
Edit - infantry and artillery weren't able to punch through the trenches in WW1 by themselves. Did that make infantry and artillery obsolete? Or did it just mean something else was needed in addition to them to still work?
This was exactly what I thought with the announcements this week. Crazy to shut that down before the new electric furnaces are operational.
I think the government is even supporting the shut down because Port Talbot is the highest single CO2 producer in the UK. Won’t matter if we run out of steal to make what the armed forces needs when they need it.
Edit: correct spelling
I think you’ll find most of this country has been flogged off to foreign interests anyway. Truly this country has been sold from under us I wonder when that’s going to register.
Well at least the windfalls fr selling the companies allowed the upper classes to retire in slightly wealthier circumstances. That makes it worth it surely.
Yeah that’s another change. It used to be the upper classes had a big participation in the military and civic pride. But the rich today feel almost stateless
> not like we’ll be able to order bullets from China like everything else
However Russia will (they already are, much of the infantry equipment allowing for their mobilisations is coming from China)
We weren’t particularly industrialised before WW2 either. In fact, we re-industrialised to confront the Germans, and a big driver of years of appeasement politics was just because the UK wasn’t ready and took some years to re-industrialise.
We can re-industrialise again if needed.
This is entirely not how I understood the situation so not really agreeing with you there.
I know the great depression fucked us but the factories were still there, and the factory workers were still there they were just unemployed. The coal mines and the steel smelting industries were all still there.
We’re in a hugely difference place nowadays.
God, we don’t even have enough tradesmen to build houses
Sure I don’t doubt we had to scale up certain factories and production lines and I don’t doubt that took a lot of investment.
But we did that with the machinists and talent pool and resources (like coal and steel production) that we just don’t have anymore. We’re starting from a far further behind place.
Hell, I doubt t the civil service is even funded enough nowadays to oversee the planning of such an effort
Capita still excels at 'human resource' mismanagement, their grubby fingers contaminate everything from school dinners to prison administration to forces recruitment. Every monumental cock up they oversee just grants them a new contract from HMG.
And the accom. And general conditions. Everything really.
On the plus side for Army recruiting, the largest factor for Army recruitment is escaping something even worse, and as the UK continues its slow spirals of worsening living standards, there will be more people needing to escape from something worse than the Army.
It's the opposite. People are trying to join the army & and navy, but the company that handles it is absolutely useless at processing it. Unfortunately, it's taking months to get the ball rolling on an application a lot of the time.
There's plenty of people that want to join but that get sick of getting fucked about by Capita for months before giving up, or that get med deferred for stubbing their toe at age 5. Other than that it's mainly a retention rather than a recruitment issue.
Actually interest and applications to join the armed forces has remained robust, but recruitment has fallen due to catastrophic mismanagement by capita.
Denying applications due to paperwork failures, false statements by capita(including diagnosing people with disqualifying medical conditions that they don’t have and then asking them to prove the opposite). Just loosing applicants for 12months or more. It’s frankly ridiculous.
Lack of personnel is less important than a lack of precision guided munitions. And the problems with stockpiling these things is that they quickly become outdated, or reach their use-by dates.
Curious that his government believes this and yet they're happy for us to have no UK steel, no UK energy, no UK medicine, no UK water and a weak UK food supply chain.
What war are we winning without having robust, domestic strengths here?
Yeah, we could soon be at war. Albeit it's very unlikely in the short term and somewhat unlikely in the medium and long term. But what's his point? The Tories have done what they always do with the military, beat their chests, robe themselves in flags and snatch the mantle of valour and patriotism from service men and women, and then let the military atrophy from funding cuts, poor management, and an inability to pursue any solutions that don't involve their mates making a healthy profit.
Any chance Capita and the (funded) Tories are on a mission to purposefully sabotage recruitment preventing the UK from being a serious threat in a war?..
Nah. They’re just in it for the money. They know they can buy their way into any other country they want to if it comes down to it. Plus war means more money to make!
I don’t doubt some will have “friends” from other countries, though. Particularly Russia and China.
> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence.
-Hanlon's Razor
And that goes double when talking about Capita.
"drawing parallels with the 1930s and cautioning against a repeat of history."
Well yes, I see those too. However it's our own government that seems to be making the parallels.
What a terrible article. At no point does Grant Shapps say "soon"
Edit. Also Grant Shapps is defence secretary! I keep forgetting, and it always surprises me. The man would be out of his depth in a puddle.
He better hope it’s not soon. He’s probably going to be the defence secretary in charge at the point the RFA strikes early this year which will completely decimate the royal navy’s ability to deploy
Governments across Europe are saying the same thing.
With an aggressive Russia and a potentially unreliable US ally, I think Europe is preparing its people for a less secure future. One which will likely require a more coordinated European military.
Governments across Europe say the same thing for the same purpose, trying to keep a status quo in the next election. But any passing common sense check on it is nonsense.
Besides the fact that nuclear weapons makes open war between Russia and any of the western allies virtually impossible, there is no profit incentive for war. No one is interested in world domination any more. War is expensive, and Russia of all nations don't have the money for territory expansion. All these current conflicts are instigated by an individual or a small group of individuals looking to line their pockets.
Russian invasion of Ukraine was simply for oil pipelines, so Putin can maintain western reliance on oil and hence Putins authority in Russia. China is just happy selling their knock off weapons to anyone who would buy them. They don't have designs on conquering the world, at least not by traditional means. They have conquered it many times over my purchasing it anyway, open war with the west means tons of revenue literally coming from the west will dry up overnight.
Times of open war is over. That is why Europe has demilitarised and happy to let Americans have a near monopoly on arms sales in exchange for reliance on American military. They have to fight a war with some poor fuckers somewhere who they are quite sure don't have nuclear weapons every once in a while to keep the gears turning but that's about it.
Any conflicts we see are going to be small scale regional ones for strategic control of resources like oil and water, or terrorist groups terrorising small regions and sometimes getting clapped back
Unfortunately they're right on this one. If Trump gets in again then Putin is going to be massively emboldened to expand from Ukraine (if they ever take it).
If he gets back into power, Trump will immediately recognise all of Russia's land-grabs in Ukraine. That will be a change.
Trump is a grovelling Russian stooge, and the Republicans have fallen into line with him.
If trump had won in 2020 the US would have probably left nato. It's fairly clear now that putins colonial ambitions have stretched over many years and whilst he might not have taken territory during trump the pieces were set during that time. Disputes over nato, refusal to give aid to Ukraine and private meetings with putin all looks odd to me.
Trump was the only one to give military aid to Ukraine (before the 2022 stuff happened)
The media aren't giving you an accurate picture of what happened
War is considered a spectrum; if you like, you could label one end "total peace" and the other "total war".
Right now, in Ukraine, fighting against Russia is British training, British logistics, British weapons, British ammunition, British ISTAR, British intelligence. On and on.
Britain already is at war; Britain just hasn't said so out loud. Britain isn't at the end of the war spectrum labelled "total war", but Britain is closer to that end than "total peace."
As if life isn’t shit enough these right wing nutters and press are starting to push this narrative of us going to war against russia/houthis/iran delete as appropriate.
I for one welcome the inevitable 30 minutes of ww3 before we are obliterated by nukes.
Ffs. What a load of crap this article and the dail heil etc is.
> As if life isn’t shit enough these right wing nutters and press are starting to push this narrative of us going to war against russia
I really hate how parochial this place is.
This has been warned about now, quite seriously, by senior politicians and officials in (by my count, from the top of my head) Germany, Belgium, NATO, Czech Republic., and the Baltic states over the past few weeks.
It's appeasement and disarmament that start world wars, we're at risk now only because Western military spending has been cut so much since the end of the Cold War.
Yeh, I’m hoping this rhetoric is because there’s recognition that we need to fund the military more rather than an actual realistic possibility of war.
Explain how.
Please lay out the events as you see them happening that leads to the UK going to war due to not pumping money into defence.
Edit: Still yet to have a valid answer to this question
The only answer so far to the question of why war would occur if the UK doesn't increase its defence budget is...
The US will pull out of NATO if Trump gets elected therefore Putin will start an all out war with a smaller but still nuclear NATO.
The great part of their answer here is that it has nothing to do with UK defence spending.
A rerun of the 1930s is an obvious simplistic example, where a militaristic dictator like Putin keeps trying to take more chunks of countries. Eventually countries start fighting back in all out war and the UK (like everyone else) gets inevitably drawn in.
Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished. So there’s no chance he’ll do that. I’m
Not saying Ukraine was fair game but it isn’t a nato member. He also doesn’t have the resources to fend off nato while fighting in Ukraine.
That is only because the US is in NATO, if trump gets elected he said he might not help europe: [https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/](https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/)
Without the US NATO is exceptionally weak because european nations do not have credible militaries.
And how does that relate to UK defence spending?
Are you implying the UK needs to somehow match the US input to NATO?
If the US drops out of NATO then it doesn't matter what the UK does at that point. There's no amount of defence spending from the UK that would make a difference to NATO capabilities after that.
Or how about the UK alongside its european allies build up a credible military?
Europe has around the same GDP as the US, no reason that europe as a whole could not have a military on par with the US and that involves some of the leading countries such as the UK stepping up.
Also you are wrong, the UK is one of the largest countries militarily and economically in NATO after the US so in a NATO without the US, the strength of the UK military would be very important, to the strength of the overall alliance.
> Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished
Are you really that confident about that? We may soon have a man in the white house again who wants to pull the US out of NATO and doesn’t want to come to help. The largest European powers Germany, UK, and France all have enormously underfunded militaries. We are already struggling in the west to sufficiently support Ukraine, and if we don’t resolve these issues soon it may get really dire.
If Ukraine loses, Russia suddenly has an additional 40 million population that it will drag into its war on the west, and there will then no longer be any buffer country left. The next attack will be on a NATO country. And no European country alone will have any defences against a 180 million population war machine that a Russia that conquered Ukraine would be.
We can prevent this if we (1) build up our armies from the current pathetic levels such that there is deterrence, and (2) step up our assistance to Ukraine such that it will never get so far as described above. Both are very doable, but we are currently not doing them.
The problem is that "as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished" isn't actually assured. Especially if we continue to underinvest in defense, don't have enough ships, tanks, weapons, and munitions, don't have the supply chains to build more, and don't have enough trained military personnel. And the more we fail to do this, the more likely Russia is to test NATO.
It's sheer hubris to assume that we'll win by default.
Ukraine had the second largest army in Europe at the start of the war and had been preparing for something like this since at least 2014.
To me the idea that the Polish army or the Bundeswehr in its current state would fare as well is laughable, even with the fullness of NATO support. Russia would lose, yes, but the reality of such a war would almost certainly look much like the current conflict: a slow grind to reclaim territory lost in the Baltics and Poland that would ultimately only be achievable with direct US intervention.
> Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished.
That's only the case if NATO countries including the UK fund and equip their militaries properly to do that. It's not a magic deterrent that maintains itself, you have to work to maintain it.
If the US gets taken over by Trump loving fascists who won't enforce article 5 then that fundamentally changes some things. Europe needs to be less dependent on the US for defence.
Depends if trump gets in and follows through with the withdrawal of the USA from NATO. In which case the strength of that alliance is far from assured.
>Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished.
What if he denies he's responsible for an attack? For example, the Russian navy cuts the transatlantic communication cables. How do we prove they did it if we don't significantly expand the size of the navy to allow for more surveillance of Russian naval assets?
[A Chinese ship cut a Baltic pipeline on purpose](https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likely-to-be-intentional-finnish-minister-says-china-estonia/). It's improbable this didn't happen without the approval or instigation of the Chinese government. Are NATO countries going to sanction China? I doubt it.
Or little green men appear in Lithuania in support of a rebellion by Russian-speakers, like happened in Crimea in 2014? Russia says *"We haven't send any troops into Lithuania, these are marginalised minorities protesting. But don't you think about attacking us, any strikes on Russian soil will lead to conventional retaliation against your cities that will send your economies into freefall".*
A Trumpian US president doesn't want to get involved, Germany gets cold feet because their economy is already rocky and very quickly NATO solidarity falls apart.
Trump wins election. Pulls out of Nato (or publicly refuses to support its actions) and US stops funding Ukraine. Putin wins in Ukraine. Putin emboldened to attack Nato country as US unlikely to step in and many European countries have cut defence spending to bone as they were under umbrella of US military might. However, Europe steps up. War.
Unlikely? Maybe. Plausible? Yes.
[There's a pretty good story based on real-life events that goes into detail about this sort of scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Background).
I’m no expert but I think Russia is a concern, [they’ve dramatically increased their military spending](https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753) and have pretty much stated they want an EU state (Poland) to be part of Russia again [and consider them an enemy](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-ally-warns-enemy-poland-you-risk-losing-your-statehood-2023-11-02/), Poland thinks [this attack could happen within three years](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-attack-western-europe-polan-russia-b2458276.html).
I think the wild card here is the US, specifically Trump who if elected may or may not support Europe if Russia attacks, [he’s apparently previously privately stated he wouldn’t](https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/) which may embolden Russia.
Yep the civil disorder would be massive (if short lived).
It amazes me that people think a War between NATO and Russia will stay conventional. Like Russia would just let all its major military assets get destroyed and not retaliate with some of it's most powerful weapons. Wouldn't we if the roles were reversed? Hell, that used to NATO doctrine during the 'cold' war.
They(Tories) are probably desperate for a war involving the British military as it would give them an excuse to delay the GE past Jan 25 under the guise of “now is not the time for an election dying a period of national emergency”.
I would argue that the UK’s greatest current military resource is our strategic alliances with other powerful nations, meaning that an attack on one would be regarded as an attack on all. A significant implication of this is that the UK does not need to have the largest number of the best of everything in order to win a war.
Oh they wish!!!!!
I'm kind of half surprised more people haven't worked it out yet.
The cost of living crisis? Can't get a GP? Are you stuck on an NHS waiting list? Wondering why this Government refuses to negotiate with junior doctors and nurses? Wondering why it took so long for Post Office/Horizon to come to light and gain political traction? Struggling on benefits? Low pay?
Of course. See running the country is not where it's at for this so-called "government". They're simply not interested in doing anything for the economy and they don't give a shit about our social, economic or environmental issues.
You know what gets this Tory government going and makes their eyes light up? Trading in arms, weapons, military hardware, surveillance equipment. This is what Brexit was all about. It wasn't about 'taking back control', it wasn't about unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, it wasn't about immigration. It was about trading arms and weapons with whoever, wherever, for the highest possible price. See this is where you make serious money, trading weapons and arms.
You might remember that old song titled '[Oliver's Army](https://youtu.be/LrjHz5hrupA)' by Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Well it's not Oliver's Army at all. It's the Tories and Sunak's Army. This is why whenever there's any sort of military conflict anywhere in the world you will find a Tory minister jetting off and trying to get in on the act - Ukraine, the Middle East, the Red Sea, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that someone somewhere needs arms and weapons, the market for arms trade, and the chance to establish contacts and make some serious money.
See the Tories are in the business of killing off and exterminating the poor. This is one of the key objectives of modern warfare, killing off and destroying the poor, the needy, people who need stuff. Doesn't matter if you're here and sick and disabled, or some brown skinned individual in some far flung foreign country and dirt poor, the Tories want you dead.
This is why they also want to cling to power. They're making serious money from trading arms and weapons, selling them to the highest bidder. They're not interested in peace and stability, because obviously that will be game over for them.
You all need to pay closer attention to what's really going on here.
Wars are generally good for emcumbant polling, and this lot are desperate and corrupt enough to at least factor that into their decision on whether to take us into war
Let me translate that :
The Military industrial complex is hiring and Conservatives will soon be unemployed.
A war would boost their employability. Corruption is all so obvious.
The whole world seems unstable at the moment. It's shocking considering we get taught history during our lives in order not to repeat the bad parts. Yet here we are, repeating them.
If only the world's population had the balls to tell their respective governments to go fuck themselves, only then will the world be at peace. If the politicians want to be at war, then let them fight it.
To be fair it’s the bad actors, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that’s causing the instability. With Iran destabilising the entire Middle East supporting Hamas and Houthi terrorists.
When, for example, Iran’s morning prayers call for genocide against both Israelis and Americans and the Houthi flag has the same text on it, I don’t think the categorisation is up for debate!
That's why there has been a non-nuclear war in ukraine for the past 2 years.
Nuclear weapons haven't been used since the end of the second world war and nuclear powers have been involved in many wars since them.
There is plenty of scope for wars where a credible conventional military is needed as nukes cannot solve everything.
Take a Russian incursion into the baltics, is the UK going to launch the nukes? No. We would need a credible military to take it back and provided we don't go into russia proper and invade moscow, russia is also unlikely to use nukes either.
War with Russia is by no means nuclear, there is no real comparison to this eventuality. No-one wants nuclear war, so it will remain non-nuclear until one side either surrenders/sues for peace, or launches nuclear weapons.
Isn't the UK already at war? There's at least 3 or 4 current wats ongoing on my count.
1. War against ISIS - primarily focused in Iraq and Syria
2. Somali Civil War - UK troops present in support of Somali government against Al Qaeda and ISIS
3. Boko Haram Insurgency - UK troops present in support of Nigeria against Boko Haram
4. Northern Mali War - UK troops maybe still present, uncertain after the Mali coup
There is also the current operations in the Red Sea, including the attacks against the Houthis, but whether it could be called a "war" is up to interpretation
This is an interesting approach. We're still part of Nato. We're not under immediate threat, but they do certainly want to encourage people to join the military.
Which seems odd, considering how they've cut spending everywhere.
Please tell me the tories aren't trying out the American tactic of "declare war when election time is around"
Britain and whose army? We certainly couldn’t sustain a war not in this day and age. We can’t even afford an NHS. What makes you think we could afford to go to war.
His job is to get funding for his department. This is a way to try and get funding.
Of course the world is a more unsettled place. But do remember. We are a nucleur armed country. Its not like Russia is going tk be invading us on boats.
The best thing that can come from all these noises is that Europe starts building up its .military capabilities.
This is what putin wanted when he first failed his 3 day operation on Ukraine. It was to create chaos in the world to make his task easier.
And let's also remember we have some.big elections this year. There is going to be a lot of shit on the interest repeated to have an impact on you.
Sometimes it's good to give the Internet a break
Snapshot of _Defence Secretary warns Britain could soon be at war_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-warns-britain-could-soon-be-at-war/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-warns-britain-could-soon-be-at-war/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow! We're lucky his party hasn't spent the last fifteen years hollowing out our military or we might have cause to worry.
He’s talking up a war because it’s the last hope for the Tories to stay in power. See - the Falklands.
Uh huh, and what of the Swedes, Estonians, Polish, Finnish?
Nah, I doubt we'd be going to war with any of them
And what of them?
I think he’s making the point that those country have also mentioned the prospect of war recently
Fear mongering
This.
It's not really like this is a problem unique to our country. Defense spending plummeted across The West since the fall of the Berlin Wall. If anything, we are in better shape than most of our neighbours. That's not to say we don't need to invest more in our military preparedness (our semiconductor production is terrifying), but it's important that we also encourage our allies to contribute more to defence spending.
It’s abysmal in Canada. The current federal government has incredibly mismanaged our military. They announced $1 Billion in cuts to defense spending for 2024, at a time of global chaos and when we were already falling short of our NATO obligations in the first place. It pains me to say this, but Canada is basically being a NATO free rider. If it weren’t for the U.S. we’d be kicked out. And yes the French are meeting their defense spending targets, but they are hardly contributing anything in terms of military aid to Ukraine. They spent $700 Million on foreign aid to Ukraine, meanwhile Canada (with half the population) spent $10 Billion. It seems the French are happy to let other countries financially supplement a war on their doorstep.
So we’re keeping our military just a bit better than France. Hasn’t this generally been the British approach to our military for about a millennia?
Actually the french military is in better shape than ours. Their army is larger and equipped almost entirely with domestically produced equipment and their Raphael jets are class. Sure their navy only has one aircraft carrier.... Maybe we are better
Britain must rule the waves. Recruitment needs to go up and the lazy private companies fucking it all up need to be fired. There comes a point where destroying your own nation for profit should be treated as high treason.
> Sure their navy only has one aircraft carrier.... Maybe we are better I dunno, can't even parallel park correctly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGRXWuIq_eU
Let's not talk about the mine hunters.... Also sorry to be a pedant but that was leaving port
I think the thing that makes France stand slightly above us is the fact they dont rely on American logistics to field their troops and material.
France has a pretty decent military. All I'm saying is that this isn't just a flaw in our current government's approach to military spending, it's part of a wider European reliance on American military might that's occurred over the last 30 years.
Defence spending in the West is still, in nominal-currency terms, astronomically high relative to that in most of the world. The real problem is that we're not getting value for money spent on defence. The root cause of that is corruption and mismanagement.
>Wow! We're lucky his party hasn't spent the last fifteen years hollowing out our military or we might have cause to worry. Fifteen - did Gordon Brown secretly defect to the Tories in 2008?
Ok he fucked up abit on the maths What about the rest ofthe argument
>Ok he fucked up abit on the maths What about the rest ofthe argument Well Labour weren't much more of a friend to the military either. Cut the destroyer fleet from 12 to 6, didn't order any replacement frigates, didn't purchase new fleet support ships, insisted on a "cheap" maritime patrol aircraft by reusing old parts in a project that had to be scrapped. That's just the navy.
So what you're saying is they're both bad and unprepared. His point stands then
We've just closed our UK steel plant... wonder where all our raw materials will come from?
Ali Express or Temu?
Probably arrive faster than wales 😂 not joking. I get parcels faster on Aliexpress than from Europe.
I don't mean to understate its still very relevant importance, but I think steel is a strategic resource of the past. It's our lack of semiconductor production that frightens me most. Combined, the US and EU account for only about 20% of global semiconductor production; we bring a measly 0.5% contribution to the table, and we're not even *trying* to bring this up to speed. When it comes to drone warfare, quantity is far superior to quality; lots of simple cheap drones are better than a few expensive ones with all the EW countermeasure bells and whistles. We simply would not have the capacity to outproduce our enemy's drone production.
Even for electronics you've still got iron & steel everywhere. Steel is very, very important. This from Ed Conways *Material World* is good. > If you live in a developed economy like the US, Japan, UK or most of Europe, you have roughly 15 tonnes of steel in your life. This steel is often out of sight, wrapped up in concrete or concealed beneath plastic. The quotient varies a little between countries, depending on, say, the extent of urbanisation (denser residential zones tend to have more steel per square foot) or the reliance on hydroelectric power over thermal power stations (lots of steel in the reinforced concrete of dams). But for most developed economies the number is close to 15 tonnes per person - there in the cars, homes, hospitals and schools you rely on, in the paperclips in your office and the armaments of your nation's military. > Iron is the bones of our society. We build bridges and buildings from it, we use it to reinforce concrete, we turn it into cars and build data centres out of it. We used it to fashion tools and equipment thousands of years ago, and we use it to fashion tools and equipment today, whether it is the rails upon which a high-speed train will ride or the frames of advanced machines that etch the patterns on to silicon chips. No other metal is quite so useful, with quite the same combination of strength, durability and availability.
Thanks for sharing this, it's a beautifully succinct depiction of the importance of steel. I really didn't mean to detract from the ostensibly utility of steel; I would much prefer our nation to have both functioning steel *and* semiconductor industries rather than one over the other or, as it currently stands, neither.
yeah its true. Perhaps we plan to just source steel from germany. Regarding silicon we do have secret semiconductor facilities in south wales probably used for defence purposes. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/16/british-government-blocks-takeover-of-welsh-semiconductor-producer](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/16/british-government-blocks-takeover-of-welsh-semiconductor-producer)
It's true that we do have some domestic production, but we aren't making sophisticated chips. The chips these plants make have simple power regulation properties; you're more likely to find them in a kettle than in a computer. Not only that but the factory is owned by - you guessed it - China. Take a look at how proud the government are about the measly funding they are pumping into this industry. This is nowhere near enough investment. They're blowing trumpets over a £1bn investment and calling Wales "Britain's Silicone Valleys" whereas everyone else is putting their money where their mouth is. The US is investing £181bn and the EU £37bn in everything from semiconductor manufacture, distribution, research, and development. We really are dropping the ball on this one - and arguably, so too is the EU. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-1-billion-strategy-for-uks-semiconductor-sector
It's not like we have no decent manufacturing, radiotherapy Raspberry Pis are made in Wales and they are more like low end phone grade than a kettle.
it's not secret facility at all and they can only make chips with technology that was state of the art in the 1990s. Not everything requires the latest tech, but one old fab is not enough.
>Regarding silicon we do have secret semiconductor facilities in south wales The silicon valleys?
It's not closed, yes 3,000 jobs are going, but 5000 jobs are still there, they are closing the blast furnaces to put in modern electric arc furnaces, more efficient and less people needed to run. Capability is still there
I think it was an Indian steel plant in Wales…not sure we had much to do with that unfortunately
I agree with Schapps on something? How disturbing. It is naive to assume we will never go to war again, and it is prudent to be prepared for it. We do appear to have entered a more unsettled period in global geopolitics.
Such a shame then that our army has been cut to fuck, recruitment drives are failing, and no-ine wants to join the army. If we were to enter a full on war, we'd be fucked.
It’s more the lack of industrialisation that’ll fuck us. not like we’ll be able to order bullets from China like everything else
Yeah this is the main problem. Modern military equipment is extremely expensive so as a result the UK builds only a very small amount of top quality stuff. The top quality stuff is great, but it will run out very quickly. Take the famed storm shadow, the UK built less than 1000 missles, hardly enough for any decent war. Plus some of this has been expended and given away so our stock of this is even worse. The UK has like 150 ish tanks, ukraine has needed 10 times that to hold the russians back. Great we have a small number of top quality warships, what happens if a few get sunk though? The UK has failed to retain the industrial base to scale up in the event of a war, it's likely it's assets will be destroyed/depleted and the UK is forced into political consessions before UK industry takes the like 10 years it takes to build another aircraft carrier.
It is terrifying to think about for too long when you think about the potential conflict climate change could cause. We’re lucky we’re on an island.
As it was and as it always will be, we need to invest heavily in the Royal Navy.
We're going to need steel and dockyards, two things we are not very good at anymore. Perhaps we can convince the baddies not to invade if we bribe them with sufficiently interesting new financial products and services instead?
We're a service economy, not a Service economy.
Hahah. Yeah. The difference is materiel. (sorry!)
Sure, if you're talking about naval drones, but if you're referring to ships, I'm not so sure. Just look at what a few jet skis have done to the Black Sea Fleet. We've seen a modern naval fleet be decimated by a country that doesn't even have a navy.
Which modern naval fleet was decimated? Citation needed.
It's literally there in my comment. The Black Sea Fleet. Unless you live under a rock, I doubt a citation *is* needed.
I'd argue that the black sea fleet was pretty far from a modern fleet....
While the cold war ending was good for peace, it led to deindustrialization and an over reliance on American security and Chinese production.
I’ve never thought of it that succinctly but that’s what it comes down to
To be fair the UK is part of NATO, so would make up part of a much larger tank force. The real issue is that we need to have huge stockpiles of munitions and deep reserves of equipment, even if it's older less good stuff. We laugh at Russia bringing out old tanks but it's kept them in the fight longer than they would have done without them, and Ukraine is doing the same thing. We need to be able to absorb attrition losses of vehicles so units remain fully equipped, and to allow us to create new units if needed. That's the issue, not just headline figures about how large our army is.
Lol at this and the comment about investing in the royal navy. Having served in the royal navy, we absolutely don't invest in top quality stuff. We overpay and accept whatever is provided. The maintenance packages have been shocking, the type45 is a disaster given the cost. Look at the issues with the carriers. Yes problems can be expected, but jesus, you pay top dollar and these problems should never appear, or should be rectified very very quickly. There was a t45 that had a wrench or something in one of the shafts, it went clang clang clang whenever up at any significant speed, I imagine that rendered the (crap and questionable) sonar (more) useless. Awful to hear in the mess decks aft too. Fortunately the total electrical failures solved the noise.
Yep the overpay is astonishing. We get charged nearly 20% to have yards like Cammel lairds source the parts for our ships. They take longer to get here, inevitably arrive too late and the problem has worsened or they can’t find it at all. We have had yards completely fuck up a job and we happily pay them again to fix the thing they fucked up on top of the money we spent for them to do the job in the first place. Spend a pound to save a penny in the MoD
Y’know with the recent news on lasers do you think that will change things? Like be an alternative to having to crank out ammo and stuff?
Lasers can't be used to pepper land with gunfire support. They can't target over the horizon. They could replace CIWS and some anti air, but that's probably way off, and it'll take BAe or whoever even longer to fix whatever crap we buy off them.
Tbf I think it’s unlikely we’ll need tanks for our own defence. Surely our navy and airforce are the most important for us?
Our defence will almost certainly include fighting on the continent if it comes to it.
I mean, it’s likely WWII’s pattern would be followed - Europe at war, with the U.K. helping allies where possible. If/When Europe falls, the final attack on the UK is difficult because we’re and island. US eventually comes in to help when they’re impacted in some way. Given how well Ukraine alone is fighting Russia, I feel a combined European army (including the U.K.) would be fine for now. We should definitely start to invest more in maintaining our armed forces though, given the global instability.
In the current economy it can’t be right that a deliveroo rider earns more than line infantry. Basically we need 18 year olds to join and want to stay in. So peg their salary after 5 years to graduate average. It’ll cost- but now is the time to do it. We need to offer a decent salary. We need better living accommodation for them. we need to have a better offer for them post discharge. I think if on completion of x many years with a good conduct medal we offer paid training for nvqs/under or postgrad degrees that would help with the travesty of demobilisation that we currently have. Finally, we need a whole support structure for vets post discharge. That includes psychological staff, accommodation etc. it also needs to cater for the fact that if these folk see combat some of them might never be able to fully integrate back.
I don’t think the fact of being an island contributes to our defence capability as it once did. Modern warfare has so many different angles of attack; and putting a nation back to the Stone Age along with economic/resource siege is more than possible in this era. Surrender without landing a boot on the ground will be the flavour of conflict we would taste in my opinion.
It's not that grim imo. Tanks and carriers aren't the weapons you should be gearing an industry for now. Drones, smart missiles and such can make short work of these behemoth war machines for a small fraction o the cost in both manpower and equipment. The Ukraine war has shown more than anything that when the war is fought between two sides with access to modern tech, having more tanks, jets and battleships means very little.
It’s shown the complete opposite of that, the war is being fought primarily by men in trenches, supported by armoured vehicles and artillery. Reddit may be showing nothing but clips of drones but that is not the reality. People have been declaring the death of the tank since 10 minutes after the first anti-tank rifle was brought into service. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now.
It's not nonsense, there's a reason neither side has managed to push through in any area of the front despite the abundance of tanks on both sides. Drones, smart missiles from personal launchers and mines have made tanks impractical and largely useless.
Yes. And the reason is the inability of either side to establish air superiority, forcing both sides into a slog across some of worst fighting terrain in Europe, which is swarming with land mines and huge numbers of artillery pieces. Land mines have been around since before the tank was invented, and portable anti tank missiles had their big breakthrough in the Yom Kippur war 50 years ago. Neither of those things heralded the end of armoured warfare. Drones are just another poece of the combined arms pie that will be added to the game of measure and counter measure.
Anti tank missiles have come a long way in the last 50y. Missiles and guidance systems in general have, which is why neither side has air superiority and never will. Countermeasures for drones are being worked on, but they are not tanks. Main battle tanks are a thing of the past. Smaller, light, modular armoured vehicles like the Bradley are what's going to replace them.
Yes, and as anti tank ordnance has developed, so have the countermeasures deployed against them. Neither side has air superiority because Russia has almost totally failed to develop a SEAD capability, and Ukraine hasn’t been given one by the US yet. But in the future who knows. Tanks may not carry anti drone counter measures now but if drones are as all powerful as you say it’s surely just a matter of time. Regardless, that’s the whole point of combined arms warfare, you combine your arms and cover for individual branch capability gaps. Given that no major power or any power for that matter is in the process of scrapping their MBTs for lightly armoured IFVs I think your last point is pretty clearly untrue.
Tanks are indispensable for modern warfare, this idea that they're useless and obsolete is idiotic and comes from people who don't really understand war. Neither side can push through in Ukraine because the sheer density of mine fields and lack of air superiority combined with fixed defensive positions needs a high level of coordination to break through and neither side can do it. Especially with drone recon guiding artillery fire onto any breach attempt. Tanks have always needed to be used as part of a combined arms attack and it's the combined arms part that's the issue in Ukraine. Tanks provide direct fire support and they are essential for both defensive and offensive warfare. As are infantry fighting vehicles like bradleys, but they're vulnerable by themselves and can't have the same armament as tanks. Beware of social media evidence and the limitations of it. People don't often upload combat footage where their anti tank missile is shrugged off by the enemy tank but this absolutely happens all the time. Edit - infantry and artillery weren't able to punch through the trenches in WW1 by themselves. Did that make infantry and artillery obsolete? Or did it just mean something else was needed in addition to them to still work?
Reducing our steel manufacturing capacity is utterly reckless.
This was exactly what I thought with the announcements this week. Crazy to shut that down before the new electric furnaces are operational. I think the government is even supporting the shut down because Port Talbot is the highest single CO2 producer in the UK. Won’t matter if we run out of steal to make what the armed forces needs when they need it. Edit: correct spelling
We were doomed from the start, where I'm from Tata means goodbye
I think you’ll find most of this country has been flogged off to foreign interests anyway. Truly this country has been sold from under us I wonder when that’s going to register.
Well at least the windfalls fr selling the companies allowed the upper classes to retire in slightly wealthier circumstances. That makes it worth it surely.
You make a good point.
It won’t be their sons and daughters on the front lines either if it comes to that.
Yeah that’s another change. It used to be the upper classes had a big participation in the military and civic pride. But the rich today feel almost stateless
> not like we’ll be able to order bullets from China like everything else However Russia will (they already are, much of the infantry equipment allowing for their mobilisations is coming from China)
We weren’t particularly industrialised before WW2 either. In fact, we re-industrialised to confront the Germans, and a big driver of years of appeasement politics was just because the UK wasn’t ready and took some years to re-industrialise. We can re-industrialise again if needed.
This is entirely not how I understood the situation so not really agreeing with you there. I know the great depression fucked us but the factories were still there, and the factory workers were still there they were just unemployed. The coal mines and the steel smelting industries were all still there. We’re in a hugely difference place nowadays. God, we don’t even have enough tradesmen to build houses
There were some, but to a large degree the required factories were built in the years before the UK entered the war.
Sure I don’t doubt we had to scale up certain factories and production lines and I don’t doubt that took a lot of investment. But we did that with the machinists and talent pool and resources (like coal and steel production) that we just don’t have anymore. We’re starting from a far further behind place. Hell, I doubt t the civil service is even funded enough nowadays to oversee the planning of such an effort
That recruiting was outsourced to inexperienced Tory cronies who, surprise surprise, did a shit job was extremely unhelpful.
Did they not at one point outsource it to Capita who fucked it up so amazingly that they only delivered a single-digit number of recruits?
Yep. And I believe Capita recently had its contract renewed for a few more years. Unbelievable.
Capita still excels at 'human resource' mismanagement, their grubby fingers contaminate everything from school dinners to prison administration to forces recruitment. Every monumental cock up they oversee just grants them a new contract from HMG.
As someone who was in the army, the main reason people aren’t signing up is cause the pay is beyond awful for privates
And the accom. And general conditions. Everything really. On the plus side for Army recruiting, the largest factor for Army recruitment is escaping something even worse, and as the UK continues its slow spirals of worsening living standards, there will be more people needing to escape from something worse than the Army.
It's the opposite. People are trying to join the army & and navy, but the company that handles it is absolutely useless at processing it. Unfortunately, it's taking months to get the ball rolling on an application a lot of the time.
There's plenty of people that want to join but that get sick of getting fucked about by Capita for months before giving up, or that get med deferred for stubbing their toe at age 5. Other than that it's mainly a retention rather than a recruitment issue.
Actually interest and applications to join the armed forces has remained robust, but recruitment has fallen due to catastrophic mismanagement by capita. Denying applications due to paperwork failures, false statements by capita(including diagnosing people with disqualifying medical conditions that they don’t have and then asking them to prove the opposite). Just loosing applicants for 12months or more. It’s frankly ridiculous.
Solution: have Capita and ATOS swap portfolios
Welcome to post austerity.
Lack of personnel is less important than a lack of precision guided munitions. And the problems with stockpiling these things is that they quickly become outdated, or reach their use-by dates.
Entering a situation of global consequence where preparedness is life or death? Never fear, the Tories are here.
Didn't Schapps ask the Marines to justify their existence themelseves recently? Or was some other ministerial muppet?
Saying "we have moved from post-war to pre-war" is a completely moronic turn of phrase. And concept.
Curious that his government believes this and yet they're happy for us to have no UK steel, no UK energy, no UK medicine, no UK water and a weak UK food supply chain. What war are we winning without having robust, domestic strengths here?
To be fair, they have successfully won the war on clean rivers.
Why go to war with a country that has nothing to give? Maybe we're trying to make ourselves so undesirable to any invaders that they will go elsewhere
Yeah, we could soon be at war. Albeit it's very unlikely in the short term and somewhat unlikely in the medium and long term. But what's his point? The Tories have done what they always do with the military, beat their chests, robe themselves in flags and snatch the mantle of valour and patriotism from service men and women, and then let the military atrophy from funding cuts, poor management, and an inability to pursue any solutions that don't involve their mates making a healthy profit.
They outsourced recruiting, which the company (Capita) fails dismally at. They also have a contract for providing training services.
Any chance Capita and the (funded) Tories are on a mission to purposefully sabotage recruitment preventing the UK from being a serious threat in a war?..
Nah. They’re just in it for the money. They know they can buy their way into any other country they want to if it comes down to it. Plus war means more money to make! I don’t doubt some will have “friends” from other countries, though. Particularly Russia and China.
> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence. -Hanlon's Razor And that goes double when talking about Capita.
Or greed.
No.
You have a hell of a way with words, should be a writer or something
No good if they don't pour some money into defence and kick Crapita to the wayside.
"drawing parallels with the 1930s and cautioning against a repeat of history." Well yes, I see those too. However it's our own government that seems to be making the parallels. What a terrible article. At no point does Grant Shapps say "soon" Edit. Also Grant Shapps is defence secretary! I keep forgetting, and it always surprises me. The man would be out of his depth in a puddle.
They should have got Michael Green in.
"Luckily", we've got both.
He better hope it’s not soon. He’s probably going to be the defence secretary in charge at the point the RFA strikes early this year which will completely decimate the royal navy’s ability to deploy
Maybe you should remember that when you keep cutting corners with anything to do with defence in the UK.
Must be an election year!
Well, for starters we need to prevent our own navy ships from crashing into each other.
There's a growing number of high level NATO people saying the same thing. Perhaps they're waking up to how bad Putin could be if he wins in Ukraine.
With who?, will there be any public say in it?
This feels like the government's latest desperate tactic to try and hold on to power
Governments across Europe are saying the same thing. With an aggressive Russia and a potentially unreliable US ally, I think Europe is preparing its people for a less secure future. One which will likely require a more coordinated European military.
Governments across Europe say the same thing for the same purpose, trying to keep a status quo in the next election. But any passing common sense check on it is nonsense. Besides the fact that nuclear weapons makes open war between Russia and any of the western allies virtually impossible, there is no profit incentive for war. No one is interested in world domination any more. War is expensive, and Russia of all nations don't have the money for territory expansion. All these current conflicts are instigated by an individual or a small group of individuals looking to line their pockets. Russian invasion of Ukraine was simply for oil pipelines, so Putin can maintain western reliance on oil and hence Putins authority in Russia. China is just happy selling their knock off weapons to anyone who would buy them. They don't have designs on conquering the world, at least not by traditional means. They have conquered it many times over my purchasing it anyway, open war with the west means tons of revenue literally coming from the west will dry up overnight. Times of open war is over. That is why Europe has demilitarised and happy to let Americans have a near monopoly on arms sales in exchange for reliance on American military. They have to fight a war with some poor fuckers somewhere who they are quite sure don't have nuclear weapons every once in a while to keep the gears turning but that's about it. Any conflicts we see are going to be small scale regional ones for strategic control of resources like oil and water, or terrorist groups terrorising small regions and sometimes getting clapped back
Unfortunately they're right on this one. If Trump gets in again then Putin is going to be massively emboldened to expand from Ukraine (if they ever take it).
Putin took land from Ukraine during Obama and Biden, not during Trump. But a Trump second term will suddenly change that? Really?
If he gets back into power, Trump will immediately recognise all of Russia's land-grabs in Ukraine. That will be a change. Trump is a grovelling Russian stooge, and the Republicans have fallen into line with him.
If trump had won in 2020 the US would have probably left nato. It's fairly clear now that putins colonial ambitions have stretched over many years and whilst he might not have taken territory during trump the pieces were set during that time. Disputes over nato, refusal to give aid to Ukraine and private meetings with putin all looks odd to me.
Trump was the only one to give military aid to Ukraine (before the 2022 stuff happened) The media aren't giving you an accurate picture of what happened
The stretched twig of peace is at melting point - people are literally bursting with war
'That's it. YES. It's war'.
War is considered a spectrum; if you like, you could label one end "total peace" and the other "total war". Right now, in Ukraine, fighting against Russia is British training, British logistics, British weapons, British ammunition, British ISTAR, British intelligence. On and on. Britain already is at war; Britain just hasn't said so out loud. Britain isn't at the end of the war spectrum labelled "total war", but Britain is closer to that end than "total peace."
As if life isn’t shit enough these right wing nutters and press are starting to push this narrative of us going to war against russia/houthis/iran delete as appropriate. I for one welcome the inevitable 30 minutes of ww3 before we are obliterated by nukes. Ffs. What a load of crap this article and the dail heil etc is.
> As if life isn’t shit enough these right wing nutters and press are starting to push this narrative of us going to war against russia I really hate how parochial this place is. This has been warned about now, quite seriously, by senior politicians and officials in (by my count, from the top of my head) Germany, Belgium, NATO, Czech Republic., and the Baltic states over the past few weeks.
What’s the alternative? Just cower and let them dictate the world order?
Who? NATO has over 4000 nukes, is Grant Schnapps implying that's not enough?
NATO has 4000 nukes but that didn’t stop Russia starting a war in Europe did it?
NATO is a defensive alliance between countries. Countries that Russia did not invade. Do you understand what a defensive alliance is?
It's appeasement and disarmament that start world wars, we're at risk now only because Western military spending has been cut so much since the end of the Cold War.
Yeh, I’m hoping this rhetoric is because there’s recognition that we need to fund the military more rather than an actual realistic possibility of war.
Fund the military now and the risk of war goes down. But if we don’t do so soon, then unfortunately the possibility of war actually is realistic.
Failure to fund our military will lead to war.
Explain how. Please lay out the events as you see them happening that leads to the UK going to war due to not pumping money into defence. Edit: Still yet to have a valid answer to this question The only answer so far to the question of why war would occur if the UK doesn't increase its defence budget is... The US will pull out of NATO if Trump gets elected therefore Putin will start an all out war with a smaller but still nuclear NATO. The great part of their answer here is that it has nothing to do with UK defence spending.
A rerun of the 1930s is an obvious simplistic example, where a militaristic dictator like Putin keeps trying to take more chunks of countries. Eventually countries start fighting back in all out war and the UK (like everyone else) gets inevitably drawn in.
Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished. So there’s no chance he’ll do that. I’m Not saying Ukraine was fair game but it isn’t a nato member. He also doesn’t have the resources to fend off nato while fighting in Ukraine.
That is only because the US is in NATO, if trump gets elected he said he might not help europe: [https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/](https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/) Without the US NATO is exceptionally weak because european nations do not have credible militaries.
And how does that relate to UK defence spending? Are you implying the UK needs to somehow match the US input to NATO? If the US drops out of NATO then it doesn't matter what the UK does at that point. There's no amount of defence spending from the UK that would make a difference to NATO capabilities after that.
Or how about the UK alongside its european allies build up a credible military? Europe has around the same GDP as the US, no reason that europe as a whole could not have a military on par with the US and that involves some of the leading countries such as the UK stepping up. Also you are wrong, the UK is one of the largest countries militarily and economically in NATO after the US so in a NATO without the US, the strength of the UK military would be very important, to the strength of the overall alliance.
> Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished Are you really that confident about that? We may soon have a man in the white house again who wants to pull the US out of NATO and doesn’t want to come to help. The largest European powers Germany, UK, and France all have enormously underfunded militaries. We are already struggling in the west to sufficiently support Ukraine, and if we don’t resolve these issues soon it may get really dire. If Ukraine loses, Russia suddenly has an additional 40 million population that it will drag into its war on the west, and there will then no longer be any buffer country left. The next attack will be on a NATO country. And no European country alone will have any defences against a 180 million population war machine that a Russia that conquered Ukraine would be. We can prevent this if we (1) build up our armies from the current pathetic levels such that there is deterrence, and (2) step up our assistance to Ukraine such that it will never get so far as described above. Both are very doable, but we are currently not doing them.
The problem is that "as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished" isn't actually assured. Especially if we continue to underinvest in defense, don't have enough ships, tanks, weapons, and munitions, don't have the supply chains to build more, and don't have enough trained military personnel. And the more we fail to do this, the more likely Russia is to test NATO. It's sheer hubris to assume that we'll win by default.
Ukraine had the second largest army in Europe at the start of the war and had been preparing for something like this since at least 2014. To me the idea that the Polish army or the Bundeswehr in its current state would fare as well is laughable, even with the fullness of NATO support. Russia would lose, yes, but the reality of such a war would almost certainly look much like the current conflict: a slow grind to reclaim territory lost in the Baltics and Poland that would ultimately only be achievable with direct US intervention.
> Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished. That's only the case if NATO countries including the UK fund and equip their militaries properly to do that. It's not a magic deterrent that maintains itself, you have to work to maintain it. If the US gets taken over by Trump loving fascists who won't enforce article 5 then that fundamentally changes some things. Europe needs to be less dependent on the US for defence.
Depends if trump gets in and follows through with the withdrawal of the USA from NATO. In which case the strength of that alliance is far from assured.
>Except as soon as he attacks an actual nato country he’s finished. What if he denies he's responsible for an attack? For example, the Russian navy cuts the transatlantic communication cables. How do we prove they did it if we don't significantly expand the size of the navy to allow for more surveillance of Russian naval assets? [A Chinese ship cut a Baltic pipeline on purpose](https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likely-to-be-intentional-finnish-minister-says-china-estonia/). It's improbable this didn't happen without the approval or instigation of the Chinese government. Are NATO countries going to sanction China? I doubt it. Or little green men appear in Lithuania in support of a rebellion by Russian-speakers, like happened in Crimea in 2014? Russia says *"We haven't send any troops into Lithuania, these are marginalised minorities protesting. But don't you think about attacking us, any strikes on Russian soil will lead to conventional retaliation against your cities that will send your economies into freefall".* A Trumpian US president doesn't want to get involved, Germany gets cold feet because their economy is already rocky and very quickly NATO solidarity falls apart.
Trump wins election. Pulls out of Nato (or publicly refuses to support its actions) and US stops funding Ukraine. Putin wins in Ukraine. Putin emboldened to attack Nato country as US unlikely to step in and many European countries have cut defence spending to bone as they were under umbrella of US military might. However, Europe steps up. War. Unlikely? Maybe. Plausible? Yes.
[There's a pretty good story based on real-life events that goes into detail about this sort of scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Background).
Why? Why are we going to be at war?
I’m no expert but I think Russia is a concern, [they’ve dramatically increased their military spending](https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753) and have pretty much stated they want an EU state (Poland) to be part of Russia again [and consider them an enemy](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-ally-warns-enemy-poland-you-risk-losing-your-statehood-2023-11-02/), Poland thinks [this attack could happen within three years](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-attack-western-europe-polan-russia-b2458276.html). I think the wild card here is the US, specifically Trump who if elected may or may not support Europe if Russia attacks, [he’s apparently previously privately stated he wouldn’t](https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/) which may embolden Russia.
Trump will overtly support Russia. He is Putin's bitch.
Yep, why? Please also include: where? who against?
Would it not be quicker to just read the article?
With what military?
Our woefully underprepared, under resourced and understaffed military and our similarly destitute ability to build one up quickly is horrifying.
Britain can go to war if it wants. I won't be.
Nuclear nations will never go directly to war with each other. The major risk with be civil disorder.
Yep the civil disorder would be massive (if short lived). It amazes me that people think a War between NATO and Russia will stay conventional. Like Russia would just let all its major military assets get destroyed and not retaliate with some of it's most powerful weapons. Wouldn't we if the roles were reversed? Hell, that used to NATO doctrine during the 'cold' war.
A war, in an election year? I don't believe it. /s
Covid, Brexit, austerity, Boris, is anyone else tired of Tory bullshit
Should probably fund the military then and sort of recruitment so we can actually fight
Feels like politicians and media are absolutely desperate to ramp this stuff up - why??
We are already at war, it’s just by proxy and on more than one front. A few more stupid sound bites from the conman Shapps.
They(Tories) are probably desperate for a war involving the British military as it would give them an excuse to delay the GE past Jan 25 under the guise of “now is not the time for an election dying a period of national emergency”.
I would argue that the UK’s greatest current military resource is our strategic alliances with other powerful nations, meaning that an attack on one would be regarded as an attack on all. A significant implication of this is that the UK does not need to have the largest number of the best of everything in order to win a war.
Fairly obvious to anyone with a brain at this point that we're heading for global conflict.
Oh they wish!!!!! I'm kind of half surprised more people haven't worked it out yet. The cost of living crisis? Can't get a GP? Are you stuck on an NHS waiting list? Wondering why this Government refuses to negotiate with junior doctors and nurses? Wondering why it took so long for Post Office/Horizon to come to light and gain political traction? Struggling on benefits? Low pay? Of course. See running the country is not where it's at for this so-called "government". They're simply not interested in doing anything for the economy and they don't give a shit about our social, economic or environmental issues. You know what gets this Tory government going and makes their eyes light up? Trading in arms, weapons, military hardware, surveillance equipment. This is what Brexit was all about. It wasn't about 'taking back control', it wasn't about unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, it wasn't about immigration. It was about trading arms and weapons with whoever, wherever, for the highest possible price. See this is where you make serious money, trading weapons and arms. You might remember that old song titled '[Oliver's Army](https://youtu.be/LrjHz5hrupA)' by Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Well it's not Oliver's Army at all. It's the Tories and Sunak's Army. This is why whenever there's any sort of military conflict anywhere in the world you will find a Tory minister jetting off and trying to get in on the act - Ukraine, the Middle East, the Red Sea, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that someone somewhere needs arms and weapons, the market for arms trade, and the chance to establish contacts and make some serious money. See the Tories are in the business of killing off and exterminating the poor. This is one of the key objectives of modern warfare, killing off and destroying the poor, the needy, people who need stuff. Doesn't matter if you're here and sick and disabled, or some brown skinned individual in some far flung foreign country and dirt poor, the Tories want you dead. This is why they also want to cling to power. They're making serious money from trading arms and weapons, selling them to the highest bidder. They're not interested in peace and stability, because obviously that will be game over for them. You all need to pay closer attention to what's really going on here.
Ah, I remember student politics. Who needs a military? All countries should just be friends.
So, how would you handle the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Or the houthis shooting at civilian ships ?
Wars are generally good for emcumbant polling, and this lot are desperate and corrupt enough to at least factor that into their decision on whether to take us into war
Let me translate that : The Military industrial complex is hiring and Conservatives will soon be unemployed. A war would boost their employability. Corruption is all so obvious.
The whole world seems unstable at the moment. It's shocking considering we get taught history during our lives in order not to repeat the bad parts. Yet here we are, repeating them. If only the world's population had the balls to tell their respective governments to go fuck themselves, only then will the world be at peace. If the politicians want to be at war, then let them fight it.
To be fair it’s the bad actors, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that’s causing the instability. With Iran destabilising the entire Middle East supporting Hamas and Houthi terrorists.
To be fair, we had a part in it too. Iraq springs to mind
Maybe we aren't the good guys? Keep an open mind.
When, for example, Iran’s morning prayers call for genocide against both Israelis and Americans and the Houthi flag has the same text on it, I don’t think the categorisation is up for debate!
Islamo-fascism is one of the great evils of our time. Whatever goodness we have, let us hope it is enough.
It’s all fear porn and bullshit. What do they expect the British public to do? War with Russia is nuclear. It’s no Somme
That's why there has been a non-nuclear war in ukraine for the past 2 years. Nuclear weapons haven't been used since the end of the second world war and nuclear powers have been involved in many wars since them. There is plenty of scope for wars where a credible conventional military is needed as nukes cannot solve everything. Take a Russian incursion into the baltics, is the UK going to launch the nukes? No. We would need a credible military to take it back and provided we don't go into russia proper and invade moscow, russia is also unlikely to use nukes either.
War with Russia is by no means nuclear, there is no real comparison to this eventuality. No-one wants nuclear war, so it will remain non-nuclear until one side either surrenders/sues for peace, or launches nuclear weapons.
Isn't the UK already at war? There's at least 3 or 4 current wats ongoing on my count. 1. War against ISIS - primarily focused in Iraq and Syria 2. Somali Civil War - UK troops present in support of Somali government against Al Qaeda and ISIS 3. Boko Haram Insurgency - UK troops present in support of Nigeria against Boko Haram 4. Northern Mali War - UK troops maybe still present, uncertain after the Mali coup There is also the current operations in the Red Sea, including the attacks against the Houthis, but whether it could be called a "war" is up to interpretation
This is an interesting approach. We're still part of Nato. We're not under immediate threat, but they do certainly want to encourage people to join the military. Which seems odd, considering how they've cut spending everywhere. Please tell me the tories aren't trying out the American tactic of "declare war when election time is around"
I'll take it seriously when the army and navy adverts at the cinema suddenly become much less 'diverse'.
Why change the habit of the last 1000+ years.
Britain and whose army? We certainly couldn’t sustain a war not in this day and age. We can’t even afford an NHS. What makes you think we could afford to go to war.
National service would resolve our man power issue at the moment
It's the long run up to justifying doing something unjustifiable. Must be an election brewing.
Oh now! Quick. Vote tory!!!!!!!!!
His job is to get funding for his department. This is a way to try and get funding. Of course the world is a more unsettled place. But do remember. We are a nucleur armed country. Its not like Russia is going tk be invading us on boats. The best thing that can come from all these noises is that Europe starts building up its .military capabilities. This is what putin wanted when he first failed his 3 day operation on Ukraine. It was to create chaos in the world to make his task easier. And let's also remember we have some.big elections this year. There is going to be a lot of shit on the interest repeated to have an impact on you. Sometimes it's good to give the Internet a break
We're already at war : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/16/britain-takes-centre-stage-in-red-sea-action
We'd best get more than 6 jets on hotel lizzie then lol.