ChatterBank20 mins ago
Better Defence or fewer Benefits cuts?
If you were in charge, what would you choose - - fewer cuts to Defence spending or fewer cuts to the Benefits budget?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Whoever. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We spend far too much on Defence considering we are little island with no empire to protect anymore.
We spend far more from our taxes that other European countries. In the UK the military get 6.3% of the total budget (Up 28% budget since 2000). Germany spends just 3.3%, Italy 4.5%, France %.4%, Spain 4.2%.
It might help if we didn't fight other peoples battles for them, and kept our noses out of countries that are non of our business. We should stop trying to be the world's policeman and pioritise homeland defence.
The logical answer is for Europe to stop expensive duplication of effort by each individual country, and have a centralised european army. I somehow doubt that will be popular on this forum though.
We spend far more from our taxes that other European countries. In the UK the military get 6.3% of the total budget (Up 28% budget since 2000). Germany spends just 3.3%, Italy 4.5%, France %.4%, Spain 4.2%.
It might help if we didn't fight other peoples battles for them, and kept our noses out of countries that are non of our business. We should stop trying to be the world's policeman and pioritise homeland defence.
The logical answer is for Europe to stop expensive duplication of effort by each individual country, and have a centralised european army. I somehow doubt that will be popular on this forum though.
You have to ask who we are defending against
It is remarkable to me that those who want more defense spending are often those most vociferous about our foreign wars.
Seems they want more money spent on soldiers staying at home and not fighting anybody.
I'd be interested to know from those who want to spend more money on "defence" who they are expecting to defend the country against.
Because let's be honest here - the armed forces do very little defence and an awful lot of throwing our weight around thousands of miles away.
You want defence? cancel the aircraft carriers and give the money to Mi5
It is remarkable to me that those who want more defense spending are often those most vociferous about our foreign wars.
Seems they want more money spent on soldiers staying at home and not fighting anybody.
I'd be interested to know from those who want to spend more money on "defence" who they are expecting to defend the country against.
Because let's be honest here - the armed forces do very little defence and an awful lot of throwing our weight around thousands of miles away.
You want defence? cancel the aircraft carriers and give the money to Mi5
We can no longer police the world. Who says so...
http://www.dailymail....ice-world-defend.html
Hard to disagree with any of it.
http://www.dailymail....ice-world-defend.html
Hard to disagree with any of it.
The trouble with "history tells us..." arguments is that you end up solving yesterday's problems.
eg
"History tells us there is no such thing as cyber terrorism"
"History tells us that our two most dangerous enemies are France and Germany"
We have to defend our shores - yes
Large aircraft carriers do not help us do that
Trident does not help us do that
We need a different set of of strategies to do that now.
a much more intelligence lead approach
Making bigger and better versions of yesterdays defence solutions is very dumb
eg
"History tells us there is no such thing as cyber terrorism"
"History tells us that our two most dangerous enemies are France and Germany"
We have to defend our shores - yes
Large aircraft carriers do not help us do that
Trident does not help us do that
We need a different set of of strategies to do that now.
a much more intelligence lead approach
Making bigger and better versions of yesterdays defence solutions is very dumb
No. I'd never jest about anything so serious as money. I'm a pensioner and I could use a few extra quid every week. Single moms with large families must be struggling to feed and cloth their children.
Trident is a waste of money. The enemy it was designed to be used against vanished as the Berlin Wall fell. We would never use a nuclear strike without permission from our American friends. And then we could use Cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost of the Trident system.
Trident is a waste of money. The enemy it was designed to be used against vanished as the Berlin Wall fell. We would never use a nuclear strike without permission from our American friends. And then we could use Cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost of the Trident system.
i would rather see money go to social improvement than to greedy defence contractors. but its not really about cuts where i would come from, its the disproportionality of it, they can fence millions and millions to a manufacturer who cannot produce to a time or budget, yet cut back front line troops and their protective gear.
it is just r1's opinion that it all goes to "workshy scum". not really worthy of comment.
it is just r1's opinion that it all goes to "workshy scum". not really worthy of comment.
I am not a 'leftie' as i think you mean the phrase RI, but I have to agree with the majority of posts here on this subject.
The only 'wars' we are fighting are invasions which will do nothing what ever to actually defend us, or keep us safe - more likely the opposite.
The hand-in-glove approach of govbernment and arms dealers has got to stop - it is an obscentiy to spend the amount of money we throw away on foreign 'policy' to say nothing of the pointless waste of life.
Blair and Bush have both tefloned away from the horror they have caused, and left the death and 'terror' unchanged, except increased.
It's not 'either welfare or defence', that's far too simplistic - and mis-spending on welfare does not justify waste on defence.
A proper alignment of attitude and approach to both by the government would move us all on to a better word.
The only 'wars' we are fighting are invasions which will do nothing what ever to actually defend us, or keep us safe - more likely the opposite.
The hand-in-glove approach of govbernment and arms dealers has got to stop - it is an obscentiy to spend the amount of money we throw away on foreign 'policy' to say nothing of the pointless waste of life.
Blair and Bush have both tefloned away from the horror they have caused, and left the death and 'terror' unchanged, except increased.
It's not 'either welfare or defence', that's far too simplistic - and mis-spending on welfare does not justify waste on defence.
A proper alignment of attitude and approach to both by the government would move us all on to a better word.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Crosswords30 mins ago
Connections # 323- Mon 29 April
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Europe To Send Immigrants To Rwanda?
News63 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.