A better approach, surely, would be to make a case for what is actually needed, and in relation to which concrete threats.
That’s Owen Jones mimbling about defence budgets.
What he means is that if we insist everyone talk about specific threats then every specific threat claimed can be mimbled away and therefore the defence budget doesn’t rise. When, of course, we still face that same threat of the French and we have to recall that they did win, twice*, in the last millennium.
But the answer is easier. Venning’s Law: The correct answer to any question contining the word “surely” is “No”.
The real point of a military is to have enough hulky blokes with bang bangs that no one decides it’s worth trying to become a threat.
*Yes, King Louis
I know how to pay for the military – pass a law making it illegal for a non UK citizen to receive benefits or a council house.
The savings would be enough to cut NI, inheritance tax, stamp duty and increase defence spending.
The correct answer to any question from Owen Jones is ‘Fuck Off’.
Jimmers, I know I’m probably in the wrong place to display my own pedantry, in the realm of Polly’s Chief Pendant, but Shirley the correct expression is Sod Off?
The problem is that at first sight this seems to be a completely rational, sensible approach
Work out what you need to do, the resources required to achieve it and then plan accordingly
What actually happens is the government of the day decides what eventualities need to be covered, then the armed forces work out what they need
Then the government fails to fund it and ignores the potential for concurrency
Then events occur that haven’t been predicted and along with enduring tasks the new ones have to be resourced, usually at short notice
For example the UK armed forces were optimised for combat operations Vs the Warsaw Pact in western Europe and the north Atlantic
Then the army was deploy d to the streets of Northern Ireland
Then the armed forces had to deal with a post colonial war jn the south Atlantic
Then it had tkndeal with desert warfare in the Gulf after na extended period enforcing nofly zones over Iraq
Then there was Afghanistan
Plus extended periods of MACA tasking (floods, foot and mouth, COVID, Olympics etc)
And so on
That’s why military chiefs try to maintain a range of capabilities with global reach as insurance for these unplanned unseen events
And it’s why as usual Jones is talking bollocks
Maybe the way to get Jones onside with increased defence spending is to show him Churchill’s remarks about “rough men”.
Earlier this year, Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, demanded that European nations start hiking defence spending at the expense of pensions, health and social security. Fail to do so, he warned, and the only recourse would be to “get out your Russian language courses or go to New Zealand”.
I wonder if there’s any insane people in Russia warning about how people in Siberia are going to be forced to speak Dutch.
The real point of a military is to have enough hulky blokes with bang bangs that no one decides it’s worth trying to become a threat.
Nope.
The point of a military is to keep the government in charge.
The way to stop an outside threat is to make sure every adult male citizen in the country has a rifle and a pistol and knows how to use them.
Like the Japanese guy says, you can’t invade America because there’s a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Or as the Swiss guy put it when asked what they would do if Germany invaded with a million strong army. Shoot twice and go home.
But of course, that would mean we could resist the government, so they don’t want that.
The downside of our current situation is that if someone did invade (Putin, driving a a T-72 knocking down the gates of Downing Street and dragging Kier Starmer out by his danglies… Sorry, what was I saying?), the vast majority of the population has zero experience with firearms or weapons in general.
If I was Putin and wanting to invade, I’d do it on our Christmas Day. Virtually everyone at home, little to no security presence, most at home pre-occupied. By the time most people realised something was happening, we’d be having the aforementioned scene of Putin dragging TTK out and a puppet government installed who would be better for the country.
I do not believe that Russia is much of a threat to the UK. Let those on the same land mass who are worried build the armies without us.
The existential threat to us is Islam, and nobody is allowed to notice, never mind do anything about it. I want them gone. The next most serious threat is our own governing class. I want them gone too.
Oh, and I repeat, let’s the UK look after the maritime bit of our defence. With aircraft, drones and submarines. Not too many surface ships, which seem to be nothing but targets now.
RK for Defence Minister. And Home Secretary . . . and Justice Minister.
It’s not just that he will ask young men to risk their lives fighting Russians it’s that Sir Pink Blancmange will insist they later have their lives ruined by being sent to court accused of daring to squeeze a trigger.
Trigger warning, chaps!
I wouldn’t blame them if they said Fuckoffski!
“I do not believe that Russia is much of a threat to the UK”
It isn’t… If anything the UK govt. is doing a good enough job crashing the UK all by itself, no interference needed.
I don’t think even the most salacious wet dream of a russian foreign op can match what the UK, and Europe in general, is doing to itself.
Forget UK. Consider Australia. Disarmed public. Little military. India and China – grossly overpopulated India and China – desperate for land, looking at a large, undefended island.
I have my own Law, which experience has proved to be accurate.
When you expound a point and someone in response says, ‘Ah yes, but…..’
What follows is total self-serving bolingbrokes.
Works every time, guaranteed.
@rhoda klapp
“The existential threat to us is Islam, and nobody is allowed to notice, never mind do anything about it. I want them gone. ”
True but my policy on benefits would help that as well.
@Grist.
Happy to go with anything that suggest Jones should do one.
Gamecock at 11:38 am
All too true, Gamecock.
Coward: ’tis already the law. Furriners get “No recourse to public funds” stamped in their passport as my then wife did when she was a foreigner.
“Furriners get “No recourse to public funds” stamped in their passport as my then wife did when she was a foreigner.”
And then the welfare apparatus ignores that and gives them to anyone who applies without checking if they qualify or not.
Two greats on the money
Rhoda Klapp and Mr. Womby
The existential threat to us is Islam, and nobody is allowed to notice, never mind do anything about it. I want them gone. The next most serious threat is our own governing class. I want them gone too.
Definitely need a moratorium on any Islamic immigration regardless of resources or corporate hiring. And as RK says, we need to start large scale deportations and a lot of people need to suffer a similar fate to Shamima Begum.
Jones needs to be sent post haste, against his wishes, to Northern Nigeria where he can talk to Boko Haram members about ‘Institutional racism’ and ‘Homophobia: The Legacy of the British Empire’
VP – I don’t want to see poor Owen being kidnapped by Procul Harum and put to death by bongo-bongo.
The African peoples do seem to have a bee in their bonnet about poofters, I suppose that’s only natural when you live under threat of death by bongo-bongo.
Death by chocolate is the way to go, I reckon. Or being killed by kindness, that’d be nice.
” poor Owen being kidnapped by Procul Harum ”
For being a whiter shade of pale?
rhoda klapp, that was snortworthy.
Rhoda – brilliant!
@Gamecock: “Consider Australia.”
When I lived there I used to tease my colleagues by arguing that as a priority Oz should build nuclear weapons. They were largely horrified at the very idea. But I was right.
I don’t want to see poor Owen being kidnapped by Procul Harum and put to death by bongo-bongo.
He’d be a whiter shade of pale, though.
Uhhh..should have read the whole thread first… HT, rhoda.
‘Oz should build nuclear weapons. But I was right.’
All too true, dearieme.
This does strike me as being rather like someone saying that the US President only needs a Secret Service protection detail when a specific threat has been received.
Admittedly the US President probably gets a dozen specific threats a day. Substitute any other head of state if you like.