Politics Thread!

[Wudzi]

I wish they wouldn't hold on to pointless stuff like Trident which would be easy billions saved. They are having to play the game of holding onto relatively populist policy such high spending on the military when there are more important priorities.

[The ghost of raids past]

Trident is needed as a deterent. Granted its highly unlikely to be used but the threat of its use remains. We also barely spend 2 % of GDP on the military which is what Nato expects.

[Wudzi]

It's basically an excuse to be on the permanent security council of the UN. It deters no one who's a threat to the UK, Most other western European countries do perfectly well without it, and it would be morally reprehensible to use to kill millions of citizens anyway. An utterly pointless waste of money.

[gravy]

Trident is needed as a deterent. Granted its highly unlikely to be used but the threat of its use remains. We also barely spend 2 % of GDP on the military which is what Nato expects.

Barely?

We're one of the highest military spenders in the world. No 5 in fact. Not as a % of GDP, not per capita but in absolute terms.

Why do we need to spend as much as Russia does when we're a far smaller country?

[pogo]

Trident is about 5% of the defence budget. Abolishing it would make no difference to the deficit. The only measurable impact would be local, in the jobs lost. It could even lead to the base they’re at being closed as too small to keep open, losing all the jobs there not just the Trident ones. I’m not sure how that is in Scotland’s interest.

Why do we need to spend as much as Russia does when we're a far smaller country?

Russia though is a basket case, militarily. They would lose, quickly and badly, if they gave NATO an excuse to go to war with them. Their current strategy depends on picking on very weak countries, and combining military action with deception (sending in Russians without Russian insignia, pretending locals are behind it), misinformation (fed to naïve and credulous foreigners like John Pilger), and bad faith negotiation. In a straight-up war they would lose, badly and humiliatingly.

I.e. if we spent as much per capita as Russia we might end up with a military like theirs – or worse as we would be able to rely on cheap conscripts.

[gravy]

Or like many of the other countries in the world. My point is we need a more typical military precense rather than the expensive and atypical one we have now because of our history.

We're currently a chav driving around in a beemer we can't afford.

Or are you against cutting spending money we don't have on stuff we don't need?

[The ghost of raids past]

Trident is needed as a deterent. Granted its highly unlikely to be used but the threat of its use remains. We also barely spend 2 % of GDP on the military which is what Nato expects.

Barely?

We're one of the highest military spenders in the world. No 5 in fact. Not as a % of GDP, not per capita but in absolute terms.

Why do we need to spend as much as Russia does when we're a far smaller country?

We need to because its what our obligation to Nato demands. Nato has kept the balance of power as it is since ww2. Cutting military spending sends a signal to countries like Russia that we are not prepared to defend ourselves and our allies. One only has to look to the Ukraine and the current non cease fire to see what happens when we stand by and do not provide a credible defence.

[gravy]

What do you think will happen here if we cut our military budget to Germany or Japanese levels.

clue: fuck all

[pogo]

Germany and Japan are still ‘benefiting’ from being on the losing side of the last war, having their military industrial complexes wiped out and being encouraged to focus on other things such as export-focussed industries by the victors. Germany for much of its post-war history borrowed the military of other nations who established large presences to defend NATO’s then border with the Soviet Bloc. My father did his national service there, as did many others of his generation. Japan still have a non-agression clause written into their constitution: they legally can’t have a large military.

[Dio]

Another key point about Trident is that a large percentage of the money spent on it flows abroad rather than back into the UK economy. Therefore reassinging that money to UK spending would boost GDP.

[gravy]

Germany and Japan are still ‘benefiting’ from being on the losing side of the last war, having their military industrial complexes wiped out and being encouraged to focus on other things such as export-focussed industries by the victors. Germany for much of its post-war history borrowed the military of other nations who established large presences to defend NATO’s then border with the Soviet Bloc. My father did his national service there, as did many others of his generation. Japan still have a non-agression clause written into their constitution: they legally can’t have a large military.

Which is exactly why I picked those two countries. Just assuming it wouldn't need explaining

[pogo]

So you agree it would be impossible for us to do the same as them? I forgot to add that Japan too plays host to a massive foreign military presence. There are around 100,000 Americans based there, around 50.000 of them military personnel. As in Germany the troops there have a broader purpose (the island they are on, Okinawa, is almost as close to China and Taiwan as it is to mainland Japan), but as long as they are there they serve to guard Japan.

[gravy]

So you agree it would be impossible for us to do the same as them? I forgot to add that Japan too plays host to a massive foreign military presence. There are around 100,000 Americans based there, around 50.000 of them military personnel. As in Germany the troops there have a broader purpose (the island they are on, Okinawa, is almost as close to China and Taiwan as it is to mainland Japan), but as long as they are there they serve to guard Japan.

It'd be impossible for us not to be the country with the 5th largest defence budget?

Amazing how you're hugely up for massive cuts to state spending unless it's on weapons and solidiers.

[pogo]

We have the fifth or sixth largest GDP. The countries ahead of us include Germany and Japan, who spend far less on defence as a proportion of their GDP for historic reasons, so you might expect us to be third or fourth in defence spending. We are not as Russia and Saudi Arabia spend more. We are about where you would expect, given the size of our economy.

(the uncertainty comes from France. Some lists put them ahead of us in both GDP and defence spending; the most recent ones seem to put us ahead though, so we have both the fifth largest economy and fifth largest defence budget by the latest figures)

I am not against cuts in military spending. But they are not as straightforward as cuts to e.g. large Westminster departments where you can just let 10% of staff go and rejig things so others do their work. Military spending is much more tied up in equipment and property, in particular programmes and geographic locations. Cuts mean real cuts to those, so orders are cancelled and bases closed. We also have a particular obligation, as members of NATO, to spend 2% of GDP on defence.

[gravy]

We have the fifth or sixth largest GDP. The countries ahead of us include Germany and Japan, who spend far less on defence as a proportion of their GDP for historic reasons, so you might expect us to be third or fourth in defence spending. We are not as Russia and Saudi Arabia spend more. We are about where you would expect, given the size of our economy.

We're fifth highest spenders by % of GDP AS WELL so that doesn't wash at all. We have a large GDP and we spend a larger proprotion of that GDP than the majority of the rest of the world.

What makes you think that defence need should be dictated by GDP?