"Cameron Warned on Defence Spending"

[GibMariner]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... nding.html

Yes it's a Daily Fail article, but at least defence is being talked about.

Basically: Another former military chief "warns" Cameron on defence spending, asking to meet the NATO 2% requirement.

[Tiny Toy]

the NATO 2% requirement

There is no NATO 2% requirement.

There is a non-binding NATO target or guideline.

Saying that it is a requirement is just as pernicious and prejudicial as saying that Article 5 of the treaty requires you to go to war to defend an allied member state. It doesn't. It says, very specifically "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

These two facts are unrelated except inasmuch as those who utter the former falsehood invariably utter the latter also.

[GibMariner]

the NATO 2% requirement

There is no NATO 2% requirement.

There is a non-binding NATO target or guideline.

Saying that it is a requirement is just as pernicious and prejudicial as saying that Article 5 of the treaty requires you to go to war to defend an allied member state. It doesn't. It says, very specifically "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

These two facts are unrelated except inasmuch as those who utter the former falsehood invariably utter the latter also.

Yes, I'm aware it isn't an actual requirement and meant to write it in snarky quotation marks but I got distracted and forgot.

I know it is merely an abstract target and has little meaning on its own. Didn't it used to be 3% or 4%? Even during the Cold War, I doubt most NATO countries met these arbitrary targets.

I would say it should be a UK government requirement for defence spending not to fall below 2%, but I'm sure that if that were the case, the only way it would happen would be with clever accounting and adding all sorts of things to the defence budget to make it look bigger while adding more strain to the military.

[Tiny Toy]

Yes, I'm aware it isn't an actual requirement and meant to write it in snarky quotation marks but I got distracted and forgot.

I will forgive you just this once

I know it is merely an abstract target and has little meaning on its own. Didn't it used to be 3% or 4%? Even during the Cold War, I doubt most NATO countries met these arbitrary targets.

The vast majority of NATO members still don't. However France manages to provide a highly credible effective while still spending a lot less in real terms - a big part of this is how national military procurement works and whether it's getting value for taxpayer money or just a means of enriching your mates in the private sector.

[GibMariner]

I will forgive you just this once

Thanks sir! Good to be kept in line

The vast majority of NATO members still don't. However France manages to provide a highly credible effective while still spending a lot less in real terms - a big part of this is how national military procurement works and whether it's getting value for taxpayer money or just a means of enriching your mates in the private sector.

Very well said - have to give it to the French. It is one of my pet annoyances when the UK government boasts about having the largest military budget in Europe, yet have forces of a similar size and often of a similar capability to those that have smaller, but more efficient budgets. Clearly something is very wrong with UK procurement and industry. I don't think it's something to be proud of to be harping on about how much more money we spend without having much to show for it.

[Tony Williams]

The Times newspaper reports today that the Ministry of Defence has been asked by the Chancellor to find a further £1 billion of cuts for the current financial year (i.e. by the end of March next year). Goodbye 2%...

[downsizer]

I'm shocked! Never saw that coming!

[jonas]

I'm shocked! Never saw that coming!

I was under the impression that the 2015/16 budget was already committed to 2%. In any case I will wait until something official is published, as the 'Times' like the rest of the UK media is not the most reliable source of info.

Then again because I know you love good news, and are always so optimistic this link is just for you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -cuts.html,

[bobp]

Seems rather silly to be talking about more cuts to defence when our biggest enemy is busy re-arming itself with new tanks and aircraft. We seem to be involved in more and more conflicts around the globe, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan to name but a few as well as several humanitarian missions such as the ebola crisis,piracy,drug smuggling, as well as the growing immigration cris in the mediteranean. Surely now is the time for increasing defence.

[Tiny Toy]

We seem to be involved in more and more conflicts around the globe, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan to name but a few as well as several humanitarian missions such as the ebola crisis,piracy,drug smuggling, as well as the growing immigration cris in the mediteranean. Surely now is the time for increasing defence.

Or getting involved in fewer conflicts

But yes, the strategic risks of events that will require significant disaster recovery and peacekeeping (not least from secondary effects of climate change and the global economic downturn) are growing not diminishing. Instead of knee-jerk "just throw more money at it now" we need the SDSR to consider broad enough strategic implications and commit to plans that exceed one parliamentary term in duration, like where do we want to be in 30 years' time, and direct funding specifically to realise those plans.

[jonas]

I wonder if Cameron or Osborne will have the decency to attend the re-dedication service for the Bastion memorial . Personaly I think they should be pressured to attend and face up to the family's and friends of the fallen, and explain to them why they treat the armed forces with such disdain.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the- ... um=twitter

[jonas]

Well,Well, at last a sensible decision on the 'Aid' front.

"Jim Shannon
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost to his Department is of HMS Bulwark rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean.

Penny Mordaunt

The Ministry of Defence is contributing to an international search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean to rescue migrants, of which HMS Bulwark is providing an essential part. The additional costs of using military assets in support of this international assistance effort are to be borne by the UK Aid budget, as it is eligible as Official Development Assistance, and as such there will be no additional costs attributable to Defence for the use of HMS Bulwark."

[jonas]

Is this what Fallon had to do to get cuts to the MOD budget kept to a minimum, when the f**k are we going to get a defence secretary with some balls.

http://bit.ly/1RZytZC