Our defence budget is too little of the total...


Check the bottom table. Now I know its Wikipedia, so that's why it's in this forum...as gossip... but as a % of ou GDP, 2.4 is behind 68 other countries, the majority of which aren't in any danger from rivals, or in a conflict. WTF, why are our priorities so skewed that we stills send aid to CHINA, but won't spend even 3% on defence?:

Bah, fellow pointless ranters welcome.
It's even worse that it looks when looking at the % of GDP. The government will tell you that the defence budget has been increasing over the years; this is true, however military inflation has been running in double figures for many years and the increase to the defence budget has not reflected this.


Look on the bright side!
At least the Falklands are safe, Argentina manages to spend even less than us on defence and thats low!!
for example France, Italy and Spain include in their defence expenditures the costs of maintaining the Gendarmerie, Carabinieri and Guardia Civil- all of which are primarily domestic police forces.

Is defense(spelt with an S you ******* US(ENG) moron)spending a vote winner, hence in our supposedly peaceful time whats going to take the brunt of any spending cuts. The only way to increase defense spending is to foster a climate of fear. How do you think the US and our government financed an invasion of Iraq. WMDs, bollocks, in Western democracies the military has always been a political tool, therefore when armed force is necessary to achieve a political aim(control the flow of Iraqi oil, prior to 2003 Iraqi oil was sold in Euros, not dollars as it is now) it encourages fear. Take a look how the fear of Communism in 50s/60s US allowed Congress to give huge amounts of money to US military.
Defense spending will only increase if there is a very real threat, the public got suckered on Iraq and that isnt going to happen again. Yes defense spending is **** all compared to what the govt has just thrown at propping up our banks, but hey ho the public sees a cancellation of Trident or Eurofighter and actually believes UK PLC is saving money, nope that money is diverted into the black hole of public sector debt and waste.
Im sorry but since the failure of communism there is no nation threat, hence the lack of funds to the RN and RAF. Unless Islam unites all the Muslim states to fight against the evil west, finances will be directed to containing the threat in Afghan, and fighting home grown extremists. China isnt going to kick off, due to its heavy reliance on its new founded quasi-capitalism. Although a future could unfold when we start going to war over the ever dwindling supply of natural resources, but this is at least 50 years off.
So we will have to deal with becoming a Coastal Defense Force, and it will stay that way until the long dead ghost of Napoloen rises from the grave and whips the surrender monkeys up into a national fervour where they will want to invade Dog Shit City again, Let them ******* have it.
Even Comoros spend more of its GDP than we do. Comoros FFS, I've never heard of it, I had to look it up. A pimple of an island North of Madagascar. Have a look on Google maps, it's about the same size as Drakes Island in Guzz. Jesus, have we really stooped that low :cry: . Next they'll be sending overseas aid and Red Cross parcels to us.
Er, has it crossed anyone's mind that given the absolutely lower levels of national GDP in the overwhelming majority of countries 'above us' in the table, they therefore have to spend proportionately much higher percentages of GDP to have any kind of military at all.. In other words, given Lesotho has a much smaller cake than we do economically, they have to use a bigger slice of their smaller cake to buy a microlight fitted with twin SuperSoakers or whatever so they can say they have an air force. Cock measuring by % GDP is misleading at best.

Equally as another poster pointed out, of the major industrial powers cited who are 'above us' (and in most cases only marginally) they have - for the most part - a much more expansive definition of defence expenditure than we do. There is a fair point to be made about military inflation but that affects all countries involved in procurement. What could be a fair argument is not the total spend but the ways in which funds are mis-spent - UK procurement policies biased towards the UK defence sector rather than UK defence needs being, as ever, the central issue.

In short, I wouldn't start shitting it over any coming conflict with the Solomon Islands :wink:
What can I say, i've been bought up on Microsoft Office shouting at me for putting the 's' not the 'c' so now it's annoyingly natural. I apologise. :oops:

Good points. This was mainly a point about the proportion, the para-military forces can't cost worth an extra 1% of the whole GDP? They are not equipment intensive roles, surely? And i'd bet some of them are not from themilitary budget, but from their equivalent home office? I don't care enough to look it up though. Maybe later. :!:

Shipsnthat, yeah, waste is the big issue. Way I see it though, the more money that is put in, the more likely it is that some of it goes to the right place?

Aid to china, the multi billion pound black hole of the welfare system - I have a friend of mine on it, there is absolutely no incentive for him to work - he gets around £40 a week, but if he works he must declare it. SO if he earns, say £20 for doing a days work, the government will give him £20 to make the total - so why bother working when you'll just get £40 anyway? He doesn't get much, because he's living with parents, and has no dependancies (lazy slacker bum) but its the same for those who claim for child support etc etc. Massive reform needed - I say, if they don't have work by 6 months in, make 'em join up - Penal Battalions!!!! :twisted:
Sorry Dai, pet hate of mine is the US bastardisation of our language, plus bottle of vino may have contributed to rather harsh comment. Change to ENG(UK) on your settings.
'bastardisation of our language'
Oh, so we have a scholar is our midst? Is the constant distaste for Americanisation a sign of envy of another nation's dynamism?

The ability to assimilate foreign words into the English language is the reason why the language is vibrant and alive. Its mongrel nature reflects our own nation's proclivity for subsuming cultures and why we still 'punch above our weight' in the world. As a nation, we move onwards not backward, it is only those parochial nations that fail to progress.

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts