British Army ‘too weak to fight’ in European war
British Army ‘too weak to fight’ in European war
www.thetimes.co.uk
British Army ‘too weak to fight’ in European war
49 comments
-
-
The British army only needs to be strong enough to perform its two real roles: performative presence to lend 'international' credibility to American projects, and suppressing the people of the British Isles.
-
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It's meant to be a collective defense. What's happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
-
It's something the US has basically enforced, it's their excuse to things like military bases in Okinawa, which goes against Japan's ideas of not having an army (even though the JSDF has broken this promise of sorts). More military spending it's not going to bring any good to anyone, specially coming from Europe and its record, specially the Brits.
-
More military spending it's not going to bring any good to anyone, specially coming from Europe and its record, specially the Brits.
Ask the Ukrainians how they feel about the Brits rn
-
We've had multiple presidents get on their soapbox about defense budgets in Europe. One fat orange man in particular. He's a corrupt idiot but he wasn't wrong about that. The NATO % GDP benchmark is not onerous. Only military capability will deter some actors as clearly evidenced most recently in Ukraine.
-
-
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
I'm fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.
Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.
-
-
These articles are in every country's news media these days. The military industrial complex pushing tax payers in every country to ever increase their revenues.
-
The UK kas nukes, they don't need an army. There's never been a country with nukes that's had their mainland invaded.
-
Nukes don't matter when the UK isn't being directly invaded. They can never use nukes in a war that does not involve their possible destruction.
-
Agree. It's an easily defended island, the days of having a standing army of 100k are well over.
It's going to be AI and drones, not boots on the ground.
-
49 comments
This is an article intending to manufacture consent for larger military spending even as the UK public watches the NHS get slowly privatized right in front of them through ubderfunding. Observe the pattern of sourcing, of who gets a voice, and why this article was written in the first place.
It is a double edged sword. On the one side it's the neoliberal agenda coming from Washington telling its European lackeys "Don't spend on the people, spend on the military to keep funding the military-industrial complex" and on the other hand it's material reality showing itself of a debilitated Europe who has accustomed to get its fair share through colonialist and extractionists policies enforced by the bigger player, the US, and now has end up without neither a strong military nor economical presence in the global sphere.