Former armed forces minister James Heappey says UK must prepare for war despite being 'long way behind'
news.sky.com
On the bunker drill, the former minister said that all secretaries of state - not just defence - have a desk and a bed ready for them in a bunker.
This is not so they are able to survive a nuclear attack "for re-populating our islands after the apocalypse" but "because their departments are as integral to the war effort as the MoD".
Because it's precisely these politicians who should be repopulating after a potential apocalypse /s
Alternate title: "Former military guy can only think about conflict and makes war mongering comments to scare politicians and population"
You are viewing a single comment
The UK is one of the countries in the world with the biggest military spending. Don't feed up on propaganda, billions on billions already get spend every year on war by pretty much every nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
"Preparing for peace" means spending your money on useful and good things for humanity that aren't war or police related. If someone brings war to you people will defend themself like they have always done. People from a country that doesn't steal their money and treat them like pawns will actually defend themself better
It's not a dichotomy. Of course you're right we should be providing for people and making sure we have a healthy society. In reality part of that is having sufficient defence. Being prepared for war doesn't necessarily mean increasing spending either, it could be spending more efficiently, make sure you're spending on the right things or even strengthening cooperation with allied nations.
I'm not sure what you mean by people defending themselves as they have always done. Maybe you can elaborate more on that, are you saying we should rely on drafting civilians if attacked and therefore spend less to maintain a professional armed forces?
It's peasants like you and me that "defend" the country. A soldier is a peasant with a uniform. People can defend themself even without an uniform or a politician giving them orders
I think you've lost me here. A soldier has access to equipment, extensive training, support from other soldiers, streamlined communications between themselves and other military functions such as artillery, air support, armour and most importantly a massive network of logistics to ensure they can operate effectively. Not to mention guidance from commanders with access to extremely deep and complex intelligence networks. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of stuff here as I'm far from an expert but you get the point.
Of course things go wrong and it doesn't always work perfectly but up against a competent armed forces a ragtag bunch of individuals really doesn't stand a chance. I personally don't think it's a credible option for defending your country.
As long as they are in the right the "ragtags" will always win. A country is a bunch of invisible lines on the map, no gear or order will ever be able to defend it from a bunch of angry people.
Saying the good guys will always win no matter what is magical thinking and doesn't pan out in reality. By that logic nobody needs to spend even one cent on defence because conflicts would be won or lost on some kind of moral standard.
Justice and collective wellbeing is the logical reality human beings moves toward. Lies and evil are fueled by malice and billions but the truth exist regardless of someone putting cents on it.