Let’s Talk Defence Spending: Why 5% Is Just The Right Amount Of Insanity
British politicians now agree that, due to the threats from countries like Russia, defence spending should be at 3%. The Trump administration, and former British Army chief Lord Richard Dannatt, think it should be 5%.
I couldn’t agree…more!
Given that Russia is next-to-no threat to Britain, we should spend about 5% of what we currently spend on defence.
Okay, okay I might have wilfully misrepresented the position there but - Christ on a stick - the debate on foreign policy is so demented it warrants no little scorn.
Earlier this week, a “journalist” snuck onto a messaging group and saw the Trump team discuss its bombing plans for Yemen.
Oh by Jiminy, what a risk that was! Imagine if the Yemeni had intercepted those texts - why, goodness! - they might have had a few minutes to evade bombing!
Houthi henchman: “But baws, we’ve not tested the Houthi missile dome yet!”
Houthi boss: “There’s no time - activate!”
Sticks up umbrella and closes eyes tightly.
Meanwhile, in the Kremlin, Putin is in his lurid Adidas onesie, rubbing his hands together with glee: “Yessssss, sooooon my plaaaaan will be complete. Deploy the memes!”
“Sir, n-n-n-not the memes?!”
“Yesssss!”
“Not the ones from 2016 that imply Hunter Biden did something wrong and that Americans shouldn’t vote Democrat?!”
“Do it!”
“Even the devastatingly deceptive one that says ‘Bernie is basically a New Deal Democrat’??”
“Yessss.”
Xi chimes in: “Engage Whatsapp!” (you’ll have to imagine the accent).
But back to the real-life drama. In the texts, JD Vance’s attitude was basically: “You guys wanna kill a bunch of people? Geez. Sounds like a bad idea?”
Pete Hegseth: “We’re doin’ it.”
“Aw shucks, okay! Can’t we give it a month?”
“Nope”
“Cool!”
The newspapers have screamed: “If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests… the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack”.
But it wasn’t received by “someone hostile to American interests”, was it? It was received by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and notoriously the most craven pro-Netanyahu journalist in Washington - and that’s sayin’ somethin’.
So maybe - just maybe - the leak was utterly inconsequential?
You know, America is separated by an ocean? We’ve not been invaded since 1066. Britain and America are the two LEAST threatened countries on the entire planet but still talk in terrified tones about enemy “regimes”. The Serb regime, the Libyan regime, Venezuela’s regime… the US would “👊USA🔥” the L’Oréal Skin Care regime if it didn’t supply them with oil.
Remember Iraq? We said they had tonnes of mustard gas but got there and couldn’t even find mustard - a Baghdad hotdog was a decidedly unsatisfactory affair circa 2003. But hey, at least they were liberated from the oppressive rule of, uh, working sewage systems. 💩 (sorry, Hegseth is editing my article)
What about Iran? Former Secretary of Defence Mike Pompeo said that “Iran is the Homebase for Al Qaeda”. I’m not sure if you’ve been to Homebase lately but if their nuclear weapons are as awkward to assemble as their shelving units then we’re gonna be fine. An Iranian hydrogen bomb might exist but only in 37 separate parts with instructions in Nordic and a missing Allen Key.
China is, of course, the worst though, isn’t it? I hear they have a bloke who can do mental arithmetic faster than an abacus. We’re doomed! In fact, the only way I can calm my paralysing terror of China is reminding myself that it's 5,000 miles away in fl*pping China.
Remember when the Americans invoked the terror of the Chinese spy balloon? Ohhh, welcome to Scaresville, population you! I sure hope the Chinese don’t send any more party paraphernalia. I’d hate for them to make us stand on a Chinese Lego. If China ever drops a party popper 🎉 over Montana, I fully expect NORAD to scramble jets.
So, yeh, I am being sarcastic. There is no threat to Britain. In fact, why not try this thought experiment? If anyone says Britain needs nuclear weapons, ask them to specify a scenario. Because here’s the only one where nukes would be handy: Russia inexplicably decides to march its army across Germany, Holland, and Belgium. These countries inexplicably offer no resistance and this 400,000 square miles of new Russian territory is easily governed by the triumphant aggressors. France sits by as its neighbours are over-run. At this point, Russia has to decide whether to cross the English channel - an amphibious landing that has deterred invaders for a thousand years - and try, again for no reason whatsoever, to govern Britain by force.
At this point, Britain might find some use in having a nuclear weapon as a deterrent.
In reality, the furthest Russia ever came towards us in two centuries of history was the Eastern half of Berlin in 1945 - and that was after six years of war and with help from the entire rest of the world, including us. Currently, Russia has half its armed forces fighting to control the eastern fifth of Ukraine.
If the UK really wants to feel safe, I suggest it doesn’t need a rise in defence spending—it needs a decrease in credulous gormlessness.
Because, truthfully, in a sane world, our defence policy would be one bloke with a telescope on Portland Bill peering suspiciously over a cup of milky tea, just checking that the French aren’t getting any ideas.
SUBSCRIBE to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DrMatthewAlford?sub_confirmation=1
