In terms of defence expenditure as a share of GDP, the top four spenders in NATO are the United States, Greece, Estonia and the United Kingdom.
Estonia and the United Kingdom both spend 2.13% of their GDP on defence while Greece spends 2.24% and the US spends 3.42%.
The United Kingdom remains second in overall defence spending within the Alliance.
NATO collects defence expenditure data from member states on a regular basis and presents this information.
“In the figures and tables that follow, NATO also uses up-to-date economic and demographic information available from the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission (DG-ECFIN), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
In view of differences between both these sources and national GDP forecasts, and also the definition of NATO defence expenditure and national definitions, the figures shown in this report may diverge considerably from those which are quoted by media, published by national authorities or given in national budgets.
Equipment expenditure includes expenditure on major equipment as well as on research and development devoted to major equipment. Personnel expenditure includes pensions paid to retirees.”
Here’s the list of countries by defence expenditure as a share of GDP.
Here are the top five countries by total expenditure.
Click to enlarge. 1. United States (730.15 billion dollars)
- United Kingdom (60.38 billion dollars)
- Germany (54.11 billion dollars)
- France (50.66 billion dollars)
- Italy (24.48 billion dollars)
The Alliance stipulate that the amounts represent payments by a national government actually made, or to be made, during the course of the fiscal year to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of their allies or of the Alliance itself.
But for how long!
“Greece now ahead of UK in defence spending as share of GDP”
“Jeremy Hunt: I would spend £15bn more on defence”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48752226
Depends on if the mop top idiot gets in or not…
Unless there is a SDR before 1st November I’m not sure it will make much difference…
LOL!
The article states it will increase from 2% to 2.5% if he invests £15 billion extra – a 25% increase of 15 billion, but this implies we spend £60 billion currently. I thought the defence budget was just under the £40 billion mark? I would of thought it would be closer to a £10 billion increase for 2.5% GDP. Or is this figure maybe taking economic growth or inflation into account?
I also wonder at what rate it would increase – possibly 0.1% a year but who knows I guess.
Parliament article said that spread over 35 years and including about 30% contingency the cost was at 0.2% of GDP.
We have already spent over 5 billion.
Also the MOD officially confirmed that the nuclear deterrent had always been within the MOD budget
(this after Williamson had claimed otherwise)
It a fair question as to which budget it should be in, but the actual cost as it’s averaged out is not vast in the context of what it could do!
£’s and $’s, They Ain’t the same. Doh.
Articke states $60b.as in USD which delending on how you squint can be a rough calc from 40b UKP
Depends if you squint in £’s or $’s, I guess.
Greece has long prioritised defence spending as a legacy of on-going tensions with Turkey. When talking about % of GDP spend though, it is necessary to bear in mind that Greece’s military spend and total GDP are both comparatively miniscule. Furthermore, if their %-of-GDP spend has increased that could either mean that they’ve increased spending in real terms, or that they’re economy has tanked more rapidly than their defence spend has declined.
Ha-good post Ian. Damn statistics and percentages with no context. As a schoolboy in Rhodesia our Maths teacher commented on a cigarette advert in the Rhodesia Herald proclaiming that a particular brand had increased sales by 200%!! “Ya” he said dryly ” Last year they sold one packet-this year they have sold three!! “
pretty good analysis IMO, why so snippy?
It should also be noted that the Greeks have never shown any inclination to get involved in any multinational operattions. In fact during the Cold War the planning assumption then, and now is that the Greeks would not fire a shot.
They’re a passenger, no use whatsoever to NATO. The only point Greek and Turkish membership serves, to themselves and NATO, is so that they both don’t fight each other or align with Russia.
What on earth does Germany spend its defence money on?
Refuges
Flashy paint-jobs for its aircraft, of course!
Joking aside, my condolences to those involved in yesterday’s events. However, several articles have suggested that the German military is experiencing a lot of setbacks, so I too would like to know where their money is going.
Spain have been damned by faint praise as well having ‘only lost a few’.
haircuts
The actual answer is the Pension bill, it represents a significant proportion of the German defence budget.
Uh, submarines that can’t go to sea and aircraft that can’t fly.
Hopefully Hunt is the next PM.
Regardless of his defence pledges, I see him as more of a statesman than Johnson, who is too divisive, gaff prone, and easily dismissed as just another toff.
I see Hunt as ‘firm but fair’ in difficult situations whereas I see Johnson as a loose cannon.
I’m with you on that one, the only reason I remain a paid up Conservative is to vote against Johnson, if he gets in we are in for a lot of trouble. The man simply can’t be trusted with his promises, and certainly not with anyone’s wife. And Hunt has been saying for some time that defence spending has to rise, between him and Mordaunt we could start to have a reasonable defence policy.
Only for the 3 months they would *remain* in power before a general election is forced and Corbyn becomes PM.
Think we have to accept Brexit is and will continue to be a disaster and just focus on making sure Corbyn never becomes PM.
Hunt’s reputation within the NHS (he was health secretary for years) is woeful. It is sad comment on the times we live in that he looks like the better of the two candidates for the job!
Very true, but look now how ‘Dubya’ looks good compared to Trump !
The problem with his tenure in charge of the NHS is that it was during the severe austerity years. The NHS still needs major reformation, to cut the waste. The problem is with salaries. Dr’s and nurses don’t even want to work for the NHS because they can earn over double as a locum and the government cannot increase pay to the market rate otherwise every other government employee will want the same increase.
The NHS is certainly wasteful, I suspect just like every other government department. And yes, salaries are a major issue as are staffing levels and a million other things. But the NHS (again like many government departments) has to meet all needs for all people within a broad mandate (health). That makes it almost impossible to achieve the efficiencies of the private sector where firms can focus their activities much more tightly. Politicians have spent decades telling us that government should be as efficient as the private sector since it sounds good and lets them hint at tax cuts. But… Read more »
Notwithstanding waste and salary issues I think all 1st world health models are struggling these days. The NHS offers excellent training at attractive salaries for immigrants from countries who produce a surplus of medics; the Commonwealth, some EU countries, the Phillipines and Goa. We are not alone. I believe the Germans are increasingly using immigrant medics from Eastern Europe who will work for smaller salaries. The root of the problem is that inflation in health treatments is orders of magnitude higher than average inflation for the economy. I was once told ( by a university professor) that statistically if you… Read more »
Kings College did a excellent report on the projections for NHS spending in 2003 , so far everything they have projected has come to fruit . We spend £158 billion a year on the NHS or 23% of public spending, it employs 1.2 million people and is the second largest employer in the world, the first being the PLA . Kings College projected by 2030 the NHS would cost 230 billion a year and consume 27% of public spending. The Wanless report for Gordon Brown in 2008 said that NHS spending is unaffordable under the present system and should be… Read more »
Rather than change how we spend tax revenue I would increase the focus on the drivers of illness. It’s accepted for example that obesity is a significant driver for just about every disease, yet the population is getting heavier. We should a) ramp up the time allocated to sport on the school timetable b) ramp up the excise duty on alcohol Having said we shouldn’t change how we spend tax revenue I would encourage mainland UK to copy NI and have a combined budget for health and social security at say, the level of the old English kingdoms: Mercia, Wessex,… Read more »
Unfortunately the biggest cause especially in the future is going to be social care for the elderly. Dimentia is a horrible illness in that it robs old people of their life and dignity but keeps them alive while doing it. Residents are in so many blood thinning tables unless they get cancer their lives seem to extend wel beyond what nature intended.
I think your blanket statements about salaries for nurses and doctors is laughable. I am an NHS staff nurse and have been since I qualified. I have watched as our salaries were capped for years on end and bursary placements were stopped for training meaning a student nurse is liable for all teaching costs incurred while training. They then qualify and earn around 25k max (central London) with a huge debt behind them. Teachers get a bonus when they start teaching, so why don’t we when we start on the wards? I earn less an hour than a gardener and… Read more »
Sorry I think you miss understood me. I completely agree NHS salaries for Dr’s and Nurses are a disgrace which is why staff are not signing up in the numbers required and choosing to work locum instead where they actually get paid what they are worth. In heath trusts close to me 40% of staff are locum. Where the government has been tied is because everyone who works for the public sector regardless of if they are a Dr teacher or administrator expects to recieve the same pay increase regardless of how valuable they actually are in their job. I’d… Read more »
Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am very protective of the NHS and my staff, I think they perform small miracles every day on very restricted budget. I agree complete with your comments about mismanagement in many areas. It always makes me laugh that at the weekends the hospital car parks are empty but we still run the same service! What do all those people do during the week??? I also think it’s great we still talk about the NHS with such passion, it’s shows how much we appreciate it. Let’s never get to the US system.
£25k so $31,700. The equivalent position in the US is RN which earn $73,550 on average now plus full health and retirement benefits. So about a $42k difference before you add in lower taxes and cost of living. How do you have any staff left?
To put $31k in perspective that is roughly 3k less than the average pay of a garbage collector in the US.
Actually thats not really the case. Particularly the people I speak to at the higher end and at DHSC. He wasn’t spectacular, but he didn’t rock the boat, and crucially he managed to limit the damage of a lot of Lansley’s catastrophic ‘reforms’. Now that was a woeful reputation and well deserved too…
Matt Hancock is well regarded as well…
Have you read Max Hasting on Johnson ?
Have you any links?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain
Thanks. ‘He thinks that he is Winston Churchill but is closer to Alan Partridge’….priceless!
Johnson has a Toy Story Buzz Lightyear approach to leadership….I can fly
As Andrew Neil pointed out Max Hastings opinions would carry a bit more weight if he hadn’t employed him for 10 years…
Andrew Neil got rid of him straight away though…
Hi Daniele-agree entirely. Boris is a bright charismatic man but at his age should have dropped the buffoonery a long while ago. Hunt is solid-especially for Defence. Also Boris elected as PM would threaten the integrity of the Union. He is not liked North of the border and his election would be a gift to the SNP and a big blow to our Ruth who has almost single handed revived the Tories in Scotland
What do you mean ‘our Ruth’. This is not a Conservative Party website’….or is it?
am i the only one?!
Was speaking for myself Herodotus-in NI/Scotland we talk of Oor so -and -so about family or close friends. Sorry if I offended your other party sensibilities.
God, don’t you feel very isolated. You must be rarer than hens teeth north of the border!
It is not.
Hunt is May mkII rebranded as a man. I do not believe for one second his new found commitment to brexit. If he ends up PM any defence spending pledges will be moot, as another period of May’s policies will open the door to a Lib/Lab anti Brexit Party coalition in an inevitable general election. Like most I’ve never been a Boris fan but a potential cabinet of Davis, IDS, Mogg, Mordaunt, Raab and the like is infinately superiour to Javid, Hammond, Gove and Stewart….Or letting the Marxists in by not leaving, which we won’t under Hunt.
We will not under Boris either. He seems to live in a fantasy land. Given that he was one of the primary movers in the leave campaign (strange since he was pro-european up to that point). You would imagine he would have a a very detailed plan to leave? You would hope so anyway as you would think he would have thought it through before getting people to vote leave… However he has no plan at all. His ideas are vague and have either been tried before and failed or have been totally rebuffed by the EU. He seems to… Read more »
Lee, as I said I’m no fan of Boris. I think, like you, he is a political chancer and not to be trusted, but it’s any port in a storm at the moment. Hunt is just a re-skinned Maybot and under him we face vassalage and a Marxist in charge of the country.
The only way Parliament can affect a no deal is by calling and winning a no confidence vote, the chances of which are remote as the tories understand they would, in effect, be voting Labour.
There seems to be enough of them that are willing to put the country ahead of the party to win a no confidence vote. They believe as I do that no deal is even worse than Corbyn… And believe me I think Corbyn will be a disaster for the country. The only real solution to this stalemate is a public vote. I am not sure Corbyn would actually win an election right now. He is like Boris and is a career politician. He hates the EU and has called many times for us to leave yet he will not now… Read more »
The Tories won’t vote in any significant numbers for a no confidence motion. The main culprits for any such party suicide joined ChangeUK before the European elections. There will likely also be support from the 26 Labour MPs who signed the recent letter to Corbyn over the Labour manifesto pledge. Beside a devastating war, little can be imagined that’s worse for Britain than a marxist government. A WTO arrangement is absolutely nothing to worry about in comparison. We won’t be getting a “people’s vote” and even if we did the numbers suggest leave would win by a bigger majority, and… Read more »
WTO Rules are a major problem. This seems to be brushed off by anyone that supports Brexit but it is not to be taken lightly. WTO Rules are a bad fallback. They are there to simply facilitate the ability to trade not the quality of the trade agreement. There is little control over WTO Rules so if we want to offer a decent tariff for the EU (which we would as otherwise prices would be crazy high) then we have to give that tariff to every other country on earth that we do not have specific trade agreements with (non… Read more »
It’s important to note that the majority of Britain’s trade through the EU is currently on WTO including with USA and China, they are not a fallback they are a baseline and any non EU country has the ability to negotiate whatever extra agreements they wish with anyone they wish, something we’ve been doing for three years now in preparation. Any country is also free to unilaterally drop tariffs to zero if they wish, regardless of GATT XXIV, which we likely would with more than just the EU. I am a business owner that trades in both EU countries and… Read more »
Interesting cabinet…… dear God! The only cabinet I would put Mogg, David Davis and IDS in would be a fume cabinet in a chemistry lab.
I think having actual tories in the cabinet might at least allow us to criticise genine tory principles. We may even end up with a left/right dichotomy back in Britain.
What a choice we could end up with at the next election: BoZo, Magic Grandpa, or a party that are neither liberal or democratic.
What does ‘gaff’ mean Daniele? I searched but think your use has different meaning
Morning Ulya. Sorry for late reply.
To be ” Gaff prone” is to make a mistake and embarras yourself in front of others. Like saying something you should not have. Very important for a politician.
Another saying Brits could use is ” putting your foot in it” example into trouble.
And “all over the gaff” is again entirely different.
The corruption of the English language!
Spasibo. It is a interesting language
Sorry, thank you
No problems mate. I actually believe I misled you, I think “gaff” may actually be Irish which has worked its way into London Slang.
I don’t understand how France is 10bn less than the UK but they have not made the kind of cuts in man power that we have. Pretty sure they operate more fast jets and tanks. Their amphibious capabilities and larger and ship and submarines numbers are about on power. They didn’t even get us help for the nuc’s. Are we just wasting a lot more money?
They still do national service and I wonder if military pensions come out of the budget? Still, 10bn is a lot of money!
They alone surely cannot account for that amount!
French national service stopped in 2001.
Yes but, did anyone tell the French ?
Plus the costs of the dreadnought program and MI5/MI6 and GCHQ all come out of the defence budget thanks to Osborne shunting them into the defence budget which along with pensions is around £11 billion of the defence budget of £37 billion so we actually spend £26 billion on defence. All other major countries intelligence services are not funded from the defence budget and historically the cost of building the nuclear deterrent came out of the treasury special contingency funds but Hammond when he was defence secretary allowed Osborne to shrove all the intelligence agencies and nuclear deterrent and pensions… Read more »
I do not believe all that to be correct.
The SIS , SS, and GCHQ are funded from the Single Intelligence Account. That has not and never has been part of the defence budget.
If it is now that’s news to me and id love to see the relevant documents.
Some parts of intelligence do indeed fall under defence, and always have. That is Defence Intelligence ( ex DIS ) which include various uniformed organisations that DO contribute to GCHQ.
As for pensions and deterrent I believe you’re correct.
The single intelligence account falls under the defence budget since 2011 , it use to draw funds from the foreign office, home office and defense budgets it now solely draws funds from the defence budget. It was done this way to give the illusion of higher defence spending. What Osborne did was stuff the SIA into the defence budget and then removed the costs from the home office and foreign office budget but failed to transfer the funds to the MoD saving £5.7 billion a year . Fallon the former MoD secretary was waging a campaign to have the home… Read more »
If true that’s shocking.
I thought they had made cuts like most other European nations? Despite that, it always seems they get more for their money numbers wise. Then again, how often have people here baulked at the costs Mod pays for kit? Or the contract costs of maintaining equipment? Batch 2 Rivers now much ? A near 1 billion Challenger II upgrade, for what exactly? Warrior sustainment? FRES 1 billion spent for nothing. Self imposed delays costing billions ( T45A, Astute Carriers) the list is endless. Maybe they are not as incompetent with money as we seem to be. Or could it be… Read more »
Short term money saving policy, the type 26 is a case in point the build has been stretched to 7 years per ship instead of 4 years to save costs in the short term.
BAe are on record saying that if the build rate was 1 ship every 4 years £8 billion would buy 13 hulls but because it is 7 years you only get 8 for the same money because you get less the longer the build takes.
A lot of the reason for this is that France has a combination of new and old equipment. Their combat jet force is a mix of Rafale (new, Typhoon-era) and Mirage (old, Tornado-era). Their navy is similar. Whereas the UK has been all about shiny new world beating equipment which has such a price tag that numbers have to decrease. Imagine if instead of F35 we had retained all our Harriers and Tornados alongside the Typhoons. We would have a fleet of over 250 aircraft but of different capabilities and ages. Also, we’ve been involved in wars for the past… Read more »
Looks as if there’s little chance that THIS piece of advanced UK kit is going to join the USN. Pity. It would have sent a strong message.
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/21/bae-systems-quashes-hopes-of-type-26-entry-in-ffgx-contest
Cheers
French logistics are almost non-existent; they have all the front-line bells and whistles like us but without any of the support behind it
Only three ancient, tiny and impotent replenishment ships
No heavy lift transport aircraft. A400M is as big as it gets with a paltry 37 tonne payload
No heavy lift helicopters for deployment of material – they have had to rely on the RAF and RCAF in Mali for that for instance
That’s how they do it.
Very true I completely forgot about that. Sure what do they need it for when they can use ours 🙂
Correct, good analysis. All mouth and no trousers.
I’m dumbfounded by what Italy gets for its $25B.
100k of troops in 2 armoured, 2 “strike” 4 light and an airborne brigade.
Two 30k ton carriers (2nd being built) plus 3 small LHD
60 f35a and 15 f35b plus 5 typhoon squadrons
The French don’t some of the capabilities we do, next to zero ISTAR assets, no strategic lift capabilities, way behind the RAF on air to air refuelling tankers, no chinook fleet. The french submarine fleet doesn’t come close to what our Astute class is capable off, the list could go on, even the Rafael is trailing along way behind the Typhoon now when I comes to development and upgrades. The French have gone for numbers over capability, and they have a lot of old equipment.
We don’t spend 2% of gdp defence! They messed with the way we calculate it! We have lost so many tanks, jets, helicopters, ships, and the rest but we still spend around the same…Nuclear deterrent should not be added for starters, it’s never used to be right?
Cam wrote:
it’s never used to be right?
In 2010 George Osbourne took the nuclear deterrent budget out of the treasury and passed it over to the MOD. Its also the day when the MOD started having a cash problem. Funny that.
The MOD has had cash problems far longer than the last 9 years.
AG wrote:
“The MOD has had cash problems far longer than the last 9 years.”
I suspect that the MOD has had cash problems since Boadicea had an expense claim rejected, but the issue of late went through the roof after the now editor of the Evening Standard decided to rob Peter to pay Paul.
I’m sure if Treasury took the nuclear deterrent back under its wing, and we stopped counting the MOD civil servants’ pension fund as a core element of defence spending, the share of GDP would drop well below the 2% mark…
In other news, Turkey have done well, they’re almost meeting their NATO commitment! Must be all those Russian missiles they’re buying…
I’ve roughly worked it out it’s about 1.5% of gdp mate and that’s being generous …
I believe farouk is correct. On both comments!
Tanks Farouk, it’s a dam joke, we are getting weaker and weaker! Even our expensive nuclear deterrent nuke stockpile is shrinking below what I feel we need to be credible! Dam joke all around!
With the greatest respect, just how many millions of innocent people would you like to kill ?
Indeed. Surely all we need for a credible threat is for the CASD to carry enough warheads to wipe out the major cities in any country foolish enough to be considering a strike against us.
If that were Russia, for example, then the ability to wipe Moscow and St Petersburg off the face of the earth is enough to deter.
Moscow and St.Petersburg? You do realize they have a lot of other cities right and that it is a huge country. Many of those cities have much greater strategic value while Moscow and St.Petersburg are mostly political and cultural. Against that nuclear missiles are going to get easier to intercept as time goes on. Requiring saturation to get to their targets. So say Russia nuked London or was planning to, so in response or preemptively due to needing to ensure target saturation Britain’s strikes (due to the 2010 security review leaving only 40 warheads available) only managed to destroy or… Read more »
My point is that the CASD needs to be enough to prevent anyone thinking of launching against us. Do you not think that the Russians may think twice about doing so if they believed that their 2 most populated and significant cities could be wiped out? The CASD isn’t about the ability to completely destroy another country. It’s about being enough of a deterrent to stop them doing it to us, emphasis on “enough”. If it came to a nuke shooting war then the whole thing has failed and we are screwed anyway. The fact that our retaliation could ‘only’… Read more »
Look at their sustained casualties from WWII and you would come to the conclusion that the UK only has enough deployable warheads to piss them off.
They didn’t role over and start singing Deutschland Uber Alles and listen to Hitler then. So I doubt they would listen to the UK and start singing God Save Queen.
Forget whether more needs to be spent or not, you can’t argue that the nuclear deterrent is a defence related cost. Not accounting for it just means we were understating our expenditure in previous years
Greece does have the same amount of frigates as the UK 13, and they do have around 1700 more main battle tanks than the UK and 4000 odd more artillery pieces. But the rest is well how can I put it politely not upto much, Bar a couple other exceptions.
Hi Cam, Not sure I’d swap their Tanks for ours though.
Nor their frigates or pretty much any of their kit!
Trooping of the Colours would be greatly improved with their Uniforms though.
https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/sites/sbs.com.au.yourlanguage/files/styles/full/public/podcasts//site_197_Greek_486639.JPG?itok=qvGtrw28?itok=QFUV2c3Z
4000 artillery pieces!? You mean 400 surely. I’d doubt even Russia has that many. The Royal Artillery has less than 200 I think, even including all the Light Guns. Numbers, while important, are not the be all and end all mate. Greece lacks a whole host of capabilities the UK has, from SSN to SF to high tech cyber, ISTAR an comms as part of 5 Eyes. Then there’s know how, professionalism, training. There is a reason navies come to FOST, countries send their people to Sandhurst, and the SAS train other nations SF. The UK has many top end… Read more »
We, “Us Brits”, have way more than 400, most are “Stored”. You might want to Google it. Greece is no direct comparison in any way shape or form. Some silly post’s here lately.
Way more than 400 what? Artillery pieces? I dont tend to Google mere numbers as I go by formations and capability. But according to Google, there are 35 MLRS, 89 AS90, and 135 Light Guns. Our 4 Light Gun regular regiments have just 12 guns each, and the AS90 Regiments are reducing to just two Regiments. They were on just 18 guns. Others are held with 14RA at Larkhill. Add to this the guns of the HAC, the handful of Army Reserve Light Gun regiments of similar complements, none of which deploy as complete formations and many use their guns… Read more »
You believe too much that you read. I believe what I know to be true. This site is riddled with those that know nothing of the truth and absolutely 100% of all the propaganda. Been here 4 weeks now and i’m absolutely pissing myself at all the posters who take themselves so seriously. Some twat had a bloody Mental breakdown last week when I dared to state a few basic facts and figures about the amount of F35’s and Typhoons the RAF actually Own/Fly. Anyway, waiting to be censored soon as I dared to answer back at the bloke who… Read more »
Hi Hero Likewise, I too believe my figures, but not by looking at numbers on Google, as I said, but by knowing the formations that use the equipment, their makeup, where they are located, and how they fit into the ORBAT. An on going research hobby of many, many years if you like. Sad eh. Which is why I gave a rough figure of under 200. With GMLRS added I was a bit out, a bit over 200 not under. So, I’m curious, which units have all these extra artillery pieces, what type are they, and if they are stored,… Read more »
Well, if your economy has recently tanked, then short term defence spending as a % of GDP will grow. Reading across the above table for Greece comparable to UK illustrates this. Who knows, for a month or so after Magic Grandpa took power we may be in the enviable position of claiming defence spending is 100% of GDP.
We should be matching the USA for % GDP at the very minimum otherwise we will simply fall behind them. In fact my humble opinion slightly more at 3.6 to 3.8, as we are already behind and most of the time do not get the benefit of economies of scale the USA get. As a country that is active in engagements all over the globe & one that should be able to defend itself the 3.4 is a minimum. We have massive capability gaps: long range air defence + Anti-ballistic missile defence, anti-ship capability both air, land and sea, independent… Read more »
I think you need to look at the state of schools, the NHS, and social care. No way should we spend the same as the US on defence. 2.5% of GDP would be a huge boost and is a far more realistic aim.
We have done 3.4% before after the cold war no amount of money will solve the state of “the NHS” and until it adopts a proper franchise approach money is massively wasted. The other departments look pretty similar every where fragmentation, grammar schools, faith schools I am sure the list is endless. Elsewhere over the whole country duplication and waste is rife with devolved power being implemented all over the country. All of it is pretty much constructed to protect those at the top and the well paid. Although the mod wastes money – you normally at least get something… Read more »
And where exactly is this war that we are fighting where we need all this extra money and baggage ? And who is gonna man, maintain and move all this shiny new kit ? Recruitment is a constant bugbear as it is. ABM system would be useless to the UK. The last time anyone used WMD’s against us it involved 2 tourists, a perfume bottle, and a Door handle. Not sure a high flying missile with a 50% chance of a kill would have been much use. Tanks ? Do you understand the logistical difficulties of moving large numbers of… Read more »
Greece has a high per capita defense budget because of low population and a poor economy. Its defenses are also directed towards Turkey and not Russia.
Morning all
There are a lot of suggestions about what percentage of our GDP should go on defence. Some say 2.5% some say 3% and some say higher.
So my question to you is, what would you cut/divert from the rest of the budget so that it could be spent on defence?
Thanks, M@
Hello, Matt I’d first comment that there is nothing remarkable about 2.5% GDP. This figure, give or take a fraction, has been the default level for the UK during peacetime for hundreds of years, so to fall below it when world events are strongly indicating an increase in tensions is basic fallacy. Indeed, any normal government policy, whether Conservative or Labour (I make no prediction for Marxist), will inevitably rise above this unless a) tensions reduce or b) we experience such a remarkable rise in UK GDP soon that this basic figure is rendered immaterial (good luck with both of… Read more »
This illustrates the folly of using this method to determine the amount of money a country should spend on defence. If I remember correctly it was David Cameron who thought it would be a good idea to measure our commitment to defence by using a politically motivated percentage of GDP. Just as he did with our overseas aid budget – and we all know how disastrous that has been! The amount we commit to defence must be based on a calculation of the threats we face and the resources and capabilities we need to meet those threats – nothing else.… Read more »
“To defend its people and their interests” Funnily enough the majority of the populations interests are family, health and business, that won’t get any better by cutting other budgets to increase defence spending. The chances of large scale conflict keep getting smaller and smaller every year with globalisation and technology, and just the fact all the big players realise how prosperous the world has become since world war 2, nobody wants that, nobody wants a world war. We are the second largest defence spender in NATO, we need to stop looking at the US as barometer, they have an empire… Read more »
“Funnily enough the majority of the populations interest’s are family, health and business” . Oh no they’re not, It’s more like Love Island, BGT and how much their House is worth , not to mention their latest fecking iPhone. As for the “Nobody want’s that” comment, Are you serious ? Do you think you can state that on behalf of the 7.7 billion other people on this Planet ? Are you Deaf, Dumb and Stupid ? Any Idea at all what’s going on in China, North korea, Iran, Russia, Europe, Trumps Brain. ? FFS. have you learnt nothing from the… Read more »
Throw what house is worth in with business, should of said wealth really.
A couple of million people watch love island out of 65m
Yes i am serious, the overwhelming majority of people on this planet do not want war, you must be deaf, dumb and stupid to think otherwise.
Oooh this sounds good, tell me then how does world war 3 start?
And you must be seriously f*****g stupid if you are comparing today to the 30’s.
“You must be Seriously Fucking Stupid ” You say ? well, no and I have a couple of Certificates to prove it. If i were “Seriously Fucking Stupid” in my Job now, I’d not be In my Job Now. Actually, by Ignoring the comparison between the 1930’s and now, you are displaying the same level of ignorance as they did back then. 55 Million People died as a result, Actually, You are obviously way more Ignorant as you appear to have learnt nothing about History.
I have my 50 metre swimming certificate as well mate, it’s nothing to brag about.
Yes but to keep all those things they are interested in we need a safe secure country that can influence other countries, protect allies, and intervene where it is right to do so. By the way a large conflict could be around the corner and disagree globalisation decreases this you have to remember resources are limited. Who are the big players??? North Korea have one of the worlds biggest army, Iran has serious capabilities neither of these states are what I would call friendly and stable. No offence intended the view expressed is extremely naive in my view. You say… Read more »
“Yes but to keep all those things they are interested in we need a safe secure country that can influence other countries, protect allies, and intervene where it is right to do so” So tell me, how on Earth do all the populations of the 180 or so sovereign nations that spend less than us cope? N Korea and Iran do not want war, they are not looking for it, N Korea cares about maintaining control of its population, a lot of it starving, and Iran is after regional control but again they do not want war with the US,… Read more »
You can’t run defence that way as you can’t magically create capabilities from nothing when threats arise or conversely be overspending on things whilst the population goes hungry in the streets. By GDP helps keeps a balanced spend. If based on threats most members of the public would say we don’t need to spend any money on defence – we don’t have any threats and Russia could be viewed as other countries problem. Assessments do have to made years in the future of what potential threats could be and these should help determine the capabilities, and to some extent the… Read more »
All smoke and mirrors. UK makes sure the kitchen sink goes in with those figures. So we spend more than twice what Italy does and more than times that of Spain with comparable conventional forces??!!
This countrys bang, never matches the buck. $60b! Dont make me laugh!
Its quite incredible, here,s Greece in the throws of a credit , unemployment , recession crisis is spending more of its GDP on defence.
The EU banks is considering withdrawing remaining credit if Greece doesnt do as its told
Strange a Real Greek tragedy ,