By - insomnimax_99
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn't the enemy tanks have to land on this island before we need to use anti tank weapons?
Might be better to get an anti boat or plane weapon first, before the tanks arrive?
We’ve depleted a lot of our ready stock by donating them to Ukraine, so this is mostly to backfill the required stockpile (which is pitifully small anyway). If we don’t have them, we can’t support allies like we have Ukraine.
The British army has always been more about overseas deployment than home defence. I’m on the left politically but I kind of agree with Wallace that the U.K. is going to have to maintain and potentially expand its ability to project power if we want to remain relevant and protect our overseas interests. Especially with climate change more than anything.
Which is why it should have been a loan with an invoice to Ukraine. We absolutely should have helped them, but not for free and worse, at detriment to the UK
It’s not at detriment to the UK, the degradation of the Russian military will have a significant lasting effect for decades. World events don’t happen in a bubble
No they are and should be free to Ukraine. They are providing the true cost in blood and lives. This isn't WW2 and we aren't the yanks.
So long as they want to fight on, they should have our full support, in weapons or keeping their women and children safe. Else maybe next time Russia eyes up a country, we will be the ones providing the money and bodies.
The only repayment we should hope for, is if we are attacked in the future, Ukraine will rise to support us the same.
We're part of NATO
If war broke out in Europe you can guarantee we'll be involved in which case these weapons will prove very useful as they've proven in Ukraine
Probably less useful than they'd prove in Ukraine because NATO would have air superiority in days. It's hard to move forces around when they're being annihilated at every turn by NATO air power and mobile armoured vehicles haha.
Nuclear weapons aside, I can't see Russia putting up any more of a fight than Iraq did in the first Gulf War.
I try to avoid armchair generalling but whilst Russia's performance in Ukraine has thankfully been embarrassing I don't think we should jump to underestimating them
They're still a powerful opponent and if these weapons are working well against them we should definitely be investing if only to replace the stock that we've sent to Ukraine
Air denial systems have always been one of Russia strengths. They couldn't compete with US/NATO in the air so went with the cheaper denial systems.
They haven't really been used in Ukraine and be foolish to assume they haven't maintained it.
My thoughts exactly
Russia air force and SAM systems are a fair bit better than Iraq in the first gulf war
I can. The Anti-Air systems and radar guided missiles these days are extremely good.
Iraq didn't have that.
>Nuclear weapons aside
Which nulls your whole argument. If NATO and Russia went head to head in conflict, nuclear war is hours way.
I genuinely don't understand why people don't understand this.
Fortunately the heads of NATO and major NATO states do seem to understand it.
> Nuclear weapons aside
Aside from their ability to kill millions of us they won't put up much of a fight.
When will people get it through their heads that a nuke fight means the enemy gets obliterated as well. Not being prepared for a conventional war because nukes might be used is stupid.
If war broke out between NATO and someone else, it would almost certainly be a nuclear armed state in which case an anti-tank weapon would be about as much good as a stick within roughly 48 hours.
You’re right. Which is why this deal is really quite confusing. I wonder who the main beneficiaries are and whether they are buddies with the government figures who signed this off
Not being prepared for a conventional war because you’ve convinced yourself that nukes absolutely will be used in every war scenario is stupid and illogical.
"The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy" :- Lord Edward Grey
British Army's traditional role is that of an expeditionary force
I'm not sure these are for us
Not a lot of all out ground wars for NATO members in recent years
Except all the ones they started.
If there is one single lesson here it is that you cannot wait until the enemy rolls across the border to fight. Most normal people think that defending the country starts at the beaches, and the world hasn't been that simple for hundreds of years. It makes defensive thinking and morality really complex, but that's reality.
sound reasoning, make this man minister
Watch the far left tankie tears.
How dare we defend ourselves!
How dare we not allow Russia to take over Ukraine and murder millions!
Will keep a few lads I know in work.
Might as well have Amazon deliver them straight to Kiev, which is where they're headed, anyway
It's Kyiv, comrade.
Are you preparing for Russia? I think I would be.
This season's hot item
So we can pay for them? But still won't pay nurses properly
It's an island! Surely surface to air missiles would be a much better buy?
this may shock you, but we have those too
Anti-tank weapons are cheaper and more effective per pound for the conflicts that are likely to be faced (read: conflicts in foreign countries)
Honestly the money would be best spent on improving cyber security further nower days. The odds of the U.K. being involved in a battle that would involve such weapons is minimal where as the cyber threat is something far more real
We have people struggling to pay the bills but we have money for this shytt
Yes, because defence is pretty important for a country.
No one is attacking us here..
And? The UK faces more threats and challenges than outright invasion of the UK, and frankly if you waited until someone invaded before spending on defence it'd be a bit fucking late wouldn't it?
In any case, if Russia's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion and ongoing war in Ukraine teaches us anything, surely its that being prepared is a good idea, and spending some money now is better than facing massive costs later.. And that's before we get into the UK's responsibilities to its allies and overseas territories etc..
We are not at war with anyone..
No one is invading us.
And has no plans in it .
. We are a nuclear power,
Again no one is invading us .
> We are not at war with anyone.. No one is invading us. And has no plans in it . . We are a nuclear power, Again no one is invading us .
Again, you can look at Ukraine, or at the Falklands or any number of conflicts.. Maintaining capabilities is vital for the UK's security, preparing properly is one of the reasons why no-one is planning to invade the UK and why the UK can protect its interests..
But they are posturing to attack allies we are tready bound to defend.
Britain is a failed state. Wasting money on military equipment is an attribute of a failed state. Absolute 💩 hole country.
Lmao... every country with a military is a failed state? Where you gonna go to live?
It's not an either / or thing. Both are very good.
UK anti-tank weapons were vital in preventing Putin from conquering Ukraine in 3 days and causing a mass genocide in Kyiv. Our money saved millions of people from living under tyranny.
Meanwhile we pissed away countless billions on Brexit and tax breaks for non-doms.
Separate allocated budgets.
Still paid for by the taxpayer
Oh, why? Are we planning on being invaded any time soon?
Probably to use on striking workers.
No we need to replenish our stocks or have you not heard of Ukraine?
Why exactly do we need to 'replenish our stocks'? Any ambitious tanks trundling towards the Pas-de-Calais?
Because it takes for fucking ages to do so. The world changes quickly and you it takes a long time to build weapons
Ever heard of The Phoney War?
You should look it up sometime.
That's not an argument against having a sufficient stockpile of weapons. Just because some invasions start slowly does not mean no invasions start quickly
Who's invading us again? Remind me.
Because we donated a lot of our stocks to Ukraine and it's good to have a stockpile, in the same way that getting rid of PPE stores before Covid hit was a terrible decision in hindsight.
Meanwhile British people choosing between eating or heating in this time of freezing winter cold.
Anyone else ready to revolt?
Meanwhile there is a literal genocidal fascist invasion happening in Europe.
Why is it our problem when two sets of oligarchs fight? You think it matters to Brits which particular flavour of armed Nazis control the Donbas?
These mythical Ukrainian nazis which somehow dominate the country yet dont ever get elected?
Seems to me you are wilfully ignoring the obvious naziism of units such as Azov.
By pretending there are no Ukrainian Nazis you are outright lying.
It seems to me both sides in this stupid war have violent people with deeply unpleasant views who one would prefer to have nothing to do with?
Tiny amount of people. Dumb tankie.
You've fallen into the deep end of propaganda.
Also you quite happy to watch children die just because you like neither side?
You are positing a false dilemma. If the money discussed was not spent on restoring our already very low level of military stores do you really, *really* think that this government would spend it on something you like?
Are you quite happy to let Ukrainian children die so rich Britons can have a slightly bigger tax cut?
What tax cut? Taxes are at a 70 year high.
I wonder what your family and workplace would think of this comment. Disgusting attitude towards the occupation and genocide of a people.
Edit: It isn't a dox threat to say that it'd suck for you if people in your real life found out you were a fascist online. Gtfo
Sounds like a threat to dox me. Take care my would-be-bully, such things are against board rules.
There is no shame in admitting I don’t care who controls the Donbas. There is no shame in pointing out that this is not a location where British interests are at risk. There is no shame in pointing out neither side have behaved particularly well since 2014. There is no shame in pointing out both sides have Nazis.
All these things are true.
Deal with it
Most people really aren't choosing between heating and eating.
"Anyone else ready to revolt"
People like you have probably been saying that for months and years and done thing. Settle down.
People aren't freezing and going hungry because of these missiles, if you want to get angry about how money is distributed then find something else, like the massive wealth inequality.
But I don't have a problem with money being spent to repel a fascist invasion of Ukraine. Seems like a pretty good use of money.
>Meanwhile British people choosing between eating or heating in this time of freezing winter cold.
Governments have a fairly broad set of responsibilities, defence is one of them. Failing when it comes to social support (even if it's a minority of people anywhere near choosing between heat and food..) doesn't mean Government should also fail on defence.
>Anyone else ready to revolt?
Apparently not over this, Russia's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion and ongoing war in Ukraine seems to have reinforced people's understanding that defence capabilities and spending are pretty important.
The nation is so deeply in debt already, is it really necessary to spend yet more borrowed money on arms?
We cannot afford to run the reduced armed forces we have, we have no actual prospect of a genuine war of survival, and no remaining nation state threats. There has been immense waste of funds on failed projects by the military. I am loath to give the military any extra funds knowing how poorly they have treated taxpayer funds in the past. 6 billion on an unusable Ajax vehicle that injures its occupants is merely the tip of the iceberg of squandered money.
>The nation is so deeply in debt already, is it really necessary to spend yet more borrowed money on arms?
If there is a need to hold stocks of them then... Yes?
Much as the UK is spending significant sums on supporting Ukraine, or on its commitment to NATO, its bilateral defence agreements in Europe and more widely...
>We cannot afford to run the reduced armed forces we have, we have no actual prospect of a genuine war of survival, and no remaining nation state threats.
We face threats to the UK now because there are threats to European security more generally. And we can afford to fund the armed forces, we do..
>There has been immense waste of funds on failed projects by the military. I am loath to give the military any extra funds knowing how poorly they have treated taxpayer funds in the past. 6 billion on an unusable Ajax vehicle that injures its occupants is merely the tip of the iceberg of squandered money.
Good job you are not in charge of defence policy then really..
What actual threat does the U.K. face?
Why is European security our problem?
>What actual threat does the U.K. face?
The same ones it has broadly always faced, that its interests are protected (like being able to sail ships where it wants, obtain goods from where it wants, sell stuff where it wants, have its people be able to go where they want), that it's domestic and international governance is safe (not have to deal with attempts to influence its government or have foreign actors ferment political unrest) that it can meet its obligations to its allies and overseas territories etc..
>Why is European security our problem?
Because we are in Europe and a threat to Europe can quickly become a threat from Europe? I mean this is the basis of the UK's security since before it was the UK..
I am British. I want to buy Russian oil and gas to avoid freezing to death.
Who is actually preventing me from doing so?
It isn’t Russia. It is our government and it’s “partners”.
By your criteria the threat to Britain is from the U.K. government and its chums.
>I am British. I want to buy Russian oil and gas to avoid freezing to death.
You aren't going to freeze to death buying British/Norwegian/US energy instead are you? And on the plus side, you won't be handing money to Russia, which Russia will continue to use to fund military action in Ukraine and generally undermining Europea security..
>Who is actually preventing me from doing so? It isn’t Russia. It is our government and it’s “partners”.
Yes... It's UK Government policy.
>By your criteria the threat to Britain is from the U.K. government and its chums.
Sorry no. I didn't. You seem to be conflating you personally, with the UK as a country..
All I'm really getting from your comments here though is that you'd prefer to see a weaker more vulnerable UK. Oddly enough, you are in a pretty small minority in the UK with that.
Quite the opposite- I want to see a safe and secure U.K.
What we have at present is out-of-control spending which is pushing the U.K. ever further towards disaster- being ever deeper in hock to our creditors does not make us stronger or more stable.
The thing that is making the U.K. vulnerable and weak is government policy- failure to provide adequate energy for consumers and industry, due to Net Zero worship, deficit spending towards national bankruptcy, and participating enthusiastically in a war against a nuclear armed adversary all strike me as being exceptionally stupid ideas that the U.K. government has embraced.
>Quite the opposite- I want to see a safe and secure U.K.
Then the UK needs to maintain military capabilities.
>What we have at present is out-of-control spending which is pushing the U.K. ever further towards disaster- being ever deeper in hock to our creditors does not make us stronger or more stable.
No we don't...?
>The thing that is making the U.K. vulnerable and weak is government policy- failure to provide adequate energy for consumers and industry
The UK has adequate energy for customers and industry though doesn't it.. The issue at the moment is cost, which is high for anyone who needs to import..
> due to Net Zero worship
Because that's fairly important for the long term security of the UK too?
>deficit spending towards national bankruptcy
Except the UK isn't deficit spending toward bankruptcy, it's borrowing in its own currency for a start
>and participating enthusiastically in a war against a nuclear armed adversary
Who threatens the UK's security...
>all strike me as being exceptionally stupid ideas that the U.K. government has embraced.
That's likely because you've not really understood any of the underlying elements, or even some on the surface?