Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[nlogax]

I think the elections going the right way this November and in 2028 could still save the US from itself. There is a lot of dislike of Trump and his regime in the US and I can see quite significant pushback.

That said, they should be considered as vulnerable to further hard-right takeover so yes, I think there is a good case for the rest of the West going it alone.

November will determine which way the US goes, and as a consequence the rest of the world. I'm really curious about the Save Act. If it somehow passes it has a possibility of actually worsening the Republicans' lot by disenfranchising a large amount of their own supporters come November 3rd.

 

[martin butler]

November will determine which way the US goes, and as a consequence the rest of the world. I'm really curious about the Save Act. If it somehow passes it has a possibility of actually worsening the Republicans' lot by disenfranchising a large amount of their own supporters come November 3rd.

I think the only chance the US has got, is if the Democrats can take both houses and start holding the trump regime to account, not Trump his minions, then the Republicans have a choice, sink with him, and his cult, or save themselves,

The Republican party, the bit that has not morphed into the Trump cult, will if it wants to survive have to dump trump, and that in itself will set party against party, as the Trumpist's won't allow it, and of course, at some point his failing health, both mental, and physical will tell, When he does die, i'm hopefull Maga and their worship of him, will die with him, especially if the truth eventually comes out about what he really was.

 

[ainsworth74]

Except the US does have a point insofar as they are providing a veey large proportion of the military hardware and manpower. We may detest Trump and all he spouts but our inability to keep our few warships at sea is beyond an embarrassment.

Yes in that sort of "a broken clock is still right twice per day" way he is right about the sustained failure of NATO allies to spend properly on their own defence and therefore enabling them to properly contribute to the collective defence of all. I don't actually think he understands why he's right (I suspect he thinks that NATO members pay the US directly in cash for defence) but he is right that since the Cold War (perhaps forgivable) and certainly since the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (and arguably Georgia in 2008) the level of sustained failure across most NATO nations to spend appropriately is a scandal.

 

[Annetts key]

Well, I strongly suspect that Trumps popularity will continue to decline. The war with Iran will continue to result in the cost of oil based products, especially fuel to increase.

The war is not a short war like many (including me) expected.

So Americans will continue to experience a rise in the cost of living and that's a quick route in losing power in the U.S.

I also suspect that many Americans have lost trust and lost faith in Trump. He continues to lie and he can't even be consistent in the same speech. Within as little as five to ten minutes he is contradicting himself. Once voters lose trust, that's very hard to turn around.

​

 

[The exile]

Well, I strongly suspect that Trumps popularity will continue to decline. The war with Iran will continue to result in the cost of oil based products, especially fuel to increase.

The war is not a short war like many (including me) expected.

So Americans will continue to experience a rise in the cost of living and that's a quick route in losing power in the U.S.

I also suspect that many Americans have lost trust and lost faith in Trump. He continues to lie and he can't even be consistent in the same speech. Within as little as five to ten minutes he is contradicting himself. Once voters lose trust, that's very hard to turn around.

​

While his core support will only be interacting with media (social or otherwise) which conveniently brushes over this, one would hope that the swing voters are noticing and will maybe start taking some of the less diehard fan base with them.

 

[Annetts key]

Yes in that sort of "a broken clock is still right twice per day" way he is right about the sustained failure of NATO allies to spend properly on their own defence and therefore enabling them to properly contribute to the collective defence of all. I don't actually think he understands why he's right (I suspect he thinks that NATO members pay the US directly in cash for defence) but he is right that since the Cold War (perhaps forgivable) and certainly since the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (and arguably Georgia in 2008) the level of sustained failure across most NATO nations to spend appropriately is a scandal.

But the U.S. had also been "taking advantage of the peace dividend" in that they reduced their defence spending as well. The difference is that spending increased as a result of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And increased in more recent times. But if considered as a percentage of GDP, it's mostly been between 3% and just over 3½%.
Contrast that with the 5% that Trump wants other NATO member countries to spend.

The U.S. are also currently incapable of building good quality, reliable warships in any meaningful numbers.

And some of the navy ships that they do have are either fairly old (the USS Blue Ridge, LCC-19 launched 4 January 1969), or relatively new designs that are being decommissioned due to problems (e.g. the Freedom-class littoral combat ships).

Missile and other complex weapons production is only currently possible at slightly greater levels than "peacetime" rates of production.

New military aircraft production is limited in numbers (hence various customers are on waiting lists).

Even in service aircraft carriers are having problems, such as the USS Gerald R. Ford.

Fire on the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford Raged for Hours, Sailors Say

The Ford is now entering its 10th month of deployment after arriving in the Middle East from the Caribbean.
March 16, 2026

It took more than 30 hours for sailors to put out the fire aboard the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford last week, sailors and military officials said, as the beleaguered ship continued its months long slog through President Trump’s military operations.

The fire started in the ship’s main laundry area last Thursday. By the time it was over, more than 600 sailors and crew members had lost their beds and have since been bunking down on floors and tables, officials said.

The U.S. military’s Central Command said two sailors received treatment for “non-life-threatening injuries.” People on the ship reported that dozens of service members suffered smoke inhalation.

Link

USS Gerald R. Ford Headed to Souda Bay for Repairs After Fire

Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is preparing to leave the Red Sea to undergo repairs at the U.S. Navy base on Crete after a fire last week required several hours of damage control efforts, USNI News has learned.

Ford will travel to Naval Support Activity Souda Bay for more than a week of pierside repairs, a senior U.S. official confirmed to USNI News on Tuesday. The official confirmed a report in a local Greek news outlet that said Ford is returning to Crete.

The March 12 fire, which occurred in the aft laundry facility, resulted in a major damage control response that displaced sailors across the carrier and disrupted operations throughout the ship, the source confirmed to USNI News.

Link

Julian Ryall

03/16/2026 March 16, 2026

Reports indicate the US is redeploying some Patriot and THAAD air defense batteries from South Korea to the Middle East. The move comes as North Korea continues saber rattling.

North Korea fired a salvo of 10 ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on Saturday, highlighting the need for South Korea to retain a credible missile defense.

Unfortunately, the launch coincides with reports that the United States is withdrawing some missile defense systems from South Korea to enhance its capabilities in the Middle East amid the ongoing war with Iran.

Citing US officials, The Washington Post reported on March 9 that the Pentagon was transferring Patriot and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile batteries from US Forces Korea (USFK) to the Middle East.

South Korean media have also reported on an unusually high number of flights by US military transport aircraft from Osan Air Base, although the US is remaining tight-lipped about its actions.

"The USFK may dispatch some air defense systems abroad, in accordance with its own military needs," President Lee Jae-myung said on March 10. "While we have expressed our opposition, the reality is that we cannot fully push through our position."

In an editorial on Wednesday, The Korea Herald said, "Patriot and THAAD batteries are central to the US-South Korea shield against North Korean ballistic missiles, so their withdrawal would carry serious security implications for Seoul."

Link

 

[Gloster]

One sign of the nervousness in the Trump camp is the increasingly vicious attacks on any media outlet that criticises the Great Leader. Not just Trump’s increasingly boorish attacks on journalists, particularly female ones, who ask awkward questions (‘awkward’ meaning ‘about anything they don’t want to talk about’), but also barely veiled threats to withdraw licences, together with accusations of treason.

(Even over here we have the Daily Telegraph cheerleading for him. Today it managed a two in one shot with their main headline being, ‘Trump: BBC is against me winning Iran war.’)

 

[nlogax]

I also suspect that many Americans have lost trust and lost faith in Trump. He continues to lie and he can't even be consistent in the same speech. Within as little as five to ten minutes he is contradicting himself. Once voters lose trust, that's very hard to turn around.

Losing trust is one thing but there are multiple ways to register that loss of trust, one of which is to just not vote and is something that is more likely from MAGA than from those who are pragmatic, middle ground voters.

There's no still overarching Democrat message appealing across the nation beyond 'we're not the other guys'. The party looks weak and disjointed at the top. You have to hope that locally there are enough good Dem candidates on the ground that can sway people towards the blue and away from raw apathy.

 

[najaB]

The war is not a short war like many (including me) expected.

Anyone who thought an actual war with Iran (as opposed to the earlier limited airstrikes) would be short really hasn't been paying attention. The Iranian leadership has been preparing for this war for decades and sees it as an existential conflict. They have defence in deep - both in terms of the leadership themselves (succession planning in depth) and a widely dispersed defence infrastructure.

 

[Killingworth]

Whoever takes over from Trump, be it soon or at the end of his term, will be leading a diminished and divided USA.

China will be the victor and Trump knows it. It probably is already with Iran allowing Chinese supported vessels through, especially if paying in Yuan.

The mighty Dollar's day as the world's reserve currency is already under pressure. This little excursion may hasten its departure.

Following Putin's Special Military Operation into the history books for future generations - equally unwise ventures.

 

[The Ham]

And just when it seemed he couldn't sink any lower, there's this:

"With a low IQ person, you know, because Gavin Newscum has admitted that he is a, that he has learning disabilities," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. "Newscum" is Trump's nickname for the governor.


"Honestly, I'm all for people with learning disabilities, but not for my president. I don't want, I think a president should not have learning disabilities, OK? And I know it's highly controversial to say such a horrible thing."


He added: "The President of the United States, Gavin Newscum, admitted that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia. Everything about him is dumb."

Did anyone else pick up the Trump was implying that he's not the president (see bold from the BBC news quote from DelW).

I would have thought that most people doing a fairly high profile job would know that it was their job and not someone else's.

 

[Gloster]

Did anyone else pick up the Trump was implying that he's not the president (see bold from the BBC news quote from DelW).

I would doubt that I was the only one who did, but you just can’t keep up with the stream of weird, stupid or unpleasant comments coming out of his mouth or off his fingers. We are dealing with a frequently confused man who was never very clever in the first place, except (intermittently) in some money- (or thingy-)grabbing areas, and has now declined so that he has a limited attention span, poor memory and is completely ruled by whatever emotion he is undergoing at the instant. All this on top of his natural egotism and vindictiveness.

If he doesn’t think of something, his handlers will put it into his brain and they have their own agenda, which is just as unpleasant as his and only marginally more rational. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[edwin_m]

But the U.S. had also been "taking advantage of the peace dividend" in that they reduced their defence spending as well. The difference is that spending increased as a result of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And increased in more recent times. But if considered as a percentage of GDP, it's mostly been between 3% and just over 3½%.
Contrast that with the 5% that Trump wants other NATO member countries to spend.

What they spent on after 9/11 was more for counter-insurgency than conventional war.

 

[ainsworth74]

But the U.S. had also been "taking advantage of the peace dividend" in that they reduced their defence spending as well. The difference is that spending increased as a result of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And increased in more recent times. But if considered as a percentage of GDP, it's mostly been between 3% and just over 3½%.
Contrast that with the 5% that Trump wants other NATO member countries to spend.

The U.S. are also currently incapable of building good quality, reliable warships in any meaningful numbers.

And some of the navy ships that they do have are either fairly old (the USS Blue Ridge, LCC-19 launched 4 January 1969), or relatively new designs that are being decommissioned due to problems (e.g. the Freedom-class littoral combat ships).

Missile and other complex weapons production is only currently possible at slightly greater levels than "peacetime" rates of production.

New military aircraft production is limited in numbers (hence various customers are on waiting lists).

Even in service aircraft carriers are having problems, such as the USS Gerald R. Ford.

I'm not sure what your point is? I myself have highlighted the USN ongoing travails on several previous occasions:

The US Navy? My god they've not got a successful class of large surface combatant into the water since the Arleigh Burke's were designed back in the 1980s. CG(X) (the intended Ticonderoga class replacement) cancelled before piece of steel was cut. Zumwalt class destroyers (the intended replacement for Arleigh Burke's) cancelled after three units and Burke's put back into production. Littoral Combat Ships, lots of those got built (30 odd) but now they're being retired after many of them have seen only a decade of service as they're unreliable, under-armed, and most of the promised modules that were supposed to allow them to undertake a wide range of missions were never entered service plus the heroic crewing assumptions have broken down in the face of reality making them even harder to operate. They couldn't even manage to get the already successful FREMM class frigate into service properly managing to bork that up so badly that the Constellation class (the intended LCS replacement) is now cancelled after two units. Instead they're going to have a go at turning the US Coast Guard's Legend-class cutters into frigates (a program that itself hasn't been without issue but at least has gotten ships into USCG service).

Bless them but the only thing I can see the US Navy doing with the Trump's vanity barges, unless they actually clean house in NAVSEA and get rid of the failed leaders and bring in some fresh blood, is somehow screwing them up. The US Navy is going to be building Arleigh Burke destroyers until the crack of doom. There is no way in hell the last commanding office of an Arleigh Burke class destoyer has even been born yet they'll be in service for that long. Hell the grandfather/mother of the last Arleigh Burke crew member probably has only just been born, if we're lucky.

I think USN has a lot of indicator lights that are flashing bright red and without some serious changes in leadership and culture will continue to suffer a degradation in it's capabilities. One of the reasons the Fitzgerald and McCain had their collisions in 2017 was that the material condition of the ships was fairly poor with system isolated and unavailable, their crews were not fully trained and many of them were utterly knackered and regularly running on only a few hours of sleep.

Why were the ships and crews in that condition? Well the USN doesn't have enough warships and sailors for all the tasks that are required of it so has to run their remaining ships and crews harder and harder. Why don't they have enough ships and sailors? A mixture of budget constraints (yes even the US military struggles with budget constraints), a failure to build appropriate numbers of new warships (whilst still retiring others), and a struggle to retain sailors (because they're being run ragged and doing longer and longer deployments more and more often).

That is not a healthy force and is not one that will lead to success in wartime. If you're already running your fleet and people beyond their effective capacity good luck when the pressure of a real shooting war show up.

Absolutely. The US Navy's inability to successfully procure a new escort (and it's had a somewhat chequered history with larger warships like carriers and amphibious assault ships) goes back the 1990s. The last successful program that they ran was the Arleigh Burke class destroyer which they seem to just be building until the crack of doom as they cannot manage to procure anything smaller than an amphibious assault ship successfully.

And the various other issues around production of munitions and other complex weapon systems are both known and, of course, apply to other NATO members as well. I've also been tearing what remains of my hair at the incredibly slow pace of re-constituting even something as basic as artillery shell production (which does, at last, seem to be coming good four years after the largest land war in Europe since WW2 started). The next issue is going to be drone production (I'm glad Ukraine is on our side, hopefully we'll listen to them) and making sure we can ramp up that piece of military equipment. Alongside short-range air defence to protect critical assets from attack drones (again, glad Ukraine is on our side and we can learn from them).

But in any case, the point is that Trump is right. By any metric NATO outside of the US (with a few honourable mentions here and there) was under-armed and under-equipped and still is.

In 2011 during the Libyan intervention we began to run out of munitions in what was a very small war in the grand scheme:

From Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, the Washington Post: Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs , highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months. …

But, they said, the current bombing rate by the participating nations is not sustainable. “The reason we need more capability isn’t because we aren’t hitting what we see — it’s so that we can sustain the ability to do so. One problem is flight time, the other is munitions,” said another official, one of several who were not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.

European arsenals of laser-guided bombs, the NATO weapon of choice in the Libyan campaign, have been quickly depleted, officials said. Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions. …

Concerns that supplies of jet-launched precision bombs are growing short in Europe have reignited long-standing controversies over both burden-sharing and compatibility within NATO. While allied jets have largely followed the U.S. lead and converted to precision munitions over the last decade, they have struggled to keep pace, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows."

NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya

From Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, the Washington Post: Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs , highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Considering the scramble to find things to send to Ukraine in 2022 and onwards it is quite clear that the rot continued and was not corrected.

Or take another example. Germany. In 1990 Germany had around 585,000 people under arms that's fallen by 2016 to around 177,000 (it's risen slightly since then to around 186,000):

Since the end of the Cold War, the German army has been reduced in size, falling from 585,000 soldiers in 1990 to 177,000 today. The number of reservists fell from 215,000 in 1990 to 87,000 today.

Germany plans military expansion after decades of downsizing

Defense minister responds to surge in new threats by pledging more funds and resources.

www.politico.eu

Or GDP. Even as late as 2022 (fully eight years after the first invasion of Ukraine) Germany was still spending 1.48% of GDP on defence (I'll link below to the NATO document that contains this information). They've finally reached 2% in the past couple of years. Indeed NATO produce a nice chart that rather sums the situation up nicely for us as it's splits out Europe & Canada as a separate item and it shows that as late as 2022 the average was 1.68% of GDP on defence up from 2014 when it was an utterly pathetic 1.4%. In 2024 it finally hit 1.99% and in 2025 hit 2.27%. Most of the pre-2022 growth came from from Eastern Europe as the rest of NATO bumbled around. Ironically the US has fallen from 3.71% in 2014 to 3.22% in 2025 (though I bet their better economic growth over the period has counter acted a lot of that) but even allowing for that through basically the whole period they've been at double the NATO+Canada average.

(Can't easily quote as it's table so see Table 3 down on page 9)

https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf

It is a stone cold fact that NATO outside of a few members has underspent, often dramatically, on our defences whilst the US has continued to spend significantly. Yes, they have also enjoyed a Peace Dividend (and if you read around you'll find plenty of people that reckon that their Dividend has also gone too far) but they remain in a far better place than the rest of their NATO allies. And yes they've got all sorts of issues of their own (the USN perhaps most notably) but the point remains that the US is the corner stone on which our defence still rests because whilst we are now turning the ship around slowly but surely we have a long way to go until I'd feel comfortable.

The Royal Navy's catastrophic condition will hopefully help focus a few minds here in the UK about just how terrible of a state we are in (the Army and Air Force have their own challenges even if they're perhaps not as obvious at the moment). And we've spent at least 2% throughout the period (though there are some accounting tricks in there to hit that figure) so how bad must it be in the nations that spent most of the last couple decades spending 1.5% or less?

 

[The exile]

Or take another example. Germany. In 1990 Germany had around 585,000 people under arms that's fallen by 2016 to around 177,000 (it's risen slightly since then to around 186,000)

While not disputing your main point, it ought to be pointed out that the 1990 figure includes a large number of unwilling conscripts (I’ve met quite a few of them and their successors) - half of whom were mainly being trained to oppose the other half! The 2016 figure is made up entirely of professionals.

 

[edwin_m]

It's arguable that if considering a war in Europe, the assets of European NATO members are nearly all present in this theatre, but those of the US are spread around the world so a proportion of them won't be available. This suggests that the US desire to project power around the world implies that they should be spending more than others.

 

[ainsworth74]

While not disputing your main point, it ought to be pointed out that the 1990 figure includes a large number of unwilling conscripts (I’ve met quite a few of them and their successors) - half of whom were mainly being trained to oppose the other half! The 2016 figure is made up entirely of professionals.

Absolutely true! And indeed when you've not got thousands of Soviet tanks sat directly on your border the need to have half a million unwilling men under arms does rather go away! It's more the scale of the fall that I think it illustrates as that's the size of the total German armed forces. Not just the army.

It's arguable that if considering a war in Europe, the assets of European NATO members are nearly all present in this theatre, but those of the US are spread around the world so a proportion of them won't be available. This suggests that the US desire to project power around the world implies that they should be spending more than others.

Yes I think that is a point worth keeping in mind as well. They project power globally in a way that most NATO countries neither need nor want to bother with. That comes with additional costs that will always require them to spend a higher proportion of their national wealth on their military. But when everyone else in the club can't even bother to spend an agreed on level (and indeed many have until extremely recently been spending far below that level)...

 

[edwin_m]

Yes I think that is a point worth keeping in mind as well. They project power globally in a way that most NATO countries neither need nor want to bother with. That comes with additional costs that will always require them to spend a higher proportion of their national wealth on their military. But when everyone else in the club can't even bother to spend an agreed on level (and indeed many have until extremely recently been spending far below that level)...

Of course the UK also seeks to project power - those aircraft carriers aren't much use to the European theatre. Which suggests we should be spending more too.

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course the UK also seeks to project power - those aircraft carriers aren't much use to the European theatre. Which suggests we should be spending more too.

You won't find an argument against that from me on that point...

Though I do think they might have more use than you might think in the European theatre. Particularly in the North Atlantic around the GIUK gap and protecting Northern Norway.

 

[Annetts key]

I'm not sure what your point is?

I fully agree with you that too many European and other NATO countries have not invested enough in both their military and their defence manufacturing industries. And in infrastructure needed for effective use of their or other member's military.

My point was that despite the bull coming out from Trumps mouth / fingers, the USA is not as powerful as he thinks it is.

I fear that despite multiple "wakeup" calls, the politicians will still not learn the lessons.

It's arguable that if considering a war in Europe, the assets of European NATO members are nearly all present in this theatre, but those of the US are spread around the world so a proportion of them won't be available. This suggests that the US desire to project power around the world implies that they should be spending more than others.

For the U.K., not all of our assets are in or near Europe. The Royal Navy struggles to cover all it's previously stated regular commitments around the world, let alone cope with any large unexpected issue(s). We just don't have enough ships.

The Royal Air Force has in the past had big holes left by the withdrawal of certain aircraft with no replacement immediately available. Some of these missing capabilities have eventually been replaced after the delivery of new aircraft. But we can't keep doing it this way.

And our military overall is far too small to handle any long term conflict.

 

[nw1]

Absolutely true! And indeed when you've not got thousands of Soviet tanks sat directly on your border the need to have half a million unwilling men under arms does rather go away! It's more the scale of the fall that I think it illustrates as that's the size of the total German armed forces. Not just the army.

Yes I think that is a point worth keeping in mind as well. They project power globally in a way that most NATO countries neither need nor want to bother with. That comes with additional costs that will always require them to spend a higher proportion of their national wealth on their military. But when everyone else in the club can't even bother to spend an agreed on level (and indeed many have until extremely recently been spending far below that level)...

The issue though is if you increase spending on defence, what do you cut to make up the shortfall?

Will the suffering caused by spending cuts on other areas of the budget outweigh the problems caused by low spending on defence?

High prices, poor public services and unemployment are things that many people in non-US NATO countries have to face, right now, and if spending cuts make these worse that isn't a particularly good thing. By contrast, a theoretical attack by a rogue nation may never happen - especially if we cease to support the likes of Trump and other warmongers. I suspect a lot of leaders of NATO countries are weighing these factors up and deciding that they simply cannot afford to spend more on defence without it causing major problems in other areas.

I suspect also that the most likely kind of attacks against a European country are terrorism or cyberattacks, something which defence spending basically does not deal with.

 

[ainsworth74]

I fully agree with you that too many European and other NATO countries have not invested enough in both their military and their defence manufacturing industries. And in infrastructure needed for effective use of their or other member's military.

My point was that despite the bull coming out from Trumps mouth / fingers, the USA is not as powerful as he thinks it is.

I fear that despite multiple "wakeup" calls, the politicians will still not learn the lessons.

Gotcha! And on that we can agree. Apologies for my blunt tone as well

The Royal Air Force has in the past had big holes left by the withdrawal of certain aircraft with no replacement immediately available. Some of these missing capabilities have eventually been replaced after the delivery of new aircraft. But we can't keep doing it this way.

Sticking plasters though isn't it? Three (three!) E-7 airborne early warning aircraft replacing seven E-3s (currently a gapped capability since 2021). Or just nine P-8s replacing around twenty odd Nimrod MR2s (following a ten year gap in capability from 2010 to 2020). Quite apart from the rundown of the fast-jet fleet in general with the with withdrawal of Tornado GR4s basically without replacement (alledgedly Typhoon but seeing as that order itself was also cut and then more have been taken out of service without replacement that's a joke) and the withdrawal of the Harrier with only 48 F-35Bs (which are for the carriers really) and now this ludicrious order of 12 F-35As being the only compensation.

I suppose on the plus side for the RAF at least they're probably ordering the right kit, just not enough of it and not quickly enough (same situation with the Navy to a great degree). The Army on the other hand are in an even worse state. They don't seem to be able to order the right kit let alone get enough of it...

The issue though is if you increase spending on defence, what do you cut to make up the shortfall?

Will the suffering caused by spending cuts on other areas of the budget outweigh the problems caused by low spending on defence?

High prices and unemployment are things that many people have to face, right now. A theoretical attack by a rogue nation may never happen.

I reckon the impact on prices might be somewhat secondary if the theoretical becomes real. And considering the state of the world right now would you really gamble that this is the time to not rebuild the UKs defences? The Royal Navy can hardly manage to get more than one or two ships underway. The RAF would struggle to defend the UK from air attacks half the size of those that Ukraine has to deal with. What will happen to prices when any merchant ship approaching the UK is at risk of being sunk by hostile submarines? Or when cruise missiles start picking off power stations, sub-stations, petrol storage and refining capacity?

 

[Bayum]

This is an interesting development from the WhiteHouse… Joe Kent, an 11-time Iraq war veteran has quit voicing concerns that the President was duped into joining Israel’s war.

Before Donald Trump's top spy chief submitted his stunning resignation over the Iranwar, he had privately confided his plans to his closest political ally, JD Vance.

Joe Kent quit as Trump's director of the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday, accusing Israel of pressuring the US into a conflict he says was built on lies.

Kent, a close ally of Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, presented his resignation letter to the Vice President 24 hours before dramatically quitting. Gabbard was also present at the meeting, according to the Washington Post.

Trump has (obviously) celebrated the resignation by saying:

'When I read his statement I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat – every country realized what a threat Iran was,' the President insisted.

'When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran is a threat – we don't want those people.'

Full story available here: Daily Mail report on Joe Kent’s resignation.

 

[najaB]

They project power globally in a way that most NATO countries neither need nor want to bother with. That comes with additional costs that will always require them to spend a higher proportion of their national wealth on their military. But when everyone else in the club can't even bother to spend an agreed on level (and indeed many have until extremely recently been spending far below that level)...

Specifically, it's been US doctrine to be able to fight two and a half wars in different theatres at the same time. I believe this stems from their experience fighting both the European and Japanese wars during WW2.

 

[Annetts key]

Specifically, it's been US doctrine to be able to fight two and a half wars in different theatres at the same time. I believe this stems from their experience fighting both the European and Japanese wars during WW2.

Yeah, except it'd debatable if they can now do this.

Has the U.S. learnt anything from the war in Ukraine?

 

[martin butler]

Yeah, except it'd debatable if they can now do this.

Has the U.S. learnt anything from the war in Ukraine?

Yes, not to let Trump take any calls from Putin,

 

[najaB]

Specifically, it's been US doctrine to be able to fight two and a half wars in different theatres at the same time. I believe this stems from their experience fighting both the European and Japanese wars during WW2.

I just did some reading and the "two and a half" was Cold War era. It became "win-hold-win" under Bush senior (win one war while holding their own in a second, then win it after), and is now "1-4-2-1":

1 - defend the homeland
4 - fight four small wars simultaneously
2 - win two of them
1 - with one win being decisive

I'm also not sure that they could do this. They fought in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously and I'm not sure that they won either one.

 

[DelW]

Did anyone else pick up the Trump was implying that he's not the president (see bold from the BBC news quote from DelW).

I would have thought that most people doing a fairly high profile job would know that it was their job and not someone else's.

I'd missed that myself when I copied the text from the BBC live news section

I did wonder if it was a misquote by the BBC, but no, there are YouTube channels with video of the original interview, and Trump did indeed call Newsom "the President of the USA". It was bad enough his being unable to distinguish between Greenland and Iceland, but forgetting that he's supposed to be President suggests the dementia is getting worse. Certainly the rambling irrelevant "answers" to questions are verging on incomprehensible now.

 

[The Ham]

Specifically, it's been US doctrine to be able to fight two and a half wars in different theatres at the same time. I believe this stems from their experience fighting both the European and Japanese wars during WW2.

Whatever the current level, this does call into question just how comparable US spending is when comparing against UK, Canada and EU spending.

Also, where does healthcare spending get accounted? For example, in the UK there's little need (and if it's provided it's at a far lower cost) to pay for medical insurance for personal, veterans and their families. If that's within defence spending within the US that's also going to muddy the waters on a straight comparison.

 

[BAFRA77]

Whatever the current level, this does call into question just how comparable US spending is when comparing against UK, Canada and EU spending.

Also, where does healthcare spending get accounted? For example, in the UK there's little need (and if it's provided it's at a far lower cost) to pay for medical insurance for personal, veterans and their families. If that's within defence spending within the US that's also going to muddy the waters on a straight comparison.

In the US, military and veterans’ healthcare is funded through the federal budget - but it’s split across different departments, not lumped entirely inside “defence spending”.

Active-duty, retirees, and families (DoD - TRICARE / Military Health System):
The Military Health System (MHS) is funded within the Department of Defense.
It accounts for $61.4 billion (7.2%) of the DoD’s FY2025 budget request.
MHS and TRICARE collectively support 9.6 million beneficiaries.

Veterans (Department of Veterans Affairs – separate from DoD):
VA healthcare is not counted as defence spending.
Total VA-related veteran spending reached $326 billion in 2024, heavily driven by health and disability benefits.
Over half of federal discretionary healthcare funding relates to veterans’ hospital and medical care.

The US funds military healthcare partly inside the defence budget (DoD) and partly outside it (VA), whereas countries with public healthcare systems absorb virtually all those costs in their national health budgets instead of defence.