The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[thenorthern]

Burnham seems to be pressing ahead with the idea of a "Number 10 in the North" which in my mind is a stupid idea. The suggestion is that it will be in Manchester which given his previous role would be seen as an example of pork barrel politics. Also history tells us that having multiple locations for the central government does not work. The EU Parliament (Brussels and Strasbourg) and Germany (Bonn and Berlin) shows us this method is highly inefficient.

Given that Burnham has been out of Westminster for 9 years and as things stand he will likely become Prime Minister without a proper leadership election I do think he and Labour are a bit naive to think they can turn Labour's fortunes around.

What actual influence will Burnham possibly have over the actions of Israel and the US in the Middle East?

Also in the grand scheme of things the Middle East and foreign affairs in general is normally not high on voters' lists of important issues. Issues such as the NHS, cost of living, immigration and the economy are way more important to voters.

 

[TravelDream]

Did you miss the bit where we didn't let the Americans use our bases to start their war of aggression, for example? Britain has plenty of influence in the Middle East, the idea that Britain is some sort of diplomatic backwater simply isn't true.

Britain has very limited influence on the Middle East situation as the outcome is dominated by the US, Israel, and Iran. I'd also say British voters don't particularly care about strength in foreign affairs. They care a lot more about the consequence like the surging cost of living. Starmer doing well, according to many, on foreign affairs hasn't really helped him, has it?


It's a similar issue with the Navy above and the devastating cuts imposed on our Armed Forces since well... for many decades, but especially since the 2010 coalition government.
I think we need to accept that Britian is not a global power, it's a regional power. Important in a European context, but not hugely so in a global one when it comes to our military.
Why? Because we aren't willing to make the hard choices to properly fund our military and it's not high on voter's key concerns. The Tories talk the talk, but the huge cuts they imposed during their miserable 2010-2024 reign tell a more important story.

I would not be surprised if Burnham takes a very different attitude to Israel now than in 2015 when he made the controversial remarks (though probably not to the extend of the pro-Gaza independent MPs). He has form for being a political chameleon and he definitely would not visit there at the moment, it would be hammered in all the press and protests outside Westminster would be very vocal and disruptive. If questioned on the issue he could very easily say circumstances have changed significantly, as the perpetual bombing of Gaza and now Lebanon have all happened after his earlier remarks.

This.
Burnham, unlike Starmer, has political antennae. Israel's reputation in the UK, even among those on the right/ traditional Israel supporters, has never been lower. The PLP is probably more anti than pro which will also put pressure on him.
Though some seem to see Israel in an odd manner and forget they have domestic politics too.
Netanyahu has done immaterial harm to Israel's reputation even among traditional allies. And the Israeli electorate seem to be heading even further right and even more extreme on regional issues which will not help their cause
I think Israel should be worried about the next US administration and how a dramatic sea-change in that relationship would do huge damage to Israel's security.

 

[ainsworth74]

I know the question isn't directed at me, but as an island nation it would be good if all our SSN's were in good working order as a start. I believe that currently only one or two are available.

Actually I believe it's currently zero. They're all alongside mostly waiting for dry dock availability to have overhauls done. One was active recently but has returned from deployment so won't be available for some time. Multiple of them haven't been to sea in years. In reality our SSN capability is basically non-existent at this point. The SSBN capability is barely hanging on with regular record setting patrols having a no doubt disastrous impact on morale and retention. I think there's a non-zero chance that the deterrent is gapped at some point due to a breakdown in one of the aging SSBNs.

Of course if we'd invested in the dockside infrastructure so we actually had the capacity to maintain our fleet of SSNs and SSBNs (and hadn't dawdled on ordering the replacement SSBNs for a decade) we might still have a (too small) credible SSN force and a deterrent that wasn't one breakdown away from failure and burning out the sailors operating it.

 

[edwin_m]

I think we need to accept that Britian is not a global power, it's a regional power. Important in a European context, but not hugely so in a global one when it comes to our military.
Why? Because we aren't willing to make the hard choices to properly fund our military and it's not high on voter's key concerns. The Tories talk the talk, but the huge cuts they imposed during their miserable 2010-2024 reign tell a more important story.

Before WW2 Britain had an Empire which required global dominance of the sea to support it, but also provided the funding to enable that to happen. Neither of these has been true for at least half a century, and I suggest that explains the decline in the Navy far more than voter attitudes do. Out military focus needs to be on threats in our own region and to the supplies that Britain relies on, which probably does imply submarines but maybe not aircraft carriers.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Actually I believe it's currently zero. They're all alongside mostly waiting for dry dock availability to have overhauls done. One was active recently but has returned from deployment so won't be available for some time. Multiple of them haven't been to sea in years. In reality our SSN capability is basically non-existent at this point. The SSBN capability is barely hanging on with regular record setting patrols having a no doubt disastrous impact on morale and retention. I think there's a non-zero chance that the deterrent is gapped at some point due to a breakdown in one of the aging SSBNs.

Of course if we'd invested in the dockside infrastructure so we actually had the capacity to maintain our fleet of SSNs and SSBNs (and hadn't dawdled on ordering the replacement SSBNs for a decade) we might still have a (too small) credible SSN force and a deterrent that wasn't one breakdown away from failure and burning out the sailors operating it.

It's an absolutely disgraceful situation I agree, and leaves us (the UK) wide open to any rogue opportunist state.

Defence of The Realm has to be improved and fast, and if that costs all of us a little extra tax, then so be it.

Without adequate defences in place, everything else - including Mr Burnham's dreams for the/his future - are irrelavent.

 

[AlterEgo]

Britain has very limited influence on the Middle East situation as the outcome is dominated by the US, Israel, and Iran. I'd also say British voters don't particularly care about strength in foreign affairs. They care a lot more about the consequence like the surging cost of living. Starmer doing well, according to many, on foreign affairs hasn't really helped him, has it?

Starmer is unpopular because he keeps U-turning, showing weakness, and because his government has not communicated what, if anything, is changing with relation to Britain's sense of decline and lowering standards of living. He's also devoid of ambition. He could come on and score a 97th minute winner for England in the World Cup Final at this stage and still people wouldn't want him as PM.

The fact that the British public do not understand the link between foreign policy and what happens at home is because it is not usually explained to them, not because of a lack of interest. A good example is King Charles making a speech to Congress which drew universal acclaim; a lot of people thought it was consequential for him to go into bat for us, both as a soft figurehead who brought with him goodwill and political capital, and his perfectly-delivered but subtle ripostes. People liked that because he gently insulted Trump but didn't cross a line. What is less well explained is how the UK's role in Ukraine or the Gulf is far more directly consequential to the price of everything. The continuous drip-feeding of commentary along the lines of "Britain has no influence" make people shrug their shoulders. "Oh well. Nothing we can do about it. We are like Sweden or something, but bigger I guess."

It's a similar issue with the Navy above and the devastating cuts imposed on our Armed Forces since well... for many decades, but especially since the 2010 coalition government.
I think we need to accept that Britian is not a global power, it's a regional power. Important in a European context, but not hugely so in a global one when it comes to our military.
Why? Because we aren't willing to make the hard choices to properly fund our military and it's not high on voter's key concerns. The Tories talk the talk, but the huge cuts they imposed during their miserable 2010-2024 reign tell a more important story.

Britain has much more influence in the Middle East than many realise. The UK is mostly well-regarded, not just for our (morally questionable) policy of selling arms in the region, but also because Britain's dealings in the region at the end of Empire were mostly even-handed and reasonable, contrary to its actions in many other parts of the world. That was the case because Britain really wanted a share of the oil, so we had to be nice (!).

Unlike the US, which only has bases in the region by consent, Britain has Akrotiri and Dhekelia (and Troodos Station - boo, bring back the "RAF" designator for it please!), which have more formal status and are actually on British soil. This is a substantial asset to the UK, not least because of the vital SIGINT role the station plays despite a changing defence picture, and partly why its existence is highly politicised; it has always been thus. Akrotiri is a British base hosting vital American assets, with our consent. Why do you think we still have a presence in Cyprus?

Burnham, unlike Starmer, has political antennae.

Yeah, and he almost certainly wants to increase defence spending! That is why he will not continue with Reeves as chancellor.

 

[najaB]

Issues such as the NHS, cost of living, immigration and the economy are way more important to voters.

At least two of those have in the past, and likely will in the future at least partly be driven by what happens in the Middle East.

 

[Yew]

I know the question isn't directed at me, but as an island nation it would be good if all our SSN's were in good working order as a start. I believe that currently only one or two are available.

Typically for such large and complex systems, working on a roughly 1/3 availability is normal, I'm not aware of any nation that has a sustained readiness level that's massively higher, particularly during peacetime.

 

[ainsworth74]

Typically for such large and complex systems, working on a roughly 1/3 availability is normal, I'm not aware of any nation that has a sustained readiness level that's massively higher, particularly during peacetime.

Current readiness is 0/6*... Having the usual one out of three (giving us around 2 SSNs available) would be a substantial improvement.

*One is currently still on sea trials having been commissioned last year in fairness so it might be more fair to say 0/5

 

[TravelDream]

Unlike the US, which only has bases in the region by consent, Britain has Akrotiri and Dhekelia (and Troodos Station - boo, bring back the "RAF" designator for it please!), which have more formal status and are actually on British soil. This is a substantial asset to the UK, not least because of the vital SIGINT role the station plays despite a changing defence picture, and partly why its existence is highly politicised; it has always been thus. Akrotiri is a British base hosting vital American assets, with our consent. Why do you think we still have a presence in Cyprus?

I know very well why Britain retains its presence in Cyprus. Three letters - USA.

It's questionable how viable it is to retain said bases if Cyprus really wants us gone even though they are sovereign British territories.

The recent ME conflict has really shaken the Cypriot government's and public's belief in Britain. The bases, rather than protecting Cyprus, put a huge target on them. With the current defence review, that ability we have to protect them will only be further diminished.

Frankly, from the Cypriot point of view they'd probably prefer them if they were US sovereign bases like Gitmo. At least the US has the ability to defend them.

Yeah, and he almost certainly wants to increase defence spending! That is why he will not continue with Reeves as chancellor.

I have sympathy for Reeves. Her hands have really been tied by the government's inability to reign in spending on areas like welfare whilst still be constrained by the manifesto not to increase income tax/ VAT/ NI. Even though they did break it in the latter's case by raising employer's NI which, combined with the large minimum wage increase, has served as a tax on jobs and a tax on growth.

She certainly doesn't deserve some of the hatred she gets from elements of the right online.

The fact that the British public do not understand the link between foreign policy and what happens at home is because it is not usually explained to them, not because of a lack of interest.

Fair.

The Great British public don't understand the link between a lot of things sadly. And it's rarely to our benefit as a nation.

A lack of focus in the education system on civics and the almost total absence of teaching on incredibly important issues like economics and business has a lot to answer for.

The broadcasters also have some of the blame. The BBC and ITV are getting better at it, but there's too much focus on reporting on what happens/ on 'palace gossip' rather than the consequences and effects of things.

Defence of The Realm has to be improved and fast, and if that costs all of us a little extra tax, then so be it.

There's no political will from any party to either tax more or to cut other areas to increase defence spending.
Not Labour, not the Tories and not Reform.
And whilst it's currently in the news a lot, the general public don't really care on the whole.

 

[najaB]

Typically for such large and complex systems, working on a roughly 1/3 availability is normal, I'm not aware of any nation that has a sustained readiness level that's massively higher, particularly during peacetime.

1/3 on active patrol would be acceptable, with 1/3 available on short notice (e.g. undergoing light maintenance or training) and 1/3 in heavy maintenance. As it stands currently we have one potentially available with the rest of the fleet sidelined.

 

[ainsworth74]

Navy Lookout published a useful summary a few days ago of the current state of the Astute fleet:

HMS Audacious arrived in Devonport in April 2023 in need of docking. Unconfirmed reports suggest she suffered damage of some sort during her patrol in the Mediterranean in late 2022. After 22 months of waiting for the refurbishment of the facility to be completed, she entered number 15 dry dock in February 2025. Departure from dry dock is a positive step [Audacious was due to leave the same day the article was published], but it’s unclear how long before she will be ready to return to sea.

HMS Anson is the only boat to have sailed recently and arrived in Devonport on 27 May. She returned early from an AUKUS deployment to Australia, sailing home at short notice as the US-Iran conflict flared, and is thought to have spent time positioned in the Arabian Sea before arriving back. Simpler maintenance is usually undertaken at the operating base in Faslane, while boats come to Devonport only for more major docking. It is unknown how long her maintenance may take and if she is in the queue for the dry dock.

HMS Astute, the oldest boat in the class, arrived in Devonport for Mid Life Re-Validation Period (MLRP) on 30 June 2025 which is expected to take several years. Although some preliminary work has been started while afloat, she has been awaiting number 15 dry dock to become available.

HMS Ambush has been out of action the longest. She last put to sea in August 2022, almost four years ago, and remains in very low readiness at Faslane, having been partially storerobbed to provide spares for other boats.

HMS Artful last sailed around May 2023, just over three years ago. It was thought she was the boat closest to returning to service, but this is unconfirmed and she remains at Faslane.

HMS Agamemnon, the sixth boat, was formally commissioned in the shipyard in September 2025. A parliamentary answer this week confirmed she is due to be handed over to the RN by the end of 2026, at which point she is expected to depart Barrow and commence sea trials.

The seventh and final boat of the class, HMS Achilles, is officially described as being in “an advanced stage of build” but her in-service date has been continually pushed back, and the MoD refuses to give even an estimate, now claiming “disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of the Armed Forces”. No official information is available, but it is believed she was damaged in the fire at Barrow in October 2024, which blazed for 15 hours, although how seriously is unknown. It is also possible that work on Achilles has been slowed as the Dreadnought programme has been prioritised. As ever, the MoD can conveniently hide unwelcome facts behind the veil of secrecy applied to submarine matters.

Royal Navy attack submarine fleet update – all boats alongside - Navy Lookout

HMS Audacious is scheduled to come out of dry dock in Devonport today. This should be an unremarkable routine activity but its significance shows how much dock infrastructure has impacted the readiness of the submarine force. At the time of writing, none of the Royal Navy's Astute-class SSNs are...

www.navylookout.com

0/7 boats available (0/5 of those that are actually proper commissioned).

 

[Harpo]

Yeah, and he almost certainly wants to increase defence spending! That is why he will not continue with Reeves as chancellor.

Or alternatively, Burnham wants a treasury that’s a team player and isn’t calling the shots over the leader’s head or making a pigs ear of communicating change.

 

[AlterEgo]

I know very well why Britain retains its presence in Cyprus. Three letters - USA.

Yes, so that's a prime example of our influence in the Middle East over one of the key players.

It's questionable how viable it is to retain said bases if Cyprus really wants us gone even though they are sovereign British territories.

Opinion in Cyprus is highly divided over this; the armed forces being there is of significant economic benefit, plus Cyprus will have to accept foreign military presence for some time anyway owing to the Green Line. Cyprus depends on Western alliances as much of its territory is actually illegally occupied by a non-Western power.

The recent ME conflict has really shaken the Cypriot government's and public's belief in Britain. The bases, rather than protecting Cyprus, put a huge target on them.

There was one attack which resulted in a hit and this was prior to the UK issuing a stance that the bases were not to be used for offensive operations.

With the current defence review, that ability we have to protect them will only be further diminished.

Agreed.

Frankly, from the Cypriot point of view they'd probably prefer them if they were US sovereign bases like Gitmo.

No they wouldn't. There is a perennial thread of doom which still runs through post-colonial Britain which believes that everyone hates us and will "kick us out". That is not true; the fallout of empire is as varied as the places which were occupied and there is a spectrum of opinion about Britain's enduring role. Cyprus is extremely complex and a revocation of the Sovereign Base Areas remains very unlikely though there will probably be a reassessment of them after the Gulf War is truly over. Cyprus cannot look after its own defence; it never has. The answer is in diplomacy and respect and a meeting of shared objectives.

At least the US has the ability to defend them.

No they wouldn't. See massive losses of materiel and civilian casualties in the Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, et al.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2026 ==

Or alternatively, Burnham wants a treasury that’s a team player and isn’t calling the shots over the leader’s head or making a pigs ear of communicating change.

Both could indeed be true, and I suspect you have a point here.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Burnham seems to be pressing ahead with the idea of a "Number 10 in the North" which in my mind is a stupid idea. The suggestion is that it will be in Manchester which given his previous role would be seen as an example of pork barrel politics. Also history tells us that having multiple locations for the central government does not work. The EU Parliament (Brussels and Strasbourg) and Germany (Bonn and Berlin) shows us this method is highly inefficient.

Given that Burnham has been out of Westminster for 9 years and as things stand he will likely become Prime Minister without a proper leadership election I do think he and Labour are a bit naive to think they can turn Labour's fortunes around.



Also in the grand scheme of things the Middle East and foreign affairs in general is normally not high on voters' lists of important issues. Issues such as the NHS, cost of living, immigration and the economy are way more important to voters.

Not just that, but he surely is not going to win that many votes (at a national level for a GE) for that to be a vote winner? And like you say, just being seen as him benefiting his old mayoral stomping ground over others.

 

[TravelDream]

No they wouldn't. There is a perennial thread of doom which still runs through post-colonial Britain which believes that everyone hates us and will "kick us out". That is not true; the fallout of empire is as varied as the places which were occupied and there is a spectrum of opinion about Britain's enduring role. Cyprus is extremely complex and a revocation of the Sovereign Base Areas remains very unlikely though there will probably be a reassessment of them after the Gulf War is truly over. Cyprus cannot look after its own defence; it never has. The answer is in diplomacy and respect and a meeting of shared objectives.

I actually have a very positive view of Britain and dislike the doom and gloom over the negatives of empire or slavery when essentially none of us were alive when the last country was colonised by Britain.

I certainly don't think everyone hates us. Some countries put empire under a very negative light and some countries much less so. Some blame empire for their problems when they should actually look closer to home - though, of course, Britain is a convenient scapegoat.

Most people can also detach the past, for its rights and wrongs, from the present.

Cyprus is not occupied by a 'non-Western' power as you state. Turkey is a full member of NATO and, theoretically at least, in the process of joining the EU.

Or alternatively, Burnham wants a treasury that’s a team player and isn’t calling the shots over the leader’s head or making a pigs ear of communicating change.

Burham's choice of chancellor is tough.

Miliband has been highly effective as a minister, but would be a strong second power base and has exceptionally strong beliefs on things which hold Britian back economically.
Streeting was also highly effective in health. But nobody can doubt that he would be briefing against Burnham from day one.

Reeves hasn't been great at comms, but nobody in this government has. Certainly not Starmer. As I said above, she has been overtaken by events and boxed in due to Starmer's inability to bring his party along with him or communicate.

 

[AlterEgo]

Cyprus is not occupied by a 'non-Western' power as you state. Turkey is a full member of NATO

That does not make Turkey a Western country in the same way Albania isn't; it does not function like one and does not really pretend to. The fact is a member of NATO and Cyprus is not contributes to the intractability of the dispute and necessitates the intervention of other states in its security. It is a big part of why the UK will remain in Cyprus.

 

[Railwaycat]

What do you meaningfully think we can get into service within 5 years? Similarly, which threats do you think will be particuarly severe within the next 5 years?

I can't believe you've asked that question, have you been totally ignoring the conflict in Ukraine? - a drone industry fully established in a couple of years, from development to mass production. And in any case what we really need is land based air defence systems, and they're available off the shelf now (and not just Patriot). As for threats, again see Ukraine.

 

[edwin_m]

Miliband has been highly effective as a minister, but would be a strong second power base and has exceptionally strong beliefs on things which hold Britian back economically.

If you're referring to climate measures which is what he's best known for strongly believing in, then there's a pretty good argument to say those are in Britain's self-interest as well as that of the rest of the world.

 

[simonw]

I can't see anyone here 'railing against welfare' whilst supporting the black economy. It would be madness to do that.

Of course government should put a lot of effort into tackling that and tax evasion. HMRC actually does a lot of work on it and has been successful, but the problem is that basically all the easy targets in the black economy have been looked at and it is very difficult to target some stuff. So saying we will get £X billion by doing that is a fantasy as it is so difficult and rarely comes to fruition.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and common sense. Most people in Britain do it.
Pay into a pension? That's tax avoidance. Buy 200 fags or some booze in Spain to bring back? Tax avoidance. Have an ISA? Tax avoidance. Buy a 'children's meal' or clothes for an adult? Tax avoidance.
Are all these things 'legitimate targets' and how would you police all of them?
Closing tax loopholes is of course entirely sensible, but government needs to be careful as some measures to increase taxes will actually cut tax intake.



I don't discount other's experiences whatever they are.

But I feel like some on this thread attack those who criticize the benefits system as overgenerous in areas, poorly targeted and oversized as millionaire off-shore right-wing zealots.

In reality, many ordinary people have concerns and can both see the unfairness of the system and the reality that there is not a never-ending pot. PIP is also incredibly easy to game with coaching and the move away from in-person assessments, but that's another story.

If the worst comes to the worst and we have to go to the IMF for a bailout, the cuts imposed are going to be significant and punitive on many and that needs to be avoided.

I know words change in meaning over time but for the sake of clarity what you call tax avoidance is better described as tax planning is using the tax laws to reduce your tax bill in ways the legislation intended e.g. Putting your money in an ISA. Tax avoidance is using the law as it stands in ways that were not intended, to reduce your tax bill. This can, depending on the scale, result in a costly dispute with HMRC.

Evasion is not paying what is due and is a criminal activity.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They were making a big thing about the train being 20 mins late on the BBC News, suggesting it reinforces Burnham’s previous views about investing in the rail infrastructure to the north, and saying he’d be eligible for delay repay.
I was thinking, what’s the chances the delay wasn’t Avanti’s fault, politicians and the media have been caught out with stuff like that before.

If you check RTT, his train was punctual until Stafford and lost time in the Trent Valley, losing its path at Rugby.
So it wasn't "northern" infrastructure at fault, just regular WCML disruption.

 

[Railwaycat]

If you're referring to climate measures which is what he's best known for strongly believing in, then there's a pretty good argument to say those are in Britain's self-interest as well as that of the rest of the world.

Too right there. I think the threat to the climate needs a new thread (although I can see it getting heated....)

 

[Falcon1200]

Did you miss the bit where we didn't let the Americans use our bases to start their war of aggression, for example?

And that stopped the US attacks, did it?

 

[AlterEgo]

And that stopped the US attacks, did it?

The isolation of the US by its allies did make a material difference to the war and the current situation in the Middle East. How did that war go for the USA?

 

[najaB]

And that stopped the US attacks, did it?

Nope. Almost nothing could have, given that they have the ability to hit any point on the surface of the planet from the continental USA.

But it did slow them down and make prosecution of the war that much more difficult and costly for them.

 

[Yew]

I can't believe you've asked that question, have you been totally ignoring the conflict in Ukraine? - a drone industry fully established in a couple of years, from development to mass production.

Yes, if you have a war economy you can do massive changes in not a lot of time, but in case you haven't noticed we aren't at war.

And in any case what we really need is land based air defence systems, and they're available off the shelf now (and not just Patriot).

Why, we are not a land power, any threat would have to come over the sea, why do the air defences specifically need to be launched from soil? After all, we are not an Eastern European land power in a war with a neighbor that we share a long land border with.

Equally, increasing stockpiles of CAMM missiles, that can be launched from ships and the land, is likely a sensible idea. As would similar land/sea commonality for new systems to intercept lower capability targets - I can see that sometimes there may be different requirements, but we should be trying as much as possible to focus on economies of scale, to make sure our money goes as far as it can.

As for threats, again see Ukraine.

How exactly do you think an exhausted Russian army, with military equipment that is increasingly pulled from Soviet Boneyards, is going to pose a significant threat to us? Currently they are busy, and their advances in Ukraine are literally going slower than a snails pace. The idea that Russia is going to decide to attack a NATO member thousands of miles away, shielded behind many allied nations geographically, is at best far-fetched.

 

[najaB]

Yes, if you have a war economy you can do massive changes in not a lot of time, but in case you haven't noticed we aren't at war.

War economy or not, Ukraine's weapons development has been orders of magnitude faster than anything we have achieved in the last fifty years. And likely much cheaper as well.

 

[Yew]

War economy or not, Ukraine's weapons development has been orders of magnitude faster than anything we have achieved in the last fifty years. And likely much cheaper as well.

Which systems in particular were you thinking of? It's probably not fair to compare say, an aircraft carrier, with interceptor drones that, minus the explosive, someone with a soldering iron and a 3d printer could effectively make at home.

 

[Stathern Jc]

The idea that Russia is going to decide to attack a NATO member thousands of miles away, shielded behind many allied nations geographically, is at best far-fetched.

The problem is, that anyone thinking that too many things are far fetched are more at risk of being caught with their pants down in a big way, and then trying to catch up in a hurry isn't going to get them very far at all.

 

[Mogster]

Yes, if you have a war economy you can do massive changes in not a lot of time, but in case you haven't noticed we aren't at war.

Why, we are not a land power, any threat would have to come over the sea, why do the air defences specifically need to be launched from soil? After all, we are not an Eastern European land power in a war with a neighbor that we share a long land border with.

Equally, increasing stockpiles of CAMM missiles, that can be launched from ships and the land, is likely a sensible idea. As would similar land/sea commonality for new systems to intercept lower capability targets - I can see that sometimes there may be different requirements, but we should be trying as much as possible to focus on economies of scale, to make sure our money goes as far as it can.

How exactly do you think an exhausted Russian army, with military equipment that is increasingly pulled from Soviet Boneyards, is going to pose a significant threat to us? Currently they are busy, and their advances in Ukraine are literally going slower than a snails pace. The idea that Russia is going to decide to attack a NATO member thousands of miles away, shielded behind many allied nations geographically, is at best far-fetched.

Russia is spending ~7% of its GDP, ~30% of the federal budget on defence. You can do a lot with that, especially as in home grown tech the Russian militaries relative buying power is very high. The population has accepted deaths of 500,000 in the Ukraine war. Putin hasn’t even fully mobilised, he has enough volunteers, for now. If there is some sort of resolution in Ukraine it would seem the likelyhood of an incursion somewhere else is high, they have now hugely experienced combat ready armed forces now. I can seriously see a limited push into the Baltic states, what would NATO do? Would NATO be willing to take thousands of casualties to free Estonia from Russian control?