- Posted May 27, 2014 by
London, United Kingdom
Does the United Kingdom really need a strong army anymore?
With the current economic situation slowly improving, but an every emerging cost of living crisis increasing according to Labour. Many have questioned whether spending in the military is really a good use of public money.
The rising threat from the Middle East is one casing point that is often used by politicians for increased defence funding. However, the threat the Middle East poses for British shores is one that is questionable.
Pacts and treaties such as NATO would mean if any attack were to take place, it would not be the United Kingdom fighting a war on its own. A plethora of countries would become militarily involved, and thus a joint large army could be mustered. Therefore, is there a significant need to be increasingly spending money in the military? Particularly as most military interventions are done so through the use of drones rather then direct footfall in the country.
It would be incomprehensible to suggest that the UK no longer needs an army at all. For instance, the Falkland Islands would have been lost if the UK did not have an army. But a scale up of the army does not seem be needed.
Currently the UK spends £45 billion on the military, while the education sector amongst others faces cut backs.
With the changing threat of direct warfare to terrorism, it may be time for the UK to divert more funds to this new type of threat, where tanks are not necessarily the best method. But intelligence and prevention tactics are important in keeping law, order and peace.
Thus it appears the world is slowly changing and therefore our military should do so too. But as conflicts like those in Syria and the Ukraine have shown, we shouldn't change all eggs from one basket just yet.