Arms Spending

[Rheghead]

If we stopped spending billions on tanks, bombs and bullets, who would be the first to attack us?

Can the UK save a packet just by being the nice guy instead of insisting that a seat on the UN Security council is good for our country? Or do we have too much historical baggage to be trusted with a new Pax Brittanica? (OK, do not make this a Scottish Independence thread)

[Phill]

The Frenchies, I bet they'd be sneaking up that tunnel in no time!

Anyway, we're calling military spending 'aid' now aren't we?

In all seriousness I don't think we'd be attacked necessarily but I would imagine Russia would play silly beggars just to put two fingers up to the US.

[MerlinScot]

If we stopped spending billions on tanks, bombs and bullets, who would be the first to attack us?The Vatican state. They said British people are a bunch of infidels :lol:

[golach]

If we stopped building tanks, aircraft and ships & submarines, there would be thousands more on the dole. the Arms trade is one of our biggest exports.

[gleeber]

Every country has historical baggage. Britain has played a major part in shaping the world. Wars and death are side effects of life. History has shown us that anything can happen at any time and some semblance of defence is a must.
I think you would have more chance for your wishes in an independant Scotland but I wont mention that.

[Flynn]

If we stopped spending billions on tanks, bombs and bullets, who would be the first to attack us?

Can the UK save a packet just by being the nice guy instead of insisting that a seat on the UN Security council is good for our country? Or do we have too much historical baggage to be trusted with a new Pax Brittanica? (OK, do not make this a Scottish Independence thread)

No danger of that with Cameron proposing the diversion of billions from overseas aid into the armed forces. Just what the starving, homeless, destitute people of the world need, more guns. :roll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/21/david-cameron-aid-military