Letter: Defence estimates fail to quantify military threats
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The new defence estimates are a disappointment (reports, 8 July). They neither quantify the risks the nation is said to face nor offer a programme for risk reduction through arms control and diplomacy. Taxpayers used to be told that we could only judge potential enemies' capabilities and not their intentions. We were shown charts of the tanks and planes held by the Warsaw Pact. Today we are presented with no such list of capabilities, just imprecise statements about risk.
There are good and bad reasons for this imprecision. For example, it is tactful for governments not to mention in public the risk that Turkey might change into a fundamentalist Muslim state. More important, the Ministry of Defence is trying to defend its budget with a bogeyman.
Britain and its allies are overarmed against any combination of threats. Britain and its European Nato allies spend three times as much on defence as the entire Muslim world from Morocco to Iran. Once allies such as Israel and Egypt are counted, the ratio rises to more than 10 to 1. We have sea and air supremacy. Our armies are approximately equal in troops and weapons to the whole of the Middle East, with a clear qualitative edge. Even if the Muslim world achieved a unity not seen since the seventh century, and declared war on a Europe bereft of American help, we would still dominate.
To the East, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe provides Nato with verifiable superiority over Russia or any smaller state. Thus there is plenty of money spare for a peace dividend. With more enthusiasm for conflict prevention, that dividend could become even larger. Today we allocate less than pounds 200,000 to the new institutions of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and less than pounds 10m to the non-proliferation safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These bodies need strengthening.
There are still some military risks, but only if we and our allies provide the weapons, as happened in the cases of Argentina and Iraq. What is lacking is any government policy to halt the sale of arms. Senior members of the US Congress have asked the Prime Minister to join them in seeking a halt to the sale of advanced combat aircraft to the Middle East. He should take the opportunity to increase stability and the peace dividend.
Yours,
DANIEL PLESCH
Director, British American
Security Information Council
London, WC2
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments