Thetonn

[removed]

There is inherent and un reconcilable tension in your stated defence policies.

Defence of the realm is a primary responsibility of government. The United Kingdom must be able to meet its own defence needs as well as its obligations to defend overseas territories and allies. Whilst we are not in favour of so-called 'pre-emptive defence' or an aggressive defence posture, we realise that the UK must be ready to respond to aggression or threats to our way of life. We firmly believe that our Armed Forces must be well equipped with the appropriate equipment for the tasks we ask them to undertake, and trained for the roles in which they find themselves.

The British Armed Forces are rightly regarded as the best in the world, and we must ensure that we take care of them to the best of our ability and use them only when absolutely necessary. All members of the Armed Forces should be secure in the knowledge that the country will not desert them once they complete their terms of service.

The overwhelming majority of our military advantages and intelligences comes from our alliance and cooperation with the United States. They provide us with immense amounts of information, technology, logistical support, technical support, investment, export and import orders which keep our defence industry afloat and, to put it bluntly, unconditional guarantees of defensive protection for Britain and Western Europe. In exchange we provide what is effectively defacto unconditional support to American interventionism abroad which, with regards to the current global war on terror, means diplomatic and military assistance to foreign interventions which you claim to be opposed to. This is not a buffet where we can take or leave what we want. It is a clear and understood transaction from both sides and is at the heart of NATO's relevance in the 21st century.

When it comes to this, the question is simple and the answer can be boiled down to a single word. Do you support the continuation of the Atlantic Alliance?

If your answer is no, you are going to have to massively increase the defence budget to get anything near the same level of military capacity.

In Scotland they have a verdict called 'Not proven' which is when there is insufficient evidence to convict but to enough to prove the defendant innocent.

Had that been an option for the jury, do you think they would have gone for it?

So, that is not an answer to the question I asked. It is a solid answer to 'should we increase our military spending to achieve tha biology to act unilaterally independently of the US' but not 'Do you Support the continuation of the Atlantic Alliance'.

The issue at the moment is that Britain is tied to backing the US in any and all it's foreign endeavours to maintain the alliance. Staying in the Alliance has its benefits, but significant drawbacks. Leaving the alliance similarly has massive benefits and significant drawbacks.

My problem with the stated policy and your response is that it presupposes that we can have our cake and eat it when the Americans have made it clear that this is an either or situation.

So, the whole point of the alliance is that the Americans can take it as a given. That is what they like. That is what makes it valuable to them. That is what they are paying for, why they give us intelligence and we share mutual capacities. What you are describing would be a change from the current status quo to something akin to what Australia or Canada would have.

Again, nothing wrong with that, but it would result in a significant reduction in military capacity. In order to maintain our current levels of military output, there would need to be significant increases in military spending to compensate for the reduced augmentation from the Americans. Would you prioritise this over over forms of government spending, and how would you do that when the general public do not consider defence spending important at this point?