As Sir Keir Starmer warned that the world is facing its most dangerous moment in decades, his call to make Britain “war-fighting ready” sparked strong – and divided – reactions from Independent readers.In a speech from Glasgow, Starmer announced a major defence push: more attack submarines, billions for nuclear warheads, and long-range weapons to prepare for possible conflict in Europe or the Atlantic.His appeal for “every part of society” to play a role marked a big shift. But with defence spending only set to rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 – and no firm promise to hit 3 per cent – many questioned if the plans are affordable or realistic.Some readers felt the UK was clinging to outdated priorities, investing in military power while health and social care systems remain under strain. One commented: “Where is all this money coming from? I hate to say it, but it looks like the money tree has magically grown back.”While some criticised Trident’s cost and relevance, others doubted the focus on submarines and high-tech gear, arguing modern threats like drones and cyberattacks need different answers.But not all responses were negative. Several readers welcomed the move as a long-overdue step to strengthen Nato, protect UK interests, and face up to global threats.There were also calls for the UK to shift its defence priorities, with less focus on foreign missions and more on defending infrastructure, energy and borders at home.Here’s what you had to say:Defence must be taken seriouslyI don’t want to criticise the defence review for the sake of it, because I agree with most of it, but 12 attack submarines at around £4 billion a pop and then around £1 billion a year, each, to run? And where will the sailors to run them come from?It seems ludicrous that we ordered two – yes, two – aircraft carriers with no aircraft, and people still talk fondly of Gordon Brown? Let’s hope the opposition MPs turn up for the debate properly briefed, for a change.It really is time to treat defence seriously and not just another political topic to be exploited for personal gain.MrBishiWhat are your views on Starmer’s defence review? Add your thoughts in the comments hereStop trying to be a mini-AmericaWhen it comes to defence it’s important that we don’t just try to be a mini-America but instead develop totally unique capabilities that give us an advantage over much more powerful adversaries with much bigger defence budgets.First on the agenda should be the ability to shoot down anything heading towards the UK. Second should be the ability to stop any attacks on shipping / undersea cables etc around the UK. Last on the list should be our offensive capabilities that we can deploy around the world.This should be focused on relatively cheap (easily replicable) equipment that can take out much more advanced and expensive equipment – i.e., drones that can destroy warships etc. Subs are nice, but I do wonder if the money would be better spent on other projects.thecultureCreating jobsThis is really good news. It absolutely needs doing. And if it is handled skilfully, it can boost the UK economy. We have the capability to make military weapons ourselves, and that will create high-skilled jobs. We would be likely to sell arms to other countries, giving our economy another boost. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is so regrettable that we are not in the EU so that we could work more closely with our European colleagues, and be richer, of course.anotherviewWhere is the money coming from?That’s an awful lot of UK kids that are going to starve. Less money for elderly and disabled care. Less money for education, councils… and literally where is all this money coming from? I’m sorry to have to say this, but the money tree appears to have grown again.JolDefence spending must increase immediatelyPolitics aside, declaring a 3 per cent cap on military spending at a time when the situation facing us is more dire than prior to WW2 is churlishness. We must adopt a policy of immediately increasing our defence spending to the level that is required.We must invest in security – food, energy, manufacturing and research. The enemy has played a patient and cautious game – using the halcyon days where the “West” believed that nobody would be foolish enough to attack us to make us reliant on their resources and products.The Eastern alliance and its various despot allies have made us all into a chocolate teapot from a threat perspective.It is imperative that we immediately switch to a war footing, not have a vague goal of 3% by the end of next Parliament.We need a program of investment, training and recruitment in our armed forces, engineering, pharmaceutical, energy and manufacturing industries the likes of which we have never seen previously. If we do not, I fear we may, if we are lucky, live to regret it.MrRAFNavyWe couldn’t defend the Falklands todayAs we’ve seen from Putin’s illegal annexation of parts of Ukraine, it’s not nuclear subs we need, but boots on the ground – soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.We need to deploy troops as and when we need them. Even Putin isn’t stupid enough to start dropping nukes on Europe, Britain or America – he knows he’d lose.As one retired army general said: our army, navy and air force have been slowly cut back for decades by various governments. He said there was no way we could defend something like the Falklands ever again.Enemies will always take advantage when you’re at your weakest.SharpfocusMilitary power means geopolitical leverageEurope and the majority of the world couldn’t be more opposed to what Israel is doing. But the fact is they’re able to do so because America has complete military dominance.Even if the UN imposed sanctions/embargo on Israel, how can it be enforced? We can’t physically stop the goods. Nor can we physically intervene to protect the Palestinian people. Or even create a realistic threat.The sad fact is, no matter how much we object, our opinion counts for nothing without a strong military to back it up. We can’t protect people without a strong military.AjamesNo-brainerIt’s a no-brainer. Defence comes first, before welfare. We currently spend a little over 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but 11 per cent on welfare. Increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP is easily affordable.MarkOverstretched and under-resourcedAll this seems nice, though: the UK has barely 30+ combat-ready Challenger 2 main battle tanks, a weakened military because of defence budget cuts, inflation, a certain political instability, issues with migration, a problematic NHS, just a single nuclear strategic submarine, American F-35s, Typhoon/Eurofighter is not a super-duper fighter plane, and in general, for all that he promises, he needs time, money and popular consent.I doubt he has any of the above.Who will pay for all that he plans?GiorgioDA good speech, grounded in realismFeel like this is a really good speech and outcome. It’s about the defence of the realm and strengthening Nato. It’s about dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. And by using British industry, it helps the economy.BeardMonkCynical but realisticThis country still has the wartime ‘make do and mend’ approach to virtually everything, especially defence. Nothing will happen until Russia is actively attacking our country, and then it will be a mad rush to cobble some sort of defences together until we can beg the US to come to our help.To follow Tony Radakin’s aspiration for a kamikaze drone unit ‘as soon as possible’, I suspect HMG sees ‘ASAP’ as sometime in the future when the next government is in power.If my comment comes across as deeply cynical, it’s not meant to be – just realistic of how our governments’ descending priorities appear to be: politics, good optics, PR, spin, and then actual delivery.TerryHBritain: a declining fifty-first American stateBritain continues to think of itself as a prominent world power, when, in reality, we are the depressed and declining fifty-first American state.We need to learn from far more realistic and mature nations, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Portugal.Until then, our standard of living will continue to decline.Cyclone8The UK’s nuclear deterrent: the biggest folly of all timeThe fact is that the cost to renew Trident is £100 billion. The UK has four nuclear subs that are basically controlled by the U.S. and apparently can’t see the Isle of Skye when they’re underwater. The UK’s nuclear deterrent is the biggest folly of all time and makes Scotland a target when most Scots are against nuclear weapons being deployed in their country.Scotland now has the double whammy of nuclear weapons and Nigel Farage as a possible PM (both being equally dangerous), and now, if asked, Scotland would vote by 60 per cent to be independent. That might be no great shakes to your South East of England Farage supporter, but bang goes your oil revenue and your sub bases.PlasticpaddyWhy does the UK meddle everywhere?I can’t understand why the UK feels a need to stick its oar in everywhere… China, Taiwan, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine, Yemen, Syria… it’s endless. I live in Spain and was pleased to hear a local politician make the common-sense remark that we struggle to find the money for education, health care, etc… and certainly don’t have the cash to waste stoking tension.gofelSubs are dead in the waterAs modern ‘land’ warfare has changed dramatically with the introduction of aerial drones, so has ‘nautical’ warfare – especially in this case. Acoustic sensitivity is now so advanced that submarines cannot hide from detection – to coin a phrase: they are dead in the water!It is ironic that as we move to a more nationalistic and therefore more aggressive foreign policy, we are all in more danger from our own leaderships than from any others, as that ‘aggression’ calls for more ‘hard’ men.The sucking out of ordinary people’s personal wealth to pay for these defunct weapons of mass death by individuals using ‘fear’ to leverage their own ambitions belies the claim that ‘democracy’ does exist – it only points to the power of propaganda.We do live in a Serengeti world where constant vigilance is necessary just to stay alive – and to prosper needs a better selection of leadership!MickHuckerbyNuclear deterrents are still effectiveI think the reticence of Nato to confront Russia directly in Ukraine shows the effectiveness of a nuclear deterrent.The value of more attack subs is not so clear, but this will have been decided in conjunction with military partners, and between them all, they probably know a bit more than any of us.hughrobinsonhughrobinsonStop pretending we’re a major powerIt is time we stopped ‘pretending’ that we are a major player on the world stage. Even part of the money needed for nuclear weapons could transform our health services, provide decent social care, etc.I am not suggesting we abandon Nato or our European allies, just that we are realistic about our capabilities.SuneySome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More
