Pentagon officials are considering withdrawing US support for British sovereignty over the Falklands as leverage to push Andy Burnham toward Nato’s 5 per cent defence spending target. An anonymous senior US official said Britain would get “special attention” in Washington’s review of allies and that Starmer’s June defence plan fell short, adding that nothing was ruled out. The US is formally neutral on the Falklands; a leaked April memo first raised the idea, which Rubio dismissed, but the Telegraph says the discussion is ongoing.
Cool. The UK military needs massive investment in the green transition to ensure its energy supply in a time of war. The UK military also needs a better water supply, so funding should be increased so that water can be renationalised, more reservoirs can be built and leaks fixed. It also needs better public healthcare so everyone can be fighting fit and get patched up when Russians come for us. And while I’m at it, the UK military needs extra investment in public transport so that more productive output can be redirected to any future war effort.
I reckon that covers your 5% of GDP, Mr President.
Also ban US companies from all future contracts, since they’re obviously a threat to the security of the realm.
You joke, but that is actually a part of it. Spending on resilient infrastructure and re-industrialization of critical industries is 1.5% of the 5% target https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment
Don’t forget that scientific advancement is crucial to any war effort, can’t forget to invest in science. Medical research and energy research both have obvious implications for any war effort and should be prioritised, but a well rounded portfolio of research topics gives us the best chances of staying ahead of the curve!