Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "UK would run out of ammunition 'in two weeks' in a war against Russia" video.

  1. There is a difference being naive and not being threatened. Countries not near Russia and part of an alliance that majorly out mans and out spends Russia have reason not to feel threatened.
    3
  2. We aren't likely to get the 138 planned but contrary to what he said we are getting more than 48. Money is commited for 74, past that is a decision for the future. In terms of where the money has gone, the cost of the jet is much more than originally intended and the Tempest program may also pull funds.
    2
  3.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  Russian Aggression is very clear. NATO is Europe's primary defence organisation not the EU.
    2
  4. Russia is in the middle of taking major losses for very little progress in Ukraine. It isn't a present threat.
    2
  5.  @LoremIpsum1970  what historically? Russian losses in Afganistan made them pull out and contributes to the fall of the regime. And this war (in how its panned out) is not what Russia had planned.
    2
  6.  @LoremIpsum1970  the most recent war is the most relevant. Also they aren't fighting a war for the motherland in Ukraine so Afganistan is a better comparison. Russia of today is nothing like that of WW2 for example. This isn't a war someone would choose and they have entirely changed tactics, it not what they planned.
    2
  7. The whole discussion is about what we'd do to help Europe. Our "little island" isn't threatened.
    2
  8. Not if they just kept fighting. We couldn't invade Russia in 2 weeks.
    1
  9. It is called the South China sea for a reason, because its south of China, not because it's Chinas (they don't even call it that).
    1
  10.  @NikhilChandra  I'm sure China does refer the the SCS as it backyard that doesn't give it any rights.
    1
  11.  @NikhilChandra  ignoring the rules they signed up to in UNCLOS.
    1
  12. It isn't true, the last announce was funding for 74 and past the to be a future decision.
    1
  13. It isn't leading in terms of dominating but being to first to step forward. An example of where we lead is the NATO JEF, smaller countries don't have the capability to do it themsleves but can contribute to make the whole stronger.
    1
  14. Conqueroring Russia is historical hard, beating them not so much, so you have to leave them an out.
    1
  15. Russia isn't a Superpower, it has a smaller economy than the UK.
    1
  16. The problem is stocks so low that there isn't time for production to get going.
    1
  17. So we would worry them then. We don't work in isolation. When we sent our carrier to the SCS we stopped at 40 countries and exercised with the Japan, the US, India, South Korea, Australia... Anything with do with respect to Russia is in the context of NATO.
    1
  18. Rather than bullets think missiles, shells and bombs.
    1
  19. Simple, we'd use much more fighting than we are sending.
    1
  20. The UK isn't under threat of invasion. This isn't about defending the UK but the UK defending other countries.
    1
  21. Legality is irrelevant.
    1
  22. Russia couldn't afford a carrier fleet and didn't even have the shipyards (previous being built in Ukraine). It was never an option. And the laughabality of Russian might is on full show in Ukraine. China is a future power, Russia is in its death throws.
    1
  23. Poland has consistently had a smaller and less well equipped army than Germany.
    1
  24. So WW2 didn't stop Nazis, it only bankrupted us? And Iraq and Afganistan were very much us following the US not leading.
    1
  25. The UK is deployed across eastern Europe and supplying Ukraine, it's pulling with the US.
    1
  26. That is pretty much Russia is doing, if piecemeal. It might have a recession but no collapse. It also being advocated by plenty of NATO themselves.
    1
  27. You know the UK is in no way threatened, when we talk about our military we are talking about wars thousands if miles from the homeland.
    1
  28. He didn't say alone, just ourselves, ie. Directly unlike in Ukraine currently.
    1
  29. The present government has been increasing spending since the last election.
    1
  30. The aim is neither, it's sufficient strength that attacking it is sucicide. That is the case at present.
    1
  31. Lol, no. NATO forces are vastly larger and more powerful than Ukraine. They'd have utterly wreaked any Russian attack in a couple of weeks but it would be relevant if we were to push back into Russia with there shear size.
    1
  32. Russia is a future Chinese client state. A broken Russia is fine for China.
    1
  33.  @rayjames6096  Not sure your point, we aren't buying Eurofighters?
    1
  34.  @rayjames6096  It was supposed to be something like £50m for an F35B. I don't know how you can be talking about the F35 without knowing it's cost more than planned?
    1
  35.  @alasdairmmorrison74  both words seem to have the same meaning but they haven't announced a contract yet if that's what you mean. Either way what the guy said was a lie as 138 wasn't an order but a plan and 48 wasn't a plan but the current order.
    1
  36. We didn't fight this war nor did a country with a similar set up to tell us we were wrong. There has been signs that advanced tech like drones has been effective.
    1
  37. France has more of a Blue water navy than Japan.
    1
  38. The military want more money, standard. Our budget is only small compared to the US and China, its huge compare to 90% of the world.
    1
  39. It an argument about ammunition per soldier/kit rather than total so adding countries doesn't help.
    1
  40. If that happened Taiwan would be first. But the US isn't running low.
    1
  41. All Russian nuclear weapons have been built not to use, there has been no change to MAD.
    1
  42. Who's at war?
    1
  43. Is Zelensky doing Russia bidding, because he's one of Johnson's biggest fans.
    1
  44. The UK supports the UN but it isn't an organisation thats relevant against Russian aggression.
    1
  45.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  EU leaders very much support NATO. NATO is voluntary and works by consensus. Iraq for example wasn't a NATO operation just an ad hoc coalition including some of the same countries as NATO as countries like France didn't agree. No cost due to a comedian, any Ukraine president should defend his country, there has been a massive cost due Putin, due to Russian. invading.
    1
  46. NATO isn't the US. Frankly what your saying is wrong, but even if it were true your describing the US not NATO.
    1
  47.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  saying it has influence means nothing, it's a member of course it has influence but it doesn't control it. And your describing things as being NATO that aren't, like Iraq.
    1
  48. NATO without the US still massively out spends Russia.
    1
  49. We've had decades of spending less, that dividend, and there is no threat to the UK itself.
    1
  50. Cheaper labour and legacy Soviet stock give it numbers. Whether it is capable is an entirely different story.
    1
  51. Because Russia is mired in Ukraine and the UK is a long way from Russia.
    1
  52. Shed loads.
    1
  53. Russia is a future Chinese client state not a friend. Russian weakness is no great problem for China. And weapons sent are barely scratching the surface of the US military (The one that actually matters for Taiwan) and may even be boosting there industry generally with sales to Europe.
    1
  54. Tech has always been essential, the bonus of NATO is it also has the numbers due to its size and wealth.
    1
  55.  @rileyernst9086  Not sure how you can say France is pretty good and the UK is pathetic when the UK has consistently out spent France?
    1
  56. The US is impossible to invade, US schools aren't.
    1
  57. It's an island and hard to invade. Plus of course in the world strongest military alliance.
    1
  58. Truss is the favourite and she's pushing for 3% spending.
    1
  59. Huh?
    1
  60. Like when it said Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine, then it did...
    1
  61. The Royal Navy is also the strongest it's been in decade and the only force capable of invasion is there ally, the US.
    1
  62. Which of those is Kososvo part of? Or the Falklands?
    1
  63. Why, there is no threat of an invasion?
    1
  64. No, preparing for war is what every military does.
    1
  65.  @thom0243  rather that the Challenger 3 number being a choice I think it is more likely to be an acceptance of the natural wastage over time of what it already an old vehicle in the Challenger 2, so a larger number would require a different tank.
    1
  66.  @paulzink2492  your right about having a balance between numbers and quality but not about something that can dog fight, that part is done by the missile. Also now rather than a striped down manned fighter a fighter drone is a better option both being able to drop the person support and being more disposable.
    1
  67. Article 5 has been activated once, by the US, and saw hundreds of Europeans die in an American war.
    1
  68.  @Matt-so8xf  NATO has always been about US objectives as much as helping other countries. For most of the last few decades European NATO has been a nice forward base and a shop window, not somewhere that needed protection.
    1
  69. Being well armed still allows you to choose peace, being poorly armed allows stronger countries to choose war for you.
    1
  70. It not the UK needing support but about how much support the UK can give others, but thanks anyway.
    1
  71. Also who is your western world because Germany is often standard for underspending and they were totally smashed in WW2?
    1
  72.  @18yearsoldnot  Its cities were levelled and a large part of it population killed.
    1
  73. European NATO massively out spends Russia.
    1
  74. Wars always come, WW3 is a different matter. Russia move showed how far from matching NATO they are. Iran and North Korea are small fry. China could start WW3 but only miscalculation, they are winning the peace.
    1
  75. Much of NATO has a similar issue in terms of low consumable stocks. So though NATO is very powerful sustaining a high intensity war for a long time would be a problem.
    1
  76. Lose in what sense, they ensured there survival months ago.
    1
  77. Time is the point. But how little we have is also an indication how small our production capacity is.
    1
  78. It was NATO members that set the 2% number they didn't need anyone to point it out.
    1
  79.  @MutualZebra0123  Its not Putin pointing something out its him acting ie. things have actually changed.
    1
  80. Russia is looking at a declining population it actually can't replace it's men.
    1
  81. What is donated is weakening Russia, and we are safe on our island, the context is fighting for others.
    1
  82.  @freespeechandall137  Our army is basically irrelevant for purpose of defence, that falls to the Airforce and Navy, and Russia doesn't have the navy to project power across the sea, not to mention we are surrounded by allies. We are safe.
    1
  83. How? It's just asking for more defence spending.
    1
  84. Its not about fighting alone it's about our stocks compared to our military size in a high intensity situation.
    1
  85. A major power sure, but certainly not the major power, it's not rich enough.
    1
  86. Or Russia could leave, also ends it but with Ukrainian deciding there own fate.
    1