The strategic Defense Review is expected to a growing threat to Europe from expanding Russian territory (Keir Starmer promised to be prepared to war with Britain ‘while he revealed defense plans, 2 June). Ukraine lessons lined with the reality of that threat. But there are other threats in the UK that require engagement around the world and who cannot resolve many drones and many bullets.
Fights for territory and for political power above Ukraine will result in death and lose millions. Climate change, deepening in uniform, poverty, hunger and moving populations produce humanitarian agendas needed in a country. But also the threats of us. We should not dispense foreign aids to strengthen a narrow understanding of what we need to protect against. But what about the cost?
And Dan Sabbath in Dan (Labor defense expenditure on labor – but no damage to Gradualism, 2 June), although we accept the need to strengthen the readiness of our custom forces, why should we spend more than nuclear weapons?
The existing nuclear restraint fears and itself. Although we are not sure about the US determination, the UK and France can release many destruction of what they have today. Surely we cannot see a scenario if we need, or choose, bring nuclear weapons in the battlefield?
We need to redirect the fund for many nuclear weapons of defense in the defense of the help abroad. This is not enough, but it gives an indication that we have not been moved to our commitment to the most desirable needed in the world of the world of Vladimir Putin and his coterie in Moscow.
A little bit
Leeds
Of usual, we see our armed forces needed to protect Britain territory and take care of our ways of life and freedom. As Dan Sabh AGGH means, our integrity territory is not in danger. Regarding our way of life and independence, no threat from Vladimir Putin: He did not appear to have any interest in our supervision. The same is not said for the American Administration, which can use a greater leverage of our government and have distinctive ideas on how to influence our internal activity, which is explained in his condition of JD Munich speaking this year’s earlier.
Part of this anum lived in the nature of the armed armed british armed with American equipment and support. Under the review of the defense, this degree of trust will remain – we can change our nuclear control (missiles provided by the US) and may purchase many equipment from the US. Shouldn’t we look at decoupingling ourselves from the US than to reveal ourselves to pressure from a potential Malevolent government?
Richard Henderson
Bristol
One should think that our “preparation of war” Prime Minister does not read your good example in the Neta Crawford last week (How was the US became the largest military passage and stopped everything found, 30 could), which puts his analysis of actual biosphere costs in a military spending increase. Or ignoring.
Outdoor economy, political choices before Keir Starmmer and all world leaders in this anthropocene twilight of “ecological collapse” (‘Half of life’: The horror of ecoists as nature reserves do not contain insects, 3 June) more powerful. Either they allocated their full emergency emergency force and truly leads to try to heal a harmful road to the planet’s own system. Or they rebuked the final cold war, nuclear pointed, confrontation with the 1980s and therefore, at this time, seal it. Which one is it?
Dr Mark Leveren
New Radnor, Powys
The Prime Minister proposes to increase the defense defense expenditures and returns a form to the national service “make British safety”. but Commons Library home documents Say we spend £ 118bn between 2023 and 2033 in our nuclear control. If nuclear weapons do not keep us safe, what is the point of them? Why you don’t spend this great amount of social care, home and other similar projects that will benefit from the whole community. Most people will be happy to allow the Prime Minister of his soldiers, while life improves for everyone.
Pedrol Loschi
Oldham, Great Manchester
