More for less

The Defence Industries Council this week have made the defence industry the pivotal one in our economy. Even those sympathetic must feel that they have gone a little bit over the top.

Two facts they give are, however, incontrovertible:

Defence spending in 1989 amounted to 4.4% of Gross Domestic Product.
Defence spending in 2008 amounted to 2.3% of Gross Domestic Product.

How can these be explained away?

1) That there was an expensive overseas war in 1989, and little or nothing of the case now?

2) That there was a "peace dividend" - a thawing in the cold ward which allowed us to be able to manage with less defence?

3) That the country is much wealthier now, so 2.3% of GDP is a larger amount of money than it seems?

The first point is clearly nonsense. We have been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, and in Iraq from 2003 until recently. The second point might have been true until Blair decided to commit us to a number of wars in various places in the world - Balkans, Africa, Middle East. The third point is untrue because all weaponry, except the very basic bullets, is more sophisticated and expensive. Troops need body armour, night vision 'scopes, massive armour plating on all vehicles, and large helicopter support.

No, sadly, we are trying to conduct various wars on a shoestring. The evidence for this is the fact that Territorial army units, intended for internal defence, have had to be employed overseas.

Our taxes are not paying for efficient and effective war. The cost of the war is largely being paid in the countless deaths of troops who have inadequate protection.