Letter: MoD must switch from 'toys' to strategy

YOU report (15 October) that Barack Obama's administration is concerned Britain's defence spending might drop below the 2 per cent budget figure it expects from members of Nato. At the same time, we learn that in the last few month's of Gordon Brown's administration, unfunded defence expenditure increased by over £3 billion. Also, we learn that delaying the aircraft carrier decision has raised the cost to £5.9bn.

Nato was structured to oppose the Warsaw Pact, which is virtually disbanded, with many former members now part of the EU. We should be questioning whether there is still relevance in Nato and the spending of 2 per cent of our budget on military projects. It is clear our main threat comes from non-state terrorism or cyber threats. In the event of an international disagreement, our forces could be neutralised if their complex software-based electronics are taken out by either EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) attack or a software attack. In the recent disagreement in Ukraine, the conventional attack was accompanied by a cyber attack that brought down many essential computer systems.

It is obvious the weapons and bases that certain parts of the MoD wish to retain have no purpose in our modern strategy. We are going to waste money on projects which are of no use (and probably over budget) while other sections of society are starved of resources. In addition, protection from the real threats would also be short of finance.

It is clear the senior defence management and the Defence Secretary are more interested in "toys" than strategy. Countering hacking of our water, electricity or other utilities, defending our airspace or having sufficient amphibious capacity is not as exciting as flying 100 million planes off 10bn carrier fleets and has less status, especially for a Defence Secretary with leadership ambitions, but it is a better use of funds.

We have an economic problem where private-sector increases in productivity are not likely to take up the surplus labour from the public sector. Our ability to generate the finance required for even the reduced spending plans of the present administration is in doubt. The level of debt which increased dramatically during the years 2005-2010 means we are paying more in interest than the defence budget.

We should explain to the US that our financial position and the changing world order means we can no longer support their aggressive view of interventionist foreign policy, especially as, since Vietnam through Iraq and Afghanistan, it has not worked.

BRUCE D SKIVINGTON

Pairc a Ghlib

Strath, Wester Ross