Rules Britannia
Sir: Your rules for national survival in the realist world which we are now entering (‘Get real’, 22 February) make sense. However, they do not go far enough. Rule 1 (enhancing our military lethality) rightly identifies the need for better trained and equipped personnel, but it does not include the need to regain military mass in numbers of troops and battle-winning equipment. A fifth rule, covering the need to make durable alliances with friendly countries – essential for survival in a volatile multipolar world – could also usefully be added.
Regarding Rule 2 (laser focus on the primary purpose of armed force), it may be that the type of anti-DEI policies likely to be introduced in the US military and then mercilessly derided by liberals on both sides of the Atlantic may be more necessary here than we’d care to admit. Sadly, I share your pessimism that our current government will have neither the courage, vision or will to embrace, or even properly consider, any of the rules which you propose.
Group Captain Jeff Green RAF (Retd)
Bath
America first
Sir: I agree with much in your 22 February leading article ‘Promises, promises’. However, it should be pointed out to our transatlantic friends that while Europe was indeed ‘happy to shelter beneath America’s military umbrella’, this umbrella was not provided for altruistic purposes and neither did it come without costs.
The purpose of this American ‘umbrella’ over Europe was to allow America to strike the Soviet Union quickly and pre-emptively, with nuclear force if necessary and with conventional military force if not.
Magazine articles are subscriber-only. Keep reading for just £1 a month
SUBSCRIBE TODAY- Free delivery of the magazine
- Unlimited website and app access
- Subscriber-only newsletters
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in