If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

military overseeing foreign aid budget

  • 05-01-2016 2:22pm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭

    Something I have thought about alot, for example the UK spends about 12b a year on foreign aid, I believe that if the military was awarded this budget, bringing the total military aid budget up to 2.7-3.0 % of gdp which still isn't that much they could simply save more starving and needy people across the globe than the current situation where countries with space programmes and brutal dictators get the money to dole out as they see fit.

    The military could invest in hardware that is multi purpose, could get BAE to build a few nuclear powered chinook carriers for about 10 billion each with the ability to lift people and aid to zones where natural disasters etc have occurred, this hardware could also be used for general military operations! Heavy lift aircraft and support ships with the hellocarrier group brimmed full of food , water and medical supplies, imagine landing 80 Chinooks full of medical staff and supplys into an earthquake zone and then being to airlift thousands of patients to the floating hospitals that are part of the group, better than some rich african king adding a few rolls royses to his fleet.

    Imagine the possibilities from an Irish perspective! With the aid budget given to the navy and aircorps they could fund some serious equipment and staff to enter and help anywhere there assistance is required, the navy could literally run a helicopter carrier like the mistrial.

    Do you think given the remit the military could more efficiently help people with the foreign aid budget?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 JJames2

    I am a recent convert of British DFID spending. It is a myth that British aid ends up in the hands of local warlords or dictators, rather than in the hands of the poor. DFID spending is often paid directly to British or multilateral organisations that do absolutely amazing jobs, and ensure the money goes where it is most needed.

    In terms of bilateral aid, this largely ends up in the hands of Commonwealth countries.

    DFID is important, as one of the best ways to avoid famines, disease outbreaks, civil wars and instability is prevent it from ever happening in the first place. You can only achieve this by promoting economic development and giving people the tools and services (education, healthcare, clean water) needed to live a prosperous and productive life. It is an investment for the future, as these nations will one day become your partners.

    Response to natural disasters and other crises is only a very small part of DFID, so building "a few nuclear powered chinook carriers for about [£]10 billion each" would actually seriously damage the real purpose of DFID spending (as per above).

    The Armed Forces already do a great job, and are among the first international responders to any major humanitarian crisis. I also think DFID subsidies much of the cost the Armed Forces incur in humanitarian missions anyway.