The loudening drum beat for even higher military spending is drowning out rational argument.
Determined to march in lockstep with Rishi Sunak to flee the Jeremy Corbyn era, Labour leader Keir Starmer elevates Nato to holy grail status.
And a weak Prime Minister terrified of fighting on another front with Conservative hawks fixing bayonets is too timid to battle the enemy within.
Ahead of Friday’s first anniversary of Putin’s horrific invasion of Ukraine is a moment to take stock.
Because Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is using that war to lobby for another £10 billion.
At a moment when Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s cutting spending, it’s worth asking how that would be funded and whether we’d be safer.
The UK’s defence budget at £46billion was, before the Putin madness,the world’s fourth highest – topped only by the US, China and India, according to the esteemed Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The UK is one of the few Nato members to beat a target of spending 2% of GDP on defence.
And if the UK’s outgunned by a France with more troops, aircraft and frigates despite Paris spending less than London, as the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank highlighted, surely the Ministry of Defence should be tasked with using resources better.
Equipment delays and escalating prices are a racket symbolised by the Royal Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, £3billion Prince of Wales, stuck in a dry dock at Rosyth on the Firth of Forth after breaking down last September on its way to the USA.
The US supplies most of Ukraine’s weapons with the UK and Germany some way behind. But where is the informed public debate about what would be sacrificed – health education, welfare, environment – to finance extra defence?
Would taxes go up? Would borrowing increase?
And how would Britain be safer when no hostile state is threatening to invade?
The conspiracy of silence is against the national interest.
