I was pleased to see your editorial challenging the rightwing narrative from George Robertson, who is demanding less welfare and more warfare (The Guardian view on defence spending: should the UK’s security rest with Donald Trump?, 14 April).

Why not extend the argument about the purpose of UK defence strategy to Nato more generally? The role of Nato is tied to the declining power of the US, as we can see when Donald Trump resents paying for it, but then expects support when he lashes out at other nations such as Iran.

The fact is the Nato “alliance” has always been about an extension of American military power, a threat which triggers the increased militarism of other nations as a response.

All the grand talk of alliance obligations will amount to nothing if the US opposes the action, something we will see for ourselves if Israel extends its regional wars to Turkey (a Nato member). Does anyone really believe the UK will be going to war against Israel if Turkey invokes the mutual defence agreement?
Joe Hartney
London

To argue that the current budget of the British military is adequate in its current state is fundamentally flawed. In fact, increasing the defence budget will make the UK more independent of the US, as it means the UK military will be able to stand on its own two feet. Currently, the British military is in a dire state. It lacks mass, uses outdated equipment, and requires significant investment to revitalise the UK’s defence industry.

The significant gaps in UK defence can only be rectified by a increase in funding, and an improved procurement system. The longer we wait, the larger the capabilities gap grows.
Samuel Payne
Potton, Bedfordshire

Your editorial on defence spending rightly challenges the status quo. If we are serious about defence in the 21st century, we should be creating a highly diverse and resilient capability that could survive an attack by a likely assailant. For example: it would make sense to build lots of drone workshops near universities that could provide the AI systems to control them. We need to spend money on distributed power systems that can keep water and health services running. We need to find ways to monitor undersea connectors and launch countermeasures if they are interfered with. Our track record in defence procurement is simply appalling, with overbudget and woefully late vanity projects draining the Treasury. The armed forces need to show that they can spend simply, smartly and soon in order to meet the new threats.
Richard Gilyead
Saffron Walden, Essex

With regard to Richard Norton-Taylor’s analysis (UK’s armed forces are in a sad state – and they have only themselves to blame, 14 April), will someone, anyone, please bring in Dame Kate Bingham to sort out procurement at the Ministry of Defence and make it efficient? Enough of pontificating generals, overly procedural bureaucrats and politicians who haven’t got a grip on it. Some straightforward practical and focused external business sense to overhaul the process of procurement and quickly is what is needed. That alone would remove a significant amount of the prospective costs that seem to be paralysing politicians and preventing them from acting.
Susie Clark
Marton cum Grafton, North Yorkshire

George Robertson’s assertions cannot go unchallenged (‘Bizarre’ lack of urgency in putting UK on war footing, says defence review co-author, 14 April). The answer to increased global militarism is not matching your enemy. Wars happen when countries have a misguided view that increasing their military might is a means of defence. An arms race is always a race to the bottom. Rather, we need investment in diplomacy and de-escalation.

Perhaps the most predictable aspect to his comments is where he sees the source of funding for military expansion. Rather than the affluent corporate interests that may benefit from any military action, he thinks the poorest in society should cover the cost. I wonder if he believes they should be asked before their benefits are cut or is it yet another example of rich old men deciding was best for everyone else?
Warren Brown
Ilkley, West Yorkshire

Can somebody please explain to our MPs that if we are attacked because we are unable to deter or defend ourselves, welfare recipients will suffer as much, if not more, than the better off. Defence from external threat is the primary duty of government. We have been very foolish for years, assuming we could rely on America for our defence. Governments of all parties have failed badly and it just needs to be sorted out now. If taxes need to go up and welfare improvements delayed, so be it.
Caroline Mozley
York

George Robertson seems to have copied his speech from Tupac Shakur: “They got money for wars, but can’t feed the poor.”
Derek McMillan
Durrington, West Sussex