It's not about living within it's means, it's about getting costs under control (procurement is an utter joke sometimes) and having a military that is able to cope with a multitude of threats. You can't do defence on the cheap. So either we renew Trident and cut conventional forces to a level that won't help us in a conventional war or we delay Trident renewal (which might upset the Americans). Trident only works as a bluff, if you fail to use it then it won't put off an enemy from attacking or if they disable all the Trident submarines, then you need conventional armed forces.
There is only so far you can cut the Armed forces before you start harming it's ability to carry out it's intended function - to defend the nation. Change from within ? Sure the Armed Forces can get better at procurement and other spending, but for big change ? That requires Parliament to set out the changes in law with oversight in place.
It's never taken much to place what appears to be a rock solid alliance into danger, they are always a fine balancing act. But if you have somebody like Trump around ? Bull in a china shop.
For the time being it seems we are drifting away from Europe, which I think you can separate out from the EU aka France is an ally that predates the EU.
History tends to repeat itself and we often tend to forget the lessons learned. Things do seem to be similar to the 1930's.
They could but I guess they'd only do that if the believed the US wouldn't flex it's considerable military muscle and other Western Nations resolve appears weak (hence why Putin is always looking to find ways to weaken NATO). I could see North Korea being used as a test for a much bigger scheme.
The problem with Trident is, once you've used it that's it. We either end up totally destroyed and not worth invading due to the radiation levels or we end up splurging Trident on an enemy that is able to survive that assualt and then direct an invasion. So the strength of conventional forces is vital and why some within the Military don't want to see Trident renewed for a while longer i.e. spend the money on conventional forces and weapons.
You should watch WWII in Colour, you also need to know a bit about WWI. Churchill was a bit of a lone voice against the rising danger of Hitler/fascism in the 1930's.
It's around 3% of GDP now.
The area the MOD needs to get a grip on is procurement and project management, but that's a malaise that effects the entire civil service.
It's pure guesswork getting that balance correct i.e. the MOD has to correctly identify the threats and recommend what needs to be done then Government decides.
Former members of the Armed Forces can be recalled if war is declared, that's the first port of call. Usually in the event of war Government relies upon the old "For Queen and Country" rather than conscription which has it's own problems.
You have to have a military force that is capable of defending the nation in peacetime upto a certain point and be ready to rapidly expand in case war breaks out. I don't think we've got either of those two things right.
The land campaigns were a one off thing. The reason why we have fewer escort ships is because of the money sunk into the carriers.
Knock a few billion off foreign aid. This kit will be used to benefit someone somewhere.
See Sierre Leone, or the after earthquake disaster relief at Haiti or dealing with the Ebola outbreak.
Or safeguarding Eastern Europe.
Because it might all be over in 12 weeks or should that be minutes?
My point is, the tools of war are rather more sophisticated than last time we had conscription, how long would it take, realistically, to train up the people we would need these days?
That's before you start on equipment.Do we have the infrastructure to start building tanks or even firearms at a moment's notice?
Yup.Scale back foreign aid by a few billion.That should bump up military spending by a few 0.1% 
No. This is about raising it to up to 3%.
Reality Check: What's happening to defence spending? - Reality Check: What's happening to defence spending?
On this measure, the UK is one of the few Nato countries that meets the commitment to spend at least 2% of national income on defence. According to Nato, the UK's defence spending in 2017 was the equivalent of 2.14% of GDP.
CIC - Combat Infantryman's Course is I believe around 28-30 weeks. After that is specialist training.
I checked before posting and noted that the Army Training Regiment course is 14 weeks.
What I didn't note is that the 14 week course is for all other corps (signals, engineers, artillery, armoured, medical etc). The infantry training is 26 weeks as you say.
Thanks for the heads up.
Bear in mind that puts you at the level of a young crow fresh from the factory. You have no experience. There's other arguments that would say you need to have been doing it for a few years.
What jobs do people do, how much training have you had, at what point would you say you were experienced enough to handle anything? I'm guessing for most, it's years.
I think this is what kicked it off:
Deborah Haynes on Twitter
Which might lead you to this:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Anyway, we live in a democracy, the voters choose a government, and they influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.
Many of them won't understand what a "Tier 1 military power is," or why it matters. They will probably be more concerned about the NHS, taxes, schools, potholes, pensions and whatever else.
Thin Pinstriped Line: What Is a Tier One Military Power And Does It Matter If The UK Isn't One?
Politicians, and the armed forces, need to explain why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have the ships, planes, submarines and tanks. If they can't they will go.
What's needed is some kind of debate along the lines of "if you want to keep the parachute regiment or marines or red arrows or whatever then how are we going to be paying for it?
That said, most householders can't maintain their own budget. Probably dodgy to expect them to understand why we spend billions on things.
Also this back to another of my bug bears. Ring fencing money. It takes no account of need. What needs to really be done is come up with a plan as to what we need, then how we pay for it. Instead we do it the other way round. Meet a 2% Nato commitment, spend money on stuff. If it turns out we are weak in a crucial area then the money should be spent on it.
People also forget the economic benefit to defence spending, a good proportion of that spending balanced through re-investment into local economies, supply chains and technology development. A 2016 Oxford Economics report values one particular defence company's contribution as being equivalent to 0.6% of UK GDP.
The contribution of BAE Systems to the UK economy
Unfortunately, some people see big £ billion numbers for 'stuff' and cry 'waste' without realising where that money goes and how it's used.
EDIT: I'm not pretending that there isn't still some level of 'waste' associated with defence spending though.......