Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely

The National

2 days ago

For any country, reviewing defence in the modern age is a valuable exercise.
The UK's new strategic defence review fails to get to grips with those challenges, and perpetuates a view of security as being solely about the aggressive projection of military power.
We do face direct threats that we need to acknowledge, not least from the brutal Putin regime. A military-only response risks seeing the whole world 'tooling up' for conflict, creating a tinderbox situation, and also misses the other action we can take which we know improves human security and makes conflict less likely.
READ MORE: BBC Debate Night branded 'farce' as formal complaint made over 'bias'
Strong international cooperation and a commitment to the international rule of law are critical to improving security, yet the UK continues to arm war criminal regimes instead of pursuing justice against them.
Alliances must be fostered with countries we trust, and the threat of far-right regimes must be acknowledged. Yet the UK continues to treat the Trump regime as though it's a reliable ally, while it threatens democratic countries like Greenland and Canada.
Food and water security, and so much else that international development invests in, also provide the basis for a more secure world. Yet the UK has followed the lead of the Trump White House by slashing development aid.
The climate emergency is barely mentioned in the review, and where it does come up it's mostly about access to Arctic waters rather than the profound threat it poses to human and environmental security around the world.
And of course the UK's continued attachment to nuclear weapons continues unabated. Reconsidering the vastly expensive replacement of Trident doesn't even merit a line.
In truth, Trident poses a greater threat to the people of Scotland than it does to anyone else.
Its record of accidents and poor maintenance goes back a long way, and its presence makes the west coast of Scotland a key target in any potential conflict.
The hundreds of billions of pounds spent on these weapons could be far better spent on international development, climate action, or emerging issues like cybersecurity or biosecurity which can't be addressed by just hiking military spending.
There's so much that's needed aside from military responses that can actually reduce the threats we face instead of funnelling even more funds towards nuclear weapons. Let's also remember that these are weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, and whose use in any circumstances would surely be the biggest war crime in human history.
Such a decision made now will lock us into a more dangerous world, for decades to come. And that decision would be at the expense of action that could be taken to promote peace, and make progress towards a world that's safer because it's fairer, greener, and more just.
As for the claims about jobs, this truly is a red herring.
Spend tens of billions on pretty much anything and you'll create jobs, and in truth there are far better ways to build an economy that works for people than making a '10 times more lethal' army.
A defence review that really engages with the changing world we live in is something I'd really like to see. This simply isn't it.