UK cities '90 minutes from being destroyed by missiles' warns former Army chief
Cruise missiles could obliterate a British city in just 90 minutes, the author of the Strategic Defence Review has warned.
Former British Army chief General Sir Richard Barrons said in a stark warning that UK towns and cities could suffer devastation on the scale of Ukraine 's war-ravaged urban centres in the event of full-scale conflict. Speaking on Sky News's Politics Hub, he said: "Right now, we should be very concerned about countries like Russia and how they might try and effect our daily national life. You look at the damage done to places like Kyiv, by missiles and air attack. Those are the same missiles and bombs that could do the same damage to London, Birmingham, Liverpool or Newcastle if we don't take steps to deter that."
"We should absolutely be prepared to exist in a world where things like precision missiles can range the UK and do great harm," he added. "That's not to say it's about to happen or imminent, but in terms of the capability, a cruise missile is only 90 minutes away from the UK." Russia is "an immediate and pressing threat", with the invasion of Ukraine making it "unequivocally clear its willingness to use force to achieve its goals", the Strategic Review concluded. China is eanwhile a "sophisticated and persistent challenge [...] "likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber attacks" - and have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.
Iran and North Korea are also flagged as regional disruptors. The Defence Review urges the Ministry of Defence to adopt cutting-edge technology - AI, robots, and lasers - to stay ahead. In a Commons statement, Defence Secretary John Healey said: "The threats we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the Cold War. We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home. Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way war is fought. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence."
Lord Dannatt, another former Army chief, likened the UK's slow military build-up to "asking Adolf Hitler not to attack until 1946." His damning comparison came as the Prime Minister launched a campaign to make Britain "war-ready"- but refused to commit to raising defence spending to 3% of GDP. "I am not, as the Prime Minister of a Labour government, going to make a commitment as to the precise date until I can be sure precisely where the money is coming from," he said.
He warned the UK must ramp up spending amid the mounting threat from Russia and allies, includin gIran and North Korea. During his speech Sir Keir said: "First, we are moving to war-fighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. "When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready, and frankly, to show them that we're ready to deliver peace through strength."
Asked if he was committed to spending the necessary money to deliver everything in the review, he said: "We are committed to spending what we need to deliver this. That is the basis on which the terms of reference were set and that is the terms on which the review was published. Everything that can be done will be done within the spending envelope that we have."
The PM vowed to build "world leading drone capabilities" and invest £15 billion in the UK's nuclear warhead programme, pledging the UK's armed forces will be ten times stronger by 2035.
Lord Dannatt told Times Radio: "This rather vague commitment to move to 3% [of GDP on defence] by the end of the next parliament, 2034, it just doesn't stack up. "It's a little bit like saying in 1938 to Adolf Hitler 'please don't attack us until 1946 because we are not going to be ready'."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Ken Loach in Edinburgh: Palestine Action ban is 'legal monstrosity'
The filmmaker posed with activists after an event at the Edinburgh International Film festival Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The ban against Palestine Action is a "legal monstrosity" and must be opposed, filmmaker Ken Loach has said, as he appeared alongside activists in Edinburgh. Mr Loach said the decision to designate the organisation a terrorist group was taken to "intimidate" anyone who opposes what is happening in Gaza and the UK government's 'collusion'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He posed with protesters following an event at the Edinburgh International Film Festival on Wednesday, where he discussed his career alongside long-term screenwriting partner Paul Laverty and producer Rebecca O'Brien. The activists he joined were wearing t-shirts bearing a slogan that has led to arrests. Mr Laverty also wore the t-shirt from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign on stage. Paul Laverty (left), Ken Loach, Rebecca O'Brien and host Guy Lodge at the Edinburgh International Film Festival | Alistair Grant The garment reads "genocide in Palestine, time to take action", with the words "Palestine" and "action" highlighted and larger than the rest. Last month, an activist in Glasgow was reportedly charged under the Terrorism Act for wearing it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Speaking during the festival event, Mr Loach, whose film Kes is widely hailed as one of the greatest British movies of all time, said arresting octogenarians for wearing a t-shirt was "ridiculous". He said: '[Prime Minister Sir Keir] Starmer has built his reputation on human rights. He knows the bizarre stupidity of it. But he's a Zionist and that means he will defend Israel to the end." Mr Loach spoke out against 'the sheer horror of what we are witnessing' in Palestine, as well as 'the tolerance of it'. He said: 'I remember as a nine-year-old seeing the pictures from when Belsen concentration camp was revealed, it was relieved by the allied troops, and you saw these figures kind of next to death against the concentration camp wires, and those images stayed with me all my life. To see that repeated is just unbelievable.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Laverty said one of his friends had been arrested for wearing the same t-shirt he had on. Ken Loach posing with activists after an event at the Edinburgh International Film Festival | Alistair Grant Speaking to journalists after posing with activists following the event, Mr Loach, who is well-known for his socialist views, said: "We know the genocide that is happening against the Palestinians in Gaza, and now it seems in the West Bank, perpetrated by Israel and colluded in by our government, in that they won't take the action they should. "There's a legal responsibility on them under the genocide convention to prevent genocide - they are not doing that. They're in breach of international law. "And the ban against Palestine Action is to intimidate anyone who opposes them, and the suppression of Palestine Action is a legal monstrosity, and we have to oppose that ban. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "I support everything that's in the t-shirts here, and I'm proud to stand with them. I think they're very brave." Asked what he thought about the fact people had been arrested for wearing the t-shirt, Mr Loach said: "The arrest has no legality as far as I can see. I'm not a lawyer. To prevent weapons of war being made or being used is hardly terrorist. It's anti-terrorist. It's anti state terrorist.' He added: "We are being governed by politicians who seem to have no respect for international law, no moral compass, and the people have to rise against them. It is intolerable."
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump Ukraine plans prompts Pentagon peace summit with UK military chiefs
The Pentagon meeting, attended by Britain's top military chiefs, came amid deep unease in European capitals over the US president's changing stance about committing US resources British military chiefs are gathering at the Pentagon tonight to discuss exactly what role America is prepared to play in ensuring Ukraine's future security. The meeting, along with other European generals, comes amid deep unease in European capitals over Donald Trump's changing stance about committing US resources. Security minister Dan Jarvis yesterday said the talks about ending the war in Ukraine marked a "pivotal moment". "We are closer to peace than we've been at any point previously,' he said. 'And the UK Government - the Prime Minister has been clear about this - will want to play our full part in terms of ensuring that we secure that peace." Asked whether he is uncomfortable about "kowtowing" to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Jarvis said he would describe it as "diplomacy" and "the best strategy to try and get a peace settlement". The minister added: "I think in situations such as this, you've got to be pragmatic. "The loss of life in Ukraine is horrific. "This is a conflict that has gone on for far too long. It needs to be brought to an end." Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, led the UK delegation at the Pentagon in Washington DC. He is understood to have told his American counterparts the UK is prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine's skies and seas but not to the frontline with Russia, as planning intensifies for a postwar settlement. Radakin joined senior counterparts from Germany, France, Finland and Italy in what officials described as a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing.' According to a senior UK official, last night's formal Pentagon session focused on 'security guarantees and peace deal monitoring. " The discussions were held behind closed doors, but were closely watched for any indication of what Washington is willing to put on the table. Trump has already drawn a firm line. On Monday, as Ukrainian leader Volodmyr Zelensky arrived at the White House, he initially said US troops could play a role, but he later stated it would not happen. His stance, while not unexpected, raises pressing questions about whether the US is prepared to provide other forms of support, ranging from intelligence sharing to air defence and the use of US bases in Europe. At the heart of the talks lies the single issue of whether Trump is willing to offer Ukraine what his adviser Steve Witkoff this week described as 'Article-5-like' assurance. It echoes NATO's principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. For Ukraine, currently outside the Alliance, such pledges would be unprecedented. For Moscow, they would be viewed as a direct escalation. Ahead of last night's meeting, one Western diplomat said the 'vagueness' of Trump's language had fuelled confusion and anxiety. "European leaders need to know whether this is political theatre or an actual commitment,' they said. 'The difference could shape the entire outcome of the war.' There are also questions over whether coalition forces could rely on US military infrastructure in Europe to support operations. Bases in Germany, Italy and the UK remain critical hubs for NATO, but their use under a purely European-led mission would require White House consent. Another item on the agenda was intelligence sharing. Ukraine's battlefield successes have been heavily reliant on US surveillance and satellite imagery. Any scaling back could benefit Russia, while enhanced guarantees would signal long-term American engagement. Perhaps the most contentious proposal, said to be raised privately by some European chiefs, is whether to consider a no-fly zone in parts of Ukraine. While seen as highly unlikely under Trump, the fact that it remains on the list underscores European concern about Moscow's continued aerial bombardment. The Pentagon talks are not expected to yield immediate announcements. Officials stressed that discussions will continue in the coming weeks. Yet Putin cannot ignore the symbolism of five of Europe's top generals flying to Washington to hear Trump's position firsthand. One defence analyst said: 'This is the moment Europe finds out whether Trump is prepared to lead, or whether he expects the rest of NATO to shoulder the burden alone.'
New Statesman
6 hours ago
- New Statesman
Exclusive poll: Labour voters are rallying to Jeremy Corbyn
Photo by. The new left-wing party in the process of being launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana might lack a name, a leader, and a policy platform beyond tackling 'the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power' and 'campaigning for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine'. What it doesn't lack is potential supporters. New polling by Ipsos, seen exclusively by the New Statesman, finds that one in three people who voted Labour in 2024 would consider voting for the new Corbyn-Sultana initiative. That figure rises to nearly half (46 per cent) among 2024 Labour voters who would consider voting for an alliance between this new party and the Greens. The new outfit says that over 700,000 people have already signed up on the 'Your Party' website to register their support. For context, Reform UK made national headlines by claiming to have surpassed the Conservatives' membership numbers by hitting 130,000 members last December. Of course, registering for Your Party is free, while there are fees for becoming actual members of political parties (£35 a year for Reform, £39 for the Conservatives, and £70.50 for Labour at the standard rate). But the scale of interest in the new venture is striking, even when virtually nothing is known about it six weeks after Sultana dramatically announced she was quitting Labour for good to set up some kind of alternative. The potential for a left-wing option for those dismayed by the direction Keir Starmer's government has taken in its first year has long been discussed. In June, before Sultana's announcement, George Eaton reported new polling from More In Common which suggested a 'new Corbyn-led party' would win 10 per cent of the vote. Nearly two months later, Ipsos finds that has doubled: 20 per cent of voters consider themselves very or fairly likely to back the Corbyn-Sultana offering, rising to 33 per cent among voters aged 16-34. (A reminder: under government plans the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next general election.) The big question mark – other than the party's yet-to-be-determined name – is how it interacts with the Green Party. The Greens are spending the summer engaged in a furious leadership contest, with MP duo Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay facing off against 'eco-populist' London Assembly Member Zack Polanski. (If you missed the debate between Polanski and Ramsay on the New Statesman podcast, check it out and watch the sparks fly.) As Megan Kenyon pointed out, Polanski has argued that 'the Greens should occupy a more progressive, populist space on the left in order to confront the infectious populism of Nigel Farage's Reform. He has called for a wealth tax, a better approach to net zero and a more robust left-wing position on immigration.' In vibe terms, that's very similar to the on offer from Corbyn and Sultana. Is there space on the left of British politics for two rival populist parties? Most pollsters and strategists are sceptical, which is why there has been so much talk of some kind of pact or alliance – informal or otherwise – between the two to avoid splitting the vote. The Ipsos polling finds that, while the public on the whole are unsure on the merits of a pact, there is widespread support among people planning to vote for either option: 70 per cent of people who say they would vote for the new left-wing party (it really needs to decide on a name, if only for the sake of word counts) would back an alliance, as would 60 per cent of Green Party supporters. This isn't surprising: an alliance is the best way of avoiding the left-wing vote being split and wasting a whole load of votes. But given how antagonistic the Green leadership contest has already become, plus how much debate and confusion there is over who will lead the new left-wing party, negotiations for how such a pact might work are unlikely to be smooth. Insurgent populism works best when there is a one big-name charismatic leader (just ask Nigel Farage). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Nonetheless, almost a third of Brits – 31 per cent – would consider voting for a united ticket. That rises to 51 per cent for voters aged 16-34. 'These figures show that a new left-wing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana has the potential to shake up British politics,' says Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos. 'A significant number of younger people are at least prepared to consider voting for it and a majority of those aged under 35 say they would consider voting for some kind of alliance between the new party and the Greens. Clear policies around change, the NHS, poverty and wealth taxes could be popular.' That should sharpen minds in Downing Street: however chaotic the launch may have been, and whatever the fate of the last group of high-profile MPs who decided to start their own initiative (farewell, The Independent Group), the appetite for a challenger to the left of Labour is real. Related
