Politicians talk endlessly about defence spending, weapons, and armies. But the first line of defence in any country is not military hardware. It is the stability of the society itself.
Do people feel secure?
Do they trust their institutions?
Do they believe government works for them?
When living standards fall, housing becomes unaffordable, and public services collapse, a country becomes divided and fragile. And a fragile society cannot defend itself.
At a time when global tensions are rising and economic shocks are becoming more common, resilience at home may be the most important defence strategy of all.
In this video, I explain why national security begins with social security and public trust.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
It's annoying to discover that the world is emerging into an economic crisis at a moment when I don't feel physically at my best, as is apparent, I suspect, to you if you are watching this video, but there are things to still talk about, so I hope you'll put up with the fact that I sound a bit nasally this morning.
Number one on my list of concerns is that if you want to defend a country, and right now our government is talking about defence, the first thing you must do is defend the people who live within it. That is not what governments usually talk about when it comes to defence, though. They talk about weapons, armies, and military spending, and, of course, those things do matter; I'm not pretending otherwise, but they are not the first line of defence in any country.
The first line of defence is whether a society itself is stable and resilient.
Do the people who live in a country feel secure?
Do they trust their institutions?
Do they believe their government is on their side?
Those are the questions that have to be answered, or else the country itself will become fragile.
People cannot be encouraged to fight for a country when the country itself is weak.
When living standards fall, when housing becomes unaffordable, when public services collapse, and when people lose trust in the system, they become angry and divided, and a divided country is a weak country.
That's the sort of country we are living in now, and this matters greatly because we are entering a far more uncertain world than normal at present.
Wars are becoming more common. Global tensions are rising. Economic shocks are happening more frequently. In that kind of world, resilience is the number one defence strategy. A country that supports its people is stronger. A country that leaves its people insecure is unstable.
So, if governments want to deliver national security, and I think that ours needs to, at this point in time, they need to understand something very simple. You cannot build a strong country by making its people afraid, because in the end, defence begins at home.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I’m reminded of student debates about an all powerful and perfect God. The atheist stands up and asks if God is so kind and omnipotent why is there so much suffering in the world:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
When you substitute God for the most powerful earthly force today, the argument for even more of it becomes terrifying. No wonder people have lost trust.
Never a truer word spoken on the issue.
The domestic feudal system we still endure makes projection of military power possible for sure – cries of wolf will become causes to waste lives as long as the demos are seen as expendable by the elite.
For all our supposed ‘advancement’ nothing much has changed over the years.
I think that’s the reason why so many Americans were willing to fight in World War 2, not just because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. They were on a recovery path of hope, the New Deal in its power. There’s a reason why over 6 million Americans volunteered. They had strengthened Social Security, trust, a level of care in which one working man’s income can provide for an entire household. A pride in their nation that made them so willing to go to war against the Axis. All because they had hope for a better tomorrow.
If anyone’s wondering why I’m talking about America instead of Britain, well I’m from America.
Thanks. And, much to agree with
Thank you, both.
Yesterday, Tucker Carlson wondered if a country that can bomb a girls school twice within 40 minutes is a country worth fighting for.
All: Carlson may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I urge you to watch him online.
It is a very strange world when I agree with Tucker Carlson to often, but I seem to be doing so right now.
Defence works on many levels, and we shouldn’t rely on any one of them; we should have the full stack.
1/ Cooperation. When all countries are friends there will be no war. This utopian idea never holds, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. We need to build trust.
2/ Deterrence to opposition. When those who wish to oppose a cooperative world view decide to challenge it, the cost of opposition needs to outweigh the perceived value, and make them think again.
3/ Deterrence to attack. The cost of using hard power against us needs an expectation of response. This is Article 5 of NATO. This is our capability and the perceived will to use it.
4/ Degrade our opposition’s capability with ours.
5/ Make war or respond to war.
All these stages require buy in from government and the people of the country. Deterrence only works if the enemy believes you have to will to follow it through. Right now, our government is not seen as serious at various levels. It won’t fund the stack because it doesn’t understand it and it has no real willingness to engage. In part that lack of seriousness is because the country is divided, and our leaders are really followers. The fundamental argument that government should be making to the country is that our way of life is worth preserving. Instead government have been destroying that way of life. The Tories funnel money to their corrupt mates. Labour want to centralise power, spy on us and control everyone. Nobody in power really believes in government of the people, by the people and for the people (I hope Americans don’t mind me borrowing that phrase). Nobody in power believes in democracy anymore.
So why are we expecting the government to fund a defence to our way of life, when deep down they don’t believe in our way of life?
What governments of so-called advanced economies believe in and defend is financialization. People come a poor second. And it so happens that the dominance of financial markets and institutions in the economy benefits from war. That can be through increased government debt issuance, soaring defence stock prices, and heightened speculative activity. Military conflict drives up commodity prices and fuels investment in defence, creating profit opportunities for financial firms while shifting capital toward military-industrial sectors.
The antidote to all this is a politics of care. ‘Nuff said.
Lets turn it around, Why would any one want to invade UK? It has no resources left. Most of the infrastructure is falling to peace’s. Most of the resources have been used up. Then there is bloody trump. He will run out of missiles soon then he will look really stupid.
I must read a good novel to lift my mood.
Catch 22?