Simon Jenkins wrote an amusing article in The Guardian yesterday. It was amusing in the sense that it said something entirely unacceptable in British political debate at present. To be precise, he said:
Britain should spend less on defence. It is a waste of money and should be reduced so more could be spent on supporting employment, welfare and growth.
It is impossible to disagree. We are spending too much money on defence precisely because we do not know what we are defending, why, or what it is necessary to spend on to ensure we have the capability to defend whatever we think is important.
Are we defending wealth? Are we defending our institutions? Are we defending the City of London? Are we defending the people of this country? Or its borders? Are we defending our infrastructure? Are we defending our capacity to defend (and that matters)? What is it precisely? Do we know?
A defence strategy is not, and never can be, in isolation, about buying weaponry, employing armed forces, or even deploying them, because those things only happen in extremis, which means the strategy has failed.
Defence strategy begins by defining what is valuable, how we might need to preserve it, and the full range of actions necessary to ensure these assets are secure.
If we have such a strategy in the UK at present, it is unspecified. Our politicians appear to have only one goal, whoever they might be and whatever party they might represent, and that is economic growth. They cannot explain why this is their priority, what they value about it, or the benefits of prioritising it. By implication, we can, however, presume that what they think is of value is the accumulation of financial wealth.
Ask people what is important to them, and they will stress something entirely different. They will talk about relationships. They will talk about their memories, which is why the first things most people grab when exiting a burning building are their photographs. It is these things centred on people and place that matter most.
Understand that, and Simon Jenkins is right. We are spending too much on defence because we do not know what we are defending against, from whom, and why, and without that understanding, no defence strategy can work.
Will Burnham have an answer to this? I doubt it. And so the farce will go on.
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!
Why base “defence” spending on the G D P which seems to be a dodgy foundation if one has concerns about the wellbeing of citizens and their children?
Why not base it on weapons cost?
”The “cost-curve of war” means that shooting down of inexpensive threats ultimately forces advanced militaries into a financially unsustainable strategy if they rely solely on expensive weapons.” (From AI Overview)
Might “Austerity/Neoliberalism be a cause of the reduction in military provisions?
Who imposed and still imposes such?
The relevant Secretary of State asserts, “Our armed forces represent the very best of Britain and remain our most important asset.”
Is this foundational assertion significantly valid?
You are rightly pointing out that almost everything that is said about this debate is based upon meaningless thinking and analysis.
I find indecent that so many consider it acceptable to spend so much on weaponry of questionable benefit when so many children are growing up in poverty and most of our public services are in a fire state. Ironically cutting our aid budget is likely to increase conflict and result in more refugees. I agree that I doubt Andy Burnham will be brave enough to rock the boat on this one. Spending more on defence then your own people’s need is something racist and communist countries tend to do. I had the privilege of hearing Bruce Kent speak towards the end of his life and he detailed how we could end world poverty with all the money spent on nuclear weapons and all the wonderful jobs we could fund if we weren’t spending money on nuclear weapons. It was a very convincing argument.
He was right
I admired his courage
He was a very inspirational speaker and someone I was glad I got to hear whilst still alive. I saw him when I lived in Reading, which is very close to the Aldermaston and Burghfield sites which rather focuses your mind on such things. Their safety record is not good and there’s so much secrecy we wouldn’t have stood a chance if there was a serious incident.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
I caught a similar comment on the BBC world service about 6 am on Saturday. It was a retired either officer or diplomat. There’s often talking out of turn on the overnight broadcasts.
One hopes you’re in better form.
Still exhausted I fear, and the next tretment is delayed
More importantly the French spend less on defence than the UK does but get more for it in terms of men ships and aircraft including running their own nuclear deterrent.
They also seem to make their ships spend more time at sea than we do
Thank you, Richard.
I forgot to add that there is method to the madness. My godson’s best friend, who I’ve known for two decades, is an army officer and on secondment to Whitehall.
The officer reports how many officials and officers have left Whitehall early to join the arms and technology industries, mainly US. Second homes, school fees, luxury cars etc. don’t pay for themselves. The likes of George Robertson and Fiona Hill are paid by the US MIC and employed by proxies.
But Simon Jenkins isn’t a weapons manufacturer making billions out of successfully-expensively-lobbied-for wasteful, misdirected, destructive and dangerous “defence” contracts.
🙂
In terms of defence spending that thing helps economic growth only in the very short term because when the stocks are full, they stay full and then do nothing productive at all.
Defence is also soaked with corruption and waste.
Recently heard in a podcast about the Defence Comittee in Germany spending 50 billion € in 4 hours for defence.
And only a new kind of Jeep for the Bundeswehr is supposed to cost 200000€….
I don’t think it’s very much different with the British Armed Forces or anywhere else.
On the other hand….. that helps economic growth by the state massively investing by paying massively overpriced stuff.
It doesn’t help most people though.
I suppose you would call Jenkins an independent right wing thinker – something of a maverick – a one off. He has always been sceptical of military spending and NATO expansion.<p>
Carlo Rovelli has produced a book recently which suggests we are heading for nuclear Armageddon – treaties have lapsed, and loose talk from Putin and the West rushing to rearm<p>
The questions Richard says need answering – are just not going to be addressed. Politicians are afraid to engage the public in the fundamentals of what defence actually means. It would be a case of the King’s new clothes. <p>
The Finns seem to have a very clear idea – and are very keen to participate. But then the Finns are about ‘defence’, not being an adjunct to the US global reach<p>
George Robertson – who is a consultant to various arms companies, chaired the ‘Strategic Defence Review’ , which wasn’t strategic . It just assumed we needed to renew the ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent – which takes up to 25% of military spending. It seemed to say carry on the wasteful and often corrupt procurement of obsolete platforms – carriers, subs, ships, tanks, armoured carriers – but then also cyber, drones, and all the new stuff. No wonder it took a year to produce a spending ‘plan’ which effectively rejected much of Robertson.<p>
Richard is right – presumably the farce will go on
Thank you
I think there was an adage about always fighting the last war in the present one.
More importantly the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East seem to indicate an entirely new form of actual combat.
Of course you are absolutely right in what you have addressed here.
“More importantly the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East seem to indicate an entirely new form of actual combat.”
Your statement definitely seems to be the case.
I thought that, after defence of the UK itself, our Foreign Policy objecties led, and Defence Policy had to reflect those aims and objectives by providing support to allow them to be successfully achieved.
Ukraine has shown that the days of rapid armour manoeuvre on the central European Plain have faded.
Has it been properly analysed and thought through? No.
Must have missed it, but I haven’t been presented with any evidence that we need to spend 5% on defence other than that Trump told us to spend more. Russia may have a bigger GDP spend on defence but it’s still very small compared to NATO or even the European part of NATO. What is needed is a well planned spend on what will be effective at defence and this has been shown to us by Ukraine. I don’t think it requires massive increases in defence spending only a focused spend on what will be effective.
Much to agree with
You apparently live in an alternative reality where nations do not invade each other with ground troops, strike with long range weapons, or threaten to take low population territories over on “national security” grounds when resource theft is a clear motivation.
There is much to be said about inefficient spending, but the threats are real.
Where is that threat?
Go on, exoplain?
This is not 1955.
And dobn’t tell me Russia is a threat. Have you noticed Ukraine?
So, what are you talking about? Your youthful fantasies fed by The Eagle (as I recall it)?
Do we need defence? Yes.
Do we need to renew our US controlled nuclear deterrent, or build more huge fault-ridden aircraft carriers without aircraft? That’s very debatable.
Meanwhile, we in the UK have already a lot of problems with foreign influence, foreign control and foreign money in our national life and precious little defence against that.
Consider the foreign troops, their families, and equipment controlling our RAF airfields, sometimes raping and killing our citizens beyond the reach of our judicial system (current examples available). Consider foreign control over our NHS budget and pharmecuticals. Foreign money in our politics. Our involvement in foreign wars, genocide and war crimes. Foreign monopolistic control of our mass media and social media. The foreign interference in our democratic processes that led to Brexit, and Starmer and Fa***e, and produces an ever-increasing authoritarian repression of protest and dissent.
These foreign threats are here NOW, they cost lives, and we appear to have no defence against them.
I know the countries that have wrecked my neighbourhood and hampered efforts to change things for the better. They seem to own so many of our politicians that it is very difficult to do anything about them. when those foreign countries are led by out of control convicted fraudster criminals and indicted suspects it is even more scary.
Do I believe in foreign threats? You bet I do. Just not the threats my foreign-controlled government WANTS me to believe in.
We need a defence capability. But we need to rethink what it is for, and who/what it defends us from.
Declaration of interest – I was raised on RAF bases.
Thanks
Defining the aim of a defence policy by how much it costs, or even more oddly os a % of GDP seems wrong.
What matters is the capacity not the money spent.
The nuclear deterrent may be a hang over from our time as a Great Power but giving it up is hard to imagine. It guarantees our place on UN Sec Council, if that is worthwhile?
Unlike mainland european states with land boarders with Russia, we are most unlikely to see Russian troops on our land. Grey warfare and disruption to our way of life by Russia and their proxies is more likely. We need to develop a resilient society and accept that having a credible military is not the only thing keeping us safe. The national infrastructure needs hardening against attack, and natural disasters.
Noted.
But that does not answer the question – what are we defending?
Given the likely Russian interference in our elections, especially the EU referendum and the dodgy funded of certain parties, I would say our democratic freedoms and economic well-being. More nuclear weapons does nothing to help this.
Agreed
I am not at all sure about this. Full disclosure: I come from a military family, insofar as my brother was in the RAF and my Dad was in the Royal Navy. So it is rather in the blood.
Just because we don’t have a clear threat or adversary at the moment, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t maintain a certain defensive capability. Once lost it’s hard to regain, most especially if you need it quickly. If all of Europe disarmed we might well find an aggressor like Russia exploiting the opportunity.
The main problems with current defence spending are the staggering waste generated by the Ministry of Defence, who can never make up their minds… and the perennial problem of armed forces tending to equip themselves to win the last war rather than the next one. I have no immediate answer to either point.
But right now our armed forces have been run down to the point where they actually are virtually useless. Either we need to spend more (or perhaps just better) or quit and take the (unknown) consequences.
I am not saying that we should not have a defence capability. I’m saying that until we do not know what we are defending, why, how, and who from, the money we are spending is wasted.
Thank goodness someone is making the argument against this ridiculous assumption that we need to spend more on defence!
The current wars show just how ineffective attacking other countries can prove to be. Russia has failed its objectives in Ukraine. The USA has made itself a laughing stock against Iran. Even the genocidal brutality of Israel has failed to disarm Hamas.
Of course we need to be able to protect these islands, and undersea pipelines and cables, but Britain maintains military bases in at least twenty other countries, including in Cyprus and five in the Middle East. These are to “protect British interests” we are told. What British interests? Well, oil of course, something we need to move away from very rapidly. This is all a colonial hangover, that we should have recovered from by now.
Our military procurement is a hugely expensive and unchallengeable farce, and has been for all my life.
We need more entente, negotiation and dialogue instead of this bizarre military posturing.
The argument for military expenditure is increasingly based on the percentage of GDP spent country by country.
Putting to one side any valid arguments we might have about GDP as a measure, it is worth looking at how this distorts the debate.while war is very clearly a waste of resources and a failure of politics, it is generally accepted that they are won on the basis of superior industrial economies, if they last for any length of time.
Russia would appear to be the only threat to European peace and they, according to the Stockholm Institute are spending 7.5% of their GDP on defence, the Uk is below 3% and we are told that this leaves the country vulnerable. However the Russian GDP is reported as being only about 2/3rds of the UK and we are in an alliance with the rest of Europe and when you consider the GDP of all of those countries Russia is less than 1/8th of the combined GDP. Looking at defence spending on that basis the argument for increasing what we spend is very weak, the argument should be about coordination of resources across all of the European states.
You never know we might get the defence we need for less than we are paying now!
Much to agree with
Can I just add… we often hear people complain about “wasting money” on one or other thing. Today we are hearing complaints about wasting money on defence. Another one I often hear is wasting money on space exploration.
If there’s one thing I have learned by following Richard, its that you can’t really waste money. Apart of payment of tax, or repayment of a loan (both of these destroy money), money spent into the economy just goes into circulation. So money spent on defence is employing people who have the relevant skills, who then spend on… etc etc.
So the question is not about wasting money, or spending too much money… it’s about what we as a society choose to do. My view is that there are more then enough resources – land, energy, materials, labour, know-how – to do everything we want. House, feed, clothe, educate and provide health care for everyone. With loads of capacity left over to use on art, science, and writing blogs about economcs.
Is defence useful? Perhaps not day-to-day, not in a sane world. But it’s not entirely sane. And when you need it, you need it. Alongside housing for all, food, clean water, health, education we can afford defence, and space exploration too. It’s the distribution of funding that matters.
You can still waste money – because money allocates resources and you can use them in suboptimal activities that do not encourage human flourishing.
So “wasting money” is really just a euphemism for directing resources into something we don’t agree with.
I don’t know Richard – whilst I agree that putting resources into making a big pile of military equipment is not useful in a day-to-day sense I would still rather not do without it. Too much of a gamble.
And I stand by my point: humans will still flourish because the people who make the the materials and make the weapons and develop the skills to use them will be paid. They will flourish – and they will spend their income. The skills and materials and infrastructure can also be – and are – used for other purposes. The money still goes around.
Oh come on: flourisihing is not the same as any old spending. That is not an argument as it is very obviously untrue.
AS a matter of fact, we have as much money as we want and scarce resources. Money has to be used to direct resources to right purposes, not any old thing.
Of course not “any old thing”! But there is much that we have to spend resources on that are not directly about human flourishing. Policing perhaps. It would be great if we didn’t have to, but we know we do. Spending on defence is of a similar kind. Sure I’d rather not direct the resources there, but history says that it’s wise to put something into it. And the people who work in it will be employed – and in that sense the money is not wasted. it has supported lives and developed skills which are in fact transferable, as well as insuring against an undesirable outcome… which might really impact upon our flourishing.
Set that against the monstrous use of resources to produce badly made disposable tat that we’re all expected to “consume” in order to make rich people richer, without regard to the environmental degradation it entails. I think I’d rather buy a tank.