On Monday the government published the Strategic Defence Review, which was commissioned by the Prime Minister shortly after the 2024 General Election. The headlines were taken with the declaration that the UK army will be “ten times more lethal” and that the UK would become a “battle-ready, armour-clad nation”.
There is much more detail in the document, however, some of which have already been announced and some new. The key points include:
Military Spending
Keir Starmer had already announced that military spending would increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 – funded by slashing the overseas development. The ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament, ‘subject to fiscal conditions’ had also already been heavily discussed – but in Parliament on Monday afternoon Defence Secretary John Healey said there was “no doubt” this would happen by 2034, though many MPs and military figures are pushing for it to happen soon. There has also been media reporting that NATO will use an upcoming summit to impose a new spending target on Member States of 3.5% of GDP on military spending by 2035. This may require an additional £40 billion to be spent on the military every year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the current plans for military spending will require “chunky tax rises”.
Submarine and Nuclear weapons Enhancements
In perhaps some of the most significant announcements of the SDR, the UK will build 12 SSN-AUKUS attack submarines. This is a significant expansion of the conventional, nuclear-powered submarine fleet and amounts to one new submarine every 18 months. The current programme to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system is also given additional funding of £15 billion through the Astraea nuclear warhead programme and a £9 billion ‘Unity’ contract with Rolls-Royce for submarine nuclear reactors. There is a recognition in the SDR that the cost of the current Trident system has increased due to the extended lifespan of the system. The recommendation is that plans are laid for what comes after the next generation of nuclear-armed submarines – meaning the UK would have nuclear weapons until near the end of the century.
Munitions and Missile Production
There will be significant spending on stockpiling munitions for the UK. £1.5 billion will be spend on six new munitions and energetics factories which will create an “always on” capacity for making bombs. This will include up to 7,000 long-range missiles and is part of £6 billion munitions allocation in current Parliament. It is thought that this significant investment will create only around 1,000 jobs.
Advanced Weaponry and Technological Investments
The SDR says that “the fundamental lesson for today is that with technology developing faster than at any time in human history our own forces…must innovate at wartime pace”. This is the prelude to significant spending and focus on technology advances which will include:
- £1 billion for homeland air and missile defence.
- £1 billion for a digital targeting web by 2027.
- £400 million UK Defence Innovation Fund.
- £1.3 billion for Future Combat Air System (FCAS).
- DragonFire laser weapon system expansion, with deployment on 4 Royal Navy ships by 2027.
- Creation of Cyber and Electromagnetic (CyberEM) Command.
- Focus on robotics, AI, autonomous systems, and command/control tech.
This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-prepared
Ellie Chowns MP – Green Party
During the debate on the SDR in Parliament a number of MPs raised concerns about the decisions set out in the document. Green Party and Independent MPs challenged the Defence Secretary about the billions of pounds of additional spending.
I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity—poverty and hunger—that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.
Jeremy Corbyn MP – Indepedent
How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?
Zarah Sultana MP – Independent
The Defence Select Committee will now examine the plans in detail, and GCOMS-UK will be contributing to that inquiry. CND has also published the Alternative Defence Review which sets out a different way of thinking about security and prioritising human security. You can read that review here.
