Recasting Our Defence Priorities

Defence is an ever-increasing priority, and hence adequate spending on it is required. Yet debate too often focuses on how much to spend rather than what we want that spending to achieve. As Carl von Clausewitz famously noted in On War – war is the continuation of policy by other means. The political objective is the goal and military force is the means. If we are to justify increased defence spending — money that could otherwise be spent elsewhere — we must first be clear about the political objectives it is intended to serve.

I put defence spending into roughly four buckets – each serving a distinct strategic purpose:

• Nuclear Deterrence – the delivery mechanisms, warheads and military assets intended to carry them
• Homeland Defence – military assets based in or around the UK for the defence of sovereign territory
• Power Projection – military assets intended to be based on other states territories or outside British waters
• Proxy aid – financial aid to boost military spending for another state, for example aid to Ukraine

Within this I will advocate for an ordering of:

1. Nuclear Deterrence
2. Proxy Aid
3. Power Projection
4. Homeland Defence

Nuclear Deterrence

The political objectives:

• Provide a credible nuclear arsenal within the NATO nuclear planning group, given recent issues with the USA and noting the fact France has chosen not to be part of it. This leaves the UK as the only European nuclear power fully integrated into NATO’s nuclear planning structures.
• Prevent nuclear proliferation by our allies by proving we are willing to spend what is necessary on nuclear deterrence
• Diversify the delivery mechanism to reduce dependence on a single foreign partner for critical maintenance and support

In making this the priority among the four, the key consideration is that the UK should almost never act unilaterally, so the key is the capabilities of other allied states and what they lack. Drones, missiles, tanks and aircraft are capabilities many allies can and do procure for themselves. However, nuclear weapons are not something that is easy to research or politically straightforward to develop and sustain. And among all the strategic objectives, preventing nuclear proliferation is arguably the most important.

It also has to be noted that within NATO there are only 3 Nuclear Armed States, the UK, USA and France. However, the USA is perceived to be more unreliable now and France has not put its nuclear arsenal under the NATO nuclear planning group. This leaves the UK in a unique position within NATO’s nuclear framework. This therefore means it is of utmost importance that our deterrent is maintained in a way that our allies regard as credible and dependable, to prevent nuclear proliferation close to home.

Homeland Defence

The political objectives:

• Keep people safe and reduce any casualties from military attacks
• Ensure food imports can be safeguarded
• Protect and ensure water supplies and distribution
• Maintain energy distribution as much as possible for as long as possible
• Increase the production of military equipment and protect those sites
• Protect military equipment while it isn’t being used or is being repaired

Here I take a deliberately controversial position: this should be the lowest priority of the four. Any conventional attack against us will trigger article 5 of NATO, at which point the full capabilities of NATO will be deployed against any adversary and in our defence. In conventional terms, these are capabilities we can rely on allies to provide, unlike nuclear weapons.

The thing to consider here is actions that are not sufficient to meet Article 5, and so-called grey zone attacks. Given recent water outages and aging infrastructure – our critical infrastructure already shows serious vulnerabilities even in peacetime, I would seriously consider using part of the defence budget to nationalise the water companies and improve the infrastructure, plus make it more defensible.

Similarly, given the targeting of energy grids in Ukraine, greater investment in distributed and resilient energy generation should be considered as part of national defence.

Power Projection

The political objectives:

• Ensure the credibility of our military to assist our allies so as to maintain alliance cohesion and their willingness to defend us
• Maintain the ability to help balance against regional hegemons making threats to lesser powers in their regions
• Protect trade between nations
• Give international law a backing of military force when required

I therefore rank this third. To me this comes above homeland defence given our position in Europe, our overseas territories, the fact we straddle alliances with Europe and the Anglosphere and seek to retain influence over collective decisions.

Europe as a continent needs to work together better to be taken more seriously and project its influence more effectively. An important part of that in military terms is the Carrier Strike Group. We have 2 carriers, while Italy and France can also field proper carriers.

As the leading military power in Northern Europe and the framework nation of the Joint Expeditionary Force, the UK occupies a role that few others are positioned to fill. A significant reduction in expeditionary capability would weaken both deterrence and allied confidence.

This power projection is necessary in the Arctic and High North given climate change and Russian activity, along with in the Middle East and the Indo Pacific.

Proxy aid

The political objectives:

• Provide indirect backing in times of war to states that the UK wishes to support
• Discreet assistance for allies engaged in action against a likely adversary

This is not a spending category one hopes to use frequently, but when active conflict occurs it can become strategically decisive. For this reason, I rank it second.

The obvious example is Ukraine. While spending on defence for conflicts you want to deter is important, supporting an ally already at war should take precedence over purely hypothetical contingencies.

This can also have the additional benefit of weakening an adversary, and therefore in turn reducing any threat to the UK or our allies. Where such support materially degrades a hostile power without committing British troops, it represents a highly efficient use of resources.

Conclusion

The need for increased defence spending is clear; the world has changed. But polling shows a reluctance by voters to approve the allocation of necessary funds, either by increasing taxes or reducing spending elsewhere. No government can credibly promise to fund every desirable capability at once.

This means it is vital to properly determine how much to spend on defence – and where to prioritise. If difficult trade-offs must be made, preventing nuclear proliferation and supporting an ally under attack are arguments more likely to command public support than marginal increases in conventional force numbers.

View Owen Driscoll’s Gravatar profile.