The publication of the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) last month – and perhaps more strikingly the resignations of John Healey and Al Carns as Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for the Armed Forces, respectively – has brought discussions of defence into the limelight in the United Kingdom (UK). Among Ministry of Defence (MOD) and British Armed Forces personnel – both serving and retired – there is a consensus that a national conversation on defence is a necessity.
Despite this recognition, however, there has been little progress made in communicating the cruciality of defence to the British population. Although there is increasing public knowledge of and support for defence, a gulf separates defence experts and the political class from the UK’s population at large when discussing the topic. As such, for this week’s Big Ask, we asked four experts: What does a national conversation on defence look like?
Richard Ballett
Council on Geostrategy
In short, a national conversation on defence looks hell of a lot more than some brief guidance note on gov.uk, which no one reads! It should leverage every information instrument His Majesty’s (HM) Government has, and build on what has worked before.
During the Cold War, HM Government distributed bright orange leaflets across the nation listing essential items every household should stock up on for when conflict erupted. This campaign was backed up by regular radio broadcasts, TV commercials, and public advertisements advising the population on what to do in case of war. A similar campaign could be delivered today to ensure the public is fully aware of the growing risk of conflict, the imperative of defence, and what every individual needs to do to prepare.
Focus groups have found that people are more persuaded by the case for international development spending when it comes from a senior military officer. The reverse is probably also true. HM Government needs other voices, beyond the military chiefs, to make the case publicly for increased defence spending and national resilience. It should co-opt leaders from, say, the International Red Cross, the Confederation of British Industry, or the Church of England to help communicate the rising risk of conflict and the role our military plays in keeping the nation safe.
At a time when people’s finances are being squeezed by sluggish growth and inflation, the case for the UK’s defence needs to explain how it protects people’s wallets too: very simply, a strong British military means less war, and less war means more peace and more prosperity.
Senior Lecturer, Department of Defence and International Affairs, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
A national conversation starts by unpacking British society’s understanding of defence and how British society contributes to the nation’s defence.
Defence is fundamentally about protecting the state, including its people, against threats. As cyber attacks, online disinformation, and interference with undersea cables increasingly impact UK citizens’ daily lives, the understanding of ‘defence’ needs to evolve to include community resilience.
A starting point could be a conversation on what ‘keep calm and carry on’ means in 21st century Britain. How would British society adapt if a crisis or conflict were to begin tomorrow? Equally, how might it adapt to sub-threshold attacks on Critical National Infrastructure (CNI)? How long could British society function if critical systems failed, or if digital services went offline for an extended period? This requires building societal awareness and preparedness, and the ability to adjust to changing conditions.
The UK could learn from the approach taken by Nordic countries, where security and defence are viewed as symbiotic, and where security thinking focuses on societal resilience. Defence is a societal effort involving the armed forces, working alongside government, business, CNI, civil society, and citizens to ensure that society continues to function regardless of the challenge.
The 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and National Security Strategy (NSS) identified the need for wider British society to support defence and play a greater role in protecting society. Despite this, only 26% of the UK’s public believes that building national resilience across all sectors, including civil society, is important.
Britain needs greater interaction between the military and society to build a better understanding of how one supports the other. Therefore, a national conversation on defence starts by engaging with and empowering British society to recognise its shared responsibilities in defending its way of life.
Author of the podcast The Wargame; Director of the Changing Character of War Centre, Oxford University; and Honorary Fellow, Council on Geostrategy
Who defends the nation? How much should the UK allocate of its national resources to defence and security? Who will scrutinise the decision-makers and those charged with implementation so that we can be sure there is maximum efficiency and minimal waste? How should Britain ensure that no state uses nuclear weapons against it?
A national conversation about defence depends on raising the consciousness of the issue in the everyday lives of citizens. Sallust, the Roman writer of the 1st century BC, was concerned that prosperity corrupts states more effectively than adversity. He was anxious that affluent societies, ones that indulged in their sporting events rather than their defence, were the ones that would face decline and defeat. By contrast, Livy, a contemporary of Sallust, believed that defence was dependent upon the resilience of the population. Their civic virtues, expressed as a willingness to sacrifice, and unity in a crisis, were the means to ensure security and success.
Tacitus, of the 1st century AD, carried a warning for 21st century Britain. He observed that the more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws, and he noted that states collapse internally, not militarily. A century later, Marcus Aurelius commented that: ‘The impediment to action advances inaction. What stands in the way becomes the way.’ Vegetius of the 4th century AD reminded us in his Epitoma Rei Militaris that peacetime was the time for preparation if wars were to be avoided.
Ancient wisdom is not some distant academic irrelevance. It is a signal from the past, offering advice that was bought by defeat, humiliation, and blood. Too often, throughout history, governments have turned their backs on defence. Lord Hankey, writing in 1945 at the end of the two most costly wars, believed that too many lives had been lost through a lack of preparedness. He stated:
...it is the old, old story…Risks were run deliberately in pursuit of the aim of permanent peace...carried this time to the verge of risk and beyond. Not only were our forces too small for safety, not only were they inadequately supplied, but the armaments industry, on which they depended, the nucleus on which the war supply arrangements had to be founded, had been gravely impaired by lack of orders from home and abroad.
Former Director General for Security Policy, Ministry of Defence (2014-2018); Visiting Professor, King’s College London; and Honorary Fellow, Council on Geostrategy
The SDR said that the national conversation on defence and security ‘…should be centred on a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends…’ My view is that the conversation should be situated in the here and now. Britain is no longer facing just ‘threats’ – which, in the dictionary definition, are unpleasant things that ‘will’ or ‘might’ happen – but an active campaign of state-sponsored hostile activities short of war.
This includes disinformation, cyber attacks, arson, drone flights, etc., which are increasingly disruptive and costly for society and citizens. HM Government needs to be more open with the public on what it knows about such activities (and who is behind them), helping people to ‘join the dots’ and understand the need for greater economic and societal resilience. Effective defence in this new age of war will depend upon it.
The conversation could, as the SDR said, entail set-piece public outreach events. However, it could be more informal and online, with information provided via social media. Crucially, at its heart, it should consist of structured conversations with civic and business leaders, senior academics, etc., sharing the information that will help them to make their own entities more resilient and enabling them to ‘spread the word’ in their communities.
At a national level, this conversation could take the form of a variant of Finland’s acclaimed National Defence Course – curated by the College for National Security with support from the Defence Academy. Regional versions could be hosted by universities. The costs would be low, and the multiplier effect would be high.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?
Outstanding work. I think the most practical thing to do first is directly engage HMG in what specifically to do to start creating a dialogue with the population about these matters. I also suggest that the Council On Geostrategy builds specific links with people and organisations from the Media & Marketing industries (unless of course it is already doing this) as the challenges posed here will be familiar