By Phill Gittins, World BEYOND War Education Director, June 21, 2026
Dear Letters editor,
I am writing in response to “New defence secretary to ‘reprioritise’ UK plan for military spending” (14 June 2026):
The first question in any debate about defence and security should be whether the proposed policies and investments will actually make people and the planet safer: against which threats, for whom, at what cost, and compared with what alternatives? Yet Britain’s Defence Investment Plan is being discussed mainly in terms of competing weapons programmes and whether military spending should reach 3% or 3.5% of GDP. Spending is easy to count; security is harder to judge. A spending target is not a security strategy.
Higher military spending does not automatically produce greater safety. A country can become more militarised without becoming more secure. Expanding arsenals and military capabilities can fuel arms races and divert money, expertise and political attention from healthcare, housing, climate resilience, diplomacy and conflict prevention. These are not separate from security; they are central to it.
We should also challenge the assumption that defence necessarily means weapons, armed forces and preparation for war. Nonviolent defence is not passivity or surrender. Civilian-based defence prepares people and institutions to resist invasion, occupation or authoritarian takeover through organised nonviolent resistance, widespread non-cooperation, resilient democratic institutions, mutual aid, independent communications and the refusal to assist or comply with an aggressor.
There is also an evidential double standard in how these options are assessed. Peacebuilding and nonviolent action are expected to prove that they work, while military force is often treated as necessary without equivalent scrutiny of its outcomes, costs and alternatives. Comparative research on major resistance campaigns has found that nonviolent campaigns have historically been more successful than violent ones and more likely to be followed by democratic outcomes. This does not settle every defence question, but it provides a strong case for serious investment in nonviolent approaches alongside diplomacy, mediation, arms control and international law.
Every approach carries risks and trade-offs. Ultimately, the test should be whether it reduces danger, protects people and the planet, and produces better and more durable security than the alternatives—not whether it meets a spending target or increases Britain’s capacity to wage war.
Dr Phill Gittins
Oswestry, Shropshire
The post A Letter to The Guardian: A Spending Target Is Not a Security Strategy appeared first on World BEYOND War.
From World BEYOND War via This RSS Feed.