By Professor John Bryson
Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham
Everyday living is saturated with paradoxes. One of these can be traced back to Vegetius, a writer from the late 4th century, who stated that Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum or ‘Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war’. This expression is often stated as ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’. This principle was well-known to George Washington, 1st U.S. President, who noted in 1790 in his first annual address to a joint session of Congress that ‘To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace’.
Washington was an extremely able President who understood war. Donald Trump, 47th U.S. President, seems not to understand warfare. One indication is that the Trump administration has signalled that it does not believe that Russia represents a cyber threat to U.S. national security or critical infrastructure. Has anyone told Putin, or Russia’s well-developed cyber hacking community? Trump fails to appreciate that his first duty is to keep American citizens safe and the country secure and this requires being prepared for all types of war and this includes protecting Americans from all types of hacking attacks. America’s allies must now be extremely careful regarding the information that is shared with the U.S. as there is a real danger that America will become a cyber security weak point.
It is important to differentiate between being prepared for offensive versus defensive warfare. There are countries whose focus is on preparing for offensive military campaigns and other countries whose primary concern is with defence. Countries that apply an aggressive stance to warfare justify the need for all countries to prepare for war to maintain or ensure peace.
There are many ways of preparing for war. There is the ‘bury your head in the sand’ approach. For example, during the 1980s the city of Leicester declared itself to be a nuclear-weapon-free zone. In fact, it was not only Leicester, but a host of other local authorities who had requested for their areas to be declared nuclear-free. A list of these was recorded in Hansard on 9 March 1982 and includes Liverpool, Worcester, Glasgow, Leeds, Oxford, and Ceredigion district. This was nimbyism at work as these areas did not want the manufacture or positioning of any nuclear weapons within their boundaries.
A variant of the ‘bury your head in the sand’ approach comes from ethical investors who refuse to invest in defence companies. If all investors adopted this stance, then government would need to fill the gap as such an investment policy goes against the principle of ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’. Such investors consider that not investing in defence is ethical as this meets environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. Is this actually the case? The capacity and capability to defend is essential and remember that the emphasis here is on defence rather than offensive capabilities. To avoid war, there must be a balance between countries with defensive and offensive capabilities.
In higher education, there are students who fail to appreciate the need to invest in defensive capability. This includes the movement to try to ban defence industry representatives from attending higher education recruitment events. Even when representatives from these companies attend, they have to deal with intimidation and harassment from protestors. There is an irony here regarding defence protestors engaging in offensive activities.
On 25 February 2025, Sir Keir Starmer set out his commitment to increase UK spending on defence to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) from April 2027 and then to 3% in the next parliament. Is this too little and too late? One issue is how this funding is going to be spent as it needs to be targeted to maximise the contribution that this investment makes to UK security. There are two points to consider.
First, investment in defence comes with spillover effects that result in innovations that can be applied to non-defence related challenges. In the past, defence investment pioneered the development of, for example, the Internet, GPS satellite navigation, microwave ovens, duct tape, cargo trousers, super glue, aviator sunglasses, canned food, drones, jet engines, EpiPens, stainless steel, vegetarian sausages, tea bags and virtual reality.
Second, it is possible to argue that defence expenditure is inherently wasteful, unnecessary and contributes to climate change, However, this argument fails to appreciate the link between peace and investing in defence. Nevertheless, there are opportunity costs that come from investing in defence, and these especially apply to countries like Russia or North Korea. In 2023, Russia spent 5.9% of its GDP on offensive capability and in 2016 this was 5.4%. UK expenditure on defence is required because there are countries like Russia that adopt an aggressive stance. And yet the Russian people are failed by their government as an alternative approach to expenditure would lead to a much higher quality of life for all Russians.
It is important to place Starmer’s 2.5% target in context. In 1984, the UK spent 5.5% of GDP on defence and in 1963 defence expenditure was 6.8% of GDP. Since 1994, there has been a continual decline in the proportion of GDP that the UK spends on defence. Even a target of 2.5% or even 3% seems low compared to historic figures. One implication of this spending is that there will be a growth in defence-related employment opportunities, highly skilled jobs that contribute to maintaining peace. What is clear is that our defence spending must change, the real debate is not whether to increase defence spending, but by how much.
-
- Read more about Professor John Bryson
- Back to Social Sciences Birmingham
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham.