Eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be increased

The document outlines eight reasons why the UK should not increase its military spending, asserting that the UK and NATO already possess significant force advantages over Russia and China. It highlights recent budget increases, such as a £24bn boost in 2020, and criticizes the arbitrary nature of NATO's 2% GDP spending target. The author argues that funds would be better allocated to the National Health Service, overseas aid, and carbon emission reductions, noting that military spending is more than seven times the budget for reducing national carbon emissions.

• The UK has already significantly increased military spending, including a boost of more than £24bn announced in November 2020, which was the largest increase in 70 years. Military aid to Ukraine in the first year of the war (£2.3bn) represents only 5% of the total UK military budget.
• NATO maintains a substantial military advantage over Russia and China. In 2021, NATO countries collectively outspent Russia by more than 17 times and China by more than four times. Pre-2022, NATO had five times as many ground-strike/fighter planes as Russia and more than eight times as many cruisers, destroyers, and frigates.
• Russia's conventional military capabilities have weakened significantly since the 1990s due to the war in Ukraine. Evidence suggests Russia lost over half its tank fleet (nearly 1,800 tanks) and about one-third of its infantry fighting vehicles (over 2,000) in the first year of the conflict.
• The NATO spending target of 2% GDP is described as arbitrary and prone to inefficiency. The document cites the UK's Ajax programme as an example of waste, where £5.5bn was spent over 12 years to deliver only 26 vehicles that cannot be used for armed deployment.
• The UK has expanded its military reach through the 'Indo-Pacific tilt' and a new concept of 'persistent global engagement' involving 'continuous campaigning'. Additionally, the government decided to increase the nuclear weapons stockpile by 44%.
• Funding is urgently needed for civilian services and climate goals instead of military expansion. The NHS faces a shortfall of about £3.5bn annually for the next two years. Furthermore, UK military spending is more than seven times the budget allocated for reducing national carbon emissions.

APA

Parkinson, S. (2023). Eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be increased. Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/eight-reasons-why-uk-military-spending-shouldn-t-be-increased

Chicago

Parkinson, Stuart. Eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be increased. Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2023. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/eight-reasons-why-uk-military-spending-shouldn-t-be-increased.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Parkinson |first1=Stuart |title=Eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be increased |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=10 March 2023 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/eight-reasons-why-uk-military-spending-shouldn-t-be-increased |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{parkinson2023eight, author = {Parkinson, Stuart}, title = {{Eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be increased}}, publisher = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2023}, month = mar, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/eight-reasons-why-uk-military-spending-shouldn-t-be-increased}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }