The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard

Independent

2 days ago

The government has set out what the UK needs to protect itself from direct attacks in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In short, the assessment is we need to be ready to go to war – and fast. State powers – Russia today, maybe China tomorrow – have the capability to cause major damage to the UK, its economy and way of life, and we currently have no viable plans or forces to protect the country.
The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) recognised the threats, but did not address crucial facts, like that if faced with drone attacks of the type that Ukraine suffers almost nightly, the UK has absolutely no means of stopping them.
The National Security Strategy that followed the review last week also talked about the need to bolster what it calls home defence. 'The UK is directly threatened by hostile activities including assassination, intimidation, espionage, sabotage, cyber attacks and other forms of democratic interference,' it noted.
'Meanwhile, critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs – will continue to be a target.'
But neither of the reviews addressed, directly, the fact that the army cannot be deploying divisions into Europe while also defending the UK homeland – the two missions are contradictory. And neither acknowledged that the country is naked against any missile attack, so needs to actually buy something quickly.
The police in the UK are not large enough or trained to undertake home defence outside of a very small range of missions. Protecting critical national infrastructure requires troops on the ground, patrolling, to provide physical protection as well as deterrence.
In the Cold War, there were more than 35,000 Territorial Army troops tasked with home defence, backed up by regular army units, as well as Royal Navy and RAF units. In 1982, to increase numbers in the face of a growing Soviet threat, the Home Service Force was established, recruiting former Service personnel 'too old' to be in the TA, but still with decades of experience.
I know of one HSF company in East Anglia that had a corporal who had served as a captain in the Korean War, where he had won the Military Cross – this was not uncommon. Priceless experience and knowledge, despite possibly creaky joints.
Overall, in the 1980s, more than 60,000 Service personnel were tasked with defending the UK, and the US Air Force added thousands more to this mix. To put this into some perspective, the total strength, today, of the UK police forces is 170,000. So, military home defence forces would need to be at least a third of the size of the police to begin to be effective. And one has to recall that compared to the days of the Cold War, the number of vital infrastructure sites that need to be defended has grown – the internet and 5G didn't exist in the 1980s.
Although the National Security Strategy suggests that the Army Reserve (the old TA) could be the centre of home defence, it is worth noting that in the late-1980s, the TA was 73,000 – today it is just over 20,000, a shadow of its former self.
Elsewhere in Europe, home defence is better provisioned. In France and Italy, the Gendarmerie is over 100,000-strong, and the Carabinieri is around 110,000. Both have a range of automatic weapons, as well as some light armoured vehicles and many helicopters.
Home defence in the Nordic and Baltic States is not just an adjunct to the 'real' military – it is the core of their defence policies. Finland has tested plans to mobilise up to 1 million troops, most for home defence, in time of war, and the aim is that this would be achieved in a week.
The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these
Sweden doubled its home defence/resilience budget this year to £6bn by 2028 (aspects of military home defence are in the core defence budget, which has been rising as well) – the equivalent spend in the UK would be £15bn this financial year, and £30bn in 2028.
What has hampered adult discussion of UK home defence is that as soon as anyone raises the idea, the first response is 'Dads' Army', with accompanying sniggering. But the Home Service Force was actually a success in the 1980s, getting thousands to come back into uniform, bringing their skills to the mix, in a very short number of months. The HSF didn't have to be as fit as Regulars and didn't have to have the full range of skills – this should be a model for the future, much as it is in the Nordic/Baltic States.
The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure, bridges and internet, are accepted as real – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these.
An anti-missile system to defend just part of the UK would be £10-15bn up-front. To get an Israeli-style anti-missile system would cost over £30bn. A Home Defence Force of, say, 30,000, would cost close to £3bn in equipment, pay, infrastructure, and training every year – a fraction of what the Nordics spend on this.
The heavyweight boxer, Mike Tyson, famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'.
The 'punch in the mouth' for the UK, in the case of an attack on the homeland, would be the blacking out of lights, bringing down the internet, and food not getting to the supermarkets. It could also be a ballistic missile attack, causing levels of casualties not seen since the Second World War.
Unthinkable? Look to Kyiv, Kherson – this is what 'normal life' is like there. Home Defence is not Dad's Army, it is about enhancing the protection of the UK's infrastructure and the lives of the inhabitants. But it comes with a cost, and a need for a portion of the UK's population to think very differently.
Tough choices needed? Yes. Leadership required? Yes. Money essential? Yes. Getting these three through in the current climate will be very hard – but failure to do so leaves us all vulnerable.