Defense plan will ensure UK is ready for war, minister says
The government has accepted all 62 recommendations set out in a long-awaited Strategic Defense Review (SDR), including building 12 new nuclear-powered submarines, six new munitions factories and embracing technologies like artificial intelligence.
Britain's army needs to become "10 times more lethal" to face a "new era of threats", John Healey told MPs on Monday.
Conservative shadow defense secretary James Cartlidge called the plans a "damp squib", which was "underfunded and totally underwhelming".
The SDR, carried out by former Labour Defense Sectary Lord Robertson, found the UK's armed forces are "not currently equipped" to fight opponents like Russia or China, with inadequate stockpiles of weapons, poor recruitment and crumbling morale.
The report warned the UK is already experiencing daily attacks on its critical national infrastructure, testing the economy's vulnerabilities and "and challenging its social cohesion".
Russia is "an immediate and pressing threat", as the invasion of Ukraine "makes unequivocally clear its willingness to use force to achieve its goals", the report finds.
Meanwhile, China is a "sophisticated and persistent challenge", the review warns, and is "likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber attacks" and is expected to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.
Iran and North Korea are also highlighted and described as regional disruptors.
To fight this, the Ministry of Defense must embrace new technologies such as artificial intelligence, robots and lasers, the review recommends.
In a Commons statement, Healey said: "The threats we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
"We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home.
"Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way war is fought. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defense."
Other announcements in the review include:
A new "hybrid Navy" with Aukus submarines and autonomous vessels that can patrol the North Atlantic
£15bn to be spent on new nuclear warheads
Commitment to £1.5bn to build six new factories to enable an "always on" munitions production capacity
Building up to 7,000 long-range weapons including missiles or drones in the UK, to be used by British forces
Pledge to set up a "cyber and electromagnetic command" to boost the military's defensive and offensive capabilities in cyberspace
Extra £1.5bn to 2029 to fund repairs to military housing
£1bn on technology to speed up delivery of targeting information to soldiers
Healey said the changes would help "create a British Army which is 10 times more lethal".
He also signalled the government planned to increase the size of the Army from 74,400 to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers after the next election.
The UK's Cadet Forces — voluntary youth organizations — will expand by 30% by 2030, with a "gap year" offered to people interested in sampling military life.
Some 30,000 highly-skilled jobs would also be created through increased investment in research and weapons manufacturing, Healey said.
The review was drawn up with the expectation that defense spending would rise to 2.5% of national income or GDP by 2027 — up from around 2.3% now.
But what the review describes as a "small uplift" in the Army has not yet been funded.
A defense source also told the BBC the commitment to build up to 12 new attack submarines would require an increase in defense spending to at least 3% of GDP.
Ministers say they expect to spend 3% of GDP on defense by 2034 at the latest but have given no guarantees — and the run-up to the review's release has been dominated by a political row over when government will hit the milestone.
The Conservatives say the move — which would hike spending by around £20bn a year — should be met by the end of the decade.
Cartlidge said that "without the funding, [the review] is an empty wish list" and the "ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet".
The government "wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he's sending are profoundly weak", Cartlidge added.
"After so much hype, the SDR is a damp squib," he said.
"It's overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve better than this."
But Sir Keir Starmer argued the review would help create a "battle-ready, armour clad" nation.
Launching the review in Glasgow earlier, the prime minister said: "When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready, and frankly show them that we're ready to deliver peace through strength."
Lib Dem defense spokeswoman Helen Maguire said her party welcomed the government's plan, but warned "meeting generational risks will require generational commitments".
"It is frankly staggering that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions," she added. — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
8 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
India to keep buying Russian oil despite Trump remarks: Report
NEW DELHI — India will continue purchasing discounted oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's suggestion that New Delhi would halt such imports, according to multiple media reports Saturday. The New York Times, citing two senior Indian officials, said India has no plans to stop buying Russian crude, while Russian state news agency Tass quoted a government source in New Delhi as saying there were 'no indications' of any policy change. The source added that Indian refineries would keep making purchases based on pricing and other economic considerations. Trump told reporters, 'I understand India no longer is going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not, but that's a good step. We'll see what happens.' The U.S. president has repeatedly accused India of unfair trade practices and maintaining extensive energy and arms ties with Russia. On Wednesday, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Indian goods, escalating trade tensions between the two countries. — Agencies
Arab News
14 hours ago
- Arab News
Lower voting age: youth empowerment or gimmick?
The headline feature of the UK government's new policy paper to reform and modernize the democratic system is legislating for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the next general election. This proposal was already in Labour's manifesto before last year's election, albeit surprisingly not featured in the government's first King's Speech last summer, which is regarded as the blueprint for the government's intentions for the following year. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, in her usual plain-speaking manner, justified the move by saying: 'I was a mum at 16; you can go to work, you can pay your taxes, and I think that people should have a vote at 16.' She was not wrong, although parts of her argument might be more convincing than others. This decision, which is quite radical, has implications beyond voting rights — and on how we perceive at what age young people cross the threshold into adulthood. It was met with some skepticism regarding Labour's intentions, with the claim that from a completely utilitarian standpoint, analysis of the last election's voting patterns by age shows that Labour could gain most at the ballot box. According to an Ipsos poll, 41 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds supported Labour compared with 16 percent who supported Lib Dems and a mere 5 percent who voted for the Conservatives. In this case, adding even younger people to the poll of voters is likely to strengthen the current party in government, especially if it attends to their needs and wishes. Yet we should not let cynicism distract us from the merits of empowering youth and giving them a meaningful voice in deciding who is to lead the country — and in this case the process of voting in elections also brings forward a rite of passage into adulthood, of becoming proactive and aware citizens of their country and equally as global citizens. Historically, whenever the right to vote was extended to wider segments of society, it had its opponents, especially those who already enjoyed this exclusive privilege and would rather not share it with a wider population. In the history of the right to vote, there were times when it was conditioned, for instance on reaching a certain income or social status, and times when ethnic and religious minorities, and women, were blocked. But when the right was extended to all in 1918, it has never been seriously contested again, since the democratic system thrives on inclusivity. Immediately after the First World War, men had gained the right to vote if they were over 21, whether or not they owned property; however, women had to be aged over 30, and also had to meet minimum property-owning criteria, a situation which was rectified a decade later. Then it was regarded as revolutionary, but the trend did not stop there and eventually, in 1969, the UK became the first country to lower the age of franchise from 21 to 18, setting a new benchmark for adulthood. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that today's under-18s are much more aware of social and political issues, saturated with information, even if not necessarily accurate and helpful, and engage in social-political debates. Additionally, extending the franchise to young people, as research has found, increases their overall participation in the democratic processes and increases their sense of responsibility. This is a welcome step, although it should not be seen as merely an act of gesture politics or to curry favor with young people to get their vote. The infusion of new, young blood could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need. Yossi Mekelberg In the decision to extend voting rights to younger people, there are elements of expediency and of fairness. To begin with, most of the youth will still be in education, and granting them the right to vote would be an opportunity to enhance the citizenship curriculum, which includes learning about the rights and the duties that come with adulthood, and about being part of their community and wider national and international societies. For this, the school curriculum will have to be adjusted so that 16- and 17- year-olds become included in the learning process of becoming responsible and critical voters. This is especially important in the age of social media when the flood of information too often distracts from more profound social and political issues or is presented in a distorted way. The privilege of voting, and it is a privilege, must come with a well-thought-out introduction to life as an inquisitive and proactive voter. It is also an opportunity, in a world where the art of civilized and constructive debate falls victim to toxicity, and where winning the argument takes precedence over a mutual understanding of the issues, to revive the skills of constructive and respectful discussion. But there is also the issue of fairness. For instance, in the UK, 16-year-olds can join the army, something that, incidentally, has been criticized by the UN Committee of the Child. But as long as this is the case, those who can serve their country in uniform, even though under 18, are not permitted to be deployed on the front line. However, once they become adults, and continue to serve based on a commitment they made as a minor, they should be entitled to influence the country's foreign affairs trajectory, which might find them engaged in wars and conflicts, through the ballot box. Similarly, those who either left school and are in full-time employment, or those who work part-time and also study or take an apprenticeship, are paying taxes, and although the notion of 'No taxation without representation' is taken from the American Revolution in defiance of the British colonialists, it still rings true on this side of the Atlantic. It is also the case that in Scotland and Wales, those aged 16 or 17 have for some time been able to vote in Holyrood and the Senedd, their respective national assemblies, as well as in local council elections, and the proposed change will bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. In recent elections we have witnessed the rise of extreme political ideologies throughout Western societies, which to a large extent stems from questioning not only the wisdom of policies, but also the legitimacy of those who create them. To overcome this crisis of legitimacy, which also manifests itself in low turnouts at elections, the system badly needs shaking up, and the infusion of new, young blood, of nearly 10 million 16– and 17-year-olds who are interested, and aware that their decisions can affect them for decades to come, could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need.
Saudi Gazette
17 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Trump orders deployment of two US nuclear submarines after Medvedev warning
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump said Friday he has ordered two U.S. nuclear submarines to be deployed 'to the appropriate regions' following what he called 'highly provocative statements' from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In a social media post, Trump said the move was precautionary, adding, 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Speaking to reporters before departing the White House for his Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey, Trump said, 'A threat was made by a former President of Russia (Medvedev), and we are going to protect our people.' Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, lashed out at Trump on Monday, warning that U.S. pressure on the Kremlin over the war in Ukraine risked escalating into a wider conflict between Washington and Moscow. On X, Medvedev wrote, '50 days or 10 ... He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' He escalated his remarks in a separate Telegram post, invoking the Soviet-era 'Dead Hand' nuclear system — an automated launch mechanism designed to retaliate if the country's leadership were incapacitated. The system is widely believed to remain operational. — Agencies
