The true cost of the Defence Review

Rhun Dafydd, Cymdeithas y Cymod
The UK Government’s latest Defence Review paints a troubling picture — one that sees our future shaped more by weapons than wisdom.
With 62 recommendations set to be accepted in full, the review reads less like a strategy and more like a rubber stamp for the defence industry.
Top of the list is a £15 billion investment in the nuclear warhead programme, keeping submarines at sea in the name of “deterrence.”
Another £6 billion will go into munitions, meant to create around 1,800 jobs. But is this really good value for money?
Economic growth
Defence spending is often sold as a driver of economic growth and jobs. But, as the Alternative Defence Review points out, it has one of the weakest economic multipliers.
Investment in health, green energy or education does far more to create long-term jobs and improve people’s lives.
Claims that this spending benefits ordinary workers often mask the fact that it enriches arms companies and shareholders far more.
At the same time, the Review ignores the biggest threat to our national safety: cyberattacks. The NHS and other vital services remain dangerously exposed, yet the government has offered no real and bold new investment in cybersecurity.
International aid
For years, both Conservative and Labour governments have slashed international aid budgets. Replacing diplomacy and global cooperation with military spending won’t make us safer — it will only worsen global instability. And with it, we will see more displacement, more conflict, and more refugees.
This will fuel the very debates around migration that dominate and divide British politics today.
There’s also the environmental cost. Global military activity accounts for about 5.5% of carbon emissions — and that figure will only grow. At a time when climate action is urgent, building a war economy pushes us further in the wrong direction.
And yet, many across the political spectrum — even some trade unions — have bought into the old myth that preparing for war brings peace and prosperity. But real security isn’t built through weapons. It comes from strong public services, stable international relationships, and a serious response to climate and cyber threats.
In an ever more violent and divided world, as always it is harder than ever to raise the voice for peace and reconciliation. But among the loudest calls for war, destruction, and the deaths of civilians, we are raising our voices.
Against the tide, we must stand strong — for peace and for humanity.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
The Fat Cats chose well with Clark absolutely no scruples, principals or accountability…
Built for Armageddon, this last Prime Minister of the Apocalypse, this apology for a human amphora…
He has slept through most of the killing and destruction of Gaza, now he awakes like Saint Augustine in Anguish…fooling no one…
You’re on a hiding to nothing with Clark. A paper tiger, he has no ‘word’ to keep, he is a hollow man without any grounding in what it means to be human, we are seeing it in every parliament in the world just about…the collapse of the human race as a viable moral entity…bring on the flood mark two…
There may be a case for some investment in kit better suited to the current fragile political climate but going all out for certain types of kit which does a lot to boost the share price of some defence contractors and the rewards packages of senior decision makers is dubious to say the least.
‘Ministry of Disasters’ who is he kidding, Putin!
There is nothing to find that Fat Shanks didn’t give them already…
Should ask Jenrick how well he knows him…
Making a few more bullets isn’t going to cut it. European security is only possible in cooperation with Europe.
‘In a first strike with France, the Aussies better catch up and do for North Korea, if MacArthur had listened to advice they still wouldn’t be a problem, nor China’…
I’m doing an AI writing course at Twmp’s University
The only thing I would disagree with in this article is that the £15 billion planned spend on nuclear weapons can in no sense be described as an investment and to do so is financially illiterate. What is it’s expected rate of return?
An investment can prevent a loss as well as provide a gain. The UK has an economic single point of failure in London, the loss of which would total the UK economy.
Much of the cost is not defense lts WAR AND BOMBS.
It should be called Offense spending.