Keir Starmer has pledged to increase the UK’s military budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. UK politicians and military figures are already pushing the government to go further, urging increases to 3% or higher - whilst Trump is pressuring NATO members to reach 5%.

Starmer’s decision follows previous military spending hikes under the Tories, and will be funded by cuts to overseas aid, a decision that harms many of the world’s most vulnerable.

This has quickly ushered in a new wave of militaristic policies and a heightened climate of fear and confrontation. UK politicians and European leaders are openly preparing for all-out war with Russia, including putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine, and are talking up the threat of nuclear retaliation. The EU has unveiled an €800bn plan to boost military spending across the continent.

None of this makes us any safer. On the contrary, increasing military spending and other war preparations only pushes Europe and the world towards more military confrontation, while posing staggering risks to humanity. Here are ten reasons why increasing the UK’s military spending is a very bad idea.

1. The UK already has the fifth highest military spending in the world

The UK already spends more on the military than almost every other country in the world. 

In 2024, the UK was the fifth highest military spender globally. Only the US, Russia, China and Germany spent more. The UK's military spending has increased for many years running under successive governments, reaching £57bn in 2024/25. The ongoing replacement of the UK’s nuclear weapons system alone is projected to cost £205 billion.

In 2021, before the current phase of the war in Ukraine started, the UK’s military budget was larger than Russia’s - a fact that did nothing to deter Putin’s invasion.

2. Europe's and NATO’s military spending are already far higher than Russia’s or China’s

Military spending by NATO members stood at 1.47 trillion USD in 2024. This is around ten times greater than Russia’s military budget and six times greater than China’s.

What’s more, NATO’s military capabilities far exceed Russia’s. NATO has five times more military aircraft, three times as many military ships and five times as many armoured vehicles. Only in terms of nuclear weapons are the NATO and Russian forces comparable - largely due to nuclear arms control treaties between the USA and Russia that have limited competition in this area.

With Trump throwing US military support for Ukraine into question, European leaders are ramping up public support for vast increases in military spending. But even without the US, military spending by European NATO members is already over three times higher than Russia’s.

Where does all this end? NATO’s military advantage did not prevent the invasion of Ukraine, nor has it shortened the war. With NATO’s military spending far outstripping Russia’s already, further increases will achieve nothing, while only risking greater military confrontation.

3. More military spending makes the world less, not more, secure

Keir Starmer and other European leaders have enthusiastically embraced an arms race with Russia - and arms races do not tend to end well.

It is widely recognised that militarism in societies worldwide is associated with human rights abuses and chronic instability, and presents an obstacle to development and international cooperation. In discussions of UK military spending, this larger trend is often overlooked.

In the immediate term, increasing UK military spending will inflame geopolitical tensions with Russia and China, who will inevitably increase military spending themselves. This vicious cycle creates a permanent state of heightened military risk and confrontation, increasing the likelihood of direct military engagement involving the UK, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere.

In the longer term, this increasing militarism can have any number of dangerous and corrosive effects. The UK’s enlarged military capabilities will likely lead to more military intervention in other regions, such as the Middle East. More money will be siphoned into the arms industry, fuelling human rights abuses worldwide. Military recruitment will intensify, targeting children in poorer areas of the UK.

And that’s before considering the larger risks. When decisions on military spending are made, there are seldom serious discussions of the risks involved. In the post-Cold War era, it is easy to forget the devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the very real risk that they will be triggered. At a time of climate breakdown, more military spending encourages ever-more militaristic responses, leading to further climate instability and injustice - more on this below.

4. The UK has a long record of disastrous military interventions

Keir Starmer is using the war in Ukraine to boost support for a long-term increase in military spending. But what will this money actually be spent on?

The UK has a long record of catastrophic military interventions around the world. In the last couple of years, the UK has provided military backing to Saudi Arabia in its war against  Yemen, which has led to mass starvation, and Israel in its genocidal assault on Gaza. UK public opinion has long since condemned the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which have left hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced and political turmoil in their wake.

This reflects the UK’s longer term imperial attitudes and ambitions. Since the end of the Second World War, the UK has been one of the most military interventionist states in the world, deploying its armed forces in combat over 80 times across 47 countries, with missions ranging from brutal colonial wars and secret operations, to attempts to bolster favoured regimes and prevent civil unrest.

5. Military spending diverts money from where it's most needed

There is no correlation between the threats people face and the amount of money spent on tackling them.

Reviews carried out by successive UK governments have concluded that current major security threats include environmental disaster and pandemics. Despite this, the UK government was woefully under-prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, having neglected their own assessments. Climate change and global poverty are both factors driving violent conflict and global insecurity. Yet for every pound spent on reducing carbon emissions, the UK spends £7.45 on armed force.

Although the term ‘security’ has become synonymous with armed force, real security includes freedom from poverty, the guarantee of housing, health care and education. At a time when public services have been crippled by years of austerity, swelling the UK’s military budget represents a severe waste of money and opportunity.

At a global level, military spending is rising, reaching 2.46 trillion USD in 2024, a sum greater than the total GDP of all conflict-affected countries across the globe.

6. The risk of nuclear war is not a side issue

We need to remind ourselves of what is at stake. Nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice against a population, by the USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The bombs flattened vast swathes of both cities in seconds, obliterating entire communities, leaving over 200 thousand people dead and many more suffering from burns, radiation sickness, cancer and genetic damage.

Today’s nuclear weapons are as much as 80 times more powerful than those used during the Second World War. A war involving their use would be unimaginable and unwinnable. The threat of nuclear weapons, which world leaders regularly invoke, is as hollow as it is dangerous.

Any security policy should be judged against its impact on the risk of nuclear catastrophe, whether deliberate or accidental. Increasing military spending in a climate of global military tensions undoubtedly increases that risk.

7. Military spending lines the pockets of arms dealers

The UK spends around a third of its military budget on the procurement of equipment. That means tens of billions of pounds every year going to arms companies, which have enjoyed soaring share prices and vast profits since the war in Ukraine started.

In this way, UK public money is fuelling one of the world’s most unjust and damaging industries. The arms trade drives wars and violence around the globe, sustains authoritarian regimes and fosters widespread corruption. In spite of government assurances that the arms trade is strictly regulated, arms sales to authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers are routine.

To take just one example, BAE, the UK's largest arms manufacturer, has extensive UK government contracts as well as supplying Saudi Arabia with military aircraft, which have been used in repeated breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen. BAE reported annual profits of over £3 billion for the first time in 2024. Its stock has more than doubled since the war in Ukraine began.

8. Military spending accelerates climate catastrophe

As the world hurtles towards greater climate breakdown, the way we prepare will be crucial. The UK government, in concert with military figures and arms companies, tends to view the global impact of climate change as a security risk requiring a military response.

But this will only exacerbate this unfolding crisis, leading to more military fallout from climate-related conflicts and militarised borders in the face of forced migration, further punishing those least responsible for causing climate breakdown.

More military spending deepens this tendency, as well as diverting funds from addressing the causes of climate change and from constructive, peaceful approaches to dealing with its effects. Keir Starmer’s decision to increase military spending at the expense of overseas aid could not be a clearer illustration of this damaging approach.

In reality, militarism isn’t the solution to climate change, but a major cause. The carbon footprint of militaries worldwide accounts for around 5.5% of global carbon emissions, which governments, including the UK, routinely fail to disclose. War itself has devastating environmental impacts, from the destruction and reconstruction of cities, to pollution and ecocide.

9. New military technologies such as AI and drones pose new risks

New military technologies are emerging at a frightening rate. The war in Ukraine has seen the extensive use of drone technology with new destructive capabilities. Israel has used AI throughout its recent assault on Gaza to identify targets for aerial bombardment, with intelligence sources alleging that this enabled the routine killing of civilians. Meanwhile there is growing concern about the development of autonomous weapons, powered by AI, which could introduce new hazards such as unpredictable military escalation and the automatic targeting of population groups.

When announcing its recent increase in military spending, the UK government has made clear that it intends to join this technological arms race, driving “developing technologies such as AI, quantum and space capabilities.”

Alongside climate breakdown and nuclear war, this drive towards more and more lethal technologies represents another major security risk, which can only be managed through international regulation and cooperation. Rather than play a constructive role in this process, the UK is worsening this threat by pouring more money into these technologies, stoking competition between major powers.

10. Real peace and security has to be based on international cooperation and diplomacy

The UK does not live in fear of attack from its nearest neighbours, or indeed from most countries in the world, not because it deters them with armed force, but because it has developed relationships of peaceful diplomacy and cooperation. These relationships have not always existed and they must never be taken for granted.

Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine has severely jeopardized the basis of international dialogue, but peaceful negotiation and cooperation must be the goal. Although this is easier said than done, cooperation remains the only way to achieve real and lasting security, and the risks of failing to do so are too great. Increasing military spending and confrontation will only prolong the war at the cost of more and more Ukrainian and Russian lives, and delay negotiations, which offer the only possible resolution to the conflict - all the while pushing the second hand of the doomsday clock closer and closer to midnight. 

Rather than ramping up military spending as a show of force, the UK should show real leadership by doing all it can to end the bloodshed in Ukraine through peaceful means, and to push for a negotiated end to the war, with a view to freezing and reversing the mounting arms race between Russia and Europe.

Peace means so much more than the absence of war. It means active cooperation and peacebuilding, to avert the risks and impacts of war and violence. This will often involve difficult decisions and compromise in ongoing struggles for justice. Peace also means action to address the existential threats facing humanity such as nuclear war and climate change. It means real human security, which involves dignity and tolerance, as well as access to basic needs such as clean water, food, housing, education and health care.

Each one of us can play a role in the struggle for real peace and security. If you would like to get involved in our campaigns against military spending and everyday militarism, and for peace education and nonviolence, please join us! You can learn more about our work here.

 

Image - Ministry of Defence - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Victorious_MOD_45155638.jpg