Refusing to spend on resilience is a false economy

“Perhaps it’s the legacy of a stiff upper lip mentality that’s made it harder for us to talk about resilience,” said Britain’s deputy prime minister, Oliver Dowden, as new data shows just 15 per cent of people in the UK have a kit of essential supplies ready in case of an emergency. 

The survey, released to mark the start of the London Defence Conference (LDC), coincides with the launch of a new government campaign offering practical information for households on how to prepare in the event of a natural disaster, cyber attack or a nuclear attack.

Brits must “embrace that spirit of national preparedness that we see elsewhere in the world,” says Dowden, speaking at the LDC. He points to Finland, which holds an annual national preparedness day on 7 February, to remind citizens how to prepare for crises. 

While emergency kit advice addresses small steps individual households can take to prepare for threats, the LDC – with its 2024 theme of deterrence – is addressing preparedness on a much larger scale: how can the UK strengthen defence and security in an increasingly dangerous global environment? 

Money might be tight but not spending on resilience is a false economy, insists Dowden: “This is spending to save”. Whether it’s a military threat or a biological one, such as a pandemic, every penny spent on resilience saves thousands when a crisis hits. 

That said, good preparation is not just about increased spending, it’s about spending wisely. 

“The debates about defence budgets are just the start of much harder debates about what we spend this money on,” says historian and LDC panelist, Professor Niall Ferguson. 

It’s a point reiterated by shadow defence secretary, John Healey. “We need to spend more on defence but how well we spend it counts just as much”, he tells the audience. But, when challenged by an audience member to highlight some specific areas where he would direct defence spending, Healey doesn’t give any concrete examples. He does insist, however, that a Labour government would match Sunak’s pledge to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. 

Another point reiterated, throughout the day, by panellists – ranging from Lt General Andrew Harrison to Labour’s shadow cabinet members – is that deterrence is about deepening alliances. 

“I worry about the state of our armed forces,” concedes Healey, “but, in the end, for Britain, our allies are our strategic strength.” 

He points to NATO, alliances like AUKUS and Britain’s partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. 

Shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, concurs. “When I came into parliament 24 years ago, our economy was bigger than China and India’s combined. That is not the case today.” The implication being: ”The UK is not in a position to do this alone.”  

As for the thorny question of nuclear deterrence, “Ukraine is a war fought in the shadows of nuclear power”, says Professor Marina Henke. “If Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons, this war would look very different.” In other words, the west would be a lot less fearful in its actions to assist Kyiv.

Of course, western powers have their own nuclear arsenal. But does this act as an affective deterrence? 

Deterrence, Ferguson stresses, is not just about having weapons. “It’s also about the capacity of leader to project a readiness to conceivably use them.”

Do the likes of Beijing and Moscow believe in western leaders’ willingness to use them? 

Panelists appear unconvinced. “It’s a very bad thing when you have a red line and then do nothing,” says Prof Margaret Macmillan. Obama made a big mistake, she adds, by redrawing his red line in Syria. His reluctance to punish Bashar al-Assad after the Syrian leader’s use of chemical weapons in the country’s civil war crossed Obama’s “red line” diminished America’s credibility. And the consequences are still being felt today. 

Supply kits at the ready. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life