We’re not ready for war

Our military strategy depends on hope

While Iran shoots missiles in all directions in its desperate defence against American force, there were two missiles that made European leaders look up.

Two intermediate-range ballistic missiles were shot towards Diego Garcia, the US/UK base on the Chagos Islands. Both missed their target - one fell into the ocean, the other shot down.

But crucially, Diego Garcia is nearly 4,500km from Iran. The Iranian regime has previously said its missiles could only travel a maximum of 2,000km. It now seems likely they have missiles that can travel much further.

It is now feasible that an Iranian missile could reach mainland Europe, or even London.

This sounds scary but it’s not especially cause for concern: over that sort of distance, firing a missile has low accuracy and a low success rate. You’d need to pass over a lot of European countries who would all, almost certainly, try to bring it down.

But it is a stark reminder: the world is much smaller than it used to be and a war in the Middle East is a lot closer to home than it was at the start of the millennium. Improving military technologies expand the geographic footprint of an aggressor.

But also, international conflict is causing domestic flashpoints like never before: take the surge of anti-Israel campaigners that have materialised since the Israel/Gaza war and the effect that has had on British politics (the fragile anti-Israel coalition is almost certainly one of the largest causes of the surge in Green Party support). Misinformation campaigns that drive political upheaval are an important part of our enemies’ playbooks.

Article V

Britain does not have an ‘Iron Dome’ that could intercept missiles. We do not have the sort of military or naval strength we had for much of the 20th century.

If Russia invaded Britain in the way they had invaded Ukraine, our stockpiles and military headcount would mean we could fend them off for just six months.

Our defence strategy relies almost entirely on our place in NATO. If Britain were to be attacked or invaded, the theory goes that all 32 other members of NATO would act in Britain’s defence, as if they themselves were invaded - this is Article V of the treaty.

But Article V does not work in the way that most of us would like to imagine.

If Britain were invaded by an adversary power, Article V would not immediately kick in. All 32 member states must unanimously agree that an armed attack has occurred, and that the adversary was indeed the aggressor. We live in an age of fake news and false flags - if Russia, for example, were to attack a NATO member - they could sow doubt by claiming the attack was from an independent terrorist group, and not a state sanctioned attack.

Not to mention, countries like Hungary are members of the bloc. With its pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, how likely in Hungary to agree to invoke Article V when its pal Putin will be on the receiving end of NATO’s force?

Article V also does not place any specific requirements on the member states. It only specifies that a nation must take ‘such action as it deems necessary’. Trump, who is Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force in the alliance, seems to redefine what’s necessary every day. In one moment, it’s necessary to kidnap Venezuelan leader Maduro and launch a full-scale attack on Iran. In another, it’s better to just let Russia and Ukraine get on with it, threatening to pull American support.

Would Trump deem it necessary to send American troops in defence of Britain? Or simply munitions and weapons? Or perhaps, nothing at all?

NATO

The alliance should remain a crucial part of Britain’s defence strategy but it is clear that it must not be the only part. In an increasingly fragmented world, where even distant conflict can quickly make its way to our shores, we must be able to stand up for ourselves - and our allies.

With China eyeing up Taiwan, Russia mulling its next move in Ukraine, Iran going down with guns blazing - the fractured world is fracturing even more. The world will fracture into two: the revisionist powers (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran) and the NATO-led liberal international order. Countries like Turkey, India, Brazil and Indonesia may be forced to choose a side if the faultlines deepen (and we should hope they choose ours).

While Britain is unlikely to ever stand alone in a war, this context shows the irresponsibility of culling our military strength. When Labour entered power, the British military was the smallest it had been since the days of Napoleon.

Our ultimate insurance policy, the Trident nuclear weapon, will not save us - it has failed to launch in its latest two tests. We should assume our adversaries know more about our capabilities than we do.

And we are vulnerable, and making ourselves more vulnerable, to cyberattacks. I’ve written before about undersea and underground cables, and the bizarre decision to give the Chinese embassy prized access to one such cable.

A dangerous world is a sad state of affairs, but crying over it does very little and one-sided pacifism does even less. The best way to secure peace, as it’s often said, is to protect ourselves. Increasing defence spending does not only support national security, it also creates jobs and encourages innovation in the economy.

We can continue to hope that war will never reach Britain - but hope is not a strategy.