UK defence spending plans require greater scrutiny, letters say

The debate on UK defence spending is too narrow, focusing only on whether to spend more or far more, according to letters published in The Guardian.

Steve Barwick, chair of the Nuclear Education Trust, points out that European NATO members already spend far more than Russia. The real issue is not money but political resolve: defining red lines and a plan to end Vladimir Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.

Second, discussions rarely acknowledge the growing cost of nuclear weapons programmes, which, according to the Public Accounts Committee, will rise from 18% to 25% of the defence budget. This includes not only the delayed Dreadnought replacement for Trident but also £15bn for a new UK-developed nuclear weapon, Astraea.

Despite parliament's complaints about limited information, the government has proposed a new parliamentary committee to oversee nuclear expenditure. However, it will be appointed by the prime minister, report only to the prime minister, and meet in private. Barwick calls for greater parliamentary scrutiny and a more informed public debate.

Other letter writers disagree. Hector Tsukagoshi from London argues that military spending provides jobs, innovation, and the ability to respond to disasters. Jari Mäkelä from Helsinki criticizes Simon Jenkins for describing Russia's actions as "making a nuisance of itself", recalling recent attacks on Kyiv that killed at least 20, the Salisbury novichok poisoning, and Russian drone surveillance of nuclear sites in Europe.

The letters highlight the need for a wider and deeper public engagement in decisions about defence priorities and the future of nuclear weapons.