Total Defence in the UK: Balancing Perspectives on National Preparedness

961 words, 5 minutes read time.

In a thought-provoking speech on January 24, 2024, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the British Army, ignited a contentious debate in the UK by coining the term “pre-war generation” and proposing the revival of “total defence.” This concept, aimed at preparing the entire society for war, sparked diverse opinions on the feasibility, necessity, and potential implications of such a strategy.

The Controversy Unveiled

Gen Sanders’ call for a “citizen army” and the implementation of total defence garnered criticism from various quarters, with sceptics questioning the likelihood of a major war in Europe and the practicality of conscription or mass mobilization. Accusations of alarmism and undermining the confidence in the UK’s professional armed forces further fuelled the controversy. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, not in alignment with Gen Sanders, unequivocally dismissed the idea of returning to national service, abolished in 1960.

Understanding “Pre-War” and the Changing Security Landscape

The term “pre-war generation” aptly encapsulates the individuals living amid escalating global tensions and conflicts. It serves as a stark reminder of the shifting security environment, emphasizing the need for the UK to adapt and prepare for potential challenges on the horizon.

Total Defence: A Comprehensive Approach

Total defence, a defence policy adopted by several nations globally, integrates military and civilian efforts in times of war or emergency. The modalities of its application, however, vary from state to state, encompassing key elements such as:

1. Compulsory Military Service: This is a system where citizens are required to serve in the armed forces for a certain period of time.
   • Pros: Increases military size and readiness, fostering patriotism and social cohesion.
   • Cons: Costly, potentially unpopular, and could face legal challenges.
   • Some countries that have compulsory military service are Finland, Norway, Switzerland, and Taiwan.
   • Third Way Stance: It’s imperative to note that the Third Way would never support compulsory military conscription outside of wartime.
2. Territorial Defence Forces: These are volunteer-based or reserve-based forces that are trained and equipped to defend their local areas in case of an invasion or attack. They are often composed of former conscripts, veterans, or civilians with special skills or knowledge.
   • Pros: Utilizes volunteer-based or reserve-based forces for local defence.
   • Cons: Dependence on voluntary participation, potential limitations in capability.
   • Some countries that have territorial defence forces are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine.
3. Civil Defence: This is the protection and assistance of the civilian population in the event of emergencies, disasters, or war. It includes measures such as evacuation, shelter, rescue, medical care, fire-fighting, and public information.
   • Pros: Protects and assists civilians during emergencies or war.
   • Cons: Resource-intensive, challenges in implementation.
   • Some countries that have strong civil defence systems are Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland.
4. Economic Defence: This is the protection and maintenance of the economic resources and activities of the country in the face of threats or disruptions. It includes measures such as stockpiling, rationing, diversification, trade, and innovation.
   • Pros: Protects and maintains economic resources.
   • Cons: Potential economic strain, challenges in stockpiling and diversification.
   • Some countries that have economic defence policies are Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
5. Psychological Defence: This is the enhancement and preservation of the morale, will, and cohesion of the people in the face of adversity or propaganda. It includes measures such as education, communication, culture, and values.
   • Pros: Enhances morale, will, and cohesion.
   • Cons: Subject to interpretation and potential manipulation.
   • Some countries that have psychological defence strategies are Finland, Singapore, and Sweden.

If the UK chose to adopt Total Defence the mix of elements it decided on would have to have the widespread support of the population to function. Additionally people would have to see that we were not pursuing a reckless foreign policy that involved us in conflicts outside of defence of UK national interests.

Two Perspectives: Alarmist vs. Prudent

Alarmist and Unrealistic: Critics argue that the warnings of a possible war and the need for mass mobilization are exaggerated. They contend that the UK’s professional armed forces are robust enough to deter and defend against aggression. Additionally, diplomacy and dialogue are seen as more effective tools for preventing conflict. The costliness and potential unpopularity of conscription and total defence are highlighted as further drawbacks.

Necessary and Prudent: Supporters counter that the talk of conscription and total defence is a realistic and responsible response to the changing security environment. They argue that the growing threat of Russia and other potential adversaries necessitates preparation for a worst-case scenario. The creation of a citizen army is believed to enhance the nation’s resilience and readiness. Proponents claim that these policies have proven effective in other countries, fostering patriotism and solidarity.

Total Defence in a Neutral UK: A Third Way Perspective

Total defence takes on added significance in a Britain not aligned with military alliances and pursuing armed neutrality. The potential benefits include:

1. Deterrence Against Aggressors:
   • Scenario: In the absence of alliances, total defence showcases the UK’s determination and capability, potentially discouraging potential aggressors.
2. Enhanced National Resilience:
   • Scenario: Pursuing armed neutrality may require self-reliance. Total defence strengthens civil, economic, and military sectors, increasing resilience.
3. Promotion of Social Cohesion:
   • Scenario: Without military alliances, maintaining national identity might be challenging. By adopting total defence, Britain involves its citizens, promoting patriotism and solidarity.

The Road Ahead

As the debate unfolds, the UK faces crucial decisions on how to best prepare for an uncertain future. Striking a balance between preparedness and pragmatism, weighing the pros and cons of total defence, will be essential in charting a course that ensures national security without compromising fundamental values and principles. The dialogue sparked by Gen Sanders’ speech serves as a reminder of the ongoing necessity for thoughtful consideration of the nation’s defence strategies, with a nuanced approach that aligns with what is acceptable in our value system as a society.