Scotland is particularly vulnerable in the event of a major conflict with Russia, according to experts who warn that the UK's defences are in a shocking state. The warning comes as part of a broader debate over national security and defence spending priorities.
The prospect of attacks on undersea cables, energy infrastructure, communications networks and other critical national infrastructure is a serious matter, and a country cannot defend itself if its armed forces lack the equipment, ammunition, personnel and technology needed to deter aggression.
Military capabilities under scrutiny
Last week's The Wargame, a Sky TV reality show, pitted Michael Gove as a fictional prime minister and Nicola Sturgeon as his deputy against a plausible scenario of Russian aggression, using the UK's existing military capabilities.
In real life, experts say the UK's defences are in a shocking state, with Scotland particularly vulnerable. But there is an equally important point that risks being lost amid increasingly alarming predictions of war: national security is about more than just military hardware.
Economy as a national-security asset
A strong economy is itself a national-security asset, as are functioning hospitals, good schools, reliable transport, secure energy supplies, modern infrastructure and resilient communications. A healthy and educated population supported by a productive economy provides the skills, workforce and tax revenues on which military strength ultimately depends.
Defence spending must therefore be balanced against spending on the NHS and other essential public services, and the country should not allow Donald Trump or shadowy defence industry lobbyists to bully it into tipping the scales too far in one direction. If hospitals are struggling, schools are under pressure, infrastructure is allowed to decay and living standards fall, the country is not becoming safer simply because more money is being spent on weapons.
Warnings over military-industrial complex
Arms manufacturers and companies involved in military production have an understandable commercial interest in governments spending more. Their warnings and expertise should also be examined critically alongside independent assessments of the threats facing Britain.
There is another danger: fear of war can become self-fulfilling if every perceived new threat is answered with another round of rearmament and escalation. Deterrence has an important role, but the purpose of a strong defence should be to prevent war, not to make it inevitable.
Former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in 1961 of the potential influence of the corporate military-industrial complex exerting its power over government to eat up public spending and drag countries into war. His words are more relevant today than at any point in the last 65 years.
