Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, in our debate on 9 October 2024 on the very welcome strategic defence review being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, I appealed to the noble Lord—as I had done previously in your Lordships’ House—to see this review of defence as defence in its widest sense. He and his colleagues, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill, have done that, with the co-operation of a wide range of colleagues inside and outside government. With a great deal of energy and commitment, they have produced an excellent review document; I was most pleased to see that it addressed many of the issues to which I referred at that time.

I am very encouraged that His Majesty’s Government have accepted both the vision and the 62 recommendations in the SDR—with substantial upgrades to the Army, Navy and RAF—and a greater degree of integration of the services. Although I welcome this, I am less sure that the continued and deepening commitment to the F35 is the wisest choice. The investment in homeland air and missile defence and the creation of a new cyberEM command is necessary, not just for any future war but to protect us from the global cyber conflict that has already been under way for some years. The announcements about research and development in increasingly technologically sophisticated weapons and defence systems—including the huge increase in the significance of drone warfare, cyberwar, and space as a key domain for defence—are all welcome.

There is also an appreciation of less hi-tech requirements, not only the necessary replacement of ammunition for the weapons we already have but in looking after the people in the services on whom we are so dependent; for example, addressing the shameful deterioration in military accommodation. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, as a doctor, I welcome chapter 7.10 on Defence Medical Services, with its insistence on greater collaboration between the government departments responsible for defence and health and social care.

Chapter 4.3 rightly emphasises that full-time and reserve servicepeople are key to our defence. In Chapter 6, home defence and a whole-of-society approach are rightly emphasised. Everyone in our country needs to come to understand that we all have a part to play.

In a dangerous world and at a time when the international rule of law seems to be dissolving before our eyes, we need to understand that the traditional boundaries of behaviour between countries in times of peace and war are being disavowed—even by some of our own close allies. I agree that we need to maintain and update our nuclear defence capacities. However, I also firmly believe that de-escalation is an essential feature of defence planning. If our only response to acts of aggression is to engage in ever higher levels of aggression, which then provoke a reaction by the other side, as has often been observed, an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind; in a world of nuclear weapons, the consequences are potentially not only catastrophic but existential. We need to think, work and plan for how we use diplomatic and other relations with our enemies, as well as our friends, to be able to de-escalate dangerous situations. That requires the deployment of appropriate resources to defend our country.

Discussing this SDR in July 2025, we would do well to reflect that here in London, in July 1955—70 years ago this very month—the Russell–Einstein Manifesto was issued by Bertrand Russell in the middle of the Cold War. It highlighted the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and called on world leaders to seek peaceful resolutions to international conflict. Albert Einstein, who had written and spoken extensively on the issue, signed the manifesto shortly before his death on 18 April 1955.

Einstein had already realised that science and technology would take mankind along a road to the development of nuclear weapons so powerful and destructive as to be beyond imagination, and perhaps even beyond survival. In his later years, he devoted himself to thinking, speaking, and writing about the dangers for the future of humankind. In an article titled “The Real Problem Is in the Hearts of Men” in the New York Times in 1946, he wrote:

“Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars”.


There may be various aspects to the new thinking that is necessary, but one aspect of our strategic defence is not just strategic deterrence, about which the review has a good deal to say, but strategic de-escalation.

Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. If she waits a couple of weeks, my understanding is that a statement will be made by both the MoD and the Northern Ireland Office about how we might take this forward.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, the 2023 review that was undertaken on recruitment and retention was conducted by one of our most eminent and successful businesspeople, and he identified a number of bureaucratic problems and economic drivers that would be important. The Minister has indicated that the Government are trying to work their way through that.

I want to pick up on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord West. When young people get involved in business life, they are driven, appropriately, by individual economic drivers for their own betterment and success. When young people enlist in the military, we expect them to be prepared to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the wider community. I know the Minister is very much aware of this difference and dilemma, but can he say a little more about how His Majesty’s Government are trying to address this dilemma?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government have increased pay by 35% for new recruits. That increase in pay is one of the ways in which we could encourage direct entry. We should not underestimate the power of the sense of duty among our young people and their desire to serve. As evidence of that, on Armed Forces Day and VE Day, in which the noble Lord and many other noble Lords and noble Baronesses across this Chamber will have been involved, it was remarkable to see the number of young people involved in those events across the regions and nations of the UK. That shows us that putting these careers and opportunities in front of young people is really important. Alongside that, we should never underestimate, however much sometimes we decry our young people, their sense of patriotism and duty.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking our previous chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and our current chair, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and indeed our clerk and her colleagues for the tremendous work that they have done in drawing together the information that emerged in our inquiry and the many thoughts and reactions that we had as members of the Select Committee.

Much has happened since its publication in September 2024, but the thrust of our report remains absolutely relevant and on target. It was, as its title says, A Wake-up Call then; surely the events of the past few weeks have shaken out of their slumber those who did not recognise the urgency of the call at that time and continued to sleepwalk towards disaster. The report sets out with great clarity how Europe as a whole—and our own country, I am afraid—has failed to pay attention to the drift into what I have described as a third global conflict. I have spoken about this in your Lordships’ House before, especially after the Russian invasion of Crimea because, even at that time, the direction in which we were going was clear.

However, as in so many other fields, people tend to live in the world that they wish existed, rather than in the one that they actually inhabit. Europe in general preferred to believe that major international wars in Europe were a thing of the past. After 9/11, many academics and analysts wrote about the new wars, which would consist only of terrorism and intra-state disruption, but insisted that major wars between developed states would not arise. This was an extension of the thought that was around in the later 20th century that technological developments, especially after 1945 and the existence of nuclear weapons, were so damaging and destructive that the truth was that no one would actually contemplate them.

In fact, new technologies rarely replace the old technologies of warfare completely. They simply add more weapons, more tactics and more strategies to the armamentarium. A hundred years ago, most warfare took place on land and sea; then, air became important and, subsequently, space did so as well. But, as if four spaces were not enough in which to have conflict, we developed the cyber world, and we are now in effect engaged in a global conflict in cyberspace.

An old intelligence officer with whom I worked for many years used to talk about the need to be an educated customer of intelligence. What he meant was that we need not only to accumulate ever more data but to analyse it satisfactorily. That means looking at it realistically. When Vladimir Putin wrote and talked a lot about his intention to take territory and restructure the global security architecture, many western analysts said, “Oh, his speeches are just bad history and foolish nonsense”. Even when he amassed troops on the borders of Ukraine, many regarded this as just showmanship and did not prepare themselves for the coming conflict.

It is much the same with President Trump. People often complain that, when politicians get elected, they do not do the things they promised during their election campaigns. The problem with President Trump is the opposite: he does try to implement the things that he has promised. It is necessary to listen carefully to what he says. When he talks of wanting peace, what he is talking about is peace between Russia and the United States; it is not a peace that will satisfy Ukraine or Europe. As far as he is concerned, they are small fry that he can happily disregard because the big players are just the United States, Russia and China; the rest are just what the French call garniture—kinds of vegetables.

This report sets out clearly the urgent need to review our failed deterrence policy, not least because we cannot have the same confidence that our nuclear capacity will always be able to operate with the necessary current US collaboration. We can hope that it will, but we cannot be certain. There are colossal financial and technical implications—and, indeed, implications for our alliances. The NATO we knew is simply not able to be depended upon, but we do need alliances and we need to work closely with others.

It is also true that one downside of having a full-time professional military is that the country as a whole gets to believe that the defence of the country is somebody else’s responsibility: “It’s the Government. It’s the military”. They are absolutely crucial, of course, but, particularly as the amount of resource available has been cut back, it is not possible for the Government and the military on their own to give citizens a guarantee to fulfil the absolute fundamental responsibility of defence and protection. We need a whole-of-society approach and sense of responsibility; as has already been mentioned, our colleagues in Finland and some of the other Scandinavian countries have recognised this for some time. That will need a change in the psychological posture of our people as a whole, as well as in the provision of materiel.

In regard to our weapons systems, bigger is not always better. Some of the things we have seen Ukraine being able to do with small amounts but with creativity need our attention. We need steady nerves but a commitment to face the fearful reality before us and to face the current underpreparedness with necessary funding, personnel and a change in attitude of our community as a whole.

Strategic Defence Review

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, one of the early and welcome announcements by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was that we were to have a new strategic defence review, and we are all gratified that the SDR is being led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, to whom we are indebted for the debate today and for his wonderful introduction to it. He brings a great range of experience, as we all know.

I have previously appealed to the noble Lord in your Lordships’ House to see this review of defence in its widest sense, and I do so again today. There will, necessarily, be a focus on matériel, men and money, and this is right. We need to look at our military resources to see what we have and what we need in a world where the character of war is changing rapidly, as we see in the conduct of the war in Ukraine. I refer noble Lords to the International Relations and Defence Committee’s recently published report Ukraine: A Wake-up Call. It is a very good report. I will not repeat a lot of what it says because I know it has already been sent to the noble Lord, and indeed he played his own part in the earlier drafts of the report, so I know he is familiar with it.

Contrary to a lot of the writing from 10 or 15 years ago about new wars, the old forms of warfare have not disappeared—they are still there. It is rather the case that new ones have sprung into significance in addition to the old ones. Drone warfare, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, just referred, has taken a dramatically increased significance, and our procurement must take this into account. However, as in some areas, bigger and more sophisticated is not always better. Our US allies, for example, have been using $2 million missiles to take out drones sent by the Houthis in Yemen at $2,000 a time. That is just not an economically viable strategy.

Our Ukrainian friends, too, have used ingenious tactics to make up for limited resources, not just in converting off-the-shelf drones for military use but, for example, in packing an old Cessna plane with explosives and flying it into Russia to explode in an oil terminal. They were aided by the low radar profile of this old plane, as the Russians designed their defences to deal with the more sophisticated, long-range, high-tech US missiles that they had been expecting. We need to be creative and imaginative—in a different way, of course—as well as to become more efficient and effective in our procurement.

I want to elaborate a little on the question of defence in its widest sense. One of the downsides of having a fully professional Army with a high reputation is that our population has come to feel that it can be safely left to the professionals to do all our defence for us. There is little appreciation not only of the level of danger, which we speak about in our report, but also that the population at large needs to play its part in national defence. That involves encouraging young people to join up and exploring recruitment, training and retention of part-timers, but it is also crucial that our people realise that the dangers that our country and our wider world face require all of us to be engaged.

The dangers against which we must develop our defences are not only military in nature. They include epidemic diseases and climate catastrophes, and some of them can be used and abused by our enemies. We were reminded of the need for more personnel to be trained and ready and available for service during the recent pandemic and widespread flooding. We needed people who could go out and do things, not just the best brains and the most advanced research technology. We needed people on the ground to manage the situation. That is why I seek some reassurance from the noble Lord and his colleagues that they will take seriously the need for more personnel.

It is not that I do not appreciate the technological requirements. I am particularly concerned that, with hypersonic weapons making their appearance and the terrifying prospect that they could soon carry nuclear warheads, to which human operatives cannot respond sufficiently quickly, there will be pressure to give over decision-making to artificial intelligence, as has already been done in the Middle East, for example, in identifying, tracking, targeting and killing human subjects. I cannot see how we can address this issue without a serious effort to achieve international limitations and regulations, however difficult that is. That means collaboration between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. I know that, despite the current hostilities, there have been some lower-level conversations among scientists, but I ask the noble Lord to consider recommending that our Government engage directly with Russia and China, as well as with our allies. We did it during the Cold War to try to achieve limitations on nuclear weapons. AI and nuclear weapons as a combination make this an urgent initiative, especially for nuclear weapon systems.

Perhaps the most urgent request that I would make at this moment is that the noble Lord includes de-escalation as an essential feature of our approach to defence planning. If our only response to acts of aggression is to engage in ever higher levels of aggression, which then provoke a similar reaction, as we are currently seeing in the Middle East, the consequences can only end up being catastrophic. We need to think, work and plan for how we use diplomatic and other relations with our enemies, as well as our friends, in order to be able to de-escalate dangerous situations. That requires the deployment of appropriate resources to defend our country.

Finally, on resources more generally, our people, pundits, political leaders and perhaps even some on the military side have lived for some years with the illusion that our world was becoming a safer place, or at least a less dangerous environment. This is manifestly not the case. At the same time, we cannot draw on the imperial resources that were available during the last two global conflicts. Surely we need to consider seriously whether we must review the territory that we can realistically defend. The defence of our own people, our own country and our region, western Europe, is our greatest responsibility. Although we can also play some role in the wider world and some of our historical areas of responsibility, it may now be time to trim our ambitions to what we can actually do. Illusions about our capacities will not serve us well in protecting our people in a real war. We must focus on addressing the world, especially the world that is closest to home, as it is, not as we wish it was. I wish the noble Lord and his colleagues well as they do their best to help us with that challenging task.

King’s Speech

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, how to address in five minutes the range of foreign affairs and defence in a fast-changing world, and the context of deepening global conflict? Since 1964—fully 60 years ago—we have had not a War Office, but a Ministry of Defence. I welcome the immediate announcement by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, that we are to have a new strategic defence review, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his appointment to lead that review. Can I appeal to the noble Lord to focus on defence, but defence in its widest?

When we fought the two previous global conflicts, the world was a different place. Britain had responsibility for a global empire and was able to call on the people and resources of that empire to fight those wars. We no longer have such resources, and our main responsibilities are not the conduct of wars in other places, but the defence of our own country and its territories. It is clear that our UK military is currently unprepared for a conflict on any scale, and our Armed Forces would be unable to defend our country beyond a few weeks in the event of a serious threat.

In recent years, our Governments have engaged, at inordinate cost, in too many unwinnable wars of choice. I say unwinnable because it is now clear to any objective student of war that while the nature of war has not changed, the character of armed conflict has changed dramatically. The use of overwhelming force no longer ensures victory and success. Since 1945, the most powerful political, economic, and military state in the world has engaged in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere. The Korean War was a draw and North Korea is now a threat to world order. Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly defeats, and Iraq, Syria and Libya are chaotic, failed states that are now nurseries of violent terrorism and insurgency, not examples of post-war liberal democracy. It seems likely that Russia in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza will also fail to achieve their war aims, but a huge number of people have already died, massive resources have been expended and the world is in a more dangerous place than ever before.

Wars are no longer won by powerful and well-resourced rational actors operating on best socioeconomic and power judgments. They are increasingly won by devoted actors who are prepared to fight, kill and die in the service of values they hold to be ultimate: this is a new scenario. As I have told this House before, on a number of occasions, the third global conflict is already upon us, initially in cyberspace—I say in passing that I welcome the creation of the NATO Integrated Cyber Defence Centre in Belgium—but increasingly not just in cyberspace but on land, sea, air and in space. Enemies attack us too on our own territory. We also have to defend ourselves increasingly against pandemics, floods and other climate catastrophes.

In addition to our academic health researchers and our meteorological experts, the logistical experience of our military was crucial during the pandemic and recent floods, and the strategic defence review must appreciate that we need more men and women who are trained to assist us in all forms of defence, not just more of the technology of war. We need to have enough people with a range of skills for all defence requirements, including, but not exclusively, military requirements. A study—it has already been mentioned by another noble Lord—of how countries such as Finland, Switzerland and Sweden engage in “whole of society defence” of their countries would pay dividends.

It is not just our country that is under attack: the whole of the global rules-based system is in peril. We must insist that not only our enemies but, even more importantly, our allies are committed to the force of law, not the law of force. When President Putin disregarded the rule of law and attacked Ukraine, we rightly stood in defence of Ukraine and against that aggression. But it is now clear beyond peradventure that not only has Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza been characterised by crimes against humanity, and by an utterly disproportionate reaction to the ghastly, horrible, unjustifiable Hamas attack on 7 October, but that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal and has been illegal for decades. It is no longer a question of political negotiation of a two-state solution, and I have repeatedly told the House it is past time for that: any negotiation should be about how to implement international law. With a Prime Minister who is a distinguished lawyer, I hope this country will take the lead in the defence of the international rules-based order.