Larry Speight brings us his monthly column –

It is said that a government’s overriding responsibility is to provide national security or as the UK Home Office says: “The first duty of government is to keep its citizens safe and the country secure.” The reasoning is that without a secure and well-ordered society there will be economic instability and the government will not have the means to deliver social services such as health care, education and sanitation. The truth of this is borne out by the civil war in Sudan and President Putin’s war against Ukraine. In Sudan public services have collapsed and in Ukraine the government struggles to provide its citizens with electricity during their harsh winter due to the targeting of power stations and the national grid by Putin’s war machine.

Because of the tremendous suffering that results from wars and internal violent conflict national security is justifiably a government priority. The default view across the main political parties and most governments is that this can be obtained and sustained through military might. This, the evidence suggests, is mistaken.

A primary reason why interpreting the need for national security in solely militaristic terms is flawed is because of its exclusivity in that it ignores the multiple needs that human wellbeing is based upon which leads to depravations often resulting in civil disorder which can escalate into prolonged armed conflict. There are many examples of this occurring around the world including in Northern Ireland.

One of the many problems with militarism is that it has an unquenchable thirst for money in order for a government to develop and stockpile the means of war. When a war begins the unquenchable thirst includes both human and nonhuman life.

Militarism nullifies the very purpose it is purported to serve which is the welfare of those in whose name wars are prepared for and fought. The case of nuclear warfare underlines the point.

The nuclear weapons of the nine countries that possess them are immensely more powerful than the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in August 1945. It killed an estimated 70,000 people instantly with many thousands dying over the following years. The bomb used on Nagasaki three days later killed an estimated 200,00 people. The UK’s submarine-launched warheads are six times more powerful than these bombs and the U.S. B-41 bomb is 1,500 times more powerful.

The impact of the use of these weapons is beyond horrifying in terms of the number of deaths, life-long injuries and loss of infrastructure, built heritage and cultural archives that would occur. In addition, it is estimated that disruption to the climate would lead to two billion people suffering from famine. A nuclear war would turn our Garden of Eden into a burnt, dusty, poisoned planet making life exceedingly difficult for future generations.

A high cost is born by militarism even if a shot is never fired. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute inform us that in a single year, 2024, $2,718 billion was spend on the military worldwide. In the course of a decade this is $20, 718, 000, 000. And guess what, no matter how much governments spend on the military they will always feel that it is not enough and demand ever higher sums from their citizens further depriving them of social services. By way of contrast most people and businesses don’t invest their money on unrealisable projects.

Another dimension to the idea that national security can only be obtained through the threat of mass violence is that it is wholly disconnected from what is the real threat to human wellbeing and survival, nationally and globally. This is the increasing inability of the biosphere to sustain the life-style enjoyed by people living in rich countries like our own since end of the Second World War.

This reading of the terrain is not only held by environmental organisations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace but also, as will surprise many, by the UK Government. The report ‘Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security assessment’ compiled by the Joint Intelligence Committee, on which the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHO sit, emphatically states that the declining health of the biosphere is a national security issue.

The report was held back from publication and only made public through a freedom of information request lodged by the Green Alliance. Number 3 of its 7 Key judgements reads.

“Critical ecosystems that support major global food production and impact global climate, water and weather cycles are the most important for UK national security. Severe degradation or collapse of these would highly likely result in water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, a global reduction in arable land, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel zoonotic diseases and loss of pharmaceutical resources. The Amazon rainforest, Congo rainforest, boreal forests, the Himalayas and South East Asia’s coral reefs and mangroves are particularly significant for the UK.”

This deduction applies to our own island as we like Britain share a similar climate and import most of our food, animal feed and fertilisers. In fact, the warming of the planet, loss of biodiversity, infectious diseases and multiple types of pollution affect everyone on the planet which makes a mockery of the idea that national security can be achieved through military might.

The best way to achieve national security is not by the main political parties, public commentators, think-tanks and so forth clamouring for an increase in military spending but by unrelentingly petitioning governments to address the root causes for the collapse of the eco-services we take for granted. Governments can work to restore ecosystems within their jurisdiction and through supporting international efforts help less wealthy countries heal their ecosystems. As the UK national security assessment says we are dependent on them. This is also the view of other governments.

Given this one wonders why governments misconstrue what it means to keep their citizens secure and safe.