Executive Summary

In February 2025, as the government announced the first of several commitments to increase military spending, Keir Starmer declared “we have had a peace dividend for many years, but that has come to an end”. 1

Trumpeted across Westminster, the “peace dividend” is based on the myth that, since the end of the Cold War, Britain has reduced its military spending and focused public investment on other priorities. In reality, no such dividend exists: Britain’s military budget is larger in real terms today than it was in 1980. 2 Despite this, the idea that the British military lacks financial resources is used relentlessly to justify expanding its budget, which is presented as a necessary measure to “keep the country safe”. 3

Yet, as explored in this report, Britain’s military wastes billions of pounds each year on offensive operations across the world, a maximal nuclear programme and a dysfunctional procurement system.

Britain’s military strategy is designed to support global troop deployments, including a network of overseas bases spanning five continents, costing billions of pounds each year to sustain. This is a policy of global force projection — the retained capacity to deploy military force in operations that extend beyond either territorial defence or contributions to regional security. In addition, the Ministry of Defence is committed to an expansive nuclear weapons policy, requiring the permanent patrol of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines — a posture that, as explained below, is projected to cost about £116 billion between now and 2040.

Due to dysfunction in the military procurement system, billions of pounds more have been wasted over the past sixteen years on cancelled contracts — while private contractors continue to profit.

Rather than change its military strategy, the government has committed to doubling the military budget over the next decade. This spending plan is not designed to develop specific defensive capabilities. Instead, as detailed below, it is to ensure that military spending occupies an arbitrary percentage of Britain’s national income. Rather than pursuing this artificial spending target, the government should review its military posture, prioritising defence over the global projection of military force. Taking this approach will allow the government to focus on identifying and developing the capabilities needed to defend the country, reviewing the scope of the nuclear programme and reducing waste within the procurement system. Defining military strategy as a question of defence would give the government greater capacity to invest in the everyday security of the British public.

Key Findings

  • Britain has the most globally oriented military of NATO member states in Europe, according to a new index of military force projection produced for this report. Measured by global military deployments outside of other NATO states and NATO naval missions, Britain is second to France.
  • Britain has spent more than £51 billion on its participation in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as well as related military operations in West Asia and North Africa since 2001. 4
  • In the 2024/25 financial year, Britain spent around £2.8 billion on sustaining its global military deployments (those beyond Europe or those used to project force beyond the continent, such as Britain’s bases on Cyprus).
  • By a separate, conservative estimate, Britain also spent £14.1 billion in maintaining its ability to project military force globally, equivalent to 23 per cent of the military budget that year. Both estimates exclude costs related to Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
  • Since 2010, the Ministry of Defence has wasted an estimated £14 billion on cancelled procurement projects.