Imagine being told to plan the holiday of a lifetime and not to worry about the cost. With so much going on, it’s exactly what you need. So naturally, you book the best hotels, put together an incredible itinerary, and decide there’s no better way to see the sights than from a Lamborghini.
Then, you’re hit with a harsh reality: the people behind it aren’t actually willing to fund all that.
So what do you do? Shorten the trip? Downgrade the 5-star resort? Swap the Lambo for a Skoda? They’re all options. The problem is you’re not being told exactly what the budget is, so there’s no way of knowing how to adapt in the best way. They just keep telling you to make it cheaper.
Now, in terms of holidays, this really isn’t a life or death problem. Would a luxury trip to the Maldives be amazing? Of course! But a week in a caravan in Wales will still do the job nicely.
What about when it is actually a life or death problem? That’s when things get interesting.
You see, this is pretty much the story behind the UK’s latest Strategic Defence Review.
The ‘good enough’ problem
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) was asked to describe what Britain legitimately needed to protect the nation given the current risk profile. The list was handed over, and the MoD was essentially told “no”. What the nation needed was, apparently, too costly, and a more affordable alternative was requested. And so, instead of listening to what was needed and finding ways to properly fund the nation’s defences, we’ve decided to just water everything down until it fits some vague budget.
That’s rather concerning, isn’t it?
The Strategic Defence Review talks about a stronger army, a hybrid navy, drones, artificial intelligence, cyber capability and autonomous systems. The Defence Investment Plan does include a £298 billion investment over four years, earmarked for drones, autonomy and cyber, so nobody can argue the government has ignored the technologies shaping modern warfare.
But recognising the future is not the same as preparing for it. Britain is trying to modernise conventional forces, maintain the nuclear deterrent, rebuild stockpiles, and invest in emerging technologies simultaneously, all within a constrained budget. A strategy can promise ten different things, but if funding only stretches to six, that doesn’t mean the other four aren’t equally critical.
The fact is that Britain increasingly seems willing to acknowledge emerging threats without responding with any sort of real urgency. We can see the warning signs, identify the capabilities we need, and recognise how warfare is changing, yet we continue behaving as though there’s plenty of time. But here’s a somewhat uncomfortable question: do we really have as much time as we think?
The cost of standing still
If we truly believe these capabilities are essential, why are they still being treated as long-term ambitions rather than urgent priorities? Waiting until circumstances force faster action isn’t a strategy. It’s merely a reaction to something that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Just look at Pearl Harbor.
The books continually talk about the ‘surprise attack’; about how no one could have predicted that, on that quiet December Sunday morning, American history would change forever. That’s not true. A periscope sighting in the early hours, dismissed as bogus. Unidentified aircraft spotted an entire hour before the attack, with no action taken. Radio waves from at least 50 aircraft mistaken for the anticipated arrival of B-17s, despite only around 12 aircraft being expected.
The signs were ignored. The American forces were not ready. They waited. And it didn’t end well.
So the question now is this: are we seriously going to wait for our very own catastrophic Pearl Harbor moment to happen before we actually get things done?
What needs to change?
OK, so we can’t simply magic up money out of nowhere. If we can’t fund what the MoD truly needs, we can’t fund it. At least, not when we’re limiting ourselves to the major contractors we’re used to.
Perhaps the UK needs to change its perception of smaller technology companies.
Some of the most exciting work in AI, robotics, computer vision and autonomous systems is happening within innovative SMEs. Yet many still struggle to access defence opportunities. They’re expected to navigate complex procurement systems built around major contractors, absorb lengthy delays, and continue operating as normal while waiting around for decisions to finally be made.
Smaller businesses don’t have that luxury.
If Britain genuinely wants faster innovation and more affordable solutions, it can’t keep waiting until technologies have already proved themselves elsewhere before being ready to take them seriously. SMEs desperately need direct routes into defence, quicker procurement and earlier investment.
It’s time to act
The truth here is that the UK doesn't have a strategy problem. But we clearly do have an action problem. We know how warfare is changing, we know the capabilities we need, and we know the risks of falling behind. Now, we need to be questioning whether we're prepared to act before circumstances force us to. History has shown us the cost of waiting for a wake-up call. Let's not make the mistake of waiting for our own Pearl Harbor before deciding the investment was worth making.