Defence Minister Luke Pollard has called for a “whole-of-society” approach to national security, drawing inspiration from allied nations such as Finland and Norway, and warning that the UK must better engage the public and private sector in efforts to deter evolving threats—particularly from Russia.
During a Defence Committee hearing on 25 March, MP Michelle Scrogham praised Finland’s cross-government approach to resilience, asking if the UK should emulate it. Pollard agreed, stating: “Broadly, this Government want to see a whole-of-Government approach to our national security in all its facets, and a whole-of-society approach in how we deliver it.”
He explained that national security must be seen not just through a military lens, but as part of economic and societal wellbeing. “You will notice the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and me, in our media interventions, spending more time talking about procurement, industry and jobs than necessarily about which bits of kit or capability we are buying,” he said. “We need to make the case that increased defence investment… underpins economic wellbeing for our entire nation.”
The Minister also made a pointed observation about the importance of everyday cyber hygiene as a national defence measure, saying: “If everyone updated their operating systems on their phones and laptops, this country would be enormously safer.” He emphasised that this was not just an MOD responsibility but a civic one, adding, “There is a security benefit for that individual, their data, their information and their finances. It also speaks to a small contribution that everyone can make to our wider national security picture.”
Asked about the goals of the government’s home defence programme, Pollard pointed to deterrence, resilience and public confidence. “One of the key jobs of the Ministry of Defence and of Government is to provide our people the confidence that we have good people, with the right equipment and the right approach… to keep ourselves safe,” he said.
Pollard noted growing international interest in UK leadership, particularly in the context of Russia’s aggression and Donald Trump’s renewed pressure on European allies to increase defence spending. “Europe needs to step up. We need to step up, and indeed we are with increased defence spending,” he said.
Responding to a question from Lincoln Jopp MP about whether the government should be clearer in communicating the threat posed by Russia, Pollard replied: “We are already doing that… That is why we commissioned the [Strategic Defence Review]. When it reports, it will set out a clear assessment of the threats we are facing as a nation.”
However, he acknowledged the fine line in public messaging: “There will be actors that are seeking to deliberately undermine confidence in the voices of myself as a Minister, the armed forces and our Ministry of Defence, just as much as they will of individual politicians.”
Pollard’s remarks underscore the government’s effort to balance growing public awareness of international threats with the need to mobilise societal resilience without provoking undue alarm.
Yes we need a whole of society approach to defence but we are only going to raise the budget by 8% by shifting foreign aid funding.
Why does anyone even report the drivel these minor politicians spout.
Having a whole of society defence approach is not Labour Party policy, it’s not government policy it’s just a line of nonsense some minor politician is quoting to say something to grab a headline.
Stop making up nonsense and increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. You can do this by tomorrow by putting 1% on VAT and 1% on Income tax and no one would even notice.
JUST STOP D**CKING AROUND AND GET IT DONE
Spending needs to go up way higher than that Jim we are on the verge of WWIII, i don’t think people understand how close we are.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250$/h + daily 1K !!! Start now making every month extra $6000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by…
For details check ——-⫸ WWW.WORKSPROFIT7.COM
To be fair, changing the thinking and culture around defence is crucial if we are to maintain a higher budget. If the wider public buy into defence as being a fundamental pillar of society then the budget won’t be the easy go to for future governments to cut.
The fact we aren’t spending 3% of GDP now is more to do with affordability than will. That in itself is a massive step change in thinking.
All eyes on the SDR, only then will we know how much of an impact the recent budget uplift will help. Fingers crossed!!!!
Affordability is determined by the market that prices for risk, usually punishing governments that borrow for spending.
So it’s essential that Rachel from accounts explains that borrowing for Defence investment will lower risk so is in the best interests of bankers. Clearly the cost of kinetic war is much greater than the investment in deterrence to prevent war.
Taxpayers bailed out the bankers in 2008, now it’s their turn to support defence investment and repay their debt.
I/we think there should a greater sense of urgency with GBAD for the UK. There’s basically nothing protecting everything against a missile threat! Its been said by many here before, utilising shared inventories/systems of Aster/CAMM/CAMM-MR/Starstreak/ LMM, 30 & 40mm, across Land and Sea. What the UK develops and adopts should give increased manufacturing and export opportunities. Other countries seem to be doing this well, the UK can do more.
Mate we need to get Dragonfire on a Satellite and in space YESTERDAY.
“The range of the DragonFire laser in space is not explicitly detailed in available sources, as its exact range is classified by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD). However, we can make some informed speculations based on its characteristics and the physics of laser propagation in space.
DragonFire is a line-of-sight weapon, meaning it can theoretically engage any target it can “see” without obstructions. On Earth, its range is limited by factors such as atmospheric conditions (e.g., scattering, absorption by water vapor, dust, or fog), beam divergence, and the curvature of the planet. In space, these limitations are largely absent due to the vacuum environment, which lacks an atmosphere to scatter or absorb the laser beam. This suggests that, in principle, the range of DragonFire in space could be significantly greater than on Earth, potentially extending to hundreds or thousands of kilometers, depending on its power, beam quality, and targeting precision.
DragonFire is reported to be a 50 kW-class laser, and its precision on Earth is described as being able to hit a £1 coin (23 mm) at 1 kilometer. Tests have demonstrated effectiveness against drones and other targets at ranges up to 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) in Earth’s atmosphere. In space, without atmospheric interference, the beam’s divergence would be the primary limiting factor. Laser beams naturally spread over distance due to diffraction, and the extent of this spread depends on the beam’s wavelength and the optics used. For a high-quality beam like DragonFire’s, which uses advanced beam-combining technology, divergence could be minimized, allowing it to maintain sufficient energy density over much longer distances.
For example, if we assume a wavelength in the near-infrared range (common for high-power fiber lasers, around 1 micrometer) and a beam director optimized for minimal divergence, the laser could theoretically remain focused enough to deliver damaging energy at ranges of tens or even hundreds of kilometers in space. The lack of atmospheric thermal blooming—a phenomenon that distorts laser beams on Earth—would further enhance its effective range. However, the actual range would also depend on the power supply and cooling capacity in a space-based platform, as well as the ability to accurately track and target objects at extreme distances.
Without specific data on DragonFire’s beam divergence or space-adapted design, a precise range can’t be determined. However, based on its demonstrated terrestrial capabilities and the advantages of space, a plausible estimate might place its effective range in the tens to low hundreds of kilometers against small, unarmored targets like drones or satellites, assuming it’s mounted on a spacecraft or space station with adequate power and pointing accuracy. For comparison, space-based laser concepts from historical programs like the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) aimed for ranges of hundreds to thousands of kilometers, but those involved much higher power levels (megawatts) than DragonFire’s 50 kW.
In summary, while the exact range of DragonFire in space remains classified and untested publicly, it could theoretically extend well beyond its Earth-based range of a few kilometers, potentially reaching tens or hundreds of kilometers in the vacuum of space, limited mainly by beam divergence and targeting precision rather than atmospheric effects.”
How will you be powering 50kw lasers in space? Thats alot of solar panels. Also to be with in interception range of a ballistic missile you will probably need several thousand satellites in LEO.
There is a reason SDI was abandoned.
The solar arrays on the ISS generate around 80-120kw by comparison so you would need something around that size to power one dragon fire laser.
That’s what capacitors are for.
“There is a reason SDI was abandoned”
Yes chemical laser were enormous and needed massive amounts of power and the cost were insane. The situation has completely changed.
The rules of physics have not changed. How are you dissipating heat from a multi kilowatt laser in a vacuum. Chemical lasers dissipate their own heat but solid state ones don’t.
To get the required power and heat dissipation the satellites end up being massive they also require massive radars for targeting which need more power and more heat dissipation.
The lasers are only accurate to with in a few tens of miles at most so you need hundreds or thousands of them and they are massively vulnerable to a conventional missile carrying nothing but ball bearings.
“Without specific data on DragonFire’s beam divergence or space-adapted design, a precise range can’t be determined. However, based on its demonstrated terrestrial capabilities and the advantages of space, a plausible estimate might place its effective range in the tens to low hundreds of kilometers”
You’re missing something quite important here JohnLee. You mention unarmoured targets like drones and sattelites, but the only thing it could targets would be sattelites, or any other target physically in space.
If we were thinking of a weapon purely for anti-sattelite or anti-ballistic uses, we are likely much better off investing in advancing traditional interceptor vehicles.
Power mate essentially these things need a huge amount of power.
Words.
Words to help generate a new national mindset amongst politicians and the public that sets Defence as a higher priority and warrranting higher resourcing. Its very necessary.
It’s essential to counter the hybrid war misinformation that sets out to erode political will and popular support for national defence.
If reality and truth are not repeated, Goebels has shown that repeated lies become accepted by those too lazy to think for themselves. That is a weakness of democracy that malign actors seek to exploit.
Won’t happen will it? Just more politician babble.
Word that’s all this is start with government and HMT and get a grip when it comes to defence
Defence is (or should be) the primary duty of government. You cannot have decent education, health or social care if you are being dominated by another country. That includes both economic and military defence. At the moment, DT is destabilising the world and interfering in the internal politics of many countries, including the UK. That means two things need to be done: financial/military independence wherever possible so we can defend against attack from ‘friends’ as well as enemies, and a good network of allies for when that isn’t possible. Defence spending has fallen way, way behind the minimums needed and our supposed ‘special’ ally is starting to be the main threat. As far as defence goes, we need to do three thing: increase investment to enable us to build production capacity (of weapons we control and don’t have to ask permission to use), increase expenditure to enable us to do that, and increase bodies on the ground so we can use the stuff! That means a massive short term and sustained long term increase in expenditure as a necessity, even if it ‘isn’t’ affordable…
But and this is important you cannot have decent defense without good health, so that’s public healrt and everything that supports that, and in the modern world very solid education that focus both on science and engineering but also critical thinking so you have a population that can run everything you need to defend your nation but also be resistant to political warfare ( the critical thinking bit) you cannot have defence without adequate industrial capacity which requires modern infrastructure and finally you cannot have defence without money, which requires a county with a good income generation system..
Standing peacetime armed forces actually have very little to do with who wins an existential war in the end.. ask the British army over the years.. from the Napoleonic wars to WW2 the British peacetime army had always essentially been beaten to a pulp, defeated and rebuilt a number of times before the whole nation finally won those existential wars.
Affordability is determined by the market that prices for risk, usually punishing governments that borrow for spending.
So it’s essential that Rachel from accounts explains that borrowing for Defence investment will lower risk so is in the best interests of bankers. Clearly the cost of kinetic war is much greater than the investment in deterrence to prevent war.
Whole of which society?
We have many.
This multi stuff does not work.
He knows this, hence him in politician mode ie. his mouth is moving.
‘This multi-stuff doesn’t work’; so true. Where’s the Venerable Bede when you need him?
Society’ in my view includes ALL of those ‘many’. Society doesn’t exist in a vacuum; just because something has a different culture or view on life than you doesn’t mean they aren’t part of ‘society’.
More hot air from ministers whilst all around Europe serious urgency is being taken to address national defence readiness.
France are DOUBLING their military by 2030 according to Macron, meanwhile UK is doing what? Twaddle about whole society effort.
Ok so when the inevitable war with Russia and it’s henchmen Iran, North Korea, China breaks out we can send the ministers family and friends off first then in the first wave of conscripts from the country whose nickname seems to be Ethelred the Unready
Some negative comments . I think it is perfectly reasonable for a politician to talk about changing the entire nation’s view on defence – and look beyond the SDR to be published soon and what that means in the short term. The nation as a whole does need to consider Defence to be vital and to support increased defence effort not just within MoD and the Armed Forces but across all areas – the economy, Industry, jobs, encouraging volunteering for the Reserves etc etc.
This is the Grand Strategic level; it is ‘the vision thing’. We also need thinking and action (especially proper resourcing) at the Strategic, Operational and Tactical levels too.
If you generate a fully positive national mindset to Defence then the people will be more likely to accept greater defence expenditure through cutting social programmes and raising taxes. Preparing the ground for that is very important.
Completely agree..the west has forgotten a very important fact in its obsession with the quick war, and that is its nations that win and loss wars not armies.. infact the British army has a great history of being chased all over Europe, defeated and then like a rash being rebuilt and coming back for round two, three and four.. by which point the British national has always dug our enemies into a economic and political holes they could not get out off.
In the absence of Lord Beaverbrook to implement an Industrial Strategy as WW2 its essential that the Strategic Defence Review (what) is developed into an Industrial Strategy (how) with full engagement of DfT and HM Treasury to ensure that investment is made on the basis of consistent demand. HM Treasury needs to remind the bankers that their profits depend on peace and stability. Unpredictability is bad as #47 is demonstrating (US Market crash)
Less words. France, Italiy, Spain etc will increase defence spending at least to 3%.
France for exámple has ordered more naval escorts and a new super carrier , aircraft and tanks , Spain will build 2 aditional Juan Carlos class ships and ordered another 40 súper hornets and 35 typhoons plus another 150 modernized Leopard 2E tanks in addition to the 240 current fleet , Italy is increasing capabilities too.
Britain is the only Major european country wich sold ships and scrap aircraft and tanks but not to order New ones.
Bla bla bla but nothing more.
Spain hasn’t ordered super hornets or any extra Juan Corlsos ships. France’s carrier order is a one for one replacement of CDG… where are you getting this rubbish from?
Micki, we are ordering new kit. Some examples:
RN – T26, T31, completing Astute SSN delivery, new SSBNs, MRSS.
Army – ordered: CR3, Boxers, RCH-155, Ajax, recent delivery of SkySabre.
Has anybody undermined the UK, MOD & armed forces more than decades of cuts gone way too far?
He is quite right that the nation needs to.embrace a much higher degree of preparedness for any future conflict. To do that however. HMG and MOD would need an extensive, multifaceted.plan covering civil resilience, wartime expansion of manufacturing,, cyber defence, ground-based air defence and so on
He is painting it as a winning hearts and minds exercise. That may be a necessary first step, though close on two-thirds of the public approve of the increased defence expenditure. It would be better to bring forward an actual plan, setting out what we need to do and how and where assistance is needed from business and industry, local authorities, public services and individual citizens. He would find that most people would be willing to do their bit, as the British public always is.
Telling us that we need to safeguard our mobiles and PCs is not much of a plan! Making a proper plan would take a few months, so the sooner HMG gets started on it, the better. The previous government should have done that years back, but were interested primarily in ideological things.
As a defence minister, on thing Pollard should be examining and addressing is the need for a far larger voluntary reserve force. The previous lot sold off drill halls, barracks, training areas, vehicle depots on a mega scale in pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy
The forces, led by the army and Treasury, have reduced the reserves to largely being BCRs and individual reinforcements to fill the 3ver-widening gaps in the regulars. Any sense of esprit among former TA units has evaporated, as most won’t be deployed as formed units. The RNVR units , now called RN Reserve?,.don’t have sea-going training tenders.to give them some sea-going experience, the RAUXAF.don’t have any air defence weapons to defend their air bases and so on.
Pollard could usefully.make a plan to remedy the considerable deficiencies in the reserve forces. He needs to read up about the Haldane reforms, which created an extensive, well-equipped TA which.served the UK so well in two world wars. That would be a good contribution from the Minister towards national resilience. Giving some tangential soundbyte to the Defence Committee really doesn’t cut much ice. Action this day Mr Pollard, if you please – the PM
s
Cripes, great post. When I was in 24 Inf Bde in 1985-86, the other two brigades in 2 Inf Div were TA bdes (15 and 49 Bdes) ie most of the Div was TA and included not just TA units but TA formations as well. It was a very good division and had a very big and serious war role.
Whole of society ready for war. Not sure of that, I think that is too far. Agree we should have some resilience but before we get society ready for war should we not get conventional forces up to readiness and help Putin understand consequences.
Important to educate the ignorant complacent population that they, personally, are at risk so do need to pay attention and support multidomain defence. Starting with the many devices that people use is a fair step of relevance to them.
CCP dictatorship is not our friend so their made devices cannot be trusted.
Unfortunately we will never have a “whole of society” defence model as many of our society, which respective Governments have allowed in willy nilly, are quite new, and would not give a flying fig for the defence of our society and country. Maybe they would for Palestine, Syria etc but not for good old Blighty, as we are just a meal ticket take the piss of a country to these people, ably and treacherously supported by many in the left!
So logical to highlight the threat that displaced them from Syria and why they should step up, or consider returning to rebuild their homeland as they want it to be..
In principle Pollard is right. Putin believes that Russia is at war with the UK; he is waging hybrid warfare. Sadly I don’t see Mr Pollard or Kier Starmer as some kind of latter day successor to King Alfred, pulling disparate faiths and communities together into a nation to repel the Viking invaders. What with the NHS
handing out puberty blockers and school children being taught that Joan of Arc was ‘non binary’ I’d assess our chances of nurturing a unified sense of national identity as the square root of zero.
No the NHS is not. That treatment has been indefinitely suspended due to a lack of evidence around efficacy and safety case. There are a very small number of patients who started the treatment who are still on them.. but once they are done essentially that is it for puberty blockers. The likelihood of anyone ever getting ethical approval to develop the evidence base to get that overturned is essentially nonexistent.
Well, that’s good to know. I hope it signifies a recovery of spirit and not just a single battle in an ongoing war for the soul of the nation. I worry that those who wish to destroy our identity still work in the NHS. The C of E is disintegrating: people who don’t agree with what a democratically elected government has done now routinely have recourse to the law – we need a new Bill of Rights. The NHS ( the biggest Welsh chapel in the world) is the repository of national culture and is the place that immigrants join in order to integrate – to assimilate our culture and become English ( or Welsh or Scottish).