UK peace organisation says more weapons mean fewer jobs

As Keir Starmer prepared to unveil a Defence Investment Plan this week, that will channel billions more pounds into Britain’s armed forces and weapons programmes, peace campaigners, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), issued a challenge to one of the government’s central economic arguments.

They say the familiar claim that higher military spending boosts growth and creates jobs doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Far from being an economic engine, it argues, defence procurement generates fewer jobs than equivalent investment in public services and civilian infrastructure.

With ministers signalling spending cuts across other areas of government to help fund a larger defence budget, CND argues that Britain is being asked to accept a false choice, that military investment is both an economic necessity and a jobs strategy.

According to the campaigners, the evidence points in the opposite direction.

“The poor economic performance of military spending is due, in part, to two factors that limit its domestic benefits,” says CND. “Military spending has become increasingly capital intensive, with expensive, hi-tech weapons programmes employing a shrinking number of workers. Even though the military budget is larger now in real terms than in 1980, jobs in the military industry have plummeted.”

The organisation also points out that Britain’s defence industry relies heavily on overseas procurement, with around 16 percent of Ministry of Defence spending leaving the UK economy altogether through imported military equipment.

CND also disputes the government’s suggestion that increased defence spending will help regenerate former industrial regions. Rachel Reeves has argued that defence investment can help revive parts of Britain that have experienced long-term economic decline. However, the campaign says the geographical distribution of military contracts tells a different story.

More than half of UK defence spending with domestic industry, it notes, goes to companies based in London and the South of England, raising questions about how far the promised economic benefits will reach communities elsewhere in the country.

For CND, this reflects what it describes as the myth of the “defence dividend,” the idea that increased military spending delivers broad-based economic prosperity.

“In the UK, this is compounded by the billions spent on weapons imports each year, about sixteen percent of the Ministry of Defence’s spending is overseas.”

“This is aimed at avoiding a public conversation on the opportunity costs of not investing in other sectors and on the other problems associated with militarism (like global power projection, corruption, waste and inequality).”

Drawing on research from the Ministry of Defence, the Office for National Statistics and Transport for London’s procurement assessments, CND compares the number of jobs created by every £1 million of public investment across different sectors.

Its analysis suggests libraries, museums and cultural activities create the most jobs, at 25.5 per £1 million invested. Care and social work follow with 19.8 jobs, education with 14.9, healthcare with 13.3 and rail with 12.2. Military procurement, by contrast, generates 9.4 jobs per £1 million.

The implication, CND argues, is if public money is diverted from sectors that create more employment into military procurement, the overall effect is fewer jobs, not more.