Symon Hill argues in Premier Christianity that Kier Starmer is wrong to spend more on defence. His argument is two-fold. First, he argues that a strong military defence does not work as a deterrent and secondly that it is wrong to do this because it means that we are putting our trust in military forces instead of in God. I don’t believe that either argument stands up and in fact his article provides an example of how faulty logic ends up with muddled ethics. Let’s take the two arguments in turn.
Do military deterrents work?
I grew up during the Cold War. For 50 or so years, NATA and the USSR faced off across the Iron Curtain in Easter Europe. There were proxy wars and minor conflicts but throughout that time, the stand-off never turned into a hot war between the worlds largest military powers. Why? Well, first of all NATO provided a significant conventional presence with troops, tanks and aircraft based in West Germany. If Soviet forces had invaded, they would have suffered costly losses. Whilst Russia had an advantage in terms of numbers, the West had tactical, or battlefield nuclear weapons that acted as a deterrent against conventional invasion. Perhaps strategic nuclear weapons should not have been invented but they were and the West made it clear that they would use these as a last resort, the uncertainty about how things might escalate and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction added to the deterrent against conventional war whilst also providing a deterrent against those strategic weapons being used in a pre-emptive strike.
Hill argues that NATO’s military might has not acted as a deterrent against Russia invading Ukraine. However, it is worth remembering three things here. First, that Ukraine is not part of NATO and so not covered by the treaty’s protections. Secondly, that over time, the West had run down its defence spending and the size of their conventional armed forces. Thirdly that sadly Putin had come to believe that the UK, US and France were weak when it came to upholdinf treaty commitments to defend others. After all he had been allowed to invade Crimea and parts of Ukraine in 2014 without serious response.
A military deterrent means two things. First, it has constrained Russian threats to non-Nato opponents. Whilst there is sabre rattling, Putin knows that direct confrontation with NATO powers is unwise. Secondly, it means that Ukraine has benefited from indirect military support which has enabled a country that has been invaded to defend herself.
Symon also argues that COVID shows that a strong military defence does not protect a country. However, no one is suggesting that military attack is the only danger that we face. Indeed, I find this argument rather bewildering. We would not use the impact of COVID to suggest that we shouldn’t spend on healthcare, nor that we shouldn’t have taken the measures we did to limit the pandemic, would we?
Are we under an obligation to challenge military spending? Is failure to do so to put our trust in armed forces?
Psalm 90:7 says:
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.”
Does this mean that we as Christians should oppose military expansion? Well, remember that this is a Psalm of David and it is worth observing two things. First, that the Psalm was written in the specific context of military threat to Israel. David expresses trust in God and throughout Israel’s history, in the face of overwhelming military threat, God’s people trusted Yahweh to deliver them, against the odds. However, second, this did not prevent them from fighting and winning military battles.
A third thing to consider is that the Psalm describes God’s people’s response to threat. For David and Israel, this was about physical threat to a physical nation. However, our concern as Christians is not with physical nations like the UK and US. Rather, we apply the Psalm through Christ to the Church. What does it mean for the church to trust in other things than God for her protection?
I appreciate that some people, Christians and non-Christians alike have come to a pacifist ethical position. I respect that viewpoint but it is not a specifically Christian perspective, nor does it have particular Scriptural weight.
The problems and risks with Symon’s argument
There are a few problems with Symon’s argument. First of all, it undermines those who seek to defend themselves. Whilst the likelihood of the UK being directly threatened by a military superpower looks far off still, this is the reality for Ukraine today. Does Symon think that Ukraine was wrong to resist Putin? Were the men and women who enlisted, including many Christians wrong to do so. I note too that he sticks his size ten boots into the Israel/Gaza conflict. I am surprised by his suggestion that Christians have been somehow passive in response to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Frankly, it seems that at time UK Christians at least have been quick to forget or minimise the atrocities of October 7th 2023 and to condemn Israel, often with little awareness fo the lengths to which the IDF are expected to go to minimise civilian casualties. This does not mean that Israel are above criticism and treating Israel like other democratic nations means that we should speak up against wrongs done. However, again we are left with the question as to whether Israel has a legitimate right to defend herself from attack.
Secondly, as alluded to above, Hill fails to consider the impact of his words on Christians who have often had to make challenging, soul searching decisions before getting involved in the military whether serving in the armed forces as many of my own family have done or by working in the defence industry as I have. I can tell him that those who are involved in these ways are normally far from gung-ho, are certainly not hungry for war and recognise the limitations of military deterrent, as much, if not more than those who are not involved. I understand that he is training to be a Baptist minister. I would encourage him not to sound off with judgements that it is easy to make from the comfort of your armchair without considering the real challenges and dilemmas that his congregation will face.
Thirdly, because his argument depends on shallow and skewed exegesis of Scripture, as observed above, it risks blunting the impact of Scripture on the very things it is meant to challenge and convict us of.
Faithroots 