Weapons or aid: what is the price of war?

“A Government’s first duty is defence” – Kevin Davies

Kevin Davies, former leader of the Conservative councillors on Woking Council, opened the discussion with a stark reminder: the primary duty of any government is to protect its people. He argued that Britain’s defence capability has been pared down too many times, leaving the country vulnerable and overly reliant on goodwill from others.

“Could we defend the Falklands or Gibraltar if they were attacked tomorrow” he asked. According to him, the answer is worrying. The UK’s fleet is too small, its forces overstretched, and its reliance on trust rather than strength dangerous.

Davies identified Russia and China as the UK’s primary strategic rivals, with China being the major risk due to the rapid and vast expansion of its military power.

Even so, he acknowledged the importance of international aid. Climate change related famines and natural disasters are already fuelling conflict across the world. “We have a moral duty” he said, especially as the UK began the industrial age that contributed to global warming.

So must we choose between weapons and aid? Davies did not think so: “As a major nation, we should be able to do both.”

“Every gun… is a theft” – Paul Hoekstra

Representing the Green Party, Paul Hoekstra took a different angle. Firmly against nuclear weapons, he called for a gradual global reduction in them, noting the unreliability of alliances such as NATO in a world where American leadership can shift dramatically with each election cycle.

He echoed President Eisenhower’s famous warning:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Hoekstra highlighted the human cost of conflict over 150,000 deaths in Afghanistan, and almost one million in Ukraine. The aftermath of war, he argued, is often chaos: “Look at Iraq. The power vacuum gave rise to ISIS.”

Cutting aid, in his view, is short sighted. It reduces Britain’s influence, harms trade, and weakens the country’s soft power. Furthermore, the growing weight of the defence industry risks fuelling a cycle of increasing militarisation.

Still, Hoekstra surprised some attendees. He too supported a policy of both weapons and aid but with a strong emphasis on increasing international aid to prevent conflict before it begins.

The nuclear question

The discussion became particularly animated when nuclear weapons were raised. Davies admitted that while “we should not need nuclear weapons”, the reality of global politics meant Britain did. Hoekstra countered with concerns about accidental or impulsive misuse, noting Donald Trump’s infamous question of whether a hurricane could be nuked.

He advocated for international cooperation: every nuclear armed nation reducing its stockpile by 10 per cent, then repeating the process. A point from the floor added another complication: British nuclear weapons are, in practice, controlled by the United States.

Challenges from the floor

Audience members raised a range of questions:

• Should the United Nations veto be abolished

• If Britain supports decolonisation, why did it fight the Falklands War

• Is NATO genuinely a defensive alliance

• Did the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, some argued accelerated by American involvement, help trigger the later Russian invasion

Davies responded by questioning who sought NATO expansion. “Did NATO hunt for new members or did Eastern European countries seek protection from Russia”

On China, he posed another challenge: “Is Taiwan part of China or an independent country” His scepticism remained. He said he would trust China more if its citizens could freely change their government.

Does aid help or harm

A participant raised Burkina Faso as an example where aid has deepened poverty rather than reduced it. Hoekstra agreed that aid can be harmful if poorly delivered or used to reinforce corrupt regimes. But when communities are involved in shaping how aid is used, he said, it can be genuinely transformative.

Lessons from history and the future ahead

“Why can we not learn from the Second World War” someone asked. “We need to stand together without aggression.”

Yet, as Hoekstra acknowledged, “It is frightening to stand up to others.”

China’s growing influence through soft power especially across Africa was contrasted with America’s extensive network of military bases. One attendee compared China’s claim over Taiwan to the United Kingdom’s relationship with Scotland.

There was even a lighter moment when the story of a pigeon allegedly arrested as a spy in India was mentioned.

Finally, the discussion returned to the core dilemma. If nuclear weapons decrease, will conventional weapons simply take their place Hoekstra’s view was practical: “Nuclear weapons are extremely expensive.”

So… weapons or aid

If the debate proved anything, it is that the answer is not simple. Both speakers agreed on one thing: Britain cannot ignore the realities of global threats, nor can it turn away from global responsibilities.

Perhaps the real question is not weapons or aid, but how to strike the right balance ensuring safety at home while contributing to stability abroad.

One truth remains clear: the price of war is always higher than we imagine.