The government has no national plan for the defence of the UK or the mobilisation of its people and industry in a war despite renewed threats of conflict, Sky News has learnt.
Dr Keith Dear, a former RAF intelligence officer and former adviser on national security, science and technology to the prime minister, argues below that it is reasonable for the public to assume there are detailed plans for any anticipated conflicts.
Image: Keith Dear
The US secretary of state warns we are “moving from a post-war to a pre-war world” and that “in five years’ time we could be looking at multiple theatres involving Russia, China, Iran and North Korea”.
The public might reasonably expect, therefore, that there are detailed plans, regularly refreshed, which would ensure we are prepared in advance for these anticipated conflicts, expected to be dramatically larger and more deadly than anything fought in recent memory – wars we might lose.
Surely, government departments, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the intelligence agencies and our armed forces have a plan to know what to do when it starts, are structured according to the requirements, and can respond quickly?
More on Defence
Related Topics:
Such plans are essential not only to avoid scrambling disorder and early defeats but also so that our adversaries, awed by our preparedness, are deterred from fighting in the first place.
The problem is, there is no plan.
Advertisement
We used to have one. Maintained by the government until the early 2000s, the central Government War Book sensibly detailed plans for the continuity of government in the event of war and a possible nuclear exchange.
It was needed so those of us who survived didn’t awake to anarchy.
The book also contained essential plans for mobilising the country in response to the imminent threat and outbreak of conventional non-nuclear war.
Image: Pic: National Archives
To this central Government War Book, a whole series of subordinate war books were developed and maintained by all departments – most obviously the Ministry of Defence, Home Office and Foreign Office – but even the BBC had a War Book plan to sustain broadcast communications to an anxious public.
These were not abstract and vague, but planned against the specific, anticipatable wars we might face.
Today, there are no such plans.
The Government War Book was developed by the first modern pre-war generation – those living in the years preceding 1918 – under the leadership of ex-Royal Marine and first cabinet secretary Maurice Hankey.
The War Book was interdepartmental, and detailed what needed to be done, where, and by whom, both in preparing for war should we reach the “precautionary stage”, and upon its outbreak the “war stage”.
A copy of the Ministry of Defence’s 1963 War Book in the National Archives shows it to be detailed, and comprehensive, referencing multiple tightly coordinated, supporting plans across the government and beyond.
In 1935, the last pre-war generation also worried war might come in five years. Consequently, our government then began to refresh the War Book in earnest.
Concurrently in 1935, the UK began building its military, and military-industrial preparedness.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
For example, Lord Weir, the Scottish industrialist, was appointed to oversee a plan he had earlier proposed: building “shadow factories” adjacent to automotive factories, ready to manufacture aircraft at scale when war broke out.
The government thought deeper too, considering the need to be able to manufacture the machine tools on which factories would themselves depend, and those that could automate elements of manufacturing to speed up the rearmament effort and free up people for other tasks in the war effort, investing public funds accordingly.
The preparation was such that, after some dithering, on 23 August 1939, the government began to implement the pre-war “precautionary stage” of the plan.
Within a week, by 31 August, almost all the precautionary stage measures had been actioned. The War stage was actioned with the declaration of war a day later.
Today’s pre-war generation has had two warnings: first from COVID, and then from Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine.
The government’s response to the pandemic, where there was no plan worthy of the name, and mostly chaos for months, allows us to imagine what it would be like if war were to come without a plan to mobilise for it and to fight it.
Similarly, our inability to supply anything like enough munitions or weapons to Ukraine, shows also how hollowed out we have become by buying and building armed forces to no coherent war-fighting plan. Weapons without ammunition are useless. And we can’t know if we have the right weapons, either.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
If the secretary of state’s warnings of war sound alarmist, consider this: the director of the CIA suggests China seeks to be ready for an invasion of Taiwan from 2027.
The chair of the US House Select Committee says that 2027 may be the end, not the beginning of the window for when an attack on Taiwan is most likely.
A leaked internal memo suggests at least one four-star general in the US Air Force expects a war with China in 2025. In Europe, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas believes that Russia may threaten NATO‘s borders within three years.
Sweden’s civil defence minister and commander-in-chief warns Sweden must prepare for war now.
Even in what was until recently a deeply pacifist Japan, over 86% of citizens polled believe their country may have to go to war, while their government has doubled its defence budget.
The government would say there is a plan. Whitehall lists resilience frameworks, alert systems, risk registers and regular meetings.
What these things have in common is none of them amount to anything Hankey, or any reasonable observer, would regard as a plan – explaining what we think could happen, and specifically who needs to do what, when, to respond effectively.
The long disaggregated, disconnected nature of the various government artefacts speak of their own weakness, with commitments to what we will have done by 2030 and beyond. Not a plan for how to respond if X or Y happened tomorrow.
If we are five years from war, it is worth contemplating Lord Weir’s question, posed to the last pre-war generation in 1935: “Are we doing all we ought to anticipate by proper planning and arrangement the grave delays which were the feature of our almost fatal unpreparedness in 1914?”
Today, there is no plan. It is hard to imagine how we could be doing less.
Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips has told Sky News that councils that believe they don’t have a problem with grooming gangs are “idiots” – as she denied Elon Musk influenced the decision to have a national inquiry on the subject.
The minister said: “I don’t follow Elon Musk’s advice on anything although maybe I too would like to go to Mars.
“Before anyone even knew Elon Musk’s name, I was working with the victims of these crimes.”
Mr Musk, then a close aide of US President Donald Trump, sparked a significant political row with his comments – with the Conservative Party and Reform UK calling for a new public inquiry into grooming gangs.
At the time, Ms Phillips denied a request for a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham on the basis that it should be done at a local level.
But the government announced a national inquiry after Baroness Casey’s rapid audit on grooming gangs, which was published in June.
Asked if she thought there was, in the words of Baroness Casey, “over representation” among suspects of Asian and Pakistani men, Ms Phillips replied: “My own experience of working with many young girls in my area – yes there is a problem. There are different parts of the country where the problem will look different, organised crime has different flavours across the board.
“But I have to look at the evidence… and the government reacts to the evidence.”
Ms Phillips also said the home secretary has written to all police chiefs telling them that data collection on ethnicity “has to change”, to ensure that it is always recorded, promising “we will legislate to change the way this [collection] is done if necessary”.
Operation Beaconport has since been established, led by the National Crime Agency (NCA), and will be reviewing more than 1,200 closed cases of child sexual exploitation.
Ms Phillips revealed that at least “five, six” councils have asked to be a part of the national review – and denounced councils that believed they don’t have a problem with grooming gangs as “idiots”.
“I don’t want [the inquiry] just to go over places that have already had inquiries and find things the Casey had already identified,” she said.
She confirmed that a shortlist for a chair has been drawn up, and she expects the inquiry to be finished within three years.
Ms Phillips’s comments come after she announced £426,000 of funding to roll out artificial intelligence tools across all 43 police forces in England and Wales to speed up investigations into modern slavery, child sex abuse and county lines gangs.
Some 13 forces have access to the AI apps, which the Home Office says have saved more than £20m and 16,000 hours for investigators.
The apps can translate large amounts of text in foreign languages and analyse data to find relationships between suspects.
Her comments followed the departure of the prince and several others from the organisation in March.
They had asked her to step down, alleging it was in the “best interest of the charity”.
Dr Chandauka told Sky News that Harry had “authorised the release of a damaging piece of news to the outside world” without informing her or Sentebale directors.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex declined to offer any formal response.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:43
Why was Prince Harry accused of ‘bullying’?
‘Strong perception of ill-treatment’
The Charity Commission said it was reporting after a “damaging internal dispute emerged” and has “criticised all parties to the dispute for allowing it to play out publicly”.
That “severely impacted the charity’s reputation and risked undermining public trust in charities more generally”, it said.
But it found no evidence of “widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity”.
Nevertheless, it did acknowledge the “strong perception of ill-treatment felt by a number of parties to the dispute and the impact this may have had on them personally”.
It also found no evidence of “‘over-reach’ by either the chair or the Duke of Sussex as patron”.
‘Confusion exacerbated tensions’
But it was critical of the charity’s “lack of clarity in delegations to the chair which allowed for misunderstandings to occur”.
And it has “identified a lack of clarity around role descriptions and internal policies as the primary cause for weaknesses in the charity’s management”.
That “confusion exacerbated tensions, which culminated in a dispute and multiple resignations of trustees and both founding patrons”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:43
Why was Prince Harry accused of ‘bullying’?
Harry: Report falls troublingly short
A spokesperson for Prince Harry said it was “unsurprising” that the commission had announced “no findings of wrongdoing in relation to Sentebale’s co-founder and former patron, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex”.
They added: “Despite all that, their report falls troublingly short in many regards, primarily the fact that the consequences of the current chair’s actions will not be borne by her, but by the children who rely on Sentebale’s support.”
They said the prince will “now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana”.
Dr Chandauka said: “I appreciate the Charity Commission for its conclusions which confirm the governance concerns I raised privately in February 2025.”
But she added: “The unexpected adverse media campaign that was launched by those who resigned on 24 March 2025 has caused incalculable damage and offers a glimpse of the unacceptable behaviours displayed in private.”
All police forces investigating grooming gangs in England and Wales will be given access to new AI tools to help speed up their investigations.
The artificial intelligence tools are already thought to have saved officers in 13 forces more than £20m and 16,000 hours of investigation time.
The apps can translate large amounts of text in foreign languages from mobile phones seized by police, and analyse a mass of digital data to find patterns and relationships between suspects.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
Grooming gang inquiry: ‘Our chance for justice’
‘We must punish perpetrators’
The rollout is part of a £426,000 boost for the Tackling Organised Exploitation (TOEX) programme, which supports officers to investigate complex cases involving modern slavery, county lines and child sex abuse.
“The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes, and we must punish perpetrators, provide justice for victims and survivors, and protect today’s children from harm,” said safeguarding minister Jess Phillips.
“Baroness Casey flagged the need to upgrade police information systems to improve investigations and safeguard children at risk. Today we are investing in these critical tools.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:36
Key takeaways from the Casey review
Lack of ethnicity data ‘a major failing’
Police forces have also been instructed by the home secretary to collect ethnicity data, as recommended by Baroness Casey.
Her June report found the lack of data showing sex offenders’ ethnicity and nationality in grooming gangs was “a major failing over the last decade or more”.
She found that officials avoided the issue of ethnicity for fear of being called racist, but there were enough convictions of Asian men “to have warranted closer examination”.
The government has launched a national inquiry into the abuse and further details are expected to be announced in the coming weeks.