The UK Whole of Society Defence and the Reality of Modern War

Why It Matters

A whole‑of‑society approach is essential for national resilience against modern hybrid warfare, directly affecting economic stability and public safety.

Key Takeaways

• UK shifts from whole‑of‑government to whole‑of‑society defence
• Public trust in armed forces highest among institutions
• Civil‑military gap: only 6‑7% have family in service
• Hybrid cyber‑attacks cost billions, test national resilience
• Societal sectors must train for multi‑domain conflict

Pulse Analysis

Britain’s security strategy is at a crossroads, with policymakers urging a shift toward a whole‑of‑society defence model. Unlike the traditional whole‑of‑government framework, this approach embeds every citizen and industry into the nation’s security fabric, demanding a public dialogue that reimagines the role of the modern soldier. Historical remembrance of the World Wars still shapes public perception, yet the lack of lived experience with the military has created a disconnect that could undermine collective readiness for future conflicts.

The urgency of this transformation is underscored by recent hybrid threats. A cyber‑attack on Jaguar Land Rover in 2025 cost roughly £1.9 billion and slowed UK GDP, illustrating how hostile state actions can ripple through the economy. With only 6.5% of the population directly linked to the armed forces, the civil‑military gap hampers societal awareness of such risks. Addressing this gap requires transparent education, community‑level drills, and partnerships with private sector experts to build a resilient digital and physical infrastructure.

Opportunities arise from the armed forces’ strong public trust and ongoing diversification efforts. Women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ+ personnel are reshaping the military’s culture, fostering innovation and problem‑solving capabilities vital for modern warfare. By leveraging this credibility, the government can promote purpose‑driven careers, integrate civilian skill sets, and create accessible training programmes that align with national resilience goals. Coordinated policy, sustained public engagement, and cross‑sector collaboration will be decisive in preparing Britain for the complex, multi‑domain conflicts of the future.

The UK Whole of Society Defence and the Reality of Modern War

2025 · By Ed Arnold, Senior Research Fellow, European Security; Major Laurence Thomson, Chief of the General Staff’s Visiting Fellow, Military Sciences

Reconnecting the Armed Forces and Society

The government acceptance of a shift from a ‘whole‑of‑government’ towards a ‘whole‑of‑society’ approach to national security is profound. Yet, to realise this ambition it must be followed by meaningful and sustained changes in attitudes and understanding of British citizens. Indeed, such are the challenges facing Britain that nothing short of a national conversation is needed to redefine how British society conceptualises its defence, understands individual civic duty and collective responsibility to confront the reality of modern warfare.

Britain’s small but highly capable armed forces enjoy remarkable public respect and confidence as the most trustworthy public institution, rated higher than the security services, the Police and Parliament. However, as the character of modern conflict increasingly transforms through technology and fast‑evolving security threats, there is a need to re‑examine and re‑imagine the military’s relationship with wider society. Until the government enables this, collective public understanding of war risks remaining remote and disconnected from reality despite the horrors of Russian aggression being plain to see in Ukraine.

---

Lessons from History

Cultural and personal family remembrance of the First and Second World Wars continues to shape attitudes to Britain’s Armed Forces and how citizens today think about national defence. Annual national and local services of remembrance reaffirm the universal military connection made in those conflicts across class and geography. However, the Cenotaph ceremony, local war memorial services and wearing of poppies – whilst commendable demonstrations of enduring public respect for military sacrifice – mask the fact that the public’s collective understanding of its military rests on a distant past.

Good understanding of the role and responsibilities of the armed forces has fallen in tandem with first‑hand, practical knowledge of service, with both elements reducing over time as military numbers have decreased. A recent King’s College London Policy Institute paper described this as a ‘civil‑military gap’ that came from ‘a lack of contact and shared experience’ between British society and its armed forces. It noted only 7 % of 17‑24‑year‑olds have a member of their family serving. A Royal British Legion case study found the entire UK Armed Forces community – serving personnel, veterans and their families – only made up 6.5 % of Britain’s population. By comparison, Britain’s transition to a professional force with the end of National Service in 1960 compartmentalised the demands of conflict and meant collective public understanding is today remote and disconnected from reality.

---

Why is it Important?

Britain faces a myriad of threats that are fundamentally different to post‑Cold War expeditionary ‘wars of choice’. The conflict that the SDR is getting the UK ready to fight will be an all‑domain collective defence war with Russia, a war which NATO has been preparing for since 1949. There are a range of factors that some NATO countries have either forgotten or wilfully ignored – the need for mass, the role of artillery, casualty rates – and new realities that they need to integrate: persistent surveillance, drones and autonomy. As militaries are rapidly adapting, so must societies.

Similarly, many NATO societies have little recent or institutional memory of war, which means alliance and national resilience is largely untested. HM Government reports of Grey Zone activity and media coverage of Russian hybrid aggression ‘mounting in Europe’ are now persistent. The recent cyber‑attack against Jaguar Land Rover, which cost an estimated £1.9 billion and contributed to a UK GDP slowdown in the third quarter of 2025, demonstrates how external threats can have severe internal impacts. Despite rising hybrid attacks across Europe which increasingly affect the functioning of societies, it is unclear exactly how the British public might react to a major attack.

“In a recent Parliamentary debate it was argued that ‘the UK is closer to the reality of war than it has been at any time in the last 60 years, and we are woefully unprepared for conflict’.”

National resilience and homeland defence depends upon an informed and prepared British public. Effective defence is not about putting everyone in uniform – it is about being able to cohere the full range of society’s capabilities to respond when a threat emerges. When cyber criminals opportunistically or purposefully provide cover for hostile state attacks, when fundamentalist terrorists exploit chaos to strike at population centres, the entire nation becomes the frontline. General Sir Patrick Sander termed it a ‘Polycrisis’ where Britain needs to be prepared ‘to deal with multiple crises simultaneously’. Yet government has a poor track record of enabling whole‑of‑government responses to crises and this must first be improved as a precursor to developing a whole‑of‑society approach.

In a recent Parliamentary debate it was also argued that ‘grey zone aggression is already threatening our daily lives’ through daily cyber‑attacks, Russian maritime encroachment and disinformation campaigns. With the trajectory of Russian aggression increasing, there is significant potential for war to break out in Europe before the UK is ready. Without understanding, defence will perpetually compete unsuccessfully against health, education and welfare with more immediate voter salience.

Ultimately, societies, industries and economies win wars and Britain needs to be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great‑grandparents endured. A national conversation must confront uncomfortable realities about Britain’s vulnerability and society’s role in national defence. A full‑scale industrial war will likely be long and almost certainly demand second and third‑echelon troop reinforcements drawn from British citizens, testing how well prepared they have been.

Civil society’s contribution to defence and national resilience is much broader than security responses. Transport workers will be needed to maintain critical logistics, healthcare professionals to maintain the NHS and treat mass casualties, and technology must protect critical national infrastructure and telecommunication networks. All of these vectors of attack include physical infrastructure housed across the UK and will need protecting. A whole‑of‑society response draws on every sector and depends upon individual citizens remaining vigilant without succumbing to panic, despair or division.

---

Building on Strong Foundations

The British military consistently ranks amongst the nation’s most trusted institutions and is a strong foundation upon which to build deeper public engagement. The public’s comfort with Britain’s expeditionary role reflects confidence in professional armed forces’ judgment and capability, an asset other nations such as France, Germany and Japan do not enjoy. The armed forces are also actively transforming to better reflect modern Britain and remain a powerful engine of social mobility. Women serve across all roles, bringing diverse perspectives and capabilities that strengthen operational effectiveness, whilst ethnic‑minority representation continues to improve through targeted outreach and inclusive culture initiatives. Full LGBTQ+ inclusion demonstrates the military’s ability to evolve while maintaining operational excellence. These changes are not symbolic – research increasingly shows that cognitive diversity drives innovation, problem‑solving and adaptability, precisely what modern operations demand.

Challenges around recruitment and retention reflect broader societal trends as a taut job market, changing career expectations and competition for technical skills means attracting talent is competitive. However, young people are still seeking meaningful work aligned with values. The armed forces offer exactly this: purpose‑driven careers tackling consequential challenges in service of something more than the individual. The challenge is articulating this proposition effectively and removing barriers to service.

Younger generations associate the UK armed forces with failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – with NATO similarly tarnished by the latter two – rather than the Cold War bulwark against Soviet aggression that previous generations associated with the Alliance. Therefore, the UK needs to do much better at selling the value of the military and NATO to the defence of the country and must confront the legacies of post‑Cold War interventions to prevent anti‑military counter‑narratives which will be fuelled by Russian disinformation.

---

Running Out of Time

Politicians and senior military commanders consistently express confidence that the British people – including younger generations often dismissed as unwilling or unprepared – will rally when threats materialise. However, this faith cannot substitute for preparation. History shows that even modest peacetime organisation and training programmes yield disproportionate dividends during crises, channelling goodwill into effective action. The gap between a population willing to help and one capable of helping effectively is bridged through accessible public training, clear engagement frameworks and understanding of how their skills fit into broader defence and resilience strategies. The question is not whether the British public will rise to the occasion, it is whether they will be properly equipped to do so effectively, ahead of time.