BRITAIN needs a new understanding of security — one that invests in communities, tackles climate breakdown, and dismantles racism, instead of pouring billions into nuclear weapons and military expansion. That was the message at a fringe meeting organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) during the Labour Party conference on Sunday September 28. 

The event brought together CND general secretary Sophie Bolt, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Friends of the Earth chief executive Asad Rehman. Each highlighted how militarism deepens global crises, and the Labour government must be challenged if it continues to put war preparation ahead of public need.

Bolt opened the discussion by warning that Labour’s recent policies have set Britain on a dangerous course. She said it was an “absolutely critical time” to resist nuclear weapons, saying: “There are now nuclear flashpoints across the world, obviously over Ukraine, but also in the Middle East, but beyond that, and very, very sadly, it is this Labour government that is playing a central role in this worsening situation.”

Bolt noted that Labour, even before winning the general election, had made military expansion a priority. Within days of entering office, Keir Starmer announced a Strategic Defence Review, published in June, which she described as “all about preparing Britain for war [and] fighting readiness.”

She linked this approach directly to pressure from Washington. “Since then, under pressure from the US President Donald Trump and from the Nato leadership, the British government has relentlessly pursued a programme of huge military spending hikes,” she said.

Britain is already meeting Nato’s target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but Labour has committed to pushing this further to 5 per cent by 2035. “And we’ve now had Starmer’s decision to purchase the US F-35 — a nuclear-capable jet,” Bolt said. “This means for the first time since the cold war, Britain will be able to launch nuclear weapons from both the sea and now the sky.”

Bolt condemned what she called “total nuclear hypocrisy” — where Britain sanctions Iran for supposed nuclear non-compliance while expanding its own arsenal.

She stressed that militarism cannot be separated from other crises: “This major nuclear and military expansion is only worsening all the crises that we face — poverty and deprivation, crumbling public services, climate breakdown and the rise of racism and the far right. It’s driving us towards war, accelerating us towards war, rather than preventing it.

“We need an open democratic debate on how we tackle the real security issues that we all face, and that needs to be in parliament, in the trade unions, in universities and in all our communities,” she said.

Ribeiro-Addy challenged the narrative of Britain’s defence spending as inevitable or necessary, calling it a political choice that benefits arms companies over working people.

“Washington has long pressured Britain to increase military spending,” she said. “It’s clumsy, an obvious attempt to get European states to spend more money with US weapons firms.”

She highlighted how projects like Trident renewal and the building of new nuclear submarines are “ring-fenced” in the budget, meaning that overspending will inevitably squeeze other departments.

“Over the past five years, British expenditure on its nuclear weapons programme has increased by 43 per cent,” she said.

“The cost of replacing our nuclear arsenal is set to rise by more than £99 billion over the coming decade. This funding is ring-fenced, and the government has put itself in fiscal handcuffs. When these projects go over budget, and we all know that they do, other departments are likely to suffer.”

Ribeiro-Addy drew a sharp contrast between the ease with which billions are allocated for weapons and the reluctance to fund welfare. “Funding can be found to stockpile nuclear weapons, but never to put money back into the pockets of the poorest households,” she said.

She pointed out the irony that while Labour resists calls to scrap the two-child benefit cap, it is outflanked by the right-wing Reform UK, which has taken that position.

The MP argued that militarism is not just about economics, but about power structures rooted in racism.

“We have to be clear: the existence of nuclear weapons rests on the idea that some lives matter more than others,” she said. “A handful of wealthy, majority-white nations keep vast stockpiles while telling the rest of the world that they are not responsible or civilised enough to possess them. And this isn’t about peace. It’s obviously about control.”

She pointed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of racialised violence, saying: “That was not just about ending a war.

“It was a demonstration of power over non-white people, a warning to the rest of the world about who gets to decide life and death on a mass scale.”

That racial hierarchy, she argued, still defines the nuclear order today. “Decades later, we are still seeing the same double standards — nuclear powers dictating terms to countries in the global South, criminalising their ambitions while quietly upgrading their own arsenals,” she said.

“Racism runs rampant through the system, from testing nuclear weapons on colonised lands, poisoning indigenous communities in the Pacific and Africa, to denying global South nations the resources for other forms of energy.

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, they will not only be a threat to our survival, but also they’re going to continue to uphold this deeply racist hierarchy of power. That’s why the fight against them is inseparable from our fight against racism, our fight against colonialism and for genuine global justice.” 

She urged campaigners to articulate a positive vision, saying: “Too often, we are defined by what we are against rather than what we are for.

“Yes, we absolutely want a world without nuclear weapons, but we need to articulate a left-wing vision of national security which is based on stable public services, energy independence and industrial strategy.”

Rehman connected the struggle against war directly to the fight for climate justice.

“The planetary system is fraying. Wars are destroying land, but also the atmosphere,” he said. “Militarism, far from providing security, is driving insecurity, and Britain, of course, is a key player in that crisis.”

He dismissed traditional notions of defence as outdated, saying: “It’s hilarious and shocking when politicians talk about security, because for them, security always means jets, guns and boats. But we all know that real security is ecological, and it’s social, and it’s justice. It’s about clean water, stable climate, and fertile soils. It’s about resilient communities that have the means to live with dignity — militarism is the exact opposite to that.”

Rehman stressed that the military is the “only sector of our economy and societies that is not held accountable for how much pollution it generates each and every year.”

Wars, he said, destroy not only lives but the environment itself. “We all know we’re witnessing genocide in Gaza, war crimes in Ukraine, and a new nuclear arms race,” he said. Israel’s assault on Gaza, he added, has already produced “an estimated 31 million tonnes of CO2 — more than most countries emit in a year.”

Rehman said that communities in the global South are pointing to a different way forward. “Their security isn’t bombs, walls and guns. Their security is demilitarisation, resource sovereignty, peace building,” he said.

“Palestine is a stark example, but whether it’s Colombia or Palestine, the global South is quite clearly showing the movements of the North: you cannot have climate justice without human rights.”

Rehman said that climate justice and disarmament are inseparable. “When we think of the conservative estimate, $2.7 trillion is spent each year on the military budget around the world,” he said.

“Imagine just even 10 per cent of that being invested back into our communities and societies — what that would mean in terms of cutting emissions and building the resilience and social infrastructure that we need.

“That climate demand has to be about disarmament, because you cannot have trade policies and foreign policies that do not include demilitarisation and peace building and resource justice as part of the fight.”

Rehman also pointed to Britain’s global role. “Our government is on the international stage stopping and opposing a wealth tax, stopping and opposing corporation tax that would allow countries in the global South that much-needed finance to transition their economies,” he said.

“It should not be through bombs, but actually through diplomacy, conflict prevention and ecological restoration. And of course, it has to pay its reparations for the fact that its disproportionate emissions, its colonial legacy and its arms exports.”

In closing, Rehman rejected the idea that security can ever be built on militarism: “The future is not going to be one in bunkers. The enemies we face are not others — they are an overheated planet and spiralling arms races. That script is discredited. It’s a lie, and it should be binned. Well, here at this conference, we all have to collectively speak with one voice and say no to militarism, no to genocide and yes to peace, yes to climate justice and solidarity.”

Throughout the fringe, a recurring theme was the need to connect peace and climate struggles with labour and social justice movements.

Ribeiro-Addy praised trade unions for backing the “Wages not Weapons” motion at the TUC this year, describing worker-led change as “key to demilitarisation.” Rehman also called for “a bold reordering of priorities” that brings together unions, youth, faith, peace and climate organisations into a “common agenda.”

The speakers’ messages reflected a broader frustration among campaigners that Labour’s leadership has embraced Nato priorities and massive military budgets while shelving policies like abolishing the two-child benefit cap or investing in council housing.

For Bolt, the challenge is to turn that frustration into public debate. For Ribeiro-Addy, it is to connect anti-war struggles with anti-racism. For Rehman, it is to insist that climate justice cannot be separated from disarmament. Together, their case at Labour conference is clear: the weapons that claim to guarantee our safety are the very tools that perpetuate insecurity.

Real security, they argued, lies not in nuclear arsenals but in communities, climate action, and justice.