Original subtitles

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Well, that is what you call a cliffhanger.

Four nights, one terrifying war, and a cabinet pushed to breaking point.

Tonight, they're back together for the first time

to answer the big questions our series has left you with.

Could this actually happen?

And if it did, is Britain ready?

This is the War Game Aftermath.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

[APPLAUSE]

Hello, and welcome to the War Game Aftermath.

And good evening, Prime Minister.

Good evening.

Well, what a week it has been.

I'm Cathy Newman, and we're live on Sky One.

For four nights, this lot have kept us on the edge of our seats.

So let's welcome our War Game cabinet.

They are Michael Gove, Nicola Sturgeon, Penny Mordent,

Saida Varsi, Harriet Harman, Jim Murphy, Richard Farons,

King Darrick, Ayesha Hazarika, and Christopher Steele.

Coming up tonight, we're asking all the big questions,

including just how close are we to this happening for real.

Plus-- I'm going to keep this really simple.

On current projections, in a war with Russia, we've got about two weeks fight.

It was the moment that silenced the room.

If we faced an attack tomorrow, could we actually defend ourselves?

In an exclusive interview, the real defense

secretary, Wes Streeting, gives us his response.

And remember that hot mic moment?

We're only in this fucking mess because that

big fucking baby's taking orders from Russia.

From deep fakes to disinformation,

we reveal the secret attacks taking place right here on British soil.

And finally, after tonight's dramatic ending, we reopen Britain's nuclear debate.

We've got it all going on.

This is the War Game Aftermath.

[APPLAUSE]

But first, our cabinet were locked inside Cobra,

facing the kind of decisions no politician ever wants to make.

And it just kept getting worse.

It's no wonder the War Game got people talking.

Our cabinet has caused quite the reaction and prompted some searching questions.

Let's take a look at this.

It's the show that's grabbed headlines up and

down the country and got everybody talking.

New reality series, the War Game on Sky.

Where else would you go for the level of insight?

I knew it was an exercise.

But watching Sky's The War Game still scared me.

Experts say that the show does serve as a warning.

Scary show on TV right now.

Are we ready for a national emergency?

There's Michael Gove, there's Nicholas Virgens.

Yeah, Nicholas Virgens.

It's great.

From capability to vulnerability, it's prompted some big questions.

It is a serious programme about what

might happen if we face an even more serious threat.

Questions and conversations that have been echoed in the real world.

It taps into the vulnerabilities

with cyber security, which is a big talking point in the news.

What could happen when Britain faces the ultimate threat?

You're talking about using weapons of mass destruction.

I thought it was ludicrous.

We've had this going on for years.

It's no worse now than it was 10 years ago.

I don't believe that.

Tonight, in an exclusive reunion, we step inside the briefing room one more time.

Well, that wasn't a relaxing couple of hours

in front of the tent.

Well, it's great to have you all reunited.

What a line up.

And all of you experts in your particular fields, of course.

And for transparency, some of you

do have commercial interests in the defence industry.

That is a matter of public record.

And quite a few of you have experience in real life in Cobra.

So that is also worth mentioning.

Ayesha, we've had such an amazing reaction to this series.

A lot of people saying to me, was it all scripted?

Tell us the reality.

Yeah, I mean, I've had that from a lot of people saying,

it must be scripted because all the politicians

were really fluent and they were very succinct.

And then you have to-- Never happened.

And then a lot of people have been like, well, hang on.

Politicians are really good actors, so surely this is all scripted.

Honestly, it was not scripted.

When we came into it, all we were told

is that there was a scenario where the country would face some kind of attack.

So we had that as the basic premise.

And then when the whole thing started,

all these events unfolded and we had to respond in real time.

And I think because each one of us in the room had inhabited

those roles before, that's why it felt so authentic.

Because we could imagine ourselves being there, because we sort of had been before.

Well, and Nicola, you all got completely immersed in it, didn't you?

Totally.

It was so immersive.

We were on mic and on camera from the moment

we arrived in the morning to well into the evening.

And when we were having breaks, having lunch.

So we never ever stepped away from the scenario.

It was much more realistic and felt more real than I thought it would.

And I think that was really important, because I think that

was necessary to give it the authenticity that I

hope it's had on television.

And the tension.

But it pursued you in your dreams, didn't it?

I went home one night and had a dream about being chased by Russians.

But it was completely unscripted.

None of us knew what was about to happen.

But I think we were all trying to predict it.

So I got it into my head, I think on day two,

that one of us was going to be assassinated.

And started to worry about how my mum was going to feel if it was me.

So we got absolutely into it.

And I think all of us felt it was very, very real.

Scarily real at moments.

Michael, Prime Minister, you were really into it too, weren't you?

Yes, so much so that on one of the days of filming,

I was so preoccupied with thinking about the

scenario that we faced and what the options were,

that I nearly got run over by a manic cyclist

as I was on my way back from Pret with a necessary additional injection of caffeine.

And I think-- They didn't give you caffeine?

Not enough.

I think the part of that was because so much thought had

gone into the scenario from Deborah Haynes, Sky's defense and security editor.

And also, we have in people like Richard Barons

and Kim Darrach and Christopher Steele, people

who've had to think hard about these issues and questions.

So they weren't going to take part in something that was a circus.

And that meant that there was a responsibility on those of us

who were politicians to live up to the faith

that those people had put into the project.

And Syeda, it's really interesting because I've interviewed, I think,

every single one of you on my show numerous times.

And what really struck me was just how well you seemed to be getting on

across the political divide.

I mean, there was camaraderie, wasn't there?

Well, now that you ask, Kathy.

But actually, we genuinely got on as a team.

And I think the sense in the room was that the circumstances

that we faced, the decisions that we were having to make,

were so important and so serious that our political divides,

our ideologies, our history, none of that mattered anymore.

And I think certainly for Michael and I,

who we've had an experience of working in a coalition cabinet

where we had people from very different political backgrounds around the table.

And what was interesting was even around the table,

we didn't divide in what would be considered to be traditional party political lines.

There was definitely one divide.

I think there was definitely a kind of a sisterhood going on.

Yeah, I noticed that little huddle of women, wasn't it?

And certainly when we came off set, you know, that huddle would get very interesting.

So there needs to be a whole programme of outtakes, I think, somewhere.

Now, that very good.

Jim Murphy and I were in Testosterone Corner.

Clearly, yeah, we saw that.

With me. With Penny.

Penny was in as well. Yeah, that's good.

Jim, I mean, you might have been in Testosterone Corner,

but you looked a bit pasty some of the time.

Was that the tension or what?

Well, the threat of nuclear war does that to you, Kathy.

But by day three, I had developed a violent vomiting bug,

which years ago I would happily have shared with some of the people here.

But we all wanted to get on.

And I think Chris Steele, who had thought that...

It was the early stages of an assassination attempt.

Sort of Russian poisoning.

So I can't take credit for my performance in the last two days

because I think I was hallucinating through some of it.

Let me bring in Debs here, who's in the audience,

you know, who was very much behind this whole project.

You know, it's based on your idea.

Sky's security and defence editor.

There has been some criticism too, hasn't there?

Let's be honest about that.

Some suggestions, are we sort of giving Russia our playbook?

Just respond to that.

Yeah, I mean, the fundamental principle behind this TV series

and the podcast before it was that Russia knows our secrets.

But do you?

And it's about raising awareness in the public.

So Russia is fully aware that the UK,

since the end of the Cold War, has hollowed out its armed forces,

has lost familiarity with the idea of national resilience.

And so by bringing it to life with this extraordinary cast of experts,

we are showing the British public the risk that we as a country

are holding, the threat that we're under, and then it's a choice.

It's about choice, and it's better to have an informed choice.

So that's the purpose of this whole project.

Penny, the suggestion that we were participating

in some kind of warmongering exercise, what would be your response to that?

Well, I agree with Deborah.

You know, our enemies know our weaknesses.

And I think for a lot of us, the motivation for

taking part in this is to try and educate people.

And actually, the public are way ahead of politicians in this.

They really sense that we do need to take this more seriously.

But we've got people in the House of Commons at the moment

who could really make a difference to...

It's not about being able to fight a war in the future.

I don't want a war.

It's about deterring a conflict in the future.

If you've got strong armed forces,

you deter hostile aggression towards you.

And we'll come back to that concept of deterrence later on.

Michael, you finally achieved your ambition to be prime minister.

It's been a long time coming.

I want to play you some unseen footage of how the Cabinet reacted to that.

Let's have a look.

Hello, hello. Hello.

How are you, Prime Minister?

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd call you Prime Minister.

It's what did you say?

I never thought I'd actually see the day when I'd call him Prime Minister.

Hi, Zaida. Hey, Jean.

Do I have to call you Prime Minister?

No, no, no, you can say Michael.

Well, Michael, how was it being Prime Minister for all of four days?

Disconcerting.

So, the first thing is that the Cabinet were far better

behaved than any Cabinet of which I've been part.

So, if you want to model collective and consensual behaviour

in a crisis, then I have to say that my colleagues

exhibited all of those virtues.

Well, you were accused of losing your mind at one point.

That's true, but then Zaida has said far worse things about me

in the past, and so I'm absolutely mild and moderate

in terms of justified criticism.

More broadly, though, one of the things that it does bring through

is that whoever happens to be Prime Minister,

the buck stops with them.

So, as Prime Minister, you try to ensure that all of your colleagues

have an opportunity to share their viewpoint,

but everyone does so in the knowledge that there are some ultimate decisions

which are inescapably the Prime Minister's.

And so, the burden that he or she bears is greater

than any other person around the Cabinet table.

Right, well, that's just the amuse-bouche.

There's much more to come.

The last few nights have made for some pretty gripping

and dramatic TV, but here is the key question -

could the events of the War Game actually happen?

We'll be discussing that right after this break.

Welcome back to the War Game Aftermath, live on Sky One.

We've reunited our Cabinet to relive some of the extraordinary moments

from the series, and that brings us to the big question -

how close are we to this happening for real?

Because before the missiles were launched and the nuclear button even contemplated,

our Cabinet's escalating scenario started

with a series of sinister grey zone attacks.

Last night, two RAF pilots were shot dead.

Police have arrested a suspect with links to Russia.

There has been a cyber attack.

Ambulance response times have been severely hit.

And there's a Russian vessel in our territorial waters.

There's no excuse for them being that close to our cables.

There just isn't.

The Russians would exploit this.

They are playing the victims in this.

This was a deliberate act.

There is a lot of Russian disinformation swirling about.

This is a classic combination of hybrid or grey space activity.

If this is Russia, it will escalate.

Oh, my God. We are under attack within our own country.

They will just keep pushing and keep testing us.

Russia has organised and paid for an alternative government.

Why have we missed this?

Where have we been?

So we're going to be discussing the grey zone.

Chris, Ayesha and Jim are here on the sofa,

but also Keir Giles, who spent decades studying Russia and decoding the Kremlin

and was our lead Russia expert on the war game.

Thank you very much to you. I'll come to you in just a minute, Keir.

But, Chris, first, what we've just seen, cyber attacks,

cables sabotaged, it's not all out war, it's covert, it's deniable,

but it is nevertheless designed to harm an adversary, isn't it?

So it's grey zone hybrid warfare.

In the real world, are we already in the grey zone?

Yes, well, this all stems from something called the Gerasimov Doctrine,

which is developed by the chief of the general staff in Russia.

And it's the idea that you can harm and divide your adversary

by fighting them effectively in this grey zone.

And I would define the grey zone as what exists between

where Russia considers that they're at war and we consider we're at war.

There's a gap between them, and it's in this gap,

using unconventional means - sabotage, assassination, arson,

anything like that - social media manipulation, disinformation -

that you can have an advantage, and that's how the Russians view it.

And that leaves plenty of room for doubt,

but it's also something that we're sort of getting accustomed to.

Yes, I think we're almost in a boiling the frog moment, actually,

in that this has been jacked up, I think, since 2022,

partly because Britain is such a strong supporter of Ukraine.

And we are, at the moment, in my view, failing to deter the Russians

from conducting ever more aggressive operations in this space.

Because, obviously, if you look back many years, you have the Litvinenko poisoning,

you had the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury.

You know, more recently, though, in the last few months,

there have been very plausible - and Russia denies them, of course -

but these kind of attacks. Just give us some examples.

Well, one example was the arson attacks that were carried out

against the former Prime Minister Keir Starmer's house and former car

and his relatives, which was obviously carried

out by a criminal who was convicted for them.

It seems to have been directed from Russia.

And there was surprisingly little reaction, I think, to that.

An example, as I say, of where the threshold is

rising and where we are, in a way, not deterring,

not acting sufficiently decisively to deter this sort of activity.

Jim, you got quite angry in the series, saying at one point, "How do we miss this?"

Do you worry about that boiling the frogs scenario that Chris set out just there?

I absolutely do.

I share the view that we are not currently at war with Russia,

but not are we currently at peace with Russia.

And every hour of every day, Russia, along with probably China and Iran,

are testing our capabilities to protect our way of life.

And what I mean by that is, if you run a business,

you're under attack.

If you run the National Health Service, you're under attack.

If you run any part of our critical infrastructure, you're under attack.

And I've always the view...

Chris and I have known one another for a quarter of a century.

When I was the Minister at the Foreign Office responsible for Russia...

I don't know if I'm allowed to say this,

you used to come and brief me on an insight on what was

happening in Russia based upon your own experiences.

You always followed my advice, as I recall.

Except on this TV show.

LAUGHTER

But there's a risk, isn't there, Chris, of miscalculation as well, isn't there?

There's a massive risk of it, and Russia, by mistake,

could push us over the threshold into a sort of full-on warlike situation.

For example, there have been a couple of attempts to jam the radar

on ministers' aircraft visiting the Baltic states.

There have been missiles fired, actually live missiles,

at British planes operating the Black Sea in

neutral airspace, in international airspace.

So it's quite possible that one of these things could spill over

into a full-on confrontation.

I think that's the problem with all of this, that miscalculation.

Yeah. Putin invades Ukraine because he miscalculates,

and I think that's one of the messages of the programme.

Counterintuitively, the way to prevent conflict is to prepare for it.

Yeah, and as I say... So that Putin's in no doubt of the consequences.

And as I say, you know, Russia, the Kremlin denies

all of this, and it is all eminently deniable.

That's one of the points of it.

Kia, let me bring in you here, because what's Vladimir Putin's game plan here?

What is Russia trying to achieve? What's the end game?

Well, NATO is Russia's problem, because NATO exists to prevent Russia

from achieving some of the things that Vladimir

Putin has said very clearly he wants to do.

Every time one of these attacks is carried out, Russia learns about NATO,

not just the vulnerabilities, but also how far they can push

before there's a response.

And because of this lack of deterrence that everybody's been talking about,

they find they can push further and further.

That's why the situation feels so dangerous at the moment,

because nobody's put a stop sign, nobody's responded to it.

If anybody's watching the news this morning, they will have seen now

the reporting on plans for Russia to launch attack munitions

from the Mediterranean Sea, from their shadow fleet tankers,

against France, Spain and Italy, where some people

previously cosily thought that they were out of range.

Russia wouldn't be considering doing that unless they'd already established

for themselves that deterrence is failing at the moment to prevent them.

And part of the grey zone is obviously disinformation.

In our series, we saw Nicola Sturgeon's hot-mic moment.

Are you still smarting from that, Nicola?

I was taken by surprise.

My first thought I have to say was, "Did I say that?

" And my second thought was, "Everybody who knows me will think.

" I said that, in fact, I got a text when the episode went out this week

from a very senior Scottish government minister who shall remain nameless,

saying, "Are you sure that wasn't you?

" But there is a really serious point, because misinformation,

disinformation, it is now part of the playbook

of war, and we have to be prepared for that,

just as we have to be prepared for a military attack.

Well, Ayesha, are we prepared?

You know, are we ready for this information war?

Well, I think we're already in it, and I think social

media is now so important in terms of driving information.

And we talk about this theatre of war,

and we think about sort of bombs and bullets and aircraft fighters,

but actually, your phone is part of this kind of theatre of war now,

because there's so much misinformation, so much disinformation.

There are foreign opponents of ours,

deliberately, in terms of bot farms,

and sometimes the anonymous sock puppet you're fighting with on Twitter.

It's not just a benign thing.

It's actually foreign actors trying to sow division,

trying to create polarisation and division,

trying to turn citizens against the state.

And I think in a crisis, one of the big takeaways for me of all of this

is you've got a terrible situation happening,

and you also have who does the citizens trust?

There's a lack of trust in politics,

and there's a lack of trust in mainstream media as well.

So, very briefly, how do we tackle that?

I mean, other countries have tried, haven't they?

Well, it's interesting that the Prime Minister has

just actually announced a unit in the last week or so

looking to try and counter misinformation

as part of a sort of military infrastructure programme.

But I think it's something that we all, as citizens,

have a responsibility to ourselves, our kids, our grandkids.

Learn to think critically about information you're consuming.

Is it a verified source?

Check before you start retweeting things

or passing things on to other people.

I think our algorithms are guided by somebody who often has an intent.

And also governments, and we in the media, have to get better as well

about signposts, you know, creating more trust in how we communicate,

but also making sure that our information is truthful and accurate.

Great. Well, thank you all very much for that top-level briefing.

After the break, it was the revelation that stopped the Cabinet in their tracks.

I'm going to keep this really simple.

On current projections, in a war with Russia, we've got about two weeks' fight.

Our Cabinet had to fight a war with one hand behind their backs.

But would that be the case for our actual government?

We'll be putting that question to the real Defence

Secretary, Wes Streeting, right after this.

APPLAUSE

Welcome back. This is the War Game Aftermath, live on Sky One.

For the past four days, we've watched our Cabinet respond

to a chilling escalation of Russian attacks on this country.

But it's left one pretty unsettling question hanging over all of us.

If this happened for real, would Britain actually be ready for war?

In just a moment, we'll be putting that question

to the real Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting.

But first, let's take a look at when our

Cabinet learned about the gaps in our defence.

Radar alert. Projectiles.

Impact. Impact. Impact on feed.

This is unequivocally an act of war.

We must retaliate.

I want the military options available to us.

Yeah, we've got a huge availability problem.

We're very thin here.

Do you have the resources you need to defend this country?

I have the resources I have right now.

We've got bugger all.

You guys can't be calling Washington every time there's a problem in Europe.

Without the Americans, we're in a hole that we have never planned for.

We need to consider where we put the few assets we have.

We currently have one destroyer capable of

shooting down long-range ballistic missiles.

Just one vessel.

Jesus.

The UK alone cannot win this war by military means.

Cruise missile picked up, and another, and another.

Impact. Impact. Impact.

People in this country, they've never seen anything like this.

On current projections, we've got about two weeks fight.

Well, those assessments really were pretty sobering,

and it does leave you questioning whether Britain could defend itself.

With new warnings in the last few days alone

that Russia may be preparing a fresh military escalation

to test NATO's resolve, there is really only one man with the answers.

So I sat down with the real Defence Secretary,

Wes Streeting, to discuss the war game.

The key thing that stunned our war game

cabinet was the CDS Richard Barron's assessment

that the UK had just two weeks fight against Russia.

So there was a moment where he stood up in front of the press conference,

and he was asked, "Do you have what you need to defend this country?

" And his answer was, "I have what I have.

" Now, I don't think if we were in that situation today, that would be our answer.

I think we'd have a more reassuring answer.

But I think... Really? I mean, how much more reassuring can you be on that?

So one of the things that I found as the Defence Secretary

watching the programme is there were options that I know

are available to me were something like this to happen

that were not put to that cabinet around the table.

And I took some reassurance from that in terms of defensive capability,

which for good reason, we don't broadcast and we don't talk about them.

America and Europe would be with us from day one if we came under attack from Russia.

Why will Russia think twice about waging war on the UK or any other NATO member?

It's because they know we would all respond.

And why would they be worried about that?

Because we have the capability to inflict real damage to defeat Russia.

We saw in the series Michael Gove,

well, highlighting the fact that we don't have an Iron Dome-style defence.

Could we defend ourselves against a ballistic missile attack from Russia?

So we are investing more in our air missile defence

and we do have those defensive capabilities, but we need to do more.

This speaks right to the spirit of the national conversation we need around defence.

Well, does the Prime Minister support that?

Because in the Commons not that long ago, he said national security

can't come at the expense of social security.

So would you be content for your old department, Health,

to make some sacrifices to put this money into defence?

So I think what the Prime Minister was saying is

you don't make your country stronger by making your people poorer.

Every pound we put into defence is a pound that could have either gone

on something else we care about, health, education,

or money that could go back into people's hard-pressed pockets.

And that's why I think your programme's done a real public service.

Because at the moment, pressure on us to spend more on defence is high

and we embrace it because we agree we're committed to doing that.

But that doesn't mean that when the budget comes

and the spending review comes, there might not be people saying,

"Why are you spending money on that and not other things we care about?

" Well, I think your programme helps people to

understand why investing in the capability matters

and investing in our relationships and alliances really matters too.

Let's talk about how the UK would cope in a war scenario

because we did some exclusive polling for the programme

saying that 54% told us that they'd cope for just three days

if an emergency took out power, water and supplies.

I don't need people to be alarmed by the world we're living in,

the threats we face, but we do need to be alert.

It may be we indeed ask members of the public

to think about their own domestic resilience.

Do you have tins of food in the cupboard?

Do you have a supply of water?

Those basic resilience things.

National service? Because our polling also showed

that more than 60% of the population would support some sort of national service.

Would you like to open that debate?

I don't think we need to because what we see is, in uniformed cadets in schools,

we see demand for it outstripping what we're able to provide.

So we're going to increase our resource for

cadets and the number of opportunities available.

We see people stepping up to become reservists.

So I think there is a public spiritedness out there.

Do you still want to be PM after watching our series?

Because I think Michael Gove has had some serious second thoughts.

Yeah, that ship has sailed for me.

LAUGHTER Well, the Defence Secretary was quite clear

that there were options available to him, were Russia to attack,

options that you in the Cabinet did not have.

Richard, were you reassured by that?

So, first of all, I think it's great that the

Defence Secretary is engaged with the programme.

I think that's a huge compliment.

Secondly, you'd expect him to be reassuring.

That's part of his job.

But about a year ago, the government produced a

defence review, of which I was one of the leaders,

and it describes the sort of world the war game depicts.

It accepts that the UK Armed Forces, good though they are,

are in the state that they were left by the

35 years of relatively gentle post-Cold War.

And it says, we've got to raise our game,

and we've got to transform for war in the 21st century.

This is different.

And we need to do it sufficiently quickly to stay in step

with a clock set by our enemies, not by our allies.

So there's a huge amount to do.

Well, you mentioned allies there.

Wes feels pretty confident that NATO members

would rally round if we were to come under attack.

I mean, he said, in terms,

"We have the capability to inflict real damage to defeat Russia."

Do you share that confidence?

So we need to believe in NATO.

The UK requires a collective security arrangement, and that is NATO.

But NATO created in 1949 a bankroll by the United States,

underpinned by the United States military.

And we know now, in 2026,

that the US is going to do different things with its resources.

And Europe is having to learn to step up for itself

just as the situation has got much more difficult.

And the trust that we all place in NATO Article 5,

and attack on one is attack on all,

still requires every nation to agree in the moment.

And I think today that trust is more ambivalent.

And he's pretty confident that, you know,

cadets and reservists will also help us get through.

What do you make of that?

So the British Army has about 73,000 regulars.

It has about 30,000 reserves

and a strategic reserve of people who once in the regular army.

So that's quite small.

To put that in perspective, in Ukraine,

Russia has taken a million fatalities and 500,000 wounded.

So that's roughly 15 British armies consumed so far.

So we need to recognise that if there is a crisis,

we'll probably have to make our army bigger,

and we'll have to make it to endure.

We'll need all our reserves and we're going to need volunteers.

Well, Jim, let me bring you in here,

because you wanted to be a reservist, didn't you?

And you weren't allowed.

Yeah, I've got to that stage in my life.

I mean, you look pretty trim, you know?

Yeah, a year or so ago, I tried to volunteer to be a reservist,

but the rules at the moment mean that someone over

55, of which I happily am, just didn't qualify.

So I'd love West Streeting and the others

to have a bit of flexibility about this sort of stuff.

I'm not expecting to be on the front line, I'm not qualified for that,

but there must be things that others,

with a bit of life experience, could do to help

in the sort of things that Richard's been speaking about.

Harriet, let me bring in you here,

because the Defence Secretary accepted we need to do more,

that's what he said, and he said that every department

was already making sacrifices to pay for increased defence of the realm.

But isn't the case, Harriet, the real PM, not that one over there,

has boxed the real Cabinet in, because he said in the Commons,

national security can't come at the expense of social security.

So the room for manoeuvres are very limited, isn't it?

Well, he's made it clear that he thinks defence spending

should be increased and that it should be 3.5 of GDP by 2030.

But I think we are seeing a political shift going on here.

He hasn't said how to get there, though, has he?

Yeah, but he's committed to that.

But we are seeing a sort of journey here, a political shift,

and it needs to be quite... It's a long journey, though, right?

Well, I was going to say, it needs to be quite a rapid journey.

And this is why I actually had to... I don't want to make it

sound like Love Island, but I had to pull Nicola for a chat.

Because those of us who've prioritised spending on health,

education, tackling poverty, childcare, you know,

we used to call it butter, not bombs.

That's where our hearts were and where the pressure was.

And in all the... And it was bairns, not bombs, for the SNP in Scotland.

But in all my decades of being an MP,

where people came to see me with their problems,

their very real daily problems about the healthcare situation,

about their housing situation, about what was happening to their kids,

nobody was coming in saying, "We want you to increase defence spending.

" And it's a leadership job now for this government

and for all of us, really, to say, "The circumstances now require it.

"These are difficult decisions."

But also, there's a civilian resilience, which you've

been talking about, which needs to be stepped up as well.

Because you can see in that scenario, you know, what about the transport connections?

What... Do the hospitals know what to do?

What's going on with the ambulances?

What's... Does everybody know what part they're supposed to play?

Is there a plan? Do they all know the plan?

Do they know each other's plan?

And do the public know what they're supposed to be part of?

And I think, you know, there's a reluctance to be alarmist.

But, actually, we've got to make sure we tell people

what they need to be doing in case of this

scenario, which we hope won't arise, arising.

And that's not... That goal of getting to 3.5% by 2035,

you know, Andy Burnham has not set out how he's going to get there.

And if you look at the figures, that 3.5% of GDP, spending on defence,

would require around £40 billion extra a year.

So that's roughly twice the entire annual day-to-day budget of the Home Office.

So, Harriet, where does that come from, in your view?

I know you're not the Chancellor, but in your

personal view, does that come from higher borrowing?

Does it come from cutting other departmental budgets?

Does it come from tax rises? What's the answer?

Well, it has to come at a time when growth is not as good as it is,

and it's threatened by what Trump has been doing in Iran,

which has made global economic growth more difficult.

But I think that it has to come because it's an ironclad commitment,

and it will have to come with a combination of the ways

that these things are done, which is partly by spending cuts,

partly by taxes, and partly by borrowing.

Does that stack up, Penny?

Look, when you're talking about money, the question is really simple for the Cabinet.

Do you want to spend 50% of your GDP on war,

or do you want to spend 5% of it on preventing one?

That is the question for the Cabinet.

And actually, finding the money is doable.

What seems to be much harder is finding the political will

and leadership to do what is required to defend this country

and build back up our conventional forces.

We're not going to face some of the scenarios towards the end of this series.

The deterrent is good, it's credible.

But we are already facing an escalating situation.

I mean, Kiir mentioned the shadow fleet, which your viewers will have heard about.

That is now larger than the larger shipping lines in the world.

It's 1,000 vessels.

Yeah, that's an extraordinary... And this is attacking our way of life.

We've been looking at one foe in this series, Russia.

We face hundreds, and the chiefs have given us a timeline, as you alluded to.

I think, I've been saying for years we've got to spend more,

I think this autumn, if we don't do what is required in the Budget,

it will be too late for us to be ready in those few years for what is lying ahead.

Let me bring Nicola in, because, you know, it's a simple choice.

I don't know what this show's done to me, I'm almost agreeing with Penny.

That is extraordinary!

I said almost.

Look, there's no easy choices for politicians,

which is why most of us are probably quite glad to be

out of the real thing and doing it in a fictional sense.

But, you know, Andy Burnham is probably never going to have

a better opportunity than he does now to open up this debate

and have a lot of transparency and try to inform the public about the choices.

He's a new popular Prime Minister with a lot of

political capital, and that's why I do agree with Penny.

I think, in the short term, leading up to this Budget,

some of these decisions have got to be taken for real.

You know, Harriet's right... So, cutting welfare, you'd back that?

No, I don't back cutting welfare,

but I do think there are choices that need to be aired.

So, it's not putting politicians... Not many choices, there are, though.

..to position. You know, it's not about putting us in the spot like this.

It's about opening this up.

What are the trade-offs that people think should be made?

And what kind of defences are we investing in as well?

And I know we'll come on to the Trident discussion later.

The other point I wanted to pick up on from Harriet is about civil resilience,

because this is not just about potential conflict.

You know, we need to increase that level of resilience

for, you know, wildfires, floods, climate impacts.

This is a really scary world we're living in right now,

and I think we thought, in Covid, that the public had become much more resilient.

I'm not sure that lasted as long as we thought it would,

but I think there's a big debate that has to be had there now as well,

and hopefully this programme will help spark some of it.

We're starting it right here, yeah.

Well, after the break, Michael Gove and our Cabinet

face the decision no Prime Minister ever wants to make.

For the sake of argument, Hiroshima-sized nuclear destruction...

That was 15 kilotons. These can be bigger.

It can be 15 to 50, but... Hiroshima. Hiroshima.

Yes. So a city is destroyed.

Jesus.

It was the moment that left one Cabinet member feeling physically sick

and forced others to question beliefs they'd held for decades.

Has the war game changed any of their minds about Britain's nuclear weapons?

Find out right after this.

APPLAUSE

Welcome back to the War Game Aftermath.

It was the scenario that brought our Cabinet and the series

to the brink - a potential nuclear war.

It appears that Russian leadership moved from

Moscow to the fortified underground bunker.

Potentially preparation for them resorting to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

We need to evacuate this building now and go to a secure location.

We have a nuclear deterrent. It's not deterring Russian action.

An arachnid missile has been launched.

We do not know whether this missile has a nuclear warhead.

What is the time between launch and impact?

22 minutes and there is nothing that we have that can shoot this down.

What damage will one of these weapons do?

Hiroshima-sized nuclear destruction.

Hiroshima. Hiroshima.

Hiroshima. Yes. So a city is destroyed.

A powerful blast wave would destroy buildings.

We estimate between 50,000 and 100,000 fatalities.

The major decision is whether you believe this warrants a nuclear response.

They might think we're mad enough to do that.

We're talking about using weapons of mass

destruction I'd like to hear from our legal adviser.

The law on this is very clear.

I will not sacrifice 67 million for one million

and I will not sacrifice the law because we become gun-hole in a bunker.

There is a missile hurtling towards this country.

We've all had our say.

It's for you to decide.

Well, Michael, Prime Minister, it was the moment of greatest jeopardy, wasn't it?

And you have no way of knowing whether that missile hurtling towards us

was armed with a nuclear warhead.

Just give us an insight into what was going

through your mind at that point as Prime Minister.

Well, I know from Prime Ministers with whom I've worked

that this is the single most important decision that they might ever have to make.

The first thing that any Prime Minister does once they are alone

with the Cabinet Secretary is decide what is going to go in a sealed letter

that will be placed with the captain of the nuclear submarine

that provides the nuclear deterrent that is continuously at sea.

It's the most momentous decision that any Prime Minister can make.

There are only a limited number of nuclear

powers and it's on the basis of that deterrent

that the whole structure of our defence is

engineered and has been organised for decades now.

And, Ayesha, we saw your face as you listened to the nuclear briefing.

Just explain that.

It felt so real being in the room.

And, of course, we all came into this as

professionals and we had a job to do and, you know,

we all are very interested in the policy and trying to keep a cool, clear head.

But this is also incredibly human

and just hearing the devastating effects of

this in terms of the loss of life, the injury,

felt so palpable and so visceral and so frightening just on a human level.

And as Penny says, you know, this is not likely to happen.

The chances of this happening are very low,

but the impact of this is high and we should think about this.

This is no decision that anybody should take easily.

And I think sometimes we talk about defence,

we talk about it in quite a dry, abstract way.

Really, there are no good options when you are in this scenario.

And this conversation, particularly the briefing from the

nuclear expert and what, you know, CDS took us through,

I found that very, very powerful and very...

I had to take a moment, I actually felt sick,

I had to leave the room at one point, I felt quite overwhelmed.

But I think that's OK, I think it's good to have a human response to these things.

You should have a human response to this.

Just, Penny, just explain what the nuclear deterrent is, because it is a deterrent.

And this concept of mutually assured destruction,

it's absolutely terrifying, of course,

but it is supposed to prevent the worst happening, isn't it?

Yeah, and it works.

It does what it says on the tin,

it's there to deter the worst possible aggression against us.

And it has done that very well for more than 70 years.

It's absolutely useless if you want to look inside a suitcase

at the Port of Dover or to stop a drone coming in,

it can't do any of those things, it can't bake you a sponge cake.

It does one job and it has done it well for a very long time.

And despite all the pressures that the defence budget has been under,

we have prioritised that capability above all else,

because without it, we would be in very serious...

Nicola, you've got a quizzical face on, because, you know, we

saw you questioning the point of having a nuclear deterrent,

if it's not deterring Russia.

Penny's just said, "It works, it has worked."

Your view?

I've opposed nuclear weapons in principle all

my life, I haven't changed my mind on that.

I understand the deterrent argument,

Russia's less likely to fire a strategic

nuclear weapon at us if we can fire one back,

but what we saw in the show is that Russia's capable of doing

a lot of harm to us well before it gets to that point.

So we can have our disagreements about Trident,

I am a minority of one, I think, in this cast,

but we shouldn't allow it to be at the expense

of conventional defences, the defences we need.

I mean, let me just give you these figures for context.

The UK spends upwards of 20% on the nuclear

deterrent, and that's rising as a proportion.

America spends less than 10% on its nuclear deterrent.

I think in France it's about 13%.

Of the defence budget. Of the defence budget.

So, you know, Trident is sucking a lot of money

from conventional defences, so let's have our

disagreements about Trident, as Penny and Ayesha have said.

That's the least likely part of the show we hope to happen,

but all of what happened before that

is what we found we were really underprepared for.

Arguing you should get rid of the deterrent to fund more conventional forces.

I want more conventional forces, that's the reason for me doing this show,

but your argument is like saying, "Let's do away with fire extinguishers

"because glasses of water are much better at quenching our thirst."

You can't put out a house fire with a bottle of it.

We need the capability, I can tell you,

without that capability, we would be facing the kinds of catastrophic situations...

So it...that we've seen in this programme.

What we've seen this week is fantasy.

That is not going to happen because we have these capabilities.

They're tried and tested, they're an immensely serious enterprise.

You know, if you're a chief on one of those subs,

you've spent a decade of your life underwater protecting this company.

And I've got huge respect for people, but, you know, we saw in the show

one destroyer in terms of conventional defences.

Now, I think for those who are going to argue for the nuclear deterrent,

and I'm being respectful about the different views there,

I think the point that has to be addressed is,

how can that be maintained without allowing conventional defences

to wither on the vine?

Because our conventional defences have withered

on the vine, and that's a really serious issue.

Spend 5% of your GDP on defending this country.

Well, fine, fine. That's what you need to do.

But we've got to see how that's going to be done.

And if we don't do it, we don't do it, we don't have a clear path this autumn,

and all the other things that need to accompany it, NATO says we need,

I think it will be too late for us to be ready in the years.

I think the important thing about this conversation,

and the show itself, and how it ends, is really important.

Going into this show, I was worried that we may expose some secrets.

And the truth is, the only secret we came close to

exposing was how would a group of people like this,

who are a reasonable cross-section of the skill set and experience

that will always be in power in the United Kingdom,

this type of group, and what Moscow would be watching is, how would we respond?

And because the programme climaxes on a

cliffhanger where Michael has to make a choice,

and then cuts at that point, we have maintained in this programme,

one, the secrecy, and two, the deterrence effect, because that was the jeopardy

in opening up this entire conversation and coming to a firm decision.

Now, I happen to agree more with Penny than I do with Nicola,

but it was important that we keep the Russians, the Chinese, and others guessing.

Yeah, but, Michael, is the deterrent effect blunted

by the fact that there are now nine nuclear powers?

I knew there were some very unpredictable leaders

with their finger on the button, aren't there?

There are, and proliferation is a worry,

but when we're thinking about the nuclear deterrent,

I had in mind the motto of the Scots Guards,

which in Latin is "Nemo me impuni la cessit",

but if you translate that into Anglo-Saxon,

it broadly means "Don't fuck with this honey badger".

(audience laughs)

Wow, not like prime ministerial language there, but...

Sayidah, you've been very quiet at the other end

and you didn't hold back in the series, so don't hold back now, what do you think?

I think the question that you've been asking,

Kathy, rightly is, is this likely to happen?

And this is not likely to happen, and I think at that moment,

when I thought the Prime Minister was losing his mind,

I felt that he was escalating it and starting to consider options,

which in real life, I don't think those options would be happening,

and the reason for them not happening is one, because we do have a deterrent,

but because Russia or anybody else in the world

is not going to strike with a nuclear weapon against the

United Kingdom, because they know the consequences of that.

If for no other reason we would be damaged, they would be devastated.

The response from the United Kingdom and from NATO would

be so big, and whatever we say about the United States

and the current occupant of the White House,

in the end, these relationships run far deeper than the Prime Minister.

And I think the other thing that we probably felt that we didn't

have in that room was that there is a journey of escalation.

You don't kind of move from, they've thrown a few missiles at us

and now we're going to press the nuclear button.

And that journey of escalation is where the conventional weapons have to come into.

It's absolutely essential that we are properly funded for that journey.

And it therefore means that we're not in this jeopardy

where we're having to consider the nuclear option, which could only be,

of course, we have a right to self-defence, but it can only be exercised

when the very survival of your state is at risk.

Well, we could carry on talking about this, but we have covered a great deal.

We are almost at the end of the show and the series.

So what have our War Cabinet and all of us watching

learnt about our readiness, our resilience and our resolve?

Well, Kim, I want to ask you, in this series, America lets us down.

Are you hopeful that in a real world scenario, they'd be there for us?

I'm very pro-American, but I thought that was quite a credible picture.

Kathy, it reminded me of when I was, my early years in the Foreign Office, 1982,

Argentina invades the Falklands, British territory.

You would think that was a straightforward act of aggression

and that America should come in full bulk behind us on it.

And in fact, they paused, they adopted a neutral

position, and there were a few weeks of negotiation

where they tried to persuade us to do a deal

to share sovereignty with Argentina on the Falklands.

Now, eventually they came round and they supported us,

but it's foolish to imagine the Americans will always rush in instantly,

come over the, the cavalry will come over the hilltop.

We've, they've been supplying 70% of NATO's firepower for decades now. Yeah.

We've been lunching free at the American table for decades and that's going to stop.

Well, talking about munching at the American

table, we do have a message actually from America.

Let's have a look.

Surprise, good to see you.

Just finishing up the interview.

I'm sorry I played hard again in Britain's hour of need.

Hope there's no hard feelings,

but honestly it was the most fun I had since that last job.

You know the one, the one in the White House.

In fact, I think I lasted longer on this one than that one.

Here's the thing, Americans really do love the Brits.

Don't forget that.

You're so weirdly polite, even when your closest ally will not return your calls.

And if things ever look that dark, listen to me, use your secret weapon.

Send in the King.

The secret weapon, sending in the King.

Our Secretary of State for the series there, Anthony Scaramucci.

Said, a hopeful message.

The King gives us hope perhaps.

What else gives you hope at the end of all this?

I think two things give me hope.

First of all, the fact that I think the NATO alliance is strong.

I think that we have to believe in that.

And I think that our alliances beyond NATO are strong.

And even if the United States had wanted to

sit this one out for the first couple of weeks,

I think the rest of NATO would have kicked in.

And so I'm confident about that.

I also think that this debate is important

and I'm hopeful that this has started a real conversation within the country.

And I'm also hopeful that, and I think I felt this was really important.

We sit at some of the top tables in the world

and we sat at some of those top tables because of our history and empire.

But we continue to sit at those tables because we are an important military power

and we are also an important power because of the values that we hold.

And that's why I felt we needed to ensure that we acted

within our values when we were in that cabinet room.

Well, I've left the most important question to last, of course.

In a war situation, a crisis situation,

who would be the best Prime Minister, Harriet?

I think I'm going to say Nicola.

Wow, OK, Nicola, your choice.

I mean, I have to say Harriet.

You are, aren't you?

Penny?

Well, I would like, dodging the question,

I would like the current cabinet to go through this scenario

because even though you know the theory,

you know what you're supposed to be doing in those scenarios,

when you're faced with the lack of options

that we currently have, lack of conventional capabilities,

lack of a way to de-escalate a situation or push back,

you know, those people round that table today

really need to understand what their responsibilities are at this moment.

Richard, I'm going to ask you who you nominate for a war leader.

Definitely Kim.

That's not fair, you're sticking together.

You're bullying the politicians.

Michael, who would you pick?

Richard Barons.

One of the things that most impresses me is that we still have people

of Richard's intelligence, decency and patriotism...

OK...volunteering for our armed forces.

Thank you very much. That is just about all.

A huge thank you to our extraordinary cabinet,

to everyone who's joined us this evening,

and of course to all of you at home who've watched the War Game.

The series showed our country come under attack

and prompted us to consider the bigger questions of how Britain might respond.

It was all about understanding the threats we

face, learning how we can be better prepared,

and giving all of us a little more knowledge about what we can do.

Well, the War Game may be over, but the conversation has only just begun.

From our cabinet, from everyone here at the War Game Aftermath,

and from me, thank you for watching and good night.

APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE

APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE

APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE