Original subtitles

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.

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 Morden, Saeed Avasi,

Harriet Harman, Gin Murphy, Richard Barron, Kim Darroch, 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 Defence 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 deepfakes 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.

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.

Scariest show on TV right now. Are we ready for a national emergency?

There's Michael Gove, there's Nicola Sturgeon. Yeah, Nicola Sturgeon.

Great, yeah. 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 telly.

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.

That 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 is 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, you know, 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 I mean it pursued you in your dreams

I went home one night and had a dream about being chased by Russians but we 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 that part of that was because so much thought had gone

into the scenario from Deborah Haynes, Sky's defence and security editor. And

also, you know, we have in people like Richard Barron, Zan Kim Darroch 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, Saeeda, 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, Cathy.

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.

And I think certainly for Michael and I, 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 there? 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.

Very good.

Jim Murphy and I were in Testosterone Corner.

Clearly, yeah, we saw that.

With me.

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

Oh, 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, Cathy.

But look, 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, who was very much behind this

whole project. 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-arm 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.

What did you say?

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

Hi, Saida.

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.

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

Saeeda has said far worse things about me in the past.

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 will 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, cable sabotage, 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.

and 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 have the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury.

You know, more recently, though, in the last few months, there have been very

plausible... 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 did we miss

this? Do you worry about that boiling the frog scenario that Chris set out

just there?

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

but nor 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 had the view, I mean, Chris and I have known one another for a

quarter of a century. When I was a 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...

You always followed my advice, as I recall.

Except on this TV show.

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 in 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.

So that Putin's in no doubt of the consequences.

And as I say, you know, Russia, the Kremlin denies all this, and it is all

eminently deniable. That's one of the points of it. But here, 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 cozily 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. Yeah.

And, you know, 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?

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 polarization and

division trying to turn citizens against the state and i think in a crisis one of

the big takeaways from 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 lot 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 in the last week or so looking to try and counter

misinformation as part of a sort of military infrastructure program. 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 defense secretary, Wes Streeting,

right after this.

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 on food.

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.

Impacts, impacts, impacts.

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.

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. 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

like 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.

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.

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 era. 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. 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, bankrolled 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, an attack on

one is an 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 is about 73,000 regulars. It has about 30,000 reserves

and a strategic reserve of people who were 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, I tried to... 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 Wes Freeting 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, you know, 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 manoeuvre is 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. 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 health care 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, Keir mentioned the Shadow Fleet, which your viewers will have heard

about. That is now larger than the largest 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, simple choice. I don't know what this show has 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?

Look, no, I don't back cutting welfare, but I do think there are choices that

need to be aired. So it's not...

I'm a former politician.

It's not about putting us on 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 Harry is about

civil resilience.

Because this is not just about potential conflict.

We need to increase that level of resilience for wildfires, floods,

climate impact. 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. It was 15 kilotons. These can be bigger. It

could be 15 to 50.

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.

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 Ereshnik 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 advisor. The law on this is very clear. I will not sacrifice 67

million for 1 million, and I will not sacrifice the law because we become gung

-ho 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 had 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 uh nuclear deterrent that

is continuously

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, Maisha, 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 Nuclear Expert and what

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.

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. Look, 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 air. We need the capability.

I can tell you, without that capability, we would be facing the kinds of

catastrophic situations 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.

If you're a chief on one of those subs, you've spent a decade of your life

underwater protecting this country. 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 have a clear path this autumn and all the other things that

need to accompany it that NATO says we need, I think it will be too late for us

to be ready in a few 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.

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 and there are 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... But if you translate that into Anglo-Saxon, it broadly

means... don't fuck with this honey badger.

Wow. Not very Prime Ministerial language there, but... Saeeda, you've been very

quiet up 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, Cathy,

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 exercised... 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 the 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.

It reminded me of when I was in my early years in the Foreign Office in 1982.

Argentina invades the Falklands, British territory. You would think that was a

straightforward act of aggression and that America should come in full boat

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.

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

been munching 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 an 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.

LAUGHTER The secret weapon sending in the King. Our Secretary of State for the

series there, Anthony Scaramucci.

Saeed, 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 around 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 Barron's.

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

people of Richard's intelligence, decency and patriotism volunteer for our

armed forces. OK, got to end it there, I'm afraid. 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.