Donald Trump has pushed the Australian and other governments to increase defence spending. Defending society from threats is important, but there’s more to it than soldiers and weapons.

The argument for increased defence spending is based on a fundamental misconception that defence means military defence. There are many other important options to improve security.

Let’s start with what’s called non-offensive defence, also known as defensive defence. This means getting rid of weapons systems that can be used for offence, like long-range bombers, missiles and drones. Why? Because having offensive weapons makes foreign powers worried, so worried that they decide to increase their armaments and perhaps even attack pre-emptively. Getting rid of offensive weapons reduces the threat to others and hence the risk of being attacked. Defensive systems include barriers, shelters and short-range armaments. Some proponents of non-offensive defence include land mines in the mix. This is a problem: defence methods should be ethical.

Another way to reduce the risk of being attacked is to get rid of facilities that can be used to produce deadly weapons. If you don’t have any nuclear power plants, no one can claim you’re covertly making nuclear weapons. As well, nuclear plants are a huge vulnerability because destroying one would release vast quantities of radioactivity, more than a nuclear explosion.

Another way to improve security is through diplomatic defence. This involves building links internationally to foster mutual understanding and goodwill. Diplomacy is usually thought of as being carried out by specialists on behalf of governments, but there’s a broader possibility: person-to-person links between citizens from all walks of life. This might be connections between nurses, cooks or musicians, based on common interests, through visits or online meetings. The idea is to forge bonds at all levels of society. These can counter the fear mongering used to justify aggression.

As part of this strengthening of person-to-person ties, it is important to improve language skills and learning about other cultures. Education, with this aim, should start from a young age.

Next is leadership defence. In any community, leaders are both an asset and a vulnerability. They can be arrested or killed, or induced to co-operate by threats to their families. What’s needed is “leadership in depth". If leaders are captured, killed or compromised, others need to be able and willing to step forward and take their place. This requires preparation so that many people develop leadership skills for planning, strategising, decision-making and inspiring respect. Leadership training is important. So is designing workplaces and organisations so every member has opportunities to lead – and to be an informed follower.

Then there’s communication defence. Broadcast radio and television, phone systems, social media and the Internet – they all need to be resilient to attack. What happens if aggressors take over radio and television studios? How will resisters keep in touch if the internet is shut down? Many scenarios need to be anticipated. For example, radio studios could be equipped with a shut-down switch, to be used in case of a hostile takeover, with an emergency message automatically broadcast. Or perhaps broadcasting would switch to another facility. In August 1968, when Czechoslovakia was invaded by half a million Soviet troops, the radio network, designed for resilience, was used to support the people’s resistance.

No one should be able to use centralised surveillance systems. Instead, systems should be designed so that if an aggressor (or terrorist) gets hold of them, they can’t be used to identify and monitor opponents. This would be a dramatic restructuring of current systems that enable governments to monitor communications and social media. The basic idea is to set up systems that can’t be used against the population if hostile forces take them over.

Another aspect of communication defence is dealing with propaganda and disinformation. Aggressors may choose not to shut down communication channels, but instead to flood them with misleading information, confusing or demoralising the population. In preparation, everyone, children and adults, needs to know how to examine claims, evaluate sources of information and deal with deception.

Loyalty is vital to defence. When a community is divided, attackers can use divide-and-rule tactics, finding allies among the target population. To build greater loyalty within a community, turn to social justice defence. This involves reducing economic and social inequality, so fewer people feel left out and resentful. It means countering all forms of discrimination. When people are treated fairly, they are more willing to defend their community against attack.

In some cases, survival defence is needed. An attacker might seek to subordinate the population by blocking imports or destroying oil refineries, power plants, large dams and any other crucial facility. To build resilience, these sorts of facilities need to be replaced by small-scale, decentralised alternatives, making a community self-reliant and hence less vulnerable to blockades and sanctions. Examples include rooftop solar electricity and cities designed so most people can get around by walking or cycling. Terrorists might attack a large power plant. Would they bother with rooftop solar panels?

Even without any troops or weapons, it’s possible to resist, in what’s called _social defence_ or civilian-based defence. A population prepared to resist without arms has many possible methods, including talking to invaders to persuade them to defect, disabling factories, mines and any other desirable economic assets so they can’t be used by aggressors, going on strike, and refusing to co-operate with orders. By using these sorts of methods, an aggressor would find little value in taking over. Instead, they would risk an uprising in their own country, as information became available that their troops had attacked an unarmed population that was unified in resistance.

Social defence may sound implausible, but there are partial precedents in Germany in 1923 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Just as important, citizens can oppose coups, resisting without arms. This happened in Germany in 1920, France/Algeria in 1961, the Soviet Union in 1991 and South Korea in 2024.

Defence is usually thought of as being against foreign aggressors. But that is not the main danger. Most of the world’s military forces have never been used against external enemies. But they have been used regularly against the very people they are supposed to protect. For people in most parts of the world, the biggest danger is from their own government, backed by the military and police. People-power movements have brought down dictators in dozens of countries, which can be thought of as domestic defence.

In summary, defence against aggression and repression is crucially important, but it doesn’t have to be military defence. There are many other ways to strengthen a society so it becomes less attractive to potential attackers. Getting rid of offensive weapons is an important first step, but there are many others. Helping make society more caring of everyone will build loyalty and commitment, reducing the possibility of any enemy recruiting internal supporters, a so-called fifth column. Then there is widespread education and training so citizens have the skills and perseverance to oppose invaders, or anyone else who wants to take power. Redesigning communication, energy, transport, agriculture and industry can make society less vulnerable to attack and a less attractive target. Building networks with like-minded people worldwide is like creating an alliance, one that can threaten any would-be attacker with the possibility of internal rebellion.

Making these changes is not easy, but many people are already working in these directions. Will it cost a lot? Certainly. Cutting back on the military will save money, but far more will be needed for changes in every other sector. So by all means let’s increase defence spending, on everything except the military.

At least Trump is honest in renaming the US Department of Defence as the Department of War.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.