A House of Commons Library briefing paper provides a comprehensive overview of the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons policies, capabilities, and programmes.
This article summarises the key insights from the briefing paper, shedding light on the nation’s nuclear posture, disarmament stance, and ongoing modernisation efforts.
The UK’s nuclear policy focuses on minimal credible nuclear deterrence, with resources dedicated to NATO defence. The briefing paper points out that “The UK does not have a policy of ‘no-first use’.”
This means the UK reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear threats.
Disarmament Debate
Post-Cold War, the UK has taken disarmament steps in line with the NPT. The 2010 SDSR anticipated a 65% reduction in the nuclear stockpile by the mid-2020s.
However, the 2021 Integrated Review stated that “2010 commitments could no longer be met due to the current security environment.”
Consequently, the cap on the nuclear stockpile has been raised, raising concerns about the UK Government’s disarmament commitment.
Capabilities and Infrastructure
The UK’s nuclear stockpile cap, as per the briefing paper, is “no more than 260 warheads.” The nation operates a continuous at-sea deterrence (CASD) and is the only recognised nuclear state with a single deterrent system.
The deterrent is based at HM Naval Base Clyde in western Scotland. Submarines are stationed at Faslane, and warheads are stored at Coulport. Maintenance for the Vanguard class is conducted at Faslane, while deep maintenance and refit take place at HM Naval Base Devonport in Plymouth.
Both HMNB Clyde and Devonport dockyard are managed by Babcock International. A 15-year contract with the ABL Alliance supports the Trident strategic weapon system at Coulport and Faslane.
The UK’s nuclear warheads are manufactured and maintained at two AWE sites in Aldermaston and Burghfield, Berkshire. In November 2020, the MOD announced that AWE would return to direct Government ownership.
Modernisation: Dreadnought Programme
The Dreadnought programme aims to replace the UK’s Vanguard class submarines with a new Dreadnought class by the early 2030s. A Common Missile Compartment (CMC) for the SSBN is being developed in partnership with the US.
The briefing paper estimates the cost for designing and manufacturing four SSBNs at £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency. The UK is also participating in the US service-life extension programme for the Trident II D5 missile.
In February 2020, the UK Government confirmed a programme to replace the Mk4 nuclear warhead.
Conclusion
The UK maintains its status as a significant nuclear power with a focus on minimal credible deterrence. The nation’s disarmament commitment has come under scrutiny, while the ongoing Dreadnought programme signals a dedication to modernisation.
The infrastructure supporting the UK’s nuclear weapons underscores the extensive network enabling the UK’s nuclear capabilities. The House of Commons Library briefing paper offers valuable insights into the complexities and challenges surrounding the UK’s nuclear landscape.
BOOM 😎
Here’s what I feel is going to happen:
Labour get in
Labour has a defence review
Say they are going to get rid of Nukes in which to send a moral message to the rest of the world and use the money to bulk up the armed forces
Allows them to save money there and by cancelling the new nuke boat
Labour then save a lot more money by selling a carrier
Ending the Tempest program
Curtailing the F35 program
Oh yeah watch a move in which to remove Starmer by the far left, if that suceeds, then there will be hell to pay.
😂
Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent. However the Green’s and Liberal Democrats want to decommission all nuclear weapons, your statement is hysterical at best.
Let’s be right here..what’s the point spending billions on nuclear weapons…they will never be used or on the other foot they will go off so game over for everyone if they do so no point spending money on developing or maintaining nuclear warheads..spend it on less tax for all us poor people 🤷
As long as Putin remains in power the UK’s defence will remain reasonably intact. Once Putin is gone, then the West will sigh with relief and begin collectively cutting once more, especially land systems. So things should be safe for now.
This is an opinión just made by western propaganda but if you know a little about Russian polícy you,d know that Putin IS a moderate compare with Medvedev for example, when Putin go the Next president Will be much more aggresive and dangerous, take note.
You’re right about Putin being a moderate. Others in Russia could feasibly end up in Putin’s job that advocates sinking the UK with their Poseidon abomination. So yeah, Putin ain’t the worst where that’s concerned.
Agree,many assume that if Mr Putin were to magically disappear the War in Ukraine would come to a swift end – the fact is there are no likely successors to Putin who are currently calling for peace,far from it.The only critics of Putin are either dead,in prison or in exile.
I doubt that.
Hmm…a maximum of 260 warheads to incinerate (er…terminate w/ extreme prejudice) all the slobbering Orcs, scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs, fanatical Iranian mullahs, nutbag NKs and other possible opponents? Margin to ensure completely successful eradication may prove to be rather slim. 🤔😳😉
Any normal person would subscribe to such a logical train of thought. But we are talking the looney left here, you know those who see nothing but hate when it comes to anything red, white and blue.
Abbott, McDonnell, Begum, Trickett, Paula Barker, Olivia Blake, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ian Byrne, David lammy, Ian Lavery, Grahame Morris, Kate Osamor, Kate Osborne, Zarah Sultana, Mick Whitley, Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter have all expressed they would have no problem getting rid of Starmer and replacing him with a Momentum designated leader (Looks at Magic Grandpa) who as we saw during the Afghan and Iraq campaigns hide their left leaning targeting of the armed forces by playing the moral righteous card, here is a motion from Jan this year from Whittome who had to take time out from the stress of been an MP the other year:
“”That this House notes that 24 February marks the first anniversary of Russia launching an all-out invasion of Ukraine; applauds the Ukrainian people’s courageous resistance; welcomes the gifting of a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine and the transfer of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine; recognises that increased assistance must be provided to help Ukraine successfully conclude the war, free their entire country, and secure a just peace; condemns the fact that 1,105 vehicles were disposed of by the MOD via sale/auction in 2022 for financial gain; calls for all such equipment to be offered to Ukraine; notes that the Challenger 3 programme will upgrade at least 148 of the existing Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks, and calls for the urgent gifting of 79 CR2 tanks to Ukraine; notes that the 170 CVR(T) Scimitar vehicles go out of service this year, and calls for their gifting to Ukraine; notes with the arrival of 623 Boxer vehicles that the Warrior Vehicle is being retired, and calls for all Warriors to be gifted to Ukraine; notes that only four Typhoon Tranche 1 aircraft will be retained until 2027, and calls for the gifting of the remaining Typhoon Tranche 1 aircraft to Ukraine; calls for those of the current fleet of 60 Chinooks due for retirement be gifted to Ukraine; and calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to commit to the above aid being provided urgently with necessary training and ammunition, and for delivery no later than Spring 2023.:
All they see here is, disposing as much Military equipment as possible, and as per their standard operating procedure go well out of their way to hinder or stop any new arms procurements because as we are informed on a daily basis, there are much better things to spend money on, than ensuring the country is defended.
Bravo as always.
OT – I understand that a UK-led group of European countries has asked for expressions of interest to supply Ukraine with missiles with a range of up to 250 miles. The call for responses from manufacturers who could provide such missiles was included in a notice posted by the International Fund for Ukraine – a funding mechanism set up by Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden to expedite the provision of weapons to Kyiv.
The notice was posted last week, but was reported on Tuesday. I take it this refers to Storm Shadow?
They’ve announce today that we’ll be sending Storm Shadow to Ukraine.
Spot on
👏👏👏
Bravo Farouk. Well said.
Are you on Sunaks payroll? What a load of bollocks.
yes he is
He is
Marked wrote:
“”Are you on Sunaks payroll? What a load of bollocks.””
Instead of salivating about my meat and 2 veg , how about you take the time to point out exactly where you think I got it wrong. I have no problem listening (and been corrected) by another line of thought. But if all you can offer is a place for me to park my bike, then don’t be offended when I point you in the direction of Blue Oyster bar, where you can dance the night away to your pleasure (oh and you can take your sycophantic mates along as well)
I agree with Farouk wholeheartedly when it comes to Labor. I have absolutely no faith they will spend what is needed to keep the country safe. I still tremble when Corbin proposed sending our nuclear boats to sea without any missiles – I tremble because at the time he was dead serious!
My concern however, is that The Conservative Party used to be known as the party of defence but over the past dozen years or so, has shown this to be far from the truth. I have zero confidence in Sunak spending what is needed either. For all Boris’ and Liz Truss’ sins, you knew where they stood – especially the latter with 3% GDP by 2030 – she was clear and up-front on that point from the get-go.
Sunak however, only ever issued vague statements like ‘we willl spend whatever is necessary to keep the country safe’ – ok, what does that mean? Now he has been forced into a corner to commit with great reluctance, to 2.5% GDP by 2030 but if you ask me he never was – and still isn’t – serious about defence and the huge wake-up call that is Ukraine, has fallen on deaf ears at No. 10.
Lastly, we need to be concerned about China NOW – not a few years down the road when it’s way too late. I’m sorry to say but war is coming; China is itching for a fight soon over Taiwan and like it or not, we will be dragged into it and we simply are NOT ready.
It’s time to take heads out of the sand, waken up and smell the roses. We need to recognise that to preserve our way of life and prosperity, we need to take defence seriously.
Remind me who ordered the Carriers.
Remind me who reduced the RN from 35 Escorts to 23, SSNS from 12 to 7, and Fast Jet Sqns from 23 to 12?
Plus privatised DERA, presided over TRACER, Boxer, FRES shambles, ordered no armoured vehicles beyond Terrier/Titan/Trojan through their time in office apart from UORs, which has led DIRECTLY to the state the army is in today, and I could go on an on.
Carriers? Yes, they ordered them, which was excellent. They also then delayed them causing 1 billion plus added to the bill, which is usually laid at the Tories door. I can provide links if necessary? Last bloke I did that for has yet to get back to me…
Oh look… a tumbleweed… I suspect you’ll be waiting a while for that reply Daniele!
I know mate!! We all know the Tories have not been great and have presided over cut after cut. What irks me are the holier than thou posts that none of this happened with the previous rabble.
As for Jas reply to Farouk, the other issue is that Farouk is concerned with the far left Looney side of Labour, and is right on point. Of course they didn’t order the Carriers, they had no power then.
I agree with the first 2 predictions, but think Labour will not have an overall majority, so won’t be able to get controversial decisions through.
I don’t see the other predictions playing out. Labour does not have a unilateral disarmament policy as that rather did for Kinnock. Labour did not oppose the Dreadnought programme in debates.
Can’t see Labour selling a carrier as it was they who wanted and ordered 2 carriers, it was Cameron who wanted to sell or mothball one and was very hacked off when he was told he couldn’t for contractual and financial reasons.
Why end the Tempest programme? It would mean running on Typhoon at high cost.
Its Tories who have essentially cut the F-35 buy to c.70 aircraft, so no need for Labour to cut back.
How are the carriers working out?
How’s your job doing 2 Paras laundry working out 👜?
What is with all the gay references… Is that a UK thing. The warheads were developed in the US and they were actually tested in the continental US.. try to move on a little bit. And your sexuality is your own issue.
You’re the one with the gay references my little muppet, you’re getting excited about warheads! My reference is to your femininity. Its ok, not all men can be manly and have served in the Army, many don’t pass the medical like yourself. It’s ok, laundry is a good job! Now crack on, those gussets won’t scrub themselves.
Yet again you are talking bollocks it been pointed out to you in an earlier thread that our warheads were developed by ourselves at the AWE🙄
MK4a Trident Warheads are manufactured in Britain using US components, only the physics package was developed and manufactured here in the UK!
“The warheads were developed in the US “
Is that after the EUROPEANS, including Brits and Germans, made the whole nuke thing possible for you?
The current warheads on our Trident SLBMs have only been tested through computer simulation and modelling. They have not been live tested, as the UK signed a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty in 1996. These warheads along with their replacements are completely designed and manufactured, including the fissile and fusion material in the UK.
Stop trolling and do some background research before gobbing off! Then you won’t come across as a cockwomble!
We have something that has works now, is becoming increasingly effective and will continue to improve over the next ten to fifteen years. Given that the class is designed to work into the late 2060s, I’d say that’s okay.
It could certainly be worse: we could be stuck with patching up the Admiral Kuznetsov and praying for a carrier version of Su-57s. (No wonder Putin supports the Orthodox Church.)
How are the Zumwalts working out?
Very well as it turns out thanks👍
Bloke down the garage says few more weeks, just need to cannibalise some more parts.
Great thanks. Teething troubles with one carrier, as the Americans had teething troubles with ‘the Ford’. To be expected with new technology/new build. All in hand.
A great capability representing good value for money and not overly expensive to man them. More F-35Bs arriving year on year.
It sounds like Labour HQ needs to be added to the target list Farouk!
Joking aside, can Labour ( and I am certainly no supporter in any way) do any worse re defence, the conservatives drove it into the ground and off a cliff after all.
JC wrote:
So, I’m on leave, and my mate Ian and I pop into Dewsbury (next town along) on a Saturday . Parked the car between the train and Bus station and proceeded down the hill walking past the Bus station into town. There’s a CND stand against the wall and I stop to have a butchers, the lad behind the stand, asks me to sign a petition. I in turn ask what its for, he rattled off a list of hurts caused by the US. I refuse. He unable to accept this, goes off on a foaming rant, which ends with, people like you should have this battered into your head, to which he proceeds to walk around the stand towards me. I automatically turn and advance into contact, he now realising I wasn’t your average Asian , who had very short hair, very broad shoulders and wasn’t in the least intimidated by his gobbing off. Quickly arrived at the solution that discretion was the better part of valour and started back peddling quickly away from me all the whilst mouthing off that he wasn’t scared of me and that he could have me. Ian and I then walked away. Once around the corner, I burst into a sprint and ran all the way around the block to arrive at the stand from the opposite direction in which to have matey show me exactly what he was going to do. Just as I was about to grab him, I found myself rugby tackled by ian who knowing what I was up to had simply walked the few feet back past the stand and awaited my arrival at the newspaper stall. Gobshite on seeing me feet away from him decided to leg it. His polarised mindset which believes everybody should dance to the tune they blow on their political masters flute or else exemplifies everything about the intolerance ingrained within the far left
Your mate did well Farouk, a gobshite prick like that isn’t worth the trouble mate…..
The enemy within.
I am far from being a Socialist, but you are talking rubbish.
If anything, the rhetoric coming out of the Russian media has weakened the “loony left” in the Labour party with respect to this issue.
I fear that defence will become an even lower priority under Labour, but ever since Cameron I have no faith in the Tories either.
Bob wrote:
“”I am far from being a Socialist, but you are talking rubbish””
In response to my post where I suggest a new Labour Government would cut defence spending by use of the moral ethics card. You then end with this:
“”I fear that defence will become an even lower priority under Labour, “”
Want to remind us all about that old adage about the left and right hand again?
It can’t be a lower priority, there’s where we are now and sod all!
Any lower and you might as well issue a general order to all branches of the Armed forces.
” Will the last man out please turn off the lights”!
I’m in the Labour party and that is not our policy ‘to get rid of nukes’! Also Britain would lose its permanent seat on the security council,,which it earned defeating the Nazi’s!!!! So think again!!!!!!
Hi Farouk – I like much of what you post here and I find it interesting and informative. But I think we should give an incoming Labour government a chance on defence. Remember that the real damage was done by Cameron’s and Fox’s disastrous 2010 SDSR which absolutely eviscerated the Army. And much else.
It looks like after Partygate, the dreadful mismanagement of the Covid pandemic and the highest taxation in 75 years the mood of the nation is for change. Such is democracy.
i certainly wouldn’t vote for any party that promies a defence review. What they really mean is that ‘we will lose the electionn if we print the truth so we are going to perform a review that will be lead by a politician that guarantees the outcome is pre-determined’.
Is there a drawback in the UK only having one type of strategic deterrent?
Yes but we have the best form, most land based missiles as useless.
Until they start landing on your head. They are there 24/7 and have been for a very long time. And they actually work and are invulnerable unless someone wants to launch a full skill nuclear strike.
If they are so good then why does the US devote so much attention to the submarine component of the Triad.
SLBM’s are easily the most effective, capable and survivable deterrent and also the most expensive.
Any ground based system will always be vulnerable to counter strike.
I think the pros outweigh the cons; strategically your enemy doesn’t know where you are, no limits to where you can strike. Also, by having your nuclear deterrent that is mobile, you’re not a sitting target for the enemy.
We got rid of the toffee hammer Graham and we just wonder about dragging the sledge hammer around now….
After all, if you have to drop the hammer, might as well make it a big one….
Never heard the V-bomber fleet being described as the toffee hammer before!
If you can see it, you can kill it.
If you can see it, you can try and kill it. But you may not succeed.
Ivan has “tactical” nukes. A near miss of 1 mile would do it, cos as every schoolboy knows..water can not be compressed.
Hi Graham – If there is a disadvantage in only having one form of nuclear deterrent it is offset by the vulnerability of other delivery systems. Other countries have silo-based first strike systems that are obvious targets for an enemy first strike. Aircraft deliverable free-fall nuclear bombs or standoff missiles are probably less vunerable than silos but are capable of interdiction. This leaves the CASD which is about as invulnerable as current technology can achieve.
Nuclear deterrence is all about uncertainty. The enemy cannot be certain about how mamy warheads we have on our Trident D5s, or the proportion of decoys to actual warheads. Once under the Artic ice cap for example they can hide, silently listening with the crews alert.
One thing is obvious. If one of our Vanguards has to surface and launch missiles, its not just the one. It’s all or nothing as the enemy will undoubtedly detect the launch position and fire a pattern of their missiles to get our boat. God forbid.
Agreed David. Which is why I support CASD, the others, like Cruise, are not credible.
Not a lot of Russian or Chinese ASW assets in the mid Atlantic where our SSBN’s are based. The boat could sit surfaced there for weeks popping off missiles and there is not a thing the Chinese could do, same probably goes for the Russians as what ever naval capability they poses won’t cross the GIUK gap.
Not sure where all this talk of SSBNs surfacing to fire comes from…
Hi David. Yep, I agree with all that. If one of our Vanguards had to surface to launch one or more missiles, something has seriously gone wrong as they are designed to launch missiles whilst submerged!
I understand the logic that the UK as a small densely inhabited country is not suited to land based nukes.
I also understand that we retired the V-bombers due to the cost of maintaining them as the capability aged, and a concern that they could be destroyed on the ground or in flight.
Yes, a significant drawback, especially when your only nuclear deterrent is based on a sub, carrying at up to 16 Trident SLBMs. Where each can carry 8 to 14 re-entry vehicles and each of those carries a 100kt thermonuclear warhead.
Therefore, there can be no proportional response, its either all or nothing!
Before it went out of service in 1998, we had the WE177. This was a free falling thermonuclear parachute retarded bomb, that came in 3 flavours, A, B and C. The A having the lightest yield, whilst the B had the highest, the C was middle of the road. The A had a dialable yield of 0.5 or 10kt and the warhead was also used in depth charges, it was carried by Buccaneers and Sea Harriers of the FAA. The B was predominantly used by the V-Force. The B’s where then carried by Tornados tasked with Strategic missions. Whilst the C was supposed to be used for the interdiction role and carried by the RAF’s Jaguars and then the Tornado.
The Government successfully by removing WE177 and its planned successor, effectively removed the UK’s ability for proportional retribution. As Trident would need to have its larger number of warheads removed, so it can launch a proportional response. Plus, if a Country detects a long rang ballistic missile heading their way, they can only assume the worst and will feel obliged to respond in kind.
AWE still have the know how and manufacturing skills to build a modern version of WE177. A small dialable warhead in the 0.5 to 10kt, could easily be adapted to fit in a cruise missile such as TLAM, in fact it could probably fit Storm Shadow. This would give the UK a “safer” and better ability to respond to a limited nuclear attack on the UK and its dependencies.
Thanks Davey. Also the army had tactical nuclear artillery shells and missiles. Not sure of the logic to phase those out.
Good summary. Believe the ability of Tomahawk to carry a nuclear warhead has been omitted. There is also the matter of missiles housed in the new common missile compartment which may significantly impact the capability plus new long range missiles to replace tomahawk, which could be carried by Tempest aircraft.
If you are not going to have a triad, etc… (let’s not kid ourselves, these are very expensive) then one thing is for sure, sub based deterrent is the way to go if you need to put all your eggs in one basket.
Land based missiles and silos attract Russian ICBM’s like flys to shit. Not a good idea for such a small densely packed country.
No where it put them. That’s why we cancelled the land based ICBM program.
He agrees with you.
What was the land based ICBM programme? Didn’t know we had a case for silo systems.
Wasn’t it in the late 50s and early 60s and planned for Spadeadam?
RAF Spadeadam was well known in recent years (but not at the time) for having been the Test Centre for Blue Streak, IRBM, the facility being based around a tethered stand ie no rockets were launched during the development phase from Spadeadam.
Launches of Blue Streak were carried out in Woomera and Guinea, from June 1964, with the last flight being in Nov 1971. Project cancelled in 1972.
The Wiki entry indicates that it would have been one of 60 remotely located launch sites had Blue Streak come into service! Incredible.
‘The site was first built in 1955 to be the test centre for the Blue Streak intermediate-range ballistic missile project.[10] The role of Spadeadam in Britain’s Cold War nuclear weapons programme was made public in 2004 when tree felling uncovered remains of abandoned excavations for a missile silo. Spadeadam was probably intended to be one of 60 launch sites planned for remote locations.[11]
I keep thinking, that the Trump mini nuke, based on the 100 kt Trident warhead, but without the fusion boost, would make a great British tactical nuke, if put in a Paveway IV bomb case. This mini nuke is in the 5-10 kt category (some say 6.5 kt).
What a waste of money-can never be used.
I’m glad yous are all having a hand shank at the thought of our nuclear deterrent but I’m sure you are far enough away from it to worry about it being a target. Try living on an island in the middle of the River Clyde just a stone throw away from Faslane and Coulport and tell me how safe you feel just now. If it were me, I’d like to see Trident with a beautiful big base right up the heart of the Thames Estuary… say just outside the houses of parliament where it bloody belongs.
I have just watched ABC’s programme ‘four corners(see link) in it Rex Patrick goes at the RN Submarines!!!
https://youtu.be/Igqs1qDbnK4