During a recent House of Lords debate, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle raised questions about the continued investment in Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
Referencing a Financial Times article by Philip Stephens, she asked whether the Government might reconsider its stance, given the high costs and reliance on the United States.
“Should those difficult decisions—or at least, difficult considerations—not include giving serious consideration as to whether we should continue a nuclear weapons programme?” she queried.
Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, was unequivocal in his response. “We are certainly a brave Government, but it has been a consistent policy of whatever Government have been in power to support the nuclear deterrent. The nuclear deterrent will continue; we will renew the nuclear deterrent,” he stated.
Highlighting the current geopolitical climate, Lord Coaker pointed to the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The irresponsible threats at the present time raise the prospect of it. Let us be clear about this: we support the nuclear deterrent, and we support its renewal. That is an important part of our defence,” he added.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Good. The cost of defense nuclear is enormous but with Putin in psycho mode, we might need even more missiles and warheads to make sure deterrence is completely effective. Long range conventional missiles, able to retaliate for an attack of the kind inflicted on Ukraine, might further serve to deter any aggressive act.
I agree, we need massive prompt conventional strike capability. The government has already identified this and is working on it with Germany on a land based cruise missile however I think having an air launched cruise missile would be more responsive. We have 800 stormshadow in inventory that we will soon be getting rid of. Better to convert them into a rapid dragon style capability then build a new low cost very long range air launched cruise missile.
Ideally we need the ability to fire over 100 missiles per day and sustain that for several weeks.
That kid of fire rate could be sustained by just four A400M and at £1 million per missile you could buy that kid of inventory for £2 billion.
That will be a job for Antonov An-70, and An-178 when they get them. A cheap swarm rapid dragon with spear 3 when ready would be be overwelling as well.
Dream on.
Good those who want us to disarm should be embarrassed. Looking at you SNP and CND
Is Helen Morgan MP going to ask the MOD about the environmental impact of the rocket motor? Haha
Good one.
It is good to see this being reaffirmed. We should really now pull out all stops on warhead production and increasing our stock pile up to close to 500 which would allow us to fully arm all our missiles. Given Russian missile defence has been shown to be a joke it’s time to ditch any decoys and just go all in on nuclear warheads.
Given that we already have the missiles and submarines the cost of this is minimal.
With the new US administration preparing to once again bravely surrender with honour to its enemies the UK needs to be prepared as much as possible to operate in a post NATO environment with an isolationist USA.
Building up a much more substantial nuclear deterrent is the best way to do that. Longer term we need to ditch Trident D5 and come up with a UK replacement possibly using the basic design of the M51.
Trident was ground breaking in the 80’s but the technology today is relatively straight forward and MBDA could build our own weapon using French designs for a workable price.
Seriously Jim….what planet are you living on?
Unfortunately one where the troll farm still has internet access 😀
We need to cut ties to the US. Being reliant on them for the pool of missiles is not good. The way things are going we should stick close to Europe not the US. Europe shares our security concerns as well as being our biggest trade link.
Not practical really
Anybody in Europe got a stockpile of trident or equivalent handy?
There would be a vast cost there, unless you want to become dependant on France, instead of the US?
They are the only other nation with SSBM’s and air launched nuclear cruise missiles…..
We certainly couldn’t design, build and field our own equivalents with only 2.3 gdp on defence.
So it’s US, or French ( if you want a European country).
I’ll stick with the US I think….
France designs and builds its own SLBM on 1.9% of GDP on defence and their GDP is lower than ours?
So you still think it’s impossible or do you just feel inferior to the French?
Tin foil hat anyone…. How is Europe getting on in Ukraine….how about Germany buying Russia oil and gas that enabled them to rearm…Nuclear warheads…let me think…Oh yes the French nuclear fleet…how modern are those….In terms of economics I’ve got my popcorn ready for the Euro meltdown…I’d rather be an extra state to the US that tethered to the sinking ship of Europe.
Cut ties. In all areas? Or just nuclear? If all areas,
there goes a huge chunk of our intelligence capability, and theirs, which helps to defend the western world.
Have a read of what UKUSA is and how this bilateral collaboration in many areas is so vital.
( Weird how the comment section is placing replies – this comment was in reply to “New Me” further up, not Mathew Fox.
Matthew, just because you’re another of those Anti EU loons, doesn’t mean that the comments above you are wrong
What’s your first language Matthew? I’m having a hard time understanding your grammar.
What do you mean the French nuclear fleet? Are you referring to their power stations? What’s that got to do with UK defence?
and…more news in the Grauniad today….The UK is now concerned about the environmental impact of the rocket fuel used in Trident D5 missiles…and the contamination caused by plutonium so all nuclear warheads and missiles will be replaced by environmentally friendly inflatable alternatives manufactured in China with Russian help..All surface fleet to remain in dock 365 days of the year to reduce CO2 emissions (which is now the biggest threat to the UK)….they will become hotel accommodation for the boat people instead thus saving taxpayers money…All Royal Navy officers to be trained in unconscious bias, white privilege and critical race theory in China…this will now replace the perisher course which is now deemed exclusionary because it only serves the elite or best of the best and all must have prizes instead….All officers and ratings to eventually be selected form the boat people coming from France to integrate them better into society….All steel manufacturing for warships to be outsourced to China along with shipbuilding to reduce the massive 0.6% of UK emissions to achieve our net zero targets and do our bit for the environment…tongue firmly in cheek….or is it 😉
Im not sure, it’s hard to understand your point. We are talking about the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
We need to arm all twelve tubes on our Dreadnoughts and consider fielding air drop tactical nuclear weapons or a nuclear tipped cruise missle.
I suspect that the Storm Shadow replacement might have that add to it
Problem is if you have nuclear armed cruise missiles it’s then hard to strike an enemy with cruise missiles for fear of starting a nuclear war.
Suddenly cruise missiles become as useless in a conflict as ballistic missiles serving only a deterrent purpose.
Cruise missiles give us a way to escalate a conflict without crossing the nuclear taboo threshold by using tactical weapons. Russia and France are not islands so they have such weapons for different reasons primarily aimed at deterring land invasions by conventional forces.