Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff, declared the world is entering a “third nuclear age,” defined by proliferating technologies, geopolitical competition, and an erosion of longstanding security frameworks.

Delivering his annual lecture at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Radakin warned that this era demands renewed resolve, confidence, and reform to ensure national security and global stability.

A New Nuclear Reality

Radakin outlined three distinct nuclear eras:

  1. The Cold War – dominated by two opposing blocs and the logic of deterrence.
  2. Disarmament and Counter-Proliferation – marked by efforts to reduce stockpiles and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
  3. The Third Nuclear Age – characterised by proliferating threats, disruptive technologies, and the lack of robust security architectures.

Radakin stressed that the new age is fraught with “multiple and concurrent dilemmas,” ranging from Russia’s provocative nuclear rhetoric and exercises to China’s rapid nuclear build-up, Iran’s non-cooperation with international safeguards, and North Korea’s escalating ballistic missile programme.

“We are at the dawn of a third nuclear age which is altogether more complex,” he said.

The Chief of Defence Staff emphasised the importance of the UK’s nuclear deterrent as a critical asset against adversaries.

“The UK’s nuclear deterrent is the one part of our inventory of which Russia is most aware and has more impact on Putin than anything else,” Radakin stated.

He noted the substantial investment by successive British governments in renewing submarines, warheads, and the nuclear enterprise after decades of underfunding.

“Previously governments believed they were doing the right thing. Now they know they really are,” he said, underscoring the renewed commitment to ensuring the UK’s strategic capabilities remain relevant.

Radakin urged the nation to rediscover its confidence, highlighting the collective strength of Europe and America, which together account for half of the world’s wealth, in stark contrast to Russia’s economic and demographic decline.

“It’s about confidence and self-belief,” Radakin said. “It’s about our national and collective sense of purpose. It’s about leadership and a willingness to act. This keeps us safe even in a more dangerous world.”

Reiterating his vision for reform, first articulated three years ago, Radakin called for a Defence organisation that is outward-looking and forward-thinking. He stressed the importance of adapting to contemporary challenges by fostering leadership and aligning the UK’s defence strategy with its global responsibilities.

Radakin concluded by emphasising the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, which has been a cornerstone of international security since World War II. He called for continued responsibility by states like the UK and the US to extend their nuclear umbrella to allies and ensure global stability.


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!

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

12 COMMENTS

  1. Could this mean a similar stance for civil defence as seen in the first half of the 20th Century? My mother was in WVS and I remember her in the uniform. Will the rotary stations be reintroduced to monitor local pre and post-bomb governance? Many underground facilities were built in prewar and postwar years and these still remain but most are in a sorry state. Or will the government policy be to let us burn up and save the bother?

    • Civil defence is a waste of time in the UK, we stopped doing it for a reason. The UK would not survive a nuclear war, its Grimm watching but Threads by the BBC is based on real world scenarios. Countries like the USA and France would survive longer term due to larger land area but densely packed countries like the UK and Japan would be screwed.

      • Civil defence is core for any nation to manage a war or disaster. We never stopped doing civil defence we just call it civil contingencies and don’t bother investing much in it as the threat was believed to have reduced.

        A nation without civil defence will loss a war as its infrastructure will collapse as will its ability to fight a war.. we had civil defence before the nuclear bomb was conceived.

  2. Strangely nuclear war doesn’t worry me as much as global warming. Sure NW could happen but it may not. Whereas GW is definitely happening and at a much fast rate one suspects ( according to some new science using ice cores we are already at 1.5 degrees) than given by the UN or what have you ( as they have to be conservative in their predictions to be believable).

    • Normal risk management practice is to multiply the likelihood of an event by the severity of the consequence. If the likelihood of a global temperature rise of a couple of degrees (that you can’t plausibly stop anyway) bothers you, then the possibility of finding yourself at ground zero and subject to a 100 million degree temperature rise really ought to worry you at least as much.

      • True but as we are heading for much bigger rise than 1.5-2 degrees we will have many consequences to deal with- likely agriculure and fishing collapse. – but who need food, water resources becoming scarcer or disappearing in some areas entirely – but who cares about that, sea level rises of 10s of feet or even metres – so what happens to all those coasal/ riverine areas etc etc. So yes I could be fried by a nuke but equally could starve or drown or whatever from global warming – just as dead either way. Admittedly time and fate will tell.

      • Yes but you only multiply by from 1 to 5 in both likelihood and outcomes so the maximum risk score is 25, interestingly on the national risk register the likelihood of a CBRN attack is only a 1 but is catastrophic for a score of 5….( less than 5% chance in the next 2-5 years, ) Which is a low score. Where as climate change is considered in a completely different way in that it’s called a chronic risk..in that it’s now happening all the time and will gradually get worse and worse over time…so it does not get a risk score in the traditional way as it’s being realised all the time so you cannot give a likelihood score in the way yiu can risks that have not jet been realised ( like nuclear attack on the UK).

    • I use to worry about global warming but not any more. Renewable energy is so cheap now it’s unstoppable and electric cars are going the same way. Soon clean meat from stem cells will while out all forms of pasture agriculture and almost all farms will return to nature soaking up billions of tonnes of CO2.

      Nuclear war does scare the shit out of me however.

      When we have single dictators like Putin and now TV celebrities like Trump with unilateral authority to end humanity that’s scary and if all that’s standing in the way are inept Generals worried more about their own skin than doing the right thing that’s even scarier.

      I’m all for Nuclear weapons but I only think proper stable countries should have them. I’m including China in that proper stable country mix but I’m having questions over the USA now.

      • I don’t know wherher you’re right or not re tech fixing global warming but even if you are right GW has way too much momentumn in the system now to keep temp at a reasonable level and tbh i think the difficulties both technical and political/societal to implement vast amounts of green tech in required timeframe is vastly more difficult than realised.

        • Personally I agree, I think the planet is going well over 2 degrees, possibly up to 4 and that is going to screw over many many populations and will be catastrophic for Africa, Southern Asia and the southern and central parts of North America…

  3. The world is becoming more dangerous and unstable, yet we’re lowering the number of silos from 16 to 12 on the new ballistic subs, seems like a silly idea considering this is our only method of launching nuclear weapons. Even if we never routinely load that many, 16 missiles is a more credible deterrent and provides greater redundancy.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here