The UK’s nuclear deterrent remains fully operationally independent, according to Lord Coaker, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, in response to a written parliamentary question from Lord Oates on 26 February 2025.
Lord Oates, a Liberal Democrat peer, had asked the government what consideration it was giving to securing the full independence of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. In a response published on 12 March 2025, Lord Coaker stated:
“I can assure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of our nuclear weapons, even if they are to be employed as part of a NATO response.”
The UK’s nuclear deterrent is based on the Trident missile system, which is operated from the Royal Navy’s Vanguard-class submarines. While the UK collaborates closely with the United States on nuclear defence issues, Lord Coaker made clear that this relationship does not compromise British control over its nuclear arsenal.
“The UK has a longstanding, close relationship with the US on all defence nuclear issues, which has endured through many changes of Government in our two nations,” he said.
The UK’s nuclear cooperation with the US is governed by long-term agreements, including the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement and the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, which was amended in 1982 to support the transition to Trident missiles. According to Lord Coaker, these agreements provide for “co-operation and collaboration which has been, and continues to be, of considerable mutual benefit to both nations.”
The extent of UK dependence on US nuclear technology has been a recurring topic of debate, with some arguing that reliance on US-built missile systems and technical support raises questions about sovereignty. However, the government has consistently maintained that the decision-making authority over the use of nuclear weapons lies solely with the British Prime Minister.
Talk about dodging the question. The concerns are about the orange shit gibbon blocking UK access to the pool of missiles and ongoing maintenance support, not the actual use of these weapons. I only hope that this is being considered behind the scenes whilst the public response is that there is no problem.
It does not matter that trump hopefully is gone for good after his 4 years, we don’t know what is coming up after him. This last few weeks has demonstrated a huge weakness in the US constitution, too much power is in the hands of one person, we can never trust that similar issues won’t happen again with a future president. I will never again consider the US a reliable long term partner.
Agreed but the only short term option is France. They can bargain hard but we deal with them as equals and I think they are less fundamentally hostile to the UK than the current trend in the USA.
Another alternative is to bring the proportion of the Trident pool owned by the UK to the UK (along with buying a few more to keep resillience), and getting LM UK to maintain, test and upgrade them here. It would be more expensive than what we do now, but it would be a lot faster and cheaper way to gain medium-term independence than going French. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I’d like to think there’s a plan to do that should it become so.
You would need to get the Donald to agree plus ITAR.
Better just to be done with them, the French spent €7 billion on the entire M51 program. That’s one year of the increased defence budget. France will have no issues selling us the plans for cash and MBDA can alter them to our specific needs.
We can’t continue to be tied at the hip by any other nation in such an important aspect of defence and there is a massive difference between cooperation and dependence.
Yes, the UK needs its Trident missiles on the same basis as Polaris. So the UK owns them, can load & unload them from submarines, can do routine maintenance on the missiles.
Why on earth would being dependent on the French of all people be better than being dependent on the US. They have proved terrible partners in the past.
One thing in our favour with France, they at least share the same European security concerns as the UK. That’s something that’s not going to change. The deterrant is the foundation of our defence strategy, as such I’d feel more comfortable if it was entirely in our own hands though.
They also understand as we do that you don’t throw your weight around with customers or you won’t have any. Greece was trying to get them to block meteor to turkey and France said it had no such power.
the only way to guarantee true independence is for the UK to develop its own missile. going from US to French dependence is not the answer.
my 2 cents
We can share a common design and not be dependent on the French.
We could use French nukes in the short run whilst we develop a next generation for ourselves.
I think we should have our own designed and manufactured missiles! If we hadn’t capitulated our own missiles and aircraft industries to appease the U.S. after WW2 we would probably be miles ahead of the Americans now! Instead as part of war reparations we gave away lots of our best technology to the USA. Big mistake? Especially now. We did similar with China?
We have our own.
It is the missile that might be needed.
The harder and more frequently they say this, the less inclined I am to believe it. The lady protest too much. This coupled with the fact that the last two test firings, of Trident, have been duds, leaves me with serious doubts about Trident’s effectiveness. To me it underlines how badly our defence budget has been badly spent over the last 20/30 years.
My two pence worth.
I think the last fail was due to some sort of telemetry issue with the US test range wasn’t it rather than a missile failure?
Under those circumstances I’d count it as a double failure.
That proposal is very interesting. As long as we have operational control over the guidance system.
Imagine, Starmer having access to nuclear missile launch codes. Jesus H. Christ.