A recent Spectator article, authored by Paul Mason, Marc De Vore, and James Rogers, argues that the UK must consider expanding its nuclear arsenal to address emerging threats from Russia and China.
The piece outlines the increasing risk posed by sub-strategic nuclear weapons, which can be used in smaller, tactical scenarios rather than full-scale strategic strikes.
According to the authors, Russia’s frequent incursions into UK airspace with nuclear-capable bombers highlight the threat, as these aircraft often open their bomb bays, suggesting the potential for nuclear attack.
The writers argue that the UK’s current deterrent, based solely on Trident missiles launched from Vanguard-class submarines, is limited in comparison to the diversified arsenals of other nuclear powers.
The piece also touches on the uncertain reliability of US support, especially with shifting priorities under recent administrations. France has hinted at extending its own nuclear umbrella to European allies, but this could place undue pressure on Paris without British support. In the view of the authors, a more collaborative nuclear posture between the UK and France would strengthen NATO’s collective defence and reassure Eastern European members.
The Spectator article concludes that the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), expected soon, should address the need for more diverse nuclear deterrence options. The authors urge a cross-party consensus to develop theatre-level nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy to counter Russian and Chinese threats.
For the full analysis and detailed arguments, read the original article on The Spectator.
I can see a Dreadnought design change coming on. How about fitting 16 tubes ?
“Now I become death, the destroyer of words”.
12 missiles are ok as long as each D5 has 8 warheads onboard. Probably need our eNATO allies to fund the UK and Frances nuclear deterrent to cover the whole of eNATO and increase sub numbers by 1-2 more for both RN and France. Having a eNATO 12 ballistic sub fleet is a very respectable deterrent against Mad Vlad and all his cronies.
10 would do very nicely provided uk and France operate an integrated deployment / maintenance / refit schedule ! As Russia has to split its force over 2 Oceans we would actually outgun them by about 40%.
Way too late for that!
UK and France should probably enlarge our capability to 6 boats each, or invest in an air launched option which, in theory, could be ‘isesedd by allies.
The idea should be floated to European NATO members. Make it a European deterrant. The UK and France have the know how and infrastructure to run it if the rest all chip in and support funding it. It would be cheaper than developing their own weapons.
Who is going to man them?
We 100% should increase our capability. It’s all part of a deterrent the end of the day, and if building it means we never need to use it then it’s money well spent. The only thing potential aggressors respect is strength.
Agree a storm shadow variant with a 10-20kt warhead would be a useful addition. Something to counter Russia’s proliferation of battlefield and intermediate range missiles.
Could be F35B fired or typhoon. Doesn’t matter which as long as the aircraft can get to drop point.
In addition our trident MIRV warhead numbers need to go back up. Each D5 can in theory deploy 8 warheads so that should be what we aim for.
I’d go for an ALBM in the style of the Israeli Blue/Silver Sparrow, but fitted with a Trident MIRV.
Reduces the likelihood of a conventional strike being mistaken for nuclear, and also would improve solid booster expertise as a lead in for a sovereign Trident replacement.
Never going to happen. We can’t afford aircraft and ships, never mind increasing out deterrent forces
The problem is that we must first say that we must modernize and have a reliable deterrent… it is reliable but when we see our SSBNs that stay at sea for 200 days, it is not acceptable for our country. I think that if we have to increase our size (I am not convinced, let’s start by strengthening our armies…) we must do it with the French by joining the ASN4g program… it would be cheaper and the missile will be very reliable…
I think the article is driving more at acquiring tactical nukes rather than expanding our SSBN, SLBM capability, to give more options.
That means an air launched missile.
Ideally Dreadnaught would be 5 boats but I myself prefer that money spent on our conventional forces, which are hollowed out to a ridiculous degree.
If we are protecting other Euro NATO nations how about them contributing to the cost of CASD?
did not Boris Johnson increase our nuclear warheads. or did i misread it.
He didn’t increase the number of warheads, just the self-imposed limit of them that we can have.
That’s actually the same thing as we now have more warheads.
This wishful thinking is too late sadly. Successive governments have removed our defence across Europe and unfortunately we do not have time to rebuild significantly or quickly enough to deter what is coming.
We have to try, I understand that after all it’s human instinct to ignore reality in the hope it will not happen. I’m sure the top contributors on here are more than aware of the above. We will fight with what we have. We will have no choice.
To those that put the country in this position- you were warned by Obama 9 years ago that it would be wise to start spending on defence properly. You ignored him. Now we will all pay the price for your redirecting defence spending to other things.
Daft as it sounds increasing Europe Nuclear deterrent isn’t down to pure overall numbers, it’s possible to increase the deployed deterrence force by 50% with little or no expenditure.
That may sound fanciful but it’s 100% true, between UK and France we have 8 SSBN boats, if each Navy operates as an independent force they can each have 1 boat deployed at a time. However if they realign the deployment, training, refit and maintenance schedules as a single entity you can deploy 3 at a time. That may not sound a lot but 48 SLBM deployed probably outguns Russia.
The UK does have a weakness around its nuclear deterrent,
1) it needs to move it submarine based strategic deterrent from around 30-40 odd warheads per SSBN to around 100 per sub, essentially bringing it in line with France.. for that it needs to move from around 120 deployed ( 3 sets of 40) to around 300 ( three sets of 100) this would allow if there was massive tension to maybe have 200 warheads at sea as a strategic deterrent..and that will work as Russia or china would not survive that as a functional nation. For 300 deployed warheads you would want around 400 total.
2) a sub strategic option..I don’t think we should engage in the tactical nuclear game but we do need a final sub strategic warning shot..basically a “ in the next move we kill everyone warning”. This is needed because of the Russia belief in the escalation to deescalate paradigm, in which they fully believe that to move someone from a MAD exchange you hit them with a none strategic attack.. Russia would be betting that the UK would not expose its SSBNs to respond to a limited nuclear attack with another limited attack ( the RN would not expose the SSBNs and risk losing the strategic deterrent to fire just one or two warheads ), therefore there is a massive hole in the nuclear deterrent.. if Russia thinks we would not go fully MAD and kill everyone over a single nuclear weapon attack and knows we could not risk the SSBNs to fire a single missile, then it may just escalate to deescalate and drop a nuclear weapon on the UK or its forces. So we need to be able to fire a sub strategic response ( 1-4 strategic size warheads at 1-2 targets) as a deterrent and also if they go insane and do attack with a nuclear warhead as a final desperate warning before we go MAD. This should be an air launched weapon.. as the French have and its should be around 20-40 weapons in total.. ( for 2 sites with 10-15 weapons each.. so enough for 2 squadrons).
So all in all the UK should be aiming for around 450 warheads.. 300 deployed on SSBNs and 20-30 deployed in squadrons.
I don’t think there is any such thing as a limited none strategic nuclear attack.