In a recent debate in the Scottish Parliament, former Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard has once again made incorrect claims about American control over the Trident missile system.
Speaking during a session on nuclear incidents at Faslane, Leonard said: “Even now, we are told, the Scottish Government does not know exactly what has been happening at Coulport and Faslane with these latest radioactive leaks.” He went on to argue that “we could only use [the UK’s nuclear deterrent] with the sanctioning of the Pentagon, the say-so of the White House, and the approval of Donald Trump.”
Leonard’s remarks echo comments he made in 2023, when he said: “The idea of an independent UK nuclear deterrent is mendacious. The Pentagon supplies us with nuclear warheads. Any use of weapons from these shores would need to be sanctioned by the President of the United States of America, and only then at the request of the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, who is always an American general.”
Each of these statements misrepresents how the UK’s deterrent operates. The United Kingdom designs, builds, and maintains its own nuclear warheads at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston and Burghfield. While the Trident II D5 missiles that carry them are American-made and serviced under a shared pool arrangement at King’s Bay, Georgia, this does not give the US operational control over the UK’s deterrent.
The UK retains full sovereign control over its nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister alone holds the authority to order their use, and there is no requirement for US or NATO approval. The chain of command runs entirely through the Royal Navy, from the submarine’s commanding officer up to the Prime Minister.
One of the most persistent myths in this area is that the United States could disable the UK’s deterrent by withholding codes or switching off GPS access. This is incorrect. The Trident missiles do not rely on GPS guidance but instead use a combination of stellar navigation and inertial guidance, enabling them to operate independently of external control or satellite systems.
Similarly, the claim that the US can “veto” a British launch misunderstands how permissive action link technology (used on US nuclear weapons) differs from the UK system. The UK deterrent is not equipped with American-style control locks, meaning the authority to launch rests solely within British command structures.
The partnership with the United States is largely logistical and economic: it allows shared maintenance of the missile bodies to reduce cost and duplication, but it does not extend to command authority or warhead control.
Misinformation of the sort repeated by Leonard risks confusing the public and weakening understanding of a critical national capability, it’s not particularly responsible, either.
The man is either stupid or deliberately deceitful. I suspect the latter. It’s perhaps also worth noting that it would violate the terms of the NPT if – as he claims- the US were to supply us with warheads.
Sounds like he has the right qualifications to be a Politician then !
another clown of a Scottish politician talking about things he has no knowledge of.
He’s English.
😂
😁😁😁🤦
Well said George, lol.
I love the Irony when he says “Things he has no knowledge of” !!!
Made my morning, Georges reply did. 😂😂😂
To be fair to Andy , he has often posted against Scots, shipbuilding in Scotland, or generally against anything north of Hadrians Wall.
Not a view I share, but, his comment didn’t surprise me.
I’d never heard of Leonard myself, a non entity as far as I’m concerned.
So he’s a Scotist, Scotsist, Scotishist then !
“What did the Romans ever do for us”?
The aqueduct??
I was thinking “Candles” “Blinds” those sorts of things.
I am a passing traveller who often looks in on this page for UK Defence news. Now a half a world away retired serviceman. But George’s reply struck a chord.
I do not think it unreasonable to name Mr Leonard a Scottish politician. He is a member of Scottish Labour, has a seat in the Scottish Parliament, chooses to make his home in Scotland and has done so, from a little research for at least 30 something years. However, when he speaks, wrongly I believe, on a matter and is described as a Scottish politician George points out, he is English.
I was under the impression that migrants to Scotland, choosing to live there were embraced warmly by the nation as fellow Scots. Apparently, such an idea depends on the migrants pov.
You make a very compelling point, I was unaware of his background and as such, I do withdraw my comment and admit I was wrong.
He’s communist that transcends national boundaries.
I know him and he is both, he is just a Jeremy Corbyn sock puppet that was leader of Scottish Labour for 5 minutes.
People on the extreme left always seem to believe that it’s ok for them to lie and misrepresent the truth because it’s for the greater good.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all believed much the same.
Save us from anyone doing “good” in politics
Yep he’s a full on communist and like all his ilk is a peddler of lies and half truths, because only the cause matters and political ideology trumps all else to these people.
And the right don’t do exactly the same?
The far right are the same ideology driven using half truths and I challenge what far right politicians say in the same way..
To be fair , not just the extreme left. The extreme right has form for this too.
It’s not a trait of the extreme left, nor the extreme right, it’s seen in all our politicians and it stinks.
I guess you could add Trump to that list. Does that make me extreme left or the middle?
I wonder if he is getting paid to spread disinformation. I suspect what has been uncovered so far regarding bribery is just the tip of the iceberg.
👍
Trust me when I say no one is paying him or would pay him.
He is an idiot free of charge.
No I am afraid he is what was described in the Cold War as “ a useful idiot”.. he’s perfectly willing to tell a lie to undermine the defence and structure of this country if it supports his own communist polical ideology.. he’s also a member of CND..the original KGB funded useful idiots.
Clueless as always.
Richard Leonard is a protégé of communist academic and a leader of the communist party John Foster, Richard leonard is not a mainstream politician and does not fit social democratic beliefs..he’s a proper communist, he’s also a member of CND. Essentially a typical ideological driven issue based politician that is fracturing the political discourse of this country by peddling any lie or line that suites his ideology and moves his ideology closer to power even if those lies damage the country.. yes he has a right to say and I have a right to think it’s dangerous bs.
Morning Jonathan. Two things-firstly and particularly in these times, there must come a point when such disinformation becomes a criminal offence. Free speech must have some limits at the extreme edges. Time to take him in for questioning. Second, the CND for me represents the worst of the Loony Left! If there was a way the world could rid itself of Nuclear weapons then any sane human being would support that, but the simple fact is that some nations will never abandon them so we are stuck with ours along with our allies. The one question CND supporters are never able to answer satisfactorily is that if the evil dictators of Russia, North Korea, China etc. will never abandon their nukes why do you think we could ever abandon ours?
Cheers from Durban
The problem is who decides what is a wrong or right answer.. all I can say is I disagree with it and present why I think it’s wrong.. Even hard science like physics has a bleeding edge of is “it wrong or is it right ? “And many scientists argue that physics proves their is no god and may other eminent scientists will argue that it neither proves nor disproves or even proves in their mind their is a god.
So who decides what is right and wrong therefore legal or illegal. I personally cannot stand the hard right and the hard left I consider them both peddlers of lies born out of simplistic models.. but I can only decide that wrong or right for myself not for others. Therefore they can say their truth and I can say mine and a person has a right to think what they will and if the majority of people either begin to believe the communist or fascist then that is the truth and the state we will have.
To be honest my big issue is the communist and fascist politicians hiding what they are.. so this guy even thought he is a die hard communist and Marxist has always denied it and pretends he is not he says he’s follows ideas of Scottish radicalism” and those of “post-industrial Utopians”.. essentially made up ideas to hide what he is. Be honest and speak your truth and I will speak mine.. illegal or silenced should only be for the peddlers of direct explicit violence.
A jury would decide if the person is knowingly misrepresenting or not. That’s how the law works. If he plausibly believes of if there’s reasonable doubt, he wouldn’t be guilty. If the jury feel that he’s deliberately misrepresenting or spreading misinformation (possibly for political gain), he’d be guilty.
If the prosecution can show that no reasonable person, having had the facts explained to them, could fail to understand how the Trident system is and is not dependent on the United States, they might choose to think the repeated misinformation was deliberate. And there’s the problem. If politicians could be legally held to account for lying to the people, where would it all end? Turkeys and Christmas.
Imagine if every politician was taken to court because someone did not agree with them.. courts are not about truth they are about legal tests so you could tell the true and fail the legal test or you could lie and frail the legal tests.. I can tell you that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world.l I could provide you with a billion sets of data and millions of pages of academic text proving that.. you could do the same to show it’s bad.. it would take a hundred years to go through the data and billions of pounds of court costs.and the outcome would be.. it depends on your viewpoint.. that’s the issue.
On many many things we are all both wrong and right all at the same time.
Broadly agree with you Jon although as Jonathan says, not practical to consider a Judicial system as a remedy in instance BUT as I said above, in these dangerous times these individuals can cause serious harm so society at large has to make a reasonable call
Yes it’s a hard call, I sometimes think legal action should be taken.. but then I think who decides when legal action should be taken and who creates the laws.. then I think of Corbin or farage controlling what can be said via legal means and my blood runs cold. Even starma and Boris Johnson.. would I trust them to create a law that limited what political opponents can say.. in the end the only test I come back to that is not a slippery slope is the direct call for violence and even that needs constant oversight for slipping ( as we saw from they way peoples social media comments have been taken in court).
Ha Jonathan!! So let us without being pretentious agree with Socrates who said “I know that I know nothing. ” You and I and others on this site have a broader view than most. Society needs a general framework to function in a reasonable manner. The nonsense from the extreme left and right can have serious repercussions for the planet and its people so there have to be controls. The edges are blurry and cannot be exactly defined. For me, Hitler should never have been allowed to speak at Oxford debates whereas Enoch Powell should. Hard Science such as Physics doesn’t really help us in the greater quests. It can predict crudely with lots of caveats and the limits of brain and sensory abilities of mankind how some events happen and what the outcomes are but it can never answer any of the big questions of existence, of time and space and what or why we are here. Though it is elusive we can get close to some state that we can call Truth but it does not exist on the edges. The essence of Truth is, dare I say the same as Integrity
There is actually a very good short discussion paper on should Hitler have been invited to speak at Oxford. And the author actually comes to the conclusion he should have ( the author is Jewish just for context).
The author feels that in 1933 he should have been invited as it would be wrong to deplaform an individual for being a facsist as at that point he was a legitimate politician, he came to this conclusion after Maria La Pen was invited by the Oxford Union, but the student Union voted to apose this and tried to deplatfrom her, the protesters turned nasty.
Essentially just because I may profoundly dislike and totally disagree with the fascist and communism with a passion ( and I really do and will happy tell them so) does not give me the right to stop them spewing out their truth as they have a legitimate right to do so, because they are legitimate politicians.
Should Hitler have been able to speak at the Oxford Union? Jim A C Everett 2015.. it’s a good short read.
Thank you for this Jonathan-I will certainly give it a read. On the subject of students and free speech here is a bit of an extreme opinion about Oxbridge students and their ilke in lesser establishments but one to which I subscribe . In the main late teens and early twentiers(Is there such a word?). Their brains may be up there at the top of the IQ stakes but generally they remain unfinished products that generally(Ceteris paribus 🙂 ) improve with age. How do I justify my opinion? These are the supposed intellectual cream who howl down certain guests and prevent them from expressing their thoughts! Oafish, stupid moronic lager louts!!
ps i had a girlfriend as a student who would not stand when the whole theatre(in SA would you believe) stood to attention. a decade or two later she lived in a fancy part of London, met Prince Charles and became an avid Royalist.
.. the whole theatre stood to attention for God Save the Queen..
While what he said was nonsense, the underlying message is one I now I agree with.
I do strongly dissagree with a dependence on the USA for critical skills and infastructure to manage our nuclear deterrence – even if efforts have been made to safeguard vulnerabilities to them. There’s a case to be made as we drift into an era of “might is right”, that now is the time to stand on our own two feet, to be SEEN to be standing on our own two feet by allies and enemies alike.
Perhaps this time of relative peace, while we cling on to what remains of the USA’s guaranteed security, is the ideal time to achieve this? Yet, I feel as if this isn’t even a conversation that’s been had. We’re all to happy to throw our lot in with a nation looking more like a dictatorship with every passing day.
Yes. This special relationship needs to be at arms length with the recognition we need to go our own way with our own resources. Collaboration is fine until we become over dependent. In that respect Trump has a point. If we are going to have collective defence it makes more sense for it being European. Nothing wrong with US stuff as such so why reinvent the wheel where appropriate, while retaining our autonomy.
And yet, here we are, steam-rolling into another era of dependence with the Dreadnaught class – without so much as a conversation about a credible alternative.
At least, not that I know of. I’d love to read about the findings of any studies done into the prospect…
And paying an awful lot for in effect a single use system!
Actually it’s a no use system
Most likely yes, which makes it even worse! We at least have to pretend that we would use them.
And that is the thing what he is saying is untrue.. but from a certain point of view it is true.. if you look at it operationally it’s not true, if you look at it from a strategic point of view you could say it is true.. hence the danger.. he is being mendacious because he does not make it clear in his argument.. he simplifies and refused to acknowledge the complications and other truths.. his true becomes the only truth.
If our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has the final say to launch a UK Trident missile is there a built-in U-turn button for halfway through its trajectory? Asking for a friend.
Sadly, misinformation like this is very common and one reason why we should have our own home made systems in place – perception is a big part of deterrence.
they really should be given a warning and then censored by the parliament where this is clear. ultimately losing their ability to sit for repeated breaches.
Another of the enemy within.
Exactly Danielle. Dangerous poison-whether through ignorance or malice it comes to the same thing
When you watched Donald Trumps speech at Quantico, did that resonated with you? Or is it a coincidence that you’re citing his words.
Either way, I think we can agree that Richard Leonard is a fool.
Hi Jay.
Coincidence, as I don’t obsess over what he says, as he’s not my President! I’m more in interested in what our own idiots have to say, especially Labour, as it is there where the far left of our politics lie which I have always believed is a constant danger to my country.
I haven’t seen a “Quantico speech.” I don’t even watch BBC news unless I catch it covering Trump in passing. I’m too busy living my life.
On Trump, I’m in two camps. I agree with his attitude on being firmer with immigration, and appreciate that he’s an anglophile. He also got ENATO spending money after decades, another positive.
In the other camp, he lacks statecraft, and he’s a dangerous buffoon who’s words are spreading doubt through ENATO, and emboldening our enemies, whether they’re genuine or just a business ploy.
Though, we’re hardly helping matters sitting on our hands talking ourselves are we.
And as my priority in this life, apart from my family, is the animal kingdom of this world, I find his attitude on the environment horrendous.
Now, can we stick to UK defence, please. I find the political battles on this forum ridiculous and often utterly irrelevant.
Haha of course we can – and I thank you for your insight. Incidentally we are in agreement on most points.
To fill you in quickly, the speech at Quantico was a repulsive attempt at fuelling division within the US, with some advocation for 1940’s style battleships thrown in for good meassure.
Frightful stuff.
No worries. I saw something about him wanting Battleships on a headline on Yahoo, the headline photo showed him standing in front of huge guns that were obviously one of their deactivated examples, I recall they’d kept 4 until a rew decades back.
Great for NGS at least.
Okay, Red Richard. There’s no world in which your mates in Moscow and Beijing will become the exclusive bearers of nuclear weapons. It’s not going to happen, deal with it!
Politicians should be held accountable for spreading lies. It influences voters, it affects policy decisions, it has a real impact on the countries direction and therefore every single one of us. They should be held to the same standards as someone standing in court as what they say has at least equal, arguably significant more, bearing on important life changing decision making. There are legal ramifications for lying in court, the same should apply to politicians.