The government has said that closer nuclear cooperation with France under the Northwood Declaration does not affect the United Kingdom’s independent nuclear deterrent, insisting that control over the use of UK nuclear weapons remains solely with the Prime Minister.
In written answers to Parliament, Defence Minister Luke Pollard addressed questions about the impact of the UK–France joint nuclear statement issued in July 2025, which set out plans to deepen cooperation between the two countries’ nuclear forces.
Pollard said the UK and France remained sovereign nuclear-weapon states, with fully independent nuclear forces and decision-making structures. He stressed that coordination between the two deterrents, where required, would not dilute national control.
“It will remain the case that only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons,” Pollard said.
The questions were tabled by independent MP James McMurdock, who asked what assessment had been made of the declaration’s impact both on the UK’s independent deterrent and on nuclear operations with France. In response, the Ministry of Defence repeated that independence had not been compromised.
Pollard said that while each country retained the ability to act independently, the declaration allowed for closer coordination in extreme circumstances, arguing that this could strengthen deterrence rather than weaken it.
“Deepening nuclear co-operation between the UK and France improves our ability to work together in times of crisis and strengthens our existing commitments to our Allies in an uncertain and dangerous world,” he said.
He added that the possibility of coordination between two independent centres of nuclear decision-making could complicate the calculations of potential adversaries, thereby enhancing overall deterrence.
The Northwood Declaration marked a significant step in UK–France defence cooperation, building on long-standing bilateral arrangements while stopping short of any form of shared control or joint command over nuclear weapons.
Knowing this PM, he’d surrender the nukes and pay for the surrender.
Dream on. There is NO WAY on Earth in any circumstances Starmer would order a nuclear strike anyway so whats the point?
There was a really good wargame by a load of ex senior decision makers around a nuclear strike on the UK with a single warhead. In the end they did not actually use the deterrent because essentially it was a deterrent and it failed in its role.. to strike back with a full ballistic missile submarine would essentially trigger MAD and so the utter destruction of our nation and everyone in it, its history and future as well as the likely wider destruction of human civilisation… it was after watching that I realised we needed a sub strategic option to deter Russia from undertaking a single escalate to deescalate nuclear strike against the UK.
Since the adoption of Trident II by the UK our deterrent is now much more useful in a counter force role than the old counter value role of nuking Moscow off the map.
Given how few Trident II missiles the USA has our Vanguard subs operating under NATO would probably be primarily used to take out any land based Russian missile silos in western Russia, especially with the new fuses that have doubled their effectiveness.
However while no one on a TV program is going to admit this if the Russians fired a single weapon at us it would be almost impossible for us not to fire back a single weapon. Indeed our Trident subs are set up for exactly this scenario with a single tactical scale dilable yield warhead on at least one of the missiles.
If Russia only fired a single warhead then it proves the deterrent is working and the deterrent could only continue to work if we fired back with a single weapon.
The Russians know that if they take all of the UK out that firing decisions for the rest of the missiles will fall to the Captain of the Vanguard submarine and they extremely likely to fire back with all the weapons taking out all of Russia.
NATO has a number of nuclear war scenarios that don’t involve the end of the world and or doing nothing. That’s all very much a legacy of 1960’s movies.
The big issue Jim is although in theory you could fire a single missile with a single warhead from our trident SSBN in practice it’s not viable and I believe the whole idea was abandoned.. because it’s the quickest and easiest way to have your strategic deterrent exposed and destroyed and so the deterrent effect of our nuclear deterrent against an escalate to deescalate strike is reduced. In reality as France has and china we really need a second sub strategic option that does not expose our strategic deterrent.. even Isreal and India both nuclear powers that don’t officially exist according to international treaty have both sub and air launched options that defuse their strike capabilities.. the UK deterrent was build on the assumption of deterrent of strategic strike with the assumption that the U.S. would deter sub strategic strike… its a fine deterrent against MAD its weaker against a nation with an escalate to deescalate policy.. it’s why I’m hoping one of the ideas behind project nightfall is for the Uk to move back into the long and IRBM range ballistic missile game as I think having those’d with both a conventional and nuclear capability would make Russia think twice about causing a war with the UK ( because that is just the sort of capability that Russia respects. It’s why they have spent a lot keeping and developing their own capabilities in this area).
I agree we need a new sub strategic weapon. I am torn between an IRBM and a cruise missile however as both have their merits . That being said Russian can fit its Iskandar ballistic missiles and its Oniks cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Perhaps we don’t need to choose and should instead just look at nuclear warheads as being an option in the same way we might look at HE, BROACH or Fragmentation warheads as an interchangeable option on other missiles.
If you have a large stock of the conventional missiles and you want this to serve as a deterrent weapon then how many nuclear warheads do you need. Probably not that many.
It would also allow the UK to operate completely independent deterrent capability at fraction of the time and cost of a UK SLBM program.
I’m not advocating we give up SLBM’s but it puts the UK in a much stronger position for the future than 100% reliance on a US based missile.
Not sure about the idea of interchangeable warheads. If any weapon launch could be interpreted as a nuclear first strike, that makes nuclear escalation a lot more likely IMO.
For the same reason if we go for a second launch option it should still be a ballistic or other high-altitude weapon, separate from our conventional options, so the Nightfall path is the best option IMO.
I agree but unfortunately such weapons as the Chinese DF 21 and DF26 and Russias Oreshnik and Iskandar already cross this threshold and are pointed at us.
These countries routinely operate dual capable ballistic missiles and Russia has used them in Ukraine on numerous occasions. So what’s the benefit to us not having them?
Long range nuclear cruise missiles are much more dangerous however the US is currently developing their own one as well.
So again not any point in us not having them but it would bring a lot of benefit.
If the UK developed a DF21 equivalent by putting a second boost stage on Nightfall then we can have a long range hypersonic conventional attack weapon (A Variant) capable of striking ships at 2500KM from bases like Diego Garcia and Akritoni and the same missile B variant could provide a secondary nuclear deterrent capable of hitting targets in Moscow and Murmansk for the UK.
Terrible weapons but these things are already in use by enemy nations.
The reality is the only way Europe can have an effective nuclear deterrence in the new world of four desperate strategic nuclear power groups ( US, Europe, Russia and China ) is if the two European nuclear powers pool their capabilities.. 8 SSBNs and an air launched missile option with a total of about 600 warheads is really the minimum viable MAD deterrent..
Personally I would like to see wider involvement from Germany, Italy and Poland as a minimum with a European joint nuclear program to develop a joint sovereign ground launched IRBM or ICBM, sub launched system and air launched missile.. I think every major E nato nation should have a nuclear deterrence it should not be just the UK and France taking risk and cost… yes that would kill the non proliferation treaty, but that has been a fantasy now for years anyway.
That would be a waste of ressources while we need to invest on conventional forces. Cultural aspects are also key: last comments from german politicians on nuclear deterrent were appaling and, let’s be honest, France Will not agree to have more eu countries with Independent nukes.
The problem is if you don’t have an adequate full spectrum nuclear deterrence against a nation with a vast nuclear arsenal and a nuclear doctrine of escalate to deescalate then you are inviting a sub strategic nuclear strike.. and I have little doubts that with no US nuclear umbrella Russia would seriously consider it. I could very much see Russia shattering a NATO formation with a nuclear strike if it was losing to ENATO and the US was not there.
I agree, ENATO already has a vast over match on Russia in conventional armaments but nuclear armaments are the only thing that really counts at this level. Europe could have a 10 million man army and Putin would not be deterred as he has 6,000 nuclear weapons.
Got it but would you consider France ´ s nuclear air component as « sub strategic »?Also, i see your point but i fear we won’t have the Time anyway: geopolitical shifts by trump happen at an increasing pace so i prefer to go with countries who know what they are doing.
I have been wondering about developing a mobile ICBM along the lines that Russia uses. That would at least avoid the need to build silos although there would be a whole lot of other issues to consider, especially the security of the launchers when deployed and indeed on base. The launcher might only need a small crew, but guarding the damn thing would require a platoon of very well trained infantry at least I would think, probably more. Unlike the Russian equivalents I would bother giving it an enhanced off road performance as the road network in Europe is pretty comprehensive so plenty of places to move it to and set up, security allowing.
I also think that Germany, Italy and Poland should step up in some way. My guess, is that Poland would be the most receptive to the idea given their history with Russian occupation.
The launch vehicles shouldn’t be too difficult to design and build as the design could be derived from a large mobile crane I would have thought. My first though would be the missile could be developed from the French SLBM as the M51 published (or estimated) range is IRBM class. So perhaps straight conversion to land launching and then develop into an ICBM range later.
Trouble is would France share with the UK? Most unlikely. So would we be able to build a new system in partnership or would we need to go it alone. Politically my guess would be the latter. Technically we could develop our own missile(s), but we would need to rebuild our launcher industry from pretty small and fragmented levels. It would take time.
Could Europe, with the UK and France leading, develop a ICBM based deterrent? Technically yes. Politically, may be by the end of the century if we are lucky..! Another, approach would be for the UK to start something small scale, studies and the like, get the concept stablised and then invite a chosen few into the program a la Meteor and Tempest. It seems to have worked so far…
One thing to consider is having an IRBM class weapon in the hands of Poland would really give Putin something to think about and his reaction would likely be pretty extreme. So may be tread carefully around that thought..!
Of course I think we are a long way from anything like this yet. I recon Europe is waiting to see what happens with Greenland, the US mid-terms and /or the next presidential election. Greenland could = last straw for many.
Finally, I would add India to your list of centers of power… I believe they have just launched their second(?) SSBM.
Cheers CR
I would not put India there JUST yet as it’s still limited to regional deterrence, it’s first SSBN has only got 1000nm range missiles and it second SSN can only carry 4 single warhead missiles with a range of 2000nm. The two new units will carry 8 single warhead missiles with 2000nm range.. in the end they will get the K5 which will be a proper peer 3 stage 5000nm range missile that will carry MRVs.. but until their Arihant-class get those they are effectively a regional deterrent.
It’s easy to forget just how lethal and globally deployable our deterrent is compared to other nations. Even China has very few weapons that can reach inter continental distances.
With our Vanguard subs able to deploy anywhere on the planet undetected, coupled with the immense range and accuracy of Trident D5 it really is a world class deadly military capability.
Agree with you there Jim but the system is only as good as the diminishing number of crew who are prepared to put up with 6+ month deployments that are due to a completely avoidable short sighted, penny pinching exercise in platform and infrastructure neglect.
Fantastic to hear this, makes you sleep a lot easier knowing we have Starmer In charge.
Much as I object to him being PM, to be fair, such a responsibility goes beyond political party squabbles and I hope he takes it seriously. We might well be surprised.
Would be fascinating to know the contents of the 4 letters, all of which are destroyed after a PM leaves office.
On this French cooperation, why not? It in no way impedes our ability to use the deterrent.
I believe Pollard is right, the PM can only authorise their use, not order it. And there are several steps and fail safes up the ladder before this happens.
The “sovereign” bit is always the bone of contention, as in some areas it gets a bit muddy to say the least.