The government has rejected calls to explore a second sovereign method of delivering UK nuclear weapons, arguing that the existing submarine-based system remains the most credible and proportionate option as nuclear risks increase.
In its report, the Defence Committee said it was “clear that the nuclear threat has increased in the recent past” and noted that while the UK already assigns its nuclear deterrent to NATO, it had not received sufficient evidence to justify investment in an alternative delivery method.
The committee said it wished to understand why the option had been dismissed, recommending that the government “set out its reasoning in detail” in response.
In its reply, the government said the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) made clear that the UK is operating in “a more uncertain, contested, and deteriorating international security environment”, with rising nuclear risks shaping defence planning.
Ministers reaffirmed that the UK would continue to rely on a “minimum, credible, independent UK nuclear deterrent”, assigned to the defence of NATO and delivered through submarine-launched systems. The response stated that “a submarine-based system remains the most effective and proportionate means of delivering the UK’s deterrent objectives”, citing its survivability, assurance and operational independence as decisive factors.
While rejecting the need for a second sovereign delivery method, the government said it is expanding its contribution to NATO’s nuclear posture through other means. It pointed to the decision to procure F-35A aircraft, describing the move as a way of “deepening the UK’s contribution to NATO’s nuclear burden-sharing arrangements.” The response said the F-35A purchase would “complement, rather than replace, the UK’s operationally independent submarine-based nuclear deterrent.”
Ministers also confirmed continued investment in the UKs sovereign warhead programme during this Parliament. This includes sustaining the existing stockpile, developing the Astraea replacement warhead, and modernising supporting infrastructure, while maintaining commitments as a recognised nuclear weapons state.
The government added that it had accepted all 62 recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review, including the recommendation to begin defining requirements for the UK’s post-Dreadnought nuclear deterrent within the current Parliament.
The issue is not spending a penny on defense; this is the worst government in 45 years on military matters, and there have been some bad ones. They are traitors and self-haters.
So we are going to have aircraft ourselves and all through NATO relying on US bombs that we will NEVER get clearance to use against Russia! Talk about head in the sand!
This is a mistake, The most clear and present danger is now the USA. The UK desperately needs to develop its own ballistic missile program similar to the Chinese DF26 with a nuclear capable ballistic missile that can also carry out long range conventionally armed anti ship and precision strike missions with a hyper sonic glide vehicle. If we had such a system with a 4000km range then we would have a secondary deterrent which would detter any future US administration from trying to remove UK access to Trident D5 missiles. We could also pie such a system with an Over the Horizon radar allowing the UK to dominate the North Atlantic in the same way China can now dominate the western pacific.
We need to wake up and realise that Trump is not the end of a process, he is the beginning. The Republican Party that was no longer exists and MAGA has it in for the UK and our nuclear deterrent.
**pair not pie 😀
Right. The only country in Europe to get favorable trade terms with the US. Definitely has it ‘out for’ the UK.
Meanwhile the US’s closest neighbor, Canada. Is getting hammered.
I’m offcourse referring to the comments of JD Vance who is on record recently as stating the UK’s nuclear weapons pose a danger to the USA and should be removed.
The UK recently sent troops to another NATO nation to detter US aggression. The president responded by revoking the “favourable” trade terms.
Na…. in the absence of any significant cash im happy to keep the status quo. Dreadnought and Astraea are happening and i’d rather have a bird in the hand than 2 in the bush. Conventional long ranged precision strike is the way to go for the tactical option.
The thing is it’s about deterrence and let’s be honest Putin would not see a conventional strike as a deterrence to using tactical nuclear weapons or a sub strategic strike as an escalation to de escalation approach..
Because we would already be at war and bombing the crap out of each other with every conventional system..
Because of Russian nuclear doctrine conventional will not work ( we will already be at war and so there is no conventional deterrent) and strategic weapons are a MAD response essential to deter a massive nuclear attack..
We can’t compete with the Russian nuclear triad (if much of it actually works) without a significant uplift in the defence budget (not happening). What we can do though is put our limited resources into producing a top class submarine based nuclear deterrent. I see the world as it is and not how i’d like it to be. Get dreadnought done.
Surely the new 2000km range system under development with Germany would be a great candidate? Adding another leg to our deterrent would probably do more to deter hostile states than most conventional assets.
My major concern with a 2000km nuclear capable cruise missile is that they are inherently destabilising. They are potentially seen as a first strike sneek attack weapon with limited second strike potential.
It also removes our ability for massive conventional strike as a nuclear escalation response.
An IRBM can be seen but it’s hard to intercept. That’s much more useful as a sub strategic nuclear weapon.
Russia is developing these systems now, china has them. We should counter.
The Nightfall ballistic missile is being developed so is it unreasonable to suggest a potential Nuclear tipped version to expand our capabilities.
Anything nuclear is riduculously expensive. Money going into nuclear is already coming out of conventional, which is part of the cause of the hollowing out of our military. Right now we need to increase our conventional deterrence to stop us getting into a war, not nuclear to deter escalation after we are already in it.
If we need to increase the sovereignty of our nukes, the target should be onshoring Trident and making sure that we know how to second source components for the Dreadnoughts. Even those limited goals would almost certainly be prohibitive.
It is the way we do it now but not the way we use to or Russia and china do today. They have nuclear warheads as an option on conventional missiles.
DF21 and DF26 for china, Iskander M and K for Russia.
The US is unreliable. I expect major internal problems for the US after the November 2026 elections
The only sensible thing is to explore ways with the French. If sadly we had to use these things Europe would be involved anyway in the aftershock anyway.
Politically this is difficult, but the only solution considering the costs
If the f35a is still going to compliment trident, what was the suggested second sovereign delivery system? Ballistic?
Nevermind. I thought we already fully committed to the f35a, rather than being wishy washy about it.