Senior NATO political and military leaders have gathered in the United Kingdom for high-level discussions on the role of the British nuclear deterrent and the Alliance’s wider nuclear posture in maintaining Euro-Atlantic security.
According to a joint statement issued by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence, the UK convened NATO’s leading officials “to discuss the crucial role of nuclear deterrence in keeping the Alliance’s one billion citizens safe.” The meeting brought together NATO ambassadors, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), and the Deputy Chair of the Military Committee.
The government said the event demonstrated “the unity of the Alliance, the UK’s unwavering commitment to NATO and the credibility of its nuclear deterrence mission.” Discussions focused on the policies and capabilities required to address current and emerging challenges across the Euro-Atlantic region, with nuclear deterrence framed as a core element of collective defence.
As a nuclear alliance, NATO has long maintained that nuclear weapons remain central to its overall deterrence strategy. The statement reaffirmed that “NATO’s commitment to nuclear deterrence remains unchanged and as strong as ever.” Officials said participants examined how the Alliance’s consultation and burden sharing arrangements can continue to operate effectively in a changing security environment.
Workshops formed part of the programme, intended to strengthen established nuclear decision-making processes within NATO. The government noted that “workshops like these are fundamental in strengthening NATO’s nuclear policies of consultation and burden sharing; allowing all members to practice and participate in decision-making on these vital security issues.” Such sessions are designed to ensure that Allies remain aligned and familiar with procedures should a crisis arise.
The UK holds a distinct position within the Alliance. It is the only European Ally to assign its nuclear deterrent to NATO.
British officials said the country “plays a leading role in shaping the Alliance’s approach to nuclear deterrence” and reaffirmed that it will “continue to stand with our Allies and take all necessary steps to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.”
A good move.
It’s unnecessary, the US has told us that it won’t come to Europes aid in a conventional attack but it will TOTALLY be there to engage in a nuclear war with Russia if required 🤔
The UK needs to develop a storm shadow derived tactical nuclear cruise missile that can be fired from Typhoon or Gripen and invite JEF nations, Poland and Germany into nuclear sharing.
The current Halbrook physics package is perfect for this role as it is very advanced and has a selectable yield ranging from 0.3kt to 100kt.
This is the perfect weapon to deter Russia from using a tactical weapon against any eastern NATO members.
Beyond this we should look to the new Astrea warhead as an increase in overall warhead count rather than an initial replacement for Holbrook which is still relatively new and advanced compared to many US and Russian weapons. The UK and France both need 500 warheads to deter Russia without the USA. That should be the goal and we can do it relatively cheaply. Poland, Sweden and Germany have all indicated a willingness to make contributions.
I agree on Storm Shadow and other sub strategic points. However I do not trust the US in anyway now. Any country, even if it has an idiot for a leader, that threatens to invade Canada or Danish sovereign territory? Not reliable. As far as I am concerned? Yankee go home is my mantra.
They need kicking out of Europe, and yes, a European nuclear deterrent is a priority.
Studying history shows what the US is truly about, corporate MIC profits with strings. Even Ike warned against it in the early 50’s.
Taranis is the ideal delivery system.
I do wonder if that was part of the idea behind it.
I think now is the time to expand the nuclear deterrent and another leg, whether that be air-launched like the French or vehicle based. I’m pretty sure we’re the only nuclear power to rely on a single delivery system which could be sabotaged or the missiles potentially be shot down. In a more dangerous world, I don’t think the minimum credible deterrent is fit for purpose anymore.
You would struggle to find an alternative delivery system that wasn’t easier to defeat. Expanding the capacity of the existing system would make more sense (more boats, full missile load, maximum MIRVs per missile).
Not ideal for a tactical or so strategic application.
I wouldn’t be against that, but I suppose I’m thinking air or ground launched as much more cost effective way adding capacity and redundancy. Building another two SSBN’s would be incredibly expensive.
Could NATO HQ/SACEUR order the UK to fire nuclear missiles in extremis?
No, can only request, however if the UK is knocked out then Prime Ministers orders may be for SSBN to establish contact with remaining NATO command and put weapons at their disposal.
But no one knows as it’s on a hand written letter that can’t be read.
Hi Graham, Our CASD is solely under UK Sovereign command and control but its targeting is primarily NATO tasked (neither France or USA are). It’s specifically designed so that no one else can exercise any control of it, and it’s all down to 2 things one is the terms of the UK/US mutual defence and cooperation treaty (we don’t share tech of control) and the NPT Treaty.
NATO is an alliance of 32 independent states and their armed forces all of them are signed up to the terms of the NPT, 29 are non nuclear NPT and 3 are NPT nuclear declared.
Articles 1 and 2 preclude the 3 Nuclear NPT from handing control of any of our Nuclear weapons to non Nuclear states or any control of them. It also works the other way round and bans the non nuclear states from acquiring their own or control of ours.
Which is why NATO has to ask or suggest it to us we launch and the US has the dual key control system of the NATO Tactical weapons assigned to various countries for deployment.
Long term I’d suspect part of today’s meeting will involve the possibility of UK and France expanding capability to provide an E NATO Strategic Deterrent, increased Tactical Options and replace the US supplied NATO Tactical weapons. My understanding is that both are willing to step up, the US are not unhappy to be replaced but are adamant that our Treaty with them and NPT aren’t effected, so dual keys and no one else acquires any bombs (Sweden, Germany, Finland, Poland and Finland are all capable of developing their own).
And then the fun will begin as unlike Uncle Sam we will be expecting funding for our DNEs to help pay for it !
As you know yourself one of those strange quirks of tech, engineering and production that scaling up volume is relatively cheap once the development and production capability is in place.
IMHO the biggest issue will be trying to get the French to behave !
Thanks for the insight ABC. I agree it’s very necessary for us to do this. We must protect the NPT treaty and America’s new found isolationist position is a direct threat to that. Countries like Poland, Sweden and Germany must believe they have the ability to hit back against a Russian nuclear strike.
I agree France will be an issue. I don’t think they will consider any form of dual key sharing with other NATO states. Macron is weak and will soon be gone and much of the rest of the French political establishment is as isolationists and nationalists as MAGA.
I think it’s up to the UK although I can see funding coming from other European states. Stomshadow is an ideal platform as it’s limited range means it is with in INF treaty limits should these be brought back.
The UK was preparing such a weapon for Tornado called (TASM) to replace WE177 in the 90’s but it was cancelled at the end of the Cold War.
Chain of command is through the PM. If an adversary were somehow able to decapitate the British Government in a surprise attack (very challenging, given the scale of our intelligence-gathering activities), then the submarine commander opens the letter of last resort in the boat’s safe. We don’t know what that says. Report to the US, report to Aus or retaliate are plausible options.