Germany is reportedly considering helping to fund Britain’s nuclear deterrent as Berlin examines closer integration with existing UK and French nuclear forces rather than developing an independent German arsenal.
Germany is reportedly considering financial support for Britain’s nuclear deterrent as part of discussions over how European states could rely more heavily on existing British and French nuclear capabilities, the Telegraph reports.
According to an exclusive report by The Telegraph, officials in Berlin are examining whether German funding could contribute towards the UK’s nuclear programme as part of a wider attempt to strengthen Europe’s nuclear deterrence and reduce dependence on the United States.
The newspaper reports that Germany’s preference is to integrate more closely with the nuclear forces already maintained by Britain and France rather than pursue its own atomic weapons programme, with one source saying Berlin has a strong interest in seeing Europe’s existing nuclear powers increase their capabilities.
A source quoted by The Telegraph said: “We have a very strong interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their capabilities.”
The reported discussions involve London, Berlin and Paris and are said to have gathered pace as European governments consider the implications of a reduced American military commitment to the continent. Germany is reportedly looking at several forms of support, ranging from financial contributions towards the British deterrent to conventional military assistance intended to protect the infrastructure that supports it.
Among the more concrete options reported by The Telegraph is the possible deployment of German-operated Patriot air defence systems to important British nuclear sites, including HMNB Clyde at Faslane in Scotland, where the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarine force is based.
A British defence source cited by the newspaper reportedly regarded that type of conventional contribution as more credible than a substantial German role in building Britain’s nuclear submarines, saying: “The ability to contribute to the defence of Faslane is more credible, likely and appropriate.”
German officials are nevertheless also reported to have considered whether the country’s industrial base could contribute to future British programmes involving submarines, missiles or uranium enrichment. The same report notes doubts on the British side over whether German industry has the specialist experience necessary to play a major role in the construction and maintenance of the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
Britain is currently replacing its four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines with four Dreadnought-class boats, which will carry the Trident II D5 ballistic missile and maintain the UK’s Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. London is also developing the Astraea nuclear warhead alongside the American W93 programme.
The UK’s deterrent remains sovereign in terms of decisions over nuclear use, but important parts of the programme depend upon cooperation with the United States. Trident missiles are manufactured in America and supported through facilities at Kings Bay in Georgia, while British and American warhead development also remains closely connected.
That dependence is reportedly one of the issues under discussion in Berlin. A security source quoted in The Telegraph’s report said: “There is thinking and talking about how the existing nuclear capabilities [such as Trident] may play a bigger role for the defence of Europe, and of deeper cooperation among European countries.”
The discussions would not give Germany control over British nuclear weapons, nor does the reporting suggest that Berlin would participate in decisions over their use. The proposals instead concern Germany contributing financially, industrially or with conventional military forces to the wider infrastructure supporting Britain’s deterrent.
Germany is reportedly holding similar discussions with France, whose nuclear forces remain entirely under French national control and include both submarine-launched and air-launched weapons. Paris has already opened a broader debate with European partners over the possible role of French nuclear forces in continental deterrence.
I don’t think we should saddle Germany with a significant cost for an arrangement which can never be entirely trusted.
Some things the UK needs to fund on its own. DNE is one of them.
I don’t know how the UK is going to square that with the Yanks, we have always declared our nuclear deterant to Nato ever since Polaris.
Aye, this too. Why make the Germans pay for something they a) already have and b) can never truly trust? It’d be a shitty move to agree to on our part, and someone ought to point that out to the Germans before they make yet another short-sighted decision.
Not quite correct, the nuclear deterrent of the UK is first and foremost for the UK. It is then a question for the PM if he or she wants to use it for the rest of Europe. What Germany seems to want is a fixed you launch a nuke at Germany the UK will launch a nuke back. So basically Germany has the same protection as the UK without incurring the cost of building their own infrastructure.
Yeah. The Germans pay through the nose for a paper promise.
It’s hard to gauge from this how committed Germany wants to be. Moving patriots to Scotland would be positive & temporary but that’s very different to say funding a 5th or 6th Dreadnought. And what will they want in return? They’ve already got the nuclear umbrella.
In what precise way?
To my mind the Germans would be best alone or in concert with other European powers to produce theatre level nuclear warheads and missiles to use them under their control giving a level of retaliatory capability while adding a greater level of flexibility in this sphere to Europe as a whole with only France offering such capability and Britain doesn’t possess. It at least gives them some cards in what might otherwise be only a paper nuclear umbrella. The US would not automatically offer it and Britain, France too most like isn’t going to reliably risk their own destruction by responding to perhaps a small if devastating nuclear device being targeted at Germany or any other European Country. Doubts on that matter in the eyes of the Russians, is the only real defence it offers and holds up enough in normal times, but a desperate Russia and Putin in particular just might take that gamble if he knows failure will be his death or at best his being exported to the ICC in handcuffs at best. So more flexibility for Europe as a whole might be very useful, sending Patriots to Scotland or the like will likely only exacerbate the risk to Germany laid out above while not increasing the reliability of the umbrella noticeably.
I’m theorising they may want a nuclear capable version of one of the missiles being developed under the joint deep precision strike weapons programme. Something either ground launched or air launched that can be stationed in Germany to supplement or replace US gravity bombs with a 2,000+km range.
What does a nuke go for these days?
Ukraine if it weren’t for China I suspect.