The fact is, the United Kingdom has full operational control over its Trident nuclear weapons.

A recent article by Brian Feeney – ‘Counting the cost of Britain’s delusions of grandeur’, – incorrectly states that the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent system is not independent and claims that its use requires American permission.

According to a Freedom of Information response, the UK maintains complete political control over its nuclear weapons.

Specifically, it clarifies that “only the prime minister can authorise the use of UK nuclear weapons” and “the government of the United States of America has no involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government”.

It further states: “Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons? No.”

These excerpts highlight that, while there is a logistical and technical interdependence due to the missiles being part of a common US/UK pool, the ultimate decision to deploy these weapons is solely a prerogative of the British government, not subject to US veto.

The Trident missile system, housed within the UK’s four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, forms the backbone of the UK’s strategic deterrent capacity.

Since the late 1990s, the Trident II D5 SLBMs, capable of carrying multiple warheads, underscore the system’s formidable deterrent capacity.

While it is true that the system depends on the US for heavy maintenance and certain logistical supports such as missile servicing in Georgia, this does not equate to US control over the missiles’ deployment.

Unlike some modern systems that rely on satellite-based navigation like GPS, the Trident missiles use an advanced form of stellar sighting and inertial navigation, which independently confirms their position via stellar patterns. This method ensures that the system remains functional regardless of external satellite support, debunking myths that the US could interfere by disabling GPS.

Furthermore, the UK’s Trident does not employ Permissive Action Links (PALs) – a technology used by the US to secure its own missiles by requiring codes for launch authorisation. Instead, the UK’s system is designed to be activated by decisions within the Royal Navy chain of command, culminating in the prime minister’s authorisation, without the need for external codes.

In conclusion, while logistical maintenance dependencies exist, the core elements of operational control, decision-making and missile guidance maintain the UK’s Trident system as an independent and sovereign capability.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

63 COMMENTS

  1. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Most of us that engage on this site know that the UK has control over the use of our deterrent. However, some believe we don’t and are subservient to the US over this matter. This play’s into those opposed to the deterrent, and nothing will shift their argument!
    Cheers
    George

    • The UK certainly has control over the firing of its weapons but if congress or King Donald ever cut us off it would be difficult to sustain the same missiles for years. Given the erratic nature of the US government now and the fact that nearly 50% of the population seems to be fine with electing a despot, it’s time for the UK to look at building its own D5 replacement. I’m sure France would be delighted to sell us M51 design as a basis for MBDA to work on.

      • I see no reason for your insulting comment in reply to Jim. He was expressing an opinion. Something we do in a democracy. That’s why we have WMD to defend our right to disagree.

      • I don’t envy your choices that’s for sure. however the fact that your even contemplating voting for a man who literally tried to over throw your government and is in the middle of criminal proceedings for over an attempt to overthrow your government is immensely worrying to any of us in the west. This is the kind of thing that goes on in 19th century France not a 21st century super power like the USA.

        I’m sure you would appreciate that as a Brit I am not thrilled with the prospect of our government investing £100 billion in a nuclear weapons system that requires the permission of someone like Donald Trump to carry out long term maintenance on it given the current and potential future divergence of the US and UK.

        Trident II made a lot of sense for the UK in the 80’s during the Cold War and was ground breaking then, 40 years later it’s much more straight forward to build a replacement like M51.

        We already build and control every other aspect of the system. Why would we spend so much and not spend this last little bit for complete autonomy.

        I love America but it seems pretty clear to us that no matter what happens in November the US won’t be in NATO for ever, too many Americans seem to want out for it to last.

        I can see the UK and France having to step up a nuclear umbrella for NATO post US departure and this would be vastly simpler if the UK built and maintained its own missiles.

        • You are absolutely right.If we share the cost of building a new deterrent with France we can ensure operational integrity and independence whilst reducing the R&D cost.There would also be other benefits, too numerous to mention here.

      • The UKs defence relationship with the US isn’t solely based on who is sitting in the Whitehouse. The ties go much deeper than that. The president cannot simply cut off technical support to another nation. Certainly not the UK.

      • The French system is functionally inferior and would cost us more. That is why we collaborate with the US on Trident. We previously had to sustain the Polaris system for years after the US ended support in favour of Poseidon. It’s expensive, but not as expensive as developing a separate system.

      • How are the US going to do that? The UK will still have four boats worth of missiles and it would damage UK/US relations big time. The missiles would last for years till parts wear out and in the process the UK would build its own or use the French missile designs. I think relying on the French would be a big ask considering they way the US may cut off maintenance and parts.

    • Oh we’re definitely in control. The problem is the US don’t trust us with them so make sure they don’t work as intended. All they provide us with is a plop into the ocean. We need to build and maintain our own deterrent.

  2. Good work. The more people believe things like this are true, the more it becomes acceptable to think. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where the public is okay with ceding sovereignty is such a major way.

  3. The persistence of this idea that the UK is not in control of its Trident missiles is down to lazy journalism. As the article says the UK is actually quite unusual in not using Permissive Action Links as part of the firing chain of command. This means that if the two officers on the boat decided to fire there would be nothing that anyone else, anywhere in the world, could do to stop them. There are strong reasons for not using PAL, not least the possibility that a small island like UK could be wiped out before government formally authorised a response. Hence the Letters of Last Resort. But if journalists wanted to ask serious questions about our ability to fire Trident then the lack of PAL would seem to be a much more important point to debate.

    • It’s true that pre delegated lauch authority is the height of folly and is replicated throughout the nuclear armed States ( the Russian pre- delegation system ,known as ” Dead Hand”, is fully automated – if sensors in Moscow detect a certain combination of conditions associated with a nuclear explosion, a message is sent to missiles embedded deep within the Ural mountains to launch ). Nuclear armed states do this to deter a first strike but, in so doing, give away the whole farm. Power, as the saying goes, is nothing without control.

    • Yes a lot of people forget it’s why the UK system is the way it is, the UK a would be whipped out in seconds in a nuclear attack. It’s more likely the Prime Minister of Australia will be authorised the firing of Trident missiles than the British PM.

      • Nah that’s why the envelope containing the “in the event…” Orders exists in every Trident safe. Of course the subs could relocate to a friendly nation- if they still exist -after a load of nukes clack down.

        • Those are the “Letters of Last Resort” that are re-written by every incoming Prime Minister in the first few days in office. Reportedly a very sobering moment for the person taking up office.

        • One of the options presented to the PM for ‘in the event’ letters is to order the captain to turn over command of the boat to the government of Australia.

          • Peter Hennessy the most informed and respected academic regarding British nuclear policy describes the likely content of the Letters of Last resort in his book ‘The Secret State’. He says that the likely options available to Prime Minister are to tell the Captain of the boat to ‘1. Put yourself under the command of the United States, if it is still there. 2. Make your way to Australia, if it is still there. 3. Get on with it and take out Moscow… 4. Use your own judgement.’ Of course we do not know what actually goes into the letters but informed opinion is it will be something like one of those options.

          • I have heard similar elsewhere. It has the ring of truth about it, but who knows…?

  4. As a person who is ex RN and was “involved in certain aspects of UK deterrence,” IMO this article is accurate…and we will leave it at that.

    • Perhaps of more significance is the failure of two successive D-5 test launches, though presumably attributable to different causes. This discussion conveniently provides an opportunity to segue into a favorite theme, specifically, the eventual acquisition by the RAF of a squadron of B-21s. Diversification of delivery modes would increase probability of mission success. Believe RAF, given sufficient time and resources, could successfully resume strategic bomber deterrence mission. Rant over.

      • Speculation I have heard on the D5 failure is that it was to do with testing equipment onboard and a real launch would not have had a similar issue.

        Problem for us using strategic bombers for the deterrent role is our bases are all right next to the see and would be whipped out before anything could get in the air.

        We looked at building 70 ground based silos in the 1960’s and even then the planning permission/ protests made it a non starter.

        • Re strategic bombers: There could be an airborne alert, in extremis, even if MOB annihilated, mission would not be thwarted.

      • Two successive launches from our boats- the same system has successfully test-launched from USN boats in the mean-time. If the failure is down to the missile and not the onboard launch system then it isn’t particularly concerning. One of those ‘failures’ launched successfully but the Range Safety Officer then decided to destroy it, for reasons that weren’t communicated. Note also that the Russian ‘Bulava’ missile seems to have a 50% launch failure rate.

  5. PLEASE NOTE IM A HUMAN
    As far as I’m aware the missiles are leased from the US but the warheads are British. As for this Brian Feeney the true fact is when ever a new PM is installed they give written instructions to the Captain of the Vanguards given options to the Captain in the event the government is killed he can either launch the missiles independently or hand the boat over to US command/NATO since the missiles in the Vanguard do not require a authorisation number or the two person rule imposed on the US boats. Mind I would not like to be in the Captains shoe deciding, in theory each boat is capable of carrying 128 warheads, (I’ll wait for the arm chair admirals to state the the Vanguards are not big enough) they can carry 16 missiles with 8 warheads each, but normally it is limited to 8 missiles carrying a total of 40 warheads. At the moment with Russia flexing its muscles I hope they would be carrying a larger compliment of missiles can’t carry full compliment of warheads as we don’t have enough warheads to give the active and the reserve boat their full compliment of warheads, plenty of missiles though.

      • I may be misremembering but I think 260 is “just” the maximum they can currently carry, but that includes the decoy warheads.

      • Hi FormerUSAF,

        If I remember rightly the increase was due to a new warhead being phased into service while the existing stockpile would be phased out of service at a slower rate, creating an overlap and a temporary increase in warheads.

        The impression given at the time (a couple of years ago???) was that the numbers would revert back to the previous level. However, it was not entirely clear what the final warhead count might be and given the current world situation…

        Cheers CR

        • Articles referenced for post implied a permanent increase, however, presumably each successive government could change the program.

  6. The UKs nuclear deterrent is independent. However if the US govt decided to end the sharing agreement, London would quickly lose its delivery system it would also become problematic for Britain if the US were to pull out of NATO and the UK was forced to extend its nuclear umbrella over Europe but without the US involvement as is now the case. How credible, for instance, would Britain’s deterrent be if Trump or a Trump-like president suggested the US would cut off British access to American missiles, and the refurbishment of Britain’s deployed missiles, if London was threatening their use against Russia (in a world where the US had withdrawn from NATO). Britain sacrificed complete autonomy for expediency when they signed the original agreement in the 1960’s. The French took longer to put their system in place but now have complete autonomy. At the very least the UK should develop a second delivery system — placing their tactical bombs on F-35’s or the Tempest would be the easiest route.

    • Speculation I have seen shows trident missiles lasting anything from multiple months to a few years.

      At present we don’t even have a system to load and unload them although we do mate the warheads to them.

      A solid fuel rocket motor can probably last up to 15 years so that’s going to be a hard end to how long we could operate them without US support. It would depend on how old the missile we had at the time were.

      There is no obligation for the UK to return any of the missiles its operating to the USA.

      A crash program using the French M51 as a basis and possibly some French manufacturing could probably get something in the boats with in 5 years.

    • The UK has the best possible assurance of aid and support during a second Trump administration. Why? Simples, he owns multiple properties in the UK. 😁

  7. In my opinion it’s a non question anyway, if the circumstances arose where the UK even thought about firing them the US would almost certainly be firing in tandem and to a lesser extent France.

    Who would the UK fire them at, Russia or China so by definition either country we would be at war with supporting the US

  8. Whilst the formal position is that Britain’s deterrent is independant, would any UK Prime Minister launch Trident against the wishes of the US? In any event, the reply is ambiguous as the system is in two parts – missile and warheads with the nuclear weapons in the warheads British and the rest American. Moreover, no doubt the missile control system has an abort facility which no doubt the Americans could initiate in extremis.

  9. Who is Mr. Feeney and what are his qualifications? I googled the name but got a former Hurler. I hope that’s not the author of the article.

  10. Command is passed to the NOTC in the DCMC.
    That’s Pindar, beneath the MoD.
    Firing chain then goes by secure link to CTF345 at Northwood.
    Then onto Skelton or Anthorn where VLF ULF signal goes to the SSBN.
    The CCC is involved at some point with software and may even be an alternate.

    The Warhead components are designed at AWE with US assistance, and assembled at Burghfield under the Gravel Gerties.

    We have control over Trident but yes we do get considerable support from the US. There you go.

    • I wish Google Translate had an option for turning ORBAT into standard English. It would make life in the comments section so much easier.
      You sound happy enough so it must be fine but I haven’t a clue what you are on about aside from the last two paragraphs.
      👍

      • 😀 Evening mate. I’m sorry,
        I shall translate.
        NOTC. Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre. Once on the 5th floor of Main Building until the late 80s when it was moved into-
        DCMC. Defence Crisis Management Centre. Nuclear bunker beneath MoD, links to several places throughout Whitehall by tunnels. Was built late 80s into early 90s, costs overrun due to the difficulty of moving all the high tech comms into it. Is staffed 24,7. Other aspects are classified, such as the number of urinals, which would help one work out it’s staffing level.
        The personnel within it, and in other parts of the ops side of MoD Main Building ( under VCDS and DCDS ( Ops ) form the DCMO, Defence Crisis Management Organisation.
        At the same time DCMC was being built, on the quiet, district 8 of Tunnel Quarry in Corsham was being turned into another nuclear bunker, the CCC, Corsham Computer Centre. MoD, RN, RAF has always been tight lipped over what it actually does beyond “data processing for the RN”
        As it has appeared on a destinations and addresses list regards the CASD support organisation ( SSE Strategic Systems Executive at Abbey Wood ) it’s safe to say it’s Trident related, possibly another alternate site of SCBS Submarine Command and Broadcast System ) but most certainly works on the software that supports Trident, as it hosts the contractors who work in it.
        The interesting thing is that they buried it underground, which is why it’s suspected of having other functions.
        It used to be ( mid 90s ) unfenced and ungated, I actually walked up to it and around the entrance before the MDP got interested in me….😆 the MoD preferred a low key approach to this facility, even it’s signage was non typical MoD Red, but researchers like me soon found it and put it on the map, so now the lane leading to it, Peel Circus, is gated off.
        CTF345. Command Task Force 345, is a small discrete organisation within the Nuclear bunker at Northwood above and around which is home to the ops side of the RN, Stat Com, PJHQ, and other bits and pieces.
        The CTF bit is again staffed around the clock, and is sealed off from the rest of the bunker, next door to another entity, TLACF, Tomahawk Land Attack Control Facility, which is self explanatory. They are another vital link in the chain.
        Our SSBN rely mostly ( i think, Deep will correct me ) VLF for comms, so Skelton and Anthorn are VLF aerial sites.
        Skelton, a contractor site, is in Cumbria, and Anthorn is further NW, and is a NATO VLF aerial farm.
        Skelton replaced the famous masts at Rugby and at Criggion.
        All parts of a nuclear firing chain which apparently we have no control over…🙄
        All that is open source BTW, if not we’ll known by many.
        Cheers.

  11. This is almost certainly not the case,if the British continually have to assert that they have sole ‘operational control” of Trident,this leads me to believe they certainly do not.The French on the other hand are not beholden to the americans as they developed their own submarine based nuclear deterrent.

    • If people continually assert that the world is not flat does this lead you to believe (despite the lack of evidence and in defiance of common sense) that it is?

  12. The only way to ensure you have ‘Operational Control” is to design and build your own independent system.LIKE THE FRENCH.

    • We do have full operational control over our missiles. The warheads are totally British design and build we only lease the missiles body from the US. Going it ourselves👎 if we ever used them we have two locations to restock/maintain here and the US. Plus do you know how many more Billions and Billions it will cost. Plus the Vanguard and the new Dreadnoughts are designed around the Trident launch tubes.

      • Yes I am aware the warheads are built here, but that’s of no avail if you are unable to launch the missile,and therein lay’s the rub.whether the americans give us the required codes for launch when we need them.It depends upon who you listen to as to whether this essential information will be supplied.As far as the new generation of submarines being fitted out with launch tubes that are compatable with Trident missiles,this is more proof,if any were needed of just how reliant we now are upon the United States,the french do not have this problem.And as for costing us billions to manufacture these sytems ourselves,well the ‘live in the past’ Admirals at the MOD have just wasted billions on two aircraft carriers that are clearly unfit for purpose,and have spent a disproportionate amount of time in dry dock under repair.Even some of our most senior RN Commanders are now admitting as much.Or let’s put it another way, these two useless leviathans cost the same amount of cash as this country fritters away in so-called ‘foreign aid’ every eight months or so..

        • Did you read the article?
          It has been repeatedly stated that our Tridents don’t need launch codes from anybody (not even the PM) in order to work. Responsibility is entirely in the hands of the captain with no external input.
          How are the US supposed to decide whether we launch if even our own government couldn’t stop a potential rogue captain?

          • The birds will only fly with the consent of the whole crew. There is enough preventative measures that mean an un-authorised launch just could not leave the tube.

          • You’re right, I doubt a crew would just go along with a captain ordering a Nuclear Armageddon without a very good reason.
            The principle is the same, though I should probably have said rogue sub rather than rogue captain.

  13. It’s Time for the UK to ditch Trident, our conventional armed forces have been cut to the bone due to the billions spent on Trident.

    • This is the only thing that would stop Russia from attacking us, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons on us. With these subs it makes them to have second thoughts. Plus the French and UK are the only two nuclear powers in Europe. It’s up to France and UK to protect Europe from nuclear attack going off the US passed history they are more than likely won’t come to Europes aid. People like you are naive they are a deterrent it’s better to have them and not use them, then to not have them and need them. I agree with your sentiments about our conventional forces but to sacrifice Trident is a very fool hardy idea.

    • The forces were cut during the times of a “Peace Dividend”, which should have stopped when Putin’s armed forces of Thugs went over the Ukrainian border. Across the board (Army, Air Force and RN/RM) the levels should be going up to Cold War levels. However it takes many years to get seagoing vessels built and operational, so we need more deterrence – NOT less. In fact get a 5 or 6 Dreadnoughts operational and then we can easily surge two or three to sea at any one time.

  15. Everyone that serves in Trident Boats has to be vetted so if the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for authorising the use of the missiles, who vets him?

  16. Sources discussing the US Navy Trident boats state that up to date data on weather conditions and gravity anomalies is required for accurate targeting. This is delivered to US submarines via a compressed dat burst. Presumably UK relies on US data which could be withheld?

  17. I think historically some people got confused between the Trident system and the cruise missiles at Greenham Common (which of course were operated and controlled by the USAF). I suspect that Feeney is just being mendacious though.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here