Britain is unique among allies in declaring its existing nuclear forces to NATO, but despite nuclear capabilities consuming over a fifth of the defence budget the Ministry of Defence does not maximise the political and economic value of that commitment, according to a report by the Defence Committee.
The committee, chaired by Tan Dhesi, the Labour member for Slough, examined nuclear deterrence in the High North as part of its inquiry.
Dhesi said: “The High North poses a major strategic challenge for the UK’s security. This is a demanding, hostile environment, and one that our greatest adversary, Russia, is seeking to dominate for military advantage.”
Its conclusion states: “The United Kingdom has committed to acquiring a sub-strategic nuclear capability to enhance deterrence, although how this aligns with the security of the High North is less clear. To ensure the capability is effective it will probably be necessary for the RAF to occasionally rehearse forward deploying the nuclear-capable F-35A aircraft to the High North. Recipient countries will, therefore, need to be fully aligned and supportive of Britain’s extended deterrence strategy. Uniquely, the UK already declares its existing nuclear forces to NATO, but despite consuming over a fifth of the defence budget the MOD does not maximise the political and economic value of this considerable financial and military commitment.”
According to the most recent departmental annual report and accounts cited by the committee, spending on nuclear capabilities accounts for £14.45 billion of the total defence budget of £69.61 billion.
Britain agreed in 2025 to purchase twelve F-35A fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force, giving it a sub-strategic nuclear capability and joining NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft programme, with the Defence Investment Plan allocating £2.1 billion up to 2030 for the total British F-35 fleet. The committee notes that while the aircraft will be flown by RAF pilots, approval to use the nuclear weapons carried by those jets would in any crisis remain under American control.
The report asks how Britain will operate the new capability, including whether the aircraft would deploy to allied countries during peacetime to practise their wartime nuclear role, and how concern about the enduring level of American commitment to European security is addressed by carrying a weapon that remains under American sovereign control during any crisis.
France and Britain each hold around three hundred nuclear warheads, against an American stockpile the report puts at around 3,700 operational weapons. Under the July 2025 Northwood Declaration the two countries agreed to create a Nuclear Steering Group to provide political direction and coordinate across nuclear policy, capabilities and operations, and President Macron announced changes to French nuclear doctrine in March 2026 which included moving towards forward deterrence.
That resulted in bilateral agreements with NATO countries including Denmark and Norway in the High North, allowing French nuclear aircraft to deploy temporarily to their territory for exercises and joint missions. French nuclear assets will not be shared and French nuclear decision making will remain sovereign.
The committee records that France has generated considerable publicity around its agreements, strengthening its international profile on security matters and offering a platform to engage on wider issues including defence export sales.
Its recommendation asks the department to provide the committee with a classified briefing on how it intends to enhance nuclear deterrence through the new sub-strategic capability, including any discussions with regional allies on extended deterrence in the High North and the forward deployment of the capability, and states that given the financial burden of operating the deterrent the department should remind allies more frequently of the unique nuclear capability Britain declares to NATO.
I wasn’t aware of any commitment to acquiring a sub-strategic nuclear capability? Unless they mean the theoretical capability to deploy US tactical weapons on F-35A via dual key arrangement with the US (something several NATO nations already do anyway). The whole ‘declares its nuclear forces to NATO’ thing isn’t all that significant either- ultimately the PM retains ultimate authority over a launch decision and the main distinction vis-a-vis the US is that the latter is not as specific in its NATO nuclear defence planning.
the only way we would deploy nukes is if the pm and most of country flattened. The sole uk boat at sea decides either strike Moscow or support anything remaining in Canada or New Zealand. We need the deterrence as nukes cannot be uninvented.
The boat opens the letter of last resort in order to be told what to do.
Think more it’s a letter of pm’s preference, the crew would have lost families and friends obliterated in uk, the captain and crew would ultimately decide. The deterrent would have failed if the letter is needed to be opened and the world headed towards nuclear winter.
The author who wrote the book which became house of dynamite film, said the usa president has 6 minutes effectively to decide the response package, they call the flip book ‘Denny’s menu options’ light to well done etc ! I like our pm letter.
Any requirement for American approval makes any such capability an expensive waste of time, if the USA is authorising nuclear strikes they will not have a shortage of aircraft to deliver them themselves. It also does not change any calculations made by an opponent, since they would still only have to care about what Washington thinks rather than also having to balance with the risk of what London thinks.
Any nuclear capability that does not have its full decision chain internal to the British State is just political theatre, it cannot be that hard to design a cruise missile able to carry a British warhead. We have designed and built warheads before, they are merely a mass and shape that needs to be carried to a target, there is nothing magical about them that makes it impossible for British craft to carry them.
Agree the uk purchase of a f35A tactical free fall bomber concept is a farce. Unsure why raf just not directly say the obvious, they don’t want to share with the navy and they are less concerned about a uk built tempest.
Do we need to advertise ourselves to NATO?
Why do we constantly try and act like NATO is some club we have to step up to or we will be kicked out. Everyone in NATO already knows what we do and it’s more than any other European NATO member by a long way, hence the deputy supreme commander is a permanent UK post.
👍
Air Vice-Marshall Jim Beck recently stated that the initial 12 F35A were not going to be used for nuclear deterrence. They were explicitly intended for the OCU as the A variant is cheaper to operate than the F35B and it would free up more of the B’s for the carriers.
So either the Defence Committee or the Air Vice-Marshall have got is wrong or the phrase ‘initial 12’ has more meaning. Apparently the UK is still thinking about how many aircraft it actually needs for the role.
This is despite the fact the Strategic Defence Review tied the procurement to the nuclear role…
If they take enough time thinking about it they might just end up putting the nukes on Tempest – a far better option if the aircraft does actually deliver on it’s considerable promise.
Cheers CR
This was reported by George on the 15 July 2026…