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.
Makes perfect if depressing sense. I wouldn’t agree with kicking the US out of Europe (despite my emotional desire to do so) however I have been arguing for some time that we should be building on European controlled defence structure that is independent of US interests because we simply can no longer rely upon that Country. They expect us to jump at ther command while they offer no reliable guarantee of support should we need them. Indeed we know that they would avoid at all costs getting in any European conflict, certainly if US forces were not targeted. However their presence still offers an element of unpredictability to Russia that Europe can benefit from so try to keep them embedded here certainly as long as we can but plan independently with allies to respond as much as humanly possible without them. If we (Europe) stay in a situation where they are vital to our defence we will increasingly become a colony, a mere emasculated bargaining chip in greater World politics. Trump despises democracy, as today’s words about aims in Iran only broadcast, he just wants US victory and hegemony, as if we didn’t know it and Europe either becomes his or any future MAGA leaders compliant expendable pet or will be seen as an enemy to be weakened and threatened in every respect, political, economic and even militarily. Some might say a lot of that is already well in hand so we must build to resist it even as we play political chess on the surface.
Taranis is the ideal delivery system.
I do wonder if that was part of the idea behind it.
France just announced 10 mins ago of the increase of nuclear warhead, speculation saying from 300 to 500
Hopefully we follow suit
While I don’t disagree in principle, it would make far more sense to base a tactical nuke on Stratus. It’s worth noting that none of the UK’s tactical aircraft is capable of carrying nuclear weapons at present (nor can Gripen); that’s why U-Turn announced the “intention” to buy a dozen F-35As. The capacity could be added, but it’s far from a simple process: it’s not like clearing a new conventional weapon.
Do you have any credible proof that Trump said ” … it won’t come to Europes aid in a conventional attack”?
To me this seems a ridiculous statement given there are US troops, air wings and naval assets assigned to NATO. If this statement had any truth to it, he would withdraw all of those back to the continental US.
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.
I think the fact it’s all or nothing that’s its major weakness as a deterrent. We need flexibility which yes only the totally unreliable US and a self centred France poses as things stand. Yes we need an air launched nuclear tipped cruise missile or we have to accept our scary options in responding to a nuclear flesh wound from Russia (like for example taking out the Shetlands) is either effective surrender on their terms or go full nuclear and accept total uk obliteration.
Macron just announced that France will increase it’s number of warheads and that nuclear institutions including UK, Germany, Poland, Sweeden, Belgium and the Netherland will be created in the next few days. Germany and Poland have allready confirmed.
I think a better argument is that launching SRBMs in a tactical strike is massive overkill, but especially it would risk triggering an accidental strategic response. They’re not appropriate for the tactical mission, but they were there when the government wanted to cut the defence budget in a very unusual move.
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.
Why on earth France would share for free 60 years of investment? It’s not being Maga or isolationist, it’s just common sense to expect some rewards for providing a sovereign and flexible nuclear umbrella.
Btw, France is such isolationsit that germany, italy and Benelux are parts of vital interests since the 60s.
It’s not a case of isolationist, it’s the way France just doesn’t seem to do “Joint” projects in a fair 50:50 way and use every single trick in the book to get the maximum work share and ensure National self interest.
That’s not to say a jointly provided E NATO Nuclear capability isn’t possible it absolutely is, it’s just that it has to be done by balanced agreement.
For example an adequate / resilient / sustainable E NATO CASD can be effectively achieved without compromising the RN or MN individual choice of Tech, Boats, Missiles or Warheads. It is a matter of coordination and agreeing certain common capability parameters say 5 SSBN, 12/16 SLBM per boat and an agreed MIRV load out. The rest is down to Operational synchronisation of deployment, training, maintenance, refuelling schedules to ensure an agreed force level.
Just bear in mind 10 SSBN E NATO force pretty well outmatches Russia as it has to spit its force between Northern and Pacific fleets.
As for Tactical a good start point is leveraging the joint Anglo / French FC/ASW project for a Nuclear Storm Shadow / SCALP replacement. MBDA is actually pretty good at keeping the UK / French interests on a businesslike foot.
I would agree with you on joint projects while reality is sometimes more complicated (eg: France does not need fcas anymore but would be happy to see germany killing it and taking the blame).
Thing is, force de frappe cannot be a « joint project », it’s a Life insurance built and designed as a lesson learnt from 1940 and suez crisis. It’s not « some other weaponery » and it’s consubstantial to the 5th republic (hence direct election of the president). If allies want to benefit from it, great but as per French president terms.
Saying this, Macron just announced increase of warheads, exercises with 8 countries and Nuke capable rafale positioned in other countries so the european nuclear umbrella is becoming a reality.
Saying this, Macron’s proposals seem Interesting and might meet your comment.
ABCR
Interesting design choices for both Columbia and Dreadnought classes, effectively reducing the number of tubes to sixteen and twelve respectively. A definite practical upper bound on the number of warheads deployed, given operational considerations/constraints. An additional 2 Dreadnoughts to fulfill a larger sovereign CASD mission? Would venture an opinion that HMG Treasury would be less than thrilled at the prospect.
French nuclear doctrine is evolving. A nuclear exchange group is being formed with severall EU nations and UK. Today’s news.
Perspective are sharing early warning and participation to Poker exercises, which are about the highest level of confidence we can share with Friends, a bit like when France submarines participated in UK sub dillution. It is an extremely sensitive mission that we usually carry alone. With this one, can have the perspective of a free access to Russia heartland.
Behave? Like in « please share for free tech and knowledge you acquired for over 60 years by investing dozens of billions)?
That’s exactly what isolationism is 🤦♂️
🫡🇫🇷🥖
😂
Nope, you confuse gaullism with isolationnism which are quite the opposite. It is just a lesson learnt from history. You haven’t been reading continental press on the topic lately, have you?
Only the French may understand that distinction
Is it anything like Trumpism? to us on the outside it all just looks like nationalism
Oh god….
is it being proposed france and maybe uk make tactical warheads and give out to e nato at time of crisis at which point breaks nuclear proliferation treaty but who cares by then???
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.
i love ‘the letter’ and the sub has time to consider options. if the letter has been opened, sadly UK been flattened. would think reporting to usa not much use if they have stayed out of a nuclear exchange and they can defend themselves anyway. the sub commander and crew will have lost family & friends.
Brilliant they have just agreed what I said they needed to do.. must have been reading my comments on the site 🤣😂.
France is going to move its sub strategic deterrent to Germany, Poland and a few other European nations and possibly even the UK..
Well done France for stepping up. This means the European nuclear deterrent will be scattered across Europe and all major E NATO nations will now host elements of the deterrent..
I suspect this will open up the UK and France sharing development of the new airlaunched missile.. and maybe even sub launched ballistic missiles.
I’m not sure Europe is quite ready to ditch the NPT just yet and get Germany and Poland involved.. but I suspect it’s coming as NPT is a joke.
interesting comments, difficult to see nations giving up or sharing control of their hard won nuclear deterrence although understood UK deploys a boat on behalf of nato. is France offering the American offer of dispersing free fall tactical nukes at times of crisis to nato airforces??? said b4 uk can stay out of the tactical game we are offering second strike thats enough.