A recent Spectator article, authored by Paul Mason, Marc De Vore, and James Rogers, argues that the UK must consider expanding its nuclear arsenal to address emerging threats from Russia and China.
The piece outlines the increasing risk posed by sub-strategic nuclear weapons, which can be used in smaller, tactical scenarios rather than full-scale strategic strikes.
According to the authors, Russia’s frequent incursions into UK airspace with nuclear-capable bombers highlight the threat, as these aircraft often open their bomb bays, suggesting the potential for nuclear attack.
The writers argue that the UK’s current deterrent, based solely on Trident missiles launched from Vanguard-class submarines, is limited in comparison to the diversified arsenals of other nuclear powers.
The piece also touches on the uncertain reliability of US support, especially with shifting priorities under recent administrations. France has hinted at extending its own nuclear umbrella to European allies, but this could place undue pressure on Paris without British support. In the view of the authors, a more collaborative nuclear posture between the UK and France would strengthen NATO’s collective defence and reassure Eastern European members.
The Spectator article concludes that the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), expected soon, should address the need for more diverse nuclear deterrence options. The authors urge a cross-party consensus to develop theatre-level nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy to counter Russian and Chinese threats.
For the full analysis and detailed arguments, read the original article on The Spectator.
I can see a Dreadnought design change coming on. How about fitting 16 tubes ?
“Now I become death, the destroyer of words”.
12 missiles are ok as long as each D5 has 8 warheads onboard. Probably need our eNATO allies to fund the UK and Frances nuclear deterrent to cover the whole of eNATO and increase sub numbers by 1-2 more for both RN and France. Having a eNATO 12 ballistic sub fleet is a very respectable deterrent against Mad Vlad and all his cronies.
Way too late for that!
UK and France should probably enlarge our capability to 6 boats each, or invest in an air launched option which, in theory, could be ‘isesedd by allies.
The idea should be floated to European NATO members. Make it a European deterrant. The UK and France have the know how and infrastructure to run it if the rest all chip in and support funding it. It would be cheaper than developing their own weapons.
Who is going to man them?
We 100% should increase our capability. It’s all part of a deterrent the end of the day, and if building it means we never need to use it then it’s money well spent. The only thing potential aggressors respect is strength.
Agree a storm shadow variant with a 10-20kt warhead would be a useful addition. Something to counter Russia’s proliferation of battlefield and intermediate range missiles.
Could be F35B fired or typhoon. Doesn’t matter which as long as the aircraft can get to drop point.
In addition our trident MIRV warhead numbers need to go back up. Each D5 can in theory deploy 8 warheads so that should be what we aim for.
I’d go for an ALBM in the style of the Israeli Blue/Silver Sparrow, but fitted with a Trident MIRV.
Reduces the likelihood of a conventional strike being mistaken for nuclear, and also would improve solid booster expertise as a lead in for a sovereign Trident replacement.
Never going to happen. We can’t afford aircraft and ships, never mind increasing out deterrent forces
The problem is that we must first say that we must modernize and have a reliable deterrent… it is reliable but when we see our SSBNs that stay at sea for 200 days, it is not acceptable for our country. I think that if we have to increase our size (I am not convinced, let’s start by strengthening our armies…) we must do it with the French by joining the ASN4g program… it would be cheaper and the missile will be very reliable…
I think the article is driving more at acquiring tactical nukes rather than expanding our SSBN, SLBM capability, to give more options.
That means an air launched missile.
Ideally Dreadnaught would be 5 boats but I myself prefer that money spent on our conventional forces, which are hollowed out to a ridiculous degree.
If we are protecting other Euro NATO nations how about them contributing to the cost of CASD?
did not Boris Johnson increase our nuclear warheads. or did i misread it.
He didn’t increase the number of warheads, just the self-imposed limit of them that we can have.