Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called on the UK government to begin developing a domestically built nuclear missile system, arguing Britain should no longer depend on the United States for a key component of its nuclear deterrent.

Writing on the party’s website, Davey said the UK should work towards what he described as a “fully independent British nuclear deterrent”, ending reliance on the US-supplied Trident missile system carried by Royal Navy submarines.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent is based on four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, each capable of carrying Trident II D5 missiles armed with UK-designed nuclear warheads. While the warheads and launch decisions are fully controlled by the UK, the missiles themselves are drawn from a shared US-maintained pool.

Davey argued that reliance on American systems could create risks for the UK’s long-term strategic autonomy. “If the answer to ‘Is our nuclear deterrent working?’ depends on what Donald Trump had for breakfast, then the answer is no, it’s not. And our deterrent is not truly independent. This should be keeping British defence planners awake at night.”

He said Britain’s current system meant a key element of the deterrent relied on US support. “The Trident missiles sitting in our Vanguard submarines are leased from the United States. Their maintenance depends on American facilities. That means the operability of our deterrent ultimately depends on the goodwill of whoever sits in the Oval Office.”

Davey argued the UK should begin developing a sovereign missile capability ahead of the expected retirement of the current Trident system in the 2040s. “Trident missiles will need replacing in 2042. If we haven’t built our own capability before then, we’ll have no choice but to go back to the Americans. Who knows what terms they’ll offer? We cannot afford to leave our national security to chance.”

He said Britain had previously demonstrated the ability to develop nuclear weapons technology independently and should be capable of doing so again.

“I know building a sovereign capability sounds like an enormous undertaking. It is. It will cost billions over the next two decades. But Britain can do it – because we’ve done it before. If France can maintain a fully independent deterrent, Britain certainly can.”

The UK’s nuclear deterrent is often described as “operationally independent”, meaning the decision to launch nuclear weapons rests solely with the British government and Prime Minister. Once a submarine is on patrol, it can operate autonomously and does not require external permission or control to launch its missiles.

However, the system relies on cooperation with the United States for missile supply, maintenance and elements of supporting infrastructure. Davey said Britain should initially focus on developing the ability to maintain existing Trident missiles domestically before moving towards designing and producing a replacement missile system.

“In the short term, that means developing our own capability to maintain existing Trident missiles here in the UK. In the longer term, when those missiles come to the end of their lives, we will have British-made replacements ready. But only if the government starts that work now.”

George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison

14 COMMENTS

  1. With the changing situation Germany might make the step. France might offer a Euro solution based on their missile. Some form of cooperation on design, sovereign manufacture and independent warhead married to the missiles could be possible. Keeping pace with ABM technology would be the hard bit.
    The UK has a satellite launch footprint with small companies . AWE could do the warheads so it would be possible. Huge cost but would be a good for industry.

    As a cruise missiles, ELSA plus a UK war head would provide a more basic deterrent.
    Or one designed around Tempest. Stratos LO nuclear

  2. Considering the current government is kicking DIP down the road, has disastrous programs like AJAX, and politicians being clowns on defence in general, what the hell makes you think we can do this? Also, care about their defence.

  3. Deranged…..

    Of all the various defence things to spend money on…..frigates….submarines…..F35……Tempest…..E7……P8…..155mm……more tanks…..the list is massive.

    Now sense might suggest an air launch missile type solution of free fall as we have the COTS tech to deliver it and make it.

  4. Hah! After years of whinging about it, suddenly their minds are changed.

    However I agree a sovereign nuclear capability would be best… relying on the US for our entire deterrent is silly.

    In the old days there were at least free fall bombs and tactical nukes, now it’s Trident or bust. At a minimum we should have nuclear capable storm shadow / stratus or something like the French ASMP

  5. His hatred of America dilutes what little sense he has left (which isn’t saying much) Though this is surprising coming from a clownish party that has historically wanted to scrap our nuclear deterrent

  6. Ed Davey – always the clown.

    UK has no ballistic missile design capability
    UK has no sovereign nuclear warhead design capability
    ‘UK’ warheads are licensed copies of the US W76 and we buy in the technical and physics packages.
    UK has no test capability – all testing is done in Nevada

    We would literally have to invent and design everything, and create the manufacturer infrastructure from zero – and would then no ability to live test the warhead – it’s not as if the Australians are going to let us light off sub critical and critical nuclear tests again.

  7. They all like to mandate where they think money should go, without first guaranteeing the money. Call for 5% of GDP going into Defence from next month, Sir Ed, with all new money going on capability, only then might I give a stuff what you want it spent on.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here