The government has said that closer nuclear cooperation with France under the Northwood Declaration does not affect the United Kingdom’s independent nuclear deterrent, insisting that control over the use of UK nuclear weapons remains solely with the Prime Minister.
In written answers to Parliament, Defence Minister Luke Pollard addressed questions about the impact of the UK–France joint nuclear statement issued in July 2025, which set out plans to deepen cooperation between the two countries’ nuclear forces.
Pollard said the UK and France remained sovereign nuclear-weapon states, with fully independent nuclear forces and decision-making structures. He stressed that coordination between the two deterrents, where required, would not dilute national control.
“It will remain the case that only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons,” Pollard said.
The questions were tabled by independent MP James McMurdock, who asked what assessment had been made of the declaration’s impact both on the UK’s independent deterrent and on nuclear operations with France. In response, the Ministry of Defence repeated that independence had not been compromised.
Pollard said that while each country retained the ability to act independently, the declaration allowed for closer coordination in extreme circumstances, arguing that this could strengthen deterrence rather than weaken it.
“Deepening nuclear co-operation between the UK and France improves our ability to work together in times of crisis and strengthens our existing commitments to our Allies in an uncertain and dangerous world,” he said.
He added that the possibility of coordination between two independent centres of nuclear decision-making could complicate the calculations of potential adversaries, thereby enhancing overall deterrence.
The Northwood Declaration marked a significant step in UK–France defence cooperation, building on long-standing bilateral arrangements while stopping short of any form of shared control or joint command over nuclear weapons.
Knowing this PM, he’d surrender the nukes and pay for the surrender.
our wet lettuce in number ten is totally out of his depth on matters of defence he’s a puppet to American bdoreignppolicies I’m sick of his smarmy face and that of herr rump I wonder if Putin is laughing at the possibility of NATO to eat itself. if Denmark were to invoke article 5 if trumps Nazis step foot on their sovereign territory of Greenland.
Dream on. There is NO WAY on Earth in any circumstances Starmer would order a nuclear strike anyway so whats the point?
There was a really good wargame by a load of ex senior decision makers around a nuclear strike on the UK with a single warhead. In the end they did not actually use the deterrent because essentially it was a deterrent and it failed in its role.. to strike back with a full ballistic missile submarine would essentially trigger MAD and so the utter destruction of our nation and everyone in it, its history and future as well as the likely wider destruction of human civilisation… it was after watching that I realised we needed a sub strategic option to deter Russia from undertaking a single escalate to deescalate nuclear strike against the UK.
Since the adoption of Trident II by the UK our deterrent is now much more useful in a counter force role than the old counter value role of nuking Moscow off the map.
Given how few Trident II missiles the USA has our Vanguard subs operating under NATO would probably be primarily used to take out any land based Russian missile silos in western Russia, especially with the new fuses that have doubled their effectiveness.
However while no one on a TV program is going to admit this if the Russians fired a single weapon at us it would be almost impossible for us not to fire back a single weapon. Indeed our Trident subs are set up for exactly this scenario with a single tactical scale dilable yield warhead on at least one of the missiles.
If Russia only fired a single warhead then it proves the deterrent is working and the deterrent could only continue to work if we fired back with a single weapon.
The Russians know that if they take all of the UK out that firing decisions for the rest of the missiles will fall to the Captain of the Vanguard submarine and they extremely likely to fire back with all the weapons taking out all of Russia.
NATO has a number of nuclear war scenarios that don’t involve the end of the world and or doing nothing. That’s all very much a legacy of 1960’s movies.
The big issue Jim is although in theory you could fire a single missile with a single warhead from our trident SSBN in practice it’s not viable and I believe the whole idea was abandoned.. because it’s the quickest and easiest way to have your strategic deterrent exposed and destroyed and so the deterrent effect of our nuclear deterrent against an escalate to deescalate strike is reduced. In reality as France has and china we really need a second sub strategic option that does not expose our strategic deterrent.. even Isreal and India both nuclear powers that don’t officially exist according to international treaty have both sub and air launched options that defuse their strike capabilities.. the UK deterrent was build on the assumption of deterrent of strategic strike with the assumption that the U.S. would deter sub strategic strike… its a fine deterrent against MAD its weaker against a nation with an escalate to deescalate policy.. it’s why I’m hoping one of the ideas behind project nightfall is for the Uk to move back into the long and IRBM range ballistic missile game as I think having those’d with both a conventional and nuclear capability would make Russia think twice about causing a war with the UK ( because that is just the sort of capability that Russia respects. It’s why they have spent a lot keeping and developing their own capabilities in this area).
I agree we need a new sub strategic weapon. I am torn between an IRBM and a cruise missile however as both have their merits . That being said Russian can fit its Iskandar ballistic missiles and its Oniks cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Perhaps we don’t need to choose and should instead just look at nuclear warheads as being an option in the same way we might look at HE, BROACH or Fragmentation warheads as an interchangeable option on other missiles.
If you have a large stock of the conventional missiles and you want this to serve as a deterrent weapon then how many nuclear warheads do you need. Probably not that many.
It would also allow the UK to operate completely independent deterrent capability at fraction of the time and cost of a UK SLBM program.
I’m not advocating we give up SLBM’s but it puts the UK in a much stronger position for the future than 100% reliance on a US based missile.
Not sure about the idea of interchangeable warheads. If any weapon launch could be interpreted as a nuclear first strike, that makes nuclear escalation a lot more likely IMO.
For the same reason if we go for a second launch option it should still be a ballistic or other high-altitude weapon, separate from our conventional options, so the Nightfall path is the best option IMO.
I agree but unfortunately such weapons as the Chinese DF 21 and DF26 and Russias Oreshnik and Iskandar already cross this threshold and are pointed at us.
These countries routinely operate dual capable ballistic missiles and Russia has used them in Ukraine on numerous occasions. So what’s the benefit to us not having them?
Long range nuclear cruise missiles are much more dangerous however the US is currently developing their own one as well.
So again not any point in us not having them but it would bring a lot of benefit.
If the UK developed a DF21 equivalent by putting a second boost stage on Nightfall then we can have a long range hypersonic conventional attack weapon (A Variant) capable of striking ships at 2500KM from bases like Diego Garcia and Akritoni and the same missile B variant could provide a secondary nuclear deterrent capable of hitting targets in Moscow and Murmansk for the UK.
Terrible weapons but these things are already in use by enemy nations.
Even so I think it’s important to retain, at least in principle, a distinction between nuclear and conventional warfare in a world where conventional warfare is looking a lot more likely than it used to. Which is annoying as I’m in favour of both a ballistic secondary deterrent and also ballistic conventional strike.
What you suggest is IMO the obvious long-term goal of the Nightfall programme; a two-stage, large-diameter rocket that is entirely sovereign. I would expand on your A and B variants as follows, to produce two easily distinguishable missiles using the same booster stack:
1. A maneuvering glide vehicle, similar to the body on DF21. Optimised for a much flatter trajectory and in-atmosphere maneuvering with a conventional warhead and seeker that enables it to target ships and possibly buildings itself. The range would only need to be c.2000km as it isn’t for a UK-Russia launch. Base it on ships, road vehicles for NATO, even aircraft if we can fit them.
2. A ‘conventional’ IRBM carrying an MRV nuclear warhead, just like Trident but with minimal US involvement. Designed to be UK sovereign sub-strategic deterrent using road-mobile launchers distributed throughout the UK (that bit needs more thought). Needs 2500-3000km range to reach Moscow from everywhere in the UK.
I agree with your outlines for such a weapon,
It should be possible to get the Astrea warhead inside an IRBM or even a STRATUS LO cruise missile.
Astrea allows for a dialable yield of between 90kt and 455kt. This would allow for a tactical or sub strategic deployment. Then all the Uk has to do is increase it warhead count for its Trident II missiles and build the conventional IRBM and Cruise missile
Should the UK find itself in need of a nuclear Triad it can easily generate one by taking the trident warheads and placing them onto conventional cruise and ballistic missiles.
That’s not that different to what China and Russia do either having common nuclear warheads that can be put in conventional ballistic missiles with a nuclear designation.
The change in warhead can change the missiles designation between A and B variants although we can keep the nuclear B variants essentially secret as a latent capability.
I’m not sure about reusing Astraea for tactical roles- if we were going to take the step of a second nuclear option then a new warhead and aeroshell designed for the role would be better. Also like I said it’s probably a good idea to use a different reentry vehicle for A and B to avoid confusion, exact parity with RUS and CHI is not necessary and if necessary we need the ability to use the conventional weapon without the risk of escalation.
Apart from that I think we are agreed.
I was thinking of using the warhead but not the aeroshell re entry vehicle.
For an IRBM with a single warhead then the entire upper stage vehicle can be the reentry vehicle
The main benefit i see is not actually having to build or deploy such a weapon unless the security situation deteriorates and or a Future President JD Vance decides no more spares for UK Tridents.
If we have the missiles and the warheads then the capability can be generated in weeks or days.
The reality is the only way Europe can have an effective nuclear deterrence in the new world of four desperate strategic nuclear power groups ( US, Europe, Russia and China ) is if the two European nuclear powers pool their capabilities.. 8 SSBNs and an air launched missile option with a total of about 600 warheads is really the minimum viable MAD deterrent..
Personally I would like to see wider involvement from Germany, Italy and Poland as a minimum with a European joint nuclear program to develop a joint sovereign ground launched IRBM or ICBM, sub launched system and air launched missile.. I think every major E nato nation should have a nuclear deterrence it should not be just the UK and France taking risk and cost… yes that would kill the non proliferation treaty, but that has been a fantasy now for years anyway.
That would be a waste of ressources while we need to invest on conventional forces. Cultural aspects are also key: last comments from german politicians on nuclear deterrent were appaling and, let’s be honest, France Will not agree to have more eu countries with Independent nukes.
The problem is if you don’t have an adequate full spectrum nuclear deterrence against a nation with a vast nuclear arsenal and a nuclear doctrine of escalate to deescalate then you are inviting a sub strategic nuclear strike.. and I have little doubts that with no US nuclear umbrella Russia would seriously consider it. I could very much see Russia shattering a NATO formation with a nuclear strike if it was losing to ENATO and the US was not there.
I agree, ENATO already has a vast over match on Russia in conventional armaments but nuclear armaments are the only thing that really counts at this level. Europe could have a 10 million man army and Putin would not be deterred as he has 6,000 nuclear weapons.
Not really. The overmatch only exist if we are able alone to carry quickly to any contested point an army of 300k soldiers under a unified command. Europeans can’t do that. The transport fleet is too weak, communications and command structures are lacking, the industrial output is too low.
Got it but would you consider France ´ s nuclear air component as « sub strategic »?Also, i see your point but i fear we won’t have the Time anyway: geopolitical shifts by trump happen at an increasing pace so i prefer to go with countries who know what they are doing.
France’s air launched MdCN, is specifically a weapon whose purpose is to escalate to de-escalate. France are on record as saying it will be used as proportional response, if a nuclear weapon is used on France or its territories. It is also designed to fulfil the role of a tactical weapon but could also be used in the interdiction role.
The famous nuclear warning shot
MdCN is the naval Storm Shadow/SCALP variant and is wholly conventionaly armed. The French nuclear ALCM is ASMPA-R, which replaced the ASMP-A late last year.
Yes, sorry you are quite correct. Cheers for correcting my oversight.
« France or its territories », a bit beyond that; since de Gaulle French deterrent always had an european component and he had acknowledged France would consider an attack ok Benelux or west germany an attack on French vital interests. Obviously, uk falls into that category too. Now, Macron is extending that to poland, baltics are questionable but saint Dizier’s rafales have been positionned in sweden and poland lately. They are the ones that can carry asmp-a.
In a nutshell, the sub strategic technology and equipement exist, it’s the French one. How collaboration and sharing might happen in the future it’s another debate (which trump might help conclude if he definitely ends nato).
Getting anything non US onto the F35 is a serious problem for the UK. Putting something like ASMPA on to Typhoon would be a lot easier and quicker. The problem is Typhoon would need a major support package to ensure it reaches the launch location. Whereas the F35 will (should) be able to reach it with much less risk.
However, if the UK are considering a nuclear option for GCAP. Again in theory it should be easier to integrate on to it compared to the F35. The downside is GCAP won’t be ready for at least another decade.
Would the UK consider a nuclear Sratus-Lo/RS option over ASMPA, that already exists? I guess a lot would depend on whether France would be willing to either sell the airframe or the design so it could be built in the UK and fitted with a UK made warhead.
It’s an interesting question
What massive ENato formation can you possibly imagine?. It doesn’t exist. Concentrate on the conventional threat.
Well any one of the many divisions that exist and could be deployed.. this bizarre fantasy that European nations don’t actually have armies is so self defeating. Poland has five deployable divisions and is moving to six all on its own. France 2 divisions and an independent brigate, UK 1 and an independent brigade ( aiming for 2) Germany 3 ( of which it could probably manage 2 but will get to 3 ).
But French army has to increase the firepower of each units and it’s transport fleet. We are doing IT but IT will take some time. The goal is also to have a semi prepared division, with 60k reservistes and 50k conscripts every year to increase depth.
Hi Math, yes but in extremis, the French would have those two divisions available.. same with the UK in the end.. they may not be the perfect divisions either nations would want.. I’ve not even added the Italian, Spanish and smaller nations.. I was really point out to the troll that ENATO has plenty of divisions.
Yes, great! Brigades are also created in Netherland, Belgium, Sweeden and Romania are increasing their fighting capabilities. The landcape is changing. In Germany, the surge is remarkable, but it can only last if economy main issue is fixed, via reliable and cheap energy access. And to be honest, it is not easy.
But much has to be done on the economic side. We have to change radicaly the way EU operates, begining by removing all self inflicting damages that we have been constructing ourselves in order to welcome the inevitable flow of investment coming from USA, as we will just bring back what fuels US economy. Liberal policies have lead to a 50% ownership of European savings on US capital market. This will has to change and can fuel a future growth if cards are played correctly.
I have been wondering about developing a mobile ICBM along the lines that Russia uses. That would at least avoid the need to build silos although there would be a whole lot of other issues to consider, especially the security of the launchers when deployed and indeed on base. The launcher might only need a small crew, but guarding the damn thing would require a platoon of very well trained infantry at least I would think, probably more. Unlike the Russian equivalents I would bother giving it an enhanced off road performance as the road network in Europe is pretty comprehensive so plenty of places to move it to and set up, security allowing.
I also think that Germany, Italy and Poland should step up in some way. My guess, is that Poland would be the most receptive to the idea given their history with Russian occupation.
The launch vehicles shouldn’t be too difficult to design and build as the design could be derived from a large mobile crane I would have thought. My first though would be the missile could be developed from the French SLBM as the M51 published (or estimated) range is IRBM class. So perhaps straight conversion to land launching and then develop into an ICBM range later.
Trouble is would France share with the UK? Most unlikely. So would we be able to build a new system in partnership or would we need to go it alone. Politically my guess would be the latter. Technically we could develop our own missile(s), but we would need to rebuild our launcher industry from pretty small and fragmented levels. It would take time.
Could Europe, with the UK and France leading, develop a ICBM based deterrent? Technically yes. Politically, may be by the end of the century if we are lucky..! Another, approach would be for the UK to start something small scale, studies and the like, get the concept stablised and then invite a chosen few into the program a la Meteor and Tempest. It seems to have worked so far…
One thing to consider is having an IRBM class weapon in the hands of Poland would really give Putin something to think about and his reaction would likely be pretty extreme. So may be tread carefully around that thought..!
Of course I think we are a long way from anything like this yet. I recon Europe is waiting to see what happens with Greenland, the US mid-terms and /or the next presidential election. Greenland could = last straw for many.
Finally, I would add India to your list of centers of power… I believe they have just launched their second(?) SSBM.
Cheers CR
I would not put India there JUST yet as it’s still limited to regional deterrence, it’s first SSBN has only got 1000nm range missiles and it second SSN can only carry 4 single warhead missiles with a range of 2000nm. The two new units will carry 8 single warhead missiles with 2000nm range.. in the end they will get the K5 which will be a proper peer 3 stage 5000nm range missile that will carry MRVs.. but until their Arihant-class get those they are effectively a regional deterrent.
It’s easy to forget just how lethal and globally deployable our deterrent is compared to other nations. Even China has very few weapons that can reach inter continental distances.
With our Vanguard subs able to deploy anywhere on the planet undetected, coupled with the immense range and accuracy of Trident D5 it really is a world class deadly military capability.
Agree with you there Jim but the system is only as good as the diminishing number of crew who are prepared to put up with 6+ month deployments that are due to a completely avoidable short sighted, penny pinching exercise in platform and infrastructure neglect.
Being deployable anywhere is a thing. Being able to communicate with your sub over very long distances is something totally different. Hence the Chinese investments in the South China Sea. I don’t think Russian sub carrying nuclear warheads go much beyond the White Sea. Make your bets, but what is sent over long distances are most likely attack sub, not nuclear launcher ones. Technical means exists, but how reliable may they be in a nuclear war scenario? So… The stated range of missiles + a few hundred of km + the hidden security margin around strategic issues are likely the range you would get in the end.
Though, that’s just my guess.
Sounds a lot like what used to live at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth? Not that those were under our control. What goes around comes around, I wonder what Mrs. Thatcher would say?
Is the UK big enough to make good use of a road mobile system? We’re a small and densely populated island, people tend to notice those things moving around. We couldn’t do what Russia does and scatter them through the vast uninhabited wilderness of Siberia, there are very few places in the UK that aren’t relatively near to population centres. I feel like this would do more harm than good, putting more potential targets on the map. An air-launched solution seems more viable to me, it creates fewer targets on land but is still not as survivable as CASD.
Fantastic to hear this, makes you sleep a lot easier knowing we have Starmer In charge.
Much as I object to him being PM, to be fair, such a responsibility goes beyond political party squabbles and I hope he takes it seriously. We might well be surprised.
Would be fascinating to know the contents of the 4 letters, all of which are destroyed after a PM leaves office.
On this French cooperation, why not? It in no way impedes our ability to use the deterrent.
I believe Pollard is right, the PM can only authorise their use, not order it. And there are several steps and fail safes up the ladder before this happens.
The “sovereign” bit is always the bone of contention, as in some areas it gets a bit muddy to say the least.
Putting all this aside for a minute.
I spent a night near Morwenstow last night, in a little cove right below the Dishes ! Had breakfast at Instow next to Arrowmanches Camp, then stopped for a coffee at Chivenor, Currently sat high above the Bristol Channel at the top of Porlock cooking a nice curry with spectacular views accross to Wales, Hincley Point and way off In the distance you can just see the two Severn Bridges.
Just thought I’d mention It.😁🚍☢️
Hi mate.
Crikey, you picked a good day for it? It’s monsoon weather here in Surrey.
I’ve heard of that little lane that goes down to the cove, though not been down it.
Those dishes are GCHQ Bude. Built to mirror the Satellite Ground Station at Goonhilly.
It intercepts not only SATCOM but cable traffic too, landing at the various CLS all along the coasts down there. It does this alongside severel other 5 Eyes sites.
RPC1 processes the take and sends it on the Cheltenham.
I visited it in the late 90s and took photos, some of which mysteriously seemed to end up being used elsewhere when I sent prints to another researcher! Funny. Doesn’t bother me. By visited, I walked around outside, not inside!
11 Sqn ATTURM, assume you didn’t see much there?
Ditto Chivenor, 24 RE and the CLR garrisoned there. I hope the runway is still maintained, it was a few years ago.
Ahh, for the good old days of 1 and 2 TWUs Hawks from there and Brawdy tearing low all over North Devon and sending my Nanny spare as they flew low over her roof!
Where are you off to next?
Yes, It’s a rather narrow lane at the bottom of some rather steep narrow lanes !
Instow was quiet at 6am but I could see tens of dozens of Tanks and DUKW’s !!!
Chivenor was to the left and not actually visible but It does look pretty well maintained on Google Maps. Braunton to Croyde and on to Woolacombe was “interesting” in the bus ! So was the Ilfracombe to Combe Martin bit and the coast road to Lynmouth, up Countisbury to my “Camp Site”.
Sat here now with all the lights showing over Wales and all along the Channel, the brightest cluster by far Is Hincley, Wow, It must be a huge site.
Staying here tonight, off to Minehead first thing, then Taunton, then up the M5 and back to Halfwit Towers by Thursday.
Sleep tight!
Don’t worry, I have Guns !!!! 😎
Whatever nuclear option is best. The UK needs to move away from be reliant on the US for much of its nuclear capability. Now that the US can no longer be trusted. An integrated European nuclear programme is needed in the long term. I understand both Sweden and Poland are thinking of going nuclear. So a combined cost sharing for the next generation missiles between UK/France/Poland and Sweden. A missile capable of both land/silo launch for Sweden & Poland and a sea based system for the UK & France.
And yes a smaller nuclear strike capability so that the full strategic option isn’t the only option.
If we move away from the Americans, any putative Euronuke, just like the French ones, will come with US supplied technology Permissive Action Links.
In which case we just… don’t use US technology? We are perfectly capable of a European-only nuclear deterrent.
That’s the point. UK went to USA to keep them interested in European affaires. If USA cut the link, what is the point of this policy anyway? And then, what are the inevitable conclusions?
Shit the bed, if he ever had the nads to authorise a launch his back benchers would only have about 10 minutes to force him into yet another U turn………….
I am thoroughly amused by the threat discussion going on in the forum. I live in the DC area and am in touch with many government folks working in the current administration. From the discussions I realize that many in forum have not been paying close attention to what the Trump administration and the American political right is looking to do politically globally. The unsaid part of the “spheres of influence” that Trump poorly articulates with his misunderstood references to the Monroe doctrine is that the world should be carved into 3 spheres with the Western Hemisphere the Americas and Greenland controlled by the USA, EuroAsia to be under his friend Putin’s Russia and East Asia under the Chinese. In Trump and his right wing cohorts minds, the carve up is based on those nations with the largest nuclear stockpiles. The carve up will allow each dominant power to exploit the resources in their sphere as they see fit.
In essence Trump craves an alliance with Putin to the detriment of the European States, including the UK. When I read comments in the forum that goes on about the USA being a reliable ally of the UK I am amused by it, because to be honest with you all, the USA since WW2 has systematically worked to undermine Europe politically and economically and usually with assistance of UK governments, especially Tory governments, who over the years have bought into the myth of the so-called “special relationship” supposedly formed in the fight against fascism.
From where I sit currently, the UK’s best bet of retaining its status as a leading global power lies in forging closer economic (self sabotaged by Brexit), military and political ties with the EU and pushing a plan to help sub-Sahara Africa become an ally of the Western European Union and the manufacturing heartland for the Western European Union. Africa is the continent that solves Europe’s problems of accessing natural resources and the labor capital required for a Europe with declining demographics and scarce energy and natural resources. Note that in the 3 sphere power play that the Trump administration is toying with, Russia will have vast natural resources and it will look to use the population of Central Asia and a dominated Western Europe to meet its economic demands. The USA will look to exploit the resources of the Western Hemisphere (Canada, Greenland, the melting Arctic and South America) and the peoples of Latin America for its economic needs. In Asia China will be handicapped fighting rivals like India, Indonesia, Japan and Korea for resources and this for the Trump folks is fine as they, like Russia, want to see a weakened China.
Folks I have been somewhat long winded in this post, but people in the forum need to disabuse themselves very quickly on the reliability of the American commitment to NATO and Europe. The right wing of the Republican Party and their tech billionaire “masters” are focused on the amassing of wealth for the “elite” (themselves) while the masses are controlled through the use of technology and the demolition of the rule of law as we have know for the past 80 years.
Thanks for the post however it reeks of left wing (democrat) hysteria and some anti Trump, pro EU nonsense. While some of your ascertains do have credence, overall its mostly anti right propaganda.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post, but your reply reeks of right wing hysteria and denying of the reality that is unfolding in the USA. The imperial President and self acclaimed King Trump has just told us in interviews last week that he is not bound by any rules or norms, domestic or international, and that he is guided by his own moral compass. Now if you are comfortable with any leader, elected or otherwise, opening making statements like that then I am afraid there is not much anyone can say to warn you of the dangers from within, facing the so-called western democracies in particular and the planet as a whole.
Ditto, your frantic reply reeks of pure anti Trump left wing hysteria. Is your Hilary Clinton calendar still in one piece?
It’s refreshing to hear that someone else sees it, and your point about Europe engaging Africa is spot on IMO. Unfortunately the UK is so totally dominated by American interests (owning most of our valuable companies, extracting much of our profits), especially at the higher levels that I cannot see us being able to break free.
Instead, I suspect that Farage and his ilk will string out (damaging) relationships with the US for personal profit until the UK is truly bled dry, and then emigrate. By which point we will either be (rightly) ostracised from Europe, or the EU will have collapsed.
Ah new posters once Iranian internet is back up and running supporting a very rare poster with anti Trump and anti UK views. Always interesting to read and note. Bit boring but there you go.
Practically speaking- only the senior officers of the V-boats can authorise their use.