In a Commons debate on the UK submarine fleet, James Cartlidge, MP for South Suffolk and Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, used his prior experience as Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to highlight the strategic importance of the nuclear deterrent while addressing the challenges facing the UK’s submarine enterprise.
Cartlidge praised the contributions of those working within the nuclear enterprise and stressed the need for continued investment.
Cartlidge began by acknowledging the vital role played by submariners in maintaining the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent. “It is important and timely, as well as incredibly interesting… [to thank] all those who serve on our submarines, particularly those who have maintained our continuous at-sea deterrent 24/7 since 1969. Theirs is an incredible achievement.” He extended his appreciation to the wider defence nuclear enterprise, highlighting contributions from apprentices and contractors at facilities such as Faslane, Barrow, and Devonport. “It is a huge national endeavour, which I am pleased all parties here now support.”
High8j8 the nuclear deterrent’s critical importance, Cartlidge stated, “Nuclear is the most important part of our defence, because no matter what missile defence we have, that is not the reason the Russians will not launch at us. The reason is our ability to retaliate.” He added that the deterrent’s unparalleled importance necessitates its upkeep and enhancement. “It is an extraordinary weapon which we must maintain, especially with the threats that we face today.”
However, Cartlidge identified challenges facing the submarine fleet and the wider nuclear enterprise. He pointed to the need for skilled personnel across the supply chain, not just within the Navy. “There is a key point about the deterrent… it does have its challenges. Colleagues have mentioned people and personnel, but I think it is not just about those who serve in the Navy. When I was a Minister… we set up the nuclear skills task force to really inculcate growth in skills in the whole supply chain, whether at AWE or Rolls-Royce.”
Cartlidge also underscored the critical need for increased investment in infrastructure, which he noted had contributed to delays and inefficiencies in the nuclear enterprise. “When it comes to the nuclear enterprise, the need to invest in infrastructure is huge. It has been a significant factor in some of the issues we have experienced in terms of maintenance and so on.” He highlighted the £1.8 billion invested in Faslane since 2015 but stressed that this was only a starting point for addressing broader needs.
Calling on the Government to fulfil its pledge to allocate 2.5% of GDP to defence, Cartlidge sought clarity on the timeline for this commitment. “It is vital that the Government bring forward their promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. The Daily Mail splashed that the target will not be reached well into the 2030s. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks about that speculation.”
Cartlidge concluded by highlighting the economic benefits of the nuclear enterprise, particularly in the context of defence exports such as the AUKUS partnership. “It is going to be one of our biggest ever defence exports… The manufacture there by Babcock of the missile tubes… is one of the best UK examples of extraordinarily skilful manufacturing. The ability to manufacture nuclear submarines, with all their technology, is quite extraordinary, and we should be very proud of it.”
Cartlidge’s remarks demonstrated the continued importance of the UK’s submarine fleet, both as a deterrent and as a driver of economic and technological growth. His speech also underscored the pressing need for increased investment to ensure the enterprise remains a cornerstone of national security.
It often amazes me how many people advocate for higher defence spending but dismiss spending on the deterrent as a waste of money. Like we should have an extra division in the army to deter the Russians yet don’t worry about the 6,000 nuclear war heads they have.
In the UK defence spending should start with the deterrent and everything else should be built around that, the vast majority of our spending goes on expeditionary force designed to support the USA and other Allie’s. Up until now this has been the right way to do things but with the USA political scene now changed on a fundamental level it might now be the best way for much longer. The deterrent is the UK’s number one defensive capability and it’s also the most important capability it brings to NATO
Our nuclear capability is not a defence of any kind, nor can your build a defence around it. It is a deterrent.
Consider a shield and a sword. If attacked, you can use a shield to prevent you being injured. A sword can be used defensively too, either to parry or to injure/kill the opponent so that you still won’t be hurt. Our nuclear weapons aren’t like any of that. They provide no shielding, they cannot parry, nor can a pre-emptive strike stop our country from being subsequently destroyed. They are a deterrent, pure and simple. And they are not enough, because they only deter existential conventional attacks and don’t deter grey zone attacks at all, not from other nuclear powers nor even from non-nuclear powers. It’s possible they won’t deter biological or chemical attacks either.
Nuclear stops nuclear, so the deterrent is valuable. However, we need defences against a whole host of non-nuclear threats as well. Arguably if we didn’t have a nuclear deterrent, Russia would no more nuke us than we would have nuked Argentina over the Falkland Islands. We have a nuclear deterrent because we don’t want to chance that; however, conventional defences might well be more important. Either way we certainly don’t have the best possible defence in nuclear, because it isn’t a defence at all. It is no substitute.
valid arguments and simplistic answer is we need conventional and nuke. how would putin have played it if ukraine had kept nuclear weapons. also interesting to think on india v pakistan both with nukes sadly but with the stakes so high may have focused both sides to pause? what is so valuable is to have the second strike capability deterrent , uk flattened, and there remains a uk boat at sea able to attack
If you want peace prepare for war, for me this is the only deterrent needed, Nuclear stuff with a small super trained military. The rest could be achieved with diplomacy if only we had any diplomats worth their salt. I’m sure many will disagree but I am a peace dove without appeasing the warhawks and I know from my perspective things ain’t lookin’ good. I will leave you with Von Runstedt’s reply to OKH’s nquiry about what to do about the Normandy invasion, “Make peace you idiots” ❤️ ☮️