In an exchange during the Defence Committee’s recent evidence session, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman suggested that while the UK and France took different nuclear paths post-Suez, their strategic cultures may be drawing closer in light of today’s shifting security environment.
Committee member Mr Calvin Bailey pressed Freedman on his earlier scepticism about intermediate nuclear forces and challenged him to consider whether the UK should align more closely with France’s approach to nuclear deterrence.
France has traditionally emphasised a layered deterrent posture with a strong emphasis on sub-strategic use, while the UK has committed its strategic force—via Trident submarines—to NATO, with use reserved for exceptional national circumstances.
Freedman is one of Britain’s foremost strategic thinkers and served as Professor of War Studies at King’s College London from 1982 to 2014. He was a key foreign policy adviser to successive UK governments and was appointed to the Iraq Inquiry panel in 2009. Known for his analysis of nuclear strategy, international conflict, and the evolution of military doctrine, his views continue to shape defence debates at the highest level.
Freedman acknowledged the historical divergence, stating: “We went for interdependence; the French went for independence.” However, he clarified that “Trident can still be used independently. We do not have to get American permission to use it.” Though the UK relies on shared technology under the 1958 mutual defence agreement with the United States, the system remains operationally sovereign.
He downplayed rigid distinctions between “tactical,” “intermediate,” and “strategic” weapons, noting that “We have a ‘sub-strategic’ capability with Trident. You can target it against a military formation—it’s just a very expensive and rather brutal way of doing it.”
Freedman explained that deeper UK–France cooperation is limited less by the Polaris sales agreement and more by secrecy restrictions under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which “inhibited quite a lot of co-operation in the past on things such as synchronising patrols and discussing common problems.”
Nonetheless, he observed growing space for coordination, remarking that “Together, [the British and French forces] have quite a significant punch.”
Looking ahead to the upcoming Strategic Defence Review, Freedman hoped for a more open discussion of the UK’s nuclear capabilities. “We have tended to talk about our national nuclear force as an awkward necessity,” he said, adding that “in these circumstances, you have to be prepared to draw more attention to it. I can see us being closer to the French position.”
The exchange reflects an evolving recognition within Parliament that strategic culture in Europe may need to adapt, not just to the return of great power competition, but to greater nuclear ambiguity on NATO’s eastern flank.
bit late for Dreadnought and Trident, but does this mean a second vector from a fighter jet is what is being considered?
Always a good idea to have a plan B
Google pay 92 every hour my last check was 8400 working 10 hours per week on the web. My more youthful sibling companion has been averaging 18k throughout recent months and he works around 24 hours per week. I cannot accept how simple it was once I attempted it out.This is my main thing……… WorkStar1.Com
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN … Www.HighProfit1.Com
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity. tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN….. 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗣𝗮𝘆𝟭.𝗖𝗼𝗺
SLBM’s are still by far and away the most effective nuclear weapons. The USA sees the other two legs of its triad as little more than targets to be knocked out by opposing forces do there would never be any reason to change the Dreadnaught class. I am in favour of an air launched tactical capability like France though.
Agreed, there is little to be gained from further strategic weapons development. With all due respect to Sir Lawrence, we’d be daft to use Trident at the sub-strategic level. It would be like pulling a gun out during a fist fight; it doesn’t matter if your intent is just to use the weapon as a club, your opponent is going to think you’re pulling the trigger.
I’m in favour of a tactical capability, but if it’s going to be air-launched, it needs to fit on the Lightning, which might not fit with cooperating with the French. Knowledge that a Queen Elizabeth carrier group might be slinging nuclear weapons would be a colossal deterrent with a global reach.
We do not have sovereignty over our nuclear deterrent. We rent Trident from the USA and the last two test fires were duds. This brings into question the viability of our entire nuclear deterrent. Give the recent clamour over kill switches over the entire F35B production, there’s no reason at all to believe that the same kill switches have been installed in Trident.
It would make sense for the UK and France to start cooperating more. We can’t depend on the US any more and France has the same primary concern we have – nuclear deterrent in Europe. Sadly, we need more nukes and a they need to include both land and air launched missiles – the Trident option just isn’t flexible enough or a big enough deterrent any more.
When you say land-launched ICBMs are you talking about vehicle-launched ones or silos?
The problem with silos is that it’d take a massive chunk of land to spread them all out, so it’d need to be vehicle-launched.
If we’re going down the route of tactical nukes I think we should go for air-launched, personally. Make sure that they can be carried by Typhoon, Tempest and F-35s.
Agree air launched is the option you want.. after all at increased tension you can have your aircraft in the air or if their is a potential attack you can put the aircraft in the air and then wait and see what attack you have.. this is really important as if we were ever at war with Russia it would fire cruise missiles and IRBMs at the Uk that could either be nuclear or conventional..so we don’t want a ground launched option that only has a fire/don’t fire option.
Agreed, don’t believe there is any fundamental reason why a component of RAF could not have a nuclear deterrence role. May require lease/purchase of F-35As, a possible mod for Typhoons, design mod for Tempest. Not certain re RAF historical practice, i.e., whether RAF Bomber Command maintained ac on alert during CWI. First whiff of trouble, MITO launch the alert birds and the tankers to the PCTAP. Probable result: Many fewer Orcs to contend w/ in the future.
Historically our air bases were so close to the Soviet Union that the RAF had no chance to get into the air before the soviets took them out. With tactical nuclear weapons it would likely be different. They would probably be responding on a limited tit for tat response to a Russian tactical nuclear weapon meaning they would not be racing to get off the ground.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity. tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN….. 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗣𝗮𝘆𝟭.𝗖𝗼𝗺
A drawback with tactical nukes, is that you need to be based relatively close to enemy territory like the former West Germany was, or Poland is now for use of nukes by tactical fighters. Or you would need longer ranged strategic bombers for use.
Don’t like tactical nukes. The 2nd strike capability of uk trident is reassuring. Of course if used uk was attacked and the deterrence failed but whoever started it may have paid a price .
I agree with you, but in this case it’s not a discussion about tactical nuclear weapons as the French don’t have tactical nucs, they have sub strategic weapons..which are not the same.. essentially a tactical nuc is a low yield battle field weapon..a sub strategic weapon like the French ASMP is essentially a strategic weapon that you can fire as single warning shots..essentially it’s still a 100-300kt strategic level missile..but you kill one base with it and see how that sits.. unlike the ballistic missile submarines that by their nature must fire their entire county destroyer it strategic load.
Because of Russia believe in the policy of escalation to de-escalation, strategic weapons no longer work as a full proof deterrent.. simply because Putin and Russian doctrine is to potentially us a tactical nuclear weapon to force a de-escalation, on the principle that no nation would respond to one tactical nuclear weapon with its strategic deterrence knowing that in return it would be utterly destroyed by Russias strategic deterrent.. so in Russian logic the us of a tactical nuclear weapon becomes viable against a nation that can only respond with its full strategic deterrent ( that’s us).. because if Russia took out say our CBG with a Tactical nuclear weapon we are not going to go straight to MAD.. but if like the French we have a sub strategic..”back off or we all die” nuclear shot across the bows..Putin and Russia would not risk a tit for tat strike..knowing that we could respond by knocking out a key navel base etc and still retain our deterrent.
By that description and use-case, the only difference between a tactical nuke and sub-strategic is the yield.. so folks could “sub-strategic” tit for tat until someone decides to full-yeet
To add, we had the WE177 series of free-fall thermonuclear weapons. The WE177A was the tactical weapon that had a yield of 10kt, though there was a version of this used for nuclear depth charges with a yield of 0.5kt. The WE177B, was the heaviest yield of 450kt and was carried by Vulcans and then the Tornado in the sub-strategic role. The WE177C was to be predominantly used by Jaguars, then Tornados in the tactical strike role from Germany, as its yield was 200kt. Though it could also be used by Harriers operating from hides, though was never officially declared. As far as I know, none of these weapons had a selectable/dialable yield, but covered both a tactical and sub-strategic requirement.
The French ASMP’s thermonuclear warhead has a dialable yield in the 100 to 300kt range. So technically it could also be used in the tactical role if required, when set to the lower yield.
I bet the Ukrainians are bitterly regretting abandoning their Nukes but then again who would have believed what Putin was going to do! The UK certainly needs a second tier. Nuclear Cruise missiles from Astute or RAF Bomber Command?
The Ukranians were glad to get rid of them,they were in poor material condition,they had no real means to operate them independently and they were a massive financial drain on an Economy that was already heading rapidly down the Toilet.
Even so I bet they’re wishing they’d kept them.
I think Ukraine bitterly regrets trusting a pair of ‘super-powers’ that can’t be trusted to keep their word.
The development of precision missiles, cruise or ballistic, was supposed to make tactical nuclear weapons obsolete because they would avoid collateral damage, and be produced in sufficient quantities so as to be cheaper.
TLAM Tomahawk or Storm Shadow have demonstrated these advantages so tactical nuclear seems like a step backwards.
No, that’s not the point of tactical nukes. Storm Shadow and TLAM are precision weapons, they have a pretty low lethality radius. To “neutralise” a town sized target, you would need to use loads of Storm Shadows/TLAMs, whereas you would only need to use one 100 to 200kt thermonuclear weapon. The tactical nuke is not a surgical weapon, it is a sledgehammer, used to get the other sides attention! During the Cold War, for NATO their purpose was to destroy large Warsaw Pact formations and thereby stop the reserves meeting up with the advanced formations that were in contact. Although Soviet and then Russian doctrine, was that tactical nukes would be employed to break an enemy’s defensive line, allowing their follow-on forces to exploit the gap (radiation poisoning notwithstanding).
The French see tactical/sub-strategic nuclear weapons carried in their ASMP air launched cruise missile, as either a warning shot across the bows or as a response to a single nuclear strike on their country. Where their next stage is to release their SLBMs, unless the “perpetrator” does not agrees to terms over the negotiating table.
There is a potential window here for a nuclear tipped hypersonic missile.
France is working on ASN4G , the ASMP successor for 2035. Maybe it’s time to look for a cooperation and to look if it can fit under under Typhoon or more probably Tempest.
Hypersonic Weapons arguably don’t need Nuclear Warheads, or any Warheads for that matter, Kinetic energy being the destructive force. Accuracy is key though.
A bigger hypersonic Starstreak-esque thing.. a few tungsten rods hitting the target at Mach-neeowm
MAC rounds? In atmosphere?!
Could have anti-satellite versions too.. doesn’t have to just be in atmosphere.. terminal hypersonic multi-role missile, scale up for ballistic, cruise and icbm.. hypersonic tungsten spears is hypersonic tungsten spears, only difference is the size of the spear and the delivery method
I don’t think the French ASMP system can be considered a tactical capability either- actually a slightly more vulnerable strategic delivery system. So we’re really in much the same place in terms of having missing rungs on the escalation ladder. Worry about dependence on US technology is fairly misplaced, for reasons George has painstakingly explained before.
You know, ASMP-A air-to-ground missiles are there to be seen so that’s not a good argument!
You are correct in this case it’s not a discussion about tactical nuclear weapons as the French don’t have tactical nucs, they have sub strategic weapons..which are not the same.. essentially a tactical nuc is a low yield battle field weapon..a sub strategic weapon like the French ASMP is essentially a strategic weapon that you can fire as single warning shots..essentially it’s still a 100-300kt strategic level missile..but you kill one base with it and see how that sits.. unlike the ballistic missile submarines that by their nature must fire their entire county destroyer it strategic load.
Because of Russia believe in the policy of escalation to de-escalation, the full single use strategic deterrence no longer work as a full proof deterrent.. simply because Putin and Russian doctrine is to potentially us a tactical nuclear weapon to force a de-escalation, on the principle that no nation would respond to one tactical nuclear weapon with its full strategic deterrence knowing that in return it would be utterly destroyed by Russias strategic deterrent.. so in Russian logic the us of a tactical nuclear weapon becomes viable against a nation that can only respond with its full strategic deterrent ( that’s us).. because if Russia took out say our CBG with a Tactical nuclear weapon we are not going to go straight to MAD.. but if like the French we have a sub strategic..”back off or we all die” nuclear shot across the bows..Putin and Russia would not risk a tit for tat strike..knowing that we could respond by knocking out a key navel base etc and still retain our deterrent… essentially the french sub strategic option is a deterrent to sub strategic strikes and a final back of or die in nuclear fire message if France itself is under existential threat, the strategic deterrent is there to deter against a first strike, counter force or counter value strategic strike.
Their is a good reason for ASMP-A and Rafale. People can see them. So they are a posture. We can tell they are here or there without compromizing the mission. It is visible and credible. ASN4G will increase range and speed, providing more flexiblity.
I would like the UK deterrent to have a second string to its bow, so the French ASN4G seems a good idea to me. Perhaps 40, carried by Typhoon. Adapt a UK Trident warhead to fit. So either 90 kt or 7 kt (without the fusion boost). Stops you having to fire off a whole boatload, if you only want one mushroom cloud.
You mean a UK AWE warhead since Trident D5 is just the delivery vehicle and doesn’t come with any warheads.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, the MK4A, the UK version of the W76. In future, the British version of the W93.
I don’t see in what area we can work, the Dreagnoth SSBNs are too advanced to integrate the English into the construction of the M51.4… and the ASNG4 missiles are not possible for the English!
Perhaps you could work with the Scottish or Welsh then on their nuclear weapons 😀
I really don’t see what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can’t work with France on the ASN4G missile given much of its technology will be based on work from FC/ASW.
If Rafale can carry it typhoon can easily carry it and France is pretty short on money right now so a joint development makes sense.
It would seem the UK and France having these weapons and possibly operating a dual key basis with Germany and maybe Poland would be the best way to prevent nuclear proliferation in Europe and provide a back stop against Russia tactical nuclear weapons and a US withdrawal from NATO.
I think it’s time for France to stop being so selfish and step up to help provide European security not just French security.
No, it’s more complicated. ASN4g is completely independent, so you’re talking nonsense. To get into this program, you’ll need a lot of money. You don’t have that money. Money isn’t the problem for us because we’re going to increase the number of nuclear weapons we have!
Money is definitely your problem, the French economy is not looking very good and your borrowing is highly constrained.
True, money is an issue, but I don’t think it is what is at stake. The important thing is the strength of the alliance between UK and France.
Air launched variants of FC/ASW missiles may also prove to be intriguing options. SLCM-N as well, though that will be a dreaded US product. 😉😁
Try again in 4 years.
Because it would mean the French would have to provide data about their nukes so it can be plugged into typhoon which has US component that could access it. The French Will never ever provide access to their nuke technology to a plateform they don’t manage from a to z.
What US components are in Eurofighter Typhoon that can access FC/ASW missiles so as to gain intellectual property?
Do you mean Lockheed Martin F35, which is largely American and does network both logistics, maintenance and operations?
I guess he is refereing to Collin’s componnent in Typhoon, which may make some nervous.
But I would not focus on this overly.
The important part is to have a kind of transpartisan agreement between France and UK politics that this path is the right path.
I think it is the right decision to pursue this path.
Math is right, that makes nervous in the curent time! But don’t get me wrong, I’m totally in Favour of Closer cooperation with uk and poland but it’s a question of many years and we probably should start with exercices (eg: a raid with a rafale carrying the load with a typhoon for sead for instance). Also, there is not a more politically sensitive question than nukes in France, people will need to see some payoff for the 60 years of investments to accept Closer and Closer cooperation (in any case, UK is probably part of « intérêts vitaux » anyway).
For the other countries, a lot of teaching by France and UK on the topic Will be needed: their populations never paid attention to this and current discussions show their leaders lack the needed Strategic culture (tbh, i think the germans are a lost cause on military topics).
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
I have never believed we should have tactical nuclear weapons.but I’m now a firm believer in having a sub strategic weapon like the French ASMP is essential as part of a layered strategic deterrence.
Two reasons
1) Because of Russia believe in the policy of escalation to de-escalation, the full single use strategic deterrence no longer work as a full proof deterrent.. simply because Putin and Russian doctrine is to potentially us a tactical nuclear weapon to force a de-escalation, on the principle that no nation would respond to one tactical nuclear weapon with its full strategic deterrence knowing that in return it would be utterly destroyed by Russias strategic deterrent.. so in Russian logic the us of a tactical nuclear weapon becomes viable against a nation that can only respond with its full strategic deterrent ( that’s us).. because if Russia took out say our CBG with a Tactical nuclear weapon we are not going to go straight to MAD.. but if like the French we have a sub strategic..”back off or we all die” nuclear shot across the bows..Putin and Russia would not risk a tit for tat strike..knowing that we could respond by knocking out a key navel base etc and still retain our deterrent… essentially the french sub strategic option is a deterrent to sub strategic strikes and a final back of or die in nuclear fire message if France itself is under existential threat, the strategic deterrent is there to deter against a first strike, counter force or counter value strategic strike.
2) The US can no longer be trusted to proved that sub strategic deterrence, so I believe that in a potential future conflict, Russia could and possibly would target key UK military capabilities with a tactical nuclear weapon.gambling that we would not put the strategic deterrent at risk by respond with a sub launched missile and would never engage in MAD over 1 tactical nuclear strike.
Yes, I agree with you, but the problem is the Trident, the English need to create their ICBM.
Why is the missile a problem when UK Design and Build the warheads?
It’s just a delivery vehicle and a proven one at that.
For the tests, it’s done on the Florida coast, and also in the long term we are not independent because they are the ones who take care of the modernization, the repair of the Tridents… the warheads are already good, but we are not totally independent and the goal of deterrence is to be as independent as possible.
Last thing, I think that if our Prime Minister were to launch missiles, they would consult the USA, I think it’s just a simple assumption!
i think there you can add a 3rd reason.
gradual deterrence. ie the planes are a vsisble sign , so if they come out of their hangars, or you park them in Poland or on a carrier, it is a clear message things are getting very serious and time to back off without actually firing a shot.
very hard to do this with a sub, since if it fires a warning shot or surfaces, there is a high risk its position will be revealed which will put at risk the 2nd retaliatory strike..
An impressive capability for sure.
There is also a third requirement for a sub-strategic nuke. Which is everyone’s nightmare of a rogue state getting their hands on a ballistic missile that carries a nuclear warhead. A while back there was talk of a intermediate response Trident, which carried a singular MIRV. However, the major issue with that is that Countries that have their own nuclear weapons, will be looking for the specific Trident heat signature and get really anxious over the direction the missile is heading. They will as a precaution raise their alert status, which means everyone else raises their alert status – mistakes can happen!
An aircraft carrying a singular air launched nuclear weapon, does not illicit the same response. Therefore, if a rogue state should launch a singular nuclear weapon at the UK and/or its territories. This method of response would provide the Government with proportional retaliation.
Why not give the Storm Shadow cruise missile a nuclear warhead? With a smaller and lighter warhead more fuel could be carried resulting in a greater range.
Interception possibility and miss calculation risks?
I’m sure its doable, but FCASW would be the better option.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity. tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN….. 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗣𝗮𝘆𝟭.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Yes, I completely agree with @Julestrooz.
I totally agree with what’s been said. The Germans are a danger to European defense, especially in the nuclear field.
I agree, France and England must strengthen their economic and military ties!
On the issue of ASN4G, it’s possible but very complicated. I think they should instead try to get involved in the M51-4 research. France wouldn’t be against it, or less so, because it’s really, really expensive. And I don’t think France will ever ask the Americans for cooperation on ICBMs; they can conduct their missile tests off the coast of Florida…
I don’t disagree, I think the next iteration of a SLBM for France and the UK should be a joint affair. Europe needs its own ballistic missile programme. I would go as far as to say the UK and France should look at a land based conventional IRBM as well. Because in reality from a UK and French point of view the big conventional risk from Russia is a large scale conventional IRBM or Cruise missile attack on core infrastructure or capitals and having the ability to do the same back is a deterrent to any limited Russian ENATO war leading to conventional IRBM attacks on France and the UK ( strike us at home and we strike you back).
I do think the UK getting involved in the next generation air launched nuclear missile is also really important and I think it would need to be able to deployed widely to other ENATO nations.. maybe with dual keys.
But I do think a realistic ENATO strategic deterrent needs to be
1) 8 ballistic missile boats ( 4 French 4 UK) on a shared deployment of 3 boats out at anyone time.. with min 100 warheads per boat so 300 warheads out to sea and then 3 other boats in port with another 300 warheads.. that could be surged or even possibly have a launch from the wall protocol… 2 boats would be in bits..
2) the French carrier should deploy 20 warheads when it’s out
3) Uk air launched option for 20 warheads in Cyprus.
3)France have 50 airlaunched warheads each spreed out at home and in Poland ( on French aircraft)
4) UK have 50 airlaunched warheads spreed out at home and deployed on the northern flanks
4) 50 air launched warheads deployed each in Germany and Italy.
Not only does that mean Russia faces up to 800+ warheads, minimum of 540 which is a MAD outcome, but it faces nuclear targets in 6+ countries.. which makes counter force more difficult and spreads the risk.. as well as forcing Russia to pretty much expend to nuclear arsenal on counter forcing Europe.. leaving it open to either a US or china attack.. so it would never do it..
The Whole of Europe needs to make itself a MAD target and be able to dish out MAD .. essentially leaving only the UK and France with skin in a European the nuclear umbrella is completely unfair to France and the UK and leaves us more vulnerable if things ever went nuclear.. basically if the wider EU and Europe want a nuclear umbrella they need to have skin in the game so if it all goes wrong they get the counter force buckets of sunshine not just France and the UK..