In evidence to the Defence Committee this week, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman downplayed calls for Europe to mirror Russia’s stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, warning that developing such a capability would be strategically fraught and technically demanding.
Responding to a question from Fred Thomas MP on 1 April, Freedman acknowledged that “the Russians have put a lot of emphasis on short-range systems. They have lots of them,” but cautioned against the notion that NATO nations should seek to match this arsenal.
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.
“Using these weapons on the assumption you would not be escalating to longer-range and larger systems is probably, or possibly, unrealistic,” he said, referring to the dangers of any nuclear use quickly escalating to strategic levels.
The comments come as Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has stated his country needs “the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons,” stoking debate about the role of non-strategic nuclear arms in European defence.
While France maintains a small air-launched nuclear capability, the UK has only strategic systems in the form of Trident-armed submarines. Freedman suggested that despite the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, expanding this capability further may not be the best course of action.
“There are lots of ways of hurting countries without actually having to use nuclear weapons yourself, so I would not personally put the same stress on this. It would be a very difficult capability to develop,” he told MPs.
He did acknowledge, however, that “there is the question of dual-capable systems,” pointing to the potential role of UK F-35s and U.S. infrastructure at RAF Lakenheath, but described this as only one of several possible responses.
“Most of the planning for the use of a Russian tactical nuke in the context of Ukraine did not envisage a nuclear response by the allies,” he noted, reinforcing the point that NATO strategy doesn’t rely on mirroring Russia’s approach.
Freedman was giving oral evidence as part of the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the UK’s contribution to European security.
I think the deterrent should be expanded to have another leg, like the French with an air-launched weapon, relying on a single submarine doesn’t allow for much redundancy. Suppose the Russians sabotage the submarine on patrol, then what?
Perhaps the hypersonic missile under development could be used to carry a nuclear warhead?
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250$/h + daily 1K !!! Start now making every month extra $6000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by..
For details check ——-⫸ 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝘁𝟭.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Agree. Typhoon launched missile either based on FC/ASW or France’s ASMP replacement.
An air to surface missile would be the ideal replacement for the free-fall bombs, which use to be tactical option; providing that stand-off capability in lieu of adequate strike aircraft and preserve the more limited air assets compared to the 70/80s.
Given the unreliability and untrustworthiness from across the Atlantic, perhaps a discussion across the Channel, regarding such missile systems (with UK warheads) would make more sense.
Completely agree. We should have more than one delivery system and create a British military complex, so we don’t have to depend on any one particular nation we can aquire materials and develop our own weponry.
Make Britain Great again!
You must participate in the French ASN4G project!
Exactly, the UK does not need hundreds of tactical nukes. 40 would do. The extra production run would also cut costs for France. The UK could use a modified MK4A warhead, rather than develop an all new warhead.
As long as any improvement here does not come at the expense of conventional forces.
Hi M8, Firstly I abhor the use of a Trident D5 missile as a sub strategic tactical nuc substitute, it’s the idiotic idea thought up by a penny pinching politician or a Treasury official who’s had to much Sherry.
Simple reasons are it gives away the position of our CASD, uses up a significant proportion of our deployed deterrent and most importantly of all could be easily misinterpreted as a Strategic launch.
If it looks like a SLBM, is on a trajectory like an SLBM and is heading my way I’m not waiting to find out which size nuc it has. What does Starmer do to endure it doesn’t trigger a full on retaliatory strike ? Phone Putin up and say “ don’t panic we are only launching it one of your nasty tank divisions, so don’t fire any back”.
Simplest solution may look like adopting some sort of Air dropped or launched nuclear weapon, but the problem with that is it will cost a lot to sent it all back up and it detracts from the conventional use of those aircraft.
IMHO the solution is far simpler and it’s to just do what the Russians do, go for ground launched tactical nuclear missiles.
That way it’s tit for tat, easy to differentiate from a Strategic launch and as France has Airborne Nucs it adds an extra option for Putin to worry about.
And I don’t think it would cost the earth as you can piggy back onto an existing Army project.
Yep you heard me right an Army project ! You probably know more about this than me but isn’t the Army updating their M270 to A2 standard and adding a few more so we have 76 of them ? I also think we may be allowed to purchase the PrSM missile which has a nuclear warhead option. Failing that I’d speak to the French as they also operate M270 and see if there is a bit of cooperation to be done on a Nuclear version of Thundart (150 or 500km version).
The nice thing is it’s a weapon that could be 2 keyed for other NATO countries who have M270 or HIMARS 🤔
Hi mate.
Indeed, Deep Fires are being expanded to that level.
Ta for that, in which case I think it is a bit of a no brainer 🤷🏼♂️
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…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..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…….
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝟰𝟰.𝗖𝗢𝗠
That is definitely an option which is fine if you are facing your opponent across a battlefield as per Ukraine and Russia. However, it would be of no use if say the Houthis got hold of a medium range ballistic missile and launched it at say Akrotiri. Especially if the Iranians “accidently” gave them a nuclear device.
I agree using Trident to send a single MIRV against the Houthis controlled Yemen in this kind of scenario, could be fraught with misunderstanding from other nuclear powers. Which could easily be misinterpreted and lead to a human created feck up. There needs to be a more proportional response. The French ASMP nuclear armed cruise missile, which has a dialable yield of between 100 to 300kt, along with a 500 to 600km range. Is I think is the right way to go, where a tiered response is used as retaliation. Especially as nuclear powers are significantly less anxious about aircraft deployed nukes than ballistic missile. Where Rafale usually only carries the one missile for the nuclear strike role. The ASMP is slightly longer than Storm Shadow, but is over 300kg lighter.
Either the Typhoon, F35 or future GCAP could be used in a similar role to the French Rafale. Where a single aircraft is used to deliver a proportional response.
Is an ASMP style supersonic cruise missile robust enough politically? Given we will already have a similar system in FC/ASW, we would run the risk of every conventional precision attack being mistaken for a nuclear first strike.
Maybe an air launched ballistic missile, along the lines of the Israeli F15 launched types, could be made to work using a single Trident MIRV? It might improve national expertise in solid rockets as well, which would be useful for a sovereign Trident replacement.
You would know much more about that kind of weapon than I would
It depends on how sane the opposite leaders are. If you have only a single cruise missile coming at you, the sensible thing is to shoot it down, or failing that , see what it is when it lands, before you respond.
ABC. Interesting that you advocate ground launched tac nukes owned and operated by the army…..as we used to have of course. I well remember M110 8″, M107 175mm nuclear-capable rube artillery and Honest John, and later Lance missiles. …during the Cold War.
More accurate super-high explosive munitions, could replace low-yield tactical nukes.
Having tactical nuclear weapons is to deter Russia from using a tactical nuclear weapon. Even if we had them it’s unlikely we would use them preferring instead to use large scale cruise missile strikes as retaliation.
However to suggest having them as part of a deterrent posture makes no sense is just wrong on the professors point. With the US pulling out and France a very insular nuclear power the UK needs them and we need to provide them to Germany and Poland on a dual key basis. Germany and Poland can easily pay for this.
If we don’t do this many countries in Europe will start their own weapons programs.
ENATO has plenty of tanks, it lacks nuclear weapons so we should focus on that.
I agree with you that we are on the cusp of nuclear proliferation everywhere since it was only held bay up to now by allies feeling cosy under the US umbrella.
I disagree that it’s automatically good to have tactical nukes though for the UK as it makes nuclear escalation more likely. And unlike the US the UK has a very limited and short escalation ladder. Our entire strategic deterrent is 1 clapped out sub with 8 missiles, which the Russians could well be able to take out preemptively. It can only really be used in an end of days type retaliation scenario. Because the UK is too small and compact to be able to soak up much of a nuclear attack. I mean if the Russians have destroyed the UK than we can obliterate the metro Moscow area in return. We basically can do nothing else because of our resources and geography, certainly not climbing up the escalation ladder with Russia..
This does also highlight why UK nukes can never cover others whatever anyone says. There’s no way any PM commit national suicide if say the Russians nuked Estonia. Either the US is the umbrella or there is no umbrella. Hence Germany, Poland etc are mad (no pun) if they don’t go nuclear.
Have a read of my reply to DM, I have a slightly different approach. And it keeps our beloved boats safe doing what they are designed for !
@Jim
So the Prof is wrong and you are right. Of course, how stupid he must be. And the Americans are not pulling out, they just opened a base in Poland. So you want to give the Germans nuclear weapons? They just put a far-right party into government. What a complete fcuking idiot post
The Germans have access to B61 nukes supplied by the US. This is the whole reason why they are buying the F35A. The aircraft that Germany currently use to carry nukes is the Tornado, which is soon to be retired. They did want to use Eurofighters (Typhoons), but the US kiboshed the price for integration. So they were then going to go down the F18 route. But quickly realised that the F18 would be a retrograde step, as it would need significantly more support to reach its target than a Typhoon. Then the US cleared the F35 to carry nukes, so Germany decided it would be a better aircraft for their nuclear requirement (which has upset France quite a bit, as it is a competitor to the joint SCAF program).
I’m not sure if you own a TV or have the ability to read David but I suggest you either watch some news or read and book while wynding in your neck.
The CDU is not a far right party it’s a centre right party and their coalition party is a social Democratic Party so I would love to know how you think that equals a right wing government. Are you perhaps confusing the AFD with getting 20% of seats in parliament with forming a government. Easy mistake to make if you don’t understand that 20% is not a majority.
As has already been pointed out to You Germany already has access to US B61 bombs operated on a dual code basis. My suggesting is to replicate that.
All you have ever been posting on here is complete crap. For months. If its not crap, it’s trolling new posters – or anyone who fact checks your bullshit. People who abuse drugs should stay away from military matters
All you have ever been posting on here is complete crap. For months. If its not crap, it’s trolling new posters – or anyone who fact checks your bullshit. People who abuse drugs should stay away from military matters.
Start now making every month extra $8000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by.
For details check ——-⫸ WWW.WORKSPROFIT7.COM
I agree there is sub-strategic level gap to be filled, by the UK, above the level of low-yield tactical nukes, depending apon how hardened target is.
This is the nuclear equivalent of saying “there’s no point in NATO Enhanced Forward Presence, since if the Russians attack the Baltics we will declare war on Russia, and Russia will not dare risk that strategic deterrence, therefore EFP is not needed”
Start now making every month extra $8000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by.
For details check ——-⫸ WWW.WORKSPROFIT7.COM
I think tactical nukes are necessary for a “measured” response to Russia use of them. Otherwise you will need a Trident which is at another level and then we will have Armageddon.
The point of having tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is that -if the Russians were to resort to using theirs- NATO needs to be able to respond proportionately, rather than having only the options of a) surrender or b) escalate to using strategic weapons. As long as the US remains committed to NATO that gap is covered. We’re that to change we would need to consider options
Except Russia is clearly catastrophically vulnerable to regular forces, so why would went a tactical nuke in that scenario?
Because Kiev can turn to glass in an Instant.
Ian, yes, we used to call this ‘Flexible Response’.
Got to say I don’t agree with him the Russians know full well if they use a tactical weapon there is virtually no chance of a strategic response, indeed it was pretty well known even a limited strategic strike on Europe would almost certainly not generate a US strategic response. If the US indeed exits Europe then I would in any serious conflict a very good chance of Russian tactical weapons being used at some point or effectively gain a win by threatening them if we have no response available. We don’t need their numbers but we do need the option to make them very much think twice about initiating such a strategy. No number of European high precision non nuclear weapons are going to stop them lobbing more small nukes at us so we end up either surrendering or go strategic, not a particularly rewarding option, we lose either way and with Trump’s removal of any sense of high ground in world affairs the disgust in their use is far, far less a preventative factor.
Except for the overwhelming _conventional_ response you mean.
Nuking NATO is a death sentence, suicide by Europe.
Not to mention this have to game out the geopolitical ramifications of tit-for-tat.
If Russia nukes you, you conventionally crush Russia, demonstrating to the rest of the world what the price for Russia was.
Or you can nuke them back, which will lead to a sub-strategic or strategic exchange followed by the result of Europe signalling that nuke extender is acceptable, _nuclear weapons_ are acceptable.
At _best_ the only reason for having tactical nukes is deterrence.
But we already have that with overwhelming conventional strength. Without the US.
Simply put conventional forces cannot operate against someone willing to use strategic nuclear weapons… and that means we have a conventional response that cannot deter the use of tactical nuclear weapons and a strategic response that will lead to the death of everyone.. essentially a response we cannot use… so unless we have a deterrent that can be used in response to tactical strikes..Russia will be tempted to use them in a war.
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…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..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…….
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝟰𝟰.𝗖𝗢𝗠
Definitely need to spend more money on defense that able least match closer towards Russia able to use so can least can blow his bombs out before getting any close to us or hitting anywhere near us Russia trys blowing us up. Can’t trust him he would be willing to do anything feels like he power and start losing the plot and bombing everyone. Need to be able to match Russia toe to toe on fire power make sure he trys anything we can blow his bomb out air before getting close to us for sure just incase
Match Russia?
Only if we scrap half our military 😂😉😉 /jk
Robot, we’ve already scrapped half our military since 1990.
Sounds like a massive waste of money.
We have strategic MAD capability, they can’t use nukes on us, ever.
So what’s the point of a tactical weapon you can’t use?
Because do you really think the UK would initiate a full strategic response over one tactical nuclear weapon used against say our carrier battle group..knowing that strategic response will lead to the utter and complete destruction of the UK.. it would be very very unlikely..our strategic response is in reality a deterrent against a major strike on the UK and Russia knows this.. and Russia believes in the concept of escalation to deescalation, which mean if it thinks we cannot respond it will potentially us a tactical nuclear weapon..the only way to deter this is to have a sub strategic response that can act as a deterrent.
They absolutely can and will if they believe that:
a) it’s needed to meet an objective
b) we won’t launch our final option, one-time-only SLBMs and invite mutual destruction over limited nuclear use
You also assume that an adversary won’t find and destroy British subs before they can launch their missiles.
The UK absolutely needs tactical nukes, now.
This really misses the point, we don’t need tactical weapons to use them in a tit for tat race to strategic destruction, we need a true sub strategic deterrence that can realistically deter the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Russia knows we could not use our ballistic missile submarines to respond to a tactical nuclear strike..it’s essentially an everyone dies button that is there to respond to a massive strike on the UK..so it does not prevent that tactical strike. Essentially the Uk needs a modest sub strategic deterrence to prevent that tactical strike from happening.
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…….
COPY AND OPEN →→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…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..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…….
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝟰𝟰.𝗖𝗢𝗠
Russia should just turn Kiev to glass. Who will retaliate? Will the UK send its Nepali gurkha slaves into radioactive ukranian territory? 😂
Johnny, are you from MK? Have you asked our Gurkha soldiers, who are all volunteers and are paid, whether they feel like slaves?
ABC. Interesting that you advocate ground launched tac nukes owned and operated by the army…..as we used to have of course. I well remember M110 8″, M107 175mm nuclear-capable rube artillery and Honest John, and later Lance missiles. …during the Cold War.