During a recent House of Lords debate, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle raised questions about the continued investment in Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
Referencing a Financial Times article by Philip Stephens, she asked whether the Government might reconsider its stance, given the high costs and reliance on the United States.
“Should those difficult decisions—or at least, difficult considerations—not include giving serious consideration as to whether we should continue a nuclear weapons programme?” she queried.
Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, was unequivocal in his response. “We are certainly a brave Government, but it has been a consistent policy of whatever Government have been in power to support the nuclear deterrent. The nuclear deterrent will continue; we will renew the nuclear deterrent,” he stated.
Highlighting the current geopolitical climate, Lord Coaker pointed to the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The irresponsible threats at the present time raise the prospect of it. Let us be clear about this: we support the nuclear deterrent, and we support its renewal. That is an important part of our defence,” he added.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Good. The cost of defense nuclear is enormous but with Putin in psycho mode, we might need even more missiles and warheads to make sure deterrence is completely effective. Long range conventional missiles, able to retaliate for an attack of the kind inflicted on Ukraine, might further serve to deter any aggressive act.
I agree, we need massive prompt conventional strike capability. The government has already identified this and is working on it with Germany on a land based cruise missile however I think having an air launched cruise missile would be more responsive. We have 800 stormshadow in inventory that we will soon be getting rid of. Better to convert them into a rapid dragon style capability then build a new low cost very long range air launched cruise missile.
Ideally we need the ability to fire over 100 missiles per day and sustain that for several weeks.
That kid of fire rate could be sustained by just four A400M and at £1 million per missile you could buy that kid of inventory for £2 billion.
That will be a job for Antonov An-70, and An-178 when they get them. A cheap swarm rapid dragon with spear 3 when ready would be be overwelling as well.
Dream on.
As poorly as Russia is doing in Ukraine I don’t see them invading Newcastle in the next hundred years.
Good those who want us to disarm should be embarrassed. Looking at you SNP and CND
Look all you like. Your words and your opinion sounds firm and convinced, but, and at the moment it is just a but, when that warm war suddenly becomes hot, really hot, from non nuclear missiles strikes to the first nuclear strikes, that’s when the actuality hits us.
Say a half dozen or more large buckets devices exploding at ground level with all the issues of radioactive dust comics back down. There will be no hiding under dismantled doors, the dead and dying immediately reach probably several millions, and the disease and contaminated food and water are all there is for the foreseeable future.
I agree that MAD, hopefully, deters all sides from lobbing the big ones over at each other, but the fact is that once the first one has been launched and eventually hits its target, all the rest will follow, and the lucky ones are those who died immediately.
The BBC produced several years ago a programme of the war rooms in the US and UK. They included real and retired armed forces senior personnel.
When it reached beyond recovery, it became an issue of how many have we got left, and where would be the most effective targets to hit, assuming they got through.
And that’s a very real point. If you are a non nuclear country, the other side cannot waste their dwindling stock of nuclear warheads on non nuclear countries.
So Russia/Korea or other enemy states tertain hitting Denmark or another non nuclear country, it would be tantamount to suicide, and that was one of the conclusions of this grim programme on BBC. I only wish I could remember the name of the programme.
My apologies for typo errors – little keys, big finger!
Is Helen Morgan MP going to ask the MOD about the environmental impact of the rocket motor? Haha
Good one.
She should be more concerned about what comes out/on the front than out the back in wartime.
It’s all right they are fired in international waters/airspace…no one really cares.
Well to be brutally honest, the exhaust from a rocket motor (Trudent D5) is far worse than the exhaust from a helicopter engine.
I certainly know which one I’d rather be standing under!
It is good to see this being reaffirmed. We should really now pull out all stops on warhead production and increasing our stock pile up to close to 500 which would allow us to fully arm all our missiles. Given Russian missile defence has been shown to be a joke it’s time to ditch any decoys and just go all in on nuclear warheads.
Given that we already have the missiles and submarines the cost of this is minimal.
With the new US administration preparing to once again bravely surrender with honour to its enemies the UK needs to be prepared as much as possible to operate in a post NATO environment with an isolationist USA.
Building up a much more substantial nuclear deterrent is the best way to do that. Longer term we need to ditch Trident D5 and come up with a UK replacement possibly using the basic design of the M51.
Trident was ground breaking in the 80’s but the technology today is relatively straight forward and MBDA could build our own weapon using French designs for a workable price.
Seriously Jim….what planet are you living on?
Unfortunately one where the troll farm still has internet access 😀
Jim read your own words….you sound delusional…
Absolutely. The post war view of the world of Jim is one of darkened skies for months and months and the dead lying around with nobody to remove them. The awful reality of radiation sickness for millions is too terrible to contemplate.
There would prefer be no coming back from that, because all help we think of nowadays wouldn’t be there.
Actually, given the probable near-term future course of events in the European theater, it would not an unintelligent plan of action to increase UK warhead count to the degree feasible . If/when US military aid to UKR isreduced/withdrawn, UKR will be compelled to sue for peace on extremely unfavorable terms. On a geopolitical basis, consider this to be the modern equivalent of the appeasement at Munich, w/ The Donald reprising the role of Chamberlain. US nuclear umbrella will become suspect. Russia will be emboldened and will maintain a wartime industrial production indefinitely. Russia will rearm conventionally and update nuclear capabilities. After New START lapses in 2026, there will be an unconstrained nuclear arms race by multiple states. Given that the UK appears politically incapable of an even modest increase in defence expenditure, would recommend the lowest cost pathway to an increase in deterrent capability. Speculate that path may be the acquisition of a F-35A squadron/wing w/ near-term usage of the NATO B61-12 inventory. ENATO (principally French and UK) should be capable of developing a stand-off air delivered nuke weapon capability on a relatively expedited basis. 🤔
I agree that a vast increase in warhead count is probably the most cost effective way that Britain can massively contribute to European security in a post America world. The UK and France have both already been perusing this since 2021 and its in both of their national defence reviews as pretty much priority one along with other largely US contributions like space.
I think the UK has to stop focusing its forces on being a US expeditionary appendage and start moving back to sovereign strategic capability even if that mean cuts to tactical capabilities and unis.
In terms of Russia’s future, the sanctions against Russia are largely European as the US had very limited trade with Russia and Russia had moved much of its reserves out of dollars before the war. Europe already out spends the US in Ukraine especially if we consider real value of assets as opposed to very old weapons being sent at marked up values for congressional accounting reasons.
Europe also outproduces the US in basic munitions by a considerable margin now.
I can see the Donald having some kind of Korean style cease fire declared. The choice of what happens next will be Europe’s, Will they keep sanctions in place on Russia leading to long term north Korean style collapse or will they continue military aid to Ukraine to allow it to build up forces faster than Russia. Most importantly will they allow Ukraine into Europe or at least the single market. The next question will be what will Europe do next in its relations with China, especially if China can offer massive support for the Euro and an end to Europe’s Russia problem while the Donald is throwing around tariffs despite the US being the G7’s lowest exporter or importer by % of GDP.
I can see the UK doing well by sitting on the sidelines on all this, getting tariff free access to the US while regaining access to the European Single market through security pledges and using its CTPP membership to beat China and India over the head for a decent trade deal that actually benefits the UK.
We need to cut ties to the US. Being reliant on them for the pool of missiles is not good. The way things are going we should stick close to Europe not the US. Europe shares our security concerns as well as being our biggest trade link.
Not practical really
Anybody in Europe got a stockpile of trident or equivalent handy?
There would be a vast cost there, unless you want to become dependant on France, instead of the US?
They are the only other nation with SSBM’s and air launched nuclear cruise missiles…..
We certainly couldn’t design, build and field our own equivalents with only 2.3 gdp on defence.
So it’s US, or French ( if you want a European country).
I’ll stick with the US I think….
France designs and builds its own SLBM on 1.9% of GDP on defence and their GDP is lower than ours?
So you still think it’s impossible or do you just feel inferior to the French?
Tin foil hat anyone…. How is Europe getting on in Ukraine….how about Germany buying Russia oil and gas that enabled them to rearm…Nuclear warheads…let me think…Oh yes the French nuclear fleet…how modern are those….In terms of economics I’ve got my popcorn ready for the Euro meltdown…I’d rather be an extra state to the US that tethered to the sinking ship of Europe.
Cut ties. In all areas? Or just nuclear? If all areas,
there goes a huge chunk of our intelligence capability, and theirs, which helps to defend the western world.
Have a read of what UKUSA is and how this bilateral collaboration in many areas is so vital.
( Weird how the comment section is placing replies – this comment was in reply to “New Me” further up, not Mathew Fox.
Matthew, just because you’re another of those Anti EU loons, doesn’t mean that the comments above you are wrong
What’s your first language Matthew? I’m having a hard time understanding your grammar.
What do you mean the French nuclear fleet? Are you referring to their power stations? What’s that got to do with UK defence?
I’m afraid geography matter in both geopolitics and geostrategy..the clue is in the name..we are 20 miles from the coast of france, 500 miles from Norway ( which has a border with Russia), 600 miles from the UK to Germany, 740 miles from the UK to Russia…the U.S. is 3000 miles away. That simply cannot be magicked way, distance matters when you are talking defence, war and wider Geostrategy…simply put if Europe is buggered and falls to something nasty the UK is in for it. It’s why for a 1000 years The security picture in Western Europe has mattered to the security of Britain and why so much British blood has been spilt on the continent.
Absolutely. Just remember what the orange madman said only last week to the announcement that the UK would enforce the arrest warrant against the butcher of Israel, Netanyahu.
Immediately Trump announces that he would “break the UK economy”.
With friends like him, who needs Putin?
and…more news in the Grauniad today….The UK is now concerned about the environmental impact of the rocket fuel used in Trident D5 missiles…and the contamination caused by plutonium so all nuclear warheads and missiles will be replaced by environmentally friendly inflatable alternatives manufactured in China with Russian help..All surface fleet to remain in dock 365 days of the year to reduce CO2 emissions (which is now the biggest threat to the UK)….they will become hotel accommodation for the boat people instead thus saving taxpayers money…All Royal Navy officers to be trained in unconscious bias, white privilege and critical race theory in China…this will now replace the perisher course which is now deemed exclusionary because it only serves the elite or best of the best and all must have prizes instead….All officers and ratings to eventually be selected form the boat people coming from France to integrate them better into society….All steel manufacturing for warships to be outsourced to China along with shipbuilding to reduce the massive 0.6% of UK emissions to achieve our net zero targets and do our bit for the environment…tongue firmly in cheek….or is it 😉
Im not sure, it’s hard to understand your point. We are talking about the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Wall of textual diarrhoea. Is this what you do all day, Matt? 🤔 Kinda sad 🤡
We need to arm all twelve tubes on our Dreadnoughts and consider fielding air drop tactical nuclear weapons or a nuclear tipped cruise missle.
I suspect that the Storm Shadow replacement might have that add to it
Problem is if you have nuclear armed cruise missiles it’s then hard to strike an enemy with cruise missiles for fear of starting a nuclear war.
Suddenly cruise missiles become as useless in a conflict as ballistic missiles serving only a deterrent purpose.
Cruise missiles give us a way to escalate a conflict without crossing the nuclear taboo threshold by using tactical weapons. Russia and France are not islands so they have such weapons for different reasons primarily aimed at deterring land invasions by conventional forces.
I would have once agreed with you on that, the problem is Russia has now torn up the book completely by creating, deploying and using IRMBs armed with conventional payload MIRVs. Essentially all bets are no off and no one will be able to decide what is a nuclear attack until it’s landed.
It’s one of the reasons that Russia firing that IRBM at Ukraine was so very very disturbing…added to the fact of already has short range ballistic missiles that can be both nuclear and conventional as well as cruise missiles…its a big mess.
I no longer confident the UK Nuclear only strategic only response can keep up with and manage the Russian escalating to descalate..we may need both conventional weapons that are guaranteed to penetrate deep into Russia without risking key assest ( SSNs or fast jet squadrons) as well as potentially a sub strategic response ( as France has). Still don’t believe in tactical nuclear weapons..but a sub strategic first warning shot may be needed.
I’ve read that on this occasion they notified the US in advance re established nuclear de escalation channels.
You would have to wonder, firing an IRBM with 4 MIRVs would trigger something.
What worries me somewhat with this new weapon is Russia can essentially hold any UK asset at risk and UK forces have no ability to defend against it..even when the upgrade the T45 to Aster 30 block 1, it will not be effective against an IRBM. Even Aster 30 block 1 NT can only manage a medium range ballistic missile threat, only the U.S. can offer protection against this particular weapon system. As Aster block 2 is years away from delivering an actual anti IRBM capability I think it may be time to consider trying to buy some standard 3 missiles and integrate them in somehow…
Unfortunately I also now think NATO needs its own conventional response to the conventional IRBM capability to be able to answer back any attack.
If you want peace prepare for war, although our political class have turned policy into the continuation of warfare by any means, as seen in the east and the aptly named promised land, where the only promises appear to be that the mayhem and murder caused by state sponsored ‘endlosung’ will continue for as long as it takes without us knowing what “it” is. I think the lessons of the state sponsored ww2 genocides have not been learned.
Maybe a few cities devastated by nuclear blasts is the karma we need to sort our collective future out.
Here’s hoping it’s not my city. YNWA ❤️ ✌️
I don’t know if this bunch of idiots know what they were talking about. They must still live in the dream of the past at least 50 years lag behind the modern world. Nuclear warheads and missiles are not just firework. We are very very poor, how could we find 100 billions £ to update the system. I mean a system but not just a few firework in a shopping bag. We don’t even have 5 G, a real 5 G anywhere near the speed of the Chinese one. Anyway they already got their 6 G prototype! We can’t even make a rocket to fly to the moon. We need the shooting system which is at least 8 times faster than the sound of speed. The Chinese missiles could be faster than 8 times of speed as they have demonstrated in the test of last month. But it was not one of the latest missiles. How can we control where the missile fly to, if we can’t have our missile guided system. Even the US could set out their military GPS system. It is already outdated as it is very vulnerable to the attacked by the electric pluses which works like hacking. I think the politician should wake up if the people are not simply because they are so lack of the technological knowledge when they can’t even get the sums right. The leader should have sought for the kinds of knowledge from the scientists before they exposed themselves like a clown or a bunch of clown. We don’t even have our nuke defensive shelters. If you want to invite troubles and bring the wars to us. I would prefer to see you personal suffered the attack in your own home but please don’t drag us indo wars and to die with you. We just want peaceful lives and mind you in better standard of living
We are not “very very poor” we are the 5th wealthiest nation on the planet! You are spouting Chinese propaganda in your rant about 5 and 6 G.
Sound of speed? Really? Come on…
Maybe the UK should not have Nuclear Weapons. The UK does not seem very stable and Democratic these days. Raiding homes for Thought Crimes and creating Political Prisoners is everything the UK fought against in World War 2. Plus your current PM apparently wants to become the Stalin of our era. Maybe you should stand down your Nuclear Arms.
It’s wonderful how the war in Ukraine is still on under the watch of other super power nations like USA, ENGLAND, etc. you mean to say that is not enough reason to keep producing more nukes for a safe world – if we need to start a tie 🪢
Ye gods: one whiff of “nuclear” and out come all the CND bearded and be-sandaled weirdos. Sad really.