For the first time since at least 2008, U.S. nuclear weapons have reportedly returned to British soil, with multiple sources indicating that a number of B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bombs were transferred this week to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.
The weapons are believed to have been flown from the U.S. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico to a newly constructed secure storage facility at the UK site.
The U.S. Department of Defense has not publicly confirmed the movement, and the Ministry of Defence typically does not comment on the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at specific locations.
For the first time since at least 2005, U.S. nuclear weapons have been deployed onto the territory of the United Kingdom, with sources reporting that several B61-12 Thermonuclear Gravity Bombs were transferred this week from the U.S. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) at… pic.twitter.com/AS4QiI4NEx
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 20, 2025
The B61-12 is a modernised low-yield tactical nuclear bomb capable of variable explosive power and precision guidance. It is designed to be compatible with a range of delivery platforms, including the F-35A Lightning II. The 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath operates both the 493rd and 495th Fighter Squadrons, which fly the F-35A and are among the first in Europe to do so.
RAF Lakenheath previously hosted U.S. nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but the last known removal took place in 2008 following years of disarmament-related reductions across Europe. The reported return of such weapons would represent a significant shift in the nuclear posture of NATO in the European theatre amid deteriorating relations with Russia and increased emphasis on deterrence.
The re-establishment of nuclear storage capability at Lakenheath was first signalled in 2022 through U.S. budget documents, which listed infrastructure upgrades consistent with nuclear mission readiness.
Neither the U.S. Air Force nor UK officials have issued comment on this week’s reported deployment.
If true then this perhaps a sensible time to do so.
The Russians have reportably raised the threat of the use of nuclear weapons in Western Europe again and this aludes to the potential response that NATO would produce. They have no other use in Europe. It warns Russia that America will not stand by and will back up other NATO members as per article 5.
Obviously European NATO members still need to boost their capabilities until such time as they are on a par with the US.
I’d say Europe as a whole is pretty on par with the US
The Kiel Institute has analysis to show that Europe has been ahead of USA for a while..
Unintended consequences will include a pivot from US MIC to European suppliers though not all US products have a European equivalent.
However the theme is greater independence from USA supply and control.
Ukraine already looks like a credible supplier of terrorist state beating products. Further collaboration is inevitable.
Comical.
Europe doesn’t even have space based ISTAR capability. European countries have basically no weapons stocks to speak of since the start of the Ukraine war. Look at how far the RAF has fallen. 400+ fast jets to 140.
that’s like saying Europe doesn’t have satellites in space that it can use for reconaisance and intelligance gathering..it does, it has many
Wonder whether it would be feasible to relocate RAF F-35As to Lakenheath during a future crisis? Might save the RAF some nuke surety infrastructure funds. 🤔
Or vice versa, Marham etc. Dispersal is oft overlooked these days.
Lakenheath and Marham are close by, flying time must be going up, into circuit to come down.
There’s a SSA at Marham, the nukes cloud be trucked there early days of crisis.
Ideally we wouldn’t be using your bombs at all.
The shared tactical nuclear weapons scheme enables European NATO countries to share B61 access with USAF and so demonstrate to the terrorist state that it gains no advantage of its own possession and threats to use tactical nuclear weapons. That’s all its for, no ambition to nuke anyone else in Europe, despite Orban and Fizo being tempting client states of muscovy..
Not necessary in my book. Clearly it’s been planned for some time as well, if the secure storage has already been constructed.
The Peace Dividend delusion is over and we are not safe.
Time to pay the insurance premium for freedom or learn ruzzian. They’ve been running hybrid war for decades…
Our own nuclear deterrence is already hanging on by a thread, and fundementally undermined by US leverage. Apparently, our solution to this issue is to subsidise the American nuclear deterrence.
All this shows is the defeatist attitude of our leadership and an astute lack of ambition and faith in our industry to provide a credible nuclear deterrence of our own. I understand the political pressure to appease the disgrace that is the USA at present, but these decisions will have lasting impacts. Much in the way that taking the difficult decision of rebuilding a serious, home grown nuclear deterrence now, would have a lasting impact.
If you want to see a credible, multi-layered nuclear deterrence that even our declining, dictatorial ally is obliged to respect, look no further than France…
The Uk is rebuilding its strategic nuclear deterrent, its building new SSBNs and new warheads. But the UK does not have a sub strategic warhead for a gravity bomb or cruise missile, that will take a lot of effort and time and likely could not be started until the modernisation of the strategic warheads is completed.
J,
Agreed, some articles state the UK will not complete Astraea programme before the 2040s.
Jonathan – our new SSBN’s are great news, but I’m more concerned about the weapons they carry, and Trident is still fundamentally reliant on the USA. The type of exposure I’m sure we can all agree is no longer acceptable, even if to remedy it would seem eye-wateringly expensive.
What do you suggest, stop building the subs, go to the drawing board for a sovereign weapon design, somehow get it functioning then re start building the subs in say 2060 when we have everything ready to go?
No, that could never work. I’m no expert and I don’t claim to have the answers, but I don’t suggest ignoring the problem and hoping that it goes away either. Clinging to the hope that the US will U-turn on it’s path of European resentment is not a strategy.
Let’s not pretend there aren’t options available – like I said, these are difficult decisions.
“appease the disgrace that is the USA at present?” What, because the US won’t pay the bulk of the defence bill and carry your backside for another 80 years?? America is not in decline, far from it. If you want to see real decline look no further than Britain. Third rate and third world. Import third world and embrace 12th century ethics and values. Crazy people who hate themselves.
Grow up and stop looking to America to be your Daddy – pay your damn bills and stop grifting.
😂😂😂
Hi Rupert.
In short, my answer is no. I’ve long been an advocate for increased defence spending in the UK. Indeed, over reliance on the US was a problem for me long before they lost all credibility on the world stage.
The combined might of the US military and their strong moral standing made it easy for Europe (and others such as Canada) to take the easy option, preferring to ride the wave of their dominance, while safe in the knowledge that the US would continue to set an exceptional example for the free world to follow – which for the most part, they did. Let me remind you that the US, until now, was also happy with this arrangement, and have experienced overwhelming prosperity as a result.
Let me make this clear – the US is an economic power house. Not despite it’s position as a guarantor of peace through strength and subsequent leverage – but because of it.
The USA has embraced a populist, morally bankrupt criminal who is openly corrupt. He is revered yes, in the same way that a child with a bazooka is revered. He makes a mockery of the untouchable standards to which the world has viewed the USA on an almost daily basis. Almost all world leaders have bent over backwards to appease him, to keep him happy, to keep him from doing more damage. Much in the way one might deal with a child holding a bazooka. Only a fool would mistake this for respect – in fact, I believe Trump has set the conditions for far less investment in the US moving forward.
As for Britain, I’m well versed in the many issues that grip our country, though I suspect the primary source of your education on the matter has been Elon Musk’s evening rants.
To clarify, Jay = Con, the person to which you replied.
Unfortunately you’re just expressing in a couple of easy sentences why the US has doomed itself and the west to becoming a secondary power in the world. Not today but in the near future that view will destroy the US position.. the simple fact is to be the wealthiest power in the world you must be the preeminent power as you need to control the market access and raw material access to drive your economy. That preeminence comes with a cost of doing business, once a world power is no longer willing to pay that cost, begrudges that cost or simply can’t pay it losses its place to a power that can and is willing to pay the cost. The US is no longer willing to pay the cost, that’s your choice but you really must understand with that comes its own cost, you will loss preeminence and China will take your place, it will end up dictating the pace of world markets, it will control the major market accesses and access to resources.. the US will need to learn to be a taker is someone else’s wishes.. it happens to Rome, it happened to the Spanish, it happened to the British and now it will happen to the US.. because you cannot have your cake and eat it… and that is what the present US administration thinks it can get away with..
The big reason why this will be a massive problem for the US is If Europe is completely independent of US military support.. it’s not going to do what the US says or wants anymore, it will do what it wants and that may be damaging to US interests.. it’s not given that it will support the US against China and china is now on a trajectory to overtake the US as a maritime power in a very short time period.. without Europe being in lockstep with it the US losses control of the western pacific, the Indian Ocean and Africa it’s cut out of control of raw materials and markets and it essentially dies as a world power.. but I suspect not like Britain which essentially peaceful handed the baton to a power it understood and could work with as it faded.. no the US will have China cutting at it with a couple of key inflection point at which China will happily go to war over..
It’s it stupid move to isolation itself from Europe.. keeping Europe a bit dependent for defence was a core part of US geostrategy for a very very good reason. Europe was willing to accept that because it was essentially suffering generational trauma from ww1 and 2.. it’s getting over that hard and is waking up.. one day the US is going to realise it’s in a world of other powers and it has few friends.. if it does not play well with Europe and the small number of pacific democracies it will end up with almost no friends at all and its carriers and nuclear arsenal will mean little.
Well put. Unfortunately, Trump’s agenda also seems to be dumbing down politics to its lowest possible level to please his MAGA following. So such statements would go over their heads. America’s only hope to turn things around is when Trump is gone. And the Republican party needs to grow a pair, and return to being a sensible party that isn’t afraid of people with intelligence.
Exactly. They have a president who finds it impossible to tell the truth and seems increasingly unstable and we want to host their nuclear weapons! Dual control is a fantasy as well. That only works if the PM isn’t a jelly fish. The irony is we have the skill set to build our own in a relatively short timescale.
I can’t see No point in waiting for around 5 years for RAF F-35A’s to deploy W61’s. If the UK is to have them, they are needed
very soon, in sync with the other European nations tactical Nuke deterrent. Will the UK be offered Canada’s allocation of F-35A’s, which first deliveries begin in 2026, or be offered some U.S ANG airframes?
of Co
No chance that would mean we would have to pay for them now instead of in 10+ yrs time!
Could take some the USA’s 50 allocated spots they are not using
Feel much safer now.
i just wish the people who support war with russia would join the AFU, apparently it’s manpower that’s holding them back so i can’t understand why their all pontificating from their armchairs ?
No one supports or wants war with Russia, but also very few people on this forum also believe in capitulation to Russia as an aggressive and expansionist power. No one wanted war with the third reich but it happened.
what capitulation, russia was given assurances nato would not expand eastwards !
you need to think more in terms of the west honouring it’s commitments
I’m sorry what commitment are you talking about ? There was never any commitment around NATO membership, there was never any treaty, all such talk is simply Russian propaganda for its own expansionist agenda.
Some western leaders as part of open discussions considered if a guarantee was needed and were specifically context related to the specific timeframe 35 years ago.
And let’s look at the context essentially Russia which had held East Germany, Poland and other Warsaw pact countries in slavery and bondage had finally got to the point where they could no longer hold them and had to give them up or fall into a vicious war with those nations.
NATO has always been open to new members as long as the hit all the social reform requirements, Russia itself was hoping to join NATO and was on a pathway to joining.. Boris Yeltsin sent an open letter to NATO asking for Russia membership to be considered, in 1994 Russia formally joint the partnership for peace program with NATO in 1997 NATO and Russia formed the NATO Russian permanent joint council.. essentially a partnership of peers and that last step to Russia joining NATO. What actually destroyed NATO Russian relations was Russian reaction to the success of democratic movements in Ukraine and Georgia and the fact that Russia reacted to these two nations move to western Liberal by essentially moving to massive political warfare and then actual kinetic warfare and invading both nations.
do a search on ‘nsarchive, what gorbachev heard’
then come back and tell me russia weren’t given any assurances nato wouldn’t spread eastwards, if you dare !
You don’t agree with having a military to face down authoritarian powers then?
you’d have to be clearer about what your talking about, (it’s all to easy to post tropes instead of reality), but first of all you need to understand the west gave russia assurances nato would not expand eastwards, and has broken those assurances repeatedly ?
NO IT DID NOT you are rewriting history to support your own view. There was never any guarantee of nato not expanding and russia had no problem with nato expansion up until 2004 infact Russia was looking to join NATO. The present conflict between Russia and NATO is all about Russias reaction to a movement to Liberal democracies within Ukraine and Georgia and the fact Russia decided to invade both of these nations because it did not like the governments the population decided they wanted.
do a search on ‘nsarchive, what gorbachev heard’
then come back and tell me russia weren’t given assurances nato wouldn’t spread eastwards, if you dare ?