nuclear-news

Talk of new atomic tests by Trump and Putin should make UK rethink its role as a nuclear silo for the US.

The Conversation, November 7, 2025, Tom Vaughan. Senior Research Associate, CERI, Sciences Po ; University of Leeds

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia may could carry out nuclear weapons tests for the first time since the cold war.

In what appears to be a response to a statement by Donald Trump on October 30, that he had ordered the US to restart nuclear tests “on an equal basis” with Russia and China, Putin said he’d been advised by his defence staff that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests”.

At present there is no evidence that either Russia or China is conducting nuclear tests, which were discontinued by most nuclear states after the test ban treaties of the early 1990s.

Nonetheless, the two leaders’ nuclear bluster is a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear brinkmanship between the US and Russia.

It is worth remembering that at the height of the cold war, the superpowers prepared to settle their confrontation in the territories of central Europe with little regard for the millions they would kill. US strategists hoped that a “tactical” nuclear conflict might contain the war to Europe, sparing the continental United States.

Independent deterrent?

This is the context for the UK public accounts committee releasing a report last week which detailed further “delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures” in the RAF’s procurement of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft.

The F-35 is increasingly coming to be viewed in some US defence circles as an expensive failure. This year, however, the UK’s Labour government committed to buying 15 additional F-35B aircraft (having already ordered 48), but also adding 12 of the F-35A variant………………………………………………………………………………….

Incompatible with democracy

This is a clear demonstration that nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have always been incompatible with democracy. They require huge secrecy, and the speed involved means that launch decisions are out of the public’s hands. Instead, any decisions to use these incredibly destructive weapons – with all that this implies for the planet – are concentrated in the hands of individual leaders.

The logic of nuclear deterrence breaks down, however, once we remember that the UK’s control over its own nuclear weapons – not to mention the US weapons hosted on its soil – is very limited. The US could at any moment withdraw its assistance for the Trident programme, making questions of British willingness to fight a nuclear war irrelevant.

The F-35A purchase redoubles the UK’s commitment to serving as Donald Trump’s nuclear aircraft carrier. It makes the country a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two unpredictable and violent superpowers. Other US allies get the same treatment: Australian analysts lament that the Aukus submarine deal with the UK and US yokes the country’s future “to whoever is in the White House”…………………………………………………………………………… https://theconversation.com/talk-of-new-atomic-tests-by-trump-and-putin-should-make-uk-rethink-its-role-as-a-nuclear-silo-for-the-us-269040

November 9, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The UK’s £1 billion Thank You to Uncle Sam

The UK is set to buy a fleet of US fighter jets that can drop nuclear bombs. The purchase is purely political, say watchdogs

RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 6 November 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-uks-1-billion-thank-you-to-uncle-sam/

Keir Starmer’s plan to buy American fighter jets armed with nuclear bombs whose use will be entirely under the US president’s control makes no military sense, nuclear weapons monitors warn. 

In a report released today, the Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK make clear that the deal, announced by the prime minister on the eve of a Nato summit in June, is a blatant attempt to appease President Trump.

The new fleet of F-35 As is estimated to cost about £1 billion. That does not include the cost of the nuclear bombs which the aircraft would carry. 

But the cost is only one of many uncertainties surrounding the project.

The decision to buy twelve F-35 A aircraft for the Royal Air Force capable of dropping US B61 gravity, “free fall” nuclear bombs – so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons – risks triggering a dangerous nuclear escalation, increasing the threat to British citizens, says the report. 

And because their role would be dependent on the US, it would do nothing to address European concerns about America’s commitment to the Nato alliance, it adds.

The report says the decision “was made for purely political purposes rather than to provide a military capability that will play any meaningful role in defending Nato”. The move also undermines the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).

UK picks up the tab

The nuclear bombs provided to RAF aircraft would replicate capabilities already provided by other European Nato members, says the report. 

Moreover, the monitors find there is no guarantee that the weapons carried by F-35s with a limited range would succeed in any conflict.

The decision to buy the fleet of nuclear bombers from the US “reflects a long-standing trend by the UK government to prioritise trans-Atlantic politics over genuine military needs”, the report emphasises.

It quotes Bernard Gray, a former top Ministry of Defence official responsible for weapons procurement who said: “If money was no object, we could view the £2 bn price tag for doing this as a Thank You to Uncle Sam.” 

Gray, who was referring to the potential price of both the planes and the bombs, added: “The UK is in effect picking up part of the cost of the mission that would otherwise fall on the US. In a world that wants to please President Trump, it’s easy to see how it plays well to buy aircraft primarily built in Texas.”

The authors of this year’s Strategic Defence Review, led by former Labour defence secretary Lord George Robertson, have downplayed the idea of Britain joining a Nato “tactical nuclear” weapons mission. 

Robertson has suggested that a perceived capability gap between strategic nuclear deterrence and tactical nuclear weapons could be bridged by investing, instead, in heavy long-range conventional weapons.

His caution was echoed by Fiona Hill, British-born former national security adviser to Trump, during a Defence Committee evidence session in June.

Pointing to how Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey host US nuclear weapons, she added: “There are other allies who already have dual capable aircraft as part of their arsenal”. 

In a reference to Britain’s Trident nuclear missile system, she made the point that Britain already played a “unique role” in Nato.

Concerns over Trident reliance

But today’s report also points to potential vulnerability of Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons system which relies heavily on US support, and serious mechanical problems affecting the new Dreadnought fleet of submarines designed to carry the missiles.

The report points to widespread scepticism about the role of theatre nuclear weapons, and the misleading assumption that using them would not escalate a conflict leading to the use of longer range and larger nuclear weapons systems. 

It quotes Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of Britain’s foremost military strategists, as saying: “There are lots of ways of hurting countries without actually having to use nuclear weapons yourself”.

“The idea that the further proliferation of theatre nuclear weapons is necessary or will make the world safer in any way is clearly absurd,” says the report. 

“When looked at objectively, they are merely a ‘solution’ looking for a problem.”

The report also makes the point that while the theatre nuclear weapons proposed for the RAF would be entirely dependent on the US, Trident is far from being the independent deterrent as successive British governments have persistently claimed.

Britain relies entirely on the US for Trident missiles as well as the design of modern nuclear warheads. 

There are also growing concerns about the reliability of Trident submarines leading with longer and longer patrols at sea, while the timetable for replacing the existing Vanguard class with Dreadnought class is slipping.

Turning back the clock

Okopi Ajonye, research manager at Nuclear Information Service told Declassified: “The UK government went to a lot of trouble to denuclearise the RAF at the end of the Cold War. This move was welcomed by the service, as it allowed the air force to focus on more important and relevant roles. 

“Starmer and Healey now want to turn the clock back and commit the RAF to an entirely unnecessary nuclear mission that will have major implications for the service and considerable hidden costs.”

Ajonye added that the proposal “has all the hallmarks of having been pulled together in a hurry without any thought about its practicalities or consequences” and guided by the politics of the Nato alliance rather than military need.

“The government’s plan is basically just political smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and politicians from other Nato countries into thinking that the UK is taking a significant step to strengthen its nuclear forces when in reality it is doing next to nothing,” he said

“The UK’s entry into Nato’s nuclear mission is driven less by strategic or military necessity and more by a desire to reassure two audiences: domestic political concerns over the crumbling Trident programme, and international concerns about the credibility of US security guarantees to Europe”.

Costs add up 

There are also concerns over the management of the existing F-35 fleet with a recent report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee expressing serious concerns about the MoD’s handling of the warplanes, including what it calls an unacceptable shortage of engineers. 

It added: “There are also questions over the additional costs of operating nuclear-capable F-35As, and how long the necessary arrangements will take to prepare.

“The deal would add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure yet discussions in this area are at an early stage, and no indication of forecast costs has been provided by MoD.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the committee, commented: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

He added: “There are basic lessons here that MoD has been worryingly slow to learn. Its appraisal of the F-35’s whole-life cost is unrealistic, which it currently gives as at almost £57bn through to 2069.”

The message from MPs is that the total cost to British taxpayers of taxpayers of the nuclear-armed American F-35s will be significantly more than that.

Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK will hold a webinar about the report and F-35 nuclear-armed aircraft on 11 November. 

November 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment