BRITAIN”S nuclear deterrent is “fully independent” and does not depend on US policy, senior naval forces said last night. It comes amid mounting concerns that the UK is vulnerable to political shifts in White House doctrine which may hamper its ability to effectively use its nuclear weapons to deter Russian aggression in Europe.
This would be especially key under proposals by Italian PM Giorgia Meloni that Britain and France should extend their nuclear umbrella to Ukraine instead of deploying boots on the ground. “Once the missiles are in the boat, the issue of delaying them is a matter for His Majesty’s Government and no one else – there’s no question about that,” said a senior Royal Navy last night.
Britain has 260 nuclear missiles, which are carried by Vanguard and Dreadnought-class submarines.
Under the continuous at-sea deterrence (CASD) policy, at least one of these submarines is constantly at sea awaiting the day where they might be called upon to act, while another is always “at readiness” to deploy.
The most recent “V-boat” to have completed its tour returned home to Faslane in Scotland earlier this week after a gruelling 204 days on patrol.
While the UK designs and manufactures its own nuclear warheads and guidance systems, they rely on Trident II D5 missiles, leased from the US, to deliver them.
Currently, these missiles are sent to the US Navy’s submarine base in King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance.
But this could, eventually, be undertaken by the UK, says Dr Lukasz Olejnik, a senior visiting research fellow of War Studies at KCL.
“I don’t believe that a single call from the US could disable the CASD duly,’ he said.
“There’s a certain resilience to many unforeseen perturbations. These are made by design to be a credible deterrent. And they are.”
(Continues…)
“You have to understand the motivation and psychology involved (of allowing the UK nuclear operational independence) – this is a country that controlled the greatest empire on earth, who fought side by side with us.” JFK to Robert McNamara 1963
Dr Olejnik added: “In the short term, maintenance should not be a problem for the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.
“With a view on the long term, development of maintenance capabilities would take time. But development of a tritium source, which needs to be replenished, should be possible either almost independently, or via external purchase, through Canada for instance.”
While software updates are carried out by the US, missing some of these would not unduly affect the missile’s inertial navigation system, he said
The UK and US are still operating under terms of a 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, which allows for the transfer of special technologies between both countries.
But it was in 1963 that Britain was granted operational autonomy of the use of nuclear weapons using US delivery systems by President John F Kennedy.
A close friend of PM Harold MacmIllan, JFK overrode objections by defence secretary Robert McNamara who wanted to use the UK as a Ilipad for US nuclear weapons.
“You have to understand the motivation and psychology involved,” the US President told him.
“This is a country that controlled the greatest empire on earth, who fought side by side with us.”
This led to Britain adopting the US’ submarine-based Polaris system.
Polaris was upgraded to Trident in the 1980s.
The UK has committed to upgrading its own warheads which, at the moment, will be tied to US requirements.
But the time may have come for an Anglo-French collaboration, said Dr Olejnik
While Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent is assigned to Nato and has offered Europe a nuclear umbrella for decades, France has historically ket its nuclear missiles for its own deterrence.
This is changing now, with French President Emmanuel Macron debating extending his nuclear arsenal to Europe too.
The quickest way for France to strengthen European deterrence would be for it to join Nato’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) to commit its nuclear weapons to collective defence.
Dr Olejnik dismissed recent claims that the total number of warheads held by both nations – 560 – would not deter Russia, which has 5,580 warheads.
“The number of warheads is irrelevant ,” he said.
“The UK and France should consider reassessing and recalculating the risks and guarantees due to recent geopolitical developments.”
