What if America turned off Britain's weapons?
Amid growing jumpiness over Donald Trump’s re-alignment with Russia, a vulnerability that has long troubled many in UK military circles is taking centre stage: Britain’s ultimate wartime deterrent - the Trident nuclear programme - is built on the assumption that Washington has its back.
Could there be a scenario in which the US refused to give Britain the missiles it requires for Trident? “Anyone who suggested this a year ago would have been dismissed as an idiot. Now it is a scenario that we need to plan for,” said defence analyst, Nicholas Drummond, today.
Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, accused Washington today of “destroying the established world order”, following its moves to suspend aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv and vote with the likes of Russia, Iran and North Korea - against all of its longstanding allies - at the UN, in opposition to a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Washington’s decision to halt intelligence sharing to Kyiv has implications for UK military aid too: Britain's long-range Storm Shadow missiles, donated by the UK to Kyiv after months of persuasion from Zelensky, are now thought to have been rendered useless, since they rely on US satellite data to hit their targets.
Against this backdrop, it’s unsurprising that concerns are being raised about Britain’s apparent nuclear dependency on Washington.
But how can it be true that the US is Britain’s nuclear benefactor when the UK purports to have its own nuclear deterrent?
The UK is able to threaten mutually assured destruction thanks to its continuous at-sea Trident deterrent, operational since 1967, deployed on the UK’s Vanguard-class submarines at an annual cost of £3 billion. Each submarine is capable of carrying up to 16 Trident II D5 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles.
Past prime ministers have always insisted that Trident is an independent system since the UK retains full operation control of it: firing does not require the permission, satellites or codes from the US.
But critics say claiming independence is dishonest given how heavily the system depends on the US for parts and technical assistance.
British submarines must visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for re-arming. And, since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.
Nor does the UK have its own stockpile of Trident missiles. Aside from those deployed, the missiles are held in the communal pool in Georgia. Trident missiles in service are returned to the US for periodic refurbishing.
From a fiscal point of view, allowing the Trident missiles, designed in the US by Lockheed Martin, to be jointly maintained with Washington has often been regarded as common sense. Certainly much cheaper than if the Royal Navy were to carry out the work on its own.
It’s worth remembering too that, even if the US were to cut off support, Britain would have a number of Trident missiles in reserve. Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the defence select committee, hence insists that Trump “will be out of office by the time the missiles need to be replaced”.
Though, if America refused to give Britain any new trident missiles, billions would have been wasted on the investment in Dreadnought submarines to replace the ageing Vanguard fleet.
Is it scare-mongering to even seriously discuss the possibility of Washington withdrawing support on such a serious matter?
To quote Drummond again, he also said today that he believes it to be “extremely unlikely” that Trump would cut off UK access to Trident missiles since it would be a “strategic betrayal on a grand scale that would damage him and America”.
But the fact that Britain has felt confident depending so heavily on Washington for its number one security policy shows the extent to which the UK has taken for granted that America is an ally it can count on entirely. A reminder of the enormity of the geopolitical shift underway.
Caitlin Allen
Deputy Editor
ON REACTION TODAY
John Freeman
Children of Radium is wry, occasionally sour and deeply laced with tragedy.
Johan Munn
Putin will not stop at Ukraine
ALSO KNOW
Trump tariff climbdown - US President Donald Trump confirmed this evening that he is suspending tariffs on Mexico and Canada for one month.
EU ramps up defence spending - European leaders holding emergency talks in Brussels have agreed on an €800bn (£670bn) plan to increase European defence spending, in what EU chief Ursula von derided as Leyen hailed as “a watershed moment for Europe” and also for Ukraine.
Hamas dismisses US threat - Hamas has brushed off the US president’s latest threat and reiterated that it will only free the remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for a lasting ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Yesterday, Donald Trump issued what he called a "last warning" to Hamas to release the hostages being held in Gaza. "I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don't do as I say," Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social.
Britain lacks book worms - According to new a polling by YouGov, 40 per cent of Britons have not read or listened to a book in the past year. The median British adult has read or listened to three books in the past year, the survey found.
FIVE THINGS
The paradox of Trump’s economic weapon - Why short-term success will hasten long-term decline. Nicholas Mulder in Foreign Affairs.
Speak softly and carry a big stick - A prudent fear of the unpredictability of war has been the touchstone of realist thinkers. Patrick Porter in The Critic.
Europe-Nato ‘coalition of the willing’ scrambles for collective response to hostility from Trump and threat from Putin. Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko in The Conversation.
Why the Supreme Court said no to Trump over pausing foreign aid payments. DAT Green in Prospect.
What Britain must learn from her former colonies. Tim Dier in CapX.
Hi Caitlin
Some inaccuracies in there fyi to bear in mind. Not sure where you got this data from but in the spirit of being helpful.
"British submarines must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming."
Not for maintenance. The Vanguard class submarines are maintained at Faslane by the Royal Navy, Babcock and BAe. It is true that they are infrequently re-armed in King's Bay.
"since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral,"
This is true but a very minor point. It is not as if the system is frequently tested.
"Nor does the UK even own its Trident missiles."
Er we pay for them so we own them. That is like saying we do not own the F-35s we purchase from Lockheed.
....and the big one
"What’s more, a huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly from the US. "
Yes and no. To unpack that
"Neutron generators" I assume you mean the neutron initiators at the heart of the UK Mk4A warhead. No those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston.
"Warheads". Big NO. Those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston. They are the UK Mk4A warhead which are in effect brand new.
"gas reservoirs". I assume you mean the gas system in the missile (or do you mean part of the physics package in the warhead). If so then yes they would be maintained by the US. If you mean a warhead component then as above.
"missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems". Yes they are all a part of the missiles which are procured from the US. You are however mixing up terms.
But to say those components are US owned is the same as saying our Cruise Missiles are US owned as the very same components in those come from the US.
"It’s worth remembering too that, even if the US were to cut off support, Britain would have a number of Trident missiles in reserve. Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the defence select committee, hence insists that Trump “will be out of office by the time the missiles need to be replaced”
Ellwood (and I am no fan) is absolutely correct. The missiles are our property and in our possession and it would be some time (classified and undefined) before they would require maintenance. This is the same for any US procured weapons system though.
I do not think you are quite making the point your article intended. I hope helpful.
I think this was the lesson Anthony Eden learned in the Suez crisis: Washington doesn't "have our back". We might be able to persuade the US to support us, or at least not oppose us (Falklands), but we are not able to operate independently of the US. Our relative position is one of decline, and has been for over 100 years, we just seem to periodically forget.