The Strategic Defence Review, published on 2 June, contains plenty of ideas which I believe our Party should support – an increase in the number of ships in the Royal Navy, increased reserves of munitions, and a big increase in our capacity to produce them, many more drones and protection of our underwater communications are all sensible proposals in the more dangerous world in which we now live.
But there is one part of the review which I do not believe we should support, and that is a proposal for the UK to acquire tactical nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them. The SDR says (Recommendation 30):
The Sunday Times, the day before the SDR was published, ran a story—clearly based on leaks—with the headline “British fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs” [Paywalled £], which made it clearer.
I am concerned that the reaction to the SDR from some of our MPs has been supportive of our acquiring tactical nuclear weapons. Mike Martin MP, who is a member of the Defence Select Committee, said on X (before the SDR was published but after it had been leaked):
“And in an unexpected, but welcome, move the UK is exploring extending its nuclear delivery mechanisms so that, as well as submarine-launched missiles, we are also able to airdrop smaller nuclear weapons from new F-35A planes (this might also mean that we are buying more planes as well).”
Our Defence Spokesperson, Helen Maguire MP, was more nuanced. She said in the House of Commons on 2 June:
“Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?”
[Note: my emboldening]
The core problem with these new bombs is that they make the unthinkable more thinkable. Proponents may argue that they provide a “rung on the escalation ladder,” a way to respond to a limited nuclear, chemical, or biological attack without immediately resorting to Trident’s full might. However, this logic is dangerously flawed. Does anyone seriously believe that a “limited” nuclear exchange, initiated by F-35s dropping these new bombs, would remain limited? The fog of war, the immense pressures on decision-makers, and the inevitable civilian casualties would almost certainly trigger a rapid and uncontrollable escalation towards full-scale strategic nuclear war. The idea that a “tactical” nuclear weapon can be used without crossing a critical Rubicon is a dangerous illusion.
Furthermore, the introduction of air-launched, lower-yield nuclear weapons fundamentally changes the perception of our nuclear posture. Trident is understood globally as a strategic deterrent. F-35-borne nuclear weapons, however, suggest a willingness to integrate nuclear capability into conventional war-fighting.
Whenever our nuclear deterrent has been debated at Conference, I have voted to keep our strategic nuclear forces. I am not in any way a unilateralist. But nuclear war would be a catastrophe for the UK and the whole planet. The only justification for our having nuclear weapons is that they are literally a weapon of last resort – a threat to anyone who might use them against us that we will destroy their country.
Liberal Democrats should be clear that while we support the SDR and the Continuous At Sea Deterrent, we will not support our lowering the threshold for nuclear war – which our acquiring tactical weapons would.
* Simon McGrath is a Councillor in Wimbledon and represents Lib Dem Councillors on the Party’s Federal Board
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
Peter Hirst
David Evans
Brenda Will
16 Comments
I disagree with Simon.
I don’t believe that the authors of the Strategic Defence Review envisage using tactical nuclear weapons as a response to a conventional attack. (Unlike the situation during the cold war when NATO, wrongly believing that the USSR had overwhelming conventional force superiority envisaged NATO nuclear first use.)
Instead, without tactical nuclear weapons we face the risk of a hostile power using tactical nuclear weapons on a battlefield, leaving us with only the choices of defeat or escalation to strategic nuclear weapons. I see the possession and ability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence against such weapons being used against our conventional forces.
It is rather similar to World War 2, when neither we nor Nazi Germany used poison gas, because both parties were aware of what it had done in WW1 and both parties possessed it.
Mohammed – the challenge is once we have them we are more likely to use them. Whereas with our current strategic deterrent every is clear what will happen if we are attacked with nuclear weapons
Unless we are privy to the contents of the Letters of Last Resort Keir Starmer wrote when he became PM we don’t actually know what would happen if the UK was hit with nuclear weapons. That said, Simon McGrath is surely right that any use of tactical nuclear weapons would almost certainly lead to a full-scale nuclear war and planetary destruction.
I wonder what is really going here though. Trident relies heavily on US technical support and maintenance. It’s difficult for obvious reasons to find out how long Trident would remain viable if that support was withdrawn by a Trump/MAGA white house. I’ve seen estimates range from a couple of years to a matter of months. Giving Trump, or some MAGA successor, that amount of leverage doesn’t look very wise. Can’t help thinking this may account for our sudden interest in non-Trident nuclear weapon systems.
I rarely agree with Simon McGrath on anything he says, but on the issue of tactical nuclear weapons he is right in every particular.
To be clear, I am a committed pacifist and follow the Quaker peace testimony, so I want nuclear disarmament as soon as possible. Ramping up nuclear weapons by acquiring tactical ones is precisely the wrong way to go and I sincerely hope that our party in the Commons and the Lords speak and vote against any such moves.
It’s important to note that the proposal doesn’t involve the UK developing or buying its own sovereign tactical nuclear weapons. Currently a number of European NATO members such as Germany, Italy and others have aircraft that can deliver US-owned free-fall tactical nuclear bombs as part of a NATO response to aggression. Not all aircraft are cleared to carry and deliver these bombs, and the UK doesn’t currently have any suitable aircraft. Our contribution is Trident missiles in submarines.
So the UK would have to buy suitable aircraft, e.g. the F-35A, and carry out all the necessary training, build the infrastructure etc to join the NATO “nuclear sharing” pact.
I have no idea why the SDR team suggested this, and like Simon I am against it. NATO already has the capability and there is no suggestion that the aircraft allocated by other countries are insufficient for the mission, or what value the UK would add by joining. The cost of doing so would be significant, and would be at the expense of investing in our conventional forces.
And that’s before you start to ask whether free-fall bombs are the way to deliver tactical nuclear warheads in this day and age, even from a stealth aircraft. The French for example have air-launched Mach 3 stand-off cruise missiles equipped with tactical nuclear warheads.
I agree with Simon and surely increasing our nuclear arsenal makes the UK even less credible as a voice against nuclear proliferation than we already are. That said the G7 don’t seem to be able to call out the hypocrisy of nuclear armed Israel starting a destructive campaign against Iran to add to their already horrific actions of the Netanyahu regime in Gaza and the West Bank over recent years.
I’m not convinced by either side here. What does the game theory say?
it is a complex issue and I may well not have understood it properly, but making the strange statement that i agree with both Simon McGrath and Mick Taylor.
Both and hopefully others will find this a good and thoughtful read:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/13-june/comment/opinion/more-weapons-will-not-make-the-uk-safer
@Mick Taylor and @Simon – what’s being proposed doesn’t involve us “acquiring” more nuclear weapons or “increasing our nuclear arsenal”. There is a stock of US tactical nuclear bombs in Europe, that already exist, allocated to NATO. A number of European countries host these bombs and allocate aircraft to deliver them, should NATO decide it is necessary.
What is being suggested, for reasons that aren’t clear, is that the UK might purchase more aircraft to add to the existing pool that can drop these bombs.
But these tactical nukes already exist, owned by the US but in Europe, and this won’t make more of them.
I agree with Amin (again!). If anything, having the capability to counter an enemy’s (hypothetical) use of tactical nukes reduces the risk that the enemy would deploy them in the first place.
It’s easy to envisage the likes of Putin exercising gamesmanship and using his tactical nukes in a situation where he is facing catastrophic defeat in a conventional conflict – but counting on the West not escalating to the strategic level. Having the option of a tactical response is an effective deterrent in those circumstances.
The question to me is not if but how. Being entirely dependent on the US no longer looks like a viable option (nor an effective deterrent, given Trump’s stated isolationism) so we need some tactical option at a European level which is sufficiently independent of the US to be credible. Whether that is in the hands of the UK, France or someone else, the delivery mechanism etc are important questions, but it seems clear that the risk of nuclear conflict is far greater if we do not have a tactical option.
“It is rather similar to World War 2, when neither we nor Nazi Germany used poison gas, because both parties were aware of what it had done in WW1 and both parties possessed it.” Just to remind: the Nazis killed millions in their Concentration / Extermination camps using, amongst other methods, Zyklon B – a deadly poison gas.
To Simon McGrath and Mick Taylor (plus millions of other Liberals).
My friends, I totally agree with you and urge all elected representatives to add their voices.
Recommend everyone listens to the Deborah Haynes, Sky News Podcast of a projected
Russian attack on the UK, it is sobering indeed.
We cannot now rely on the United States or Article 5.
We cannot resist a Russian attack for more than a few days using conventional means.
Back in the seventies and eighties it was recognised that an attack on West Germany could not be held back conventionally for more than a few days also, thus it was accepted that tactical nuclear would have to be engaged.
Nothing has really changed.
The common argument for having nuclear weapons is its deterrent affect. I don’t agree with this but do see it as a rational one. Nobody who advocates this view however is prepared to tell me why countries such as Iran is not allowed them.
@theakes
> Nothing has really changed.
The Soviet Union fell.
NATO has expanded. The Nordics are seriously engaged.
The Baltic is a NATO lake.
There may be scope for defence in depth.
Spending money we do not have on F-35A would need scrutiny.