The front page of the Mail today apparently looks like this:
I am not too concerned about OJ Simpson, and I will let the Grand National pass me by, as I always do. Starmer's commitment to nuclear submarines does, however, worry me.
We know a number of things about our nuclear submarine fleet.
First, it is astonishingly expensive.
Second, it is not under our control: it can only be used with US permission.
Third, whenever we try to launch a missile, it seems to fail.
Fourth, this fleet was designed for an era long gone, as are the replacements.
Fifth it denies resources to those parts of our armed forces that we really do need to invest in.
Sixth, the whole point of having this fleet is to pretend that we are still a world superpower. The problem is that no one, anywhere, now thinks that. We have chosen to become a middling stall state off the north-west of Europe. Brexit guaranteed that.
So what is Starmer doing? The fact that he has splashed this in the Mail tells us everything that we need to know. This is all about posturing to the Tory voter who can't bring themselves to vote for Sunak, whatever their reason. There is no strategic, military or diplomatic reason to keep our nuclear submarines. Like Concord, they are technology we should let slip into the past. But Starmer won't do that because he wants to play on what he thinks will be the big international stage.
I despair.
And meanwhile, he will do nothing about poverty.
Post script: I should add that Starmer obviously assumes he can keep control of Scotland when promoting this policy when it deeply resents being used for this purpose.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There’s is no conceivable geopolitical situation that would be improved by the UK firing an atomic missile. Therefore there is no point having any.
Agreed
Oh, you mean geopolitical power. I thought this was going to be about electricity!
Surely you can’t be arguing that the UK cannot afford the cost of nuclear weapons, and to properly resource the rest of our armed forces too? There are choices of allocation and distribution to be made, but money should not be a limiting factor, even if the multiplier for defence spending is so poor.
Apart from the former states of the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, have any nuclear weapons states voluntarily given them up? Do you think Russia would have invaded a nuclear capable Ukraine?
The strongest argument against for me is that I cannot foresee any circumstances in which the UK would wish to use a weapon of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons – either first or second.
But perhaps nuclear weapons are for a set of circumstances I cannot foresee. And perhaps having them but not using them is better than not having them and wishing we did.
We could revisit our decision on submarines and consider if it might be just as effective to have some nuclear capable long range bombers or missiles instead.
My reading is pragmatic.
They don’t actually work.
We can’t control them.
We won’t use them.
Wars are not going to be fought that way.
We need to get real.
Although I generally agree with you Richard, I have to differ on this.
Yes, Nuclear weapons are a terrible waste of resources, but Ukraine has shown what an unfriendly ‘superpower’ led by a bad actor can do to those without them.
It isn’t ideal, but the fact that another Trump presidency could conceivably lead to the end of NATO makes me think we need to keep a deterrent, in addition to strengthening our conventional forces. Yes, a further terrible waste of resources which could be better spent elsewhere, but appeasement won’t work with Putin.
Of course, the ideal thing to do would be to strengthen aid to Ukraine to help destroy Russian military power now (they are a failing state, but with huge amounts of Soviet-era military gear), but we don’t have the materiel to do much ourselves and the GOP in the States appear to be completely compromised as they are doing their very best to ensure a Russian victory.
The trouble is that our deterrent is utterly dependent on the US – so it is not independent at all or any help in the scenario you outline
P.S. Yes, Starmer is clearly in full electioneering mode with this announcement.
In fact, it is safe to say that anything he says or does at present is electioneering, which means we can believe even less of it than usual. If that is at all possible.
To all the people suddenly in favour of new nuclear submarines I would ask,
How would you feel if they were positioned in one of the most beautiful parts of your country as they are in mine.
The current, worn out and ailing, nuclear “deterrent” is based next to Scotlands largest city and the outdated versions are currently rusting away just ten miles from Scotland’s capital city (where I live) until someone can work out how make them safe.
I’d be happy to help transport them closer to any nuclear enthusiasts area any time.
Starmer is deluding himself (and the electorate) in saying he’d press the button if necessary. He won’t be allowed within a mile of the decision making process never mind the button.
This disturbed me when I read it last night (in the Guardian). (Many thanks Richard, for reading the Mail so we don’t have to!)
“Apart from the former states of the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, have any nuclear weapons states voluntarily given them up?”
Answer: South Africa
Nuclear weapons (like chemical and biological weapons under their own respective treaties) are now illegal under international law as enough states have ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) for it to be law – a UN treaty.
Therefore, Starmer should be constantly asked: “why are you supporting something that is illegal under international law?” (I don’t hold my breath that these questions will get asked!)
One of the biggest benefits of Scottish independence (amongst very many) is that it will rid Scotland of nuclear weapons – and Scotland to cement this, should sign the TPNW – and the interesting (and very welcome) prospect of Trident being scrapped because of the breakup of Britain (as Fastlane apparently is the only suitable harbour in the UK for the submarines).
It’s all so pathetic, but so predictable from Stamer.
(Paul Mason – in his new incarnation of military hawk – is understandably delighted. I despair.)
Mason is grovelling so badly it is deeply embarrassing
Thanks for that Duncan. South Africa is indeed an interesting case.
International law is a funny beast. There are some universally accepted principles, but mostly it is not like domestic legislation where everything binds everyone automatically. Like most treaties, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons only binds the 70 or so countries that have signed it. Unsurprisingly no nuclear weapons state is a party. But South Africa is. So the UK‘s nukes are not is “illegal under international law” because that treaty does not apply to the UK.
Since we can’t use without the US’s permission I can’t see they are a deterrent and more likely to a lead to a worrying scenario where we could be involved in a nuclear attacks by a rogue US. I understand the point of Ukraine and also North Korea and maybe Iran but are we really going to be invaded by any country without a calamitous WW3 and destruction of most of Europe. As far as Internation Law goes it seems to be suspended if not destroyed in full view as the fig leaf it probably always was to attack brown people and vaguely socialist countries by the US and its posse.
1st Question: If they don’t work well & the Uk gov has to ask pretty please to fire them – what is the point.?
2nd Question: how have the French managed to build their own nuclear ballistic missile subs – with their own ballistic missiles?
No UK politician is ever asked the 2nd question – because they have no answer.
In WW2 the British ushered in a new type of naval warfare when it attacked the Italian Navy at Taranto using aircraft and sank a significant number (the Japanese took note).
The war in Ukraine shows how a country with no navy can sink one third of Russia’s Black sea fleet. It would seem that it is not just generals that plan the next war based on the last one, but admirals and politicians as well.
Meanwhile, remind me the numbers of families in absolute poverty in the UK.
If Germany does not need nuclear weapons, why do we?
Cos the US had all sorts of nuclear stuff located in West Germany in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s (cruise missiles then). Nuke umbrella.
The Germans de-militarised their society – 1970s through to now.
The problem they face now is the lack of conventional weapons/highly non-military society.
But: there is no equivalence between the armed & the unarmed.
History could have taken a different path wrt the USSR/1990 – it didn’t and we have to deal with it.
Personally? the idea that nukes are the last resort between two political view points is …….insane.
All my life I have been a “unilateral nuclear disarmer”; since the Russian invasion of Ukraine I have become uncertain.
By nature and family background, I am inclined to pacifism and always felt such weapons immoral… but also, from a practical perspective I viewed the risks of “accidental” use as greater than their use in any reasonably conceivable situation. This long held view was severely jolted in 2022… and whilst I think I still favour unilateral disarmament I am now unsure.
Whilst everything Starmer does is driven by electoral tactics, it IS possible that he actually believes in the UK nuclear deterrent and it is a legitimate position for Labour to take.
I could see the argument if the deterrent might work but I do not think that it is remotely credible that it might
So, I would suggest other defence spending might be much more useful.
Following all other policy discussions / Reeves “fiscal rules” – has Starmer explained how he is going to pay for it?
The man treats this country with total contempt – apparently unlimited money for creating nuclear war and none available to sort out the collapsing social fabric and essentials of this country.
“The man treats this country with total contempt – apparently unlimited money for creating nuclear war and none available to sort out the collapsing social fabric and essentials of this country.”
Hardly surprising when the majority of voters persist in believing the Thatcher lie the government has no money of its own and therefore misconceive the role played by taxation.
We know Russia and N Korea has a nuclear arsenal and probably Iran. In light of this I ask the question is the world a safer place if the West also has a nuclear arsenal or doesn’t? …please be clear this has nothing to do with the devastating effects of a nuclear bomb or whether they will be used it is about counterbalancing potential force. Anyway is the world safer or less safe if the West disarms?
Agree with all your points. I think the ‘upgrading’ of Trident breaks international commitments to reducing total weapons numbers. Starmer is becoming sick-makingly totally predictable.
Your headline might be a Freudian slip – he was talking about ‘weapons’ not ‘power’, but indeed the committment to nuclear power by both major parties is tied into the weapons – the infrastructure and technology and skills needed in this country are intertwined in the ‘nuclear industry’.
I still think we are on the knife edge of safety – with apparetnly the US still committed to ‘launch on warning’ – and the possiblity of AI having some role in detecting missiles, or launching them – we are still vulneralbe to catastrophic mistakes as several time in the cold war.
Apparently the Starmer Daily Mail piece committed a Labour governemtn to spend 2.5% of GDP on ‘defence’ .Pity he cant make a similar sort of comitment for spending to the NHS etc
IF we want our poliy re-formed into one which values human welfare on anything like an egalitarian/fair-minded basis and which seeks to face up to the climate disaster which is already here, we need a politics of principle – of virtue even. That requires fostering an electorate and a society which respects fundamental caring and shared values/rules for the common good.
In such a project, the real issue with Trident and nuclear weapons is that they are both intolerable, immoral and their ‘replacement’ is already illegal. We cannot hope to build the virtuous state and simultaneously seek to ignore or finesse this. Starmer and co. (plc?) are simply and already a deep-died part of the foul mess we currently should call Brexitania – sans sense, morals, sans humanity – sans everything.
Sorry… not a happy reflection so early in the day… but whether it “works”, who controls it, whether the French or… (fill in as per prejudices dictate) have it or a ‘better’ one or any other ‘issues’ are all totally beside the point. No polity which thinks that seriously giving an influential toss about these matters is going anywhere good. And that, as the Big Yin used to say “is a fact and no’ a rumour.”
Aye, and it’s parked in Scotland.
Us cynical Scots think the Scottish-based nuclear capability is the main reason why the Tories are so set on opposing Scotland becoming independent from the rest of the UK. I mean, if Scotland is genuinely the economic basket case unionists claim it to be, why do they want to keep subsidising a country that manifestly for the most part hates them?
Starmer needs to hold the Barrow constituency and other consituencies in the nuclea sub supply chain.
Any way I thought only one submarine is fully (partially) operational in the UK nuclear deterrent fleet? Compare that to 6k+ ICBMs each of US and Russia. We all know a nuclear exchange is not winnable. I live in west Wales; there are five ports that are likely targets close to my home – nowhere will be liveable. Will any electronic device (think internet/mobile/water pump etc) survive EM radiation?
Will Starmer have independent nuclear launch control or will he and Rachel Reeves find money and decades of finance for that project? God help us.
I believe Starmer’s trajectory and philosophy for “Labour” is to be become the natural conservative choice and not a second eleven.
Thus he has to tell these stories of being a war monger and defender, using moralistic binary language – nuke vs non-nuke, goodies vs baddies, freedom vs evil-doers. Perhaps he believes he can steer a more social democratic approach in the future. Who knows, but where are the voices and representatives of the ordinary working people, small businesses, trade unionists, local farmers and champions of the powerless in this new party.
Devonport and Plymouth are the natural home for UK nukes, whose main purpose is international willy waggling. Not in my backyard in Argyll, that is for sure.
Nukes have little or no strategic value, but some planes for aircraft carriers (if they are ever seaworthy) and a few more destroyers would be useful.
The heading is still misleading – should be ‘deterrent’ or ‘weapons ‘or something similar – not ‘power’
But I see it as power – that is the whole point of these weapons
Couple of points to address a few of the above comments
Ukraine was never a nuclear armed state. There were, briefly, nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, but the launch codes were always in Moscow. Had Ukraine made moves to create their own ignition electronics, it would not be an independent state now.
The UK’s ‘independent’ nuclear weapons represent a very modest 4% of NATO’s stockpile. We trust the Americans to allow us to launch the missiles we rent from them, but do not trust them to use their nukes to launch the retaliatory genocide that NATO exists for. ‘Cognitive dissonance’ and ‘nuclear weapons’ go rather well together.
We are about to run out of Tritium, essential fuel for fusion bombs, with a half life of only 12 years. The Canadian deuterium cooled reactors that provide ours will all be shut down soon. What is needed is a new generation of nuclear fission power plants, and the agreement just signed with the Canadian government to jointly develop tritium blanket-breeder technology. Forget the ‘base load bullshit’, we need to build batteries, not nuclear power plants, to keep the lights on. We need new nuclear power plants to remain a nuclear weapons state.
We (Scottish CND) are really struggling to guess what the Dreadnought programme will cost over the 40 years of its life. Our current estimates range from 200 to 600 billion pounds, both figures rather larger than the fantasy accounting from UK government. We would love some help with this.
The Valiant class boats are beyond their design life. Because of failures, the duty cycle of those in commission is being extended rather than reduced. How safe is that? Nobody knows.
Thanks
Your uncertainty is justified
If you’re diverting countless billions of pounds away from essential services to fund the nuclear “deterrent”, what exactly are you trying to protect? Food banks?
Historically Russia has demonstrated that they are willing to trade lives for advantage, so the fact that we have just enough nukes from 1 submarine to destroy Moscow and perhaps a little bit more, is not really a deterrent, and as pointed out above, our nukes are just a small increment to the US, so that is where the real deterrent is.
Our nuclear deterrent did not stop Argentina in the 80s, and they are making threatening noises towards the Falklands again. We even used our nuclear capable aircraft (the Vulcans) to bomb an airfield, but didn’t threaten Buenos Aires with an air-dropped nuke. They are also now US allies, so we can expect even less help from the Americans than last time. Given that the majority of F35s on our carriers are US Marine planes, our 2 carriers may not be of much help.
Something to ponder is why would Russia threaten us with nukes, or even send nukes our way? We have minimal military forces and are absolutely not a threat to Russia (on our own). So why would they bother? Her Oligarchs seem to enjoy London. Similarly why would they invade? We have few resources and logistically it would be a nightmare to even send an invasion force, let alone keep it supplied.
A question for the PM is what if Russia used conventional hypersonic missiles to take out our 3 subs that are in fixed positions (ie naval bases either being repaired, used for training, or working up to take over). That leaves us with our at sea sub, which eventually has to come home and then there is no continuous at sea deterrent. Would the PM really retaliate with nukes?