Trident, its Washington Weakness, and the Coming Nuclear Free-For-All

Since 1952, the United Kingdom has possessed a nuclear deterrent, and the current format of ‘Continuous at sea deterrence’ (CASD) has been in operation since April 1969. The strategy of ‘at sea deterrence’ consists of 4 submarines comprising a class. Whilst one is at sea, one is in maintenance and two are carrying out training and preparation, allowing for the UK to have a nuclear armed submarine in service at any given time. Each submarine is capable of carrying 16 missiles, but has been carrying 8 in operations. This ensures that the nuclear deterrent is almost impossible to undermine, but also underlines that unlike on land WMDs from infamous Soviet silos, brandished by the state media outlets of the UK’s enemies, there is a clear distance between the territory and people of the United Kingdom and their ultimate form of defence. On the one hand, some may argue that this is strategic, given the UK’s small geographical size, but there is no reason to not also say that it is a symbol that the nuclear deterrent is not only for the UK’s but also, under Article 5 of NATO, for the defence of its allies.

Ever since the Trump Administration cast doubt over NATO and the Article 5 commitment, and German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz asserted that the Article was “dead”, heads have turned to European nuclear capabilities. Merz has been rather blunt about the current situation leading him to propose a Juggernaut spending spree, with half a trillion euros for German infrastructure, but also, a blank cheque spending on defence. However, whilst Germany might be locked and loaded in a decade, the UK and France are the only nuclear powers in Europe. This development has brought the UK’s trident deterrent under scrutiny.

Whilst on paper, the trident deterrent is operationally independent, because only the Prime Minister can order a nuclear response in defence of the UK and NATO allies, for its upgrade and therefore, its continuing availability and reliability, the UK relies on the US and defence companies like Lockheed Martin for the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent as well as the construction of the missiles. Trident also takes up 6% of the UK’s defence budget annually.

Also, investigations have uncovered that Russia has been carrying out operations by placing sensors in the UK waters and Atlantic Ocean to detect submarines and undermine the nuclear deterrent, by gauging their relative position.

Concerns have also ballooned after a failed test launch in January 2024, during which an unarmed missile landed not far from the submarine. This was witnessed by the then Conservative Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, who reported that an “anomaly” had taken place during the test, but underscored full confidence in the Trident deterrent capabilities. It is important to underline that the UK is not the only power with concerns about the reliability of their nuclear deterrents. The Wall Street Journal investigated the $130 billion dollar plan to renew the nuclear capabilities of the United States. As it turns out, the US nuclear missiles which were supposed to last 10 years, have been sitting in silos for 6 decades. Russia is likely in a similar position with its nuclear weapons. With tensions rising, and Europe rearming, nuclear powers will spend considerably on renewing their nuclear deterrents as part of their wider rearmament plans. The Vanguard class is due to be replaced by the Dreadnought class in the early 2030s, having come into service in the 1990s. This demonstrates that the UK is on track to renew its nuclear deterrent, and has a framework already in place to do so, whilst the US and Russia will have significant trouble replacing land-based weapons.

However, questions are to be asked about whether the United Kingdom should consider dialling down its reliance on American defence companies such as Lockheed Martin as well as the country itself to underline Trident’s independent status. For the time being, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has steered clear of a confrontation with President Trump, going as far as to not respond to the Trump administration’s tirade of tariffs, which I for one, appreciate to be sensible diplomacy in the face of, well, an impulsive US foreign policy which mutates by the hour. 

However, recently, the PM released a post with Defence Secretary, John Healey, greeting the returning crew of a nuclear armed submarine. To the backdrop of AC/DC’s thunderstruck, I was lost in a trance admiring Keir Starmer, donning some binoculars, and playing the strongman. I was then left wondering whether the Labour Government’s post was aimed at former leader Jeremy Corbyn, who had been a lifelong activist against the existence of nuclear weapons, or whether it was an indication of the Labour Government’s intention to bolster the nuclear deterrent, perhaps with an accelerated timeline for the new dreadnought class.

In any case, it should be recognised that nuclear weapons are terrifying weapons, and one launch will destroy the world. Conversely, in 1985, 63,632 nuclear warheads existed, in 2024, there were 12,121. This clear decrease came from diplomacy primarily between Washington and Moscow. This did not take place amongst friends and trusted colleagues, but with suspicion and concern. There are two points to be taken from this: the work of diplomats is crucial and incredible, and decreasing nuclear stockpiles is something states can pursue, whether that be according to the dictates of liberalism or realism. 

Image: Wikimedia Commons/UK Ministry of Defence

Licence.

No image changes made.