• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

The Future of Britain's WMD

Conclusions and recommendations

The UK does not, and never has had fully independent nuclear capability. The UK does have a nuclear weapons programme, but it is and always has been dependent on US technology and supplies. Even between 1946 and 1958, US information acquired during the war was the basis of the programme and the US provided secret support. The UK cannot afford to go it alone.

In general, the British public believes that the UK is protected by an independent nuclear deterrent. No government wishes to admit to the weakness that dependence implies.

In return for US support for the UK nuclear weapons programme, the UK is compelled to support, broadly, US international policy. Where there is agreement there is no problem.

Today though, with widespread concern over the long term direction of US policy it is essential that the public understand the underlying connection between the special nuclear relationship and the special political relationship.

On present trends the UK will continue to reject initiatives for multilateral disarmament and adhere to a policy based on the threatened use of nuclear weapons in ever more unlikely circumstances.

It also means that the UK , if it continues to have nuclear weapons, it is likely to be committed to acquiring whatever the US chooses to replace its own Trident missiles from 2029. What the US will choose is not yet known. This course of action will not supply Britain with a weapon it could use if it ever stood alone as in 1940.

The unfortunate reality for the British people is that, unknown to them, they have a nuclear weapon that is not independent and is committed to support unrealistic US-led policy for the military use of nuclear weapons. It is not realistic to support a replacement for Trident and also complain that Britain is too closely associated with America . The UK should cease to try to keep up appearances and adopt a policy based on the reality that it is not an independent nuclear power. Trident should not be replaced and should be phased out now.

The government should also address a number of technical questions on Britain ’s WMD and associated technologies:

• How can the WMD operated by Britain be used should the United States withdraw its support or act preventively?
• Were any reassurances required by the Bush Administration before it renewed the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement in 2004 concerning the direction of British defence and civil nuclear policy?
• How near to production is the US-assisted nuclear weapon the Conservative government tested and developed after Trident and cancelled in October 1993?
• How much of the spending at Aldermaston is on equipment and services from US companies?

With greater freedom of action to work with the US , the EU and other partners, the UK should renew the multilateral disarmament agenda which achieved so much in the 1980s and 1990s. Supporters of nuclear weapons used to argue for a ‘Twin Track’ of arms and arms control, of multilateral as opposed to unilateral disarmament. Now, there is no international programme of arms control and disarmament. It is unrealistic to consider that the world can continue indefinitely with uncontrolled nuclear armaments and not see a nuclear war. The UK should join the many other countries, notably South Africa , who are working to reduce and remove nuclear and other armaments.