Labour's defence document exposes some major cracks

The National

3 days ago

However, the document itself makes no reference to it. There are important reasons for that, not least of which is the cost. But the danger and threat still lurks.
It is technically credible that the UK's 30 (soon to rise to 47) F-35 multi-role fighters be fitted to carry nuclear bombs. The F-35 has that capability as does some other aircraft and there are more than 100 US-controlled gravity bombs stored in Europe stationed in several Nato countries.
But the US nuclear control of the bombs would be a sticking point that deal-maker Donald Trump would not miss. Even faux British operational independence would up the cost of the F-35 option.
READ MORE: Leading pro-indy figures write to Keir Starmer over referendum 'snub'
An explicit endorsement of the re-introduction of tactical nuclear bombs carried aboard the F-35 multi-role fighter would signal a significant change to British nuclear policy. It would be seen by the 94 member states of the UN who support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a destabilising move by the UK.
That includes the 73 whose sovereign legislatures have ratified it into international law and chose to abide by its terms.
Indeed, the non-nuclear nations could throw sections of the SDR back in Britain's face as the document makes much of – possibly even overhypes – global insecurity – a selling point for those arms companies that received advanced copies before even the shadow defence secretary.
This was revealed when Defence Secretary John Healey finally deigned to brief parliament, late in the afternoon.
To openly re-introduce British tactical nukes in a document which claims that one of its key aims is to de-escalate international tension would be the equivalent of the fire brigade claiming, with a straight face, that pouring rocket fuel on a fire would help put it out.
However, the prepublicity over the weekend has ensured that notion of the reintroduction of British tactical nuclear weapons is still out there, mostly likely to test the political temperature.
Indeed, within the document itself, Russia is rightly criticised for retaining the possible use of tactical nukes. Looking both ways at once is not a novel idea. But even by the standards of the Starmer administration, to do so in writing in the same document would be a bit of a stretch.
The military dangers of devolving a degree of command and control of nukes from the political leadership to generals of at least four-star level is fraught with risk, though most top brass are usually near their political leadership.
To devolve control three steps away further to one-star level is asking for trouble. Going even further, handing control of a nuclear weapon to a lowly pilot in a cockpit is more than a bit of a gamble.
Maybe the naive LibDems had not thought that through when they briefly floated the idea of replacing the clapped-out Vanguards with nuclear-capable F-35s a few years ago.
For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that a group with the ear of Keir Starmer are punting an F-35 option. But maybe it is to divert attention from the increasingly clapped-out Vanguards – something, inadvertently, that the Prime Minister made mention of in his Govan shipyard speech.
However, the SDR did touch upon the increasing costs of the maintenance and potential expansion of the UK's nuclear arsenal with reference to £15 billion earmarked for the 'sovereign warhead programme'.
READ MORE: 'A bit rich': Kate Forbes responds to Keir Starmer ruling out referendum
That it is given a title with the word 'sovereign' in it, rather than just 'warhead programme' or 'new' or 'replacement' warhead programme, suggests that recent work by the anti-nuclear movement on the fact that President Trump actually owns the Trident missiles is impacting on public perception, or risks doing so.
Starmer was surely on thin ice (and some military brass must have been nervous) when the Prime Minister mentioned that during his last visit to Scotland, he was aboard a Vanguard coming off patrol.
Yesterday he said that the length of the patrol was a record breaker, implying that this was something to be proud of, when in fact it was the exact opposite.
The Prime Minister did not reveal the real cause of the over-lengthy deployment, though he inadvertently revealed that the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) concept is under severe strain.
The deployment of Vanguards is getting longer and longer. That's because it appears there are not four boats in various states of readiness, but three, or even less.
In his widely viewed Rented Missiles And Worn Out Submarines YouTube presentation, military historian Mark Felton succinctly explains why. He even speculates that at times no Vanguard has been at sea at all.
Behind the SDR lurk many questions, problems and dangers. We should not let the UK Government hide them.
Bill Ramsay is secretary of SNP CND and convener of the SNP Trade Union Group