UK nuclear deterrent could do ‘untold damage', Healey warns
Britain could do 'untold damage' to adversaries with its nuclear deterrent, the Defence Secretary has said as military officials discussed plans to safeguard any ceasefire for Ukraine.
John Healey said the UK should not 'fight shy' of the fact it has such weapons, which he described as the 'ultimate guarantor' in a stark warning to Moscow.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer warned Moscow would face 'severe consequences' if it breached any peace deal with Kyiv amid fragile diplomatic efforts to secure a truce to end the war.
Sir Keir and Mr Healey met defence officials from 31 allied countries at the Northwood military headquarters in London on Thursday to firm up proposals for a so-called coalition of the willing to help enforce any agreement.
Mr Healey also laid the keel for Dreadnought, the first submarine being built to replace the Vanguard-class nuclear-armed submarines, in a ceremony in Barrow-in-Furness watched by Sir Keir Starmer.
In an interview with The Times newspaper afterwards, he said: 'Our nuclear deterrent is there as a deterrent. It is the ultimate guarantor to any would-be adversary. We have the power to do untold damage to them if they attack us.'
He added: 'We should not fight shy of the fact we are a nuclear power, that we do have an independent nuclear deterrent.'
The Prime Minister said the military planning involved offering support to Ukraine by air, sea and land if a deal were reached.
But he ruled out redeploying UK troops from countries such as Estonia to commit to Kyiv, saying: 'There's no pulling back from our commitments to other countries.
'The mood in the room – because this came up in the private briefing I had – was that this actually will help reinforce what we're doing in Nato in other countries, so they see it as an opportunity rather than a question of moving troops around.'
Thursday's gathering of defence allies marked a turning point in which the 'political intention' among western allies to provide safeguards for Ukraine's future becomes 'reality' with discussions of how best to deter future Russian aggression.
Sir Keir said: 'It is vitally important we do that work because we know one thing for certain, which is a deal without anything behind it is something that Putin will breach.
'We know that because it happened before. I'm absolutely clear in my mind it will happen again.'
He added: 'The point of the security arrangements is to make it clear to Russia there will be severe consequences if they are to breach any deal.
'That's why we need a forward-leaning European element, which is what I've been working on intensely – obviously with the French – that brings these allied countries together, and beyond.'
Calls this week between US President Donald Trump, Mr Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have failed to produce the 30-day ceasefire envisaged by the White House.
Instead, the Russian leader agreed to a suspension of attacks on energy infrastructure, although Ukraine has said other civilian targets including a hospital had been struck.
Speaking from the White House on Thursday, Mr Trump said that 'we're doing very well with regard to Ukraine and Russia'.
'We spoke yesterday with, as you know, President Putin and President Zelensky, and we would love to see that come to an end, and I think we're doing pretty well in that regard, so hopefully we can save thousands of people a week from dying.'
Mr Zelensky said he believes a 'lasting peace can be achieved this year' after his call with Mr Trump.
In the same call, the US leader suggested that Washington takes ownership of Ukrainian power plants to ensure their security.
However, Mr Zelensky later told journalists their conversation focused on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and the following day made it clear that 'the issue of ownership' of the other three plants was never discussed.
'All nuclear power plants belong to the people of Ukraine,' he said.
Elsewhere the Ukrainian president, who was updating European Union leaders on the discussions during their summit in Brussels on Thursday, said that overnight Russia carried out a series of drone attacks on the Kirovohrad region.
The strikes left '10 people wounded, including four children, and caused damage to homes, a church and infrastructure', he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Cheap, fast, explosive: Stopping Ukraine-style drone swarms
Neither the Pentagon, nor the militaries of other developed countries, has figured out how to defend against swarms of small drones packed with explosives, according to the military official, who has been briefed on counter-drone efforts but was not authorized to speak publicly. More: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know about Ukraine's audacious drone strike We're not even close, the official said. No one is. The threat from drones to military isn't just overseas. Last year, the military tallied 350 drone incursions on domestic bases, according to U.S. Northern Command. Most of those were probably hobbyists who strayed into restricted airspace, the defense official said. Some, however, could have been from foreign adversaries spying on the military. And some wonder if they could have carried explosives. More: Ukraine drone attack shows familiar-looking drones can be terrifying weapons How does the Pentagon, which spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on defense, have such a vulnerability? What's being done to address it, and how future of drone warfare plays out gains greater and greater urgency for lawmakers and military planners as technology improves almost daily. For the better part of two decades, the Pentagon had unmatched superiority in drone technology. Early in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Predator and later Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles allowed pilots in dark bases in the Nevada desert to attack militant targets in the Middle East. A Reaper costs about $28 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. For a fraction of that cost today, a small drone can be weaponized and flown to its target and deliver devastating effects, too. "At a cost of a mere tens of thousands of dollars, Ukraine inflicted billions in damage, potentially setting back Russia's bomber capabilities for years," Army Secretary Dan Driscoll testified to Congress this week. "The world saw in near-real time how readily available technology can disrupt established power dynamics." Ukraine has been at the forefront of militarized drone development. By necessity, it needs a cheap alternative to thwart Russia, a country with a far larger military force that has advantages in conventional weapons like warplanes, tanks and artillery. Ukraine deployed first-person view, or FPV drones, in its attack on the Russian airfields. FPV drones allow a pilot with a headset to steer the aircraft to its target. That technology has proliferated and gotten relatively cheap in recent years. You can buy an FPV drone on Amazon for under $700. The Ukrainian military has refined technology for small drones and improves nearly weekly to offset Russian countermeasures, the defense official said. Fatal attack The Pentagon is painfully aware of the threat. In January 2024 militants in Jordan launched a drone attack on an outpost in the desert as soldiers slept in their quarters. Three died when the drone slammed into their building. Realizing the urgency of the threat, the Pentagon began funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into counter-drone weaponry. That includes electronic jamming devices that can sever the link between the operator and the drone, rendering it harmless. Small missiles can be fired at drones at a distance, and shotgun-type weapons can be used for those closer in, the official said. Even nets can be used to snag drones in the air before they reach their target. Defending against a swarm of small drones is a tough problem, the official said. There's no simple solution. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, assured Army officials that Congress is prepared to spend billions on drone defense. Before senators and Army officials retreated to discuss the drone threat in secret, Driscoll raised another alarm about the threat. "We are not doing enough," he said. "The current status quo is not sufficient."
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Labour's shock win in Hamilton is a reminder to all of us the SNP has years of baggage
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Only the SNP can stop Reform, the First Minister had insisted, just days before another electoral humbling for his party. John Swinney and friends had crafted a narrative that Labour were damaging Scotland's economy, overseeing austerity and, as a result, had no chance of winning. What he perhaps forgot was those same charges could be applied to the SNP, and for 17 years, not less than one. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We as pundits, journalists, and indeed many politicians got sucked into this narrative. Sir Keir Starmer's popularity had plummeted. The winter fuel allowance changes, two-child benefit and difficult economic forecast meant Labour could no longer be trusted, and voters were excited to go to the polls and make their feelings clear. This, of course, was nonsense. Voters perhaps put more weight on years of uncertainty than they did the struggles of a new government, which in hindsight seems obvious. It was less than two years since Scotland came second last among the UK nations for science and maths and was below England on all measures. People are still waiting on the NHS app, costing them £17 million, which now will not launch until 2026. That's to say nothing of wait times or the numerous scandals that have engulfed the SNP. John Swinney's stances on the EU, Donald Trump and migration, among others, have won plaudits (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Then there was the candidate himself, or your new MSP Davy Russell as he's known, who endured car crash TV appearances when he actually showed up. Scottish Labour insisted he was a strong candidate known in the local area and didn't need to do too much media. It was all a bit Boris Johnson hiding in the fridge, but it worked. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It was also down to the Prime Minister, who declined to campaign in Hamilton during a visit to Scotland. All of this combined gave us the impression that the party was giving up, not wanting to taint Starmer with a defeat. In truth, it may have been that his attendance would have been a detriment, rather than an asset to the campaign. All of which is to say, I can see how we all got it so wrong, but that doesn't make it right. We had been warned, of course we were. It was only in March that an Ipsos survey found Scots are more negative than positive about the Scottish Government's performance. But Labour's teething issues, the SNP narrative and a candidate not conforming to what was expected rattled us, allowed us to focus on what was in front of us, rather than the years of failure if we'd dared to turn around. For Labour, this is a stunning victory, validation of their strategy and perhaps hope that Holyrood could indeed be in their grasp. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I recall one MP saying to me many months ago that voters were leaving Labour, but not to anyone else, they were undecided. The party gambled when reminded of the SNP record, they would come back. That roll of the dice has paid off.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
The world has never been more volatile. Britons must be prepared to fight for their country
When Lord Robertson was asked to co-write a strategic review of Britain's defence, he had one slightly peculiar objective. 'It was suggested at the beginning that the objective of our report should be to stop The Daily Telegraph judging Britain's defence by the number of people in the Army,' the former Nato secretary general said. 'And I think we've done that,' he remarked in an interview with The Telegraph 's Battle Lines podcast this week. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is a 144-page, 45,000 word prescription for 'root and branch' reform of Britain's military. Officially, it is an instruction to the Government. But at another level, it is addressed to us, the British public. The message is stark: how much are you prepared to sacrifice to make this country safe? That implies a demand no British government has had to make of voters since Winston Churchill promised blood, toil, tears and sweat. It's a reflection of the danger of the current geopolitical moment. And it is why Robertson believes he has made the case in this review for looking beyond numbers of troops, submarines and fighter planes that previous reports have focused on. The real issues, he argues, are much more crucial. 'Too many of the interviews I've had this week have been about the money. Whereas actually this report fundamentally transforms the way in which we do defence. 'It's a strategic review, it is designed for 2035, not just for what we're facing at the present moment. 'It's to do with what we are going to need in future: agile forces, grasping the whole of technology, capturing the innovations that are coming. I think a lot of people have missed that.' Lord Robertson has spent a career in and around defence and security. As Tony Blair's first defence secretary he authored the new Labour government's own strategic review in 1998. He went on to serve as secretary general of Nato from 1999-2003. So he was a natural choice when John Healey, the defence secretary, was hiring independent reviewers to take a new look at the state of British defence. His co-authors were General Sir Richard Barrons, an accomplished soldier who is best known for publicly warning of the current crisis in the forces 10 years ago, and Fiona Hill, the British-American foreign policy expert who advised Donald Trump on Russia during his first term as president. Both have a reputation as the best in their respective fields. The report they have come up with – readably penned by Hill, who Robertson strongly hints was by far the best writer of the three – is both ambitious, and frighteningly blunt. Three years into the biggest war in Europe in 1945, they warn, Britain's Armed Forces remain shaped by the post Cold-War era of small wars, far away, against irregular or poorly armed opponents. 'Exquisite' capabilities have masked the 'hollowing out' of the Armed Forces' war fighting capability. Stockpiles are inadequate. The 'strategic base lacks capacity and resilience following years of under investment. Medical services lack the capacity for managing a mass-casualty conflict'. Poor recruitment and retention, shoddy accommodation, falling morale, and cultural challenges have created a military 'workforce crisis'. And in addition, the relationship with industry is still stuck in the Cold War. 'Business as usual is not an option,' they write. Their plan is to bring Britain to war-fighting readiness over the next 10 years. Will we have that long? General Carsten Breuer, the head of the German army, said this month that Nato could face a Russian attack by 2029. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British defence think tank, found in a report in May that the attack could come as early as 2027, in the admittedly worst-case scenario of America leaving Nato and removing troops from Europe. 'The decade [to 2035] is what we were working to. That was our view about what we needed to do,' says Lord Robertson. 'For a peer adversary attacking the United Kingdom, which is what we're talking about, it would probably require that long for the existing potential adversaries to reconstitute. But it can be earlier, and therefore the model that we have created and are promoting can be accelerated.' Of the 62 individual proposals in this 'root and branch' reform plan, many are of operational implications that will mostly be of interest to those already in uniform. The Royal Navy, it says, will need a greater submarine and anti-submarine warfare capability to protect our underwater pipelines and cables. The RAF is called on to deliver deeper air and missile defence, expand its use of drones, and could be involved in 'discussions with the United States and Nato on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. Some have taken that to mean mounting air-dropped nuclear-bombs on F-35As jets, but Robertson says: 'It's not in the report because we found a huge diversity of opinion about that, ranging from the best nuclear platform to the suitability of the F35.' The biggest implications are for the Army, the least modernised of the three services and the one most depleted by donating kit to Ukraine. It will have to increase its armoured brigades from two to three, implying a massive investment and overhaul. But woven through all of this is a theme of relevance to everyone living in Britain, whatever their relationship to the Armed Forces. The new era, they say, requires an 'all-of-society' approach. Forget recent decades. The Falklands, Gulf, and Afghanistan wars did not require anything close to the scale of national preparation for war, home defence, resilience, and industrial mobilisation that they have in mind. 'We need to have a national conversation among the British people about your defence and security, how safe do people want to be, and what you are willing to pay in order to be properly safe,' says Robertson. 'Our adversaries don't believe in business as usual, and therefore what we are doing can't be business as usual.' Nor will it be business as usual for Robertson, who left Nato in 2003 and at the age of 79 could be forgiven for wanting to spend more time at his home in Dunblane with his wife Sandra. Instead, he says, he and the other reviewers will be visiting 'various parts of the country' to make that case for a new defence pact to the general public. 'The volatility of world events is unprecedented' It is a function of just how fundamentally the world has changed since the defence review he last authored nearly 30 years ago. 'We had 10,000 troops committed to Northern Ireland in 1998, either in the province or ready to go there. Nato had just signed the Nato-Russia Founding Act with Boris Yeltsin. China was in the shadows, wasn't really a big player at all, and we thought globalisation was a great idea.' 'So that world has gone. We now have a great power competition playing out in front of our eyes,' he adds. 'We have geostrategic shifts taking place all the time in terms of industry and commerce. The volatility of events in the world is unprecedented, probably in history.' For that reason, the SDR devotes several pages to home defence and resilience, ensuring continuity of national life in the event of infrastructure failures and 'build national preparedness and resilience, ensuring the UK can withstand attacks and recover quickly'. Its prescriptions include renewing the contract between the Forces and the country, enhancing protection for critical national infrastructure, making sure that industry knows what is expected of it in case of war. All of this will be useless without one crucial, but unquantifiable factor. Just as nuclear deterrence depends on the willingness of national leaders to use it, whole-of-society deterrence will only be as credible as our own – that is, ordinary people's – willingness to endure hardship our enemies can inflict upon us. Those hardships will be enormous. Experience from Ukraine shows that full scale war involves electricity, water, and energy supplies being targeted. There will be shortages of fuel and possibly of food. We have already had tasters of the chaos to come. 'If the lights go out in this studio and this building here today,' Lord Robertson says, gesturing around The Telegraph 's podcast studio, 'do we know how to get out of it?' I'm not entirely sure I do. He carries on: 'A few weeks ago, the whole of Spain and Portugal lost power. Two modern European countries lost power. Paralysis was the result. 'A transformer blows up and Heathrow airport, the busiest airport in the world, has to close down for 24 hours. Something like 90 per cent of the data that we are using in this country and in Europe as a whole, comes in under sea cables. ' About 77 per cent of the UK's gas imports come from Norway and one in one pipeline. So the vulnerabilities from cyber and from the grey zone, disinformation, targeted assassinations, electoral interference, all of that is part and parcel of today's world.' Once confrontation moves from the grey zone to open war, there is a question of casualties. How would the British public respond, I ask, to cruise missiles slamming into Catterick Garrison leaving dozens, possibly hundreds, of young soldiers dead? Or glide bombs ripping women and children into pieces as they shop? Or a Royal Navy ship being lost with all hands? Are we, as a nation, psychologically and culturally prepared to shoulder the kind of hardship and grief unseen since 1945? 'We'll need to make sure that that is the case and remind people about what it is. And I think that's the job of the media. It's the job of politicians. 'And we need to raise awareness of the issue. What is it you want, what is the insurance premium that will keep you and your family safe in the future. 'But we in the review are talking about how to avoid it. Deterrence is the question. You know, we all go to our beds at night safe because of Article 5 of the Nato treaty.' However Nato – the bedrock of British defence – is under strain. And Britain's relationship with its allies is about to be tested at the annual alliance summit in the Hague later this month. Robertson, Barrons and Hill wrote the Review to parameters set by the government: specifically, a commitment to raise defence spending from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and to 3 per cent in the next parliament when economic conditions allow. Nato officials told The Telegraph this week that they expect Starmer to commit to 3.5 per cent at the alliance's annual summit in the Hague. Donald Trump and his defence secretary Pete Hegseth are demanding a much higher bench mark of 5 per cent. Lord Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, said earlier this week that postponing three per cent target is 'tantamount to back in 1937 saying to Adolf Hitler 'please don't attack us until 1946 because we won't be ready'.' Although Robertson argues the money question is a distraction from the 'guts' of the review, it is not difficult to see where the tight budget has constrained ambition. 'Ten times more lethal' The review clearly states that none of the three Services – Army, Royal Navy, or Royal Air Force can afford to lose any more highly trained and equipped regulars. Yet the authors' proposed remedy is strangely modest. For example, it says the Army should have a total strength of 100,000, consisting of the current nominal 73,000 regulars (the smallest since the Napoleonic wars) and the difference made up by an expansion of the number of reservists. It argues that new technology can make this small force '10 times more lethal' than it is now. And it is true that automation is changing warfare. The audacious Ukrainian operation to strike Russian airbases last weekend, points out Robertson, is a perfect example of the kind of thing Britain should be planning to carry out – and defend against. But high intensity peer conflict still involves casualties. Heavy casualties. In the trenches in Donbas, there is a constant threat of shrapnel, bullet, and blast wounds. Drones may now be inflicting more casualties than artillery, but that is of little comfort to the infantry: unlike a 152mm shell, a quadcopter loaded with plastic explosive can chase your car or fly right through the door of your dugout. 'Ukraine is an example, but it's not a template' That is one reason why this month Russia is projected to suffer its millionth casualty, including dead and wounded. No one is suggesting the British Army should fight with Russian-style tactics. But can a force of 73,000 regulars and 27,000 reservists really sustain modern levels of attrition? 'The Army's lethality is what matters. It's the effectiveness of our forces that actually matter, at the end of the day. And Ukraine is an example, but it's not a template. 'People say that generals, and even strategists are busy fighting the last war, and in some ways, Ukraine is the last war. The next war will be a very different war in many ways with very different sets of circumstances that we have to deal with,' says Robertson. Yet it is difficult to shake the feeling that although Robertson, Hill and Barrons did the best they could within the financial parameters they were set, they would have liked to do more. Would he have liked more money to work with? And does he believe Labour will deliver? Everything in the review has been 'ruthlessly' costed, he says, and the Prime Minister has explicitly promised its recommendations are going to be implemented. 'So the three of us are going to be right there, you know, sitting there like crows on the branch of a tree, watching carefully as to how the recommendations are implemented and how, and, and when and when they are,' he says 'So Labour has created a bit of a rod for their own back by having independent reviewers, but at the same time, it should galvanise them.' The question of raising the budget, he says, is a question for voters. 'What we can say is what we think is necessary, in terms of reference [we were given]. If the British people as a whole decide they want to spend more money on defence and less money on other things, then they will make that decision,' he says. 'At the moment they don't. We had a general election campaign last year where defence wasn't really mentioned at all. We had a Conservative party leadership campaign where defence wasn't mentioned as an issue. So people in the country have to see the threats that exist at the moment and the threats that will be there in the future and make a decision about what they have.' Britons will have to make sacrifices It's a fair point. For all the grumbling about Keir Starmer's timidness, the truth is his government – and British taxpayers – face three equally unpalatable options. They could borrow, while national debt is already at 95 per cent of GDP and growth anaemic; raise taxes, when the tax burden is already on course to be the highest since the Second World War; or make cuts elsewhere, when public services are already struggling. Is the blunt message, then, that to be safe ordinary Britons will have to make sacrifices? 'I think so. Unless the economy improves and unless we get growth – and a lot of what we are doing is promoting growth, defence expenditure is a way of gaining growth – then that makes the pie bigger and the choice is less difficult to make. 'We don't live in a world where there is an infinite amount of money available. It's a question of priorities. And if in a national conversation, which the Prime Minister has promised he's going to lead, people come to the conclusion that they want to avoid the lights going out or the hospitals being shut or the airports being shuttered and the data cables being broken, then the insurance premium that keeps your family safe has got be afforded.' As Robertson leaves The Telegraph, I remark that there is something about our conversation that leaves me uneasy. Here we are, a journalist in his 40s and a peer of the realm in his 70s – blithely discussing a war that neither of us will probably have to fight in. Does he find it morally awkward, talking about sacrifices today's teenagers and twenty-somethings will be asked to make? 'It is, and that's why I'm so obsessive about deterrence,' he says. 'The idea is to do this now so we don't have to fight.' He returns to the nuclear question, and three decades of interactions with top Russian officials. 'I've been in the Kremlin. And I am convinced that even if we did everything you've suggested – double the size of the army, and so on – the one thing that will really get their attention is the independent nuclear deterrent.' 'You know, there are people who will still argue that if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for the paper assurances of the Budapest memorandum, that Russia would never have dared to have crossed the border. I don't know if you can prove that or disprove that. 'All I know is that Nato and the Article 5 guarantee is a deterrent to any aggressor who thinks that they can take on these 32 countries. So all of the missiles, all of the submarines, all of the planes that we are proposing are part of the build-up to war readiness are designed not to be used. 'They're designed to make sure that nobody fires that cruise missile.'
