British fighter jets to carry nuclear weapons in face of ‘new era of threat' of Russia
NUKE THREAT British fighter jets to carry nuclear weapons in face of 'new era of threat' of Russia
BRITAIN looks set to introduce jets armed with nuclear weapons for the first time as part of the latest defensive expansion against Russia.
The government is in talks with US officials over the move, which would be the UK's biggest deterrent development since the Cold War.
6
Britain's tactical nukes and V-bombers were decommissioned after the Cold War
Credit: EPA
6
Britain's Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has called for the move
Credit: AP
6
Investment in the aircraft would mean the UK would be able to launch nuclear weapons from both air and sea
Credit: Alamy
Sir Keir Starmer will launch a strategic defence review on Monday as the government looks to help Europe counter Putin's threat.
The review points to the UK expanding its contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence across the continent.
It also recommends that the country's defence industry should be on standby for rearmament.
Defence Secretary John Healey and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, head of the armed forces, are leading talks with the Pentagon.
They are looking to purchase fighter jets capable of carrying gravity bombs with lower power than conventional nuclear weapons.
Britain's tactical nukes and V-bombers were decommissioned in favour of the Vanguard submarine programme after the Cold War.
Investment in the aircraft would mean the UK would be able to launch nuclear weapons from both air and sea.
At present, the military is only able to launch from one platform.
Whereas US forces possess nuclear launch capabilities from land, air and sea.
Britain will be wiped off the map with nukes unless it stops helping Ukraine, warns Putin's guru 'Professor Doomsday'
American-built F-35 A Lightning stealth jets look to be the target for the government, with the jets having been recently procured by German military forces.
They have a range of almost 900 miles and are capable of carrying a B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb.
Radakin is understood to view the move as the UK's number one defence priority.
Speaking to The Times, the Defence Secretary admitted that nuclear risks across the globe are rising.
He said: "The world is definitely becoming more dangerous. Nuclear risks are rising.
"For the first time since the Cold War, we face seriously increasing risks of state-on-state conflict.
"The lesson from Ukraine is that a country's armed forces are only as strong as the industry behind them.'
It comes as the government insisted it would reach its target to hike defence spending to three per cent GDP by 2034.
Writing in The Sun on Sunday, Sir Keir said the time had come to 'transform how we defend these islands'.
6
Sir Keir Starmer will launch a strategic defence review on Monday
Credit: AFP
6
Defence Secretary John Healey admitted global nuclear risks are rising
Credit: AFP
6
Britain hopes to expand its contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence against Russia
Credit: PA
He added: 'We will meet this moment head on — by mounting the kind of response not seen before in most of our lifetimes.
"We will restore Britain's war-fighting readiness as the central purpose of our Armed Forces.
"We are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces.
'So we must be ready to fight and win. After all, the best way to prevent conflict is by preparing for it.'
Revealing details of the long-awaited Strategic Defence Review, he revealed the UK will move to wartime levels of arms production by building six new munitions factories.
The £1.5billion investment will create or support nearly 2,000 jobs across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
UK's military chief in Pentagon talks after Donald Trump pledges a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine - but British peacekeeping troops 'won't be sent to the frontline'
The UK's top military chief is set to hold meetings in Washington DC today following Donald Trump 's promise of security guarantees for Ukraine. Sir Tony Radakin, the chief of the defence staff, is expected to attend talks at the Pentagon to thrash out how Ukraine would be defended from future attack in the event of a peace deal with Russia. It follows crunch talks at the White House on Monday between the US President and European leaders, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky. After the emergency summit in the Oval Office - held in the wake of Mr Trump's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week - Sir Keir said there had been a 'common understanding' about a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine. The PM added this was an 'Article 5-like guarantee', which could mirror the 'collective defence' clause of the NATO treaty that states that an attack against one NATO ally is considered an attack against all NATO allies. Sir Keir has pledged to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of efforts by the so-called 'coalition of the willing' of Ukrainian allies to help ensure a potential peace agreement with Russia holds. But, during the Pentagon talks on Wednesday between military chiefs from the coalition of the willing and their American counterparts, Sir Tony is expected to state that UK peacekeeping troops would not be on the frontline with Russia. US President Donald Trump told Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday that America would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal with Russia A British official told The Guardian: 'Wednesday is a really important moment. 'Nothing happens in Washington without the President giving the green light, so Trump giving his support to security guarantees on Monday kickstarted a lot of activity.' Another said Sir Tony would echo pledges made by Defence Secretary John Healey, who recently said Britain was willing to deploy troops to Ukraine 'to secure the safe skies, safe seas and to build the strength of the Ukrainian forces'. They added that ministers envisaged this as meaning logistical and training support rather than sending battalions of frontline troops who could end up in combat. Security minister Dan Jarvis this morning said the flurry of diplomatic talks in recent days had 'brought the prospect of peace much closer' in Ukraine. Speaking on Times Radio, he said: 'We've always strongly supported Ukraine's integration, both in terms of their potential desire to be members of the European Union and membership of NATO. 'We don't think that any limitation should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its co-operation with third countries, and Russia certainly shouldn't be able to have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to the European Union or NATO.' Mr Jarvis added: 'I think it is important to make the point that very significant progress has been made. 'I think the Alaska summit and the talks in Washington over the previous days have brought the prospect of peace much closer than they had been previously.' But, despite the growing hopes that the three year-long conflict in Ukraine could soon be brought to an end, former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov warned that Mr Putin is 'absolutely not' ready for peace. He told Times Radio that the Russian leader was 'absolutely not' serious about striking a peace deal, despite Mr Trump's suggestion trilateral meeting - potentially in Budapest - between himself, Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky. 'He doesn't want to have the high-level meeting. He doesn't want to meet to sit down with Zelensky,' Mr Kasyanov, a leading Putin critic, said. 'It will be some of a humiliating event for him. That's why he will be avoiding it. You're correct that the ball is on Putin's court, but he will continue dragging out time, continue his offensive operation, believing that he will win the war of attrition. 'He simply managed to avoid imposing just tough sanctions as a result of Alaska meeting.'
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Exclusive poll: Labour voters are rallying to Jeremy Corbyn
Photo by. The new left-wing party in the process of being launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana might lack a name, a leader, and a policy platform beyond tackling 'the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power' and 'campaigning for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine'. What it doesn't lack is potential supporters. New polling by Ipsos, seen exclusively by the New Statesman, finds that one in three people who voted Labour in 2024 would consider voting for the new Corbyn-Sultana initiative. That figure rises to nearly half (46 per cent) among 2024 Labour voters who would consider voting for an alliance between this new party and the Greens. The new outfit says that over 700,000 people have already signed up on the 'Your Party' website to register their support. For context, Reform UK made national headlines by claiming to have surpassed the Conservatives' membership numbers by hitting 130,000 members last December. Of course, registering for Your Party is free, while there are fees for becoming actual members of political parties (£35 a year for Reform, £39 for the Conservatives, and £70.50 for Labour at the standard rate). But the scale of interest in the new venture is striking, even when virtually nothing is known about it six weeks after Sultana dramatically announced she was quitting Labour for good to set up some kind of alternative. The potential for a left-wing option for those dismayed by the direction Keir Starmer's government has taken in its first year has long been discussed. In June, before Sultana's announcement, George Eaton reported new polling from More In Common which suggested a 'new Corbyn-led party' would win 10 per cent of the vote. Nearly two months later, Ipsos finds that has doubled: 20 per cent of voters consider themselves very or fairly likely to back the Corbyn-Sultana offering, rising to 33 per cent among voters aged 16-34. (A reminder: under government plans the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next general election.) The big question mark – other than the party's yet-to-be-determined name – is how it interacts with the Green Party. The Greens are spending the summer engaged in a furious leadership contest, with MP duo Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay facing off against 'eco-populist' London Assembly Member Zack Polanski. (If you missed the debate between Polanski and Ramsay on the New Statesman podcast, check it out and watch the sparks fly.) As Megan Kenyon pointed out, Polanski has argued that 'the Greens should occupy a more progressive, populist space on the left in order to confront the infectious populism of Nigel Farage's Reform. He has called for a wealth tax, a better approach to net zero and a more robust left-wing position on immigration.' In vibe terms, that's very similar to the on offer from Corbyn and Sultana. Is there space on the left of British politics for two rival populist parties? Most pollsters and strategists are sceptical, which is why there has been so much talk of some kind of pact or alliance – informal or otherwise – between the two to avoid splitting the vote. The Ipsos polling finds that, while the public on the whole are unsure on the merits of a pact, there is widespread support among people planning to vote for either option: 70 per cent of people who say they would vote for the new left-wing party (it really needs to decide on a name, if only for the sake of word counts) would back an alliance, as would 60 per cent of Green Party supporters. This isn't surprising: an alliance is the best way of avoiding the left-wing vote being split and wasting a whole load of votes. But given how antagonistic the Green leadership contest has already become, plus how much debate and confusion there is over who will lead the new left-wing party, negotiations for how such a pact might work are unlikely to be smooth. Insurgent populism works best when there is a one big-name charismatic leader (just ask Nigel Farage). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Nonetheless, almost a third of Brits – 31 per cent – would consider voting for a united ticket. That rises to 51 per cent for voters aged 16-34. 'These figures show that a new left-wing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana has the potential to shake up British politics,' says Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos. 'A significant number of younger people are at least prepared to consider voting for it and a majority of those aged under 35 say they would consider voting for some kind of alliance between the new party and the Greens. Clear policies around change, the NHS, poverty and wealth taxes could be popular.' That should sharpen minds in Downing Street: however chaotic the launch may have been, and whatever the fate of the last group of high-profile MPs who decided to start their own initiative (farewell, The Independent Group), the appetite for a challenger to the left of Labour is real. Related
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Morgan McSweeney unleashes his Farage strategy
Photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP By the way, Britain has the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. We need to build houses, laboratories, data centres and transport – and we have the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. So, clearly, there is a lot of work to be done on the government's objective of 'abundant clean energy'. There is also a lot of work outstanding on all the other four of Keir Starmer's well-chosen 'missions' and all three of his 'foundations'. Those were, to repeat, economic stability, secure borders, national security, kickstarting growth, future-proofing the NHS, smashing the class ceiling, and making the streets safe. Instead, we are still talking about the Online Safety Act. The Labour party is digging its heels in, and is apparently now shaping its entire cyber-strategy around the legislation. The party has released a new advert accusing Nigel Farage, who has criticised the act, of supporting Andrew Tate. The ad shows a picture of the two men together, originally posted by Tate in 2019, and reads 'Nigel Farage says Andrew Tate is an 'important voice' for men. Andrew Tate said women should 'bear responsibility' for being sexually assaulted.' The party is claiming, in effect, that Farage's approach to online safety will leave young boys open to radicalisation. Not long before, champions of the Act had said Farage's opposition put him on the side of Jimmy Savile. Defending the legislation on Sky News, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle later doubled down on X, posting 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators.' The Tate line may not seem much of a change from the Savile one – it's hard to choose between two such squalid figures. But Labour appears to be pleased with it. The Sunday Times's front page had the details of the ad before it went out. Credit was given to the in-house team at Labour HQ, and an allusion made to a new, macho-sounding 'attack team', designed to undermine Farage and headed by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Speaking to the Sunday Times, a senior Labour source proudly said: 'We'll be looking to continue taking the fight to Farage in this area. He's not thought through his approach when it comes to online safety and we'll continue to expose it.' It is hard to know if Labour insiders really believe this about Nigel Farage – if a cack-handed analysis of Tate's popularity really amounts to support for his public statements. It is hard to know if Labour therefore also believe the 525,000 of their citizens who have signed a 'Repeal the Online Safety Act' petition are clamouring to hear more from Andrew Tate – or are 'on the side of predators'. It was similarly hard to know if the party really believed Rishi Sunak did not think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison, as an ad claimed in 2023. But the Online Safety Act seems a very strange law to make this stand around. For one thing, it was a Sunak policy, receiving Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. For another, it is unenforceable, since anyone can dodge the restrictions by downloading a VPN. (It has been reported that children's exposure to pornography has gone up since the law was passed.) And lastly, and again, it serves none of the government's main aims. Perhaps sharper eyes would discern wisdom in the move. After all, Morgan McSweeney is praised for his close sense of popular opinion, and for delivering the huge majority that the government still retains. (Though, if his celebrated ruthlessness forced Corbyn's expulsion, he may be remembered for undoing Labour, not saving it.) There is not such a libertarian streak in Britain as there is in, say, America. And, if it needs pointing out, everyone cares about preventing sexual abuse. If half a million people have declared their opposition to the Act, there may be many more quietly in favour. Labour's resolution may turn out to be prudent. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are also seedier explanations to be heard. It is a fairly developed rumour in Westminster, and even more so in the technology sector, that Peter Kyle wants Bridget Phillipson's education brief. If closing off dark parts of the internet is popular with anyone, it is popular with nervous parents. Kyle has more background in education than technology, and was briefly shadow minister for schools in 2021. However well advised, Labour is set on raising the stakes. They are telling voters that opposing the bill amounts to supporting predators. And they are taking measures to escalate awareness of the legislation, associating it directly with the Labour party. The gauntlet seems to be 'if you don't like it, don't vote for us'. And, for better or worse, they are shouting it from the rafters. [See also: Sally Rooney is the conscience of a generation] Related
