Dropping tactical nuclear weapons was a major strategic error. We must correct it

Telegraph

2 days ago

Britain must urgently restore tactical nuclear weapons to its defence arsenal. That thought understandably fills many minds with horror but the logic of strategy means that these weapons would in fact make us safer. If the enemy possesses a devastating capability that we do not he is far more likely to use it on us. And Putin, not to mention China, has vast and growing stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons while we have none. Now it seems the Government may be thinking about tackling this vulnerability in the defence review due to be unveiled this week.
After the Cold War ended Britain dropped tactical nuclear weapons from its inventory. Before that, faced by the conventional superiority of the Warsaw Pact, these bombs had been intended to halt Soviet armoured thrusts into Western Europe if our ground and air forces couldn't hold them back. They are relatively low yield, including in radiation, and are intended to obliterate major military targets such as troop concentrations, massed tank formations and airbases, rather than laying waste to entire cities and creating wide area nuclear fall-out.
With highly inadequate European conventional forces now confronted by a violent menace, shown only too clearly by the war in Ukraine, we are again back in a situation where Nato nations are faced with the choice of resorting to tactical nuclear weapons or losing everything to Russian advances. Of course our strategic nuclear forces are intended to deter enemy aggression, but their credibility in a situation short of nuclear Armageddon now lies exposed. Is Putin likely to think that our response to his tactical nuclear strikes would be to go to ultimate escalation with a nuclear attack against Moscow or St Petersburg? And if not, what?
The Americans have tactical nukes deployed in Europe but they can withdraw them at any time. And with so much at stake, can we any longer rely absolutely on the US nuclear umbrella to defend us and our Nato allies? Hopefully yes, but optimism is a fool's strategy.
Britain would achieve greater certainty by generating a tactical nuclear force that could deter attack against our Nato allies and if necessary react decisively to a Russian assault. The cost would be huge but the countries we protect must also share the burden.
That leads on to Ukraine. It is not a Nato member but there is no reason we should not have a bilateral agreement to provide nuclear cover to them as well. There is a lot of talk about Western security guarantees when this war is over but so far zero realistic proposals. Even Keir Starmer's plan to send in peace-keeping forces quickly dissolved into some sort of capability building somewhere far away from the front lines, guaranteeing nothing at all.
Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Many now believe abandoning a capability that could have deterred Putin's invasion was a fatal error. A British deterrent shield could provide the security guarantee that everyone knows is necessary.
A much less desirable alternative, but one that should be considered, would be for Britain to help Ukraine renew its battlefield nuclear armoury. That would go against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But surely it's time to re-think that anyway as the supposed rules based order lies in tatters. It only binds democracies, not dictatorships like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. That is fine for taking the moral high ground but extracts a heavy blood price when only one side obliges itself to fight with both hands tied behind its back.
Tactical nuclear weapons however would be no deterrent at all if there was any doubt about the political will to use them. That is certainly in question with our past and present leaders. But if in the event of disaster they can muster the courage, then possession of these weapons would at least provide them with an option other than capitulation.