Top Gun! British fighter jets will soon carry nuclear weapons for the first time ever as part of biggest defense expansion since the Cold War
British fighter jets will soon carry nuclear weapons for the first time as part of biggest defense expansion since the Cold War.
Sir Keir Starmer is looking to purchase several fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons.
The sensitive talks include Defence Secretary John Healey and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin who are looking to buy US fighter jets capable of launching gravity bombs with lower power than conventional nuclear weapons.
The decision is backed by the prime minister and talks with the Pentagon are under way according to The Times.
The news comes as Sir Keir is readying himself to launch a strategic defence review on Monday from a dockyard.
He is expected to expand the UK's nuclear deterrence and its contribution to NATO but will not commit to specific capabilities.
Mr Healey has insisted the Government will reach its target of hiking defence spending to three per cent GDP by 2034.
It comes after the Government previously set out a goal to reach the target during the next Parliament, after meeting its promise of increasing spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by April 2027.
However the Defence Secretary has promised a 'certain decade of rising defence spending', according to The Times, and said there was 'no doubt' the UK would meet its target.
Mr Healey told the newspaper: 'It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.'
The Government is looking at the roles, capabilities and reforms required by UK armed forces as part of its strategic defence review (SDR).
It will explore 'deliverable and affordable' solutions 'within the resources available to defence within the trajectory of 2.5 per cent'.
Earlier this year, Sir Keir announced the targets, where he said 'increasing the resilience' of Britain was 'vital' 'in an ever more dangerous world.'
'In an ever more dangerous world, increasing the resilience of our country so we can protect the British people, resist future shocks and bolster British interests, is vital,' he said
The new defence money will be found by reducing UK overseas aid from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of GNI (gross national income), according to the Government.
This move was one , which prompted then-international development minister Anneliese Dodds to resign.
'You have maintained that you want to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems,' she told the Prime Minister.
'Yet it will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut.'
NATO heads of government are set to meet in The Hague, in the Netherlands, next month.
Addressing the alliance's parliamentary assembly in Dayton, USA this month, NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte said he assumed The Hague would agree 'on a high defence spend target' of 5 per cent.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: 'This Government has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War - 2.5 per cent by 2027 and 3 per cent in the next parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, including an extra £5 billion this financial year.
'The SDR will rightly set the vision for how that uplift will be spent, including new capabilities to put us at the leading edge of innovation in Nato, investment in our people and making defence an engine for growth across the UK - making Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why the feverish talk of ousting Badenoch already? Tory MPs know the future looks dire
Back in 1997, the former minister and famous political diarist Alan Clark identified a potentially fatal flaw in the Conservative party's leadership system. No, not the controversial membership vote – William Hague did not introduce that until 1998. For Clark, eloquent reactionary that he was, the problem was giving MPs the vote and formal mechanisms to challenge the leader when the old 'magic circle' was abolished in the 1960s. The problem, as Clark saw it, was that it would turn the question of the leadership into a pageant without end. The press would always be able to speculate about a contest, and MPs looking to puff themselves up would have an easy way to do so. Over time, the party's old norms of internal discipline would, said Clark, be worn away. A quarter of a century on, events lend credence to his depressing thesis. It was once said of the Conservative party that loyalty was its secret weapon; nobody says that today. In the 1990s, Clark could write of the foolishness of leadership hopefuls who missed their chance, waiting for a better shot at a job that had only fallen vacant a handful of times since the second world war; as it stands, David Cameron was the last Tory leader to remain in post for an entire parliament. There is surely no disputing that the Conservative party has become a highly unstable institution, and few institutions benefit from being unstable. But there is a compelling counter-argument: which of the recently deposed Tory leaders did not deserve to go? Boris Johnson fell because he could not command enough support from his MPs to staff a government; Theresa May because she could not steer the government through Brexit; Liz Truss because she tanked the party's economic reputation (and its polling). Whatever you think about Partygate, or Brexit, or the mini-budget, in each case the leader was failing at their most essential function: delivering victory for, or failing that securing the survival of, the Conservative and Unionist party. This is the context in which the current, increasingly feverish speculation about Kemi Badenoch's leadership is taking place. Her supporters can fairly claim that the Tories have made a vice of leadership contests, and that their woman has not yet been in the job a year. Her critics can, equally fairly, make the case that she is failing at the most basic job of any Conservative leader: survival. Last month's local elections were a shattering rout. Overall, the party lost two-thirds of the seats it was defending; in several counties, it went from near-hegemonic control to single-digit shares of the vote. That has shaken complacent MPs out of the notion that if they held on in 2024, they had a 'safe seat'; many have also just lost the councillors who formed the core of their local activist base. Were next year's elections to play out the same way, the Conservative machine would be disembowelled across another broad swath of England. Worse still, it could suffer humiliating reversals in Edinburgh and Cardiff. Across much of mainland Britain, the Tories would suddenly be in a potentially fatal position: no longer being the most plausible rightwing option on the ballot paper. Badenoch's allies insist that she needs time to turn the ship around. That was always an argument with a clock on it, but it has been worn thinner still by the brutal fact that the Conservatives have actually started going backwards. In May, the party actually under-polled last year's (already catastrophic) general election performance. The polls also tell their own story. Prior to the conclusion of the leadership contest in November, the Tories' share was rising as Labour's fell. Almost immediately afterwards, its polling went into a nosedive – with Reform UK the main beneficiary. Fairly or unfairly, the balance of opinion inside the party seems to be not whether there will be a challenge to Badenoch's leadership, but when. The most obvious opening is in November, when she marks her first anniversary as leader: the point at which the party's rules stop protecting a new leader from being challenged. The window of maximum danger runs from then until next May's local elections and their aftermath; if she survives that, it's harder to imagine MPs finding the will to depose her later. But the Conservative party's internal rules are much more flexible than Labour's. That one-year immunity from challenge? It's just a rule of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, and they can change it. If the parliamentary party gets its heart set on removing a leader, it can. With such a shrunken parliamentary party, the threshold of letters to the 1922 chairman needed to trigger a contest is lower than it was in the comparative salad days of the last parliament. Yet both wings of the party took heavy punishment at the general election, and the current balance of the parliamentary party favours neither. Badenoch won last November by consolidating her own supporters with the anti-Robert Jenrick vote. The key question is whether that second group will decide to move, either because of a plausible challenge from one of their own (James Cleverly 2.0?), or because Jenrick starts to look like the lesser of two evils – a possibility Badenoch increases every time she inches towards his positions on issues such as the European convention on human rights. Whether a new leader will save the party is another question entirely. The Tory party was once described as an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide; today, it increasingly resembles a state of absolute regicide. Henry Hill is deputy editor of ConservativeHome
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
NHS trust at centre of maternity deaths scandal investigated by police
A scandal-hit NHS trust is being investigated for potential offences of corporate manslaughter following deaths and serious injuries related to maternity care. Nottinghamshire Police launched a criminal investigation in September 2023 after concerns were raised about severe harm allegedly linked to maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Detective Superintendent Matthew Croome said: 'I have now formally commenced the investigation into corporate manslaughter relating to the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. 'The offences relates to circumstances where an organisation has been grossly negligent in the management of its activities, which has then led to a person's death. 'In such an investigation, we are looking to see if the overall responsibility lies with the organisation rather than specific individuals, and my investigation will look to ascertain if there is evidence that the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust has committed this offence.' In 2020, an exposé by The Independent found evidence of repeated poor care, spanning a decade, at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, with parents forced to fight to discover the truth about what happened to their children. The investigation, with Channel 4, found 46 cases of babies who'd been left with permanent brain damage, 19 still-births and 15 deaths. 'One piece of the jigsaw' The parents of a baby who was stillborn under the care of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust have said the corporate manslaughter investigation 'is just one piece of the jigsaw towards accountability'. Dr Jack and Sarah Hawkins, who both used to work for the trust until their daughter Harriet died in 2016, said: 'Our lives were completely destroyed by the unimaginable and repeated trauma at the hands of NUH. 'This investigation is just one piece of the jigsaw towards accountability. 'A prosecution for corporate manslaughter will only penalise the trust, not the individuals responsible. 'We must never lose sight of individual accountability for those who so cruelly stole not just our daughter's life and voice but many others. 'We will continue to fight for justice, not only for Harriet, but for all those whose lives have shattered.'
The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
I wasn't allowed to ask Keir Starmer a question. Here's what I would
I was there for The National, and spent two hours in a high-vis vest patiently waiting for my turn to grill the Prime Minister on Gaza. I knew it was a topic others were unlikely to focus on, and The National have been unrelenting in our coverage shining light on the ongoing genocide in Palestine. We were told to arrive at BAE Systems shipyard in Govan at 9am, and were handed visitor passes and high-vis vests before we were taken into the sprawling complex. I passed hundreds of workers in hard-hats waiting outside of a huge warehouse, waiting for Starmer to arrive, while we were escorted to a meeting room to wait to be taken to the press conference and speech. READ MORE: Pro-independence party leaders urged to stand against genocide in Gaza Just before 10am, we were taken into a warehouse where workers were standing, in typical Labour press conference style, in a circle around a lectern that read 'securing Britain's future'. While waited, press officers repeatedly asked us to move out of the way from two TV screens behind us, that would act as an autocue for the PM when he finally spoke. After 10 minutes where Starmer told how he wanted to turn the UK into a 'battle-ready armour-clad nation' and promised billions for nuclear weapons, we finally got to the press questions. First, the UK-wide press got their shot - Chris Mason from the BBC led the questions, then Sky News' Beth Rigby, the only person who asked about Gaza. (Image: PA) She asked if Starmer thought there was any 'concrete action' the UK could take. 'The situation is intolerable in Gaza and getting worse by the day, which is why we are working with allies to be clear in saying it's intolerable. 'Be absolutely clear of the need for a ceasefire, be absolutely clear that humanitarian aid can get in at speed and at volume because it is not getting in at the moment, causing absolute devastation and of course to continue our work to secure the release of hostages who have been held for a very, very long time. 'We're working closely with allies on that and will continue to do so.' ITV, GB News and the I paper asked questions next, a slightly befuddled Starmer then told the room: 'Now I'm going to Scotland.' READ MORE: UK plans for 'fighter jets carrying nuclear bombs' slammed He seemed to have forgotten he was standing in a Govan shipyard, but took questions from BBC Scotland, STV, the Scottish Sun and the Courier. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election were top of the agenda, with Starmer insisting Labour were the only party who could beat the SNP, ignoring the Farage-elephant in the room. And that was it, we were done. The full Scottish press lobby had turned out and only two newspapers were allowed a question. I asked a press officer if there would be a huddle with the PM, as there usually is with politicians and print hacks. 'No, that's it,' I was told. (Image: NQ staff) I was going to ask Starmer about his comments on LBC back in 2013, when he said Israel had the 'right' to withhold water and power from Palestinians. Now that Palestinians are starving to death, and being shot and attacked while trying to reach humanitarian aid and food, I wanted to know if he had any remorse for those words. I wanted to ask if he, as a former humanitarian lawyer, felt disgusted by what was happening in Gaza. I wanted to ask him why his Government wasn't taking any action after more than 50,000 children had been injured or killed in Gaza since October 2023. But, I didn't get the chance.
