These are Britain's options for tactical nuclear weapons. We must choose, and act

Telegraph

3 hours ago

As the dust begins to settle on the Strategic Defence Review, Lord Robertson's interview with the Telegraph 's Roland Oliphant answered a number of important issues. However his lordship danced around the critical and pressing issue of re-introducing a tactical nuclear capability to our national deterrent. This is vital against the background of continuous nuclear threats against the UK and Europe from President Putin and the gangsters who advise him. The need to show military strength to Moscow could not be more pressing.
The re-introduction of a tactical nuclear capability would impact Putin's decision-making far more than a few hundred tanks or half a dozen capital ships, but it is not quite so straight forward as strapping a nuclear bomb to a jet or on the end of a cruise missile.
If the UK sticks with our closest ally, probably still the US, we will most likely purchase some F-35A runway stealth jets to go alongside our existing jumpjet F-35Bs. The Bs have the advantage of being able to operate from our carriers, but their vertical thrust equipment means that they lack range and cannot carry larger weapons in their internal bays. The F-35A is also the only 5th generation stealth jet that is certified to carry nuclear weapons – specifically the American B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. This can be carried by German jets, will soon be certified on Italian ones, and would most likely be our tactical option also.
But this may not be a credible enough option to effectively deter Putin. Though the F-35 is paraded as the stealthiest thing in the sky it is not actually invisible to radar and it might be shot down before it could get above its target to drop its B61-12s. This brings up the need to be able to knock out Russian air defences in order to make our tactical nukes (or other air power) effective. Air defence is nowadays hugely important and has been possibly the defining issue in the Ukraine war. In my day, you became an air defence officer – a 'cloud-puncher' – if no other path was open. Today the air defence officers are the first pick.
Air defences, even modern and powerful Russian ones such as the S-400, can be suppressed: we have seen Israel do this against Iran's S-300s before bombing some of Iran's nuclear research establishments this and last year. Recent Ukrainian attacks, most especially the strike last week on the Russian military air base at Bryansk show that Russian AD is not as water-tight as the Kremlin would have us believe. Nonetheless it might be a big ask to get F-35s almost on top of their target in order to deliver a free-falling gravity bomb like the B61-12.
The other option possibly available to the UK is to do what the French have done: rather than a free-falling nuke, France has the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMPA) supersonic cruise missile, which can be released from its carrying jet hundreds of miles from the target. The ASMPA is supersonic, making it harder to knock down than a normal subsonic cruise missile.
Our missile making capability is joint with France and Europe anyway, so if we went down this route we could partner with the French, who already know what they're doing in this area. Our existing subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile is actually French too – the warhead is the only British part. It has been put to good use against Russia in Ukrainian hands, though it appears to need help – either US defence-suppression technology or special forces operations against Russian defence radars – to be fully effective.
It could be argued that it is now Monsieur Macron and France who are our closest allies, as President Trump seems to shun us 'pathetic' Europeans. This could be a viable way forward.
Even I, a soldier, can recognise that reintroducing a tactical nuclear air delivered capability is not an insignificant task. It is complicated by our current lack of any AWACS radar planes and other specialist defence-suppression equipment. Nonetheless we have been in the nuclear deterrence game almost since the beginning and our Atomic Weapons Establishment can at least furnish us with the key: the actual warhead. We might alternatively make a beginning by developing a home-grown nuclear tip for our stock of US-made, submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise weapons: the Tomahawk was originally developed to deliver nukes, so we know it can do that job.
One thing I am sure of is the need. As a former commander of the UK and Nato's chemical and nuclear defence forces, I know the overwhelming impact that tactical nuclear weapons can have on the battlefield, and the huge advantage they give to an aggressor against somebody who does not possess these weapons.
We must be ready to deal with the Russian bear. Putin will not be deterred by 12 more submarines in the ocean in the next decade, and Dad's Army covering the White Cliffs perhaps sooner – useful and vital as these things will be.
As Uncle Sam backs away from the fight, the prospect of the UK joining France in fielding a tactical capability which could cripple a Russian army in the field would likely get Putin talking peace quicker than most other threats.
For 80 years there has been nuclear equilibrium in Europe, but this has become unbalanced. It is the major metric in Putin's decision making, psychologically if not physically. It isn't very important which tactical nuclear option we choose – F-35A, a French style standoff weapon, or Tomahawk. What is important is that we choose at least one and get it into service.