Nuke-laden jets, new submarines, £1bn for bio labs and the 'Blitz spirit': How Britain is readying itself as chilling report warns country should 'actively prepare' for war on British soil
The UK is buying a fleet of nuke-laden jets, building new attack submarines, establishing a network of bio labs, and reviving the 'Blitz spirit' amid growing threats.
As Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer attends a NATO summit in The Hague, it was confirmed Britain is set to buy 12 F35-A fighter jets.
The £80million jets, a variant of the F35-Bs the UK already uses, can carry conventional weapons but can also be equipped with nuclear bombs.
They are expected to carry American B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, capable of killing thousands.
It follows the recent announcement that the UK will build up to 12 new attack submarines.
The new conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines will replace the seven-strong Astute class from the late 2030s onwards.
The bolstering of Britain's military kit comes as a chilling new report outlined the growing threats faced by the UK.
The national security strategy, published yesterday, warned of a direct attack on British soil.
'For the first time in many years, we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario,' it said.
In his foreword to the report, Sir Keir set out an 'historic commitment' to spending 5 per cent of Britain's GDP on national security by 2035.
This is as has been agreed by NATO leaders at this week's summit.
The national security strategy also set out how £1billion is being invested in a new network of 'national biosecurity centres'.
These willl bolster the UK's defences against biological incidents, accidents and attacks.
The report included a call for Brits to revive the 'Blitz spirit' as it warned 'the years ahead will test the UK' in the face of 'radical uncertainty' across the world.
'We do not need to look too far into our history for an example of a whole-of-society effort, motivated by a collective will to keep each other safe,' it added.
'We can mobilise that spirit again and use it both for our national security and the rebuilding of our country.'
Ministers said the UK now finds itself in 'an era in which we face confrontation with those who are threatening our security'.
The report highlighted Russian cyber attacks and sabotage against the UK, Iranian hostile activity on British soil, and other adversaries 'laying the foundations for future conflict'.
This includes them 'positioning themselves to move quickly to cause major disruption to our energy and or supply chains,' the strategy said.
The strategy aims to protect the UK at home and abroad, and also invest more in artificial intelligence (AI) and defence.
Sir Keir said the UK is 'facing daily challenges on the home front' with Britain targeted by 'very, very frequent and very, very serious' cyberattacks.
The PM, speaking to Sky News at a NATO summit in The Hague on Tuesday, added: 'We have to guard properly against those threats, and we will do so.'
While the national security strategy outlined the threat from Russia, Iran and North Korea, it also highlighted the 'challenge' of China as a global actor.
Sir Keir said 'every element of society' must be mobilised towards a 'collective national effort' to keep the UK safe.
In a foreword to the national security strategy, the PM said: 'Russian aggression menaces our continent.
'Strategic competition is intensifying. Extremist ideologies are on the rise.
'Technology is transforming the nature of both war and domestic security. Hostile state activity takes place on British soil.
'It is an era of radical uncertainty and we must navigate it with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest.
'That is what keeping the British people safe demands.'
Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden told MPs on Tuesday the whole country must now be 'clear-eyed and hard-edged' about the threats it faces.
In a statement to the House of Commons, he said the strategy would aim to deliver 'three crucial things'.
The first of these is to 'protect security at home', by bolstering the borders and making the UK 'more resilient to future threats'.
Ministers are stepping up calls for the whole of society to become more resilient and plan to carry out a cross-government exercise of how to deal with crises – such as a future pandemic – later this year.
The UK must also work to 'promote strength abroad' with allies in order to defend their 'collective security', Mr McFadden said.
The third step Mr McFadden set out was for the UK to increase its 'sovereign and asymmetric capabilities', including by rebuilding its defence industries and building 'advantages in new frontier technologies' like AI.
China is a 'sophisticated and persistent threat' but freezing the UK's relations with Beijing is 'not an option', Foreign Secretary David Lammy told MPs later.
In his own statement to the Commons on Tuesday afternoon, Mr Lammy outlined the findings of the Government's examination of the UK-China relationship.
The 'China audit' recommended increasing Britain's 'resilience and readiness' towards the Asian superpower and the Government's ability to engage with Beijing.
As part of the national security strategy, a summary of the audit set out how 'China's espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years'.
But it also noted how ministers are seeking a 'trade and investment relationship' with China to boost the UK economy.
Mr Lammy told MPs that in the past decade China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world's second largest economy.
Together with Hong Kong, it is the UK's third largest trading partner, the Foreign Secretary added.
'Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all,' he said. 'China's power is an inescapable fact.'
Mr Lammy said the audit painted a 'complex picture' but 'the UK's approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we wish it to be'.
The Foreign Secretary faced claims that the Government was going 'cap in hand' to China to bail out the British economy.
Tory shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said: 'It has taken the Government a year to produce this audit, which seemingly fails to set out any kind of serious strategic framework.
'I think it's fair to say we know why: because the Government – and in fact the Foreign Secretary has touched on this – has gone cap in hand to China to bail out its terrible handling of the British economy.
'It is setting up its closer economic ties with China while knowing very well that British businesses here are struggling, not just when it comes to competing against China, but actually struggling to absorb the weight of Labour's own regulatory costs in this country.'
Mr Lammy was also forced to assure MPs that there are 'no grubby deals' with China on any issue, including the proposed 'super-embassy' in London.
Former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith told the Foreign Secretary: 'I'll give him a quick audit now of exactly what should have been.
'China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China Sea, it's having massive disputes with the Philippines, genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting, transnational repression, taxes Hong Kong dissidents here, Hong Kong dissidents under threat constantly, cyber-attacks on the UK, supports Myanmar in their oppressive military regime, supports Russian's invasion of Ukraine, it also supports North Korea and Iran and has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, it has arrested Jimmy Lai, it has sanctions on UK MPs and it thieves all the IPs on private companies.
'What a record to balance, what? Against some potential trade?'
He added: 'In the course of this embassy decision, it was said quite clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal of Tower Hamlets (Council), unless they received assurances from the UK Government.
'Can he now tell me that they have not received any assurances, or have they received private assurances that they will get what they want and get this embassy?'
Mr Lammy responded: 'Let me just express respect for (Sir Iain's) experience in relation to the China threat and also that he is subject to sanctions that I have consistently raised with China, noting that recently it lifted sanctions against members of the European Parliament and I pressed them recently to do the same.
'Let me assure him that there are no grubby deals on any issues and certainly not in relation to the embassy – and I reject any suggestion of anything other.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Iran SCRAPS co-operation with nuclear watchdog - banning inspectors from enrichment facilities as world fears regime could step up bomb program in wake of US strikes
Iranian lawmakers have voted in favour of suspending cooperation with the United Nations ' nuclear watchdog after US and Israeli warplanes battered nuclear facilities across the country over 12 days of strikes. 'The International Atomic Energy Agency, which refused to even marginally condemn the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, put its international credibility up for auction,' Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said. He went on to announce that 'the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of the nuclear facilities is guaranteed.' The bill is said to be subject to approval from the Supreme National Security Council. If it is passed, Tehran will bar IAEA inspectors from carrying out inspections at any nuclear sites. US President Donald Trump insists that bunker-busting bombs and tomahawk missiles 'totally obliterated' Iran 's nuclear facilities and erased the Islamic Republic's chances of building a bomb. But despite his triumphant bluster, Iran still likely boasts significant stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and could well have other facilities lying in wait to reach purity levels required to fashion nuclear warheads. IAEA Rafael Grossi sent a letter to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to propose a meeting and urge the Islamic Republic to cooperate. 'Resuming cooperation with the IAEA is key to a successful diplomatic agreement to finally resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities,' Grossi said in a statement. 'I've written to Foreign Minister Araghchi stressing the importance of us working together and proposing to meet soon.' He said IAEA inspectors have remained in Iran and are ready to start working again. 'As I have repeatedly stated – before and during the conflict – nuclear facilities should never be attacked due to the very real risk of a serious radiological accident,' Grossi said. Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced that 'the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of the nuclear facilities is guaranteed.' Voting to suspend cooperation with the IAEA would be a violation of Iran's responsibilities as part of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But there are fears Tehran may seek to pull out of the agreement in light of the US and Israeli strikes. 'The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows member states to withdraw (with a three month notice period) 'if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country',' said Darya Dolzikova, Senior Research Fellow for Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the RUSI think tank. 'The events of the last week could arguably give Tehran the justification it needs to that end. A withdrawal from the NPT would likely see the international community lose all visibility of the Iranian nuclear programme and could - long-term - become a catalyst for broader proliferation in the region.' In May, the IAEA, reported that Iran had accumulated more than 400 kilograms (900 lbs) of uranium enriched to 60%. This is already enough to create an atomic weapon like those that laid waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Such bombs are too heavy and cumbersome for Iran to deploy effectively. But achieving the 90% enrichment required to produce modern nuclear devices small and light enough to mount to any one of Tehran's vast array of missiles could take mere weeks. As far as anyone knows, that HEU is still safely squirrelled away, safe from American and Israeli bombs - not to mention tonnes more uranium enriched to levels below 60%, but still far in advance of the 3-5% required for civilian energy use. At present, there is no telling whether Trump's 'Operation Midnight Hammer' was as effective as the President claims - particularly at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, where enrichment centrifuges are hidden beneath 90 metres of rock and concrete. There are fears that Tehran may well have several other secret facilities that remain unknown to Israel 's Mossad and the CIA. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, claims he moved the country's uranium stockpile to a secret location - a belief echoed by Israeli intelligence officials. IAEA chief Grossi told the New York Times his team of UN inspectors had seen the uranium about a week before Israel began its attacks. HEU is stable and dense, meaning it can be easily dispersed and stored to avoid detection. Grossi said the stockpile seen by IAEA inspectors was stored in special casks small enough to fit in the trunks of about 10 cars. He also said he believed the material had been moved. Satellite images published by US defence contractor Maxar Technologies showed 16 trucks leaving Iran's Fordow nuclear facility on June 19, three days before Operation Midnight Hammer. Further images reveal a flurry of activity prior to the trucks' departure involving bulldozers and security convoys that were likely reinforcing and sealing Fordow's entrances and evacuating sensitive documents. Now, no one outside of Iran knows exactly where its HEU stockpile is located, and Tehran's options are endless. The canisters could be stored in Iran's network of tunnels and caves, brought to Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases, or concealed at civilian facilities such as universities and research centres or even telecoms. They could even be kept on the move in trucks. Analysts largely agree that no amount of bombing could totally eradicate Iran's nuclear programme, and have pointed out that the American and Israeli campaign could have the opposite effect. Dr Andreas Krieg, an expert in Middle East security and senior lecturer at King's College London's School of Security Studies, told MailOnline: 'Going after Iran's nuclear programme could reinforce Tehran's belief that a nuclear deterrent is not only justified but essential for regime survival'. 'Rather than halting Iran's nuclear trajectory, the strikes may serve as a vindication of the logic that drives Iran's long-term nuclear ambition - deterrence through capability,' he said. Dr Andreas Boehm, international law expert at the University of St. Gallen, was even more forthright. 'After the experiences of Ukraine, Libya and now Iran on the one hand, and North Korea on the other, there can be no other conclusion than that only the possession of nuclear weapons offers protection against attack,' he said. 'For this or any subsequent Iranian regime, the path of negotiation is no longer an option. It will now work even more resolutely towards acquiring a nuclear bomb.' Some Western leaders appear to share this view. French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters today he felt there was an 'increased' risk that Iran would attempt to enrich uranium secretly in the wake of US-Israeli attacks.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is banning Palestine Action likely to achieve anything?
As things stand, next Tuesday the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will proscribe the Palestine Action organisation (PA), its members and its supporters, under terror laws. The ban comes after a series of attacks on defence industry establishments and military bases, as well as large demonstrations. It's a move that is controversial and has itself provoked further protest. With the prosecution of Liam Og O hAnnaidh, a member of the Irish hip-hop group Kneecap, on terrorism charges, the meaning of 'terrorism' does seem to be getting stretched... What is Palestine Action? In the organisation's words: 'Palestine Action is a direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime. Using disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians.' What's the problem? They recently broke into RAF Brize Norton – with surprising ease – and set about vandalising, indeed sabotaging, air force planes, spraying red paint into the engine bays. No one was hurt, but it was the fourth such incident involving the group. Their activities, arguably, go beyond the usual definition of peaceful protest, and obviously they themselves advocate 'direct action'. It aids a potential enemy, for sure, because it hinders the UK's ability to defend itself, but it doesn't seem to fit the usual template of terrorism, which involves intentional injury to civilians (though the law includes damage to property alone as terrorism). PA's proscription places them in the same uncomfortable company as the IRA, al-Qaeda, Isis, the military arm of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Wagner Group, and the fascist National Action (but not, curiously, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). On the other hand, the law as it stands is very broad, and counts the 'glorification' of terror acts as being in support of terrorism and therefore unlawful – hence the number of people arrested at protest rallies. The definition even includes wordless images, so destroying planes might well fall within its scope. Maybe it's not so strange, then, to see PA banned. So why are they being banned? There are two possible further explanations. First, that there are things about Palestine Action known to the Security Service and the Home Office that would justify such a move, but are not, or can't be placed, in the public domain. Briefings, for example, by Home Office personnel to the effect that Palestine Action has been funded by Iran – a suggestion that is firmly denied by PA – indicate that there might be other issues. Or it could just be a smear. The second is that it comes down to raw politics. The government doesn't want to look weak or biased in the way that it regulates such activities – the 'two tier justice' jibe. Also, at some point in the future, some PA direct action exercise could go wrong, cause casualties (to PA, military personnel, police or the public), and/or represent a more serious threat to national security. Cooper doesn't want to have to look as though she failed to take action against PA in time (and be forced to resign). What else might be done? There are numerous laws covering trespass, criminal damage and the like (some would add treason), and indeed, many very wide ones concerning terrorism that don't necessitate banning PA. These can be applied to anyone, in a proscribed organisation or not. The home secretary plainly doesn't deem them sufficient, but some other course, short of using terror legislation, could be pursued. Soon, all PA members or 'supporters' will be subject to the threat of imprisonment for up to 14 years. What will happen? Defiant, passionate, even fanatical by nature, PA people may well continue to organise demonstrations, break into arms factories, and take direct action, and will relish getting arrested, jailed – and becoming martyrs. Some MPs may join them, which will complicate matters. It's also difficult for the security services to track terrorist organisations' membership lists and supporters, and to prove an offence. In other words, individuals and small informal groups of people supporting the Palestinian cause, as they see it, could carry on regardless and undeterred, under the Palestine Action banner or not, and some will no doubt welcome getting caught red-handed.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump says he will look at giving Ukraine more Patriot missiles as he calls on Putin to end war
President Donald Trump said he is considering sending more Patriot missile systems to Ukraine and isn't ruling out a new defense assistance package as he continued to voice newfound frustration with Russian president Vladimir Putin's refusal to come to the negotiating table in an effort to bring the three-year-old war he started to an end. Trump, who has surrounded himself with isolationist-minded advisers who've publicly opposed continued support for Kyiv, said 'we'll see what happens' when asked whether the U.S. would contribute anything on top of the $8 billion pledged by NATO allies as part of the 32-member bloc's continued support for Ukraine's war effort. Speaking at a press conference on the heels of a closed-door sit-down with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the president said there has been 'a lot of spirit' in Ukraine's fight against the invasion Putin ordered in February 2022, touching off what has been the largest and bloodiest land war on the European continent since the defeat of Nazi Germany in April 1945. Trump also appeared to shift blame for the continuation and escalation of the war to Putin, marking a dramatic reversal from how he characterized the situation during a contentious Oval Office meeting with Zelensky earlier this year. 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time,' he said.
