UK Eyes Greater Nuclear Role in Europe Amid Doubts About US
The UK envisages taking an enhanced role in NATO's nuclear deterrence amid doubts surrounding the US commitment to the alliance, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledges to make Britain 'war-ready' to counter Russian aggression in Europe.
The government is exploring new capabilities such as fighter jets able to fire nuclear weapons as part of plans to boost Britain's nuclear contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters of national security.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Instead of nuclear weapons, give Poland a nuclear umbrella
As the Polish electorate picks the country's next president, questions about its nuclear future persist. Russia's nuclear threats and insertion of nuclear arms into Belarus could create the impression that Poland is more exposed. In response, Poland could seek its own nuclear weapons, become a host for NATO weapons or turn to France and the United Kingdom for protection. In March, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Poland must pursue 'capabilities' related to nuclear weapons, and Andrzej Duda, the current president, has urged that U.S. nuclear arms be based in the country. Poland's seeking to become nuclear armed would upset the West, but the other two options could be viable. For over a decade, President Vladimir Putin has heightened nuclear threats to Europe. In 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, he said he was 'ready' to bring nuclear arms into play. In 2018, Putin displayed on large video screens a simulated nuclear attack on Florida and a 'super torpedo' that could render coastal cities uninhabitable. In 2019, a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile led the U.S. to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, with the support of NATO allies. In 2023, Russia began moving Iskander missiles into Belarus, and last June, the two states conducted joint nuclear exercises. In November, Putin said he had lowered the threshold for nuclear use. NATO has called Russia's nuclear rhetoric 'dangerous' and said it was considering whether to put more stored missiles on standby. (The U.S. has no nuclear-armed missiles in Europe.) These modest responses could lead the Kremlin to wonder about the strength of the nuclear umbrella over NATO allies. U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe are a visible expression of the umbrella. They are stored in five NATO states: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Under the alliance's 'nuclear sharing' program, the bombs would be delivered by allied aircraft (stealthy F-35s, except F-16s for Turkey). Only the U.S. could authorize nuclear release. Like West Germany in the Cold War, Poland today is the main NATO ally on the Central Front. In the Soviet era, NATO judged that U.S. nuclear-armed forces in West Germany were vital to deterring and defending against potential aggression. Similar logic is relevant to Poland today. Poland and its nuclear-armed allies might choose among three options. It could try to acquire its own nuclear arms. Poland might join NATO's nuclear sharing program as a basing country. And Warsaw might seek nuclear protection from France and the U.K. The West would oppose Poland obtaining its own nuclear weapons. This would violate its obligations as a non-nuclear weapon state under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. With 191 adherents, it is a centerpiece of the global security order. Thus, the West assisted Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in eliminating their leftover Soviet strategic arms and associated infrastructure, and the international community has condemned Iran and North Korea's nuclear quests. Polish acquisition of its own nuclear forces could also spur other states in complex security environments to seek nuclear arsenals. This could increase dangers to them, from deficiencies in warning, command and control, or survivable basing, and to neighbors through collateral damage. The second option, becoming a basing country in NATO's nuclear sharing program, has much to recommend it. Most importantly, it could reduce the risks that Russian leaders might misperceive Poland as vulnerable or unprotected. Poland flies F-35s, which could be configured to deliver B-61 bombs. Unrefueled, Poland's F-35s could penetrate deeper into Russia than aircraft from some other allies. Poland has sufficient geographic expanse for a survivable force. Russia's nuclear threats and full-scale war on Ukraine justify NATO's suspending its 1997 assurance of no 'intention, plan, or reason' to place nuclear arms in new member states. At that time, NATO said it and Russia did 'not consider each other adversaries.' The security environment today is far different. A third option has been gaining attention, in part because of uncertainty about the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Duda has voiced a recurring interest in a French nuclear umbrella. The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for nuclear talks with France and the U.K. Past French attempts to develop concerted deterrence with Germany have been challenging. Unlike France, the UK participates in NATO's Nuclear Planning Group and has 'assigned' its nuclear forces to the defense of the alliance. Poland benefits from this. France has a more ambiguous role in Europe's nuclear deterrence. While France has long made clear that its vital interests have a European dimension, Paris is not interested in offering a nuclear sharing program similar to NATO's. Providing nuclear reassurance to Poland could boost financial costs. Perhaps Poland could assist the French nuclear aviation mission, such as with training, refueling, or post-attack recovery. Given these obstacles, some have suggested the creation of a French-U.K. joint venture to reassure Poland. A foundation exists. Since the Chequers Declaration of 1995, France and the U.K. have deepened nuclear cooperation. Poland could decide to pursue both NATO nuclear sharing and protection from France and the U.K. From a military perspective, combined efforts might complicate Russian targeting and be a hedge against political disruptions. William Courtney is an adjunct senior fellow at RAND and professor of policy analysis at the RAND School of Public Policy. In a career in the foreign service, he was deputy U.S. negotiator in U.S.-Soviet Defense and Space talks in Geneva and ambassador in negotiations there to implement the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hamas is the cause of Gaza's predicament
The situation in Gaza is 'intolerable and appalling', the Prime Minister told MPs. Whose fault is that? Sir Keir Starmer laid the blame at Israel's door, whereas just a few months ago culpability would have been attached to Hamas. The terror group has got precisely what it wanted: international opinion has turned against Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu must take steps to make sure they are not aiding and abetting this. He and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must avoid turning a just cause – the defence of their homeland from the murderous predations of its enemies – into a diplomatic coup for the perpetrators. Hamas thinks nothing of using hospitals, schools or other civilian buildings to house its command posts, knowing they will be targeted by the IDF seeking to extirpate the group's command structure. Inevitably civilians are killed, but the terrorist group considers them expendable. Now, Hamas is using the efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians to further its media campaign against Israel. It is no longer able to control the delivery of food and other emergency supply because Jerusalem has cut the United Nations out of the loop. The reason for this is that when the UN ran the convoys they were intercepted by Hamas which then sold the goods at marked up prices. Israel's attempts to stop this has led to riots at aid posts, with the IDF firing on queues. This is reported by the BBC with little in the way of context. Of course, it is appalling to see civilians die in these circumstances and a ceasefire deal on terms set out by the US – accepted by Israel but rejected by Hamas – would be the best way forward. But such an outcome is increasingly difficult to achieve when the BBC's narrative that Israel is always in the wrong permeates into the political discourse. The Trump administration has criticised the Corporation for accepting Hamas's word at face value, something BBC chiefs deny. Israel is also furious with what it considers to be biased reporting. The BBC invariably reports the worst of Israel, only to add the caveat that it cannot verify reports because it is denied access to Gaza. This makes it naively vulnerable to Hamas propaganda, which it seems all too ready to swallow. There is a way around this, which is for Israel to lift its ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza independently to let them see for themselves. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors
Three words sum up the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer's bold pledge to make the UK's Armed Forces 'battle ready' in the wake of the latest defence review. They have nothing to do with enhancing the defence of the realm. Time and again the ambitious programme, set out in the 144-page report, to revitalise our military after more than a decade of woeful decline is undermined by the catch-all caveat 'when funding allows'. Thus, while the review concedes that the Army, which is now smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars, could do with increasing its manpower, the modest uplift proposed by the review will only be implemented if the relevant funds become available. The procurement of other equipment deemed vital to safeguarding our national defence is subjected to the same budgetary constraints. While the review argues that the previous government's decision to cut the number of operational E-7 early warning and control aircraft from five to three needs to be reversed, this, too, will only happen 'when funding allows'. Boeing's E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are deemed to be a vital component in controlling the battlespace during armed conflict with their advanced radar systems, and would be a vital asset in the event of war breaking out with a hostile country like Russia. Yet, despite the review issuing a dire warning about the worsening 'geopolitical context', there is a distinct lack of urgency about the Government's claim to make the country an 'armour-clad nation'. So, when Starmer talks, as he did when announcing the conclusions of Labour's Strategic Defence Review, about making Britain 'safer and stronger', the truth is that he is simply indulging in wishful thinking. This is a Prime Minister who, only a few weeks ago, was talking enthusiastically about putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of his 'coalition of the willing'. But he knew full well that the UK does not have the military resources necessary to sustain such a mission. Starmer's bold plan to dispatch a European 'reassurance' force to Ukraine has now been quietly watered down to a more realistic support mission for the Ukrainian military. The Starmer's empty rhetoric regarding his grand ambitions for the defence review is likely to suffer a similar fate. It will inevitably become clear that, despite his boast that he is overseeing 'the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War', the actual funding being made available is negligible. Starmer's smoke and mirrors defence pledges are part of a long and undistinguished tradition of British governments making ambitious spending commitments for the Armed Forces they have absolutely no chance of fulfilling. Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, for example, made much political capital out of his claim that he had raised defence spending above the minimum 2 per cent of GDP level required by Nato. Closer examination of the figures showed this could only be met by 'efficiency savings' in defence spending that were unachievable. It was the same with Rishi Sunak's pledge last year to raise UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent. The move was immediately compromised by the qualification that such an increase would only be possible 'as soon as the economic conditions allow'. Starmer's policy of over-promising and under-delivering on defence spending is very much in this dishonourable tradition. But the Prime Minister's difficulty is compounded by the fact that the global-threat environment is becoming more dangerous by the day. So his hollow pledges will come under far greater scrutiny than those made by his predecessors. This is particularly the case where the UK's Nato allies are concerned. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has already fired the first shot, over Starmer's ambivalence about when the money will be made available to fund his rearmament programme. Rutte warns that Nato will require the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence as part of his plan to 'equalise' European defence spending with the US. Starmer has indicated his ultimate 'ambition' is to raise spending to 3.5 per cent by 2034, but has given no clear explanation about how to achieve this figure. As one of the main premises of his defence review is that the UK should focus on being a 'Nato first' military force, failing to meet Rutte's ambitious target could prove to be deeply embarrassing. Starmer will need to take care that his empty defence pledges do not further inflame the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. They already believe that the Europeans are taking the US for a ride when it comes to defence spending. Nato's European member states are likely to come under intense American scrutiny at the summit being held in The Hague later this month. If the Trump administration concludes that Starmer's boasts about increasing UK defence spending do not add up, the Prime Minister could find himself in for a very tough ride indeed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
