Latest news with #AtomicWeaponsEstablishment
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
People urged to sign up for nuclear site alerts
People living near an atomic weapons site are being invited to sign up to emergency text alerts so they can be notified in the event of a radiation emergency. West Berkshire Council said people affected by the Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZ) around the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites in Aldermaston or Burghfield, Berkshire, could sign up for the new service. The authority said the likelihood of an emergency that could impact the public was "extremely low". But it added that it was "essential" to have a quick way to share information if needed. The message alerts will provide instructions on what to do in the event of an emergency, the council said. Currently people in the DEPZ would be notified via landline, but the new system will ensure people would be notified wherever they were, and regardless of whether they had a landline. Details of how to sign up are on the West Berkshire Council website. The scheme is separate from the government emergency alerts. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, and X. AWE Aldermaston: 9,000 jobs safe after investment Atomic weapons site ordered to improve procedures Atomic weapons facility offers apprenticeships AWE West Berkshire Council
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Nuclear-powered submarines, F35A fighter jets, a 'more lethal' army by 2035, and AI: How Starmer will spend billions to beef up Britain's defences to make country 'war-ready'
More submarines, soldiers and drones, along with an airborne nuclear strike capability and the exploration of technologies such as lasers, AI and robotics, are among the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review. These are the key ambitions outlined in the SDR: Army to be 'ten times more lethal' This ambition relies on the harnessing of new technologies and weapon systems, particularly drones. Lethality is difficult to measure and the claim is strong on political rhetoric. Only a couple of months ago, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said the ambition was to double lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030. The new Archer artillery system, the belated introduction of the Ajax vehicle and Challenger 3 tanks will increase lethality… but to what extent? Three forces to be integrated into one The Integrated Force, unveiled as part of the SDR, is not a merger of the Armed Forces, but they will lose much of the traditional independence as they are moulded into a centralised Integrated Force. The SDR suggested the services were 'siloed'. The need for them to train together and prepare for war shoulder to shoulder was essential in the months and years ahead. £15billion boost for nuclear warheads Britain's nuclear deterrent has long been in need of recapitalisation. The £15billion will pay for these weapons to be upgraded or replaced. It will also see the significant modernisation of infrastructure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, supporting more than 9,000 jobs at the Berkshire site. Up to 12 new nuclear attack submarines The as yet uncosted pledge to develop 'up to' 12 new attack submarines has been welcomed by military observers but the first boat is not expected to enter service before the late 2030s. The submarines will support the AUKUS security alliance between the UK, Australia and the United States and will be used to protect the Pacific from Chinese aggression. Over the decades ahead, the boats will replace the Royal Navy's current fleet of seven Astute-class submarines. They will be built at key sites such as BAE in Barrow-in-Furness. Six new factories to make munitions The SDR proposes at least six factories making munitions and energetics such as explosives and propellants for weapons. The SDR recommends creating an 'always on' munitions production capacity in the UK, allowing production to be scaled up at speed if needed. Britain's military warehouses are bare after £5billion in weaponry and munitions was provided for Ukraine since the start of the conflict in 2022. The programme will create more than 1,000 skilled jobs, according to the SDR. Robotics, cyber warfare and AI The review says AI will improve the quality and speed of decision-making and operational effectiveness for Britain's military, its allies… and its enemies. It should be an immediate priority to 'shift towards greater use of autonomy and AI within the UK's conventional forces'. This has shown to be transformational in Ukraine. Chiefs will launch a Defence AI Investment Fund by February 2026. The report warns cyber threats will become harder to mitigate as technology evolves, with government departments, military hardware, communications, increasingly vulnerable. Hardening critical defence functions to cyber-attack is crucial. Directed Energy Weapon systems, such as the UK's DragonFire, a world-leading laser ground to air system being developed at Porton Down, Wiltshire, can save millions of pounds in expenditure on ordnance systems. The review also calls for the MoD to seize the opportunities presented by technologies such as robots and lasers. £4billion expansion of the drone force The Government unveiled a £4billion investment package for drones and autonomous systems. Drones are dominating the conflict in Ukraine and in Russia, following the audacious Ukrainian attack on Russian airfields in Siberia just days ago. They provide proved lethality at minimal financial cost and would spare the lives of British troops because they are not required to engage with the enemy at close proximity. Cheap to produce drones can be effective against 'legacy' military systems worth billions of pounds and are necessary to protect and augment the UK's manned military systems, such as aircraft, helicopters and armoured vehicles. Fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs Britain is exploring the potential return of air-delivered nuclear weapons in collaboration with the United States. America's F-35A Lightning II aircraft is capable of carrying tactical gravity nuclear bombs. The proposal marks the most significant shift in UK nuclear posture since the Cold War. Currently, this country's nuclear deterrent is carried by the Royal Navy's 'bomber' submarines. The air-launched nuclear weapons would carry a much smaller payload. The lower yield B61 munitions are already integrated into US aircraft stationed on continental Europe and could be brought to Britain. Thousands of new long-range weapons At least 7,000 long-range weapons will be made to restock UK military warehouses and to prepare for an extended conflict against an adversary such as Russia. Children taught value of the military Defence chiefs will work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools, by means of a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends. Schools and community-based cadet forces will also be expanded, with an ambition of a 30 per cent rise by 2030 with a view to the UK having 250,000 cadets, many of whom will then go on to join the armed forces. More reservists and investment in them To meet the challenge of engaging in a lengthy conflict, the report identified the need to boost the number of reservists. These part-time personnel, many of whom are former regulars with operational experience, would join full-time troops on the frontline. The report identified the need to increase the size of the UK's Active Reserve forces by at least 20 per cent 'when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s'. The UK has around 25,000 Army reservists, 3,500 Royal Navy and Royal Marines reservists and 3,200 RAF reservists.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The UK is reassessing its nuclear deterrent because of Trump
The first seven weeks of President Trump's second term have unbalanced fundamental strategic assumptions that the United Kingdom and Europe have relied on for decades. It is too early to say with confidence whether these are passing tremors or a more lasting realignment, but we are living in a different world from the one that existed before Jan. 20, and we will be doing so for some time. These geopolitical shifts have been acutely unsettling for Britain. There is a lot of cant about the 'special relationship' between the U.S. and the U.K., which has never been a straightforward bond, nor one of equals. Nevertheless, for more than 80 years, it represented a basic connection from which much else could flow. Suddenly, in 2025, political, diplomatic and military leaders in London are wondering if they can make any assumptions at all. One of the most shocking conversations that can now be heard, even if only in whispers and corners, is about the U.K.'s strategic nuclear deterrent. When the British government decided in 1946 and 1947 to develop its own atomic bomb, the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, arriving late to a cabinet committee meeting, went to the heart of the issue. 'We've got to have this thing,' Bevin said, referring to the bomb. 'I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other foreign secretary of this country to be talked at, or to, by the secretary of state of the United States as I just have in my discussions with Mr. [James F.] Byrnes. We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.' Cynics will tell you that Britain's nuclear weapons are not independent in practice and that America could effectively veto their use. It is a nuanced picture: The Royal Navy has four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of carrying 16 Trident ballistic missiles; each missile can have up to eight nuclear warheads (though the U.K. has only around 225 warheads in total). The submarines, missiles and warheads are all being replaced over the coming years. The Vanguard-class boats, like their eventual successor the Dreadnought class, are built in the U.K., as are the warheads. The Royal Navy crews are wholly independent and under the authority of the British government, and each boat carries handwritten instructions to the captain from the prime minister in case the very worst happens. The warheads are designed and manufactured by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is ultimately owned by the Ministry of Defence. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin makes the Trident missiles, and they are stored and maintained communally with those for the U.S. Navy's Ohio-class submarines at Kings Bay in Georgia. The new Dreadnought-class boats will share a missile compartment design with the American Columbia-class, and the two countries are developing their new warheads in parallel. So the British nuclear deterrent at least relies on American support; if that were for any reason withdrawn, Britain would be seriously compromised. For nearly 70 years, this interdependence gave no cause for concern. The U.S. and Britain signed a mutual defense agreement on nuclear weapons in 1958 — Harold Macmillan, the prime minister who negotiated the treaty with President Dwight Eisenhower, called it 'the Great Prize' — that underpinned the bilateral relationship and allowed the U.K. to punch above its weight globally. There is no immediate reason to think that Trump might seek to disrupt the long-standing alliance. Yet last week, former British ambassador to Washington David Manning told a House of Lords committee that American withdrawal from the relationship or from NATO is no longer 'inconceivable.' 'I think we now have to address them,' he said. 'It doesn't mean that they will happen, but I think they are on the table.' Trump's suspension of military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine has been a wake-up call. The president showed no hesitation in using his military leverage to impose his will. It was not just stopping supplies of arms and equipment — Ukraine lost access to real-time satellite images and signals data, severely limiting its targeting and early warning capabilities. Its U.S.-supplied missile systems simply stopped working. Britain's relationship with the U.S. is, of course, much closer and of longer standing than Washington's bond with Kyiv. Nevertheless, two things are clear. The first is that some of the U.K.'s most important defense capabilities — including the nuclear deterrent, the F-35 Lightning fighter aircraft and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance — are almost impossible to disentangle from the U.S. The second is that, as far as Trump is concerned, history is bunk. Every day, every hour is its own miniature Year Zero, and 70 years of cooperation will mean nothing if the president sees a way to get what he wants. There are some hard yards of demanding diplomacy ahead, and a rupture between Washington and London that could devastate Britain's military power and reach is neither imminent nor likely. But for the first time in generations, it is not inconceivable. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The UK is reassessing its nuclear deterrent because of Trump
The first seven weeks of President Trump's second term have unbalanced fundamental strategic assumptions that the United Kingdom and Europe have relied on for decades. It is too early to say with confidence whether these are passing tremors or a more lasting realignment, but we are living in a different world from the one that existed before Jan. 20, and we will be doing so for some time. These geopolitical shifts have been acutely unsettling for Britain. There is a lot of cant about the 'special relationship' between the U.S. and the U.K., which has never been a straightforward bond, nor one of equals. Nevertheless, for more than 80 years, it represented a basic connection from which much else could flow. Suddenly, in 2025, political, diplomatic and military leaders in London are wondering if they can make any assumptions at all. One of the most shocking conversations that can now be heard, even if only in whispers and corners, is about the U.K.'s strategic nuclear deterrent. When the British government decided in 1946 and 1947 to develop its own atomic bomb, the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, arriving late to a cabinet committee meeting, went to the heart of the issue. 'We've got to have this thing,' Bevin said, referring to the bomb. 'I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other foreign secretary of this country to be talked at, or to, by the secretary of state of the United States as I just have in my discussions with Mr. [James F.] Byrnes. We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.' Cynics will tell you that Britain's nuclear weapons are not independent in practice and that America could effectively veto their use. It is a nuanced picture: The Royal Navy has four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of carrying 16 Trident ballistic missiles; each missile can have up to eight nuclear warheads (though the U.K. has only around 225 warheads in total). The submarines, missiles and warheads are all being replaced over the coming years. The Vanguard-class boats, like their eventual successor the Dreadnought class, are built in the U.K., as are the warheads. The Royal Navy crews are wholly independent and under the authority of the British government, and each boat carries handwritten instructions to the captain from the prime minister in case the very worst happens. The warheads are designed and manufactured by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is ultimately owned by the Ministry of Defence. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin makes the Trident missiles, and they are stored and maintained communally with those for the U.S. Navy's Ohio-class submarines at Kings Bay in Georgia. The new Dreadnought-class boats will share a missile compartment design with the American Columbia-class, and the two countries are developing their new warheads in parallel. So the British nuclear deterrent at least relies on American support; if that were for any reason withdrawn, Britain would be seriously compromised. For nearly 70 years, this interdependence gave no cause for concern. The U.S. and Britain signed a mutual defense agreement on nuclear weapons in 1958 — Harold Macmillan, the prime minister who negotiated the treaty with President Dwight Eisenhower, called it 'the Great Prize' — that underpinned the bilateral relationship and allowed the U.K. to punch above its weight globally. There is no immediate reason to think that Trump might seek to disrupt the long-standing alliance. Yet last week, a former British ambassador to Washington David Manning told a House of Lords committee that American withdrawal from the relationship or from NATO is no longer 'inconceivable.' 'I think we now have to address them,' he said. 'It doesn't mean that they will happen, but I think they are on the table.' Trump's suspension of military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine has been a wake-up call. The president showed no hesitation in using his military leverage to impose his will. It was not just stopping supplies of arms and equipment — Ukraine lost access to real-time satellite images and signals data, severely limiting its targeting and early warning capabilities. Its U.S.-supplied missile systems simply stopped working. Britain's relationship with the U.S. is, of course, much closer and of longer standing than Washington's bond with Kyiv. Nevertheless, two things are clear. The first is that some of the U.K.'s most important defense capabilities — including the nuclear deterrent, the F-35 Lightning fighter aircraft and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance — are almost impossible to disentangle from the U.S. The second is that, as far as Trump is concerned, history is bunk. Every day, every hour is its own miniature Year Zero, and 70 years of cooperation will mean nothing if the president sees a way to get what he wants. There are some hard yards of demanding diplomacy ahead, and a rupture between Washington and London that could devastate Britain's military power and reach is neither imminent nor likely. But for the first time in generations, it is not inconceivable. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
