A new nuclear chapter or old ghosts in modern skies?

By Leya Hines

As international relations are being increasingly shaped by the politics of force rather than diplomacy, the UK’s purchase of 12 nuclear capable F-35A fighter jets seems on trend. The move will reintroduce a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force (RAF) for the first time since the end of the Cold War, a symbolic shift, yet, weak in strategic necessity, raising the question, are Cold War logics helpful in a warming world? On paper, the purchase of F 35A fighter jets adds a tactical flexibility to the UK’s existing nuclear capabilities. The RAF would have a nuclear role and be equipped with US supplied bombs which will be stored on British soil. Nevertheless, the reality of British, albeit American made, jets and American bombs working in tandem severely blurs where sovereignty ends and dependency begins.

By agreeing to this arrangement, the UK is in a system where control over nuclear weapons is shared with the US, further tying British nuclear capability to a US foreign policy that is extremely volatile under Trump’s second presidency. This seems to be a somewhat strategically questionable decision, especially as what if Britain's strategic interests diverge from America’s, as they have recently with support for Ukraine? In sharing operational autonomy in nuclear weapons, the UK buys into a system of total deference, which they already have with Trident, which limits sovereignty, independence and dignity.

Nuclear bombs are a blunt response to these modern nuanced threats and investment into nuclear would be better spent on these modern issues. 

The alliance with the US certainly delivers military power but power against whom? In the case of Russia’s war in Ukraine, UK defense policy seems stable with financial and military support at its core . Yet, the government continues to stand behind Israel as it bombs Palestine with devastating effects and tactics that the UN has found to be "consistent with genocide". The Israeli government has been condemned by humanitarian actors and a significant portion of the British public with polls suggest growing public discomfort for the UK’s position and increasing support for Palestine. This gap between public sentiment and government policy echoes 2003, when the UK joined the US led invasion of Iraq despite domestic opposition. As bombs continue to fall on Palestinian civilians and human casualties increase in both conflicts on either side, Britain's commitment to increased defence spending appears to be worrisome.

These fighter-jet purchases, themselves, come with a high cost monetarily, environmentally and ethically. The UK has committed itself to set its national security budget to 5% by 2035. This increase in military spending comes with sacrifices. The purchase of the jets as well as the infrastructure required to store nuclear weapons is a huge financial cost, particularly at a time where domestic politics is suffering with a continued cost of living crisis, increased defense spending also seems to cost UK citizens and with increased national security budget these investments seem frankly unnecessary.

The UK already possesses its own independent deterrent in the Trident submarine fleet. The addition of a tactical RAF nuclear capability is operationally distinct yet strategically weak. If Britain's unclear enemies were to ever use nuclear weapons, would a dozen extra jets alter the outcome or simply escalate the destruction? And would this escalation be worth the high cost it brings with it? When placed amongst austerity in the UK’s domestic politics this cost is too high to justify. Anyway, the entire justification for this is dependent on deterrence, a realist notion used in the Cold War but, the world has developed significantly since then with cyberattacks, disinformation, and AI that can now dominate the security environment. Nuclear bombs are a blunt response to these modern nuanced threats and investment into nuclear would be better spent on these modern issues. 

It is clear that this is not a new nuclear chapter but rather old ghosts in new, very dangerous skies and that the UK government should be wary of expanding its nuclear deterrent.

The return of nuclear weapons to British skies will be considered by some as a show of strength and power in a world of rising conflict. Symbolism, however, is not a substitute for strategy. The deeper question is not just what kind of weapons Britain possesses but, what system of international relations the UK is adhering to. One aligned with the US even when it contradicts public values? One that returns to Cold War strategies in a world of more complex threats? As humans die and alliances solidify, Britain must again ask itself whether security is best served by investing in weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that this is not a new nuclear chapter but rather old ghosts in new, very dangerous skies and that the UK government should be wary of expanding its nuclear deterrent.

Image: Wikimedia Commons