UK Nuclear Programme Faces Scrutiny Amid Rising Global Tensions

Britain’s Trident programme, based in Scotland, is made up of four nuclear submarines.

Undated handout photo provided by the Ministry of Defence of Vanguard class nuclear submarine HMS Vengeance in Gare Loch, after departing HM Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, Scotland, to go on sea trials on Feb. 24, 2025. Barry Wheeler/Ministry of Defence/PA

As global tensions escalate, particularly the ongoing war in Ukraine, the UK’s nuclear deterrent—touted by Westminster as the “ultimate guarantor” of national security—is facing renewed scrutiny.

Questions are emerging over its strategic independence, financial sustainability, and growing political opposition, especially from the Scottish Government.

Since coming into power, Labour has expressed a “total and unshakable” commitment to both NATO and the UK’s nuclear deterrent, marking a significant departure from the disarmament stance of former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

In March, Defence Secretary John Healey reaffirmed this position, calling Britain’s nuclear arsenal “the ultimate guarantor to any would-be adversary” and emphasising that the UK should “not fight shy” of its status as an independent nuclear power.

Independence or Reliance?

While the UK claims operational independence over its nuclear deterrent, its remains dependent on the United States when it comes to missile maintenance and warhead development.

The UK has maintained a continuous at-sea deterrent since the 1960s, currently deployed via four Vanguard-class submarines armed with U.S.-made Trident II D5 missiles.

The submarines are based at Faslane, near Glasgow, and are currently being replaced by new Dreadnought submarines being built at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria.

Though launch decisions rest solely with the British prime minister, several aspects of the Trident system depend on U.S. infrastructure and maintenance.

Under the terms of the 1982 Polaris Sales Agreement, the UK purchases missiles and associated technologies from the United States.

These missiles must periodically return to Kings Bay, Georgia, for servicing by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, the UK acquires aeroshells for warhead construction from the United States.

Samuel Rafanell-Williams, communications officer for the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, argued that this interdependence undermines the notion of strategic autonomy.

“The UK’s submarines regularly visit a port in Georgia, USA, to have these missiles loaded and serviced. The notion that the UK has an ‘independent’ nuclear capability is therefore a fantasy,” he told The Epoch Times.

Renewed Agreements and Forward Planning

In July 2024, the UK and United States renewed their long-standing Mutual Defence Agreement, which now runs indefinitely.

The deal allows both countries to keep sharing nuclear technology, materials, and knowhow, including in weapons systems and submarine propulsion.

While it strengthens defence ties, it also raises concerns about how much the UK depends on the United States for its nuclear deterrent.

HMS Artful an Astute-class nuclear-powered fleet submarine is manoeuvred at His Majesty's Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, Scotland, on March 4, 2025. Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

The Defence Nuclear Command Paper, published in March 2024 under the Conservatives, laid out plans to modernise its deterrent capabilities.

Labour’s own national security review will look at how to strengthen the armed forces and the UK’s nuclear and cyber capabilities in what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described as a “more dangerous world.”

Since the review’s launch in July 2024, the government has pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, with a long-term goal of reaching 3 percent within the decade.

Senior fellow at Hudson Institute Ryan Tully has proposed diversifying beyond the current submarine-only deterrent to enhance flexibility and resilience.

“Currently, the UK relies solely on its submarine-based Trident missiles. While this system has proven effective, diversifying the nuclear arsenal to include a second delivery method could enhance flexibility and resilience. The original Polaris Sales Agreement could serve as a model for future engagement and additional capability.

“The stakes are high, and the world will be watching closely. Translating the new prime minister’s rhetoric on nuclear modernisation into action and resources will help ensure the continued effectiveness of the Western deterrent and the stability of the transatlantic alliance for decades to come,” he wrote in a commentary.

The Cost Question

Even as defence spending rises, financial pressures persist. In a cost-saving move, the government cancelled six defence projects last month.

The Dreadnought programme alone is expected to cost £31 billion, with an additional £10 billion contingency fund, 20 percent of which had already been accessed by March 2023.

Total spending on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, which includes all nuclear programmes, is forecast to hit £117.8 billion over the next decade.

Despite this, a nearly £8 billion funding gap remains, raising concerns within the Public Accounts Committee about its manageability.

Former defence procurement minister James Cartlidge told Parliament last year that while the Dreadnought programme remains within budget, inflation has increased cost forecasts.

“Inflation has remained higher than expected for an extended period and has had an adverse impact on the cost forecasts for the programme compared with the forecasts from a year earlier,” he said.

Political Opposition in Scotland

The Scottish National Party (SNP), leading in Holyrood, remains firmly opposed to the UK’s nuclear deterrent, having pledged to remove Trident from Scottish territory in the event of independence.

The division was on display during a Commons exchange on March 3, when Starmer criticised the SNP’s stance.

First Minister John Swinney during First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh, Scotland, on Oct. 31, 2024. Jane Barlow/PA Wire

Responding to comments from First Minister John Swinney, who called Trident an “inhibitor” to addressing current military challenges and urged redirecting funds towards conventional weaponry, Starmer said: “If ever there was a time to reaffirm support for the nuclear deterrent, it is now. We mustn’t reduce our security and defence. I think it is a completely wrong-headed decision they [the SNP] should reconsider.”

Despite limited devolved powers over defence, the SNP continues to promote its vision of a nuclear-free Scotland.

Rafanell-Williams said that independence would allow Scotland to sign the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and begin removing nuclear submarines from Faslane.

“It is almost certain that no other location in England would be suitable for such a relocation, and no resources exist for immense expense required in building another deepwater port.

“As such, Scotland becoming independent would almost certainly result in the nuclear disarmament of the UK as a whole, something which would make both nations safer,” he said.

Public opinion in Scotland remains divided. A recent poll by Survation found that 56 percent of Scots support retaining Trident, compared to just 22 percent opposed. Most respondents also said they feel more secure and influential as part of the UK.

Alastair Cameron, chair of Scotland in Union, framed the results as a rebuke to the SNP.

“It’s time the SNP listened to the majority of Scots and stopped its damaging campaign to break up the UK,” he said.