Is Trident Too Dependent on America? The Future of the UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Under the Trump administration, the United States has proved a troubling teammate. From blatantly insulting friendly prime ministers and presidents and imposing enormous tariffs on their closest allies, to casting doubt on whether he would even bother defending certain NATO members, Trump’s America has certainly looked like it is shrugging off some of its long-standing commitment to being the global policeman. With allies realising that American support is no longer a guaranteed thing, how should Britain be weighing its options when reviewing the ultimate protection over its sovereignty: nuclear weapons? 

The independence issue of British nuclear deterrence rests on the Trident missile system, missiles containing British nuclear warheads housed in delivery systems leased from and maintained by the US. The British Prime Minister alone has the authority to fire the missiles, and the US cannot overrule any fire order or make the missiles suddenly useless. But if the US were to withdraw support for maintaining the missile systems, the UK would, come the next maintenance cycle, be left without viable munitions. 

Britain relies on Trident because it did not have to develop it. The sheer cost of creating and maintaining an independent sophisticated missile system is massive, and for the UK government the cost of leasing missiles from a dependable ally is much more sensible. This does, however, leave Britain vulnerable to influence from Washington at a time when American backing for its allies is wavering. 

So, what can be done about it? 

Britain could take after the French. Post-WWII, under President Charles de Gaulle, France built a totally autonomous military, free from needing any foreign support. They maintain their own fighter jets and have their own missile systems, totally free from leaning on the crutch of US technology. This means they have a totally independent nuclear deterrent, something de Gaulle insisted upon specifically to avoid depending on the US or Britain’s nuclear umbrellas. 

However, the cost to France was, and remains, high. Between 1960 and 1998, France spent the modern equivalent of €230 billion on creating and upkeeping their nuclear arsenal. Post-development, France’s cost of maintaining its nuclear arsenal remains higher than Britain’s. In 2023, France spent almost £4.8 billion, versus £3 billion spent by the UK. Creating a whole new missile system for British nuclear warheads would require an enormous financial commitment spanning multiple terms of government, a very challenging sell. 

Alternatively, Britain could make the switch from being supported by the US to another ally. On the 26th of August, The Telegraph reported that London was in talks with Berlin for the Germans to potentially fund Britain’s nuclear programme, allowing for Britain to develop a new nuclear-capable missile system in conjunction with Berlin. This would give Germany independent, Washington-free nuclear protection from a European ally who is much less politically volatile, and would give the UK a missile it helped build, with the bonus of German military support to help protect the nuclear submarine site at Faslane. 

A hand from Europe’s largest economy would certainly allow for more breathing room in the British defence budget. But then, how tangible would the real benefits be of simply switching the reliance on maintenance to someone other than the US? 

Whatever the future of British nuclear weapons will be, the real impact of a move away from the Trident system would not solely be economic. The United States, undoubtedly Britain’s closest military ally, is unlikely to be happy with Britain moving away from their technological support. It would likely raise a lot of eyebrows as to why Britain wants to be a truly independent nuclear power, or a power reliant on another actor, and sticking a proverbial two fingers up at the Americans in regard to getting rid of their missiles would hardly go down a political treat. 

Additionally, with the British and American armed forces being so interlinked technologically, it could certainly be seen as unusual, or even unfair, for Washington to be removed from supporting Britain's nuclear programme whilst being kept on where it is otherwise convenient. 

What Britain will do about its deterrent, only time will tell. With Britain’s new Dreadnought-class nuclear-capable submarines under construction, defence spending allegedly set to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035, and with new funding opportunities from the Germans in play, getting the ball rolling on alternatives to Trident could be closer than we think. One thing is for sure, though: spending hundreds of billions on a system like France's, or building one with German support, could cost much more than just the taxpayer.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/ UK Ministry of Defence

Licence.

No image changes made.