The message coming from Washington's former inner circle is stark: Britain can no longer afford to assume America will always be there when things get serious. And when it comes to nuclear deterrence, assumptions can be dangerous.
A new analysis published by the Policy Exchange think tank with a foreword written by Franklin Miller, former special adviser to President George W. Bush on nuclear policy is urging the UK to openly signal to any potential adversary that NATO's nuclear capability doesn't begin and end with the United States.
Miller puts it plainly: if the American government, for whatever reason, chose to stay on the sidelines during a future crisis, Britain must ensure that enemies already know NATO still has a credible nuclear deterrent in place. That message, he argues, needs to be sent loudly and proactively not after the fact.
The Threat From Russia and China Has Been Growing for Years
Miller's concern isn't hypothetical. He points to a decade-plus of deliberate military expansion by both Russia and China that Western democracies were too comfortable to take seriously.
Vladimir Putin, he notes, launched a sweeping modernisation of Russia's nuclear systems both long-range intercontinental missiles and shorter-range tactical weapons in the early 2010s. Around the same time, Xi Jinping oversaw what Miller describes as a "breathtaking" expansion of China's nuclear forces. While these developments were unfolding, the experts and officials who had once stewarded Britain through the Cold War were, in his words, on an "intellectual holiday."
That holiday, Miller is now saying, needs to end.
Upgrading Submarines and Weapons Facilities Isn't Enough
Britain has already committed to modernising its nuclear-armed submarine fleet and upgrading the Atomic Weapons Establishment. But according to Miller, that alone won't cut it. The UK needs to go further significantly further if it wants to maintain what he calls a "credible deterrent."
The report's author, Policy Exchange researcher Daniel Skeffington, goes into detail about what "going further" actually looks like in practice. Among his recommendations is something that might raise a few eyebrows: large-scale nuclear exercises that don't just involve military commanders, but bring in senior politicians directly including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, and the Home Secretary.
The idea is to demonstrate resolve, not just capability. Adversaries need to believe that Britain's leadership has the nerve to act, not just the hardware. Rehearsing nuclear operations at the highest levels of government, Skeffington argues, sends exactly that message.
A Sovereign Nuclear Deterrent Worth the Investment?
One of the more pointed questions raised in the report is whether Britain should consider investing in its own mid-range nuclear weapons system entirely independent of the US. With uncertainty growing around American foreign policy attitudes, the report frames this not as a fringe idea but as a serious question of national security strategy.
Miller acknowledges the "unsteadiness" in America's current commitment to NATO and calls on Britain to take on a stronger leadership role within the alliance a role it hasn't traditionally had to fill on its own.
Airfield Upgrades Flagged as an "Absolute Necessity"
Beyond the political dimension, the report highlights a very practical gap: Britain needs to urgently invest in upgrading additional airfields capable of dispersing both conventional and nuclear-capable aircraft during a crisis. This, Skeffington says, isn't optional it must be treated as a government priority and funded without delay.
Political Reactions: Opposition Sees an Opening
Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge was quick to use the report as ammunition against the current Labour government, arguing that deterrence only holds when adversaries believe both the capability and the political will to use it are real. He criticised the absence of a formal Defence Investment Plan under Labour and claimed the Conservatives have the only fully funded strategy one that would redirect money from welfare reform, a cancelled Chagos deal, and net zero projects into defence spending.
The Government's Response
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson pushed back firmly, insisting that Britain's nuclear commitment is "absolute" and non-negotiable. The government pointed to £15 billion being invested in the UK's sovereign nuclear warhead programme, an expansion of nuclear-powered submarines, and the planned procurement of 12 nuclear-capable F-35A aircraft decisions made in response to growing global threats.
The spokesperson also confirmed that Britain would be joining NATO's dual-capable aircraft mission, reinforcing the country's role as a core contributor to the alliance's nuclear posture.
The debate, it seems, is less about whether Britain takes its nuclear responsibilities seriously and more about whether that seriousness is visible, credible, and sufficient for a world that has changed considerably since the Cold War ended.
Comments
Post a Comment