Is Britain's nuclear deterrent cost effective and robust?

With growing Russian threats against the UK this might seem a strange time to question the cost effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but does it offer value for money?

When General Sir Richard Barrons was leading Britain’s Joint Forces Command, he felt there was always what he described as a “tapeworm” eating his budget. “Every year we’d think we’d saved a little for something we needed,” he recalled of his time managing shared capabilities across the services. “It would always go to the Navy for submarines.” Since then, the problem has grown, with Britain’s nuclear deterrent consuming a growing share of the defence budget just as the military is under pressure to re-arm for conventional war.

The issue, Barrons told the Financial Times, was that successive governments had postponed costly decisions about Britain’s nuclear capabilities, leaving several enormous programmes that desperately need to be modernised at exactly the same time. The result is an unprecedented squeeze on the rest of Britain’s armed forces. “The UK’s nuclear budget is eating its conventional budget from the inside,” Barrons, who retired from the role in 2016, told the FT.

Crowding out?

There have been warnings from senior military figures that the rising cost of the deterrent is crowding out investment in the troops, ships, missiles and air defences needed to fight today’s wars. Its cost has taken on added significance as Prime Minister Andy Burnham wrestles with whether to commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030 — an issue over which John Healey, now chancellor, resigned as defence secretary under Sir Keir Starmer’s government.

The Defence Nuclear Enterprise — the secretive network of organisations responsible for maintaining the UK’s deterrent — spent more than £9bn directly with industry in 2024-25, supports about 47,600 jobs and draws on a supply chain of more than 6,000 companies. By 2030, the government expects the workforce to swell to roughly 65,000, according to figures published by the Ministry of Defence on Tuesday.

At the heart of the spending surge are three vast programmes running in parallel. Britain is building four Dreadnought ballistic-missile submarines to maintain its continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; designing and preparing to manufacture a new generation of attack submarines with Aukus partners Australia and the US; and developing a replacement for the UK’s nuclear warhead.

Each is a multibillion-pound undertaking in its own right. Together, they require Britain to expand nuclear facilities, shipyards and reactor production, recruit thousands of highly specialised workers and sustain an industrial base capable of delivering nuclear submarines at a tempo not attempted for decades. The overall costs of Britain’s nuclear weapons are difficult to judge as the government does not provide precise breakdowns compared with the detail provided about most other areas of defence spending. The defence investment plan, for example, splits many conventional areas into minute detail but not for nuclear: £47bn is allocated to “submarines” and £13bn is allocated to “warheads”.

Researchers at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said the official figures actually overstate the cost because they include conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. Excluding these would bring the cost from 18 per cent of defence spending in 2025, according to the MoD, to 14 per cent.

This compares to roughly 11 per cent of defence spending for France and 7 per cent for the US, according to ICAN. Meanwhile, UK conventional defence spending is being eclipsed by other Nato countries such as Germany and Poland, both of which spend more as a percentage of their economies than Britain.

The need for scrutiny

The vast sums being spent on a new generation of nuclear weapons and submarines have attracted the attention of parliament. In June, the Commons’ public accounts committee called for more detail to be provided on nuclear spending. Subsequently, the government announced the creation of a committee to scrutinise nuclear spending when parliament returns on September 1. Its evidence sessions will be secret, as will its conclusions, which will be sent directly to the prime minister and the defence secretary.

Britain’s nuclear weapons have always been seen as an expensive luxury in exchange for status as a global power. When Clement Attlee’s government decided in 1947 to proceed with an independent nuclear deterrent, the Treasury was deliberately excluded from meetings to prevent financial concerns from blocking the project.

In 1986, the new Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system was lampooned on the comedy show Yes, Prime Minister as unaffordable. “In the world of the nuclear missile it [the Trident] is the Savile Row suit, the Rolls-Royce Corniche, a Château Lafite 1945. It’s the nuclear missile that Harrods would sell you,” said one character. But now the UK nuclear deterrent, which consists of more than 200 warheads on sub-launched Trident missiles, has become one of the few calling cards the country has left that ensure it a leading role in Nato.

Despite being operationally independent, the Trident system is quite reliant on the US for support. Missiles are built in the US and go to Kings Bay, Georgia, for maintenance. Britain’s new Astraea warhead is jointly developed with the US W93 warhead programme in order to save costs.

The defence ministry points out launch decisions are made only by the prime minister. “Our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our national security,” said an MoD spokesperson. “It is completely operationally independent and, as we face an increasingly volatile world, it is more important than ever’

Is it robust?

This does raise questions about how robust it is.  The account of the launch procedure that is in the public domain by Lord Hennessey looks fragile.   The prime minister is supposed to use an underground tunnel to the Ministry of Defence and send a fax to a facility near High Wycombe.

No surprise, then, that one of the first tasks of an incoming prime minister is to write a letter to Trident commanders telling them how to proceed if Britain has already been destroyed.

In practice there are back up arrangements that go beyond the public account.  However, keeping one submarine at sea has proved difficult given maintenance problems with the ageing fleet.    Crews have had to spend longer periods at sea away from their families in very cramped conditions (don’t believe the generous sets in the BBC series Vigil about to be screened in a third series).

Failings on defence leave Britain cruelly exposed Former Nato secretary-general Lord George Robertson suggested in testimony to the defence select committee last month that Britain might eventually need European allies to help pay for its nuclear deterrent.   [Or perhaps even cooperate with France?]

Yet with defence budgets under sustained pressure and demands for conventional military capability mounting across Europe, the question is no longer whether Britain can afford its nuclear deterrent but how much conventional military power it is prepared to sacrifice in order to sustain it.

Can Britain reindustralise?

The always perceptive David Smith had an excellent article in the Sunday Times yesterday on deindustrialisation and whether reindustrialisation is a realistic prospect as Andy Burnham hopes.

David Smith hails from the Black Country (as does my wife) and went back there for a school reunion.  He discovered more successful industrial firms than he had anticipated, albeit generally SMEs.

In the mid 1970s I went round the West Midlands interviewing a range of firms, mainly SMEs.  (The interview transcripts have been lodged with the Modern Records Centre at Warwick University).

I didn't see how these firms could survive and very few of them did.   Among the problems I encountered were:

• Insufficient investment
• Complacent managers out of touch with the shop floor, in many cases they couldn't go on it
• Difficult relations with unions in many firms and in particular the shop stewards
• Back offices that seemed to belong to the Victorian era
• A lack of research and development and innovation
• 'Sitting by Nellie' apprenticeships 
• Lack of a marketing strategy

The conventional wisdom is that these firms were swept away by Thatcherism with a resultant 'batting average' improvement in productivity.

This is certainly part of the story, but one must also take account of the liberalisation of international trade under GATT.   Low added value metal bashers in the Midlands were swept aside by what were known as the 'newly industrialising countries' with lower labour costs and modern equipment.

Attempts were made by the 1974-9 Labour Government to modernise failing sectors, but it was often too late.  In one sector firms forged scrapping certificates for old machinery they were attached to rather than install modern machinery.

According to Smith, Burnham's Labour is focusing on the following industrial sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy industries; the creative industries; defence; digital and technologies; financial services; life sciences; and professional and business services — not all of which would have been thought of traditionally as industry.   It is all very well supporting the creative industries when the university courses that support them are starved of funds with many staff being sacked.   Theatres and museums are also under pressure.

If I take my own town of Leamington or 'Silicon Spa' as it is now known, we have lost:

• Automotive Products who employed around 6,000 to make brakes and clutches, 'there is a part of Leamington in every car.   (There is a stun company).
• The Ford foundry, site now occupied by a de luxe furniture factory.
• Pottertons gas boilers

As in Smith's article, we do have some niche manufacturers such as Eagle which is the largest UK manufacturer of refuse collection vehicles.and Godiva fire pumps, as well as the designers and producers of video games.    But can industrial strategy be based on niche firms?

Clacton does not reflect the country as a whole

Conducting a poll in by-election with 34 candidates is not easy, but what we have suggests that Nigel Farage will win 60-70 per cent of the vote in Clacton, but on a smaller turnout.  Whether beating someone dressed as a garbage can is a triumph is another matter.   Voters there may well get a chance in the autumn to choose between the normal political parties.

It appears that constituents don't care that Farage carries out none of the duties of a constituency MP which would cause a storm in most seats.

I thought it would be interesting to compare Clacton's demographics with those of GB as a whole and my own constituency of Warwick and Leamington.   We recently had a town council by-election in my own ward (Royal Clarendon).   The Greens won, with the Lib Dems just behind and Labour in touching distance.   The Conservatives were way behind and Reform didn't stand.

33 per cent of Clacton voters have what is described as a good education.  The figure is 51 per cent nationally and 62 per cent in W & L.  Gross household income is £33,147 in Clacton, £42,397 nationally and £46,828 in the Royal Spa and Warwick.   Deprivation is indexed at 64 per cent in Clacton, 51 per cent nationally and 43 per cent in my neck of the woods.

The mean age in Clacton is 56.6, as against 49.8 nationally and 47.6 in W & L.  Clacton is 96 per cent ethically white compared with 83 per cent nationally and 82 per cent in W & L.  We have a large Sikh community and have had a Sikh mayor  In addition, there is a large Portuguese speaking population, many of them Brazilians.   Areas which have very few ethnic minorities tend to be most concerned about immigration as an issue.

It's interesting that voters who clearly have many economic challenges think that a party backed by billionaires is going to help them surmount then,

Badenoch's purge

I wrote recently about Burnham's purge, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has been conducting one of her own.   New Conservative candidates have to sign up to agreeing to exit the ECHR and to oppose 'Net Zero'.

This marks yet another step in the end of the 'One Nation' tendency which was at one time prevalent in the Conservative Party, exemplified by 'Rab' Butler, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath.   I must plead guilty myself as I was active myself as an undergraduate in PEST (Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism) within the unfortunately named Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations (think about it).

The ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher saw the beginning of the end of One Nation influence, she liked to call them 'wets'.  Willie Whitelaw continued to represent this tradition, although he seemed to put loyalty to the leader first.

John Major was 'One Nation' in at least some respects, his deputy Michael Heseltine more vigorously so and he continues to make interventions on Brexit in particular in his nineties.

However, by the 1990s 'One Nation' intellectuals like Ian Gilmour or pragmatists like Peter Walker had seen their time in the party to come to an end.

Some of the few remaining moderates have lamented the fact that one time minister Sir Grant Shapps has been barred from standing.   However, I must say I thought that he was not impressive, indeed my heart sank when Dave Cameron entrusted him with implementing the city mayors initiative.

Former West Midlands mayor Sir Andy Street tried to make the argument last year that the Conservative Party did best as a broad church that appealed to the political centre, but he didn't get much traction.  The Conservatives seem prepared to lose votes to the Liberal Democrats if they can win votes from Reform.

In a recent interview, Badenoch said that her values were 'Yoruba values' (as distinct from Nigerian values which has caused some debate in Nigeria).   I am not really sure what those are, at least in a UK context, but they are probably a long way from 'One Nation' Conservatism.   Apart from anything else, they imply a much smaller state whereas the 'wets' were broadly accepting of the post-war economic and social settlement.

Burnham's purge

We haven't seen anything like it since Harold Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives when he sacked seven Cabinet ministers in an unsuccessful bid to boost his fading popularity.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, had repeatedly told Supermac that his place was at his disposal, but when he was sacked he complained that a cook would be given more notice.

In the Commons then backbench MP Jeremy Thorpe commented, 'Greater love hath no man that he lay down his friends for his life.'

Now the Starmerites (whomsoever they might be) have felt the blade of the King of the North.  Some talented people have been axed. while Lord Sawar (as he now is) has been brought down from Scotland as a reward for the first person to call for Starmer to go.   Enoch Powell said that all political careers end in failure, but his limp performance in the Scottish Parliament elections seems to have been forgiven.

On Sky News's The Wrap last night examples were given of north-west MPs be given preferment or, even it was alleged, the partner of a Burnham backer.

Burnham had better be careful.   Darren Jones has also plunged the knife in by pointing out that the removal of VAT on domestic electricity is unfunded.

It was surely a mistake to remove Nick Thomas-Symonds from the Cabinet Office given his understanding of the complex and delicate negotiations with the EU.

Labour's rural MPs fear neglect by Burnham

Andy Burnham has been urged to stop rural voters “drifting away” from Labour by a group of MPs cautioning against too much urban bias.  The ’King of the North’ was told by those representing countryside seats won by the party for the first time in 2024 not to treat their areas as peripheral.

A policy blueprint by the Labour Rural Research Group (LRRG), which has 40 MPs — about 10 per cent of the parliamentary party — said any devolution drive should not only benefit major urban centres.  The comments came in a report, due to be published on Tuesday, that criticised successive governments for treating rural areas as “economically marginal”.

James Naish, vice-chair of the LRRG, wrote: “The purpose of devolution shouldn’t simply be to shift power from Whitehall to major urban centres.  It should go much further and ensure that communities with different geographies, economies and needs are properly understood within national policy. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, nor can urban policy simply be retrofitted to rural communities.”

He added that these communities “shouldn’t be seen as peripheral to national renewal” and that the next phase of Labour in government should not see them as areas requiring financial support.

Figures cited by the LRRG showed just 27 per cent of voters surveyed for its report were confident the government would strengthen its rural policy, while 40 per cent were not confident.

Although concern was voiced over the scale of the challenge Labour will face in rural seats at the next election, the LRRG said there was still a chance for Burnham to change the party’s fortunes.   Among the policies he was encouraged to consider were a business rates taper for rural and farm-based firms, as well as making it easier for farmers to diversify their property to boost income.

Burnham was urged to make rural Britain a separate part of the government’s tourism strategy and give communities more perks for hosting renewable energy infrastructure.

Guy Bland

How is Guy Bland, the fictitious Labour MP for the rural constituency of Borsetshire South getting on?  Readers may recall that he stood as a candidate in the hope of using it as a launch pad to get a better job in the charity sector and was to his surprise elected.

Bland had long ago given up any hope of defending the seat at the next election.   He is no fan of Andy Burnham and only belatedly and reluctantly nominated him as leader.  He realises that he is likely to lose his unpaid role as assistant whip for rural Labour MPs.

One remote hope is that as Burnham is the first Catholic prime minister and is therefore prevented by early 19th century legislation from undertaking ecclesiastical functions, perhaps Bland as an Anglican who lives in the cathedral close at Felpersham could undertake them on his behalf?

Gove's latest gaffe

Lord Michael Gove is infamous for his comment, 'I think this country has had enough of experts.'  Arguably the experts weren't so wrong about the economic costs of Brexit.

Yet the editorial in the latest Spectator refers to 'the dreary beachfronts of Jaywick and Frinton.'

Jaywick is admittedly the most economically and socially deprived location in England.  Yet Frinton always thought of itself as rather exclusive, perhaps less so these days.    There is now a fish and chip shop there which was banned for a long time.

Back in the 1950s, Frinton was a favourite destination for a summer day out, even more so when we moved to Essex.   There was just one road into the town controlled by a level crossing.

The front road leads on to the Greensward.   Admittedly, the predominantly Edwardian and inter war developments were marred by the construction of some off plan tower blocks in the 1960s.

The sandy beach was patrolled by 'beach inspectors' to ensure that there was no impropriety.   Our day always finished with a walk into Walton on the Naze where the pier offered traditional entertaiments.

Some years ago I took two of my then 18 year old granddaughers with the mum of one of them to stay in Walton.  They were thrilled to see the flat roofed Art Deco houses in one part of Frinton.

I had great difficulty in finding a local restaurant that would meet the up market tastes of my eldest granddaughter anywhere in Nigel Farage's constituency.  Eventually I located one in Frinton.

It was rather crowded and I was puzzled by the next door table constantly referring to 'going out'.  I thought this perhaps referred to the old slogan 'Harwich for the continent, Frinton for the incontinent.'

In fact they were talking about Brexit.