Again Again Again: UK Strategic Defence Review 2025

The UK Strategic Defence Review 2025, published on the publications page of the www.gov.uk website on the 2nd June, is sub-headed ‘secure at home and strong abroad’.

In this so-called defence review, the UK Government have now expressed irresponsible, opportunistic and delusional plans. The document lays out a (hopefully completely) unachievable plan for an ever more hostile, aggressive and colonialist set of behaviours that will do nothing to address the climate emergency, historical transnational ideological differences, or the starvation, homelessness and gendered violence that offer the real threat to people. * Instead, their approach puts all of the people that the government has responsibility to care for, even more in harm’s way.

As the FTSI soars, Babcock et al rub their hands at share prices rising, * war fever is becoming endemic as the media find more retired generals and admirals to quote who relish the idea of younger and fitter men than they are, having a square go at someone, somewhere else. All the extreme and ugliest manifestations of human cruelty are utilised to egg us on and justify more slaughter. 

Twelve new nuclear powered boats are proposed, along with a firm commitment to the new nuclear-armed submarines weapons that are already years behind schedule and vastly over budget.*

New nuclear weapons are escalatory. They increase the risk of a catastrophe for human (and other) life and for the stability of the planet’s ecosystems. When it comes to being affected by a thermonuclear accident or belligerent event, it is arrant nonsense to suggest that you could decrease the risk from of nuclear weapons by building or buying more nuclear reactors and bombs. This is well understood in Ireland, Scotland’s closest neighbouring member state of the UN. *

There is no ‘independent nuclear weapon’ in UK. Use of all the UK’s nuclear warheads depends on the US missiles, leased to the UK and maintained in the US. Technology is shared with the US and makes the UK Government dependent on co-operation via the toxic so-called special relationship. *

Nuclear sharing of this nature is outlawed by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)* which the UK has signed, declared it is committed to, and regularly restates its commitment to. The UK was one of the states that failed, yet again, to create an outcome document from the most recent NPT meeting at the UN. This was the meeting to outline agreement on what must be decided about the plans for the treaty’s continued progress, at the review of the treaty at the end of this year. There are serious questions on nuclear sharing, and actions that could be considered as proliferation which is also outlawed,* including the UK’s agreements for Teutates with France, and Aukus with the US and Australia. But the nuclear-armed states could not even agree on what had been discussed.

So-called tactical, and/or air-borne nuclear weapons may be smaller, but not smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they could never be used in compliance with international humanitarian law, but placed in Europe, they enable the US to reach distant targets without relying on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.  

While a clear intention to host airborne nuclear weapons is not identified as part of the published review, (which was itself shared with the arms-trader captains of industry in advance of being made available in full to elected Members of Parliament) we only mention these because the journalists who received early intelligence on the SDR appear to be making a case for their consideration, and the evidence collected by CND UK and others about what is happening at RAF Lakenheath, a Royal Air Force station located in  England, but primarily operated as their largest US Air Force base in Europe by the United States Air Force (USAF) may be useful in understanding what may come down the line.  Since the addition of “tactical” weapons is not confirmed in the Strategic Defence Review, it may just be an insurance against Scotland getting independence and signing the Treaty on to the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and turning all nuclear weapons * away from Faslane/Coulport *

The new Dreadnought subs are not ready for use, and the current Vanguard boats are falling to bits, each serving dangerously lengthy periods underwater, awaiting another being patched up, and thus rendering Continuous At Sea Deterrence a myth, especially when both the navy and the nuclear industry are having problems recruiting people. Sailors who went to sea to see the sea may not think that it is heroic to sit in a tin tube and contemplate Doomsday, and young scientists may be more inspired to use their skills to address climate and energy issues, rather than contribute to global suicide. 

These are the issues that arise immediately from the SDR and which require answers.

The obvious and easy answer to the problems of soaring costs, technical capacity and resources for nuclear warheads’ time and troubles is not further cuts to ravaged essential services, nor will they do anything other than diminish what people experience as security, or the perceived place in the global community held by ‘Great Britain’.

The answers lie in full nuclear disarmament, followed swiftly by the elimination of nuclear weapons through the TPNW. This would allow the huge infrastructures that are required to back up the nuclear policies and the people involved in working in them to turn their attention to the real work that needs to be done in caring for each other and the planet.

The review makes no mention of pandemics, a collapsing climate, the threat of nuclear war, mass movements of people, decline in and erosion of democratic institutions, bio-technology gone rogue, AI, chronic and worsening inequality, racism, murderous violence against women, repressions, etc. What is common to that frightening list is that effective responses require a new level of international and transnational co-operation, not the ratcheting up of international tensions or a new arms race. And for that, the UK government’s concept of security is not only not fit for purpose, it is based on making everyone and everything less and less safe.

Additional Notes 

The UN New Agenda for Peace reflects on today’s peace and security threats – including the changing conflict landscape; persistent violence outside of conflict environments; the potential weaponization of new technologies; rising inequalities; shrinking civic space; and the climate emergency – and emphasizes how violations of the UN Charter and a pushback against human rights, in particular women’s rights, represent a significant normative challenge. To effectively address these threats, A New Agenda for Peace encourages Member States to move beyond the current logic of competition and find avenues for cooperation and collective action to pursue shared interests. A New Agenda for Peace is grounded in three principles – trust, solidarity, and universality. It reiterates some basic principles for international cooperation: the centrality of the UN Charter, diplomacy, the need to rebuild mechanisms to manage disputes and improve trust among major powers, regional frameworks, and the centrality of national action,  Full report from the UN at https://dppa.un.org/en/a-new-agenda-for-peace

Broker tips from Sharecast.com

https://www.sharecast.com › broker-tips–19912494

1st June — It sees Babcock as one of the big winners” in the UK Strategic Defence Review (SDR) that was published on Monday. ““BAB should be able to highlight the opportunities from the SDR in its upcoming results meeting,” it said. 

 Both the Vanguard and Astute submarine fleets have been dogged by reliability and maintenance issues in recent years. At any given time, one submarine from each class is supposed to be undergoing deep maintenance …problems have arisen due to poor contractor performance and dock availability. However, there also appear to be problems with day-today maintenance and running repairs at Faslane….According to the union Unite, the quality of service has declined …, due to ‘access difficulties and delays… antiquated systems and ageing infrastructure’.

Full report on the nuclear programme at Faslane/Coulport at https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/faslane-and-coulport-nuclear-submarine-bases-a-briefing/

The Act passed in Ireland states that “The risks posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons, including from any nuclear-weapon detonation by accident, miscalculation or design, and emphasizing that these risks concern the security of all humanity, and that all States share the responsibility to prevent any use of nuclear weapons.

The catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation.”

Full text of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Act 2019  can be seen at https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/40/enacted/en/index.html

“Trident is closely linked to the US’s nuclear programme, raising concerns about its independence. The missiles are US-built, and the system relies on the US for maintenance.” 

Full analysis from Chatham House at https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/uks-nuclear-deterrent-relies-us-support-there-are-no-other-easy-alternatives

“The NPT is intended to both prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states and facilitate the elimination of nuclear weapons and delivery systems of the five states that tested nuclear weapons before 1967. It sets up what some refer to as the “grand bargain”: in exchange for a commitment from the rest of the states parties to never develop or receive nuclear weapons, the nuclear-armed states parties promised to eliminate their arsenals and facilitate access to the “peaceful uses” of nuclear technology. This bargain, however, is under serious strain, as the nuclear-armed states parties have not held up their end in terms of disarmament and are instead modernising and/or expanding their arsenals.”  Reaching Critical Will co-ordinate the participation at the NPT at the UN meetings by civil society. See their Full NPT briefing book at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/2025-npt-briefing-book.pdf

“Following the unexpected and unwelcome announcement in 2021 that the UK proposed to increase the cap on the nuclear warheads they possessed, CND commissioned a Legal Opinion authored by renowned experts Professor Christine Chinkin and Dr Louise Arimatsu. Their findings show a clear breach of Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”  CND. See the full legal opinion here chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cnduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CND-legal-opinion-1.pdf

TPNW Artice 4: each State Party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction or control that are owned, possessed or controlled by another State shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons, as soon as possible but not later than a deadline to be determined by the first meeting of States Parties. Upon the removal of such weapons or other explosive devices, that State Party shall submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a declaration that it has fulfilled its obligations  see https://docs.un.org/en/A/CONF.229/2017/8