United States Department of Energy, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
We have had a nuclear deterrent for 72 years or so. It may have deterred someone from dropping a nuclear bomb on us at some point but does it still deter anything. It has no affect at all on the seaborne invasion we are presently experiencing.
Having given some assistance to the septics, in fact we gave them a leg up into the atomic world, during the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons, we were shut out by the Americans in 1946. By 1952 we had developed our own of which we proceeded to set off 12 at Woomera in South Australia, 9 in the Pacific and another 24 at a test site in Nevada.
During the Pacific tests our government and its mad scientists deliberately exposed many servicemen to the blasts, or at least from a distance that was far from safe. We now have in total about 225 warheads of which 120 are on a submarine somewhere under water.
Allegedly having these nuclear weapons gives us great comfort safe in the knowledge that no aggressor will drop one on us for fear that we will retaliate. Such was, and maybe still is, the MAD doctrine. The Atlee government made the decision to develop our own bomb, one Ernie Bevin was one its most vocal supporters saying we’ve got to have this thing over here – whatever it costs. This was in response to a rather unkind meeting he had with the US Secretary of State. One of Ernie’s colleagues was overheard, by Nye Bevan, of saying Ernie was his own worst enemy. Nye’s reaction was “Not while I’m alive he’s not”. Such heartwarming socialist brotherly solidarity. The left has always been toxic for those who think their recent antics are anything new.
This was of course the origin of the nuclear reactors at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield, All of the original nuclear reactors were built to provide plutonium for nuclear weapons. The generation of electricity was initially a secondary factor designated as a peaceful atom project when Eisenhower got a bit wobbly about weapons of mass destruction.
There was never a manifesto with a we want the bomb point in it though I suspect the public of the 1940s may well have been sympathetic to the idea. In contrast there have been a couple of manifestos that wanted to remove our nuclear bombs. The first was the 1983 Michael Foot authored manifesto described at the time as the longest suicide note in history. The USSR was still in full flow at the time. The second was the Jeremy Corbyn version in 2019 which resulted in Labour’s lowest vote share in living memory. The USSR had by then long ceased to exist. Critics like to highlight the disarmament section of the manifesto but I think it was the 6th form politics of it in general that did for the £3 tramp.
How much does all this nuclear stuff cost you may well ask. As usual the gummint is very parsimonious with handing out anything in the way of useful information and the costs are cunningly concealed in a maze of obfuscation.
The present four boat Vanguard class of ballistic missile submarines cost about £12.5 billion, about £23 billion in today’s prices. They will be replaced by a four boat Dreadnought class due to be delivered in the early 2030s and reputed to cost £31 billion. The missiles themselves cost about $70 million each and each boat can carry 16 to 20 of them, I believe the warheads are extra. Such a fleet of 4 boats can cost an admitted good £10 billion a year and I suspect a good deal more.
We have been experiencing an invasion of third world riff raff for quite a few years now. What use is our nuclear deterrent if we can’t stop an invasion. Any of our enemies could just send even more of them without the cost of using their own nuclear weapons. The Argies invaded the Falklands without fear of us nuking Buenos Aires though I remember a few voices in favour at the time.
My question is does our deterrent serve any useful purpose and I cannot see that it does. If we do away with it we can spend all those billions on conventional forces rather than four subs and all their support network. I am not convinced Labour would put the money to any use other than social security but surely some other parties would like to see our armed forces improved. During the Battle of Britain my dad was stationed at RAF Manston and his personal weapon was a pitchfork, I kid you not. The way things are going we won’t even have pitchforks.
Can anyone provide a sensible reason for us to keep our nuclear deterrent?
© well_chuffed 2026
