Starmer has bought nuclear bomb-carrying jets - what does this mean for UK defence?
The UK already flies F-35B jets, which operate from the Royal Navy 's aircraft carriers.
Now the government is to swap out at least a dozen F-35Bs from its next order for F-35As which fly from conventional runways, have a greater range and which can carry American B61 tactical - or battlefield - nuclear weapons.
These can deliver a smaller nuclear yield than the strategic nuclear weapons carried by the Royal Navy's Trident system.
The theory is that the smaller yield allows NATO to respond in kind to the use of battlefield nuclear weapons by an opponent like Russia.
Without lower yield nuclear weapons, the choice would be between a conventional response which might not work as a deterrent, and using a strategic nuclear weapon which would be a massive - potentially world ending - nuclear escalation.
It's believed the United States stores around a hundred tactical nuclear weapons across six airbases in western Europe.
The government isn't saying where the nuclear bombs for these new jets will be stored.
Britain's nuclear warheads are built in Aldermaston in Berkshire and stored at Coulport near Faslane, but the new aircraft will be based at the other end of the country at RAF Marham in Norfolk.
One option for storage is RAF Lakenheath which held American nuclear weapons until 2008 and where the US Airforce has reportedly been refurbishing aircraft shelters with underground vaults.
The big question is who would command these nuclear armed jets. The answer is - not us.
While the new jets belong to the RAF and the US retains 'absolute control and command' of the nuclear bombs, any mission combining the two would have to be approved by the 31 members of NATO 's Nuclear Planning Group.
As a member the UK would always have the option to opt out.
But this decision is controversial. Campaigners are accusing the government of nuclear proliferation and are already planning protests at airbases.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
The UK's definition of controversial is way off balance
Mike always manages to see the wood from the trees and clearly, like me, abhors the dripping hypocrisy of governments, the media and press. In this instance, the English Labour government gets so het up by folk having the temerity to spray red paint on two precious military planes, yet is just so unforgivably cold-hearted about death and destruction in Gaza, which, as Mike says, it's complicit in. So, to witness at the NATO summit in The Hague the leaders of European countries, including the AI-generated abomination that is Keir Starmer, being so obsequious to the leader of the country that is basically funding the mass destruction of humans and infrastructure in Gaza was sickening! READ MORE: Scottish manufacturing firm announces 90 jobs face redundancy I'm no daft! Obviously this totally insincere behaviour is a form of self-protection. The type of self-protection, however, that is more akin to those in one of my favourite films, The Godfather, that grovel and simper to the don, Vito Corleone, then after his death to his youngest son, Michael. The world has gone mad! Those that, quite rightly, have a conscious and a heart that spray paint a military aircraft involving zero harm tae onybody, no even a cut finger in sight, are portrayed as evil monsters! Yet it's imperative to still sell arms to a nation whose government is involved in ethnic cleansing and to defend that country's right to 'defend' itself! Even the term 'perverse' doesn't cut it! Glastonbury is now upon us and a group called Kneecap are playing there much to the overwhelming disgust of politicians, the media and the press, apart from The National, to its great credit! Somebody needs tae hae a brain! Kneecap care about the plight of Palestinian bairns that get blawn tae bits and quite rightly display this in a very blunt, 'controversial' way. However, what the hell could be mair controversial than blawing a poor innocent bairn tae bits! Aye, the world has definitely gaun mad! Ivor Telfer Dalgety Bay, Fife LAST week the Scotland 2050 conference took place in Edinburgh. Swinney spoke, and his big idea for solving Scotland's myriad of problems isn't independence. It's reforming the National Performance Framework (NPF), the aim of which is to 'create a framework that better drives public sector reform, improves collaboration between the national and local governments and empowers communities'. Stirring stuff! When I tried to learn more about the NPF, I found the website was archived. Swinney also wants Scotland to rejoin the increasingly authoritarian, neo-liberal and warmongering EU. That isn't up to him but to the Scottish people, and they can't decide it until Scotland leaves the failing UK. He references independence, but provides no strategy for achieving it. He plans to complement the NPF with 'full fiscal autonomy'. That means instead of the block grant, Holyrood would receive all taxation levied in Scotland – business, employment, environmental and consumption taxes – although VAT remains reserved to Westminster. Scotland would still pay Westminster a population share for 'Union services'. That means it would have to shell out money for nuclear weapons that Westminster insists be located in Scotland, as well as expensive UK embassies and a Foreign Office that cheerleads US-instigated foreign wars and backs the Zionist entity to the hilt. Full fiscal autonomy is not independence but just another form of devolution. No central bank or a Scottish currency. No control over energy policy, which would still be dictated by London. No say over immigration or trade policy. Holyrood would still be on a fiscal leash that Westminster could yank to pull it back into line at any time. (Image: PA) It's managerialism, something at which Swinney excels and it shows that he and the other Holyrood career politicians have settled comfortably into their devolutionist straitjacket. Moreover, it's unlikely that Westminster would ever agree to it. Devolution has failed Scotland yet it's all the SNP and Swinney are offering. The Scottish people will continue to live with falling living standards, worsening physical and mental health, crumbling public services and rising poverty all because they don't have the courage and confidence to run their own affairs and tell Westminster to take a hike. Leah Gunn Barrett Edinburgh ACCORDING to that self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, Dame Jackie Baillie (right), the latest figures on NHS Scotland cancer waiting times are 'disastrous and an indication of the SNP's mismanagement of the NHS'. If that is indeed the case, and not just another disingenuous Dame Baillie anti-SNP soundbite, then how would Dame Baillie describe the situation in Wales, perhaps 'catastrophic?' In Wales, the devolved Labour Government has not only given up (since 2019) on reporting the 31-day target for the start of treatment, which NHS Scotland is achieving in 94.1% of cases and NHS England in 91.3% of cases. NHS Wales is only achieving the 62-day target for initial referral to start of treatment in 60.5% of cases. On the 62-day target, NHS Scotland at 68.9% is performing 13.9% better than Wales and NHS England at 69.9% is performing 15.5% better. Of course, the broader picture is that across the UK the NHS is struggling as cancers are increasingly suspected earlier and people are living longer (NHS Scotland has seen 17.5% and 6.3% increases in 62-day and 31-day referrals since the pandemic) while staffing levels continue to suffer as a result of Brexit and hostile UK Government immigration policies. If the SNP Scottish Government stands accused of 'mismanagement' then presumably the Labour Welsh Government stands accused of 'gross negligence'? Despite her patronising rhetoric, don't expect broad assessment and honest objectivity from Dame Baillie and the Labour Party on Scotland's NHS within the confines of UK Government policies any time soon. Besides more deceitful soundbites, one should expect more desperate references in the Scottish Parliament to relatively few poor experiences plucked from the hundreds of thousands of daily interactions with patients who are generally appreciative of the high quality of overall service delivered by NHS Scotland. Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian THE median waiting time for cancer treatment in Scotland being 52 days comes as a surprise to those waiting for their initial appointment with a plastic surgeon in Ayrshire and Arran to begin their cancer treatment. Two plastic surgeons have left the health board and appointments are being deferred while they bring in an external consultant to help alleviate the situation, with current referrals being given from initial diagnosis in June cited as a possible August appointment. This is leaving patients worried about accelerating conditions where early treatment is imperative, causing stress and anxiety which may further accelerate their cancer. Giving median statistics is great for those having a speedy journey through their treatment. At the opposite side there are many waiting unacceptably long times for appointments and treatment to begin, yet if you enquire about private treatment there appear to be consultants working and available for a fee. Personally, I have been waiting for an appointment with a general surgery consultant for a non-urgent appointment, though the issue is of concern to me, for a year for a hospital appointment with no end to the wait in site while they try to manage their waiting lists. Ayrshire and Arran have a huge problem and someone needs to be looking deeper into the statistics for all departments. Name and address supplied IRAN'S military surrender, as US president Donald Trump had demanded earlier this month, may also mean soon surrendering access to much of its vast fossil fuel reserves to American, and perhaps even British, 'energy' corporations. Those big business interests, and maybe even Israel's government, know there's still much to be effectively appropriated from the nation long demonised by the West. The 1979 Iranian Revolution's expulsion of major Western nations was in large part due to British and American companies exploiting Iran's plentiful fossil fuel. The expulsion may have been a big-profit-losing lesson learned by the 'energy' corporation heads, one that they, via intense lobbyist influence over the relevant governments in Washington DC and London, would resist reoccurring anywhere. The 2003-11 US/British invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq may also have been partly motivated by such Western insatiable corporate greed. There has been a predictable American-UK proclivity for sanctioning Iran, its officials and even their allies since the Revolution, resulting in, among other negative impacts, reduced oil production revenue by the nation. It would be understandable if those corporate fossil-fuel interests would like Iran's government to fall thus re-enabling their access to Iran's resources. It may be that, if the relevant oil company heads were/are in fact against Iran's post-revolution government(s), then so were/are their related Western governments and, via general mainstream news media support, national collective citizenry. Frank Sterle Jr White Rock, BC, Canada If Westminster taxed the rich cheats who threw money at Brexit so they could avoid the new EU tax laws on tax havens, they would bring in way more cash than they will get from hitting the poor and disabled. They could close the loopholes the government deliberately creates and make everyone pay their tax. Loopholes are actually government created corruption. Labour could recover if they taxed the rich, as long as Israel doesn't mind, of course. Bill Robertson via email
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's plot to abolish major right as Supreme Court gives him more power
The US President wants to abolish a right enshrined in the US Constitution for 157 years - and now there's almost nobody who can stop him Donald Trump wants to abolish a major right people born in America have enjoyed for 157 years - and is enshrined in the US Constitution. He's taking his fight against 'birthright citizenship' all the way to the Supreme Court - and won a major victory last night. In a decision that hands him almost unlimited power to change American laws with a wave of his hand, Supreme Court justices ruled that individual federal judges would no longer be allowed to halt or block his executive orders - even if they're unconstitutional. It leaves just the Supremes themselves between him and whatever he wants to do. And the next thing on his list is birthright citizenship - an issue likely to come before the highest court in October. Here's what's at stake for Americans if that happens. What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is the rule that if you're born in the United States, you're a US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats. Because it's enshrined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it should require a congressional supermajority to change the rule - at least that's the theory. Why does Trump want to get rid of it? Republicans have long argued this leads to undocumented immigrants having "anchor babies" - a truly unpleasant term suggesting some people have children to make them harder to deport. And Trump himself has argued, baselessly, that the amendment was only ever intended to cover freed slaves, which ignores decades of caselaw and precedent. How is Trump trying to scrap it? Trump claims he can set it aside with an executive order - and he signed such an order almost immediately upon returning to the White House in January. Trump's executive order would deny citizenship to those born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. What's the pushback been like? Some 22 states have brought lawsuits challenging the order, with one brought by Washington state, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois heard first in Seattle. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. So is it still blocked? Briefly. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order - yet. Instead, they were asked to rule on the principle of state and district judges blocking orders for the whole country - which the Supremes decided wasn't on, despite being a right enjoyed by judges for decades. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. What happens next? The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As tension between the White House and Iran grows, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
In Pictures: Glastonbury fans beat the heat as Kneecap and Kaiser Chiefs perform
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
