Starmer Goes Nuclear to Please Trump — But It’s Blown Up in His Face

Right, so Britain’s gone nuclear again, and not because anyone voted for it. A billion quid for planes that can’t fly without a nod from Washington. A NATO mission sold as independence. A prime minister so busy kissing Trump’s ring he’s choking on the fumes. The paperwork calls it deterrence; the experts call it absurd. Nukewatch and the Nuclear Information Service have already said the quiet part in a brand new report – it breaks the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty we claim to defend. The United States sells the hardware, keeps the codes, and calls it partnership. The UK signs the cheque and calls it safety, but only if America chooses to keep up ‘safe’. Meanwhile, Iran gets sanctioned for enrichment while we buy new bomb-carriers. That’s not strategy; that’s servitude as well as hypocrisy on steroids. Britain isn’t stepping up. It’s kneeling down, smiling for the cameras, calling it security while the rest of the world ducks for cover.
Right, so lets turn our minds back to last month, Starmer facing the cameras and declaring that America under Trump keeps Britain safe in an interview with Beth Rigby. That’s the message — safety by association. Routine on paper, grotesque in context.
Trump has of course, as a for instance, since said that. “I was very much in charge,” when it came to Israel’s June strike on Iranian territory. We knew that the US helped bomb three nuclear sites. Three targets, one at Fordow, but Trump said he was behind the hole thing. That’s not deterrence. Not diplomacy. That’s war by vanity. I did a thing and I want credit for it, you must love me now and bask in my dayglo orange glory. That’s what Starmer reckons makes for a good defence partner and keeps Britain safe.
The language stays clean. “Reliable ally.” “Shared security.” Words that mean nothing once bombs start falling. Britain echoed them anyway. But the motive isn’t safety. It’s obedience.
So let’s come to the actual announcement now then. Twelve F-35A jets from the United States. A return to the NATO “dual-capable aircraft” club — jets able to carry B61-12 nuclear bombs. The biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation it’s been called. Bringing back an air-launched nuclear role Britain had given up decades ago. Yeah, there’s this thing called the nuclear non proliferation treaty that we signed, that apparently now means nothing to a Prime Minister desperate to be noticed and liked by Donald Trump. It comes straight from Washington’s production line. The weapons stay American, much as is the case with our Trident systems. The release codes stay American. The only British thing is the painted flag on the side and the bill for it all.
But that’s always been the trick. A deterrent that can’t be used without permission. Independence dressed as servitude.
So what is the price tag then Damo? Well, around a billion pounds and no idea when they’ll be nuclear-ready. That budget is coming up soon isn’t it, I wonder what will get cut. Do keep this in mind won’t you? The Public Accounts Committee said the Ministry of Defence still couldn’t give a complete figure though. No dates. No delivery schedule. Just a headline about “stepping up” for NATO, Starmer being able to posture though, which is all that really matters to him.
But then came the paperwork that tore through the spin. Smoke and Mirrors, is a report published last month by the Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK. It called the plan “absurd,” “lacking logical consistency,” and warned it added “a new nuclear capability” in conflict with Britain’s treaty obligations. The authors laid out the obvious: the country already has four Vanguard-class submarines carrying Trident II D5 missiles. That’s the deterrent. It already exists. We already pay a fortune for that. Adding planes doesn’t make the public safer; it just proves to the US that London still follows their orders.
Starmer didn’t argue. He posed for the cameras instead. The point wasn’t strategy. It was demonstrating loyalty, prostrating himself before Trump in the hope he notices him this time.
The pattern is visible across every document. Starmer calls it deterrence. Trump calls it leadership. Both end in the same photograph — British hardware under American control.
That’s the start of it. The pretence of safety. The Prime Minister tying Britain’s security to a man who boasts about bombing Iran. The Government buying jets it can’t use without permission. A policy that calls dependency protection.
Twelve F-35A Lightning II jets, bought from the United States, entering RAF service around 2030. The same release declares Britain will “join NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission.” The Ministry of Defence calls it “a new chapter.” But at a cost of around a billion pounds, but that as it happens, is for the airframes alone, no total for training, maintenance, or the bomb-carrying conversion. That’ll all come on top. The Public Accounts Committee recorded that the MoD “still cannot provide full programme costings,” But there’s always money for this sort of thing, so it doesn’t matter does it? That’s the start point: no budget copnstraint, no delivery date, no operational plan, yet a press statement about deterrence.
The official justification talks about NATO burden-sharing. It says the move “demonstrates commitment.” Commitment to what isn’t written, but the meaning is obvious. It’s not about new threats; it’s about posture. It’s about showing Trump that Britain can still take orders without complaint.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Article VI commits signatories to pursue disarmament in good faith. The UK government’s own 2019 defence white paper reaffirmed that obligation. Smoke and Mirrors says re-introducing air-launched weapons “runs counter to both the letter and spirit of Article VI.” That’s the quiet part said out loud though isn’t it? You can’t preach disarmament while buying new bomb racks can you? But Starmer gets to raid the dressing up box for his big boy camo gear and that’s all that matters.
The MoD of course is striking a different tone, that the jets might never actually carry nuclear payloads. Well how about we make sure of that and just cancel the order? Wel already have deterrent, we don’t need these. It’s Starmer humping Trump’s leg like the political Chihuahua he is. “Capability does not equal deployment,” one official has said last month.
But this is the heart of it: policy that cannot say its own name. If the planes are for nuclear use, Britain is expanding the arsenal. If they’re not, Britain is wasting a billion pounds on pleasing Trump. Either way, it makes no sense.
The operational reality undermines the spin as well. The F-35A is a single-seat fighter with limited range when carrying heavy ordnance. To reach potential targets from UK bases it would need aerial refuelling and airspace clearance from multiple NATO states. None of those arrangements are public. None have been debated in Parliament. The word “capable” hides all of that.
Then there’s the dependency. Every maintenance cycle ties the fleet back to the US supply chain. Lockheed Martin owns the software. Even mission data loads are uploaded through US systems. The RAF can’t modify them without permission. That’s not co-operation; that’s control.
Then there is what all of this symbolises of course. Britain is joining a mission historically run by countries that host US nuclear bombs on their soil—Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey. Those governments have argued for years that they don’t technically violate the NPT because the bombs remain under US custody until wartime. It’s a legal fiction. And the UK is not only copying that, and has done for years with Trident, but is now doubling down on it with these planes.
The Ministry’s press line calls it “a powerful signal of solidarity.” The signal reads differently outside that Westminster bubble. It says the UK has given up on disarmament and re-armed for status.
And of course while all that was unfolding, Trump was talking about Iran and his now infamous comment – “I was very much in charge” – landed days after Starmer reaffirmed the US as Britain’s indispensable ally. The Prime Minister praises Washington for keeping Britain safe while Washington brags about directing airstrikes. That’s not safety. That’s repetition of dependence dressed up as strength.
And the contradiction deepens when you track the legal positions. The UK used its October statement on Iran to claim the E3 – that being the UK, France and Germany - were acting “to uphold the integrity of the non-proliferation regime.” The same week, the MoD confirmed it had signed the purchase agreement for the new jets. One hand signing sanctions, the other signing an order for bomb-carriers.
It’s not hypocrisy by accident. It’s choreography. Starmer must really think we’re stupid or blind to the sleight of hand. Britain condemns Iran to prove virtue while expanding its own capacity to deliver the weapons Iran is accused of seeking and for which no evidence exists.
That’s why the NIS and Nukewatch authors called the policy absurd. It doesn’t even pretend to align with Britain’s NPT obligations. It answers a different master entirely – a fat orange monster and the need to show deference to Washington at any cost.
That is the Trump connection in practice: a prime minister flattering a president who boasts about bombing Iran, buying planes that carry American bombs, then sanctioning Iran for enrichment, as the E3 of course did, while calling it diplomacy. A transaction dressed as alliance, a nuclear programme called peacekeeping, a policy that calls obedience deterrence.
The Government line calls this integrity — defending the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The documents say something else. Smoke and Mirrors describes Britain’s jet purchase as adding “a new nuclear capability” inconsistent with disarmament obligations. The report’s authors cite Article VI of the NPT — the one requiring good-faith progress towards disarmament. You can’t expand and disarm at once. The contradiction isn’t academic; it’s written into the spending plan.
We’re told that the aircraft will “carry US nuclear warheads as global insecurity grows.” That’s an American bomb held in American custody. The UK can only borrow it during wartime at US direction. The same government that condemns Iran for potential weaponisation is paying to re-weaponise itself.
When the Foreign Office defends the sanctions, it says they’re designed “to maintain stability in the region.” The record of the past year shows what that stability looks like: Trump bragging about being “in charge” of Israel’s June attack; airstrikes described as raising “global escalation risks.” Britain follows those strikes by buying new bomb-carriers. Stability by example.
The message to the world is simple — some nuclear programmes are legitimate because they fly NATO flags; others are criminal because they don’t. That’s not law; that’s hierarchy.
It runs deeper than foreign policy though. This is the return of nuclear normality. For thirty years, governments kept the bombs hidden — out of sight, out of mind. Now they’re back on the balance sheet, branded as jobs, as partnerships, as “deterrence.” The Prime Minister calls it “stepping up.” The contractors call it work. The press calls it leadership. No one calls it what it is — a new generation of dependency on the US, no matter how mad the President of the day might be.
When Nukewatch and NIS published Smoke and Mirrors, they warned that joining the dual-capable mission “blurs the line between non-nuclear and nuclear forces.” That’s their phrase. The line mattered once. It separated conventional command from catastrophic command. (Inference) Crossing it makes Britain not safer but more useful — a ready airfield, a launch partner, a vassal state that pays its own bills.
That’s how Britain now sells morality: through hardware. It frames obedience as responsibility. It calls nuclear expansion diplomacy. It calls silence safety.
The policy language never changes. “Step up.” “Show commitment.” “Keep Britain safe.” None of it defines what safety means. If safety means dependence on an ally that boasts about commanding foreign strikes, then the definition is corruption of the word itself.
The pattern is bureaucratic now. Announce loyalty. Purchase hardware. Sanction others. Repeat. The details change; the logic doesn’t.
This is the inversion of protection. The state protects its alliances from scrutiny, not its citizens from danger.
What’s left is the language of finality. Britain can’t claim disarmament while buying bomb-carriers. It can’t claim independence while waiting for American codes. It can’t claim moral leadership while enforcing the same double standards that keep the world armed with devices that need eradication not proliferation.
Of course much has also been made of late of the UK’s so-called peacekeeping credentials as far as the genocide in Sudan goes, with UK arms ending up in the hands of the RSF courtesy of the UAE, but that’s only half the story because the UK’s humanitarian role via international aid to the country may have laid the groundwork for the genocide that came after, so check out all the details of that story here.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next one. Cheers folks.