The British orientation towards the update of the nuclear deterrent system raises questions about its military and political connotations at a stage where the European continent appears in front of stressful strategic transformations, especially with the weakening of European confidence in the American parachute and the exacerbation of the Russian threat.
It seems that London seeks to restore the gap left by its withdrawal from the European Union by stabilizing its military presence in a European context, and building sustainable alliances that enhance its position inside NATO without absolute dependence on the leadership of Washington.
The “Times” newspaper quoted sources of confirmation that Britain entered into talks with the United States to buy fighters capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads, in a move described as the broader in developing the British deterrent system since the Cold War.
According to the newspaper, this trend falls within the framework of a comprehensive strategic review launched by the British government with the aim of strengthening the country’s readiness in facing what it considers a great threat on the part of Russia, in light of the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
Reinstatement
The military and strategic expert described Brigadier Elias Hanna this movement as a re -position within a volatile international environment, noting that Europe has been subjected to a major shock since the outbreak of the Ukrainian war, and has become a test scene of new types of threats and weapons.
Hanna pointed out during his participation in the “Beyond the News” program that the deterrent balance in the continent has become threatened, especially with Russia possessing nearly two thousand tactical nuclear heads compared to only 200 in the United States, stressing that the tactical weapon is no longer marginal, but rather has become a central tool in the new defensive doctrine.
He explained that the tactical nuclear weapon varies in terms of extent and destructive ability, but it remains very dangerous, as the smallest of these bombs is equivalent to its destructive capacity several times what Hiroshima destroyed, which doubles the complexity of the security scene.
Hanna adds that Britain lacks the “triad of deterrence” that combines air, sea and land capabilities to launch nuclear weapons, which makes the aircraft deal a step to compensate for this palaces, especially since the current British system depends only on submarines.
Decline
In turn, Dr. Hosni Abidi believes that the British move involves an attempt to restore the traditional military position of Britain, at a time when the British military force suffers from a naval and air force, according to repeated official reports.
In his interview with “Beyond the News”, Abidi pointed out that Britain is seeking through this deal to achieve more than one goal, most notably strengthening the strategic relationship with Washington, and strengthening defense readiness to any possible change in the American position if Donald Trump wins again in the elections.
He considered that the import of advanced F-35 fighters-which Britain is participating in manufacturing-represents a direct technical response to security reviews that called for the modernization of the British military arsenal in proportion to the transformations of the European and international scene.
Despite this British trend, Brigadier General Hanna believes that Europe – including Britain – is still suffering from a serious readiness gap, indicating that traditional weapons are still the pillar of battles, and that the lack of ammunition has become a general crisis revealed by the conflict in Ukraine.
Demographic challenges
Hanna added that European countries are now aware that the total dependence on the American nuclear umbrella is no longer a guaranteed option, and that these countries should rearrange their budgets, strengthen their defense industries and address the demographic challenges related to the lack of recruitment.
As for Dr. Abidi, he believes that the broader European context indicates an unannounced arms race, as Germany has already raised its defensive allocations, while other countries are working to enhance its capabilities, and if France remains more conservative in this path until now.
He explained that Europe is witnessing today a “defensive setback” after attempts to create an independent European umbrella failed, which led to more dependence on the United States, at a time when Washington shows continuous signals calling on Europeans to assume their security responsibilities.
Abidi adds that the deeper problem is that nuclear deterrence in itself does not necessarily mean the desire to use weapons, but rather to send a strategic message to the opponent, pointing out that deterrence was and still is a safety valve for not slipping towards comprehensive wars.
Traditional war
Brigadier Hanna affirms that Russia is aware of this equation, but at the same time it uses its nuclear discourse to cover its traditional war, warning that any change in the balance of power will require a reconstruction of the military beliefs inside and outside NATO.
In light of these data, Obaidi argues that the current trends may reduce the chances of reaching diplomatic solutions, as they lead to an escalation of confidence, impose huge economic burdens that may affect the priorities of peoples, and feed the rise of extremist currents.
With the continued division of defense perceptions within Europe, the war in Ukraine appears to be a candidate for more escalation, at a time when strategic reports warn of the breadth of the conflict outside Ukraine to affect vital infrastructure, as Britain recently waved.
In these circumstances, Hanna concludes that Europe, despite its escalating steps, is still unable to build a unified deterrent doctrine, which makes it in a fragile position hostage to the transformations of American policy on the one hand, and the possibilities of Russian recklessness on the other hand.