15 Billion for UK nuclear warhead programme

It couldn’t be further away from a North Korean missile display. That’s utter nonsense. Here we are, in 2025, being openly threatened by a sociopathic individual with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. Today’s announcement by Starmer is way overdue and if anything, doesn’t go far enough in terms of defense spending.

Oddly this is the last site that seems to think the government know what they are doing, and since I have been fighting nuclear proliferation for over 40 years, I think I am pulling my weight. Assuming a government know what they are doing - any government of any complexion - is a recipe for "shut up and let your betters do as they want". In a democracy we are entitled to disgree with them, to not assume they know what they are doing, and to fight their decisions when we think they are wrong.

And just because they might think they know what they are doing doesn't mean they have told you the truth about what they are doing either - as I said earlier on, there are distinct, albeit temporary, economic advantages to moving onto a war footing economy. War is profitable, building arms is profitable. Just one small example - where exactly do you think all that steel that taxpayers are pouring £millions in to, that nobody else could make profitable, and which cannot be sold to our biggest previous market because of tariffs will now be used. Funny that the government decided it needed to build things that use exactly that kind of steel, isn't it? So we are spending £billions on things built out of steel from an unsustainable industry that we are already pouring £millions into to keep afloat because it is too expensive to produce / there is no market for it anywhere.

Spot on and the goverment wants to put defence spending up to 3% of GDP – that’s about £30 billion more a year. Every year. Not just once.

And the thing is – that money’s got to come from somewhere. So people cheering it on should be honest – what gets cut to pay for it? Or whose taxes are going up?

Cos let’s be real, it’s a zero sum game. Every pound spent on more warships or missiles is a pound not being spent on things most of us actually care about – like the NHS, elderly care, fixing crumbling schools, housing, public transport, childcare, or clean energy.

Plus a lot of this defence spending ends up wasted anyway. The Ajax tank project’s cost £5 billion and the things still don’t work properly. We’ve got an aircraft carrier without functioning planes. And loads of these projects are just delay after delay, and no one ever seems held to account.

And unlike investing in health or education or green jobs, military spending gives a terrible return. Studies show stuff like healthcare or infrastructure creates way more jobs and long term growth. Weapons? Not so much.

Also – worth remembering – Brexit and Covid left us with something like £600 billion in debt. And we haven’t paid that back. The economy’s wobbly, interest rates are high, and it won’t take much (one Liz Truss style meltdown??) to send things over the edge again.

Just feels like we’re in a period of decline and instead of fixing the basics – schools, housing, care, climate – we’re doubling down on war toys. Doesn’t seem like a smart move.

If the UK wants to feel safe and strong maybe we should start by getting the NHS working again and giving kids somewhere decent to learn and live.

@PhilippaGeorgiou Yes, exactly that. I wouldn't say I support tories much either, I don't really vote in the UK, just pay my taxes here. But on defence decision making in emergency I trust Boris Johnson and his team much more - and happy to be proven wrong about Starmer.

I'd assume, like a pp, that the government do know what they're doing here. Unless you're better placed to advise them, in which case, get on to them and tell them you're available for a consultation!

I mean first of all you have to compare like with like.
15 billion may just be the warhead design and maintenance. But like the cost of the subs that will be spread over a lifetime of about 30 years.

Of course it's not like for like. One of those things is investing in people, the other is investing in killing people. Not remotely the same thing.

We do not need to spend £15 billion on nuclear weapons at all, whether it is paid up front or on the never-never.

@zendeveloper I was so afraid that Labour would never have the guts to do this. I lean more conservative on the UK political landscape, and defence was one of my biggest worries when Labour won.

You were worried that Labour wouldn't spend £billions on arms when the Tories (who you support), in power for over a decade, didn't?

I’m sure there are many many more popular things he’d much rather be spending £15billion on. I doubt he’s doing it for shits and giggles.

I am not exactly a Starmer supporter, but holy fucking shit he can't win can he. If he did the opposite there'd be fifteen billion threads about how cowardly he is or some other shit.

It's not there to be used. It's a deterrent, to show that we can respond to nuclear attack. The mad doctrine has been effective in stopping all out war between superpowers

It is unfortunately 100% necessary

Would you prefer it to be used?

I was so afraid that Labour would never have the guts to do this. I lean more conservative on the UK political landscape, and defence was one of my biggest worries when Labour won.

It’s a huge waste of money. Will just end up being mothballed without being used in a few decades.

Unfortunate that its needed, but not a waste, even if never used the boost to the economy is massive from defense spending. So many industries perk up.

I mean first of all you have to compare like with like.

15 billion may just be the warhead design and maintenance. But like the cost of the subs that will be spread over a lifetime of about 30 years.

If you look at the cost of winter fuel allowance that is £1 billion per year every year.

From what I can find in the media trident currently costs about £3 billion per year. I am not sure whether this is just running costs, or is the amortised cost of the entire program over its lifetime. But you need to be clear which costs you are comparing with which.

I don't think necessarily cutting the winter fuel allowance is a good thing although it is very poorly targeted. But if you are going to keep it, I am not sure that ditching trident to provide it is a good idea.

The warheads are also uk manufacturered and maintained. So this money supports a huge number of jobs.

I'm anti nuclear weapons and I think this is quite shameful use of our money. I think we are more likely to be a target if we have nuclear weapons. As a poster already mentioned to quote Tony Benn. "If we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people."

£15 billion for nuclear missiles alone.

£1.4 billion "saved" by scrapping the winter fuel allowance
£5 billion "saved" by cutting disability entitlements

Here's an idea - buy fewer nuclear missiles / weapons of mass destruction. Spend more on our people. Better support for the vulnerable with decent incomes. Proper (re)training and supported employment so that people with disabilities who can work get the support to do so instead of simply pulling their benefits from under them and leaving them to poverty and more ill health. Expand social housing build. It's not like there aren't things that we need.

I'm not an advocate of war anyway, and recent history tells us that wars are not going to be fought in the old ways going forward. Drones, cyber attacks, and ok maybe cutting undersea cables etc (which a submarine would be useful for, but not a nuclear weapon) are the direction things are going. But didn't we recently take part in a little war (with someone who was previously one of our allies and who we actually supported and sold weapons to!) because the CF was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction??? Oddly, we didn't find them.

Nuclear weapons are not precision targetting, they kill and destroy indiscriminately, military, infrastructure and civilians alike. They poison te environment, as if we aren't doing enough of that already. It's a nice little exclusive club of a number of nations where we spend as much making sure nobody else can join it. Perhaps they would be less keen to join it if we weren't so keen on having the club in the first place.

And let's face it, something else we have learned recently is that the enemies of the state can far more effectively bring us to our knees by attacking the Co-op or M&S. To slightly paraphrase "They can take our lives, but God forbid they take our on-line shopping..."

The ballistic missile subs do their job mostly silently and unthanked.

But having them does allow an extra strategic option before escalation to armageddon. We have a small red button that we can use before the big red button. Hopefully we need neither.

The fleet submarines are a bit different as they offer conventional strike capability against land targets which is a useful additional tool in warfare and already has been used by us, as well as the ability to conduct warfare against ships and other subs.

Yes I don't think the US, the EU or anyone else can be relied on in war. In a similar manner to what happened to vaccines during covid it became every country for themselves. That's why if you want to a least stand a chance of shaping the outcome, you need to have the ability to look after your own interests.

@GasPanic Do you actually believe that in the event of a war in which we need "nukes", we would need to be even the slightest bit bothered about the long term future of anything at all? In the event of nuclear war, the only thing one can hope for is to be right underneath the incoming weapons.

As for those worried about what will happen if the US don't step up in the event of war. don't panic - they have never stepped up in a war unless they had worked out which side was winning. You genuinely think that the US would step up for Europe, even if we were to arm ourselves to the teeth and spend 30% of the GDP on weapons? The USA will do whatever is in its own interests at all times, and the only reason it will step up is if it's own interests are threatened or if there is a fast buck to be made.

The only people who win wars are arms dealers and countries who are arms dealers.

It's a bit like PPE for covid. Fine to have non of the stuff around. Then when you need it there is a mass scramble to try to get it, costing a fortune.

Nuclear missiles and submarines are not the sort of thing you can rustle up on a whim like ordering deliveroo. And when you need them, you really need them.

I hate the way we seem to live these days with zero contingency for anything. That's because being popular as a government is all about not doing tax rises, not about good preparation and planning for the future. It's all about short terminism and all about now. Which is why in the future we are going to be screwed.

What I would say is rather than complain about the 15 billion spent on nukes ask why the government doesn't raise taxes to pay for the other things you think it should be spent on.

Money spent on cyber attacks would probably just get funnelled into the pockets of IT consultancies who would charge a fortune, do practically nothing and be nowhere to be seen when the internet breaks down and it all goes tits up. See the ID card scheme and the digital NHS, both collosal wastes of money.

I understand that defence spending is necessary but this seems far too much in the wrong areas?

Trump has said that unless Europeans step up their own defences, he won't be committing US troops to our defence, so 'far too much' is a moot point when the future of NATO is at stake. Trump thought we weren't spending enough (and in truth, we probably weren't) and that's the main driver - NATO's future.

Also, as a pp said, all the mood music from various countries' intelligence services is that Russia is upping its military power and making hundreds and hundred of additional tanks, as well as infringing air and sea space - clearly Putin's ambitions go way beyond Ukraine. It's why Poland spends 5% of its GDP on defence.

It's actually quite frightening to know that we're being put on a war footing. But at least we may be better prepared for whatever happens.

Are you aware of the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan?

Have you read about the massive service cables that keep being cut in the sea?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/mar/05/shadow-fleets-subaquatic-sabotage-europe-undersea-internet-cables-under-attack

Sadly the post ww2 alliance with the US has become unreliable. Nato will struggle if the US pulls out

This seems to be a sensible step. But it's very sad that it's needed

If the UK were to be attacked, I very much doubt it would be the kind of attack that this sort of spending will stop. This is, in my opinion, less about being prepared for war and more about generating a "war economy". It has long been known that wat and it's associated trappings produce strong economies - but only temporarily. As Tony Benn once said “If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people.” So why are we finding money to kill people in a war when we can't find the money to help people?