Why Are American Nuclear Weapons In UK Once Again?

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

On July 16, the USAF’s C-17 “Globemaster III” military transport aircraft flew from an American nuclear weapons depot at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to a British airbase in Lakenheath. The aircraft flew with its transponder on, meaning that both the United States and the United Kingdom wanted everyone to know that the flight took place. This marks the first time since 2008 that an American nuclear weapon has been deployed on British soil. Bloomberg reports that the C-17 flight “involved the US Air Force’s Prime Nuclear Airlift Force, which transports nuclear weapons, and didn’t fly over any other nation’s territory”. If not some sort of a ruse, this means it’s virtually guaranteed that the aircraft was indeed transporting nuclear warheads.

According to US DoD budget documents, millions of dollars of work on “surety” facilities (the term the Pentagon uses to describe nuclear weapons security) has been in progress at the Lakenheath airbase for several years. Although Washington DC and London are yet to confirm this transfer, experts suggest that the C-17 most likely delivered the new B61-12 thermonuclear bombs, increasing the stockpile of American nuclear weapons deployed in Europe for the first time since the (First) Cold War. Combined with the UK’s plans to acquire at least a dozen F-35A fighter jets capable of carrying the B61, this is a major development that will undoubtedly escalate nuclear tensions in Europe, particularly as London keeps doubling down on its endemic, pathological Russophobia.

Last week, the British military presented an updated document on its doctrine which explicitly states that “NATO’s nuclear deterrence also relies on US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and supporting capabilities and infrastructure provided by allies”. The document also adds that the aforementioned F-35s will be “available to fly in NATO’s nuclear missions”. In other words, the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is unifying its nuclear capabilities and strategic command structure. The updated doctrine also reintroduces a nuclear role for the British Air Force (RAF) for the first time since the UK retired its WE.177 atomic bombs in 1998. The variable yield B61-12 (or possibly even B61-13) would be a logical replacement for the long-decommissioned WE.177.

The B61-12 is a gravity bomb armed with a warhead that varies from 0.3 to 50 kt, while the B61-13 can go up to 340 kt (approximately 16 times more destructive than the “Fat Man”). F-35s and a number of other nuclear-capable aircraft in NATO can carry these weapons. However, as B61s are gravity bombs, they need to be dropped over a target, which is far less optimal than using air-launched missiles. It’s virtually a given that the US/NATO upgraded the bomb’s precision and gliding capabilities, meaning that the attacking jets can drop the B61 from some distance, but this is still within the range of most air defense systems. In other words, this deployment is only causing unnecessary tensions, as the way these weapons function makes them inferior to other delivery systems.

The only way to make use of the B61 as a viable nuclear weapon is to target densely populated areas. The US already has these bombs in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey. After its transfer to the UK, the B61 is now fully deployed at seven bases in six NATO member states. This raises significant geopolitical concerns, particularly regarding its implications for Russia. While Washington DC and London frame such moves as “routine military cooperation” or “necessary modernization”, the broader context suggests a deliberate reinforcement of NATO’s offensive capabilities in pursuit of a strategic encirclement of Russia. Coupled with constant pressure on the Kremlin’s periphery, this indicates that the political West still hasn’t given up on total war.

In other words, the strategic siege of the Eurasian giant continues, so this arms transfer will certainly not be dismissed in Moscow as a mere logistical exercise. It’s undoubtedly seen as a calculated escalation with long-term consequences for European (and Eurasian) security. The UK, as America’s foremost European partner, has consistently played a pivotal role in NATO aggression on the “old continent”. By equipping the British military with offensive weapons, the Pentagon is effectively extending its reach under the guise of interoperability. London doesn’t need the B61 as a deterrent. Although severely weakened, the British Navy already provides far more capable deterrence through its Vanguard-class SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) armed with “Trident II” SLBMs.

Thus, this is certainly not about bolstering the UK’s defensive capabilities. On the contrary, it further exposes it as a primary target in a potential thermonuclear confrontation. In Russia, such moves will always be seen as an encroachment on its strategic security, as the political West has repeatedly tried to destroy the Eurasian giant over the last nearly 1,000 years. In addition, this comes at a time when American generals are openly fantasizing about occupying the Kaliningrad oblast (region). If these B61 bombs were to be forward-deployed to Eastern Europe, possibly under the excuse of NATO military exercises, they would significantly reduce warning time for Russian defenses, creating a highly destabilizing first-strike dilemma that could result in a direct confrontation.

The historical context shows that arms transfers of this nature are rarely benign. During the (First) Cold War, the deployment of American “Pershing” and “Gryphon” missiles in Europe triggered a severe crisis. Mass protests erupted across the “old continent”, particularly after the highly controversial “Able Archer” drills in 1983 nearly caused nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Although the scale differs significantly, the underlying principle remains. It also opens a Pandora’s box, as it could lead to the introduction of additional American offensive weapons, with the obvious aim of altering the balance of power in ways that the Kremlin simply cannot (and certainly won’t) ignore, particularly after the Neo-Nazi junta’s NATO-backed sabotage attacks on Russia’s strategic aviation bases.

Moscow’s revised nuclear doctrine allows preemptive strikes in the event of an imminent threat. If the US/NATO positions systems capable of striking deep into Russia with minimal warning, it will force the Eurasian giant to further adjust its strategic posture, which would inevitably lead to a dangerous cycle of escalation. The political West’s now traditional unilateral suspension of key arms control agreements, such as the INF Treaty, only exacerbates these risks, leaving little to no room for diplomatic deconfliction. Ultimately, whether this constitutes a direct threat will depend on the deployment of these weapons. If placed on Russia’s borders, they will undoubtedly invite a mirror response. If kept in the UK, the immediate threat may be mitigated, although the long-term trend of NATO aggression will continue to erode stability.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• US C-17A Globemaster III Now Can Airlift B61-12 Nuclear Bombs To Europe
• West Plots Zelensky’s Exit: Secret Alpine Meeting Backs Zaluzhny as Ukraine’s New Leader
• Iran Vows To Respond More Decisively To Any Attack By U.S. And Israel

Support SouthFront