UK defence policy is a shrine to the US

Defence minister Luke Pollard just reiterated in the House of Commons what UK defence policy is all about these days. It’s about massively expensive drones, nukes that aren’t ours, and a sniveling attitude to the US. Rule Britannia etc.

Pollard was answering questions from MPs on a range of military matters on 2 February. Tory Mark Francois (remember him!?) wondered if the UK would gift its Watchkeeper drones to Ukraine. Pollard said no:

The UK and partners will continue to ensure we equip Ukraine as best we can to defend its sovereign territory and ensure it is in a position of strength for any peace negotiations.

He went on:

Since Watchkeeper Mk1 entered service in 2010, drone technology has evolved at remarkable pace, driven by the extensive use of unmanned systems in the war in Ukraine. The Department has therefore prioritised this effort on more cost-effective drones that deliver comparable capability and can operate in the most demanding environments.

Supposedly, the search for Watchkeeper’s replacement – AKA, the Corvus program – will cost £130mn. This seems very optimistic. Based on the Israeli Hermes drone, Watchkeeper was ten years late late and cost £1bn. That’s according to Drone Wars UK. The NGO also said Watchkeeper flew only 14 hours in Afghanistan in 2014 because combat operations had effectively ended by the time it was usable.

Drone War said:

Since then, apart from one short deployment in the UK, the 50 plus Watchkeeper drones have either flown on training flight, mostly in the UK or Cyprus (despite being marketed as an all-weather system, it performs poorly in ‘adverse’ weather) or simply kept in storage.

The drone, which is unarmed, was then used to monitor refugees coming over the channel:

The UK deployment was to support Border Force operations to curb refugees crossings the channel. According to responses to our FoI requests at the time, a total of 21 flights were conducted in September and October 2022.

Very cost effective indeed.

Special relationship with who?

Also on 2 February Pollard was questioned about US-UK defence relations. Independent MP Ayoub Khan asked:

Whether he is taking steps to increase the UK’s level of military independence from the US.

Pollard said:

The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment.

No change there then, despite Donald Trump’s increasingly erratic warmongering. Pollard added:

As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.

Trump recently disparaged the NATO contribution to the disastrous Afghan war, causing immense public butthurt to British MPs. Trump eventually walked back his comments, lauding British soldiers for their efforts in that pointless, failed occupation.

Cheers, Don.

Independent nukes?

Khan had another question, however. He asked if the government would consider dropping military programs which did nothing to protect the country:

Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts.

He asked:

Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?

Pollard reiterated that the House of Commons is populated largely by sycophants divorced from public outlooks:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public.

Then he leant into the usual inaccurate stock answer

Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades.

Adding:

As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.

In reality, as the US publication National Interest explained on 5 March 2025:

the Trident missiles are not even owned by Britain, but are instead leased by the British military from the Americans.

They expanded:

British nuclear deterrent relies exclusively on American ballistic missile technology, the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) known as the Trident II D5, built by the U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

So, not independent then. The UK has lashed its future security to the whims of US leaders – whoever is in charge at a given time. Donald Trump’s first year back in power has rocked alliances like NATO. It seems like exactly the time to start thinking about what a serious, independent defence and foreign policy would look like. Pollard and Starmer, however, remain committed to a dying consensus which serves nobody but the US.

Featured image via the Canary