Does Vladimir Putin lie awake at night, troubled by thoughts of Britain’s nuclear deterrent and the potential havoc it could wreak on Russia?

Or does he simply share a few words with his companion, roll over, and drift back into a restful slumber?

While I hope his sleep is disturbed, I suspect otherwise. Britain’s nuclear deterrent may not be as formidable as it once was. A nuclear power lacking credibility is essentially powerless, and I worry that Britain may fall into this category.

Recently, President Macron delivered a surprising address. He proposed the stationing of French nuclear-armed jets in other European nations, the UK included, though he emphasized that the control over the nuclear button would remain with him or his successor.

While this is an offer we might consider declining, Macron did make some valid points worth noting, regardless of any personal biases.

He stated that ‘the coming half-century will be an age of nuclear weapons.’ In anticipation of this, he pledged to increase France’s nuclear arsenal. Currently, France is estimated to possess around 290 warheads, while Britain, Europe’s other nuclear power, holds approximately 255.

Russia has nearly 5,400 such warheads and the US very nearly as many. China possesses about 600 and, according to one estimate, will have 1,500 by 2035.

Does Vladimir Putin fretfully toss and turn at night as he thinks of the damage that Britain’s nuclear deterrent could inflict on Russia, asks Stephen Glover

Russia has nearly 5,400 such warheads and the US very nearly as many. China possesses about 600 and, according to one estimate, will have 1,500 by 2035

Imagine if Sir Keir Starmer roused himself from his slumbers and declared that the next 50 years would be ‘an age of nuclear weapons’. Half the Labour Party would require instant counselling. Lord Hermer, our querulous and evasive Attorney General, would dash off a legal opinion stating (wrongly) that expanding our nuclear arsenal would be against international law.

Macron is right. We live in an unstable, increasingly frightening world in which the use of nuclear weapons, especially by Russia, is no longer a far-fetched idea. Putin may sleep soundly at night but the Prime Minister and our service chiefs have no right to.

Why do I say that Britain’s nuclear deterrent is not impressive? Partly because it relies wholly on four ageing submarines (one of which is always at sea), the newest being more than a quarter of a century old.

Defenders of the status quo insist that a single nuclear sub at sea could destroy 40 Russian cities, even though the number of warheads it carries has been reduced over the years, mostly by Labour.

But this awesome firepower presupposes that the Trident missiles carried by the submarine could be successfully fired. I expect they can, but Putin will have noted two very public humiliations in the past decade.

In 2016, HMS Vengeance fired a test Trident missile that veered in completely the wrong direction, and reportedly self-destructed. In 2024, off Port Canaveral, Florida, HMS Vanguard launched a test missile which misfired, zigzagged like a rogue firework, and then plopped back into the sea.

Mishaps like these help to explain why the former head of nuclear policy at the Ministry of Defence, Rear Admiral Philip Mathias, claimed last year that Britain is ‘no longer capable’ of running a nuclear submarine programme after ‘catastrophic’ failures.

Let us nonetheless assume that most Trident missiles can be sent off in the right direction. Would they get through? According to a recent report by the respected Royal United Services Institute, Russia could soon have strong enough air defences to intercept British (and French) nuclear missiles.

The report suggests that both countries will have to develop hypersonic missiles to defeat Russia’s improving air defences and maintain the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent. That would of course cost a lot of money.

There is another problem, namely that our existing Trident missiles are manufactured in America and leased to us. (The nuclear warheads are made here by British hands.) This dependence on our main ally isn’t ideal since it could theoretically be rescinded by an irate President. Whose name might be Donald Trump.

The aforementioned Hermer plus Starmer have done more than any other politicians in living memory to poison relations with an American administration. Trump didn’t want our help in attacking Iran. He wasn’t asking for one of our two aircraft carriers to be hauled out of premature semi-retirement. All he wanted was the use of two of our bases, one in Diego Garcia, the other in Gloucestershire.

Britain’s dependence on our main ally for our Trident missiles isn’t ideal since it could theoretically be rescinded by an irate President. Whose name might be Donald Trump

Imagine if Sir Keir Starmer roused himself from his slumbers and declared that the next 50 years would be ‘an age of nuclear weapons’. Half the Labour Party would require instant counselling 

Not much to ask of an old friend, whatever you think of Trump’s war (and I’m highly sceptical). As Tony Blair has just said, ‘you had better show up’ if your closest ally needs you. But Hermer claimed bombing Iran was illegal under international law, and so allowing American planes to take off from British bases would be illegal too.

Please, please don’t let Hermer write the Prime Minister’s ‘letter of last resort’ to the captain of the nuclear submarine far away at sea to be read in the awful event of Britain being obliterated and contact being lost. It would read: ‘Give up.’

Back to the shortcomings of Trident. Our politicians have put all our eggs in one basket which, as we’ve seen, has a lot of holes in it. Experts point out that, unlike other nuclear powers, Britain can’t deliver battlefield or tactical (i.e. smaller) nuclear weapons. Trident, assuming it works, is an all-or-nothing kind of system.

Admittedly, the last government agreed to buy 12 F-35A fighter planes which will carry nuclear warheads, and Labour has confirmed the order. For the first time since the 1990s Britain will have an alternative to nuclear-armed submarines, though whether the nuclear weapons carried by the American-made aircraft will be ‘tactical’ is disputed.

The truth is that the British nuclear deterrent has dwindled over the past three decades. Yet the world is becoming more dangerous, and Russia and China more belligerent.

Despite its eagerness to fight wars in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, New Labour was always queasy about the deterrent, and cut the number of operationally available warheads by about 50 per cent. The Tories, as usual, didn’t repair the damage when they had the chance. We should have more warheads, and more ways of delivering them.

An object lesson in bone-headed myopia was an article by Robin Cook, former Labour Foreign Secretary and proponent of an ‘ethical foreign policy’, in the Guardian in 2005.

He wrote: ‘The Soviet Union has disintegrated . . . the West is now sinking large funds into helping Russia to defuse and dismantle the warheads that we once feared. No other credible nuclear threat has stepped forward to replace the Soviet Union as a rationale for the British nuclear weapons system.’

Cook was spectacularly wrong. Putin’s cheerleaders regularly threaten us with nuclear Armageddon and, although their main motive is to frighten us, their words can’t be wholly discounted. Yet large swathes of Labour and all of the Green Party still want us to get rid of our weakened nuclear deterrent.

I believe that it remains the best guarantee of our freedom – or would be if it were made truly credible. But that requires a lot more money and great determination, which are in short supply in this feeble, confused and unprincipled Government.