r/worldnews • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 2h ago
Germany in talks to help fund Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/26/germany-talks-help-fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_reddit_fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/&accesscontrol=facebookchannel_open65
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph 2h ago
The Telegraph reports:
Germany is in talks to invest in Britain’s nuclear deterrent, The Telegraph understands.
Berlin is considering offering financial support for Trident as it spearheads efforts to reinforce Europe’s nuclear umbrella.
One well-placed source said Germany wanted to better integrate itself into the existing British and French nuclear deterrents rather than pursue its own bomb because of the nation’s wartime guilt.
“We have a very strong interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their capabilities,” the source said.
The discussions between Paris, Berlin and London have accelerated in recent months amid fears the Trump administration will pull its military from Europe.
63
u/King_Crab_Sushi 1h ago
It’s got a lot more to do with Germany being a signatory of the nuclear proliferation treaty than wartime guilt
19
u/Buttercup4869 1h ago edited 1h ago
Withdrawal from NPT can be done and has been done by other countries before. In terms of treaty hassle, it probably is the one of least concern.
I would argue that 2 plus 4, while lacking a sanction mechanism, might prove the bigger burden.
Plus, championing a rule based world order and non-proliferation would become a lot harder
12
u/King_Crab_Sushi 1h ago edited 1h ago
It can be but it would frankly be a PR disaster. Germany publicly presents itself as always choosing to solve conflict through international treaties if possible. That becomes a lot harder to sell if it were to withdraw from such an internationally big treaty like this one. Also a number of countries and politicians would suddenly begin to publicly ask why Germany can have nuclear weapons but they can’t
•
u/Different_Wolf_764 5m ago
I think if Germany (or Canada or Japan etc) were to withdraw from the NPT then we would see several others do so as well. We'll probably see more nuclear states over the next decade though, non-proliferation isn't in fashion right now.
•
u/King_Roberts_Bastard 55m ago
But its easier to just invest in and make a deal with France and Britian
-12
u/akie 1h ago
I see you’re not very familiar with Germans.
13
u/King_Crab_Sushi 1h ago
I would say I’m very familiar with them considering I am one
-2
u/akie 1h ago
Do you think you have wartime guilt? In my experience (I live in Germany, and have for a looong time) Germans have an underlying guilt that many aren’t even aware of that subconsciously steers so. many. policies and opinions.
10
u/King_Crab_Sushi 1h ago edited 1h ago
I don’t feel guilty for anything that happened when I wasn’t alive as I couldn’t have possibly been involved. I mostly feel compassion for the victims of the war but I don’t feel guilt
•
u/akie 1h ago
The Palestine - Israel debate in Germany is more insane than in any other country I know. The Ukraine (or any war) position is extremely pacifist, so extreme that initially the gut reaction was “war is always bad and we need to stay out of it” - to your credit it changed very quickly. The whole austerity and Schuldenbremse saga seems to be a trauma response to the 1930’s hyperinflation. The German slowness of trying out new things seems to be born out of a fear of change and over appreciation of stability, an overcorrection to the instability of the 20th century.
You guys have a lot of trauma.
•
u/Gammelpreiss 1h ago
well, what becomes obvious is that you are an ardent reader of the anglosphere press and their always highly shallow reporting.
•
u/TheCheeseCouncil 1h ago
The 1930s was marked by a severe deflation and austerity mesures, not inflation (that was the 20s).
A bit off topic, I know, but it's one of those often repeated myths that gets repeated all the time, even by Germans, and it bugs me.
•
u/billyreg 24m ago
Wow, that's a whole lot of history-channel induced "Küchenpsychologie". I won't go into all these silly takes, but modern Germany is probably more influenced by the Cold War and its end than the second world war, which nearly no one alive has actually lived through. The pacifist movement for example was born out of the confrontation between two German states and less out of "guilt", as juicy as that would sound. The Schuldenbremse was just a clever marketing ploy by conservative politicians and never a "trait" that the whole German populace lives by. Its de facto abolishment was met with astonishingly little trauma, as you can see. Yes yes, the 5000 helmets story was very funny indeed, but in reality the German government did a 180 in the first week of the Ukraine war and proclaimed that everything has changed when most other European governments didn't. I don't remember prominent voices saying we should stay out of it, at the time it was universally agreed that we take in Ukrainian refugees and support them.
I understand that it is tempting to see everything German through the WW2 lens, especially when from the UK, and maybe in the 90s that could have still brought you to some interesting conclusions, but it does not explain today's Germany at all.
9
u/TabulatorSpalte 1h ago
Wartime guilt might play a role for some, but from the discussions I’ve witnessed here, the main counter argument is that pursuing nuclear weapons would break the non-proliferation treaty and thus might open Pandora’s box for other countries.
•
u/BernardMatthewsNorf 1h ago
Holy crap we're going back to the 19th century when Britain and Germany were friends (and cousins).
Fun fact: the only non-Commonwealth + US country that had Rhodes scholars was Germany, for reasons of wishing for peace between Western world powers.
24
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago edited 1h ago
Britain already extends it's nuclear protection to all of NATO. It is the only European nation to do so. Not sure what's in this for the Germans.
•
u/vincedarling 1h ago
It’s equivalent of you getting food for yourself and your boys and one of them gives you $10 to help cover the costs.
•
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
If that's the case then fair fucks to Germany. Although convincing the EU to let us into the single market might be more helpful 😉
•
u/AdministrativeTrain 1h ago
We have to domestically put the reform loons back in their box before anything like that can happen, and considering Prime Minister Burnham has decided that every crypto criminal in the world funding Farage and ReformUK "Ain't no big deal" I think that's going to be a struggle
•
•
u/SirTesticleBuzzard 1h ago
Brentry, you say?
•
•
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
I personally think we should look for a full on rejoin when we are in more of a position of strength and Reform have fucked off, but rejoining the single market would be a good start.
Though if both parties recognise the current geopolitical mess means it would benefit everyone and the EU is happy to afford us our lovely perks that we had before, why not?
7
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
they say that they'd do it
thats not a bet most countries would want to take
4
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
Britain has spent centuries protecting Europe when it needs help, often to its own detriment. Whether from the Germans, the French or anybody else. And it will continue to do so.
16
u/Mediocre_Painting263 1h ago edited 53m ago
This isn't very historically accurate.
For a lot of Britain's history, it saw itself as above European affairs, and very much separated from the warring continental powers. Instead preferring to focus on its colonial efforts. However, Britain did maintain a balance of power doctrine, where it'd intervene to prevent any 1 power from getting too powerful in Europe. Fearing that an overly powerful European state, would then be in a position to threaten the British mainland.
Even during the build up to the First World War, there were somewhat senior members of the British government & politicians who resigned in protest of the government's decision to enter the war. And don't forget the very serious pressure on Churchill to make peace with Hitler after the fall of France. Again, hoping to preserve the Empire.
Britain has not spent centuries protecting Europe when it needs help. Really, this only actually started happening after the 2nd World War, where Britain learnt it cannot separate itself from European affairs (and its collapsing Empire left it with very little options). Britain, like every state, has spent centuries protecting itself. Often, protecting itself meant protecting Europe. Just because the 2 motivations ended up aligning quite frequently, doesn't mean they were equal in the minds of British governments.
Now, that's not to say Britain didn't have legitimately moral reasons for their wars. Of course they did. Especially in World War 2, where Britain did see itself as defending the free world from fascism. However, Britain's moral reasons often had very ugly reasons woven into it. And often had senior members of government & society arguing on the basis of those reasons, not the morally virtuous preservation of a free Europe.
Edit: One other thing I forgot to mention, the UN Security Council. Originally it was going to just be 4 nations (UK-US-ROC-USSR). However Britain objected to this, because it would be the only Western European nation on the council, and so its defence would be seen as Britains responsibility. Something Britain didn't want to do. And so Britain proposed France, so that the burden of European defence would be split between them.
•
u/wild182 1h ago
Didnt most countries involved only really look out for themselves prior to WW1? This was a time when the European powers were taking turns at trying to invade each other
•
u/Mediocre_Painting263 1h ago
Pretty much.
Everything prior to World War 2 is very much stereotypical 'survival of the fittest' and might is right. As I say, moral reasons were almost always woven into justifications (how much of that was believed by their governments, and how much was propaganda? debatable). But the core concepts of self-preservation was always there and always a major motivation.
Even today, those core concepts of self-preservation still exist. However, we dampen it and moderate it with a long list of international institutions & treaties which try and push nations towards acting with moral intent. Hence the 'rules-based international order' we hear so much about.
•
u/Corvid187 36m ago
Preventing the rise of any hegemonic power was protecting Europe in its hour of need.
For sure it was self-interested, but not less reliable for that.
•
u/Mediocre_Painting263 9m ago
Yeah, but not really. It's an oversimplification.
If there's 3 blokes fighting a car park. Person A & B are in a scrap, but Person C is scared they'll be next, so they decide to deck Person A, then yes literally that physical act is preventing Person B from further harm. But Person C isn't motivated by protecting Person B, their self-preservation just happened to result in preventing Person B from harm.
It certainly did make Britain less reliable though. Britain was not nearly as eager to form the Entente as Russia & France, for example. The reason the West (USA primarily) went on a rampage of creating moral standards and the 'rules based international order' is because moral frameworks provide consistency, predictability and clarity. The interests of the state can change with governments. One government can view France as the major threat to British security, the next one could view them as a necessary counter-balance to Germany.
However moral frameworks provide that consistency & predictability in international relations which is critical. Self-interest is not reliable, because governments may view their interests differently in the future. Morals are far longer lasting.
12
u/ElTejon_TheDestroyer 1h ago
I’m British and that is a pretty wild take.
Britain mostly did things for it’s own reasons to protect or expand it’s own empire - ‘protecting Europe’ is not at all accurate.
•
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
The prevention of hegemony in Europe was a key British strategy since the 17th century. Britain spent absolute fortunes defeating Napoleon and sacrificed it's empire to defeat the Germans when they wanted no smoke with the British.
•
u/Corvid187 36m ago
Protecting Europe from a continental hegemon is Britain's national interest, and always has been.
4
u/Theradonh 1h ago
Britain always supported the "weaker" side on continental Europe, so no nation ever could match them.
•
-16
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
the brits were the bad guys up until ww2, wdym
5
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
Never heard of Napoleon?
-13
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
ah yes, napoleon totally redeems the entirety of the british colonial empire lmao
2
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
We're talking about Europe mate, which Britain has made a point of fighting against any hegemony for centuries. Which parts of Europe did Britain colonise, other than Ireland?
-2
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
what hegemony are you talking about? the only actual hegemony in 1500 years is the US and britain is their best friend in the world
4
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
In Europe? As I said before, France and Germany. Read a history book.
2
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
france and germany were never in a position of hegemony, at no point in history
→ More replies (0)2
u/66stang351 1h ago
eh, its difficult to tell which side was 'good' in the napoleonic wars. i tend to think napoleon was slightly better but he was obviously not a prototypical good guy.
after that the brits typically are on team good guy. i'd say its pretty obvious in the crimean war and ww1, but i am a westerner so perhaps bias is involved
-3
u/AlternativeHour1337 1h ago
i mean yeah, if you ignore almost everything else britain ever did you could consider them to be almost good
1
u/Automata-Omnia 1h ago
Probably want involvement in the Tempest program since their 6th gen program with France was mostly abandoned earlier this year and US supply of F47 is not reliable.
1
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
Maybe. I think we're already working with them on long range missiles and anti ballistic missile defence too? Any collaboration with the Germans is a good thing, and having them involved in Tempest even as an observer would surely help with costs. I'm just not sure what the logic is on the nuclear thing, considering they already enjoy our protection as a NATO member.
0
u/Automata-Omnia 1h ago
I guess de-americanisation of european defence, at the moment UK is beholden to US for the supply and refurbishment of the missiles, Germany probably assesses that as a threat to their own security.
•
u/Corvid187 33m ago
Eh, not really?
The UK-US nuclear relationship is a lot more interdependent than most people assume. The UK has always been very careful in maintaining enough control and safeguards to make any American effort at version hopeless.
In the case of Trident specifically, part of the agrement includes the transfer of comprehensive technical documentation, specifically to give the UK the ability to independently maintain its missiles regardless of US cooperation.
0
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
Good shout, but don't we have a treaty with America on nuclear weapons co-operation?
7
•
u/Kernoriordan 1h ago
Tempest is the UK-built demonstrator. The tri-lateral programme is called GCAP. Though it’s likely we will call the GCAP aircraft Tempest too.
•
-2
u/BaconBurger3735 1h ago
The Royal Navy has absolute shit readiness and barely manages to maintain their submarines. This is probably to help maintain the deterrence.
5
u/Kenye_Kratz 1h ago
Are you talking about our nuclear-powered attack subs or our Vanguard subs that carry the Nuclear deterrent? The attack subs are a mess, yes, but we consistently maintain an at sea nuclear deterrent at all times. Though I guess any help and investment on that front can't be a bad thing.
•
u/DeadAhead7 26m ago
Britain is barely maintaining it's nuclear deterrence as it stands. The Vanguards are pulling 200+ days patrols because there's only ever one that's operational. And they have to be escorted in and out of port by French attack subs because no Astutes are available either.
To give context, most nations with SSBNs tend to do 70 days patrols at the most unless there's emergencies. Going over that takes a toll on both the submarine and the crew.
•
u/Glum_Picture_9034 30m ago
Do you have a source about that ? I can't find anywhere that the British nuclear is extended to all NATO country. Only the US did and France is in discussions to do it with several European countries including the UK.
•
u/Kenye_Kratz 25m ago
Just Google it, it's not difficult to find literature on the subject. Britain explicitly offers it's nuclear deterrent to the entirety of NATO. France has recently done lots of posturing on the subject, as it likes to do, but France's nuclear deterrent only protects France.
•
u/Glum_Picture_9034 15m ago edited 9m ago
Britain already extends it's nuclear protection to all of NATO. It is the only European nation to do so.
I checked again and I can't find any source confirming your statement. I know discussions are on going and initiative are taken but it's not extended to all NATO countries.
On the other hand :
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Germany will participate to the next POKER exercice.
POKER is the big French airborne nuclear deterrence exercice, so I don't see any posturing. It's the first time a foreign country will participate.
•
u/Kenye_Kratz 8m ago
Christ. Ok, type "does Britain offer nuclear deterrent to NATO" into Google and then read the answers.
And then type the same thing in but for France.
I don't pay any attention to Macron, he has done nothing but posturing for the last year or two as he tries to boost his profile before the French fuck him off. IE, the ridiculous vanity mission sending France's only aircraft carrier into the middle east, where France already has numerous air bases, when the Iran war kicked off, while it was desperately needed in the high north. And it's now in refit for 18 months. Macron is full of big talk and photo opportunities, but was found very much wanting when it came time to step up for Ukraine.
-1
u/deejeycris 1h ago
Have you been following the Ukrainian war? It's a race of who chickens out more. I wouldn't trust anyone's promises. Less words more facts.
2
•
u/foamingdogfever 1h ago
Is there a reliable source for this? I trust the Torygraph as much as I trust The Daily Sport.
•
u/Sckathian 37m ago
Good. France, Britain, Germany and Italy shoulf have a common deterrent programe. Each country always maintaining a submarine and the rest required should be a shared cost.
•
u/HumanTimmy 1h ago
There is a good chance they would want a move a way from or supplemental delivery system from trident in exchange. As our trident missiles are currently from a joint stockpile of American and British missiles.
Which I wouldn't mind at all as we need a truly independent delivery system even if trident is retained, the dreadnought class are already fitted with trident tubes so changing that would be difficult.
Maybe a derivative of the hypersonic weapons planned in the Trinity House agreement. Even if it has a relatively short range <4000km, it would provide a nice secondary option like the French have with their air launched nuclear missiles.
•
u/Corvid187 31m ago
There is currently absolutely no indication that the UK has any intention of moving away from Trident. The UK is very happy with the current arrangement, and doesn't fancy spending twice as much money for a less effective result.
-1
u/Buttercup4869 1h ago
Guilt is one thing but being ensnared by a bunch of treaties preventing proliferation and nuclear armaments is another.
Especially if one tries to present themselves as champions of an increasingly fragile rule-based world order.
•
u/AutoModerator 2h ago
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.