KEIR STARMER is reviving the idea of a “limited” nuclear war in Europe: it’s an old 1980s plan that was killed off by a huge wave of protests over nuclear cruise missiles at Greenham Common, before Starmer decided to bring it back to life. Starmer’s version is worse, because it means Nato threatening to drop the atom bomb first, escalating from conventional to nuclear war.

Starmer’s plan is to buy 12 US F-35A jets made by US giant Lockheed (with help from Britain’s BAE Systems). Britain previously bought Lockheed’s F-35B jets, at around $110 million a piece, a version of the plane which can do vertical landing, but is bedevilled by technical problems. The F-35As can carry small US atomic bombs as well as conventional explosives.

Starmer plans to allow the US to store its “B61 gravity bomb,” a small atom bomb that the F-35A can carry. This bomb has a variable explosive power. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, killing around 100,000 people, was called “Little Boy,” whereas the B61 bombs can be three times as powerful as Little Boy or dialled down to just a tenth of its power.

I say this is Starmer’s idea, but it is clearly a US plan he has agreed to. There are currently no US atomic bombs in Britain. But last January CND noted the US was building more guard shacks for what the US called an “upcoming nuclear mission” at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.  

US budget documents also showed the US is upgrading Lakenheath’s silos to store B61s. Starmer is agreeing to buy US jets to carry US-controlled atomic bombs based in Britain. This feels like a rerun of Thatcher allowing US cruise missiles to be based at Greehham Common.

These smaller bombs are designed to allow a “limited” nuclear war in Europe. Currently, we are supposed to avoid nuclear war by “mutually assured destruction” (MAD). No country will launch nukes because if they do, major cities on all sides will be destroyed. Submarine-based Trident missiles are our MAD weapons.

Belief in a “limited” or “battlefield” nuclear war undermines MAD. The temptation to launch a “small” nuclear war is greater, though in reality it would very likely lead to all-out atomic destruction.

In May, The Times was given a preview of Starmer’s F-35-nuclear-bombs plan. It said: “The aircraft would form a second pillar of the nuclear deterrent, and could be used in a scenario below all-out nuclear war. They could also be deployed on the battlefield,” adding: “Having a two-tier nuclear deterrent would mean the UK and its European allies would be able to deliver a clear and limited response to any Russian attack.”

By “below all-out nuclear war,” they mean a limited nuclear war. Worse, they mean Nato starting a nuclear war, by dropping the atom bomb first against Russian tanks.

Back in the 1980s the US took similar positions.

In 1981 President Ronald Reagan said: “I could see where you could have the exchange of tactical [nuclear] weapons against troops in the field without it bringing either one of the major powers to pushing the button.”

In 1983 Margaret Thatcher accepted US nuclear-armed cruise missiles to Greenham Common air base. It seemed US plans to prepare for limited nuclear war in Europe were happening. This led to huge anti-nuclear protests across Britain, including many marches and the Greenham Common peace camp.

CND didn’t win its call for nuclear disarmament, but the campaigns did reverse the expansion of nukes. Under pressure of the protests, the US and Russia negotiated disarmament.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty meant cruise missiles left Greenham between 1989 and 1991.

Declassified 1980s CIA assessments say what the US thought behind the scenes. Papers from 1983 say the CIA thought Greenham Common activists were “punks and crazies.” They worried about these “radicals” taking “direct action in a more aggressive manner.” This included Greenham women who “penetrated a fence and reached an SR-71 aircraft” — a Blackbird spy plane — “which they damaged with paint,” along with other base break-ins.

The CIA admitted these “punks and crazies” were having success. In 1984 they reported: “Greenham Common, where cruise missiles are being deployed, is a major focus of peace activity. A feminist peace group not directly associated with CND has maintained a ‘peace camp’ near the base since 1981. The women’s determined efforts to obstruct and, at times, penetrate the base have gained substantial publicity for the movement.”

In 1984 the CIA admitted the whole peace movement had won big gains in an analysis paper, saying: “We believe that increased democratisation of defence policymaking in West European countries will be the peace movement’s lasting legacy. Western European governments can no longer make defence policy primarily on the basis of expert advice. They feel compelled to take account of public concern about the escalating arms race and to refute accusations from opposition and peace movement spokesmen that they are subservient to the United States. They have already been putting more emphasis on arms control and less emphasis on defence programmes than Washington would prefer.”

Now Starmer is returning to “escalating the arms race” and being “subservient to the United States.”

In the 1980s, the CIA reluctantly acknowledged the anti-escalation consensus. Thatcher and Reagan gave in to it. Labour also welcomed the cruise missiles’ removal. Labour was strongly influenced by CND, but under Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair the party reached a nuclear compromise.

Labour broadly accepted Britain’s existing MAD nuclear weapons — Trident — but called for multilateral disarmament negotiations, rather than increasing Britain’s nuclear arsenal, let alone extending it into “battlefield” and shorter-range weapons designed for a “limited” war.

Labour’s 2024 manifesto showed signs of change. It said: “Our commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent is absolute,” dropping talk of “multilateral disarmament.”

However, Starmer has now gone further, torn up Labour’s nuclear compromise entirely, and committed to new “battlefield” atomic weapons. Just as we are backing Donald Trump bombing Iran in case it is about to develop a bomb, we are expanding our own nuclear weapons into new, dangerous areas.

Follow Solomon Hughes on X @SolHughesWriter.