Why is the UK's nuclear deterrent at the end of a Scottish loch? — In Case You Missed It

[0:00] Look at this map. Hidden at the end of a secured Scottish lock is a secretive military base, [0:05] home to the UK's fleet of nuclear submarines. That base is Baz Lane. [0:10] But why are there nukes here? And does their presence make the UK safer? [0:15] Or is Scotland a target? Have you ever heard of MAD? [0:24] It's a Cold War-era doctrine which means mutually assured destruction. [0:29] Essentially, if one nuclear power launched a full-scale nuclear attack, [0:33] the subsequent counter-strike would ensure the annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. [0:37] I'm recording this from Glasgow in March 2026. [0:40] And while no one is using nuclear weapons, right now we have war in Europe, the Middle East, [0:45] multiple civil wars in Africa and Asia. They're all increasing global instability. [0:50] And you might not expect it, but Scotland has a role to play in all of this. [0:53] To understand what that is, I'm going 25 miles that way. [0:57] At the tip of Gair Lock is His Majesty's Naval Base Clyde. Nobody calls it that though. [1:03] It's known simply as Faz Lane. This base is home to the UK's fleet of four [1:09] Vanguard-class submarines, each armed with Trident nuclear missiles. [1:13] This quiet stretch of water on Scotland's west coast [1:16] is one of the most strategically important military locations in Europe. [1:21] Quick explainer. The UK has four Trident submarines. [1:25] At any one time, there is one submarine carrying nuclear weapons patrolling the seas undetected. [1:31] One undergoing maintenance. And two in port or on training manoeuvres. [1:36] The submarines are 150 metres long. That's larger than two Airbus A380s. [1:43] And they have a missile range of 4,000 nautical miles. [1:46] The whole idea is that in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, [1:51] the submarine at sea has the ability to retaliate. [1:54] To understand why our subs are in Scotland, we need to go back in time. And we need an expert. [2:00] Faz Lane is around 40 kilometres northwest of Glasgow. [2:08] And the submarines are based there for a combination of reasons, [2:12] including the deep water access to the North Atlantic. [2:17] The fact that it is a geographically isolated space away from major population centres [2:22] that can be more easily protected. [2:25] Dr Timothy Peacock is a lecturer and historian at the University of Glasgow, [2:29] specialising in war studies. That includes nuclear history. [2:32] Faz Lane is originally constructed as a World War II emergency port, [2:39] and subsequently is converted into becoming the home of the United Kingdom's nuclear submarine fleet [2:45] in the 1960s. And that is both the nuclear powered submarines that are designed with conventional [2:53] weapons such as torpedoes, designed to go on patrol and to hunt Soviet submarines or conduct other tasks [2:59] in terms of naval operations, as well as the ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear [3:06] armed missiles to act as the seaborne leg of any deterrent. [3:12] Historically, not everyone in Scotland has been happy with the presence of submarines, [3:16] nor the idea of a nuclear deterrent being housed here. [3:18] The demonstrators had expected the heavily guarded convoy to take the steep incline at Peton Hill, [3:24] a shortcut between Coolport and the Clyde submarine base. But at the last minute the route was switched. [3:30] The tactic took most of the demonstrators by surprise and left many of them screaming, [3:34] shouting and crying in anger. [3:36] These views are shared by the protesters of the Faz Lane Peace Camp, [3:41] the longest running occupied peace camp in the world, who in 2022 celebrated 40 years of encampment [3:47] beside the submarine base. [3:49] There have been arguments as to those on one side suggesting that the presence of a nuclear deterrent [3:55] has prevented wider war and has allowed for de-escalation and diplomacy, [4:01] as opposed to other scholars who've argued that the very presence of nuclear weapons [4:05] has potentially exacerbated the possibilities of conflict, including through arms races and the [4:12] encouraging of the building up of nuclear armaments or larger conventional forces by multiple sides. [4:20] I think I would say that I am observantly concerned about the present global situation. [4:26] I think that understandably, right now people will be, in a number of cases, [4:32] worrying about the future for completely understandable reasons. [4:36] At the same time, I believe that, especially when I look at the capacity of what people [4:43] are able to achieve in terms of resolution or in terms of resilience in the most difficult of [4:49] circumstances, it is something that continues to give me hope. Because ultimately, the single [4:56] biggest challenge is not one of technologies or of tools, but of people. [5:03] Tim said he was observantly concerned. He's not catastrophizing, but he is saying that in a [5:10] historical context, things aren't great. His concern is certainly shared by leaders and experts [5:15] across Europe. Last year, the head of NATO warned. Russia could be ready to use military force [5:22] against NATO within five years. Five years. Let's not kid ourselves. We are all on the eastern flank now. [5:32] This matters because of something called Article 5. It's NATO's core principle, and it means an [5:37] armed attack against one member is considered an attack against them all. In other words, if a member [5:42] country is attacked, the UK would be expected to respond. We must be able to deter aggression. And yes, [5:50] if necessary, we must be ready to fight, to do whatever it takes to protect our people, our values, [6:01] and our way of life. I mean, I don't know about you, but to me all of this sounds a little ominous. [6:08] If you could just introduce yourself and your title, please. [6:12] Yeah, I'm Ed Arnold. I'm a senior research fellow for European security at the World [6:16] United Services Institute. And I think we'll just jump right into the first question, which is, [6:20] what is the current state of international security? It's deteriorating, and it's deteriorating [6:27] quite rapidly. At a macro level, what we're seeing is a transition from a US dominated [6:34] international system that was established at the end of the Second World War. But that is now [6:41] deteriorating in a number of ways. And we're in a transition period to something that comes next. [6:47] And there are other powers such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, who are sort of joining together [6:54] to try and bring us into a world system that is heavily structured towards them. And I think what we're [7:02] seeing within this deterioration is also a very powerful US president who is starting to use [7:08] his military might, first against Venezuela, now against Iran. And it's just sucking up capacity, [7:15] both in terms of military capacity, diplomatic capacity. So all of these areas now are linked [7:21] between the European theatre, the Middle East, and also potential war with the US in the Indo-Pacific. [7:28] Okay, quite sobering. Sounds like there's a lot of, you know, multiple actors at play different [7:36] regions around the world. I guess, how important is Scotland in all of this wider picture? [7:44] Well, Scotland's actually very important. So if we look into sort of the European theatre of [7:50] operations, the primary threat is Russia. And the seat of Russian military power is up in the Kola [7:58] peninsula directly in the Arctic Circle. And that's where their strategic nuclear forces are. And [8:04] it's also where their northern fleet, so their navy fleet, which is their premier. And that is [8:12] effectively where their power lies. And in order to target Europe, in order to target the US, those [8:20] capabilities have to come down through the Norwegian Sea into the North Atlantic and the North Sea to [8:26] threaten Europe and also threaten the US. So Scotland is absolutely integral to that, [8:33] mainly through RAS Flossiemouth in the North, which has the UK maritime patrol capability. And actually, [8:40] that's quite a large proportion of NATO's maritime patrol activity. [8:44] And I just want to go back to that point. So in Europe, Scotland is the only place that has nuclear [8:52] weapons that would be used in defence of NATO. Is that right? [8:55] Yes. So in sort of the 2010s, the UK made that commitment to NATO to say that, you know, [9:02] our nuclear weapons, our nuclear forces are assigned to NATO. So we call that extended deterrence. So [9:10] within NATO, the only powers are the US, UK and France that have nuclear weapons. The UK's [9:17] are specifically assigned to NATO. There is a discussion in France at the moment, and President [9:22] Macron made a fairly important speech in the last couple of weeks around that. And that's really [9:28] important at the moment because of the fluctuating policy of the US. People are worried about Trump and [9:34] are also worried about sort of US disengagement from Europe and deprioritization of Europe to look [9:39] into other theatres. Obviously now, Middle East is pretty critical, but still the Indo-Pacific, [9:45] the rise of China, defence of Taiwan, is likely where a lot of US military assets will go. [9:52] So Europeans, you know, particularly if you're closer to the Russian border, they're really worried [9:59] about this. And they, you know, you see nuclear weapons as that ultimate deterrence factor. So the [10:04] fact that UK has extended deterrence over them is really important. [10:07] Mm hmm. And do you think that that makes Scotland a target then? [10:12] So I think in in a number of ways, and I think, you know, if you're looking at potential scenarios [10:19] where NATO could be involved with a war against Russia, I mean, it could happen by accident. So [10:25] there's a lot of activity, a lot of military activity going on. And sometimes there's miscalculation, [10:31] there's, you know, unintended escalation. So this could happen by accident. But if it is deliberate [10:37] policy, I mean, NATO is a defensive alliance, it's not going to go to war with Russia, it's only if it's [10:42] attacked. So it was deliberate Kremlin policy to go to war with Europe. Well, you have to look at that [10:49] maritime patrol capability, because effectively, if you're able to destroy or disable it, you can blind [10:57] NATO. And if NATO can't find Russian submarines, then they are effectively very vulnerable. [11:04] OK, so how prepared is the UK and Scotland for these kind of attacks? [11:11] Well, I think, I mean, reasonably prepared. But again, it's this is about complacency, [11:15] like, you know, you almost can't over prepare for these eventualities. And I think at a very high [11:21] level that there is a slight misunderstanding here, because there's an issue. So defence is [11:26] not of a devolved competency to the Scottish government. So that power resides in Westminster [11:32] and the Ministry of Defence. But when you're talking about resilience, you know, that is sort of, [11:39] it's where the seams and handoffs between departments happens. What's really important, [11:43] if you're talking about the types of crises we are, that all of these things are ironed out, [11:48] because you're effectively talking about legal, you know, emergency powers. They need to go through [11:53] acts of parliament to be able to enact it so that when you need them, you can press the button and say, [11:57] OK, we're going to do this. So I think at a very high level, the governance needs to be understood. [12:04] My last question, and it's quite a big question, is how likely is a nuclear attack in 2026? [12:11] Very unlikely, I would say, just for the fact that if you separate out what is meant by a nuclear attack, [12:22] I mean, you hear sort of tactical nuclear weapons. I don't use that terminology because I think nuclear [12:28] use is never confined to the tactical level of warfare, but certainly low yield nuclear weapons use. [12:36] You know, there has been, you know, worries that the Russians may use that in Ukraine at some point [12:41] in time to try and break the deadlock, but assess certainly that this year is highly unlikely. [12:47] And certainly nuclear use by Russia's allies and partners, notably China and India, said that's [12:54] absolutely a red line for us. I think it's really important to note that there are gradients [13:00] of activity and that's why deterrence activity is so important to make sure that if you start to go [13:05] up those escalation points in that ladder, there are measures to de-escalate as well. [13:10] For the past few weeks, my feed has been full of videos about nuclear Armageddon, [13:16] but listening to Ed and Tim, it sounds like the current assessment is that we don't need to be [13:21] heading for the bunkers any time soon. I set out to understand if FAS Lane makes Scotland a target, [13:28] and the answer is complicated. Major cities and infrastructure would be at risk in any large [13:33] scale conflicts, with or without nuclear weapons. The chances of a nuclear strike anywhere in the world [13:38] remains very low. What was clear is that war can take a lot of shapes and what really matters for [13:44] Scotland and the UK is resilience, being prepared and being aware. And I know that's a big thought [13:49] to leave you on. If you do want to go further, BBC journalists have produced extensive reporting on [13:55] both UK security issues and major international security issues. I'll put links in the description of [14:01] some of the stuff that I've been reading, but you can also find it all on YouTube or on the BBC News app. [14:06] And I'd really like to hear what you think. Please share your thoughts on all of this in the comments. [14:11] That's all from me. Thanks for watch'em.