UK 'extremely dependent' on US for space security
- Reference: 1747816553
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/05/21/uk_space_commitee/
- Source link:
Dr Bleddyn Bowen, Associate Professor of Astropolitics at Durham University, told a committee of the House of Lords that the isolationist approach advocated by the Trump administration since its leader's second term in office was "concerning" for the UK, especially as it is dependent on its North Atlantic ally for space technology and military capability.
"In many news pieces I've read in the last five, six months, many journalists have wanted to dispel the notion that there ever was a special relationship between America and Britain. But if you look at space, missiles, nuclear and intelligence — and also cryptography — that is where there really is a special relationship between Britain and the United States, and where Britain is, in many ways, dependent on the United States," he told the Lords.
If things get to the point where UK-US relations do deteriorate, we will have a string of structural problems to deal with in terms of defense capabilities
Bowen explained that in the early part of the Cold War, the UK decided not to pursue its efforts at being a satellite-launching state and also decided against pursuing a complete nuclear weapons capability, unlike the French and other Western European states. It did this "because the Americans provided everything we wanted in the end, after enough negotiations.. we were never pressured or felt the pressure to develop those kinds of sovereign space capabilities."
He added: "We are extremely dependent on the Americans, so maintaining that relationship whilst we are so dependent is of supreme importance."
[1]
In February, US vice president JD Vance [2]came to Europe and said the Trump administration was concerned with European security. But he also said the most worrying threat to European security was "the threat from within," going on to enumerate a long list of grievances, including the application of UK laws designed to protect women seeking abortions from harassment.
[3]
[4]
Trump has called on members of the NATO military alliance, which includes the UK, to commit to spending 5 percent of their GDPs on defence. In February, the UK government committed to spending 2.5 percent of GDP from April 2027, a move welcomed by Trump.
[5]Brits to build ExoMars landing gear after Russia sent packing
[6]Reaction Engines' hypersonic hopes stall as funding fizzles out
[7]Tim Peake joins Axiom Space as an astronaut advisor
[8]Boffins demo self-eating rocket engine in Scotland
"Given the events and the discourse of the last 5-6 months, yes, my faith has been shaken in the United States and, it's a real conundrum for the British and not just in space," Bowen said.
"If things get to the point where UK-US relations do deteriorate, we will have a string of structural problems to deal with in terms of defense capabilities, given how so many of our defense companies are in many ways Anglo-American," he said.
However, he added that while there were "real issues to sort out there" he had not heard of any scaling back of the day-to-day military to military cooperation. For example, the UK Space Command is still highly integrated with the activities of the US Space Force, he said.
[9]
Research by Tussell [10]last month revealed that the Ministry of Defence is slowly but surely shifting its spending on military hardware to Europe and away from the US. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aC2kPFOHEtX_xYHVt_Z49QAAAI4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jd-vance-what-i-worry-about-is-the-threat-from-within/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aC2kPFOHEtX_xYHVt_Z49QAAAI4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aC2kPFOHEtX_xYHVt_Z49QAAAI4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/29/mars_lander_airbus_stevenage/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/01/reaction_engines_administration/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/24/tim_peake_joins_axiom_space/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/selfeating_rocket_engine/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aC2kPFOHEtX_xYHVt_Z49QAAAI4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/10/uk_ministry_of_defence_drops_us_spending/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Good article
The message is that the UK in particular is hugely dependant on the US for many types of defence technology. That was OK (with caveats) when the US were a reliable and trustworthy ally. Now it isn't. Nobody is suggesting the UK or Europe need to spend at the frankly ludicrous levels of the US, but both need to re-evaluate their priorities. For the UK this means being more self-reliant, and/or buying more European, doing more through multi-European nation pacts, and spending more overall. For Europe the themes are similar but with more emphasis on spend levels, less on weaning themselves off US tech.
Re: Good article
I have it on the entirely trustworthy authority of a sentient Tweed Suit that Europe are the devil, and everything coming from the continent is fundamentally evil, however.
Brits examining options
like replacing f-35 with j20, and trident with bulava? Alternatively, a home-made, full-monty delivery system perhaps? By ultra-special delivery, in 2070.
"Bowen explained that in the early part of the Cold War, the UK decided not to pursue its efforts at being a satellite-launching state and also decided against pursuing a complete nuclear weapons capability, unlike the French and other Western European states."
While Dr Bowen's overall message seems quite prescient should the US become more isolationist, this claim seems to be a bit off, in regards to the details of the comparisons he makes.
I'm not sure what sovereign space capacity existed in Western Europe - most space launch capability seems to be the ESA as far as I am aware, and that only formed in the mid-1970's I think.
In terms of nuclear weapons capability, it is only the UK and France that have that capability. Moreover suggesting that the UK decided "in the early part of the cold war" not to pursue a complete nuclear weapon capability doesn't seem quite right.
It was Ernest Bevan that said while part of Atlee's 1945 government:
"We’ve got to have this thing {the atomic bomb} over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."
Thereafter we had the V-bombers, Blue Steel, WE177, etc. As comprehensive a range of capability as anyone else was trying to develop.
It wasn't until the late 1960's that we switched the strategic nuclear deterrent to SLBM and to US made missiles, which is hardly the early part of the cold war.
That said, I suspect the most important of his reported statements may be:
"he had not heard of any scaling back of the day-to-day military to military cooperation."
The US doesn't share with the UK out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because they get something of value back from that cooperation.
Hopefully, enough people (on both sides of the pond) will realise that, and restrict the damage that others may do to that cooperation.
The "sovereign space capability" was called Black Arrow, and launched a satellite called Prospero.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Britain is the only nation to have achieved orbital capacity and given it up.
I do wonder about the choice of name for the golden dome.... To me, it implies that it will be very expensive, not very strong, and need a constant guard force to prevent it from being stolen.
Good article
But not really clear what the message was.
Sure, I agree that a level of independence from one singular supplier, or one with such a level of criticality, is a good thing.
But the USA is a Military Industrial economy, it spends vast amounts of it's GDP on Defence, when there is limited need to spend at the level they are, except to keep up with the other global superpower, China.
This doesn't mean we all need to spend at this level, nor can some countries spend at this level.
If leadership of one country, can impact the stability of others, like we're seeing currently, then there needs to be significant thought on how to maintain a level of autonomy, independence and resilience that allows for a significant reduction in the impact of events like this in the future.
I do agree that Europe needs to become more independent from the USA's military capability, but that means decades of reinvestment.
Likely a good thing for Europe in the longer term I think.