The UK government intends to buy F-35 jets that are capable of firing missiles with nuclear warheads. We say No!
In June 2025 the UK government announced that it will purchase a number of U.S. made F‑35A Lightning II fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, reintroducing an air launched nuclear role for the RAF. The decision marks a significant shift in Britain's nuclear posture, which for decades has relied solely on submarine based Trident missiles.
The announcement has triggered alarm among disarmament organisations, faith based groups and public health advocates. Under the banner "Say No to Britain buying nuclear F‑35s", campaigners argue that this move is dangerous, legally questionable and morally misplaced at a time of deep social and ecological crisis.
The UK intends to purchase F‑35A jets configured to carry U.S. B61‑12 nuclear bombs and to join NATO's "dual capable aircraft" nuclear mission. This would add an air delivered nuclear capability to the existing submarine based deterrent. The government has described this as "the biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation".
Supporters present the decision as a necessary response to a more dangerous world and as a way of deepening Britain's contribution to NATO. Critics see something different: an expensive political gesture that locks the UK more tightly into U.S. nuclear strategy, while offering little real security to people living in Britain.
Campaigners from a range of organisations have set out their reasons for opposing the purchase.
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has taken a clear position. In a legal briefing on the wider nuclear expansion, CND states that buying nuclear capable aircraft "puts Britain in breach of its disarmament commitments under the NPT". They argue that the plan runs counter to the spirit and letter of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear weapon states to pursue disarmament rather than expansion.
CND also links the policy to domestic priorities, saying: "Expanding Britain's nuclear weapons will not make us safer. On the contrary, it will put us at much greater risk. With the economy in turmoil and people getting poorer, the government is faced with a clear solution: end the war drive and invest in improving people's lives, not destroying them."
Quakers in Britain have joined calls for the decision to be reversed. In a statement about the nuclear expansion, Grace Da Costa, speaking on behalf of Quakers, says: "Investing in more nuclear weapons will not help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and will only contribute to further climate breakdown and conflict." Quakers urge the Prime Minister to rethink the purchase of nuclear capable F‑35A jets to be stationed at RAF Marham, highlighting the increased risk of nuclear use and the diversion of resources away from urgent social and environmental needs.
Medact, a public health and peace organisation of health professionals, warns about the wider implications for global health and security. In its response to the F‑35 decision, Medact states that "the purchase of American fighter jets is a step backwards in the fight for a world free of nuclear weapons" and describes the return to airborne nuclear delivery as "a dangerous shift in nuclear posture" that further entrenches the UK's commitment to nuclear deterrence policies.
Behind the slogan "Say No to Britain buying nuclear F‑35s" lie several interconnected concerns.
Legal and treaty obligations. CND has commissioned legal analysis which concludes that expanding the UK's nuclear arsenal and delivery systems breaches Article 6 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which commits nuclear weapon states to pursue negotiations on disarmament. For campaigners, adding a new nuclear delivery platform moves the UK in the opposite direction.
Nuclear escalation and risk. By reviving air launched nuclear capabilities and integrating more deeply into NATO's nuclear planning, the UK increases its visibility and its potential role in any future nuclear confrontation. Critics argue that this heightens the risk of miscalculation and makes Britain more of a target, rather than more secure.
Cost and moral priorities. The F‑35 programme is already extremely expensive, with long term costs running into many billions of pounds. Peace and faith groups point out that this money could instead fund health care, education, social housing, climate action and conflict prevention. Quakers in particular frame this as a question of stewardship and justice: real security, they suggest, comes from meeting human needs rather than purchasing new weapons.
Sovereignty and dependence. Because the jets are designed to carry U.S. nuclear bombs within a NATO framework, some campaigners question how much independent control the UK would actually have over their use. They fear that Britain will be drawn further into U.S. strategic decisions, with limited democratic accountability at home.
The decision to buy nuclear capable F‑35s signals a shift in the UK's nuclear posture at a time when many hoped for steps towards disarmament. For CND, Quakers in Britain, Medact and other peace and justice organisations, the issue is not simply about a particular aircraft. It is about the kind of security Britain chooses to pursue, the treaties it has signed, and the moral example it offers in a world already living under the shadow of nuclear weapons.
The call to "Say No to Britain buying nuclear F‑35s" is therefore more than a campaign slogan. It is an invitation to debate what real security looks like, to question the assumption that more weapons mean more safety, and to imagine a future in which resources and political will are directed towards peace, justice and the flourishing of people and planet.