The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia may could carry out nuclear weapons tests for the first time since the cold war.In what appears to be a response to a statement by Donald Trump on October 30, that he had ordered the US to restart nuclear tests “on an equal basis” with Russia and China, Putin said he’d been advised by his defence staff that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests”.At present there is no evidence that either Russia or China is conducting nuclear tests, which were discontinued by most nuclear states after the test ban treaties of the early 1990s. Read more: Nukes in space: a bad idea in the 1960s – an even worse one now Trump may have been reacting to the news of two Russian weapons tests in late October. On October 21, Putin announced that Russia had tested the Burevestnik – the first of a new generation of nuclear-powered cruise missiles. Days later he revealed that Russia had also tested Poseidon, a nuclear-powered and capable underwater drone which operates like a torpedo.The US Department of Energy has rowed back on the president’s statement, assuring the world that Washington has no plans for test nuclear detonations. It appears that Trump’s order may have come from his confusion between Russia’s recent tests of nuclear-capable delivery vehicles such as Burevestnik and Poseidon, and the testing of actual nuclear warheads. Nonetheless, the two leaders’ nuclear bluster is a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear brinkmanship between the US and Russia. It is worth remembering that at the height of the cold war, the superpowers prepared to settle their confrontation in the territories of central Europe with little regard for the millions they would kill. US strategists hoped that a “tactical” nuclear conflict might contain the war to Europe, sparing the continental United States.Independent deterrent?This is the context for the UK public accounts committee releasing a report last week which detailed further “delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures” in the RAF’s procurement of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft.The F-35 is increasingly coming to be viewed in some US defence circles as an expensive failure. This year, however, the UK’s Labour government committed to buying 15 additional F-35B aircraft (having already ordered 48), but also adding 12 of the F-35A variant.The F-35A is configured to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb. Although the British government trumpeted the return of “a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force” in the 2025 strategic defence review, the B61 is a US weapon which will be under US command and carried by a US-made platform. The B61 is a “tactical” but still immensely destructive nuclear weapon – which, as during the cold war, is intended for use on European battlefields in the hope of containing any conflict far from the US.Additionally, the UK’s “independent nuclear deterrent” consists of British “Holbrook” warheads mounted on US Trident II missiles. While sole launch authority rests formally with the UK prime minister, the system is entirely reliant on US support and maintenance of the missiles for its continued operation. In the event of Scottish independence, Britain’s nuclear submarines might have to relocate to the continental US, because there are few suitable UK alternatives to the Faslane base, an hour north of Glasgow.Elsewhere, in summer 2025, observers reported that US B61 bombs had returned to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, to be carried by US Air Force jets. They had been removed in 2008 amid easing tensions between Nato and Russia, but have returned amid more aggressive nuclear posturing by both Washington and Moscow.The Nukewatch group said: “The new nuclear bombs … are entirely under the control of Donald Trump and could be used without the UK having any say at all in the matter. In fact, we wonder whether the UK government has even been notified by the USAF that the weapons are now stationed at Lakenheath.” The UK government remained silent on the matter.This integration of UK and US nuclear forces has not been publicly deliberated. Jeremy Corbyn, the last political leader who tried to offer the electorate a meaningful choice on the matter, was forced to backtrack. Incompatible with democracyThis is a clear demonstration that nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have always been incompatible with democracy. They require huge secrecy, and the speed involved means that launch decisions are out of the public’s hands. Instead, any decisions to use these incredibly destructive weapons – with all that this implies for the planet – are concentrated in the hands of individual leaders. The logic of nuclear deterrence breaks down, however, once we remember that the UK’s control over its own nuclear weapons – not to mention the US weapons hosted on its soil – is very limited. The US could at any moment withdraw its assistance for the Trident programme, making questions of British willingness to fight a nuclear war irrelevant. The F-35A purchase redoubles the UK’s commitment to serving as Donald Trump’s nuclear aircraft carrier. It makes the country a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two unpredictable and violent superpowers. Other US allies get the same treatment: Australian analysts lament that the Aukus submarine deal with the UK and US yokes the country’s future “to whoever is in the White House”.Fortunately, the flipside of this reliance on the US is that it might be relatively easy for the UK to shut down its own nuclear programme. Aside from its role in the Nato nuclear mission, Trident has little strategic value when it comes to deterring the threats actually faced by the UK. With so much of its nuclear weapons activity farmed out to the US, there may not be many domestic vested interests to oppose a change in UK policy if Washington does turn off the nuclear taps. If the UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, is serious about continuing Labour’s commitment to “progressive realism”, she should chart an independent path. Alternative, non-nuclear defence policies for the pursuit of internationally responsible “common security” could be implemented by a British government with the confidence to govern from London, not DC.Tom Vaughan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.