UK urged to move away from reliance on USA for defence

I read the article twice. 

Still couldn’t figure out where, according to the parliamentarians, the necessary money is supposed to come from.. 

‘For all the right things and against all the wrong things’- I can dole out that kind of advice too

I guess I just missed the point of the article /s

I think that pretty much goes for everyone everywhere to be honest.

Zero reliance for anything from US should be the rule. Definitely remove Palantir and other US tech companies from our infrastructure.

The cost of having an army is high but the benefits of being free is worth it

[removed]

America has proven time and time again to be unreliable untrustworthy and incompatible with western democratic values.

Start by kicking them from your military bases.

From a defence standpoint the UK is better closely aligned with the US over Europe.

Recent experiences dealing with the EU on defence matters should have been a wakeup call for Starmer.

The US and UK are entwined on multiple levels when it comes to defence and intelligence and this relationship goes back over 80 years. We wont get anything close to that from moving closer to the EU who don’t seem serious when it comes to defence.

And be left with what? The firepower you gain by having USA on your side is enormous. You want to have bombers and missiles it is years into the future. And the stockpiles USA keeps that you lose also takes years and years to replace. And it will cost an enormous amount.

By [George Allison](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/author/george-allison/)

March 29, 2026 

[](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fukdefencejournal.org.uk%2Fuk-urged-to-move-away-from-reliance-on-united-states-for-defence%2F)%5B%5D(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=UK+urged+to+move+away+from+reliance+on+United+States+for+defence&url=https%3A%2F%2Fukdefencejournal.org.uk%2Fuk-urged-to-move-away-from-reliance-on-united-states-for-defence%2F&via=ukdefjournal)%5B%5D(https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-urged-to-move-away-from-reliance-on-united-states-for-defence/&media=https://ukdj.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/03/6892541-2.jpg&description=UK+urged+to+move+away+from+reliance+on+United+States+for+defence)%5B%5D(https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=UK+urged+to+move+away+from+reliance+on+United+States+for+defence%20%20https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-urged-to-move-away-from-reliance-on-united-states-for-defence/)%5B%5D(mailto:?subject=UK%20urged%20to%20move%20away%20from%20reliance%20on%20United%20States%20for%20defence&body=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-urged-to-move-away-from-reliance-on-united-states-for-defence/)

# The UK should begin planning to reduce its reliance on the United States for key defence and security capabilities, a parliamentary committee has warned, arguing that long-standing assumptions about national security are starting to shift.

In its latest report on the National Security Strategy, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy said the UK is now operating in an “era of radical uncertainty”, where great power competition, hybrid threats and changing alliances are steadily eroding the old rules. It broadly agrees with the Government’s assessment of the threat picture, but finds a clear gap between what is being promised and how it will actually be delivered.

The committee said it was “unclear on the adequacy of cross-Government accountability, and funding for commitments”, and pointed to the fact that “a detailed plan for the development of sovereign capabilities is also lacking”. It also highlighted what it described as “a distinct lack of clarity over which Government departments are responsible for which aspects of national security”, raising questions about whether the system as it stands can really deliver a coherent approach.

The UK, it says, still has “strategic dependencies on the United States for core capabilities in nuclear, intelligence and conventional defence”. While it accepts that the US relationship remains central, the committee is fairly blunt in saying more needs to be done to prepare for a scenario where that support is not guaranteed in the same way.

It recommends that the Government “must also develop a clear plan, along with other European allies, for a transition towards greater European leadership of NATO”, including preparing for a “worst-case scenario” where Europe has to act without US backing in a crisis. Alongside that, it says the UK should “plan to move away from a bilateral relationship with the United States that is so dependent” on Washington for major areas of defence capability, even if cooperation continues where it makes sense.

Beyond that, the report picks out a number of weaker areas, it suggests gaps in consultation may have meant too little attention was paid to the impact of cuts to soft power, and says plans to strengthen civil resilience are still fairly underdeveloped. There is, for example, limited detail on how critical national infrastructure will be better protected, what exactly the UK Resilience Academy will do, or how a “whole-of-society” approach to security is meant to work in practice.

China is also flagged more directly than before. The committee says the Government should recognise it as “a clear national security threat”, particularly given dependencies on supply chains and critical materials, and be more transparent about how security considerations are handled when doing business or signing agreements.

On industry, there is a fairly pointed criticism that no one seems to have properly defined what “sovereign capabilities” actually means. That lack of clarity, the report says, is already making it harder for companies to plan and invest. It calls for clearer direction, particularly on funding and support for smaller firms working in defence and security.

Among the recommendations are calls for more transparency, stronger accountability inside government, and greater clarity around plans to reach 1.5% of GDP spending on security and resilience by 2035.

Move away to who? Didn’t EU keep saying No to Uk?

reason number 83747382 as to why we should have never left the EU

The USA simply cannot be relied upon for ANYTHING.

It’s expensive and a long long road. Still the options are there now, ESSI, IRIS-T, SAMP/T, options for Project Grayburn, new advanced trainer, rch 155.

Also take the positives on what is happening. Theres Tempest, Shipbuilding generally, Challenger upgrades, Archer, Dragonfire.

Sure, more could be done, but then there always is. The need to be pragmatic about this is key. If we have existing assets and they need to be worked, then replace it. It’s a gradual replacement overtime, we are never going to replace everything (eg C6ISR systems highly reliant on US infrastructure comms etc) and except for China few will ever have a US free military.

A lot of these articles are there to kick the UK which everyone seems to be happy to get onboard with. Which is frankly ridiculous and counter productive.

Everyone is already.

This includes the UK. Its going to take some time though but NATO is dead and the USA is a cl9wn show these days. Europe will need to stand up its own alternative, and likely the ‘schengen army’ it directly controls. Its going to take time.

Time to get European.

Finally a European defensive army? It’s time.

No shit