Gavin Williamson tours top secret nuclear base hours before being sacked for leak from classified meeting

The ex-defence secretary had high ambitions for military cooperation with America

Aboard the HMS Vigilant: Williamson has steadfastly denied spilling details of the Huawei meeting (PA)

Behind the locked doors of her office in Downing Street, Theresa May began writing the letters by hand after reading the notes given to her by the military and intelligence chiefs one more time.

The prime minister then shredded the notes and her earlier drafts, before opening the door and handing sealed envelopes to the officials waiting outside.

Ms May had written the “letters of last resort” – instructions about nuclear weapons to the captains of Britain’s four submarines. They were only to be opened if the country was in a war of such magnitude that launching Trident ballistic missiles, with its devastating consequences, had become an option.

Margaret Thatcher had asked for an extra-stiff whisky when her turn had come to write the letters. Tony Blair is said to have turned white when told he would have to write them. James Callaghan had spoken of agonising doubts about the decision he had made. No one apart from the prime minister is supposed to know the content but Jeremy Corbyn has already publicly announced that he would not authorise the use of nuclear missiles if he headed a government.

Gavin Williamson, who had ambitions of writing such a letter himself in the future from Downing Street, was in Clyde Naval Base at Faslane on Monday, along with a small party of journalists.

But the defence secretary found himself instead receiving a letter from the prime minister three days later accusing him of being the source of an unprecedented leak from the top-secret National Security Council. He was thought to have revealed that the Chinese telecommunications multinational Huawei was going to be allowed into Britain’s 5G network.

Mr Williamson had been interviewed last Friday for the investigation into the leak ordered by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary and national security advisor. The defence secretary had admitted speaking to the journalist who wrote the Huawei story for 11 minutes on the telephone, but has steadfastly denied telling him about the decision taken.

At the Faslane base, the defence secretary was a confident figure in his dark blue suit, white shirt and blue tie. He sounded untroubled, speaking about what the future held in defence and diplomacy.

HMS Vigilant at HM Naval Base Clyde in Faslane carries the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent (PA)

Mr Williamson spoke about the nuclear umbrella and the relationship with the US: “When I speak to Pat Shanahan [the US defence secretary] he always tells me that Britain is their best and closest ally, not by just a little bit, but by an absolute league.

“This is also in terms of what we are doing in Afghanistan – when there was an opportunity to seize a moment, which country stepped up to the plate? The UK, working with the US to uplift troops, giving the president the space to move forward the opportunities there are for peace. I want to ensure this continues.”

Mr Williamson is not going to be in a ministerial position to shape the future any longer, certainly for the time being. But in the turbulent state of British politics, there may well be a new prime minister when one of the Vanguard-class submarines is on her months-long voyage deep underwater.

“There is a possibility of a different prime minister, and there are contingency plans for such a possibility,” acknowledged Commodore Bob Anstey as we looked at a metal safe on board HMS Vigilant.

The grey safe contained a smaller safe within which Mrs May’s letter is kept, along with the “Captain’s Key” with which the commander of the Vanguard-class submarine will start the mechanism for firing missiles.

He would give the order “you have my permission to fire” and turn the key, activating the launch with a trigger modelled on a Colt 45.

The UK is about to spend £40bn renewing the Trident programme, an issue highly contentious on strategic, economic and moral and religious grounds.

The arguments are that it is intrinsically wrong to use weapons that can cause carnage to humankind. It is also held that this country should not spend so much money on a nuclear programme when the defence budget for conventional forces has been shrinking regularly. They say we are protected by the American nuclear umbrella and, in any event, there are no needs for such weaponry when the threats now being faced are asymmetric ones of terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

Commodore Anstey maintained: “No one who serves on these submarines forgets the potential of what they can do. The hope, of course, is that we will never have to use the weapons. The idea is one of deterrence. Does it work? That of course is a matter of opinion, but we have not had a world war since we have had the nuclear deterrent.”

One key issue in the nuclear debate had been the one of “first strike” - carrying out the first nuclear attack rather than in response to one by the enemy, and the moral dilemma that presents.

Rob Forsyth, a Polaris submarine commander during the Cold War, recently described how he and his captain agreed on their first patrol “that we would not obey an unlawful order just because it came with the authority of the prime minister”.

Lead engineer technician Chris Randall of HMS Vigilant (PA)

Writing for the news platform Tortoise, he recounted: “What we were not prepared to do under any circumstance was automatically obey an order to fire first with the intention of destroying Soviet targets before they fired at us. This would almost certainly have been unlawful and neither of us had any wish to start a nuclear war based on incorrect intelligence of Soviet intentions.”

Commander Neil Lamont, the current commander of the submarine flotilla, reflected: “If an order comes to carry out an attack out of the blue then there would be obvious concern and we will need to carry out checks. But we would know what is going on in the world, that there is a crisis and what has led to this. But definitely, but we will check through the chain of command if it does not make sense.”

Commodore Anstey held: “In my view, anyone who refuses to follow the prime minister’s instructions on this matter should resign his commission. But you definitely have to have your crew with you. One thing one can’t do is stop them getting the news of what’s unfolding in the world, otherwise they will be very suspicious. You cannot carry out censorship on this issue.”

One issue where censorship is exercised is a very personal one for the crew – bad news coming from home. The submarine’s commander may well decide not to pass through news of deaths and accidents to sailors knowing that they would have to live with sadness and worry for months before the boat returns to port.

“It is, of course, a very difficult decision and it undoubtedly has an impact on bereavement,” said Commodore Anstey. “We know that person faces a shock when they return home, but we have to pretend to him that everything is normal.

“You also have the situation that by the time he or she gets back home, others in the family have gone some way on the healing process, and they can’t understand why the others are not suffering as much from grief as him. But that is part of the life of being a submariner.”

All who serve in the submarine fleet are volunteers and despite the tribulations of being away from home for months – not seeing daylight, six bunks in a tiny cabin, and the prospect of being involved in a nuclear exchange – the drop-off rate is very low.

“The key is to get on with each other, look out for each other, work as a team and above all trust each other,” explained an officer during a tour of the boat. Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, vigorously nodded his approval.