Nuclear (trident replacement) do we need one?

[toddbabe]

Lots of talk on the telly and radio from the Pm and his cronies about replacing the ageing trident nuclear force, Do we need to have a nuclear force in todays world? lots of other simmilar sized Euro countries manage just fine without!
25 billion is a lot of money for something we won't ever use and can't use without the yanks permission.
It's all very well saying that these so called rogue states could use them against us, but they won't and deep down we all know it.
The cold war has long gone let go of the past and invest the money in something more worthwhile.
We are not and never again will be a major player in world affairs, it's about time we stopped trying to be.
I used to be a major supporter of nukes but just don't think we can justify them anymore.

[Wyler]

Why bother with nukes. Surely a small container full of something nasty that can be dropped in the water supply would do the job just as well. It could be kept in a small drawer in the office at No10. Job done. :E :E

[Wader2]

Do we need to have a nuclear force in todays world?

No.

It's all very well saying that these so called rogue states could use them against us, but they won't and deep down we all know it.

No we don't and indeed they might but The cold war has long gone let go of the past and invest the money in something more worthwhile.

Agree and even if a rogue state did use the weapons can we, in all honesty, vapourise a large segment of their innocent population too? Some of the countries might be r*tsh*t and the whole population might, at least on TV, hate our guts, but the world has moved on.

We have gone from the stability of mutual assured destruction; do we expect rogue states to be similarly deterred? If they believe we won't and deep down they all know it then the deterrent isn't worth a string of beans.

Now 80 JDAM is a different kettle of fish.

So we might need a valid deterrent to decapitate a rogue state. Is a nuclear missile the way to do it? I would suggest not.

[Jackonicko]

I'm not accustomed to being a Hawk on PPRuNe (by normal standards, absolutely, but not among some of the Tebbits here!) but I believe that the case for retaining a nuclear deterrent remains strong - both as a deterrent and as a ticket to the top table.

But what surprises me is the 'all-or-nothing' nature of the debate. The choice seems to be between a top-of-the-line Cold War strategic deterrent, based on deep-diving nuclear subs that can evade or avoid the fleets of enemy Hunter Killers (that no longer exist) and that can guarantee being able to destroy Moscow (no longer a requirement, when St Pete's or Nizhny Novgorod would do!), and that can penetrate Moscow's uniquely capable (and largely fictional) ABM defences.

Why is nobody suggesting the cheaper option of a stand-off air launched deterrent (perhaps even Storm Shadow based) augmented by cruise missiles, both of which would be carried by versatile, flexible platforms that might also have a useful conventional role?

[Widger]

Jacko,

Trident IS a versatile, flexible platform. It can strike anywhere in the world, without the need for Host Nation Support or permission to overfly and is much less vunerable to detection.


The argument against Storm Shadow, the V bombers etc was debated and won/lost years ago...let it lie. I am astounded by some of the comments posted on here. Yes asymetric threats are a reality but, so are Nuclear nations such as N Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, Israel and probably Iran very soon. The availability of Nuclear technology and expertise is such, that the list of capable nations will increase exponentially over the next 100 years.

We have lived safely since 1945 because of the deterrent and NATO. Without the deterrent of both Nuclear and conventional forces, we would all now be drinking brake fluid.

It is quite conceivable, that within 20 years, a weak United Kingdom, without a Nuclear Deterrent could be under serious threat of destruction without any form of retaliation. If you think the world is rosy and we are loved by many, then maybe you should expand your vision outside your local Tescos. The world is much more dangerous now than it has been for the last 40 years. Yes the deterrent gets my vote. It will last longer and be far cheaper than providing boob jobs and social security, legal aid and accomodation for economic migrants. One of the few correct although unpopular decisions TB will have made during his tenure.

[mikip]

You can forget all the arguments about whether we need a deterrent or not, without it we lose our permanent seat on the UN security council and as far as the government is concerned that is the real reason for keeping any sort of nuclear force

[Wader2]

Weight and punching seem to be the clinching arguments, sod the cost.

So we have a debate about to stay nuclear or not, what about a debate as on out putative world power status?

[brickhistory]

If the UK goes nuke-free, there's going to be an open seat on the UN Security Council as was mentioned above.

Who'd fill it? Iran? Israel? North Korea? India? Pakistan?

[NoseGunner]

Just my 2 pennies worth:

lots of other simmilar sized Euro countries manage just fine without! - There are only 2 other similar sized (by any meaningful measure) EU countries. Germany does without, France doesn't.

something we won't ever use and can't use without the yanks permission. - From what I understand, that is not true. Just something spread by the anti brigade.

The cold war has long gone let go of the past and invest the money in something more worthwhile. - Yes very true. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

We are not and never again will be a major player in world affairs, it's about time we stopped trying to be. - Not true. As well as being a nuclear power, we are in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of GDP and military expenditure. We also have a permanent seat on the security council. Just because we live on a small island doesn't mean we're not a major player in world affairs.

Having said all that I'm not necessarily pro strategic nukes, I just think the argument should be more factually based.

Maybe Jacko is on the right lines - a dedicated, cold war style capability is not needed. I think subs may be the way ahead, I just want them to be able to do lots of useful stuff when not firing nukes (ie all the time!). As far as the navy is ever useful, of course. ;)

[Jackonicko]

Widger,

Outmoded thinking, old chap:

"The argument against Storm Shadow, the V bombers etc was debated and won/lost years ago"

But it was won ONLY on the basis of being able to hit Moscow (no longer necessary), to survive Russian hunter killers (no longer relevant) and to penetrate Moscow's ABM defences, which were over-stated to the point of being mythical.

We could have a cheaper deterrent, using the twin platforms of sub/ship-launched Cruise and an air-launched stand off missile.

It might not guarantee the ability to take out Moscow, but I'd suggest that that is no longer necessary.

[Mmmmnice]

no - spend the money on getting the things we need now, to:
1. keep personnel in op theatres alive
2. look far enough ahead to get the stuff we'll need soon - rather than at the last minute
3. spend what's left (should be a fair bit) on the NHS, police, firemen, nurses, teachers etc etc - money spent at home will win more votes than big, black subs filled with big, shiny missiles

[Postman Plod]

Who really thinks the money would go back into the defence budget?? :ugh:

[Widger]

Mmmmmmmmmmnicccceee,

That's part of the point. The cost of Trident was peanuts compared with all those other "good causes" you mention and all that money has gone down the drain. At least we still have Trident and it remains effective for the purpose it was designed for. Scrap Trident and the money will last about a month in the NHS, never to be seen again!

[Wader2]

- Not true. As well as being a nuclear power, we are in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of GDP and military expenditure.

NG I am not arguing but am impressed (I mean it) as I didn't think we rated that high. I looked it up and found a forward projection as well.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2050_projection.html

Accoring to Goldman Sachs in 2000 we actually ranked 4th, well behind Germany, with $1437b against $1875b and slightly ahead of France $1311b.

However China, in 2005, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html is at over $2200b (est) which drops us to 5th.

By 2050 GM estimates the UK will drop to 7th behind China, India, Brazil and Russia.

Mind you, GDP itself is contentious and money spent cleaning up pollution counts!

[mlc]

Learn the lessons of history. You've got to plan for the possibilities of tomorrow, not the present.

The money could certainly be spent on extra kit today (although we all know that wouldn't happen), but I believe it has to be spent 'just in case'.

[Widger]

UK Governments own figures;

Work and Pensions £116 Billion
Health £81.8 Billion
Education £55.2 Billion
Chancellors Office £50.6 Billion
Defence £30.9 Billion, this includes RN, Army and RAF AND TRIDENT!
Scotland!!!!!!! £24.5 Billion !!!!!!!!!
Transport £13.7 Billion
Wales £11.8 Billion
NI £11.9 Billion

[GPMG]

Quite interesting results in this survey by the BBC.
Most of the 'anglo saxon' people can't see a need for a nuclear deterrant.
All of the people who werent born in or whose parents probably werent born in this country say we need it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_reaction_to_trident_plans/html/1.stm

[Jackonicko]

4 December 2006

BAE SYSTEMS’ STATEMENT REGARDING PROPOSAL TO DEPLOY NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY SUBMARINE

Welcoming news of today’s announcement regarding the proposal to deploy the UK’s future nuclear deterrent by submarine, BAE Systems’ chief executive Mike Turner said:

“BAE Systems welcomes the decision that the UK’s future nuclear deterrent will be deployed by submarine, which means the UK can sustain a very high level of skills and capabilities within its defence industrial base.

Any delay would have meant a loss of those skills, making the UK dependent upon overseas suppliers.”

I thought this massive debate and consultation exercise was to address all of the potential alternatives, and not just be a direct Trident replacement yes/no exercise.

A direct replacement will, inevitably, cost many billions, whereas a viable scaled down deterrent (largely sub-strategic) based on Cruise and Storm Shadow could be aquired at a fraction of the cost - and might be manageable on a basis that would make it wholly autonomous, and not reliant on the USA for servicing, support, modernisation and upgrade.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Jacko,

read an article (believe it was on BBC online) that said something along the lines of "Defence chiefs have already ruled out alternative systems as viable options, leaving the choice to replace trident with another sub based deterrent or to let it slide"

Paraphrased for the masses, can someone find that quote? dont have time now!

[Ken Scott]

Trident is inappropriate for the post Cold War world, it was designed to take out Russian cities & similar, something we won't need to do again I think. If we must keep a deterrent then a smaller version, probably cruise missile based, that could be launched from ships, subs, even aircraft (anyone remember the Herc J with the cruise missile dispenser in the freight bay?!!) would do the job, which is to deter anyone from hitting us - let's face it, we're never going to actually use the things, we just want people to know we've got them. Perhaps some large containers with the words 'nuclear warhead' stencilled on the side would do the job just as well, & for minimal cost.

The kind of people we square up to these days we can't use a Trident against, although some might argue that it would improve hugely some of the places we're fighting in. But the whole basis of deterrence is based on rationality, the opposition has to mind being wiped out, & do you think Al Qaeda would care if we dropped a warhead on them? It would give them the martyrdom they desire with all the attendant virgins etc, publicity, wipe out lots of innocents etc.

When this government can't give the troops fighting in Afghanistan decent quality ammunition that dosen't jam in a firefight, why do we want to spend £25 billion on a weapon system we don't need, can't use & most of the people don't want?

[Not_a_boffin]

Jacko

Believe it or not, the ability to hold a major powers (might be wearing furry hats, might not) capital at risk (the "old" Cold war rationale) is still entirely valid - particularly 20-30 yrs hence.
That means the chosen system has to be survivable (launch platform and weapon) and deliver a credible throw weight. SS fits neither of those two criteria, particularly against a good IADS remote from UK bases. You could argue that some form of "frikkin laser" might reduce D5 penetrability, but as the yanks are discovering, it's a very hard (and expensive) problem to solve.
It's the combination of future-proofing and survivability that points to SLBM. I suspect that by the time a sunshine variant of SS had been developed, together with the required security / PAL infrastructure, the cost would have started to reach parity with the V-boats. besides, would you really want Aspire (or whatever they're called) teaching release profiles & procedures??

Widgers post is the most illuminating. Would anyone care to speculate on how the Chancellors Office spends £50Bn pa? Can't all be spent on personality transplants can it?

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

The answer to the question "Do we need one?" seems to be answered by many on here by "Yes, because we want one so that we may sit at the 'big table'".

So we are now to make policy based on keeping our seat in a body we felt so pointless that we ignored it to go to war illegally?

Come, come, one cannot have one's cake AND eat it.

We do not have a permanent seat on the Security Council because we have nukes and anyone who thinks different should spend some time actually reading up on the UN, the Security Council and the UK's seat on it.

The SC was setup to include major winning powers at the end of WW2 (and China and France). At that time only the US had any nukes. So the argument that Nukes=Seat on SC is defunct.

The reason the SC has not changed in over 60 years is that it would take a unanimous vote of the five permament members to change it and none of them are ever going to vote for that. They may vote to add permanent members (but that is only slightly more likely).

The question about the replacement for Trident is where is the money going to come from?

As I read elsewhere today, if purchased it is the equivalent of the RNs shipbuilding budget for the next 15+ years.

The concept of Nuclear deterrence is one of mutual logical fallacy.

If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money. Nuclear Deterrence only works because both sides buy into the same illogical belief.

Put another way, can anyone suggest a crisis in the last 60 years that a nuke would have (not could have) been used had the USSR or China not had them?

Consider the Korean War as an example of what I am saying.

I will stop there for now and I look forward to comments.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. It is great to see a lively and informed debate on this topic.

p.p.s. Widger, what is your point about the £24.5billion for Scotland :mad: :ouch: :)

[brickhistory]

Just twenty (20!) years ago, the Soviet Bear faced us all. Who could have imagined how rapidly the world would change?

In another 20, what else and who else could change? Any current or projected nuclear powers that might wish you harm or want to make you see things their way?

Sure seems short-sighted to ditch the 'reach out and touch someone' capability when so many others are scrambling to get it.

[BenThere]

I submit that in the case of Israel, for example, its SLBM threat is the trump card for its continued existence, and will increasingly prove its value as time passes.

Scenarios could conceivably develop where Great Britain finds itself in a similar position, perhaps as the last remaining liberal democracy in Western Europe during the life of a Trident. Can you rule it out?

MAD worked, albeit in a less mad world.

[Jackonicko]

The Polaris/Chevaline/Trident's supposedly unique ability to take out the lads in the biggest fur hats in their capital was almost certainly a sham, based on a dramatic over estimate of Soviet ABM capabilities, and you could almost certainly have done the job by throwing enough manned platforms with lay down bombs at it, as Mr Rust seemed to prove in his Spam Can. You could certainly do it with stand off missiles and a nuke TLAM.

The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.

If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.

[effortless]

I would contend that we may be "at the big table" but as a hanger on. No one takes us that seriousely anymore. I think that it is too late to ditch the nuke but I would be happier with a brit or even, o lord I am choking to say it, French made one (no stop laughing that man). If we had the capability to hurt the US (not that we would ever want to) then maybe we would be taken more seriousely instead of running around emptying the spitoon. In addition, an effective, happy, well equipped air force, navy and army of decent sizes would give us a great deal of respect. Lets face it, it wasn't our nukes that we waved at Johnny Argie was it.

[Jackonicko]

Umm, err, isn't that exactly what Black Buck Vulcans did, in effect?

But a fairly modest nuclear capability ought to be enough in the post Cold War world, spending the money saved on conventional forces that aren't continually over-stretched.

[Evalu8ter]

SSBNs are a symbolic luxury for British forces in this day and age. The cost of developing and deploying (not to mention disposing of) these single-use submarines is simply not affordable. Why not spread the Nuclear issue around? Nuke SS shouldn't have been prohibitively expensive (and would have provided job security for AWE et al) and TLAM-N is already a mature technology - what's wrong with packing a couple of TLAM-Ns into an SSNs VLS? Plus, a combination of delivery systems enables you to make any potential enemy guess from where the threat is coming from. Is it from the SS equipped CVF CAG? The SSN? The Nimrod MRA4? The implied threat of using a nuke is massively enhanced by actually declaring bit of your hand; deploying a Sqn of nuke-capable TypHoons is a "diplomatic" message in itself. I think we're going SSBNs because of political pressure to keep Sub yards in business between SSN classes. This is not a bad aspiration, why not just come clean about it?
Or we could just contract out Nuclear Deterence to go with MFTS!

[Jackonicko]

"I think we're going SSBNs because of political pressure to keep Sub yards in business between SSN classes."

Or perhaps to keep the Sea Lords sweet when we $hit can the CVF....?

[toddbabe]

I am glad I started this:D
"It is quite conceivable, that within 20 years, a weak United Kingdom, without a Nuclear Deterrent could be under serious threat of destruction without any form of retaliation."
The kind of people and states that might do this to us arent interested if we are going to wack em back or not, they are martyrs and suicide extremists, hitting them with twenty trident isn't going to make any difference to em, those that survive will hate us more if thats possible and living conditions won't be much worse post strike than they are just now anyway!
If it is a cold war type scenario that we somehow go back to then whether we have nukes or not isn't going to stop us being wiped out, all we ever hoped to achieve was mutual destruction.
If we ever pressed the button it was already too late!
There has surely got to be some merit for tactical battle field nukes, launched as some others have said from air platforms like the stormshadow against a rogue state from over four hundred miles, you could launch them from a harrier deployed from a carrier or in the future the JSF.
You could also very cheaply adapt them to fit to tlam giving you a greater number of platforms and greater flexibility of strike.
Britian has got nearly twenty destroyers and over a dozen ssn subs that it could use to deploy this technology without investing the Guestimated 25 billion! in cold war scenario technology.
Does anyone believe that it will cost anything like tweny five billion anyway? you can probably double that and add ten years to its' in service date and still not be accurate ! cynical, your damn right I am, experience has taught me to be!
Tony Blair is desperate to go out with a bang pardon the pun! he ought to be doing what he thinks is right and not what he thinks will leave him a lagacy.
Margaret Thatcher said after the Falklands war that she considered the use of nukes if it got bad enough and I believed her, I for one don't believe Tony or his cronies would have the bottle to press the very expensive button that they would have us all pay for.

[Jimlad1]

"Why is nobody suggesting the cheaper option of a stand-off air launched deterrent (perhaps even Storm Shadow based) augmented by cruise missiles, both of which would be carried by versatile, flexible platforms that might also have a useful conventional role"

The White Paper runs through the various scenarios considered including air based deterrent. Bottom line was that this was the most expensive option open to pursue.

[Not_a_boffin]

The Polaris/Chevaline/Trident's supposedly unique ability to take out the lads in the biggest fur hats in their capital was almost certainly a sham, based on a dramatic over estimate of Soviet ABM capabilities, and you could almost certainly have done the job by throwing enough manned platforms with lay down bombs at it, as Mr Rust seemed to prove in his Spam Can. You could certainly do it with stand off missiles and a nuke TLAM.

The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.

If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.

Jacko

Which bit of limited range/overflight is passing you by? Whether Mr Rust got lucky (nearly twenty years ago) or not, I don't think tacair launching from NATO bases would have gone un-noticed back then, do you?

As for HyFly being cheaper to develop, I applaud your sense of the comedic.

I appreciate the idea that manned / or unmanned tac-air would provide another string to the Typhoo bow (or even whatever FOAS is now), but the truth is that they are not comparable to SLBM in deterrent value. We should actually have both - by pitching the argument at SLBM vs tacair, we are all accepting the received wisdom that defence should not get a larger share of the funding pie. Given the obscene sums being shunted out annually on welfare, not putting @rseholes behind bars and paying immigration officials to not police our borders, I think we should be making the case for more support for the forces rather than trying to decide the colour of the instant sunshine bucket.

[knowitall]

"If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money."

so if we don't have it and we do get nuked?

[thecontroller]

trident: complete waste of money, [just like the 2012 olympics]. it's absolutely sickening, just think what good that money good do in other areas of this country.

it makes me sick that our goverment can find money for illegal unjust wars and nuclear weapons, but is closing hospitals.

and if you think that the trident decision hasnt been made yet, think again. AWE aldermaston have been doing the prep-work for the new trident for a while now.

and if you think the tories will do any better, think again. all politicians are lying and self serving.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

controller... tories are, iirc, in favour of trident replacement also.

Having (unfortunately) been forced to study the principle of nuclear deterrent for a while before this replacement issue came up, I have several points to add to the table... my two cents worth:

Billhicks: If we do have trident and we dont get nuked (in a scenario where otherwise we would have, if the threat of mad wasn't there) surely that's worth investing in? Even on the off chance that it could happen? £Xbn vs a possibility that, 20yrs in the future, all traffic congestion would be solved by turning central london into a glass carpark? Worth every penny some might say!

Toddbabe: Not everyone in the world that wants to poke a fight, past and present, has been a mad extremist in the "martyrdom" sense of the word. Fairly sure Hitler et al would have preferred to survive! And it's not that long ago, what could be happening in 60 years time?!

Evalu8er: "The implied threat of using a nuke is massively enhanced by actually declaring bit of your hand; deploying a Sqn of nuke-capable TypHoons is a "diplomatic" message in itself."
The reason we have one boat on constant patrol is so that "the sailing of a nuclear capable submarine in a time of crisis cannot be mis-construed." We'd rather not make people more nervous than they already are if a shooting war is about to start! Bearing in mind that we have declared we will never use nukes in a first strike, if we're deploying nuke equipped typhoon/type 45/whatever then it's against someone with nukes at the ready, and I'd rather not make them any more nervous than I have to thanks!

This is also one of the arguments against having a conventional nuke capability: It's far better in terms of twitchy trigger fingers etc to have one weapons system that's in the glass car park business, but does nothing else at all, whilst everything else is conventional. That way when jonny foreigner sees TLAM's a plenty coming over the hill (bearing in mind that jonny foreigner is not as cool, calm and collected as his british counterpart) he's less inclined to press his big red button of doom!

Just some collected thoughts!

[Jackonicko]

How much real discussion has there been, I wonder?

The Beeb reported that:

"The options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.

Instead the system would remain one based on a fleet of submarines which carry the Trident missiles, each of which can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads.

Mr Blair said between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The submarines would take 17 years to develop and build, and would last until about 2050.

He said the UK would also join the US programme to extend the life of the Trident missiles until 2042 - and would then "work with" the US on successor missiles."

Nick Robinson's weblog says:

"Just what were the Cabinet doing at their lunchtime meeting today? In theory they've been discussing whether to renew or replace our nuclear deterrent. I say "in theory" since it's hard to see what the point of the discussion was.
The White Paper outlining the government's proposals is being published two-and-a-half hours after the Cabinet meeting ended. An hour-and-a-half before that, journalists had been invited to read the document at a Ministry of Defence "lock-in" (so-called because you can read the document but not leave the building or use your phone or laptops until after it's published).
Is it just possible that the document had been printed before the Cabinet met? When I asked the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, he insisted that he would not comment on "process".
This "process" matters, since ministers have made much of taking this vital and costly decision in an open, transparent and democratic way - they point out that the Cabinet have discussed the issue, there is a White Paper and there will be a vote in the Commons.
"So what?" you may ask. If you'd been around the last time a Labour government "updated" our deterrent you might think differently. Harold Wilson's government extended the life of Polaris with the Chevaline programme. Not only did he not have a vote, not only did he not even tell Parliament or the public, he didn't even tell the Cabinet. A handful of ministers took the decision which many members of the Cabinet and most MPs only learnt of when, years later, a Tory Government front bench spokesman revealed it.
Before today, Tony Blair's Cabinet did have discussion on what Number 10 calls "the context" of today's decision and Cabinet ministers have all had the opportunity to meet with the foreign and defence secretaries to discuss the likely contents of the White Paper.
There has been, however, no Cabinet debate about the government's detailed proposals. Why? Number 10 won't say. It's worth noting that the last time a decision was handled in this way was the assessment on whether to scrap the pound and join the Euro. The theory then was that it was easier to handle people's worries in individual meetings rather than around the Cabinet table."

Notaboff,

The point is that manned air with a good stand off missile could hit all conceivable and relevant targets - and Moscow, probably, though Moscow is no longer either.

And I'll bet you that HiFly comes in cheaper than £25 Bn, while the new subs and their weapons will come in at much more than that.

[NURSE]

Is the descision on the new sub a way of discretly getting the navy to kill of the carrier project and JSF?

[BYALPHAINDIA]

It seems 'Coincidental' that 'Blair' & his entourage have made this announcement, and that Relations with Russia are 'Boiling' up?

I do think that we need some form of Nuclear protection, But the cost of this option is collossal!

The MOD are already well-underfunded - so sources are always stating, The recent 'Chinook' unavailability out in the Gulf has highlighted that.

I think there should be a 'Public consultation' on spending this amount of money on a 'Nuke' protector.

I think 'Charity' starts at home, and the RAF/NAVY/ARMY should be the Governments priorities to invest in them at the moment.

Regards.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This has been discussed on PPRuNe before, as the SEARCH function will reveal. I must say that personally I am not totally convinced that we need a deterrent on the scale of the V Force/Polaris/Trident, or anyway near it.

A few links..........

1. See this from Richard Beedall: VANGAURD(Replacement) (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/vanguard-r.htm)

In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.

2. From BASCINT: Trident: Do we really need to make the decision now? (http://www.basicint.org/pubs/SB060725.htm)

3. From the UK Defence Forum: Thinking the Unthinkable - Modifying the Vanguard class nuclear capacity (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/cream/cp9.html)

4. From the same group: Thinking the Unthinkable - New roles for Vanguard? (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/cream/cp7.html)

Note both of these papers were written in 1997.

BHR are you really saying you think nuclear weapons did not play a part in restraining the hot heads in both Moscow and Washington?

[Lazer-Hound]

I think that if we're going to have a nuclear deterrant, we should have one that can't be taken away from us on the whim of a foriegn government. Regardless of wehter the UK has operational control of Trident (and that's debatable in the absence of any UK TACAMO equivalent), we're wholly dependant on the US for missile and warhead design, missile development, testing, maintenance & support, warhead testing, submarine degaussing, etc. If the US decided, for whatever reason, that it no longer wanted the UK to have nukes, it could make it very, very difficult and expensive, if not impossible, for us to continue.

Also there's the issue of basing - can't see an independent Scotland being too keen on keeping them.

[NURSE]

I would sugest before this project goes ahead the finance should be identified and ring fenced as should the CVF finance. It should not become another blank cheque handed to British Aerospace.

[dodgysootie]

I would sugest before this project goes ahead the finance should be identified and ring fenced as should the CVF finance. It should not become another blank cheque handed to British Aerospace.

Could not agree more! I take it your not a share holder?

[Widger]

Jacko,

I cannot seem to work out which side of the fence you are sitting on. You seem to be argueing for and against. There has been some good discussion on this thread as well as some that bring nothing to the table. Trident and it's replacement are the cheap option. We already have the technology and expertise. Yes, it would be nice to have a variety of option but that would bump the price up considerably. £22 Billion for a system with a 20-30 year lifespan is good value.

Some who have posted on here seem to have forgotten the Cuban Missile Crisis, which happened during my lifetime. Such a situation could happen again. There are some of here with a good grasp of world affairs and some who have been reading The Sun/Daily Mail too much. There will always be asymetric threats. The IRA were not countered with Nuclear weapons and neither will Al Quida(sp?) be. Consider the scenario of a nuclear capable Iran, threatening it's neighbours and cutting off all access to the Gulf. Ten years ago. Consider the situation of India and Pakistan, I would contend that the only reason these countries are at relative peace (bar the minor skirmish) is because they both know that each has the bomb. Remember also, that it was the first use by the USA that stopped a despotic regime, bent on domination of the Pacific Rim and subjugation of it's neighbours.

Trident/Astute is cheap, unlike Scotland which cost the tax paying English majority, £25 Billion a year....for what?????

[toddbabe]

Trident/Astute is cheap, unlike Scotland which cost the tax paying English majority, £25 Billion a year....for what?????
Widger are you sure about that last set of figures? where does your gas and oil come from?
Where has the anti Scot bash come from? we were talking bout nuclear weapons a minute ago.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

£25 Billion for Scotland seems cheap considering that they put hundreds of Billions into the economy..........

Am I right in thinking that (post devolution) Scottish and Welsh spending is all lumped together, therefore what about the figure for England? I fear that people have fallen into the trap of comparing apples and pineapples, which is what the UK hating Euo lefties want.

Widger I think you'll find Jacko is saying "RAF projects good, non RAF projects bad"

[jonny5]

"deploy a squadron of nuke capable typhoons"

imagine a crisis in N Korea/Iran/China,

Do you honestly think the RAF would be capable/allowed to deploy them in time to be useful and in a suitable condition to be useful??

I think not!!:ugh:

[Widger]

Toddbabe,

Our Gas comes from either the English Part of the North Sea, or from Russia under the English part of the North Sea. The oil comes from a variety of places via the Sea! A small amount comes from Scotland. Mind you, the way things are going, the Scottish Navy and Air Force will probably be bigger than the English one!

:ok: :E :ok:

[Jackonicko]

Widger,

Sorry for the confusion.

I do believe that the UK should maintain some form of nuclear deterrent, so I disagree with those who would abandon it altogether.

I do not believe that a full, strategic deterrent in the form now being proposed, is necessary, desirable or affordable.

I believe that Trident always represented over-kill, because it was predicated on the need to penetrate Moscow ABM defences that were in reality, fragile compared to what we planned against.

I lack sufficient knowledge and expertise to reach a definitive conclusion, but my provisional judegement would be that a cheaper, less capable deterrent would be more useful and more affordable in the post Cold War world.

I do not see a need for the UK to be able to 'take out' Moscow autonomously (the justification for Polaris over V-Force/Blue Steel, and later for Chevaline, and then for Trident), as long as we can do enough damage to Russia (or any other threat nation) to deter it. In the case of Russia, the ability to destroy St Petersburg, Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and Saratove (say) would be more than enough, in my view.

I would have thought that nuclear forces that included a nuclear version of TLAM and an extended range version of Storm Shadow would tick all of the boxes I'd want ticking.

An air launched option (especially if we were looking at something in the HyFly class further down the line) would provide so many carrier options that the enemy's thinking would be made far more complicated. Are those Nimrods/Typhoons/JCA's nuclear capable? It would even offer a really compelling case for CV(F) in my view.

[Jackonicko]

WEBF

What I'm saying is

Bloated, prohibitively expensive Cold War systems bad, lighter, leaner, more affordable, more flexible systems good.

If I were anti-RN, I'd hardly be emphasising the usefulness of a TLAM based element to the deterrent, would I?

And an affordable air launched nuclear deterrent would give the CVF a justification it doesn't yet have.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Lazer hound - we design our own warheads, and fit them to a US designed missile. The boffins at aldermaston design all brit warheads.

Jacko, all this argument is all fine and well, but at least with trident/replacement ICBM the bad guy (whoever that may be) is unlikely to feel sufficiently confident about his/her ability to stop it getting through. Who's to say someone slightly cocky with a modern, double digit SAM capability wouldn't decide to try it on, on the off chance that (due to defence cutbacks) the three TLAM-Ns we can afford would be taken out before they reached their targets?

[West Coast]

Jacko
As I read your comments here and in posts over the years I detect a mindset that would concern me if I was a Brit. Your logic seems to believe that the UK will only be a part of some greater sum, not the integral force in of itself. That seems to point towards a constant partner(s) in any given conflict. I don't agree that will always happen to the degree you believe.

[BillHicksRules]

Knowitall,

"If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money."
so if we don't have it and we do get nuked?

Two points to raise about your question.

1) I do not see the profiligate use of nuclear weapons on other non-nuclear powers. How do they survive? The Korean War is prime example of a conflict that according to the planning documents of the US/UK should have seen the use of nukes (at least in the tactical environ)

2) Look at Japan and Germany, similar standing in world excepting SC seat and SSBN capability yet they are still happily going about their business. Take this a stage further, Japan is the only country to have had nukes used upon it in anger yet they have steadfastly eschewed the nuke option (well at least publicly).

Cheers

BHR

[West Coast]

BHR
In light of events of the NK nuke test there is a rumble (albeit not at the levels to give the green light) for a nuclear capability for Japan.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I believe that the only legitimate role for the armed services is the defence of the UK, including overseas interests that our vital to the survival of our nation. This excludes foreign adventures that amount to neo-imperialism (eg Iraq and Afghanistan and certainly Darfur, which is being talked up by bleeding hearts at Auntie Beeb).

Threats are unpredictable over the timescale for the development of modern weapons, so we need the full spectrum relevant to the defence of the UK. This includes a strategic deterrent to discourage certain foreign states from assisting (with funds and technology) terrorist organisations from attacking the UK. If we suspect such activity we should be blunt (through diplomatic channels) along the lines: "if you continue to support organisation "X" and a terrorist outrage against the UK results, your cities A,B and C will be eliminated". (The Soviets, I believe, found such arguments persuasive against Iran in 1978).

So we need a strategic nuclear system as invulnerable as possible to terrorist attack. To me, as a former airman, that means the system should have a submarine platform. Will it have to penetrate highly capable defence systems deployed in depth? Almost certainly not. Would a cruise missile therefore do the job? Almost certainly. Would such a system afford the flexibility of a conventional warhead option? Yes. Would it be cheaper than a ballistic missile? Almost certainly. So to me the optimum would be a cruise missile system with conventional or nuclear warheads. They could be launched (probably only in the conventional mode) from aircraft if the situation required urgent action the other side of the world and HMS Daisy was having her bottom scraped in Pompey. (Presuming the Scots would have kicked her out of Faslane by then).

[hobie]

Of course you do realize one of the main reasons for the Fleet replacement? .... :confused:

the "White fellas" are nocking the $$$ out of the existing Hulls .... :{

http://i12.tinypic.com/47dn1q9.jpg

I'll get me coat ...... :)

[Archimedes]

If anyone's interested in why not aircraft, have a look at Appendix B (P.35) in this pdf (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf) and you can see the assumptions for rejecting the strategic bomber platform. I'll allow others to assess whether or not this means that the MoD didn't bother thinking things through or has decided to fob the public off with the slightly simplistic rationale that appears in the document...

[MarkD]

Is developing a UK TLAM-N even feasible given SALT/START?

[Mal Drop]

As a veteran of East Timor and Sierra Leone most of the **** that the Government gets us into tends toward the rather unsavoury. Rather than the Nukes let's have a resurgence of those good old traditional standbys Chemical and Biological.

Oh, hang on. Piles of rotting corpses and dead kids don't make good TV, could lose votes. The end results are the same we but can't have the folks at home seeing what it's like up close, not in High Definition on 42" Plasma, not at meal times... God help us if they invent Smell-o-vision.

Back to the death from submerged-launch crematoria idea! Great Britain really is a global player!

I never really took me coat off...

[BillHicksRules]

WC,

BHR
In light of events of the NK nuke test there is a rumble (albeit not at the levels to give the green light) for a nuclear capability for Japan.

AFAIK the Japanese have for many years now had the know how if not the desire to build nukes.

There would be a certain spin-up to any weapons programme but it would be in terms of less than 5 years (unless a crash program was initiated for any reason) not the longer term programs as seen in the "Axis of Evil" states.

Cheers

BHR

[BillHicksRules]

Arch,

If anyone's interested in why not aircraft, have a look at Appendix B (P.35) in this pdf (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf) and you can see the assumptions for rejecting the strategic bomber platform. I'll allow others to assess whether or not this means that the MoD didn't bother thinking things through or has decided to fob the public off with the slightly simplistic rationale that appears in the document...

Thanks for posting that.

It was one exceptionally scary document.

From stupid phrases such as "the SSBN is invulnerable." Really? I have to say I did not realise that our SSBNs were that well built. Why do we not make all our ships that way? It would save a hell of a lot of money of defensive armaments.

The other thing that actually did scare me is the statement "Any state that we can hold responsible for assisting a nuclear attack on our vital interests can expect that this would lead to a proportionate response." This puts an awful load on our intelligence services and our politicos if someone detonates a suitcase of sunshine in Central London. How does one define "hold responsible"? In the same way we defined Iraq as having WMDs on 45 min readiness. Or in the same way as Saddam Hussien had links to Osama Bin Laden?

Worse still some cheesed off Russian or Chinese general has a pop at Big Ben with an ICBM are we going to nuke Moscow or Bejing?

It returns me to the statement I made earlier. Why are we in the UK more likely to be such targets than any number of other Western "democracies" that are non-nuclear capable?

To put another way why not see if there is a way in which we can reduce the likelihood of some nutter sending us a nuke in the post because we might run out of bombs before they do!

Cheers

BHR

[West Coast]

BHR
I don't know what type of schedule time frame it would take other than to compare it to the Manhattan project. Obviously the level of knowledge is greater nowadays then in the mid 40's. The IAEA seems concerned enough to feel the need to have top Japanese officials publicly refute any desire to possess nukes.

Makes you wonder.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_Pledges_To_IAEA_To_Shun_Nukes_999.html

[nick0021]

I for one, am in favour of the purposed Trident upgrade, however, this article raises some very interesting points, which were previously unknown to me.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

Is the real reason old Tone is pushing for the replacment, down to the US needing validation??

Regards,

Nick

[Training Risky]

Did anyone read the letter in today's Telegraph from the vice-chairman of CND? It was signed off as Air Commodore Alastair Mackie.

Does anyone else feel slightly uncomfortable with someone continuing to use their previous military rank when engaged on political activity a la CND?

Is there something in QRs which prevents this?

[AbeamPoints]

A Trident replacement is a barking mad idea.

By all means, please, spend the money on a fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs. The Iranians, the Chinese and others are all developing submarine fleets and aircraft carriers. A fleet of cutting edge super silent subs that could clip their wings would be very useful.

Trident is unique and excellent in only one regard; MAD. If this country woke startled in the dead of night to find a barrage of thermonukes exploding above its major cities then Trident is what you want. We do the same to them within a few hours and there is nothing they can do about it. Lovely.

But times have changed. There is, and will not be, a superpower capable of doing that in the next 50 years. Even if N Korea or Iran or China went down that road then a sub or air launched nuclear cruise missile could put at risk their country. Which is all that is required.

Having a Trident system is a lovely thing to have. But balance it against replacing:


All the Armys rifles, radios and Landrovers with better kit plus,

Replacing the RAFs Tristars and VC10's with B767s and adding another 2 sqns of Chinooks plus,

Tripling the size of the RNs minesweeper fleet and adding a new fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs plus,

Having some spare cash left over you spend it on some decent pay rises. Now do you, a) replace Trident or, b) not?

I suggest not.


AP

[nigegilb]

If you are wondering what the real reason is for replacing Trident, you need look no further than the Channel. Forget the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans et al, there is no way any British Govt would give up its nuclear first strike option as long as the Frenchies still had their's. C****y reason, but it sort of gets my vote!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

AP, all very fine and well, but you're never going to get the money for a trident replacement, it will just go on pay rises for MPs and some shiny new computer system for the NHS, into a black hole where no one really cares about it!

[MarkD]

Abeam

You can have the four Upholders back if you want diesels.

[hobie]

You can have the four Upholders back if you want diesels.

was that the same class that went US on it's delivery voyage to Canada? ......... :confused:

[RIDIM]

How can people not look at how rapidly the world has transformed in the last 50 years and still believe that they can predict what could occur in the next 50, it is impossible! The UK should hedge its bets and go with what we can afford to best protect ourselves without becoming a militaristic state or bankrupting UK Plc. Nuclear weapons may be the ultimatum to end all ultimatum's, but do we settle for lesser deterents(i.e. a pointy stick) or a weapon that "should" make even the most crazy despot think twice!

[Blacksheep]

Worse still some cheesed off Russian or Chinese general has a pop at Big Ben with an ICBM are we going to nuke Moscow or Bejing?
Absolutely. That's what its all about - do unto others as they do unto you. It means that governments have to think carefully about keeping their generals under control. In the cold war days MAD was on a grand scale but the principle remains the same.

Those figures given earlier by Widger are illuminating, given that the primary purpose of government is security - securing the borders, securing internal peace through operation of law and security of the economy - defence seems to be far, far too low down the list. When it comes to the defence of the nation I think the relevant expression is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That means the biggest, knobbliest and meanest looking stick you can find.

We need to keep our nuclear weapons, they're our big stick. I learned in the schoolyard that showing any sign of weakness gets you thumped and you lose all your candy. If we throw away our big stick, what message would we be sending out?

[SASless]

What happens if an Iranian takes a pop at Big Ben with a North Korean missile and a Russian nuke?

[brickhistory]

What happens if an Iranian takes a pop at Big Ben with a North Korean missile and a Russian nuke?

I believe that's what MIRVs are for.....

[Widger]

Saw another interesting statistic yesterday. £27 Billion for ID cards and the associated database!

[Rick Storm]

Just can't understand (logic) why we will pay billions£ for a nuke system, that is only allowed to be launched with the OK of the US.

Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........

Err, no you can't use the nukes?

Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?

[Not_a_boffin]

Just can't understand (logic) why we will pay billions£ for a nuke system, that is only allowed to be launched with the OK of the US.

Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........

Err, no you can't use the nukes?

Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?

Fallacy. If the smiling menace wished to issue a launch order for UK alone, there is nothing Dubya or Hilary for that matter could do about it, other than cut off logistic support for the missile system in later years. There is no dual key (never was on the T-LAMS at Molesworth & Greenham for that matter).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Exactly right. That was an original concern regarding the King's Bay Agreement on pooled missile maintenance but, in the event, wasn't a practical problem. After a Launch, there would be more pressing things to think and worry about!

[doubledolphins]

Jacko, if the fleets of Hunter Killers no longer exist do we need Nimrods?

Well the fleets may not be as big as they were but they do and we do.

Of course we need ICBMs. Just as we need stormshadow and tlam. Lets just hope the update works better than the one done on .5" ball and tracer.

[ORAC]

Skills warning over submarines plan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6290134,00.html)

Government plans to build a new generation of nuclear submarines could be hit by a critical shortage of key engineering skills, MPs have warned.

The Commons Defence Committee said the skills base in Britain had fallen to the "minimum level" necessary to maintain a submarine industry. It also expressed concern that the Ministry of Defence lacked the capacity to manage such a large and complex project effectively.

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced earlier this month that the Government intended to go ahead with a new £20 billion fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to maintain Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent into the middle of the 21st century. MPs will vote on the proposals in March.

However, the committee said the programme could be jeopardised by the "haemorrhaging" of essential skills from the shipbuilding industry.

"The UK submarine industry draws on a uniquely skilled and specialist workforce. Retaining that skills base will be essential if the UK decides it wants to continue to design, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines," it said. "The skills base is now at a critical level. Any further erosion of the workforce may have significant implications for the future of the submarine programme."

At the same time, it said it was essential that the MoD had the capacity to manage the programme effectively. "Any shortfall in preparedness must be addressed as a matter of priority," the committee said. "The MoD's shortage of systems engineers and project managers - skills essential at the start of a programme of this kind - is a cause of serious concern."

MPs put defence needs above jobs on Trident (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1975134,00.html)

Any decision on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent must be taken on the basis of "strategic defence needs" and not on the number of employees and industrial and shipbuilding firms which might benefit, the Commons defence committee says in a report today. It describes building a successor to Trident as a "huge undertaking" and the shortage of submarine building skills in the MoD as a cause of "serious concern". It also criticises the secrecy surrounding work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are made.

[TyroPicard]

It's many years since I studied the theory of nuclear deterrence at Sleaford Tech .. perhaps some more current military brains could answer this question...
From the White Paper (p.17)...
"The UK's nuclear weapons are not designed for military use during conflict but instead to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression that cannot be countered by other means."
So if they are not designed for use during conflict how do they deter?
TP

[Blacksheep]

How do they deter?

Look at the Israeli nuclear deterrent. Nobody's ever seen it. Nobody's ever heard it. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny its existence. But everybody knows they have nuclear weapons.

Sounds like a pretty good deterrent to me. You don't even need to have any actual warheads with a deterrent like that. ;)