Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant? [Archive]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

16th Apr 2010, 08:59

Jabba. “Boomers”, eh. I’m impressed already.

OK, I’ll start off by agreeing with you. If some non specific terr bangs off a dirty HE bomb, no nuclear deterrent, anywhere, is going to deter it nor counter it.

If, on the other hand, some beastly foreign state commences to lob “nukes” at us, the UK Independent Nuclear Deterrent will have failed. We cannot measure its success or usefulness on the simple measure of whether we’ve used it or not.

Around 20 years ago, I also believed that cruise missiles/stand-off bombs were the most flexible and inexpensive means of mushroom cloud delivery. I then joined the Polaris/Trident mafia at a secret naval base, somewhere in Somerset and completed the Trident technical appreciation course. I changed my mind. I would now suggest that we would need a lot of cruise missiles to assure the same number of bangs on target. Additionally, having the SSN force (or skimmers, for that matter) sneaking around with nuclear weapons on board would significantly limit fulfilment their prime function.

Incidentally;
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/402812-dannatt-hints-end-nuclear-deterrent.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/402812-dannatt-hints-end-nuclear-deterrent.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent) http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/391806-nuclear-deterrent.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/391806-nuclear-deterrent.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent) http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/358380-tridenthttp://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/254861-nuclear-trident-replacement-do-we-need-one.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent-yes-no.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/358380-trident-yes-no.html?highlight=nuclear+deterrent)

charliegolf

16th Apr 2010, 10:10

Permanent member of the Security Council?

Is the ability to big bang an entry fee for the SC?

Has Pakistan been elevated to the top table?

CG

Roadster280

16th Apr 2010, 11:04

If Iran or NK nuked the UK, I should think it a relatively simple task to glass over their major cities. Annilihation of NK would likely result, and severe damage to Iran. I would hope enough to dissuade them from doing it again, so perhaps a secondary deterrent if the primary failed. I.e. the threat of H-bombs was not enough, so would the actual use of a 250kt H-bomb on downtown Hanoi now do the job?

I'm sure most of the neighbouring states may have something nasty to say and perhaps write letters to the Telegraph, but that's about all.

China on the other hand is a whole different kettle of rice. Put India in that bracket too, if push came to shove.

PingDit

16th Apr 2010, 11:25

I entirely agree with Jabba's remarks on the 'defence of the Homeland...'
However, I honestly believe that our own nuclear deterent is an integral part of that defence. We need to keep it in its present form for defence of the homeland. GBZ remarked that if we were to be nuked first, our nuclear deterent would have failed. I understand that as a deterent, it would obviously have failed. There are always two sides to the deterent coin though. In that event, we must return fire with nuclear weapons, otherwise the whole exercise was exactly that; an exercise and totally pointless.

Just as an 'aside'... I've been on our Boomers and pressed THE button (apparently that was ok though as the bangy things were switched off). If I needed to though, I would indeed press it for real. I'd just have to be able to live with myself afterwards.

tonker

16th Apr 2010, 11:52

Diego Garcia , Refurbished tridents in silos and plenty of spare cash to rebuild our Military.

Gaz ED

16th Apr 2010, 11:56

Roadster:-

Hanoi in NK/Iran? - hope you're not doing the targeting!

We like those cheeky Vietnamese chappies now...they haven't got any oil...:ok:

Roadster280

16th Apr 2010, 12:04

Gaz - weren't you ever subjected to "collective punishment" in the mob? :)

Delete Hanoi, insert Pyongyang. Three extras for me :(

ian16th

16th Apr 2010, 12:21

Having a nuclear deterrent and not knowing if you need it, is far more preferable to not have a nuclear deterrent and suddenly finding out that we did need one.

minigundiplomat

16th Apr 2010, 15:32

Don't really know much about this if I'm honest, so rather than my usual shooting from the hip, this is a genuine question.

What are the alternatives?

Tac Nuclear Artillery?

Air lauched?

Smaller Trident fleet?

Diego Garcia?

Mixture of the above?

It seems Trident is very expensive. Can we retain a scaled down option at a lower cost?

I have a feeling achieving this would rule out a smaller Trident fleet, and probably an air launched option.

Whatever the solution, I doubt very much the money saved will be seen by the military.

Gainesy

16th Apr 2010, 15:51

Skimmers eh? I'm impressed too, aka Grey Floaty Target Things.:)

Serious, I think a mix of air-launch and sub-launch nuke cruise missiles would give the flexibility and not cost anything like the Trident boats and their infrastructure? The re-furbished Tridents on Diego Garcia idea bears some thought too.

petit plateau

16th Apr 2010, 17:37

I think a mix of air-launch and sub-launch nuke cruise missiles would give the flexibility and not cost anything like the Trident boats and their infrastructure? The re-furbished Tridents on Diego Garcia idea bears some thought too.

I am afraid you think wrongly. Your proposals would be more expensive to give the same capability, or inadequately capable for the same cost. Against people who we really need to persuade not to try the nuclear blackmail game then pretty much only SSBN armed with Trident (or equivalent) is adequate. And that requires 4 SSBN to give lowest through life cost. Whilst the politicians may willfully think that going to 3 boats will be cheaper as is usual they will be wrong.

Consider the following scenarios:
1. You detect an enemy launch against Diego Garcia. You have only minutes to launch in retaliation before you lose all your silos. Use them or lose them. What do you do. Ooops, it was a false launch warning. Pity you just launched.

2. You launch a conventional cruise missile against a terrorist target somewhere. Another country somewhere near the destination thinks they are the target and it is nuclear armed. They launch their nuclear tipped IRBMs against the UK. You apologise for their error of judgement. Oh, and against serious opponents the loss rate and time to target of cruise missiles is inadequate, especially as we are trying to reduce the number of warheads.

3. You'd like to insert some SBS on a surveillance mission. The only SSN in the area is partly armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles. You can't seriously risk losing the entire nuclear deterrent in shallow water just to get a few recon troops on land.

4. etc etc etc (you actually need more not less nuclear infrastructure with all your ideas)

No, when you look at the real issues, 4 x SSBN is the only thing that gives a true second strike capability anywhere reasonably needed during the lifetime of the system at minimal cost.

air pig

16th Apr 2010, 17:56

Do you want the UK to reley on either the US nuclear forces or the French, Force du Frappe. Sorkosay has just said that France will retain its nuclear forces, full stop.

Independence is the only way to go, air launched or silo based systems are vulnerable to both, deployment difficulty in third party countries in the case of air launched systems and silo based is vulnerable as it lauch point is a known variable.

That potential adversaries know that an SSBN is a significant undectable? threat to their exisitance. It does not stop IED based devices smuggled into a country via a container. It's remarkably easy to loose a container and issue new paperwork it would appear. Remeber you only have load it on a ship or waggon truck around Europe for a few weeks and use a remote timer or command detonator. Look at the number of stolen cars moved using this system.

At the moment it is a percentage of other nuclear states that have a significant delivery capability, it does not mean that this will always be the same. Remeber in the early 80s, no one forsaw the fall of the Berlin Wall and its subsequent developments in Europe and the World.

Evalu8ter

16th Apr 2010, 17:57

Much of the rationale for the SSBN based replacement to the V-Class is the simple fact that without it the UK will be out of the Nuclear shipbuilding business. The gap between the last of the Astutes and the first of their replacement would be simply too long (and thus expensive) to keep a highly skilled workforce in mothballs. Hence why we're talking of replacing the subs and re-working the missiles.

FWIW the debate needs to be do we need this indigenous capability. If we do then let's build the new Bombers as it remains the best way to guarantee a second-strike capability, If the answers "no" then we would probably have to go back to a mix of TLAM-N and Storm Shadow-N....not exactly cheap either.

Flying Serpent

16th Apr 2010, 18:10

How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?

Wrathmonk

16th Apr 2010, 18:12

Surely with the normal "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of ...." mantra that is spouted whenever anybody asks whether such and such ship/boat carries nukes (just ask the question about whether any ships or boats were carrying nukes during the 1982 conflict) we could just quietly get rid of the things (or at least not replace them) and no one would be the wiser.;) Assuming the expensive bit is the missile and the launch system then, once rid of that bit, keep openly putting an empty sub out to sea every 3-6 months and job done - assumption of mutually assured destruction = no nuclear conflict.:} Works for the Iranians - nobody will touch the Iranians until they (US / Israel ....)are positively, absolutely sure that they (the Iranians) don't have the odd bucket of sunshine hanging around. Course you may need to keep all your fingers and toes crossed just in case!

And don't forget - 40+ years on the truth about the 'moon landings' is still a secret .... oh, is that the Nurse with my tablets. And my tin foil hat. Wonderful :E

Neptunus Rex

16th Apr 2010, 18:32

As long as the French have one, emphatically YES!

Nelson's toast:

"Death to the French!"

air pig

16th Apr 2010, 19:10

As a country, we have always had the French as an enemy, just every so often we have a truce in hostilities, now it's just the politicians who skirmish.

I am reminded of the story, maybe apochraphel from Singapore naval base
Enemies iof the Royal Navy 1 The French 2 The War Office 3 Enenmy of the day. Obviously the navy know their true enemy.

As for other big countries such as Germany, they have come under NATO agreements probably more relevent when the Pact was around. Others like the Chinese, they just buy us out on the financial markets, who needs to go to war when you own the government.:E:E

Air pig

Gnd

16th Apr 2010, 19:59

No, in my opinion.

Just borrow the Yanks when we need them - usually works?

Thelma Viaduct

16th Apr 2010, 20:21

Yes in mine.

Prior preparation prevents piss poor performance.

UAV689

16th Apr 2010, 22:05

I think the question of rogue states using a dirty bomb is a bit of a red herring. If some bottom feeder living in a cave drops a dirty bomb what is the point in dropping sunshine all over Nk/Pakistan et al. What would it achieve and it is probably what they want, in their mind accerating the world into an Islamic god fearing world...

But what if in the future a country attacks, the Chinese run out of oil, or something else, could we afford not to have it? Plan for all occasions!!

cornish-stormrider

17th Apr 2010, 10:49

UAV, you raise an iinteresting point. Let us surmise that some mad mentalist has found and made a dirty bomb. he chooses his target. will he pick one regardless of consequences to his homeland, his faith, all those he leaves behind.

Whereas someone using a car bomb or semtex underwear will kill hundreds a weapon of mass destruction elevates it to a whole new playing field.

Do they want to take that gamble??? and do we want to be able to reply should they do something?

I remember a line from a Freddie Forsyth novel about GW1 where he sasy of a meeting between the iraqi foreign minister of the day and a western general (IIRC), the quote went something like:

" Please infomr your President that if you choose to employ the known and banned weapon of poison gas we will deliver a nuclear device. We will, in short, nuke Baghdad."

My point is, if having the biggest stick and the means to deploy it stops rogue states or individuals from doing something very stupid then I am all for it. I just wanted to know if you all had ideas about what next after we wear out the Bomber (note I do not subscribe to the Yankee terminology).

One more thing - to the driver of the boat, Mind the french!:E

tonker

17th Apr 2010, 11:35

Is that the "known banned substance" we still can't find?

At the end of the day if we end up having to use this stuff, it's the end of the world anyway.

cornish-stormrider

17th Apr 2010, 11:54

Tonker - I did say NOVEL and tbh he had used it before - so either he used it all up (or more likely he hid it very very well)

I also didn't know that when Corporate went south it had some WE's on board that had to be offloaded (or did they)

I love a good conspiracy me - anyhoo back to topic at hand.

Replace Y/N with what??

Gnd

17th Apr 2010, 12:34

Peace and Love????

Trust thy neighbour

ian16th

17th Apr 2010, 12:57

No, in my opinion.

Just borrow the Yanks when we need them - usually works? This route didn't work on 1956, so why do you think it will today?

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Apr 2010, 13:03

cornish-stormrider

In 1996 the BBC made a documentary about the Gulf War. One of Saddam's General, then in exile, confirmed that Saddam did indeed have artillery shells and missile warheads filled with Nerve Agents and such biological nasties as Anthrax. But, he said, it was decided not to use them against such an enemy (as the US, or perhaps he included Israel?)....

Although never spelt out, the US would have had tactical nuclear weapons in theatre, mostly aboard the SIX carriers they had in the region.

Evalu8er

Much of the rationale for the SSBN based replacement to the V-Class is the simple fact that without it the UK will be out of the Nuclear shipbuilding business. The gap between the last of the Astutes and the first of their replacement would be simply too long (and thus expensive) to keep a highly skilled workforce in mothballs. Hence why we're talking of replacing the subs and re-working the missiles.

FWIW the debate needs to be do we need this indigenous capability. If we do then let's build the new Bombers as it remains the best way to guarantee a second-strike capability, If the answers "no" then we would probably have to go back to a mix of TLAM-N and Storm Shadow-N....not exactly cheap either.

I thought the V class was predicated to run out of life.... and then there is the problem of will the new missiles fit in the tubes. But if we were to opt to a TLAM-N type option, then we would need more boats. The SSN force is stretched on current operations.

We should remember too, that these type of decisions will send messages to other nations. Are we saying we don't believe in nuclear deterrence, or deterrence full stop? How does it affect out international relationships?

Gnd

17th Apr 2010, 15:24

Ian,

I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956 but I was referring to a few other operations recently that we have had to have yank interference to support us? Maybe the next decisive nuclear war that comes along, they might consider helping. I guess it depends how good the 'special relationship' is after 6 May??

Good answer though, well thought out. I will put it to all the uneducated children, sick mothers and poor squadies when we pour un-defendable amounts of nonexistent cash into this white rabbit.

To be honest, I would rather put all the nuke bits into one place and make electricity – it would save me thousands?

air pig

17th Apr 2010, 16:25

Hey GND

Peace and Love????

Trust thy neighbour

Yeah but carry a big stick, just in case the neighbour gives a problem, you wouldn't skimp on house insurance would you.

Regards

Air pig

Gnd

17th Apr 2010, 18:25

Like the stick as a deterent, lets call them MoD and use them to fight??? I hate NBC anyway, ruins my hair (well it did!!)

drustsonoferp

17th Apr 2010, 19:02

Nuclear proliferation isn't an evil that's gone away, and the greater the number of states with nuclear weapons, the greater the collective risk. We cannot easily argue for cessation of new arms building whilst we continue to maintain a pretty steady state nuclear arsenal ourselves.

If the UK is to maintain a nuclear deterrent, I don't think it makes much sense for it to be anything but SSBN, for sake of ease of targeting, detection, credibility vs anything ship, air or silo based. However, I'd far rather the UK's budget goes towards defence spending that will actually be put to use. There are a lot of resources involved from design, build, running costs in terms both materiel and personnel and the cost of keeping all at Faslane secure. All this for something that can never be used, else realistically we've already lost?

With the accuracy of modern precision munitions, cruise missiles etc to hit targets of strategic importance, why do you need to raze entire cities?

air pig

17th Apr 2010, 19:39

Because sometimes just sometimes you cannot reach them.

Trim Stab

17th Apr 2010, 19:55

How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?

Because they are not on the Security Council.

And why do you think that when Israel flaunted all diplomatic conventions by stealing our citizen's passports and using false-flag cover to assassinate a Hamas leader, that they only sanction they suffered was expulsion of the UK Mossad chief? Because they have nukes....

Basically, if you have nukes, you have diplomatic leverage.

Our RN deterrent is sacrosanct, and should always be the first "tick" on any defence review. My only concern is that our technology is to US dependent - we should be fully independent like the French.

UAV689

17th Apr 2010, 21:46

And why do you think that when Israel flaunted all diplomatic conventions by stealing our citizen's passports and using false-flag cover to assassinate a Hamas leader, that they only sanction they suffered was expulsion of the UK Mossad chief? Because they have nukes....

Don't think that is the only reason. How about the amount of money involved in uk and us buisnesses to threaten them with any thing worth while. They Are a law on to themselves.

barnstormer1968

17th Apr 2010, 22:15

Gnd

Ian,

I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956

I seem to remember it was on a Friday evening, at about 7pm.
Maybe you were off duty by then (with it being a Friday).

Hope that helps:}:ok:

Union Jack

17th Apr 2010, 22:38

I've been on our Boomers and pressed THE button

If it was a "button", then I believe that someone was winding you up!:hmm:

Jack

Thelma Viaduct

18th Apr 2010, 09:31

If it was a "button", then I believe that someone was winding you up!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Jack

I hope it's a big lever, like DJs once had. :}

Flying Serpent

18th Apr 2010, 11:33

Quote:
How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?
Because they are not on the Security Council.

So...Being a member of the Security Council makes you more susceptible to attack?
Is that what you're really saying? If that's the case why don't we withdraw the UK from the Security Council, save some money on the Trident replacement and spend it where it's really needed. Perhaps we need to consider too our role in world politics. Do we need to be the worlds policemen and bring our version of law and order to far away lands? Perhaps that's the reason we see ourselves as targets and justify the need for a deterrent.
I just don't believe that the deterrent works anymore. World politics and warfare techniques have moved on since WW2 and the cold war and we need to adapt our strategies, policies and equipment to move with them.

FS

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

18th Apr 2010, 13:25

States such as Germany and Italy who sit under the American nuclear umbrella seem reliant on NATO Article 5. Article 5, though, does not require the US to commit suicide on behalf of a militarily violated Member State. I’m sure that average Joe (or Jolene) American (who pays for that umbrella) would prefer some diplomatic compromise that fell short of swapping big bombs and didn’t materially affect the US; even if the aggrieved Member State was required to make massive concessions. I believe that it’s called Realpolitik.

The question is, does the World’s 6th (or is it 8th now?) largest economy, with many interests South of the NATO Region, want to risk being forced to those possible massive concessions?

Regarding the UN Security Council, the UK Independent (standing by for the predictable contradictions) Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is a good bargaining "chip" to retain our place there. Why have that place? Well, it’s probably better to have a say with power of veto than to not. Does it give us an obligation to help to "police" the World? Probably yes; but rather like the Empire, if we didn’t somebody else would and possibly not to our liking and standards.

Cruise missiles? Current technology, even that available to some minor States, probably puts us back to the ‘40s argument of whether it’s easier to counter a V1 or a V2.

Offered for what it’s worth.

Golden Legspreaders

18th Apr 2010, 14:07

I think Clarkson has got it spot on.

You do the ragoût, mon capitaine; I’ll do the nuking | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article7078637.ece)

If there were to be another war, and I mean a real one against an army with boots rather than flip-flops, I would volunteer to serve in the submarine fleet. The army, I’m afraid, is right out because there’s too much running about, and while the RAF offers many opportunities to hang about behind the lines, drinking tea, there’s always the danger that at some point I’d be asked to go in a plane. And the problem with a plane is: it’s big and the enemy can see it.

It’s the same story with surface vessels in the navy. We saw in the Falklands that one jet fighter, flown by a mustachioed man called Gonzales, can sink a destroyer. Because it’s visible. And if I were to be on such a thing, in charge perhaps of the guns, then it’d be even more of a sitting duck because I’d be hanging over the railings throughout the attack, vomiting.

Submarines have none of these drawbacks. You can fight while sitting down in air-conditioned comfort, under the seasick zone, and the enemy can’t fight back because it doesn’t know where you are.

When military submarines were first mooted, the Royal Navy top brass dismissed them as “underhand and unfair”. They had grown up with the notion that you charged at your enemy in red coats, with a lot of people playing brass instruments, and they didn’t like the idea of a machine where the whole point was invisibility. But sneakery is my kind of warfare. The first inkling your enemy has that you’re there is when he is treading water in a big puddle of blazing engine oil. Perfect.

There’s more. In the army, from the moment you get up in the morning, which is always o’crikey o’clock, to the moment you go to bed at night, it’s all shouting and bugling. There is never any peace and quiet.

But in a submarine everything is done with a whisper. The reactor is quiet. The prop is quiet and orders are given quietly too. There are no bugles on a sub. And you don’t wade into battle playing the Ride of the Valkyries. Submarines are brilliant.

And I’m not talking about some crappy diesel-electric boat. Nobody wants to go to war in what, essentially, is an aquatic Toyota Prius. No. I’m talking about a nuclear-powered hunter-killer. Or, better still, one of the missile boats. Imagine being on one of those. You sit absolutely still for six months. And then, when the order comes through, your captain pushes a button that kills everyone on earth. Except you. Fantastic.

The trouble is, of course, that for these missile boats to be relevant, one of them has to be at sea constantly, ready to respond at a moment’s notice. And to do that, in shifts, with servicing to be factored in, the navy must have four boats. That means four crews. Four nuclear reactors to be serviced. Four lots of Trident missiles. The cost, including plans for replacements, over the coming years could be as much as £100 billion.

You may say that this is a complete waste of money because we don’t need nuclear submarines to fight an enemy that’s coming at us with a £3 AK-47 assault rifle and a pair of sandals. But you’re wrong. We must always prepare for the next war. Not the one we’re fighting now. And who knows what the next war might involve? It might be the Greeks. I hope so.

There’s another reason it’s important for the navy to maintain its fleet of boomers. Having a nuclear submarine in your arsenal is what makes a country important. Take that away and what is Britain left with? A lot of potholes, a health system that doesn’t work and a bunch of political leaders who have to make after-dinner speeches to make ends meet. We’d have to be twinned with Ethiopia.

So. Problem. We have to have our boats for defence and for self-esteem. And we can’t afford them. And that’s why I was so pleased to hear the other day about an offer from the French, who are in the same boat, so to speak, to join forces.

Gordon Brown said it was important for each country to maintain its own nuclear deterrent. But, as we know, Gordon Brown is wrong about many things. And I think he’s wrong about this too. Because, why not?

Of all the countries that we are likely to fight in the coming century, France must hover pretty close to the bottom of the list. So it makes sense, financially and politically, for each of us to run two nuclear missile subs, and for us to take it in turns to be on patrol.

The only problem I can see is military. Because let’s just say the Argies get uppity again, and that this time we simply don’t have the ability to go down there and give them a bloody nose. And let’s just say, I don’t know, that I am in No 10 at the time. Frankly, I’d want to nuke them.

And here’s the tricky bit. If I rang the captain of a French submarine and asked him to destroy Buenos Aires, would he oblige? Similarly, would one of our chaps be happy to wipe Libya from the map if Nicolas Sarkozy decided his wife had run off with Colonel Gadaffi? This is the crucial question.

And the answer, I think, is probably no. But the important bit of that answer is “probably”. Uncertainty is what makes nuclear weapons work. Not knowing whether the response to your attack will come in the shape of a mushroom.

Britain being protected by Capitaine de la Mer, with his stripy jumper and his onions, makes the prospect of us being able to mount a nuclear response less likely. But it is still a threat. And that’s what matters.

It’s what matters to me as well. Because in a time of war I might well end up on a French submarine, which is probably no bad thing. Yes. The homosexuality might become a bit boring, but I’m sure it’d be very stylish, and I bet they pack in fewer missiles than our boats because the crewmen need the extra space for all their recipe books and ingredients.

Gnd

18th Apr 2010, 18:52

Thanks Barny, good job but I was just a twinkly but would have been off if I could.

I still do not understand why we think we can even begin to afford this lot? We can’t even afford simulation for in-service helicopters and I had heard they were important !!!

If you were in the sub, where the hell do you think you could get off it if you fired one of these - it would be the biggest nuke ping-pong match since 1956 - apparently? To expensive – some one has to make the 1st (well second if you count the Ukraine!!) move – let it be us (we could sell them and pay off the national debt?)

ORAC

26th Apr 2010, 12:32

Critical Reaction: The Bang for our Buck (http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2587/26-04-2010-the-bang-for-our-buck) Trident: Is there a cheaper alternative? by Eric Grove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Grove)

Lightning Mate

26th Apr 2010, 18:24

A very good American friend of mine had a neighbour in Arizona.

Outside his house was a sign which said:

"There ain't nothin' in this house worth dyin' for".

Wossat called then?

david parry

27th Apr 2010, 09:05

Althought Trident is costly, whilst we have Iran, who are striving to produce war grade plutonium to produce a nuclear war head, and North Korea, who already have a nuclear weapon, the world is not a safe place. Far better to have a nuclear weapon at our disposal, rather than none at all. Trident is no longer a deterrant - it can be use as a first...strike missile, or it can be used in retaliation.

The cost of ending the production of the Trident war head would run into trillions of pounds. And for those who want to get rid of Trident, I suggest that they please do inform us of what they would do with the exsisting nuclear war heads, the manufacturing facilities, the storage facilities, etc?

dead_pan

27th Apr 2010, 10:00

The re-furbished Tridents on Diego Garcia idea bears some thought too

Blimey, that's a bit left-field isn't it? Uncle Sam would never allow it, let alone Greepeace et al

This week the British government, backed by nine of the world's largest environment and science bodies, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Royal Society, the RSPB and Greenpeace, is expected to signal that the 210,000 sq km area around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean will become the world's largest marine reserve (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/gordon-brown-britain-great-barrier-reef).

Lets be realistic about the Iranian and North Korean threats. Israel would never stand by and let the former become a nuclear power, and I doubt we're very high on the North Korean's target list (I know some in government would have us believe otherwise). The only realistic threat is a rogue launch from the likes of Russia or a terrorist attack, neither of which would be deterred by Trident (or any of the other systems people have proposed, for that matter). The entire concept of deterrence is deeply flawed and a throwback to a bygone era.

david parry

27th Apr 2010, 14:46

Gnd

27th Apr 2010, 15:15

I totally agree, stop punching above our weight, get real and know others will start and finish this and spend the money where it is needed - at home!!!!

Chainkicker

27th Apr 2010, 16:32

The only realistic threat is a rogue launch from the likes of Russia or a terrorist attack, neither of which would be deterred by Trident (or any of the other systems people have proposed, for that matter). The entire concept of deterrence is deeply flawed and a throwback to a bygone era.

you have answered your own question!

As already stated, Trident may be be used in retaliation - rather than a deterrant.

TBH, If we have gone nuke in retaliation, then it's probably the end of civilization as we know it. In that situation, I wouldnt give a monkeys about anything and would be glugging that special bottle of Bacardi Reserve i'm keeping for some unspecified occasion.
Do you really think politicos of any party (fringe loonies aside) would have the balls to press the button?

John Farley

27th Apr 2010, 18:24

One of the problems (for me) in deciding whether I think we should replace the Trident system with a similar system is that I have no idea what the real cost of this would be. Large sums of money are often quoted but do they (for example) recognise the income tax paid by all the individuals involved in this programme in whatever capacity.

Another problem is that if we binned it would the money actually go to anything more worthwhile?

What about the industrial and scientific base associated with the total Trident system - does it have no other useful spin-offs? Would there be unexpected consequences to binning all that?

I SUSPECT that the above points might actually be quite important so in the absence of knowing the first thing about any of this my gut feel would be to keep it.

racedo

27th Apr 2010, 20:00

YouTube - Yes, Prime Minister - Nuclear deterrent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE)

Funny how you wait long enough and it becomes as relevant as it was previously.

knowitall

27th Apr 2010, 20:12

racedo

YouTube - Yes, Prime Minister - The Defence policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90f9Qm60tU8&feature=related)

indeed

Poose

28th Apr 2010, 15:44

Better to have and not need than to need and not have. :ugh:

Squirrel 41

1st May 2010, 10:02

I've stayed out of this as my views are well known, and in this company, heretical.

The basis of the Trident replacement decision is that it is a deterrent. This means it must be survivable and difficult to detect and track, and unless we are intending to go down the route of a strategic triad (which we're not, given the cost) then the only sensible thing - if a deterrent is needed - is a submarine based system large enough to ensure continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD). If there is a break in the continuous nature of it, then it's of limited value as a deterrent, especially if it is predictably not at sea.

Given this, a ballistic system is more likely to get through defences coming in at 15,000 mph (Mach 23) or so than a cruise system coming in at M0.9. More importantly, however, the flightpaths of ballistic and cruise missile are rather different, and therefore if your nuclear payload is only on a ballistic missile, then the country on the receiving end of cruise knows that they are not about to get nuked - which in those critical minutes could result in a different decision not to fire off nuclear missiles in response, especially if it's use it or lose it.

Given this, if the decision is that we need a deterrent then probably the correct choice is an SLBM, and buying Trident is going to be far cheaper than any other option - still massively expensive at £100bn over 25 years, but cheaper than developing our own.

So the question then is two-fold; do we need a deterrent? And should we afford it in tight financial times?

On the first, the issue is that for deterrence to work, it has to deter. So it means that:

- the people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.

- They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.

- They have to be intent on attacking the UK and not be deterred by the threat of retaliation from allies (decoupling of the US nuclear umbrella)

The number of rational States that want to attack to the UK and believe in decoupling the US nuclear umbrella is vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of any.

So on this basis, there is nobody to deter - and before someone goes off on Iran/North Korea etc etc, there is no evidence that they want to blackmail the UK. And as for rogue launches, they are inevitably non-deterrable, so it wouldn't matter if we had Trident or not.

If there is nobody to deter, then it does rather raise the question of why we're proposing to spend these vast amounts of cash on replacing Trident, especially when binning it within the framework of global nuclear arms reduction is sensible policy.

Can we afford it? Yes, but only at the cost of other capabilities. Should we? In my view, no. We should concentrate on using UK expertise to develop the verification regime to allow us to move towards nuclear zero.

I'm sure many of you will disagree, but it's time for the UK to have the debate on this.

S41

Prawn2king4

1st May 2010, 10:35

Agreed S41 :ok: .......

....... with the proviso we should concentrate on using the dosh saved to enhance the capability of our conventional forces, who will ne needed, as far as I can see, well into the forseeable future.

Squirrel 41

1st May 2010, 10:37

P2K4

Agreed. Sorry, should've made that clear. But the SDR will probably see the blood on the floor lapping around people's ankles, so make sure you pack your wellies.

S41

Chainkicker

1st May 2010, 14:28

S41 - couldnt have put it better myself.

The people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.
They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.

There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".
I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.

Squirrel 41

2nd May 2010, 11:28

Just a point on the numbers; the £15-20bn is the 2006 White Paper costings for the capital costs of replacing a four boat fleet. It doesn't cover the running costs of the existing boats and the operating costs out to 2040ish. See p.7 of the White Paper (it's a .pdf on the MoD website).

In other words, the £15-20bn figure is disingenuous.

However, it is also disingenuous to claim that scrapping Trident will save £100bn soon. It will, but not quickly - the capital spend will run from 2012 and 2027 (White Paper, p.7), and the ongoing running costs will be spread as well.

So the economics of the question is not a show stopper - it could be afforded. But £2-3bn a year in replacement costs - plus the costs of Aldermaston (£750m p.a. in 2007, according to House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we24.htm) at note 83), Faslane and Coulport (no idea), then the cost to defence is likely to run to £3 - 4bn a year in the middle years of the next decade.

Given the pain that we're going through to make savings to balance the current budget, if we don't need the deterrent, we should take the savings, and take them now.

S41

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd May 2010, 11:43

Savings from scrapping Trident would be negligible (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/30/savings-scrapping-trident-negligible-snp)

This is part of the Guardian's coverage of the nuclear deterrent issue -which can be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/trident).

Chainkicker

There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".

Isn't there?

I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.

But....

How many nuclear weapon states are there? Not many, which suggests that producing nuclear weapons is less than easy. A lot of scientific and industrial capability is needed. See this FAS page (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/produce.htm).

Therefore, we could conclude that terrorists would find it hard to produce nuclear device without state sponsorship, which brings up the issue of deterrence.

Pontius Navigator

22nd May 2010, 12:36

WEBF,

While I accept your argument is valid I am yet to be convinced that deterrence would be a factor.

Our rogue state may not be deterred sufficiently to not use WMD. I use that term as deterrence is not supposed to deter only a nuclear threat. Suppose our rogue state or terrorist sponsor state is deemed to have used WMD, how would be retaliate?

A perpetrator of a terrorist attack may be difficult to identify in the traditional 15 minute window. We cannot lash out at State A, if we do not know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that State A was the sponsor.

Supposing we did identify State A as such a rogue state, do we obliterate its population because of its rogue leadership? There are many states where the leadership is not representative of the populace.

In either case there is no call for a high-technology solution. One would expect that there would be an appeal to the UN Security Council, supposing such still exists after an attack on NY. The rogue state would be called to account etc etc. In the cold light of day it is decided that the rogue state is beyond redemption so we agree to lob in a couple of Trident missiles?

I think not.

In the 1960s it was clear cut. 'Every American' distrusted 'every Russian and Russian ally' and Armagedon would be wholly justified. Fifty years on . . . ?

Douglas Hurd came to that conclusion in his 70s and years after he left office. Dennis Healey has said he would NEVER have pressed the button and that was when he was SecDef.

Deterent forces are a nice to have and a wholly useless weapon in the 21st Century.

PN
ex-targetting officer etc etc

Landroger

22nd May 2010, 12:45

Very interesting and erudite discussion here - thanks everyone. I've almost changed my mind a couple of times already! It really is not a 'slam dunk' yes or no answer. :hmm:

However, earlier in the discussion, the slang term 'Boomer' was used for our SSBNs. Err ..... I could be wrong, but isn't that an American slang term? I always thought Royal Navy SSBNs were referred to as 'Bombers'? :=

Steps back from the drop zone ....... :uhoh:

Roger.

Squirrel 41

22nd May 2010, 19:34

Landroger

Yes, but it's a part of the Common Slang Compartment (CSC). ;)

S41

Hipper

23rd May 2010, 12:18

What exactly are the achievements of the British nuclear deterant since its inception?

Kitbag

23rd May 2010, 13:49

Exactly the same as my car insurance- never been called upon, but without it I would be taking a risk driving

Pontius Navigator

23rd May 2010, 18:29

Kitbag, quite. However there was one fairly clear indication of how the V-force was perceived. In 1968 2 sqns of Vulcans were deployed to Cyprus. This extended the range with targets 1500 miles and more to the east of Moscow coming in range and Moscow itself being vulnerable to attack from the south.

Now, instead of having to counter attacks from the north and west their threat sector had doubled. For a relatively inexpensive deployment of two obsolescent bomber squadrons the Soviets had to extend their peripheral defences by at least a further 1500 miles - that is a lot of SAM sites.

That the quick reaction deterrent (sic) was now the province of the Royal Navy is true, but the V-Force was a significant follow-up force with more warheads than the Polaris force.

subs57

23rd May 2010, 19:43

I am a supporter of the UK having an independent nuclear deterrent, though I can support the statements of those who think it is expensive.

One of my opinions is that it is not necessarily the enemy of today we need to worry about, but the enemy of tomorrow. I would ask you to consider that someone, somewhere in the world today, is having their life shaped by events going on around him/her. If that person rises to the highest office in their country, and that country has access to nuclear weapons, then they may feel inclined to deploy them. If that turned out to be the case, and that country wanted to launch an attack - for example on the UK - we would need to have a response.

The whole point is to deter a potential aggressor by all but guaranteeing that our counter attack would be so devastating, the aggressor could not possibly recover from such an attack. But therein lies the paradox, because if the UK did launch its Trident missiles then the deterrence would have failed. We have a deterrence to deter an attack not to encourage one.

I note the points by some posters regarding the replacement of Trident with land and sea based cruise missles. I would like to offer the following. Cruise missiles, in any form, are classified as tactical nuclear weapons. Trident D5 missiles and its predecessor, Polaris A3 are, or were, classified as strategic nuclear weapons. The distinction between the two is that tactical nuclear weapons have a lower yield than strategic weapons but more importantly a strategic weapon is designed to penetrate any defences, either by various counter measures as well as high Mach number speeds. And it is the latter that is quite critical, because we want our enemies to realize that we can hit back and be sure that we have the capability to do so. In addition, by having the deterrence embarked on submarines, the enemy will have little idea from which direction the attack will come from.

The Americans and Russians are cutting back on their nuclear arsenals, for no other reason other than the fact that what they already have, is good enough to penetrate enemy defences.

However, the decision on any Trident replacement will be taken by our lords and masters and not me. :(

The B Word

23rd May 2010, 19:59

Subs, well said :D

It is often overlooked that the Deterrent is insurance against future threats and maybe not current threats. If you think you know who the enemy will be in 2025+ then please inform the Strategic Defence Review in 2015 or even 2020! Also, this isn't a capability that you can stand up inside 6-12 months - like a bunch of Infantry grunts.

The Trident doesn't need replacing until 2025-30, but we need to start thinking now. Anyone thinking they will be saving billions to pay for the idiots Brown and Blair's 13 year spending spree is sadly misguided. The money in years 1-4 (ie. 2010-2015) will probably be in the double digit millions. The savings to be made are in years 10+ (2020+), and I really hope that the country will have paid off its big debts by then (unless the great unwashed is tempted by Nu Labour again!!!).

Nuff said? :confused:

The B Word

Pontius Navigator

23rd May 2010, 20:38

not necessarily the enemy of today we need to worry about, but the enemy of tomorrow. I would ask you to consider that someone, somewhere in the world today, is having their life shaped by events going on around him/her. If that person rises to the highest office in their country, and that country has access to nuclear weapons, then they may feel inclined to deploy them. If that turned out to be the case, and that country wanted to launch an attack - for example on the UK - we would need to have a response.

and that country wanted to launch an attack and therein lies the rub. Germany of the 30s was certainly a country that was wholly behind its leadership and thus, as a country, susceptible to deterrence.

The Iran of today is different as the country as a whole in not fully supportive of the regime. Can you attack such a country whose leadership has taken leave of its senses?

The whole point is to deter a potential aggressor by all but guaranteeing that our counter attack would be so devastating, the aggressor could not possibly recover from such an attack.

But it only works where that country does not have the mentality of a suicide bomber nor the belief of invincibility.

The distinction between the two is that tactical nuclear weapons have a lower yield than strategic weapons but more importantly a strategic weapon

That is a moot point and one that is probably inaccurate. The strategic weapon is perhaps better characterised by one of reach, immediacy and invulnerability.[/QUOTE]

Hipper

24th May 2010, 06:49

Royalistflyer

24th May 2010, 07:03

No one here or in the government can know what future threats will be. A powerful dictatorship can grow remarkably swiftly. We need deterrence for the future. So my vote is definitely keep the deterrent.

subs57

24th May 2010, 07:31

PP

All I will say is that who would have thought that Corporal Hitler, standing in the trenches during WW1 would, some 20 years later, rise to power and kick start WW2? This is the point I make regarding the enemy of tomorrow. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what the world will be like in 10 years – 20 years hence, but naturally we hope for the best.I agree with you that the government of a country does not necessarily represent the population as a whole. We don’t need to look abroad for examples, we can say that about our own country, Coalition or not.The nuclear deterrent was created solely to deter a nuclear strike on our country. There is no other reason for its existence. Its sole intention is to annihilate another country. It is not designed to act as, what I call a fly swat. To this end, I personally do not care one single solitary jot, what the general population of an enemy country thinks of its leadership. If that country launched a nuclear attack on the UK, I for one, would expect to see a like for like retaliatory strike.As for the differences in yield between strategic and tactical weapons? No it is definitely not a mute point. On the contrary a tactical nuclear weapon could easily, and with a much reduced yield, send out a very clear political message to our enemies, and would minimize casualties and perhaps, just perhaps, make them think twice about escalating their actions.And that is what I would expect to see happen, because if the UK’s nuclear deterrent was deployed, then there would be no political message to send because it would be game over.

ORAC

24th May 2010, 09:04

I believe the main reason we obtained nuclear weapons was political. That is, we wanted to be at the world's top table. At the time, with American soldiers in Europe, I think we were comfortable under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Militarily we got them for an existing situation, namely that the Soviet Union had them. Later China could also be considered a potential nuclear enemy. You believe wrongly, we obtained nuclear weapons because the US Secretary of State pissed off Ernest Bevin.

All justification since then for other reasons is just casuistry.

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Post-war_development_program) The United Kingdom started independently developing nuclear weapons again shortly after the war. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee set up a cabinet sub-committee, the Gen 75 Committee (GEN.75) (known informally as the "Atomic Bomb Committee"), to examine the feasibility as early as 29 August 1945. It was US refusal to continue nuclear cooperation with the UK after World War II (due to the McMahon Act of 1946 restricting foreign access to US nuclear technology) which eventually prompted the building of a bomb:

“ In October 1946, Attlee called a small cabinet sub-committee meeting to discuss building a gaseous diffusion plant to enrich uranium. The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been... We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

Pontius Navigator

24th May 2010, 09:52

And we did not get them because the USSR had them; they didn't. They got the technology from us.

jindabyne

24th May 2010, 09:57

My view is simplistic - and having attended the RAAF Staff College, you might well agree!!

To echo a fair number of others here, Trident is an insurance policy in which, some day, my descendants might be thankful I had invested; might being the knub word, but I wouldn't want to commit them to that risk. Hopefully Trident would not be needed, but whilst others of dubious nature have that truly appalling potential, in whatever guise, I would much prefer to have a higher stack of cards. As Poose said - better to have and not need than vice verca.

I well acknowledge most of the differing views expressed, but my instinct runs counter; and I'm mindful that an alternative nuclear option to Trident will almost certainly be more expensive to implement and sustain. A future generation will hopefully be able to dipense with a robust nuclear deterrent in its entirety, but I don't think we're yet close to that point.

hulahoop7

24th May 2010, 11:47

“ In October 1946, Attlee called a small cabinet sub-committee meeting to discuss building a gaseous diffusion plant to enrich uranium. The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been... We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

You hit the nail on the head with this one. It may not be admitted openly, but the fact is that countries with nuclear weapons are taken seriously internationally, and those that don't ... aren't. We have allies in certain parts of the world precisely because we are a nuclear power. We are the ultimate partner to support them against a rogue neighbour.

Secondly, this system will still be working in 50 years time. Lets take a step back exactly 100 years to 1910. Would the 1910 armchair expert have been able to predict the 2 world wars and numerous other conflicts which would occur in the following 50 years?

Third, whole life costs might sound expensive, but as a yearly insurance policy against the obliteration of the UK it is a pitance.

Pontius Navigator

24th May 2010, 12:18

1910?

Remember the Russo-Japanese war of 1905? The Naval arms from 1906?

Then looking for 1910 I found this:

georgiandaily.com - Paris S?excuse: French Officials Rationalize Naval Rearmament of Russia - Part One (http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16667&Itemid=132)

Of course in 1910 France was the banker of Europe and bank rolled Russia.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

25th May 2010, 08:56

The suicide bomber and the international fanatical terrorist certainly seems to have thrown some spanners into our political and military thinking. One interesting (in the Chinese sense) thought thread is that many of us now think that such terrs are the Threat and that we should no longer concern ourselves with any posed by nation states. Those nation states that may be a threat are now labelled fanatics who, equally, would be happy to commit suicide for their cause. So, they won't fear our deterrent

In reality, it is not simply "either, or" but, very inconveniently, both. The "fanatic" threat is an addition, not a replacement. I wonder how relaxed we'll be when that nice Mr Putin becomes Russian President again? Do we care that China isn't its insular former self and has cornered the World market on various mineral sources, essential to our modern day technological living? Do we believe that any harm to us will harm the US as well and that we can rely on them to resolve such difficulties for us?

rab-k

25th May 2010, 10:38

Article by Michael Portillo on Gordon Brown’s nuclear deterrent policy for The Sunday Times, 25 June 2006. (http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/articles/art_nipress/nukes.htm)

Extract:
But two decades later we live in a different world and the arguments ought to have changed. We now face no threat from the Soviet Union. The nuclear weapons states that we might fear such as North Korea, China and in the future Iran, have much less developed systems than the Russians did. Unlike the Soviet Union they do not have tank divisions in Germany and Czechoslovakia ready to race towards Frankfurt and Vienna. It is not easy for them to blackmail us, still less attack us.

If somehow they could threaten us, it is hard to see how Britain’s own weapons could successfully deter them. As Harold Wilson observed after he had left Downing Street: “I never believed that we had a really independent deterrent.” Britain relies for its technology on the United States, and it is inconceivable that we could use our weapons without American permission. That being so, Britain’s “independent” deterrent becomes ineffective.

Our enemies know too that democracies could only use nuclear weapons if they have come under nuclear attack. Even when Britain has felt that its vital national interests were threatened it could not even contemplate a nuclear response. So Colonel Nasser of Egypt did not hesitate to nationalize the Suez Canal, nor did Argentina’s General Galtieri think twice about invading the Falkland Islands.

Twenty years ago the Soviets might have doubted whether the Americans would really risk the destruction of their country just to save Europe. But the calculation for others today would be quite different. America has spent those two decades working on systems that intercept hostile missiles. If the US needs to destroy an enemy (perhaps in response to an attack on an ally) it can probably do so at no risk to its homeland. So whilst Britain’s independent deterrent now appears ineffective, the American deterrent works even better than before. Blair’s key insight – which probably led him into the Iraq war – is that we rely on America for our security now as much as ever, if not more so.

It is true that the world will have changed again by the time that the Trident system needs to be replaced or upgraded in almost twenty years’ time. Who knows what the global situation may be by then? But no matter how much the scene alters, the US will still hold the key to the British system, because the missile design is theirs.

Always regarded our Trident subs as effectively USN boats under a white ensign.

The logic of the US/UK arrangement being that with Polaris/Trident, the UK gets to sit at the top table, yet again punching above its weight, while the US gets a vocal ally at that top table who will support its foreign policy objectives; fair trade, no robbery.

But for the UK to use these weapons without US approval? Unthinkable. There is no way the US would have the UK start throwing these things about, for fear of being dragged in itself. If the US is already involved in the fight however, then that presents no such difficulties.

"Independent" deterrant? Not a chance! If we wanted such then we should have looked to Advanced Cruise Missiles of our own; sea, sub and air launched varieties. But I gues with the current treaties in place, thats one boat which has already sailed.

LBP PC DC

25th May 2010, 17:23

Very probationary PPruner asking a possibly naive question...Why do we as a nation feel the need to "sit at the top table"? We are a small island nation with a huge fiscal deficit - should we not be more worried about our own problems in the here and now rather than worrying about a bogeyman that may or may not exist? Would the money not be better spent securing our borders and keeping our population safe rather than trying to keep up with the much larger and richer Joneses by buying their kit from them?

Please don't flame me, I ask only in an effort to learn more.

Pontius Navigator

25th May 2010, 18:53

LBP PC DC, shhush, people don't want to know about the Elephant in the room.

Lima Juliet

25th May 2010, 20:59

Who would have predicted the current unrest in Jamaica even at the start of this Thread a few days ago - certainly a year ago?

Is the answer of "the world is an uncertain place" now QED???

(And I'm not suggesting nukes should be used in Jamaica, but it shows the argument on the uncertainty of future conflicts)

LJ

pax britanica

25th May 2010, 21:23

As omeone who in 2000 speak is a 'customer' orf the UK armed forces , ie a citizen the questionI have a few questions to pose, in an amiable way i hope
1 Can we afford an indepenedent deterent today
2 Do we need one since effectively nuking london would massively contaminate France who tend to strike back more than we do anyway
3 If we had nukes dont the Americans have all the launch data anyway and can prevent us from going it alone

It seems to me a serious time to asses this, I think a politician recently said without nuclear weapons we would just be Belgium, but he overlooked that fact the the average Belge in the Rue/Straat is better off than his /her Brit opposite number and has better healthcare, pensions, transport , less social chaos etc etc etc. So Nukes are fine for a really unlikely event but for most probablyscenarios theyare a huge waste of money
?

Royalistflyer

26th May 2010, 02:25

Right at the moment, serious government analysts are questioning the future of the EU. The German reluctance to fund the failures of other Europeans has cast a grave doubt over the future of the EU. Continental Europe boasts just one truly powerful economy: Germany. Germany now wants to control how other Europeans spend their money and the other Europeans are never going to give that power to Germany.
This could in the future lead to a slow, gradual loosening of the ties of the EU. Germany however will continue strong. Her economy while superficially workable with France, is nationalistically never going to work together with the French. Germany will need a partner. The most obvious is Russia. Germany needs workers - but not immigrants - Russia needs industrial investment not emigrants. Russia has much of the raw materials that Germany needs. The compatibility of their economies is obvious - to them. Such a partnership would be exceedingly dangerous for us and the USA, but mostly for us. We would effectively be without the EU. France is a competitor and always has been, she has little that we want and vice versa. We would need to start very quickly looking well beyond Europe. The EU would devolve into being no more than the original Treaty of Rome - something that we felt was of little interest to us.
More to the point however is the possible growth of a German-Russian axis both economically and potentially militarily. This would be a very powerful coalition, something that would do well to worry about. It would be fully nuclear. So the retention of our nuclear deterrent would be vital. The Americans can and may well be totally distracted by some other danger to their interests - maybe from China or South America, so our deterrent will be truly independent. They don't actually have a "key" we can if necessary, fire at will. The Soviets back in the Cold War, we have since discovered, were quite afraid of the RN nuclear subs since they were truly independent - even of a nuked London, they could fire. It is real, and our seat at the top table ensures that we are completely aware of the situation - as even Germany is not at the moment.

subs57

26th May 2010, 19:35

Pax Brittania,

Q1: There is indeed some very deserving causes that could easily use the £billions that would be needed to replace Trident. My take on this is that it is a question of do we need it not can we afford it. Some posts on here question whether we can afford not to have a deterrence.

Q2: Not sure what is meant by your question/statement:confused:

Q3: No. The Americans do not have “launch data” targeting data or any means of physically delaying, prohibiting, or preventing the release of these weapons, should the U.K. decide to launch. It is a unilateral decision, though undoubtedly our allies would be consulted or, depending on how much attitude our government has, perhaps simply informed. :}

Pontius Navigator

26th May 2010, 21:14

Subs,

PB Q2 was, I think, an attempt at sarcasm or humour.

Wycombe

26th May 2010, 21:35

If you didn't know how many warheads we in the UK have, you do now!

BBC News - UK to be "more open" about nuclear warhead levels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8706600.stm)

cornish-stormrider

27th May 2010, 09:36

For those who voiced the question - the correct term is bomber, not boomer. Boomer's are for septics and Jar Jar Binks.

Thank you for the mostly concise, and well presented arguments. I will confess to have been leaning towards a cheaper and less threatening deterrant (ala Cruise etc). but the argument has swung back in favour of the big boat full of sunshine.

Good work Wafu's (provided they don't hit Le Triomphant again)

glad rag

27th May 2010, 12:52

I will confess to have been leaning towards a cheaper and less threatening deterrant (ala Cruise etc). but the argument has swung back in favour of the big boat full of sunshine.

Likewise, however the events surrounding the two Korea's has certainly reinforced my attitude..

GR.

Less Hair

27th May 2010, 13:24

Royalist, nice reading.
Being german myself I cannot see any other Rapallo down the line for Germany. Trade with Russia? Certainly! Political cooperation beyound the usual? Not.

If I'd be Brit I'd certainly keep my nukes anyway. Not too long anymore and non governments might threaten "us" to use their own nukes anywhere. Funny dictators already do so.

Jig Peter

27th May 2010, 13:29

While the UK realised it needed at least a finger on the nuclear trigger, and used US equipment as the post-V Force vehicle, a gentleman across the Channel decided that he needed a truly independent equivalent, at least in part to guarantee his own seat at the "Top Table".
Without help (AFAIK) from the US, France created a well-sized airborne deterrent, with those very sharp Mirage 4s, and followed those with both land- and submarine-based missiles. They have been very silent about the number of warheads, but reportedly they have about the same number as the UK. A cynic might say that until France "gives up" its Independent Nuclear Deterrent , the UK won't either: deeper cynicism says that the Foreign Office's traditional enemy is still France ...
Innocent me wonders why France could afford to develop its nuke forces from its own resources, why on earth didn't Britain do so? Getting things "cheap" from Uncle Sam has never been string-free - he keeps his poodles on a tight leash.

Less Hair

27th May 2010, 14:13

Well, the British have a special relation to the US. Why not make use of it and procure US equipment cheaper? The punch is what matters.

Jig Peter

27th May 2010, 14:37

The relationship may (rpt may) still be "special", but for how long?
Also, see my last sentence - is that really independence? My huskies wouldn't think so ...
BTW - I admire France for doing the nuclear thing independently, specially as the decision was taken when their country (at least, the northern bit) and economy was still in such a bad state after WW2, and have long felt that our politicos have gone for the "easy option" for too long - with disastrous consequences for Britain's aircraft industry as well.

Lightning Mate

27th May 2010, 14:44

Very succinctly put Jig Peter. :ok:

Jig Peter

27th May 2010, 15:08

WARNING - e-mail incoming !!!
JP

Thelma Viaduct

27th May 2010, 18:14

ian16th

27th May 2010, 18:26

I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956 Gnd,

Sorry for the late reply.

In 1956 there was no nuclear destruction.

What didn't work was 'calling on the Yanks' Look up 'Suez' in a history book or two.

Barnsyormer1968

As for 'knocking of on Friday' the RAF worked Saturdays at that time!! The '5 day week' was introduced as a fuel saving measure after 'the Suez Crises'.
Prior to Suez a weekend '48' was a once a month afair.

Impiger

30th Jul 2010, 07:26

Beeb reporting that the MOD will have to pay the £20Bn or so for the Trident replacement and not HMT. If that has to be funded from a reduced Defence Vote then the cat is truly among the financial pigeons!

As reported:

Speaking from New Delhi, where he was accompanying Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to India, Mr Osborne said he had made it "absolutely clear" the Trident costs were part of the defence budget.

"All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence

So we're not particularly unique - my English teacher would have rapped me over the knuckles for that: one is either unique or one is not; uniqueness is not something that can be qualified in such a way boy! :=

Squirrel 41

30th Jul 2010, 08:15

This has been on the cards for a month or so now - and in one sense it's great news, as it forces Trident to sing for it supper against other more useful systems and programmes. Don't think for a second that if Trident had a specific budget line it would result in net additional resources for MoD at this point - it wouldn't.

Hopefully this means that we can get rid of Trident and spend the money on something more useful.

S41

Pontius Navigator

30th Jul 2010, 08:35

I don't want to be a pedent but there are too many As and not enough Es in the title and it greats every time I see it.:)

Tashengurt

30th Jul 2010, 08:43

Yup, the spelling on this forum isn't grate. :rolleyes:

BEagle

30th Jul 2010, 08:48

It grates on me too....:\

Overseas aid should pay for military expeditionary activity, rather than it being funded from the defence budget.

If the Tornado fleet is retired, probably the only non-USAF aircraft in the UK capable of nuclear strike will be XH558 until the Nimrod Y2K is in service...:uhoh:

Pontius Navigator

30th Jul 2010, 08:56

Well that was quick. Almost went ersa over elbow when BEagle bit.

gpn01

30th Jul 2010, 12:10

Civvie (annoyingly logical) perspective....

For a 'deterrent' to be effective the threat of its use must deter the aggressor. Unfortunately it seems we still have a myopic/westernised perspective of live vs death and don't yet fully appreciate that some nations don't share this same philosophy - case in point security designed to prevent bombing on an aeroplane assumes that a bomber wouldn't carry a device onto an aeroplane that they're flying on...as they'd risk killing themselves. We're now aware that this paradigm no longer applies and that, for some, martyrdom appeals (and yet we still do matching of baggage to passengers).

If a nation isn't threatened by the idea of retaliation, then it's no longer a deterrent....

Pontius Navigator

30th Jul 2010, 13:56

Phil_R

30th Jul 2010, 14:23

All I can add is my utterly unqualified civvy support to what I presume is the RAF position on this.

OK, the fact that we think it won't be used is not a good reason to lose a capability. That said, in a situation where people are seriously discussing dumping the entire Tornado GR fleet to save 7.5bn, it seems utterly insane to countenance spending 20bn on nukes. Sorry, Navy people, I am not in the RAF so I don't automatically hate you, but that is just not sanity.

Why wouldn't we ditch Trident, keep Tornado, and still have 12.5bn to give back to the MoD in savings? In whose brain is this not an obviously superior result?

P

Lyneham Lad

30th Jul 2010, 14:31

Why wouldn't we ditch Trident, keep Tornado, and still have 12.5bn to give back to the MoD in savings? In whose brain is this not an obviously superior result?

Because we then would no longer have a seat at the UN's top table - and no UK Government, of whatever shade would be willing to relinquish the status they seem addicted to. :ugh:

Phil_R

30th Jul 2010, 14:39

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, anwyay, is it? I understood the security council was drawn from the victors of WWII, and the fact that they happened to be the only pre-67 nuclear weapons states was largely coincidental.

Happy to be corrected though, or told to go away from the aircrew forum where I am at best a hanger on :)

P

andyy

30th Jul 2010, 15:09

I do not think there is an explicit link between membership of the permanent 5 of the SC & the posession of N weapons.

Yamagata ken

30th Jul 2010, 15:30

Once upon a time, the Queen`s Navee used to ensure that the seas were open to law abiding nations to carry out their legal trade. It had the capability to defend itself, and land light expeditionary forces in order to sort out The Natives, or Johnny Foreigner when neccessary. The Continentals were left to sort things out between themselves.

That system seems to have worked fairly well for a long time. Perhaps it is time to forget the top table and return to basics.

vecvechookattack

30th Jul 2010, 16:14

The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council. That means that it will permanently be a member...whether it has Trident, Tomahawk or a single M3M gun.

FlapJackMuncher

30th Jul 2010, 16:33

So the MOD has to fund the next nuclear deterrent from their own budget, cost 20£Bn.

To fund the purchase why not let the MOD sell the existing nuclear deterrent second hand; one careful owner, low milage, kept in garage etc?

ricardian

30th Jul 2010, 17:14

As for 'knocking of on Friday' the RAF worked Saturdays at that time!! The '5 day week' was introduced as a fuel saving measure after 'the Suez Crises'.
Prior to Suez a weekend '48' was a once a month afair.
We certainly used to work on Saturday mornings. The change to a 5 day week occured at some time in the period 1961-63 when I was at RAF Driffield. It never affected me as I worked in a 4 shift system which equated to a 42 hour week. What did annoy me was working shifts in the Middle East - day workers started at 0700 and packed up at 1300 (30 hour week), shift workers just carried on with the same 4 shift system (42 hour week) that they maintained in the UK.

dead_pan

30th Jul 2010, 17:33

I do not think there is an explicit link between membership of the permanent 5 of the SC & the posession of N weapons.

Neither do I. I believe it was consituted immediately after WWII. At this point only the US possessed them.

Fortunately possession of nuclear weapons doesn't automatically give you a seat at the table. Mind you, it would be fun if it did. Imagine, wee Kim Il Jong, ArmouredDinnerJacket, the Pakistani pres, Netanyahu etc all at the same table. Would be like the opening scene in The Naked Gun II.

The Old Fat One

31st Jul 2010, 12:31

What you overlook though is that a willingness to die does not permeate the whole terrorist organisation. The leadership has not been noted for its willingness to say 'follow me.'

True and not a new concept either. I watched a fascinating documentary about a kamikazi squadron some time back. Only two squadron members survived the war...

The boss and the planning officer.

Easy Street

31st Jul 2010, 16:35

Our removal from the P5 would require a resolution of the Security Council. Which we would veto. Why would we possibly vote for our own removal? Possession of nuclear weapons is a red herring.

As regards the rest of the Navy's role, they would do well to stop angling towards becoming a floating air force, and focus on their core 'control of the sea' stuff.

Dan Gerous

31st Jul 2010, 20:21

Call their bluff. If they want the instant sunshine to come out the defence budget, just say no, the money would be better spent on other defence related items. See then if the government would be willing to lose their penis extension.

Pontius Navigator

31st Jul 2010, 20:22

ES, while 2/3rds of the World is covered by water it is a fact that all of it is covered by air and from the air comes a threat that can only be met from the air, viz Bismark, Repulse and Prince of Wales etc etc.

Pontius Navigator

1st Aug 2010, 09:36

Only Labour or Conservative leaders would actually know that binning Trident wouldn’t save the defense budget a bean. We just don’t have it to bin. It’s as simple as that.

It crossed my mind 40 years ago that we were carrying a load of scrap iron. Unfortunately to maintain the bluff costs money. Everyone, except the very few in the know, have to believe that it is real.

The 'few' in the know are, by now, several thousands as many of the early ones will have retired.

It may still be a bluff but an expensive one as every single nut and bolt has to be real.

Pontius Navigator

1st Aug 2010, 11:10

Captain, that did occur to me. As I said though, having been concerned with buckets of sunshine I know we did carry a few tons of scrap iron as well as the payload. All the better to irradiate you with.

Easy Street

1st Aug 2010, 22:41

PN,

while 2/3rds of the World is covered by water it is a fact that all of it is covered by air and from the air comes a threat that can only be met from the air, viz Bismark, Repulse and Prince of Wales etc etc.

Modern naval units should be able to achieve at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, through mutual support and correct positioning. T45's Samson radar, ASTER SAMs and CIWS can see off anything short of a stealth attack.

In contrast, our reasons for buying the carriers are all about projecting force, not defending surface units. In the short term, GR9s aren't much use as DCA. In the long term, a carrier reliant on the majority of its (small!) JCA air wing for protection is a self-licking lollipop of the type we can't afford.

covec

2nd Aug 2010, 06:34

Perhaps it is time for our current Politicians, the FCO and Senior Military Officers to finally complete "withdrawal from Empire" by accepting that:

1. Britain cannot afford a "world role".

2. Do we - the British Public - really want a "world role".

3. Do we, the British face a greater threat, conventional, Nuclear or assymetric than say Norway, Denmark, the Benelux, Germany, Spain or Portugal?

If yes, then is it because of our allegedly automatic support of US military intervention post 9/11 or because of past Empire and Foreign interests accrued due to Empire?

If "yes" to both of these then - stop and withdraw resepectively.

4. Lets go back to core basics - Defence of the Realm at Home, from Home. Not via interventionist policies abroad.

If this means redundancies then pay us all generously - esp. lower ranks - to re-enter civilian life and increase access and funding for retraining.

Not_a_boffin

3rd Aug 2010, 07:52

ES

Modern naval units should be able to achieve at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, through mutual support and correct positioning. T45's Samson radar, ASTER SAMs and CIWS can see off anything short of a stealth attack.

Maybe and once only. Always shoot the archer, not the arrow.

As for self-licking lollipops - there are and always have been phases to campaigns, sometimes the CAG will be doing DCA, sometimes OCA, sometimes strike. Just like a land-based wing, only without a fixed set of GPS co-ordinates......

gpn01

3rd Aug 2010, 22:46

gpn, you are right to a point. The airline baggage issue is of course quite correct.

What you overlook though is that a willingness to die does not permeate the whole terrorist organisation. The leadership has not been noted for its willingness to say 'follow me.'

But how does a nuclear equipped submarine deal with this problem when the leader of a 'nation' is based in a Country which isn't that of the home state and is where a terrorist organisation has chosen to base its operations? e.g. Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Ireland? Would these then be considered legit targets? Or maybe it would be better to target the sources of funds? That's another major dilemma (particularly when the states that provide funding also provide the World with much needed fossil fuels).

ORAC

5th Oct 2010, 10:54

Torygraph: Has Dave just saved Trident? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100057141/has-dave-just-saved-trident/)

Take a break from the Child Benefit row to consider what David Cameron said on Today when he was asked about defence. I thought I heard him cut through the guff and confirm that we are getting a like-for-like Trident replacement. He agreed that the Trident upgrade was “untouchable”, and that even while searching for value for money savings from the programme, it will be replaced. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it sounded definitive somehow. This would lend weight to my colleague James Kirkup’s report this morning that Mr Cameron is swinging behind Liam Fox in the battle with the Treasury. This was the exchange:

JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?

DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…

JN: Is that a yes?

DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.

500days2do

5th Oct 2010, 11:36

As I have mentioned before within the walls of this forum...if the politicians wish to replace Trident, let them make the case in plain and simple terms to the general public the reason for doing so in these "times of austerity"

The 'deterent' is a weapon of last resort...against whom and when would dave use it...?
Would he leave his conventional forces with poorly funded equipment scales to maintain his seat at the Security Council...?
As the recent upgrade to the alert state has proved, the 'deterent' has no teeth in this scenario...
By slowly reducing the effective power of land , sea and air forces he reduces us to becoming a one trick pony...the red button and nothing else...

5d2d

gpn01

5th Oct 2010, 11:46

Torygraph: Has Dave just saved Trident? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100057141/has-dave-just-saved-trident/)

JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?

DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…

JN: Is that a yes?

DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.

But that doesn't mean it's being replaced with something of a similar capability. Could be that Trident's going to be replaced with a single Tactical nuke strapped in a squaddie's rucksack. After all, if it works for the bad guys....

cornish-stormrider

5th Oct 2010, 11:50

Ah, the old Lister Gambit. I believe it was the Emohawk episode with the immortal line of "why don't we go down to the armoury, get a nuclear warhead. Strap it to me forehead and I'll nut the ****er into oblivion"

Can we find a volunteer?

The Helpful Stacker

5th Oct 2010, 20:03

Would he leave his conventional forces with poorly funded equipment scales to maintain his seat at the Security Council...?

Not this line again? Guess I'll have to explain how it actually works.

- The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

- In order to lose their place as a permanent member of the UNSC all the permanent members of the UNSC must vote for it.

- All permanent members of the UNSC have the power to veto any substantive resolution.

So in conclusion, not only do the permanent members of the UNSC have to vote to remove themselves from the UNSC but they have the veto to avoid being voted off the UNSC (which they can't because they'd have to vote for it in the first place) as well.

The possession of nuclear weapons is not a nessessity for status as permanent member of the UNSC, its just a concidence that the five victorious powers after WW2 who formed the first UNSC were also the only five nations recognised as nuclear weapon states (NWS) by the original Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

incubus

6th Oct 2010, 07:16

The simple problem with the British nuclear deterrent is that nobody honestly believes that we would use it. If we wouldn't use it, it won't deter.

The solution is similarly simple: nuke somebody.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 07:55

incubus,

I can not comment on your suggestion as it is not Government policy to . . .

if you get my drift

but who exactly would we contemplate dropping a nuke on?

It is all very well to talk about State sponsored terrorism and failed States, but suppose a terrorist group prospers undetected in a western state - and they do don't they - which then launches a sucessful nuke on, say, New York. Would the US nuke the western state on the grounds that their failure to stop the terrorists was tantamount sponsoring them?

We might be better deploying our own ABM system.

PS

AMB is balls, a bit like a Deterrant

Chainkicker

6th Oct 2010, 08:40

It is all very well to talk about State sponsored terrorism and failed States, but suppose a terrorist group prospers undetected in a western state - and they do don't they - which then launches a sucessful nuke on, say, New York. Would the US nuke the western state on the grounds that their failure to stop the terrorists was tantamount sponsoring them?

I suppose it depends if it were France :)

We might be better deploying our own AMB system

AMB?

RumPunch

6th Oct 2010, 09:32

Well Liam Fox has just announced we will continue with Trident full stop. At least that clears up the question.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 09:46

RP, and that is progress?

I thought the issue was not trident but trident replacement. Continuing with Trident was like continuing with Polaris.

BarbiesBoyfriend

6th Oct 2010, 10:09

Why not put Tomahawks with Nuclear warheads, in the Astutes?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

6th Oct 2010, 10:24

Because to assure the same number of weapons on target, we would need more of them and more Boats to launch them from.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 10:31

Because to assure the same number of weapons on target, we would need more of them and more Boats to launch them from.

and they are short range and slower and can get shot down more easily than an ICBM.

Biggus

6th Oct 2010, 11:57

Here's an idea on how to save on the cost of operating the Trident fleet, and how to help fund a replacement...

16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...

Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!

Maybe it's not such a good idea.... :(

P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek... :ok:

gpn01

6th Oct 2010, 12:04

Here's an idea on how to save on the cost of operating the Trident fleet, and how to help fund a replacement...

16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...

Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!

Maybe it's not such a good idea.... :(
P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek... :ok:

In the same vein, can't we just outsource the nuclear deterrent? You know, find another Country that has a strategic nuclear capability and then rent some of their capacity to be our 'independent' solution? Oh, hang on, who has the keys for Trident again.....?

BarbiesBoyfriend

6th Oct 2010, 12:07

Golf Bravo Zulu.

So we'd have fewer warheads on target. How many do you actually need on target? 1?

Pontius.
Yes, you're correct about the invulnerability of ICBMs, but the enemy, assuming a suitable one appears, would never stop all the cruise missiles.

And until they could be 100% sure of getting them all they'd still function as a deterrent.

Having SLBMs is willy waving on an inappropriate scale.

BillHicksRules

6th Oct 2010, 12:42

Dear all,

Every time this issue comes up it never fails to amaze me the number of people who gleefully demand we waste billions of pounds on such an obviously pointless purchase.

Many people talk about a replacement for Trident being necessary not just in today’s world but in the future as well. They claim that we do not know who our enemies will be in the future. Who our enemies have been, are now or will be in the future is irrelevant. The continuing misuse of the word deterrent is one of the biggest con-jobs in history. Trident as a weapons system is not about deterrence but instead vengeance.

How can I say this?

Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.

Pre-emptive strike
Any use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively negates the concept of deterrence
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nuclear capable state is likely to be dooming several million of their own citizens to death in the more than likely reprisal attacks

Retaliatory strike
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a non-nuclear capable country would be viewed in the same light as the pre-emptive attack on a non-nuclear state as shown above.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country would be viewed as a massive escalation and would inevitably lead to a counter-retaliatory nuclear strike.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack.

So what I hope I have shown above is that the reasons given, both on this thread and by politicians of various persuasions, do not seem to stack up to scrutiny.

I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.

Cheers

BHR

cornish-stormrider

6th Oct 2010, 13:10

BHR - I'm banning you from this thread for making some sense:E how dare you!

That is actually a pertinent and interesting point, I'd never thought of it that way. I'd like to voice a what if theory now - if I spaketh Bolleaux then feel free to say so.

Some mad mental terrorist of choice aquires a nuclear device of some type, aha he thinks - time to make someone glow in the dark - BUT WHO?

does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare....

who is to say what it would take from who - what about a rogue state with a complete loony at the helm - aka kim jong so lonely. does the knowledge that either us or the septics or the CESM* could turn his palace into a glass puddle affect his thinking?

now comes the rub - how much are you willing to wager on us not ever needing the bomb? put yourself in shiny Daves position. how much does he gamble?

how about a dirty bomb or nerve gas? ?

the fact we have a big bucket of sunshine and a very accurate delivery system, might it possibly cause them to think - Hmmm, maybe not.

As to the others that keep banging on about seast at the top table and independantness of it all - do try and keep up.

CESM = Cheese eating Surrender Monkeys, AKA french.

ORAC

6th Oct 2010, 13:14

Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack. Nonsense, that's the point of deterrence/MAD.

If you use a nuclear weapon against us you will receive a total and overwhelming response - s0 do not even consider it. Your utter destruction is guaranteed.

You may consider that a retaliatory response would disprove the concept, it would state that the fact that the Cold war never turned hot proved the opposite and the threat deterred the attack.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 13:17

Bill, good points well made. The Second World War was a different country.

If ever there was a case for nuclear against non-nuclear then it was the Korean war and we know what happened there.

When it came to using the world's largest non-nuclear club 10 years or so later we know that even that was held back in case of escalation.

So, who or what would constitue a valid and achievable strike target?

While it would be quite reasonable to define criteria for a valid target set this would have to be ultra secret as any potential agressor could simply avoid the obvious nuclear trip wire.

We can argue all day on pprune but it would be a stupid politician that set out the criteria in public. The only worry is prevalence of stupid politicians.

vernon99

6th Oct 2010, 13:31

BHR

Considering over the last 7 years or so, we have made ourselves public enemy number one in a lot of countries, without a nuclear option, how would we defend against a rogue state?
How do you suggest we protect ourselves from the likes of Iran, Korea etc? What if Korea's new leader decides to try his new long range ballistic missile against us? We don't have conventional forces large enough to retaliate on the battlefield, or do we cross our fingers and hope he misses, or that someone else will help us?
It is a cliché but we do not know what tomorrow holds, as we deplete oil reserves around the world, how long before nations are reduced to fighting over what's left? Already we have Russia, Canada etc trying to claim more of the Arctic for themselves.
Do you think peace will prevail? that we will all make it home for tea and medals? You might think so, I don't. I think the future is very uncertain, but if it ever comes to the crunch and countries start fighting over resources, I would rather have the biggest stick available. It is not THAT expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 13:41

Some mad mental terrorist of choice aquires a nuclear device of some type, aha he thinks - time to make someone glow in the dark - BUT WHO?

does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare..

Ideally he would pick the State with the biggest nuclear arsenal as any response will ensure that the numbers killed in retalliation would increase the support for his ideal.

You cannot nuke a mindset.

BarbiesBoyfriend

6th Oct 2010, 13:58

If a terrorist was to get hold of a nuke and then 'let it off' in say London, or Tel Aviv, how would we know who to nuke in retaliation?

Maybe they'd leave a card?

Biggus

6th Oct 2010, 15:14

Barbie,

It'll be Blofeld, it always is......

Capt Pit Bull

6th Oct 2010, 15:28

bhr

I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.

Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.

Only valid if ALL possible enemies actually give a damn about being considered war criminals.

Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.

You logic is circular. The point of Nuclear deterrence is based around the concept that the weapons are NOT used. You can not therefore frame a counter arguement that takes as its starting point ONLY the USE of nuclear weapons.

Its like saying "in all cases where the house burnt down the fire brigade were unable to extinguish the flames before the house burnt down" and then using that as a justification for disbanding the fire brigade.

pb

glad rag

6th Oct 2010, 15:44

Looks like we're getting one whether we want it or not....

BBC iPlayer - Watch live - BBC Parliament (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive)

BillHicksRules

6th Oct 2010, 16:01

ORAC,

"If you use a nuclear weapon against us you will receive a total and overwhelming response - s0 do not even consider it. Your utter destruction is guaranteed."

Really?

A rogue Iranian General hits London with a single nuke what is our response?

Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?

What purpose does it serve?

Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?

To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.

Here is another scenario.

UK is hit by 20+ 1MT nukes by whomever. That is game over for the UK so any "response" again is simply a matter of vengance against innocent civilians in a far off land who as much deserve to die as all those killed here.

Should we be spending £100billion on the ability to kill millions of innocent people as an act of revenge?

Or should we spend £100billion on helping British citizens?

BillHicksRules

6th Oct 2010, 16:13

Capt Pit Bull,

The point that has been made previously is that deterrence only works if your adversary considers you will use your nukes.

So therefore, it is logical to analyse when such use would take place.

If you can state that the weapons would never be used then they fail to be a deterrence.

Your "analogy" about fire brigades is logically incomplete since it fails to take into consideration the times when the fire brigade are used successfully.

The fire brigade is designed to be used yet you are comparing them to a weapons system you yourself state is designed not to be used.

This is as flimsy an analogy as those who say Trident is like an insurance policy. You hope never to use it but you like the fact that it is there.

This is false too since an insurance policy is designed to return you to a similar state to the one you were in before whatever accident befell you.

It is not designed to burn down the rest of your street if you have had a fire!

Capt Pit Bull

6th Oct 2010, 16:26

I wasn't using the fire brigade as an analogy of trident, I was using it as an example of faulty logic.

For myself, the jury is out regarding trident, but your argument is completely uncompelling.

hulahoop7

6th Oct 2010, 16:28

Of course nuclear weapons are terrible but that's the point.
I'm a mafia boss. If anyone crosses me I make sure I take horrific vengeance. Nobody crosses me.

It's a sad fact, but in diplomatic circles nuclear states are treated differently.

Capt Pit Bull

6th Oct 2010, 17:03

bhr

The point that has been made previously is that deterrence only works if your adversary considers you will use your nukes.

And since I feel like arguing the toss, this assertion (upon which your arguement rests) is false.

The adversary does not need to consider that you will use nukes. It is sufficient simply to provide the possibility that they might be used. Since the consequence of their use is so drastic, even a small probability of use can not be ignored.

Bottom line, its the usual 'want peace, prepare for war' situation.

And since you ask:

A rogue Iranian General hits London with a single nuke what is our response?

Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?

What purpose does it serve?

Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?

To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.

Honestly? Pretty fanciful scenario that the remaining part of our command and control structure would be able to determine that it was the act of a single rogue individual. Clearly it would be morally reprehensible to nuke a thrid party just because some nutter has aquired a weapon.

But lets assume that there is clear incontravertable evidence that a particular state is responsible for London being nuked. Yes, deterrance has failed... but that doesn't mean the system is pointless. We would respond, until certain that the adversary could not repeat the attack. Such a response would probably requires the use of our nuclear arsenal. As someone that doesn't live in London, but a fair way away and upwind, I would not want an emboldened enemy to be left with any military capability whatsoever.

If there's going to be more massive civilian casualties, rather them than us. Give me the button, I'd press it in a heartbeat.

All the adversary needs to know is that some people think like me.... and thats a major factor in keeping that first nuke from arriving in the first place.
Ergo, deterrance is a viable strategy.

pb

barnstormer1968

6th Oct 2010, 18:18

I gave up taking BHR's options fairly quickly, as has been said, the worry of being labeled a war criminal does not stop politicians doing anything!

Many many folks tell me that nukes are no deterrence at all, but then fail to point out the nuclear states that have been directly invaded or attacked recently!. On the other hand, is is easy to reel off twenty or thirty conflicts happening in non nuclear states in fairly recent history.

No matter how loony any despot is considered, none of them have gone nuclear, or risked it being unleashed on their state.

I suppose Cuba was the first demonstration of very tough talk, but with constant negotiations in the background to avoid going all the way. Both sides came out looking good (to their own side), but both had given in (the Americans kept their withdrawals quiet though).

While it is nice and polite to do lots of talking on why nukes are not needed, sadly the world does not work that way in reality IMHO.

On the other hand, and thinking holistically, nukes are a bit like the royal family in that they are not asked to do very much, but still bring revenue by just being here (revenue in political and industrial terms):}

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2010, 19:38

vernon99

6th Oct 2010, 21:44

BS, there is a certain amount of thought that Indonesia stepped back from a full blown war during Confrontation because they suspected we might have gone nuclear.

Remember this was only 19 years after first use.
A nuclear storage area had been built at Tengah.
The 8 Victors had been replaced by 4 Vulcans.

Four Vulcans were a wholly inadequate and probably ineffective conventional bombing force. Any logical opponent could only draw the conclusion that they were for nuclear operations.

It could be argued therefore that ownership of nuclear weapons detered a conventional attack.

Exactly and I wonder how many times the fact that a nation has nuclear weapons has affected the outcome, take the Falklands War, did our nuclear credentials prevent other South American countries supporting Argentina? Or in GW1 did Saddam change his plans, not that long before there were stories he had used chemical weapons in his war with Iran.

We simply do not know what conflicts have been prevented as a result of being a member of the nuclear club. So for that reason it is a good thing to have, as I said earlier it isn't that expensive.

To remove the nuclear deterrent is akin to fighting with one hand tied behind your back, terribly British and sporting don't you know, but not very good when the other chap has a baseball bat!

Thelma Viaduct

6th Oct 2010, 23:28

If a terrorist was to get hold of a nuke and then 'let it off' in say London, or Tel Aviv, how would we know who to nuke in retaliation?

Maybe they'd leave a card?

More to the point, where would you send the thank you card?

BarbiesBoyfriend

7th Oct 2010, 00:08

Pious...settle down at the back, please.;)

incubus

7th Oct 2010, 11:15

We simply do not know what conflicts have been prevented as a result of being a member of the nuclear club. So for that reason it is a good thing to have, as I said earlier it isn't that expensive.
Do not become confused between having a nuclear strike capability and having a nuclear deterrent - they are actually subtly different things.

Having a strike capability says to the smaller players that we have the ability to deploy overwhelming force pretty much as you've said.

Having a system like Trident also says that, but more importantly it says to the big players that if they glass us we will be able to strike back and glass them. This is really an indefensible position and I don't for one second believe that we would (or if we have leaders who would, they should have the option removed from them.)

On this basis we ought to retain a nuclear capability but do not need a dedicated deterrence system (permanently deployed missile boats)

Pontius Navigator

7th Oct 2010, 11:52

I don't for one second believe that we would (or if we have leaders who would, they should have the option removed from them.)

Maggie didn't have them in the first place but I still think she would have gone for broke.

hulahoop7

7th Oct 2010, 15:17

Of course, what submarine based Trident gives you is the time to take stock. A leader (if there is one left) doesn't have to make an immediate decision. He/she can look at the options. He/she can say to Iran. Hand over all those responsible or we will blame you all. Give them 24 hours.

With Trident he/she can also choose to pick the target and the yield. Maybe a single low yield warhead on a key military installation?

Back this up with none nuclear strikes from your CVF rushing to the area.:suspect:

vernon99

7th Oct 2010, 15:55

Back this up with none nuclear strikes from your CVF rushing to the area.

If they haven't been sold off to India first?

dalek

7th Oct 2010, 16:30

1. Give the RN a full complement of 8 Astute submarines.
2. Make a small increase in the Tomahawk order.
3. Build or purchase 64 W80 warheads, mixed yields.
Job done.
My idea..... No.
It was the budget option put forward in 1983 by David Owen as an alternative to Trident.
Less bang, but you can keep several well dispersed submarines at sea

vernon99

7th Oct 2010, 17:53

Just one problem with the last scenario, you need to be in range of your opponent, not really a problem with Trident. But a bit of a pain if you have to wait a week for something to be in range, by that time it could be too late.....

WE Branch Fanatic

7th Oct 2010, 18:01

Leaving aside the ballistic missile/cruise missile issue for a moment:

SDR (1998) said we need ten SSNs. SDR - new chapter (2004) said we need eight. That number seems to have dropped to seven. Now you want the SSNs to do the deterrent role as well normal SSN tasking?

See this RUSI article (http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4C4ED70C3F1F7/) (with link to a PDF format paper) on doing it more cheaply by modifying the CASD posture.

1. A 'Normally-CASD' Submarine Force - Extend the Vanguard-class submarines, delay the start of peak spending on the renewal programme until 2019/2020 and redefine what is meant by 'CASD' to cut the fleet of boats from four to three.

2. A 'CASD-Capable' Submarine Force - Abandon CASD in normal circumstances, but maintain a credible capability to reconstitute it if required. This option could cut the fleet of successor submarines from four to two and delay peak spending until 2023/2024.

3. A 'Dual-Capable' Submarine Force - Rationalise the submarine fleet around a single model of boat, which could be used either for conventional or deterrent roles. This new model would eventually replace both Vanguard and Astute class submarines.

4. A Non-Deployed Strategic Force - A more radical option, this would abandon the UK's submarine-based nuclear deterrent, maintaining only a non-deployed arsenal. Offering the most substantial financial savings, this option would still aim to provide a guaranteed - but not prompt - ability to retaliate against future nuclear attacks.

knowitall

7th Oct 2010, 18:47

"1. Give the RN a full complement of 8 Astute submarines.
2. Make a small increase in the Tomahawk order.
3. Build or purchase 64 W80 warheads, mixed yields."

4.The USA point out that they've signed a treaty with the Russians banning nuclear cruise missiles so no you may not put a nuke on the end of a tomahawk, either buy trident or design your own missile

if we want nukes trident's the only viable answer, do we want nukes though?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

7th Oct 2010, 23:15

Extend the Vanguard-class submarines

If, of course, the metalwork in the reactors will let you.

May the Lord be praised that the V boats were on time.

Sorry, the point you are actually making is good but some others forget history so fast.

dalek

8th Oct 2010, 07:12

Vernon,
The point is there would always be more than one boat at sea making us less vulnerable to a single lucky? hit. If our Int is so poor we have no notice of an impending strike then we deserve to lose.

Knowitall,
You may be right. However, someone with far more knowledge of international affairs than me tells me that if we decommission two Trident warheads for every W80 we activate, there is unlikely to be major objections.

The major problem is will the USA allow us the blueprints for these weapons?
We no longer have any way of testing

cornish-stormrider

8th Oct 2010, 07:26

Here's another choice - trident itself, nil hours units. proven to work (without the sunshine package)

build a slightly bigger astute boat class with a bit bigger fin - (you see where I am going)

Insert 1 or 2 x Trident with BIG or Little payload choices

Add a team of about 6 steely eyed missile men to each boat and increase pies complement to match.

order 10 boats?? 20?? we than have a FLEET of kickass and take names subs with the deterrant dispersed aboard

Big consultancy fee please. Oh and to the nay sayers I seem to recall seeing a ducmentary about the astute being a modular build.

Q.E.D.

dead_pan

8th Oct 2010, 09:11

The FT are reporting that discussions are underway with the French regarding some form of joint nuclear deterrent. Interesting idea.

vernon99

8th Oct 2010, 11:38

The FT are reporting that discussions are underway with the French regarding some form of joint nuclear deterrent. Interesting idea.

How is this an INDEPENDENT nuclear deterrent, what do we do if the French are pals with an aggressor? We may as well not bother and hope we can count on NATO to support us?

Or maybe we should approach other NATO members and offer them our deterrent, we could lease launch tubes, in a kind of timeshare arrangement, they pay ££££ in return they get a missile at sea?

dead_pan

8th Oct 2010, 14:03

Come on, it doesn't take that much imagination to think of a way this could work - joint development costs, co-ordination of patrols (if only to prevent expensive collisions), each of us having our own complement of boats/missiles to do with as we please etc.

As for NATO, well perhaps we ought to start being as circumspect regarding our participation as the French are, given recent experiences.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Oct 2010, 13:30

A few more thoughts (in no real order):

1. Some of the posters here seem to think that deterrence does not work - but fail to say why. BHR outlines possible scenarios for nuclear weapon use - yet fails to mention the possibility that an attack was prevented by deterrence. The evidence suggests that it does work - consider Saddam's Hussein's decision not to use chemical or biological weapons in 1991. As I mentioned before there was a programme on BBC1 in 1996 in which one of his Generals (who had defected) said as much.

2. If you think nuclear deterrence does not work, then presumably you dismiss non nuclear deterrence Again the evidence suggests that it does work - in 2003 Saddam's air force covered itself in sand and not glory, no doubt thinking of all the USAF, USN, RAF, and RAAF fighters that they would face.

3. Where exactly does the figure of £100 billion that you hear come from?

4. What are the geopolitical implications of not proceeding, or proceeding with a less capable/survivable system? In the Cold War, possession of nuclear weapons by the UK and France helped dissuade the USA and USSR from fighting World War Three in Europe. They also were to dissuade the (West) Germans from developing their own nuclear capability, which would have be seen as provocative by Moscow?

5. Despite what some parts of the media tell you, nuclear weapons are hard to develop or build. It is very unlikely that terrorists or other non state groups could do this without the help of a nation state, not only would this generate intelligence warnings, but it would provide an opportunity for the nation involved to be stopped. In any case, analysis of any explosion and the fallout should give clues as to the makeup of the weapon and the source of the fissile materiel.

6. What are the political and technological spin-offs from possession of a)a nuclear deterrent, b)a SLBM system, and c)a US sourced missile system?
Some of the technologies and other areas of expertise at AWE, for example, have been applied to other scientific problems and helps our national technological base. Use of a US missile involves scientific exchanges, and access to certain technical facilities. Intelligence sharing is another benefit.

Some of the equipment developed for the V boats was later fitted to other submarine classes, and in some cases, surface ships. The Devonshire Dock Hall at Barrow in Furness was built to build the V boats, but is now being used to build the Astute SSNs. I believe it was also used to build the LPDs Albion and Bulwark. The facilities built to support the V boats at Devonport and Faslane are used to support all UK submarines. Likewise things such as submarine communications facilities.

7. To the best of my knowledge, the four V boats are the only units dedicated EXCLUSIVELY to the deterrent role. However, having SSBNs may help dissuade politicians (current or future) from cutting assets that may support them at times, such as frigates, SSNs, Nimrods or others. None of these are dedicated to supporting the deterrent - yet there is danger that losing or reducing the deterrent will cause them to be cut.

I know it's going off topic - but this article from the Mail is worth a read: Five days aboard one of Britain's silent warriors, the submarine HMS Talent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1318268/HMS-Talent-Five-days-aboard-Britains-silent-warriors.html?ITO=1490)

Modern Elmo

10th Oct 2010, 23:53

In the Cold War, possession of nuclear weapons by the UK and France helped dissuade the USA and USSR from fighting World War Three in Europe.

How or why did that dissuade the USA from doing anything? Are you saying that the UK gooberment hinted that it would nuke the USA if things didn't go Britain's way?

Pontius Navigator

11th Oct 2010, 07:07

ME, that is one way of reading what was said, but if you read it more intelligently you would see that it did indeed help deter a nuclear war between USA and USSR.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

11th Oct 2010, 08:50

Pontius Navigator. Am I right in thinking that you meant that the early US and Soviet thoughts and preparation for tactical nuclear weapons became unattractive by having strategic weapons in the hands of "theatre residents"?

ORAC

11th Oct 2010, 09:05

How or why did that dissuade the USA from doing anything? The scenario was that, under Flexible Response, the Soviets and the Americans might get involved in a fighting war in Europe, up to and involving the use of tactical nukes, but staying below the strategic weapon level by tacit mutual agreement.

However, the UK deterrent used/uses the same missiles as the US deterrent and patrols in the same mid atlantic zones.

What has to be considered under this scenario is that if the UK were hit by Soviet tactical nuclear weapons, they would respond on Russia with a Polaris launch (Moscow Option). Not being able to distinguish this from a US launch and possible decapitation first strike, the Soviets would have to launch - triggering a full scale exchange.

Basically, the UK had the possibility of triggering a full scale exchange, therefore both major powers had an incentive to, at worst, stay non-nuclear and, as it turned out, not fight at all.

incubus

11th Oct 2010, 12:11

1. Some of the posters here seem to think that deterrence does not work - but fail to say why. <snip>

2. If you think nuclear deterrence does not work, then presumably you dismiss non nuclear deterrence <snip>
Just addressing those 2 points.

Deterrence is based on the existence of a credible threat.

There is no point in threatening retaliation with our orbital mass-driver because we don't have one and everybody knows we don't have one. It isn't a credible threat.

While we do have nuclear weapons, I believe that the majority of nations and organisations feel that we would be extremely unlikely to use them, therefore the threat is not credible unless we demonstrate our willingness.

The use of our conventional forces is credible and their effectiveness and our willingness to use them has been demonstrated regularly over a long period of time. I don't know how effective a deterrent it is though and we may never know.

dead_pan

11th Oct 2010, 19:24

Deterrence is based on the existence of a credible threat.

Trident is only an effective deterrent against a credible strategic (i.e. state) threat. Deterrence wouldn't work against a supranational (e.g. terrorist) threat. Tactical nukes would be effective against the latter as a pre-emptive weapon - we'd have saved ourselves no end of bother if we'd used one on Tora Bora. We could have told the press it was the mother of all fuel-air explosives - they believe any old guff nowadays.

Modern Elmo

12th Oct 2010, 02:55

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

12th Oct 2010, 08:12

Are they still broadcasting the X Files in Tennessee? I think I missed that episode, though.

cornish-stormrider

12th Oct 2010, 08:54

Re post 184

Bwahh ha hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Um, yeah ok George! and next on the conspiracy theory -Bob Lazar, actually did all he says and there is a plot to discredit him...

Elmo - please return to being tickled. go and play with Big Bird.:E

glad rag

12th Oct 2010, 10:43

Whilst I agree with your theories, you forgot to mention the final Clancy scenario, where the god dam Brits become such a Pain in the Ass to US foreign policy our boat suddenly ends up being stalked by it's former allies.

Happened to SH remember........

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4VtbLBvobFW5DU3z7_VAlVq5nWRylia5xO4snXrr qS-x5uNs&t=1&usg=__E_XztI2LRYjeAUj3KXCzBIgDfVM=

:}

Modern Elmo

12th Oct 2010, 13:11

Basically, the UK had the possibility of triggering a full scale exchange, therefore both major powers had an incentive to, at worst, stay non-nuclear and, as it turned out, not fight at all.

No, that didn't change a damned thing, nothing at all.

The basic American Coid War attitude was to be prepared for nuclear war, full stop, period.

Furthermore, you're saying the UK might launch nukes before the USA does so? Never happen, tday's Britons are much too civilized for that,. and everybody knows it.

/////////////////////////////

Try this:

"Basically, the USA has the possibility of triggering a full scale exchange, it's hard to tell an American missile launch from a UK missile, therefore Britain has an incentive to, at worst, stay non-nuclear and, as it may turn out, not fight at all."

moggiee

13th Oct 2010, 19:56

Just addressing those 2 points.

Deterrence is based on the existence of a credible threat.

There is no point in threatening retaliation with our orbital mass-driver because we don't have one and everybody knows we don't have one. It isn't a credible threat.

While we do have nuclear weapons, I believe that the majority of nations and organisations feel that we would be extremely unlikely to use them, therefore the threat is not credible unless we demonstrate our willingness.

The use of our conventional forces is credible and their effectiveness and our willingness to use them has been demonstrated regularly over a long period of time. I don't know how effective a deterrent it is though and we may never know.
Exactly - if we're not prepared to use it (and I very much doubt that we would) then Trident is an expensive white elephant. Its replacement will be just as white and even more expensive.

vernon99

13th Oct 2010, 21:39

Exactly - if we're not prepared to use it (and I very much doubt that we would) then Trident is an expensive white elephant. Its replacement will be just as white and even more expensive.

Isn't that the whole point of Trident, you doubt we would, but can you be SURE we won't? It takes a brave man to put it to the test......

A bit like these people that go in the Lion enclosure at the zoo, they doubt the lion will attack, but can you be sure it won't?

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2010, 21:51

Denis Healey said he would never have authorised launch, but he was only the Minster of Defence. His prime minister said he would and no doubt CinC Strike would have as well.

For you and I it may be unconscionable to use nuclear weapons but for our ultimate leader - who knows.

Do you doubt that the Davids or Nick would use it? Nick maybe not but the Davids?

Modern Elmo

14th Oct 2010, 03:30

Basically, the UK had the possibility of triggering a full scale exchange, therefore both major powers had an incentive to, at worst, stay non-nuclear and, as it turned out, not fight at all.

No, sorry, I don't follow your logic there. Are you saying that ithe UK and its nu-kleer weapons deterred both the USSR and the USA from going to war?

I thought you might be trying to say that if non-nuklur war started in --where did the cliche always say? -- the Fulda Gap --and NATO was getting the worst of it, then Britain might be the first to use tactical nukes and thereby compel the USA to "escalate" the war, or maybe do the opposite of escalate, whichever you prefer?

Were you tying to say something like that? I can't discern what you mean.

Was there a British back-up plan -- the "Angry Rabbit" concept? -- that envisioned NATO failing to hold and British forces pilling back into defensive pockets or "islands"? Maybe somewhere in France by then, but not quite as far as Dunkirk ...

Harriers, perhaps operating from highways within these "islands" instead of established airfields, would drop tactical atomic bombs on the enemy to try to stop the Red tide from reaching the Channel. I suppose the Harriers were the Angry Rabbits.

...

...
20 Squadron reformed again in late 1970 at RAF Wildenrath, Germany, operating the Harrier Jump Jet.

In 1977 at RAF Bruggen the squadron re-equipped with twelve SEPECAT Jaguar strike aircraft, various weapons for the squadron's conventional strike role of support for ground forces in repelling a Soviet attack in Europe, and eight WE.177 tactical nuclear bombs for use if a conflict escalated to the nuclear phase.* The apparent mismatch between eight nuclear bombs and twelve aircraft was because RAF staff planners expected up to one third attrition in the conventional phase, with sufficient aircraft held back in reserve to deliver the full stock of nuclear weapons to targets beyond the forward edge of the battlefield, deep into the enemy's rear areas. *The squadron was assigned to SACEUR for operational and targeting purposes, although political control over release of the British-owned WE.177 weapons was retained by the British government in London.[2

...

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._20_Squadron_RAF

* And who would be initiating the escalating?

** Lame excuse for meager inventory of bombs.

ORAC

14th Oct 2010, 07:44

Elmo,

Any war in the Central Region was expected to go nuclear with tactical weapons. The sheer number from mines, artillery, Long Johns up to SS-20s made it almost inevitable. The normal exercise/TACEVAL last 3 days with nuclear exchanges on the 3rd day as Red forces approached the channel.

The British aim, unsurprisingly, would have been to limit use to the european mainland, with no use against the UK itself.

Presuming the aim of the USA and USSR would be to limit the war to Europe, including the UK, requirement was therefore to couple the use of any such weapon against the UK to the initiation of a general exchange including the USA and USSR.

The USA might not be willing to launch against the USSR just because London took an SS-20. But if the USSR hit London, the UK had the ability to hit Moscow (the purpose of the Chevaline upgrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline)to maintain the Moscow Option). And a Polaris launch against Moscow from mid-Atlantic would inevitably force the USSR to launch against the USA and the inevitable retaliation.

Both the USSR and USA therefore had a sizeable incentive to ensure no nuclear weapons were ever launched against the UK, and that drove up the risk of starting a war in the first place.

Flexible Response might have replaced Tripwire (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1986/LLE.htm) as NATO policy - but the UK still had it's own wire in place*.

*As described, the strategy of flexible response did "not specify the precise nature of NATO's reaction to a particular attack. It [had] been argued that the ambiguity enhance[d] deterrence by complicating Warsaw Pact planning."4 Ambiguity was also needed in strategy so that the US and Europeans could interpret the strategy to suit their own views. This difference of views within NATO was concentrated primarily on the employment of tactical nuclear weapons. In general, US strategists saw a deliberate and prolonged conventional defense in Europe. Further, they saw the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a way to keep a conflict from becoming a strategic nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, European strategists desired to see a brief conventional defense phase and viewed the use of tactical "nukes" as a means of coupling US strategic nuclear weapons to the defense of Europe. This coupling would preclude only Europe from becoming a nuclear battlefield.

Modern Elmo

15th Oct 2010, 04:28

What has to be considered under this scenario is that if the UK were hit by Soviet tactical nuclear weapons, they would respond on Russia with a Polaris launch (Moscow Option). Not being able to distinguish this from a US launch and possible decapitation first strike, the Soviets would have to launch - triggering a full scale exchange.

True!

/////////////////////

And a Polaris launch against Moscow from mid-Atlantic would inevitably force the USSR to launch against the USA and the inevitable retaliation.

Double true!

You fellows seem to be congratulating your clever British selves for a stratagem that compelled the 'Mericans to do nuclear gamesmanship your way. But you only fool yourselves. Very obviously, the Reds would have been unable to distinguish a Polaris, etc. launch from a UK sub from a Polaris, etc. launch from a US sub.

The point is, when the USA shared Polaris/Poseidon/Trident with the UK, everybody except maybe some excessively clever Brits could see that the USA was giving Britain the means to start a maxi-size nuclear war/End of the World as We Know It general action between the USA and the USSR.

Some comments about the Wikipedia Chevaline link:

Chevaline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline)

The Soviets were confirmed as working on an ABM system in 1961 when they made their first successful exo-atmospheric interception of an ICBM.

I don't think that successful 1961 intercept actually happened. The ckaim was Red propaganda. Has anybody got any evidence for this intercept?

And the definition of "intecept" in this context: both the Soviet missile interceptors and the American Nike Zeus used atomic bomb warheads, which were supposed to disable incoming warheads with radiation.

...

However it was not until 1970 that serious efforts to explore the ABM problem started in earnest. By this point the US and USSR had agreed in the ABM Treaty to deploy up to 100 ABMs at only two sites. MIRVs had so seriously upset the balance between ABM and ICBM that both parties agreed to limit ABM deployment largely as a way of avoiding a massive buildup of new ICBMs.

I don't agree with the spin of that paragraph. There wasn't a balance between ABM and ICBM deployment in that era. Instead, both sides realized that the Anti-Ballistic missile systems of that era were more show than go. Both sides liked to emit arms limitation propaganda, so why not agree to a treaty limiting wepaons that weren't working well on either side?

Pontius Navigator

15th Oct 2010, 08:55

I don't think that successful 1961 intercept actually happened. The ckaim was Red propaganda. Has anybody got any evidence for this intercept?

About 1965 a paper was circulated at a very low level to as many people as possible seeking out any theories on EMP. It had been discovered that EMP could be of great significance with its theoretical effects calculable. What was lacking was empirical evidence.

Many to whom the paper was circulated would have been involved in the atmospheric weapons tests not as scientists but as aircrew and ground crew, it was their experiences that were being sought. No doubt similar questions were asked of USAF crews.

Only later were more definitive papers published but the initial hare was undoubtedly started with the exo-atmospheric tests.

High-altitude nuclear explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion)

ORAC

15th Oct 2010, 09:01

I don't think that successful 1961 intercept actually happened. The ckaim was Red propaganda. Has anybody got any evidence for this intercept? Russian/Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ABM-Systems.html)

Modern Elmo

15th Oct 2010, 20:56

The high altitude explosion Wikipedia link is worth looking at.

When I say that I doubt the 1961 Soviet missile intercept happened, here is what i think happened: The Reds may have launched an anti-missile missile that passed within a rather wide radius of a descending target missile's terminal stage, and the inerceptor's atomic bomb may have exploded in the ionosphere upon radio command from its ground radar tracking station.

However, that so-called "intercept" was an unimpressive technological event, even back in 1961.

///////////////

So here was the plan, as I interpret it from some PeePruners: Suppose the Next Big War got started in mitttel Europa, and things weren't going well for the good guys. On the thrid day of this, British decision makers would be wanting to let go with tactical nukes, but the USA might be reluctant to do so.

Then UK Prime Minister would call up the White House and say,

"Terribly sorry to have to bring this up, but if you Americans won't join with us striking the Reds on the Continent in Germany or - er, are they in France now? with our smaller tactical nuclear weapons .... if you won't agree ...

... We'll launch our Polaris missiles now! "

Was that the strategem?

ORAC

16th Oct 2010, 07:38

No, the expectation was that tactical nukes would have been used extensively in continental Europe as the Red Army advanced. The UK intention was that that they didn't get the idea of dropping them on the UK as well, either to take out the UK air bases (that "unsinkable aircraft carrier is I believe the US termed it) or defences.

(As an Air Defender sitting in one of the 3 bunkers thought to be on the first target list I heartily agreed with that idea)

So the tacit presumption was that if the Red Army used nukes against the UK, the UK would respond against Russia itself, with the only weapon it had guaranteed to be able to reach Moscow - Polaris. Which would inevitably lead to a full exchange of strategic weapons by the USSR and USA.

That being known, it could reasonably be expected that the gains of using nukes against the UK would be far outweighed by the consequences, and they would never be used.

The above was not some cunning ruse which the UK "put over" on the USA, Elmo. They had as little wish to lose their bases in the UK as the British. Call it a mutual agreement and one of the advantages of being both a very close ally and a nuclear power.

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Oct 2010, 23:13

I think that the key point was that if the Soviets tried to convince the US not to hit the USSR itself, they couldn't make the same bargin with the UK - or for that matter France. Therefore, the hotheads on both sides would be less tempted to start anything as they would not be immune. So the issue wasn't so much the weapons, but fact that they were under the control of different Governments.

See: The Polaris Partnership (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2008-06/polaris-partnership)

It is important to note that British Polaris submarines did, however, carry two sets of targeting tapes. The primary tapes supported NATO targeting data and strategy, while the second set was strictly of British origin and development under the "Moscow Criterion"—the ability of the UK to strike the Moscow area to destroy Soviet leadership. Although the United Kingdom's SSBNs carried targeting tapes that benefited British national nuclear strategy, under the Polaris Sales Agreement, they were only to be used in an absolute dire national emergency. Thus, the missiles and targeting tapes themselves were primarily used in support of NATO strategy.

By having targets from its target list designated and assigned to NATO forces, in particular British Polaris missiles, the United States gained additional coverage of Soviet targets without expending its own funds. A British launching platform created an additional military and intelligence dilemma for the Soviet Union, forcing it to exhaust further resources trying to combat two Polaris forces. Finally, the sale of Polaris strengthened Anglo-American political relations, and, ultimately, contributed greatly toward combating the Soviet threat and winning the Cold War.

I think ORAC explained it far better than I can. Wasn't there supposedly a chain from the guy in the foxhole to the guy in a Minuteman hole?

In 1995 there was a programme on BB2 called The Moscow Criterion, a secret (sic) history of Britain's nuclear weapons. Much of the above is discussed - including the Chevaline upgrade and decision to upgrade Polaris ourselves instead of opting for the Poseidon/MIRV route, then the decision to acquire Trident (worth noting that the Nott cuts of 1981 were largely for paying for Trident) and finally a bit about post Cold War stuff. The late Lord Lewin made the comment nobody has any real idea about how the world will look in x years time. He also said that in the late 1970s the service chiefs persuaded the politicians to consider three questions:

1. Do we (the UK) need a deterrent?
2. What should it do to deter?
3. What should it be - based on 1 and 2?

The result from these studies was the decision to acqiure Trident. The option of nuclear armed cruise missiles (TLAM-N?) was ruled out because of the chance of the missiles getting past Soviet SAM defences was not high, and the limited range of the weapons would have severely restricted the patrol areas. Additionally, there was no vertically launched Tomahawk back then, and firing a salvo of them would have taken time.

When the Americans first developed Polaris, they took several SSNs and fitted a missile compartment amidships.Likewise, the Resolution class SSBN was based on the Valiant class SSNs. When Trident came along, it was a much larger missile and so a new design was needed.

This leads us to where we are now:

a. The Trident missiles can have their lives extended, by the Vanguard boats need replacing.
b. It has been suggested that the Vanguard boats could have a life extension, but this would be costly - and technically difficult. I have no knowledge of nuclear physics/engineering but I think that the reactors would need replacing - something to do with the effects of neutrons on steel and other metals? It has been suggested that the upside is that to stop losing skill fade at Barrow, the Navy would get all eight Astutes. Actually the 1998 SDR said we should have ten, but someone called Geoff (who?) changed this to eight. Then someone changed it to seven.
c. If we developed a new class to take Trident, what happens if the US replaces the Trident missile with an even larger one? Would we be forced to undertake a Chevaline type self upgrade?

In my local paper, my local MP (and MinAF - and the recipient of several defence related missives (mostly about the mighty Sea Harrier) from yours truely) has stated his own opposition (and that of his party) to a "like for like" replacement for Trident. But what does that actually mean? No ballistic missile? No submarine based system? Less missiles/warheads? A reduction in the CASD posture? Or simply less expensive?

My personal view is that we should have a minimal survivable deterrent.

If the Vanguards can be SLEPed then perhaps they should, if the RN got another SSN then that would be a good thing. A stretched version of the Astute design could take a smaller number of missile tubes - four or six perhaps?

This of course would depend on two things - the Vanguard life extension being feasible and not prohibitively expensive, and the next US SLBM design not being so massive that it will not fit. I have no idea about either of these questions. However, it would be cheaper without compromising survivability.

More immediately, there is a chance that SDSR (or the continued announcements in the coming months) will result in a watering down of the Continuous At Sea Deterrence posture. Whilst supporting the deterrent is a task for frigates, SSNs, and Nimrods for x% of the time, a less rugged CASD posture may be used to justify cuts. Of course none of these things are exclusively dedicated to supporting the deterrent but we know how bean counters think.