The SLBM was no deterrent to the Argentines as they correctly assessed that their actions did not merit a nuclear response. Nuclear deterrence is predominantly to deter a major agression such as a nuclear strike.
The SSNs however proved a highly successful like for like deterrent even when not deployed.
The Vulcan demonstrated its deterrent capability with a clear demonstration of both intent and capability thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round BA. Again a successful like-for like deterrence.
What both these show is that you must be able to trump the opposition at any level with an appropriate response - a nuclear club alone is a dangerous defence.
Well put PN and if I may add to this the fact that our last conventional carrier had been scrapped and the Argentines rightly assessed our Air defence at sea was lacking.
Am I missing something here?? This has been bugging me for a while, and I know this is probably the wrong thread, but...
The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.
The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)
So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?
PP - the only thing you've missed here is that they have far more SSBNs than we do, therefore they are not deployed as often or as long as ours. Therefore less wear and tear.
