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