Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...
Afternoon all,
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. PPRuNe is always good for getting the opinions, views and sarcastic comments of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just my/your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I've spent the last week or so trawling the internet and I've learned things that I didn't know existed, so all in all its been a worthwhile effort.
I’ve found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon and their uses.
However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
There was a consultation in the 70's on whether the POLARIS replacement would be best suited to an air or land/sea based launch and we opted for the latter.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Thanks
Martin