RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?

[Navaleye]

An article (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=653502004) from the Scotsman claims that planning for the Trident replacement is underway and ends with saying that the RAF is pushing regain control of the nuclear deterrent. I'm sure it is, but with what? Surely the vulnerability of aircraft and airbases was the catalyst for moving to a submarine platform. Can an air based strategic deterrent be credible?

[SirToppamHat]

Would it be more affordable?

In the current environment, I suspect that cost would be the primary concern.

[Jackonicko]

Mmmm.

Not exactly. The real catalyst for going from an air launched deterrent was that the USA 'pulled the rug' on Skybolt, leaving us with a bunch of unpalateable alternatives - continuing with Blue Steel, which was no longer viable, developing a new air launched weapon in an impossibly short timescale, or doing as the US wanted and adopting Polaris.

There was also the perceived importance of the Moscow criteria, under which it was felt to be essential that the UK deterrent should be able to threaten Moscow itself, in the face of an over-exaggerated (largely perceived) ABM defence shield. This criteria later drove Chevaline.

While air bases are inherently more vulnerable (in certain respects) than submarines the advantages and disadvantages are far from clear cut, and it is apparent that the USAF felt that with the right alert posture and deployment capabilities, an air launched deterrent remained entirely viable throughout the Cold War period.

Today, moreover, the Moscow Criteria are entirely irrelevant, and we are not looking at needing to be able to 'launch the deterrent' in the face of some kind of Armageddon-like mass strike by the might of the Soviet ICBM/SLBM/ALCM forces.

Trident (and any sub-launched follow on) represents a massively expensive, relatively inflexible 'overkill', when a cheaper, less capable air launched nuclear option might be better suited to Britain's post Cold War defence needs and budget. Nuclear armed Storm Shadows (say) carried by Tornado, FOAS and MRA 4 would not be remotely 'good enough' if we wanted to penetrate the ABM defences we thought existed around Moscow during the Cold War, but in a post Cold War environment would be good enough against even the most difficult real world targets..... and therefore pretty credible, I'd say?

[JessTheDog]

If UK PLC loses its ballistic missile capability, it loses its strategic nuclear capability. That is the bottom line.

[althenick]

Not a great fan of the RAF - Way too politically powerfull for my liking. But I hope they do get it. Low down is that trident is a nuclear deterrent, but you can't really use it for much else. Probably better to offer this weapons up as sweetener for arms reduction talks. Then convert the Boats to SSGN platforms (Would it be possible to convert the Lunch tubes to TLAM or egress routes for covert commando type deployment?) Then with the money saved in closing Coulport and bagging all its civil servants. Start purchasing some decent Long range Bombers for the Crabs. (B2/B52 or even B1) and buy a stake into a future replacement with the yanks. Also procure Nuke headed TLAM for Sub/Surface and air launch platforms.

... just a thought anyway

[BahrainLad]

Now I'm not a tree hugger by any means........but......

Low down is that trident is a nuclear deterrent, but you can't really use it for much else.

I thought this was the whole point.....that the only use for nuclear weapons is as a deterrent?

Who remembers Yes Prime Minister?

"With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"It's a deterrent."
"It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
"Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
"They probably do."
"Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
"They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
"Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!"

[BikerMark]

Remind me, how many Vulcans are left in preservation...

[BillHicksRules]

Jess,

"If UK PLC loses its ballistic missile capability, it loses its strategic nuclear capability. That is the bottom line."

And what is your point?

Cheers

BHR

[Blacksheep]

ICBM or Cruise missiles? That is the question.

The old cold war theories are no longer applicable. The reason for having a nuclear strike force will be based on the need to deter rogue states from threatening your nation. Proliferation is inevitable and disarmament is but a dream. Imagine a world where the only defence against, lets say, a nuclear armed Iran, was your nation's relations the USA? The world is much more scary than it was during the cold war I'm afraid. We need a nuclear retaliation force capable of striking anywhere on the surface of the globe and that force must come at the lowest possible cost. Navy or RAF. Preferably both.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Second Strike capability is not currently needed I grant. Therefore a few Storm Shadow sunshine buckets would be a much cheaper way to stay in the nuclear war club.

However, over the next 30 years I worry that the SSBN may once again become a necessary tool of defence. By 2034 there will be an awful lot of nuclear armed states and whilst missile technology is hard work - fitting out a dozen+ trawlers isn't..

Cheers

WWW

[Jackonicko]

A strategic deterrent has to be neither ballistic NOR sub launched. Tomahawk or NASOM would fit the bill, and, moreover, would be more genuinely independednt of the US than continued reliance on Trident.

[Impiger]

The new Trident will certainly be very expensive and single role equipment is something we are desparately trying to phase out (cf Tornado F3). So it is only logical to at least consider other options as we approach the OSD of Trident. Affordability will be the key.

[JessTheDog]

"If UK PLC loses its ballistic missile capability, it loses its strategic nuclear capability. That is the bottom line." And what is your point?

Theatre launched air-breathing missiles are exactly that - theatre launched. There has to be a launch platform in theatre. Ballistic missiles have a much larger range and much faster response time and are truly strategic. The rapid deployment is a large part of the deterrent. If something ballistic is thrown at you, there is little you can do against it other than watch it in the descent phase, even if you pick it up somehow! Ballistic missiles travel much(!) faster than a GR4 (or equivalent) with a standoff munition.

The dodgy dossier (mk 2) made much of Saddam's supposed capability to hit Cyprus with a BM.

In any case, the footprint required to stage a strike would not be cheap! Airstrip, AAR, force protection, SEAD, ISTAR etc! This would also depend on getting enough notice to deploy forces or having them in theatre already - garrisons worldwide at what cost? Or an expensive naval fleet! Even a sub-launched TLABM would require to the sub to be in position and that takes time.

Trident is over-expensive - agreed - and a cheaper version using the same concept would be very desirable. TLABMs ain't it!

[Jimlad]

The biggest problem a nuclear deterrent has is that it must be invulnerable to a first strike ensuring that no matter what is fired at us, we can still fire back.
The biggest disadvantage of making it airlaunched is that its fairly easy to take out an airbase with a big bomb - we know where it is, we know roughly whats there and hopefully a big bucket of sunshine will do the trick.
The big advantage SSBNS offer is that they are almost silent (allegedly) hard to track and with probably 3 at sea in a REALLY bad crisis very difficult to take out all at once (assuming the UK decides that if one goes we may well fire).

My preferred view option would to to "nuclearise" the storm shadow AND the TLAM or its succesor, providing a cheap and cheerful deterrent which can be at sea and land/air simaltaneously. The challenge this presents to an aggressor is to have an armed force capable of doing ASW AND land attack at the same time with nukes.

Of course we could all learn to love each other... :)

[timzsta]

The RAF taking over the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is well and fine. But look what happened to the RN after it got Polaris. Bye bye CVA01.

I would imagine in todays even tighter budgetary constraints should the RAF want to take over the deterrent role it will have to face some large cuts in other areas. Yes an airborne nuclear deterrent would be cheaper then submarine option but still some large cuts elsewhere will be required.

I wonder what the reaction of the Chief of Air Staff would be if he is told "Yes you can have the deterrent role but you have to bin eurofighter, Nimrod Mk4 and say four or five front line bases to fund it".

[pr00ne]

This is all old fashioned muddled thinking again. We face no threat from any nation state armed with nukes, we do however face a significant threat of a nuke, chem or biological weapon being detonated in one of our major cities or at a major public attended event.
This threat comes from al Qaeda and it's almost franchised supporters. Who are you going to launch a nuke at then?

Ballistic missile or cruise missile, they all seem pretty pointless in todays world.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Ballistic missile or cruise missile, they all seem pretty pointless in todays world.

Yes, but what about tommorow?

Jacko - did you get my PM?

[The Gorilla]

WEBF

The MOD never plans for tomorrow!! It has enough idiots trying to cope with the today!!

:ok:

[BATS]

The high cost of the V boats is one side of the coin, but the flip side is possibly more significant. Trident buys us our seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and allows us the luxury of a veto ! Somehow I suspect that we may be relegated to second class status if we do away with ICBMs. As I understand it the US have no plans for a Trident replacement and UK plc certainly cannot afford to go it alone; thus, we will be faced with the choices already discussed on this thread somewhere in the not too distant future. IMHO the government of the day will look at the cost, make savings elsewhere within the defence budget to ensure their continuing presence as a permanent member of the UNSC. Call me cynical, but I cannot see any of our politicians giving away the right to veto UNSC resolutions..............


BT

[L J R]

Shouldn't you 'conventionalise' Storm Shadow before 'Nucleariseing' it.

ie get the thing to work?

[MarkD]

Someone has already looked into this...

http://www.stormingmedia.us/54/5459/A545953.html

Tomahawk data

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/Tomahawk-missile.htm

another site quotes

"because of the similarities between SSGNs and SSBNs, friends and foes will be unable to tell initially whether a missile launch involves a conventional Tomahawk cruise missile or a nuclear-armed Trident."

I imagine one disincentive for Tomahawk-N is that it's even harder to determine whether an inbound Tomahawk is nuclear or not, thus creating the possibility of mistaken retaliation.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/mj03nukenote.html

[BlueWolf]

Why not have both, as Israel has now done?

Surely in this ever more uncertain world, with shifting threat scenarios, a current enemy who is difficult to track let alone defend against to say the least, and a potential tomorrow which is far less predictable than today, flexibility has to be a valuable option?

[Zoom]

Planning for today is one thing and planning for tomorrow another, but what we should be doing is planning for 15-20 years down the road. Political situations, enemies, alliances - they can all change very quickly, and certainly within the lead time of most military equipment. So if we want something - anything - in the inventory by, say, 2020 we'd better get it organised now. This, of course, calls for crystal ball-gazing of the highest order and I'm just glad that it's not my job.

[steamchicken]

"Friends and foes will be unable to tell initially whether a missile launch involves a conventional Tomahawk or a nuclear armed Trident"

What the fcuk? Tomahawk - cruise missile, bogglers along at low altitude leaving fairly small IR signature, travelling at just under Mach 1. Trident - SLBM, hurtles near vertically upwards into near-earth space on a ballistic trajectory producing all the IR signature imaginable. And the "similarities" only apply if they are tracking the submarine anyway!

D'you think they meant they would be unable to tell the difference between a TLAM-C and TLAM-N before it hit? Which is of course quite true.

[NorthSouth]

Impiger:Affordability will be the key. Now why on earth would that have anything to do with it?

[Captain Kirk]

Navaleye,

Good thread – nice to get a decent intellectual debate going. Nevertheless:

'RAF is pushing to regain control of the nuclear deterrent. I'm sure it is'

Your single service paranoia is evident – and prehistoric. For those of us that understand the pain of Strike Qual – the RN can keep it!

However, decisions of this nature will not be dictated by the ambition of any one individual or Service to become pre-eminent and to entertain such a notion is rather immature. UK Plc will assess the threats over the short and medium term, determine capabilities required to counter or manage the threats and procure equipment accordingly. Prediction of threats is inherently imprecise – beware being smart with hindsight that we haven’t always got it right. Cost is, of course, a significant factor because the pie is only so big; if strategic deterrent eats it all up you have nothing left for other military capabilities – or hospitals, or schools. It is not ‘un-military’ to consider cost. ‘Joint’ is not just a trendy term – it is the only way to get the maximum capability from finite resources. Joint capability requires the right organisational structures but, above all else, the right mindset. Clearly, we are not all there yet. Blacksheep is.

[Jimlad]

I totally agree about jointery. Its just a shame some in the RAF refuse to see the RN's carriers as a truly joint asset and persist in seeing them as a threat.

[Smoketoomuch]

I suspect there is some very high-level political gamesmanship going on here, and not just between the RAF and the RN. The UK/US mutual defence agreement is up for renewal, so Trident, Cruise and nuke cooperation is all being reassessed - and in the aftermath of 9-11 and in today's post Cold War world there are serious questions being asked in America about the future of NATO and the relationship with allies. Without US cooperation we have no Trident, and no Cruise. So it's either a freefall weapon or adapted Storm Shadow - requiring French cooperation?

A clear signal from the UK that we intend to remain a 'major power' will doubtless have some sort of input on US deliberations, and Blair's insistence on getting involved with the US in Iraq (despite US misgivings) was quite possibly a strategic ploy too.



http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news04.htm
US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2004pc/1958MDA.htm
1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edited for spilling]

[JessTheDog]

So we are probably paying up-front in Iraq for our continued ballistic missile strategic nuclear deterrence....

[Navaleye]

Captain Kirk, (is it true about the wig BTW). Actually this is one subject where I have no axe to grind. The nuclear capability needs to change along with the conventional to reflect the threat, so I'm open minded. Please do not characterise me as paranoid. I suspect that the fact is that the UK will do whatever the US does when the time to replace Trident arrives.probably LR cruise missiles will be the answer.

Navaleye - goddam the walls are closing in again.

[Jimlad]

I saw this a while ago and was very amused by the prospect of Bill Gates in the RN TLAM process...

*click*

"You have chosen to launch a cruise missile at Tehran"

*click*

"Sorry, Tehran is not recognised"

*swear*

"Please install the latest Geopolitical patch from whodoyouwanttobombtoday.m...m/updates"

*click*

"Sorry, Geopolitical update requires IE 7"

*click*

"Sorry, IE 7 requires Windows XP 2005"

*more swearing click click click .... 4 days later*

"Welcome to your new installation of Windows XP 2005,
please enter the 254 digit serial key found on the back of the CD-case"

*taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"Sorry you have entered an incorrect code, please enter
again. Warning if you fail to enter the correct code 3 times
your windows installation will be deleted from your hard drive
and you will need to install again"

*profanity .. taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"Sorry you have entered an incorrect code, please enter
again. Warning if you fail to enter the correct code 3 times
your windows installation will be deleted from your hard drive
and you will need to install again"

*ranting and profanity taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappity
taptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"You have entered the correct code, please click 'OK' to
continue"

*phew click*

"Thank you for installing Windows XP 2005, we hope that you
will enjoy the many new features"

*click*

"New hardware detected ...... 6 533mm torpedo tubes, one type 2076 sonar,

"Welcome to Windows XP 2005 Military Submarine Edition,
who do you want to bomb today?"

*click*

"Where have all my targets gone? Click on the start button,
select Programs, select nations and choose the nation you wish to bomb"

*clickclickpausehmmmmclick*

"Welcome to the 'Bomb Iran' Wizard, please click next to
continue"

*click*

"Please enter the message you wish scribbled on the
side of the ordance"

*tap tap tappity tap tap tap*

"Thank you, please click next to continue"

*click*

"Please select the City or Town where your target
is situated"

*click*

"Please enter the co-ordinates of your target"

*taptaptappityclick*

"Please wait, accessing target's records ... layout of target
found, please select door, window or ventillation shaft you
wish the ordance to enter"

*click"

"You have selected the ventillation shaft next to the toilets,
please use the slider below to set the approximate yield for
the ordance you wish to use then press next"

*slide...click*

"Based on your target criteria, yield and entry point I have
determined the appropriate ordance to be : GBU-131"

"Sorry, GBU-131 is not compatible with Windows XP 2005
Military Submarine Edition, please enter new criteria or click
on "Manual" to manually select the ordance you wish to use"


*mutter mutter not compatible with sub why choose it stupid
software click click*

"Thank you, you have manually chosen the TLAM cruise
missile, I have selected an appropriate warhead for your
chosen yield : 50 Megaton Nuclear Device"


*blink hmmmmmmm okay this could be fun, wonder if the
captain would believe me if I said it was the computers fault...click*

"Sorry, your nation is not equipped with 50 Megaton Nuclear
Device, please make your selection from the list ->"

*aww no fair wanted to see big badda boom..click*

"Congratulations, you have selected the 2000 pound
conventional warhead"

*mutter spoils port I wanted my big badda boom...click*

"Please enter the number of missiles you wish to launch"

*tap click*

"Sorry, your device is only fitted with 6 torpedo tubes,
please choose a number between 1 and 6"

*bugger! tap click*

"Thank you, please enter the time you wish to launch
this cruise missile"

*clickclickclick*

"You have selected 11:45 Hours on the 11th of June, 2003,
press Next to continue"

*eh? damn it only accepts american date format mutter
mutter click click click*

"You have selected 11:45 Hours on the 5th of November,
2003, press Next to continue"

"You are nearly there! please click on Launch to launch your
selected ordance at : Tehran Security Service Building with a
selected yield of 2000 Lb warhead 4 of to launch at 11:45
Hours on the 5th of November, 2003. If this is correct,
please click on 'Launch'*

*W00t! finally!* *click*

"Congratulations you have succesfully launched a TLAM
cruise missile with 2000 LB warhead at Tehran Security
Services Building. Please click next if you wish to launch
another attack or cancel if you wish to exit this wizard and
choose another target"

*sigh only 20 more targets to go .. click click click ..........................er?*

"Ordance now launching, please ensure you have opened
torpedo tubes 1 2 3 4 5 6 before you launched ordance"

*oh .. oh @#%$ ... oh @#%$ .. CAPTAI......*

[insty66]

Very good:D
But you do need to get out more:ok:

[PLovett]

Fascinating discussion but noone has yet answered the question of what are you going to throw a nuke at these days. There was a logical reason for having them in the days when there were two sides, each with enough nukes to make the dust bounce several times over. But now?

Who is likely to use them and have something worth while to throw one back at? Pakistan and India? Can't see HMG responding to that should they decide the question of Kashmir cannot be decided on a cricket pitch.

North vs South Korea? I would have thought China more likely to step on that given the risk to its economic growth.

China and Taiwan? Should China finally decide that democracy on its doorstep is not conducive to keeping the masses in place then its a possibility. However, is the RAF going to get orders to fly to the other side of the world to participate in something that may be of marginal interest to HMG? I don't think so. Far more likely a SSBM as it could probably drop one (of many) without going far from home waters.

Middle east? Can't see anyone getting involved there until both sides have sufficiently massacred themselves and then only to clean up the mess despite the effort and involvement in Iraq.

Jimlad

I was recently told (third hand) that at a certain "joint" space research base not far from where I am writing this that Mr Gates' finest products are not allowed anywhere near their computers where the continued operation of them is critical to the base's mission.

[ORAC]

Microsoft and the USN (http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm) :O

[chippy63]

Isn't there a thing like a manual override?

[Navaleye]

the article said "...began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT.."

Hmnn. Windows NT is no longer supported by Microsoft themselves. The problem is that procurements on both sides of the Atlantic take so damned long they are usually obsolete by the time they reach the end user.

I worked on 8 operational projects. None took less than 6 years to complete. That's a life time in IT terms. The other problem is that all Microsoft products ane built with usability first and reliability second. If you want reliability use something else.

Anyone remember "Trusted Solaris"? That was a real OS.

[M609]

My radar scope is running Windows XP Prof. Edit.

It has pinball and solitary on it as well!!! :E :E

*ahh..no traffic*

*Radar.....minimize*

*Pinball.....launch*

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the life of Trident and of the Vanguard boats?

On the subject of Trident, you might be interested in these two papers....

New roles for VANGUARD (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/grey/gr29.htm)

and

Modifying capacity (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/grey/gr31.htm)

What about combining a V/STOL type aircaft with nuclear tipped stand off weapons? The number of places such an aircraft could operate from (no need for a long runway like conventional aircraft) must be high. This mobility would give it great survivability, with them being spead over a wide area, with the flaxability that missiles don't give you.

Or am I being dumb?

[Oggin Aviator]

Or better still deploy them in advance and hook them up to a server. Then you could detonate when required via the www. Makes you wonder whether this has already been thought of....too scary to comtemplate -
JFZ90 - Have you read "Liberty" by Stephen Coonts - Nuclear weapons buried beneath American cities - spooky !

[waivar]

How many nations operate fighter / strike aircraft compared to those that have effective and capable submarines? The RAF tacking over strategic defence is pointless these days.

Furthermore submarines can remain 'in theatre' indefinitely if required and can turn up on your adversaries doorstep if need be... even if they're land locked. They require no friendly bases nor do they require the plethora of man power as mentioned above.

Are they trying to find jobs for the Nimrod / Typhoon per chance???

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Found this.........I know it is from a anti nuclear group but still interesting:

Trident Life Extension (http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/news/2003/sep/trilifx.shtml)

No need for new systems or infrastructure....

[foldingwings]

Any truth in the rumour that subs are going to pay for the carriers?

[Capt_Chaos]

so if we revert to an air launched capability which island will we have to re-position this time to make the range?

[crossbow]

noone has yet answered the question of what are you going to throw a nuke at these days

thats not what they are for.... We don't have them so that we can "throw them " at someone....we have them to DETER (clue in the word there) anyone else from lobing one at us. Now, if there are to deter people then the position of them needs to be a closely guarded secret so that the bad guys don't lob one of theirs at one of ours...so, you cannot possibly allow the RAF to have them as they will put them at an airfield in Yorkshire and tell everyone all about it...

Nope, best place for them is under the sea miles away from you and I and a place where only 3/4 people knows where they are.

I did hear a rumour that in the 1960's Poseidon was delivered V. Late (a couple of years late) but actually it didnt matter as we had the SSBN's on patrol and the Russians knew they were there and so there was the deterent. The fact that there were no missiles was irrelevant...

[althenick]

so if we revert to an air launched capability which island will we have to re-position this time to make the range?


Capt Chaos
Does this refer to the Little story about when The Rt Hon Denis Healy was trying to justify his Carrier policy back in 1966 he supposedly approached the RAF and told them to justify their claim that they could support the fleet anywhere in the world :D
And (the RAF) in realising that there was a gaping hole in the southern Atlantic, moved Aus (Or NZ?) to the right by 2000 miles?

I heard it from a WAFU ATC who was serving in Lossie a couple of years back but I find the story so incredible that I don't believe it myself

[Archimedes]

This is one of the great CVA01 legends. While a lot of material exists pushing this line, no-one has yet found hard documentary evidence to support it - almost every source cited is Admiral Snooks telling the author/historian that the dastardly RAF moved an island several thousand miles. Or 500. Or 600. And it was Australia/New Zealand/some Polynesian island.

As well as these inconstistencies, it is rather surprising that nobody on the RAF side has ever admitted doing this (or if they have, this hasn't been widely circulated).

There was, IIRC, a tale of one RAF officer who admitted that the map was wrong, but then noted that it had been supplied by the Admiralty, and that the RAF had simply marked on the airfields, radius of action, etc, etc for the F-111 - although I have always doubted the tale myself (did the RAF not have any maps??).

Jury is still out and several naval history colleagues tell me that various people are still hunting for the smoking gun in the form of documentation at the PRO.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4697605.stm)

The UK's Trident nuclear arsenal is to get a £1bn boost over three years to ensure it is "reliable and safe" for its remaining two decades of service.

At the same time everything else is being cut? Does the Government have the right priorities?

In some ways I think there is merit in What Michael Portillo said. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4109564.stm)

"If the UK diverts billions of pounds from its future defence budgets into nuclear weapons that will never be used, it will have less money to spend on useful things such as aircraft carriers and submarines that fire cruise missiles."

Example: The UK (according to the Government) does not need things like Organic Air Defence as we will not enage in major operations with the US, yet need our own nuclear capability. Why?

BTW I am naturally pro nuclear, but...... can nuclear weapons serve the UK/West in the post Cold War world as well as they did during the stand off with the USSR?

[Jackonicko]

Think what £1 Bn would buy.....

Disgraceful.

[West Coast]

"Think what £1 Bn would buy....."

Do tell.

[Navaleye]

Not much, 2 or three T45s, 1/3rd of a CVF, 20 Typhoons - not much.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps it woldn't have paid for that much new stuff, but it would reduce the cuts...

It could've kept the Sea Harrier force (all three units) in service until the arrival of JSF. Twice. Could've bought spares - and improved the material condition and readiness of our forces.

According to the First Sea Lord, it costs in the order of £8 million per annum to run a Type 23 frigate. Three of these were cut as part of the cuts last year. I don't know what it costs of run 801 NAS, but I imagine it probably is similar.

Our we more likely to find ourselves in a situation which reqiures us being able of counter a nuclear threat, without US involvement, than one (with or with the US) that demand various capibilities that have ben cut (land based fighters, carrier based fighters, attack aircraft, tankers, helicopters, frigates, submarines, minehunters, infantry, armour etc)?

One of the reason the UK developed a nuclear capability was to demontsrate independence from the US. But is nuclear independence (of a sort) more important from an international poltics viewpoint than the ability to conduct major independent conventional operations?

[althenick]

WEBF,

They quoted in one of the defence select committee meetings that to keep the 3 Shar Squadrons would have cost £109 million.

So you could have kept it going almost 8x over :mad:

That kind of cut seems like small beer today.

BTW having done most of my CS career in Faslane during Trident development I seriously have to question why we still need it? It was perfectly valid then (Late 80's) but now?

I think i've said this before but getting rid of the missiles and converting the boats to SSGN's makes much more sense to me in today's threat environment.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

1) A nuclear device can only be made by a state.

2) States contain spies.

3) Were such a device to be used in a place not desireable to the White House an investigation would be able to establish in which State the device had been enabled.

4) That State would then fall foul of well known US strategic doctrine.


Just because a load of terrorist losers are willing to unleash bombs of whatever nature in our cities is no reason to fear a WMD attack. The States supplying the material have an awful lot to lose and therefore won't.

The next 30yrs will be based strategically on China and India and Brazil. Whether you want or need a Strategic deterrence against them is the issue germane here.


Cheers

WWW

[Oggin Aviator]

£1 Bn to keep the force up and running for 20 years - seems a bargain IMHO.

Just think of those States around this very unstable world that have or are developing nuclear capability, WWW alluding to some of them above. A Trident boat potentially within range of your major cities would make most rogue leaders think twice about doing anything untoward, I guess that is the rationale behind the present Trident fleet. There's no point in having lots of shiny new ships, aircraft or tanks if some crackpot is going to have a nuclear pop at you or your allies and you can show no capability to respond like with like. The basis of deterrence, not against the single traditional Cold War threat but against any number of smaller (in size) threats. Could we do it cheaper another way? - open to debate.

I personally think the world is a much more dangerous place post Cold War than during - at least we knew where we stood (sort of) then.

Oggin

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

But. Equal deterrence can be achieved at a fraction of the cost by saying "you nuke us - we send the SAS in with a suitcase device into downtown squalidsville the week after".

No 7,000 man multi billion pound annual funding required.

This doesn't work against the likes of Russia and China. But if you ain't really worried about them then best buy a few deployable sunshine suitcases and spend the money saved on deployable assets.

Me, I'd buy mine hunters, diesel SSBNs, F15's, light tanks and a whole heck of really well trained well paid well educated inftantry.

But what the hell do I know?

Cheers

WWW

[FFP]

Britain, Permanent member of the Security Council, without a nuclear deterrant ?

Discuss . .. . . . .

[Navaleye]

FFP has hit the nail on the head. No British PM would want to give up his P5 seat especially with the Germans and Japanese knocking on the door.

[ORAC]

Trident and a deterrent are not inextricably linked. We had a deterrent before Polaris and could again.

UN Security Council seats are not inextricably linked to nuclear weapons. The majority of the candidate nations for new seats do not have them.

The argument in the context of this thread would seem, therefore, to be flawed on both grounds.

[alemaobaiano]

UN Security Council seats are not inextricably linked to nuclear weapons.

Not inextricably no, but in the minds of certain candidate governments having something that goes off with a very big bang is a plus point. India already has some, and Brazil could probably run up a few to go in the nuclear submarine project.

So maybe they aren't linked, but two of the most populous nations and candidates for the UNSC seem to think that they are extremely desirable.

[Impiger]

Having looked at this thread again for the first time in a long time I'm struck by the number of apparently naval contributers who seem to be rather paranoid and defensive about the RN holding on to the deterrent and the absence of a body of RAF contributers arguing to take it over. Conclusion - the RAF ain't pushing for it to happen. That said it is going to be an interesting debate - Dr Reid said recently that after Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the replacement of Trident was his next biggest headache. There will be many conflicting views (even from within the Labour party - maybe that should be especially within ...) and the money will be a big factor.