UK Future Deterrrent. [Archive]

g126

14th Mar 2006, 15:43

A nuclear deterrent gives us the ability to defend ourselves and (as it says on the tin) deter those states who have/are developing weapons, from using them. You only have to look at the Dr. Khan network of recent years, demonstrating the modern proliferation of nuclear weapons to prove that the world does not yet have complete control over who develops nuclear weapons.

As for whom we are to deter, North Korea I would initially suggest, as they are producing missiles with greater and greater ranges. And there are a whole host of states queuing up to 'have a pop'. And are you saying you can predict who or what will appear in the next five, ten or even twenty years? Nuclear weapons are here now; we must come to terms with that. As Thatcher said, "You do not cancel your insurance policy, just because there has been a sudden decrease of burglaries in your neighborhood."

And as for the Cold War, what would you suggest was the reason for the relative stability was? Please don't suggest bi-polarity. :E

Impiger

14th Mar 2006, 16:29

Any right minded logical analysis of the world today would surely come to the conclusion that if a nation has a nuclear capability it would be foolhardy to unilaterally give it up.

But do we need to maintain it in an expensive single role submarine? Would it not make sense to deploy the weapon on a more flexible multi-role platform?

Discuss .....

maxburner

14th Mar 2006, 16:47

Impiger,

I believe you are right to question if we need single role assets to deliver a nuclear capability, but I also believe that we absolutely DO need a nuclear option. Leaving aside the means of delivery, possession of a credible nuclear option gives the Irans and North Koreas of this world pause for thought should they contemplate any aggressive action against us, our interests and our allies.

As for delivery, a submarine does have that handy capability to creep around the globe undetected. Not too many other ways of achieving global reach for a nation like ours. Carriers are all very well, but they are vulnerable without the full monty of screening vessels and aircraft, and that makes them pretty expensive.

Its just my opinion of course, and our well beloved government will have our best interests at heart. I'll rest easy in my bed tonight knowing just how many impressive ministers will be considering our nuclear defence option.

g126

14th Mar 2006, 16:58

Of course the other question of delivery is if we were to use a 'flexible multi-role platform', then how much will it cost to implement a new/ more of a current platform, or do we over stretch our already grossily over-stretched resources. All this will be in addition to the cost of producing a new system anyway.

Baskitt Kase

14th Mar 2006, 17:08

A nuclear deterrent gives us the ability to defend ourselves and (as it says on the tin) deter those states who have/are developing weapons, from using them.So we might as well let Iran have their nukes then. After all, they've threatened nuclear powers (Israel & USA) so, assuming that MAD is so secure, Iran won't be using any nukes they develop. If they can't use them, why not let them have them and place a huge financial burden on their country to no benefit.

Of course, MAD may not be such an assured path to peace, which would explain why the world is so worried about Iran...:uhoh:

Tourist

14th Mar 2006, 17:10

Impiger.
There is no platform, other than a B2, that can give the same worldwide coverage combined with likelyhood of getting to target. Not by a long shot. Not even if they brought back Vulcan.
This combined with the difficulties of launching a nuclear attack from a host nation.

althenick

14th Mar 2006, 17:47

There is no platform, other than a B2,
Sad but true. I heard a figure of £20Bn for trident replacement being bandied around on the Jeremy Vine show today. IIRC a B2 comes in at £0.5Bn a pop. Add to that a decent stand-off weapon and i reckon £20bn would buy you a couple of squadrons of B2's plus the weapons. Just the thing to pump some morale back into the RAF. However the Likelihood of the Yanks selling the UK Spirit is about the same as me getting an hour on the haulo-deck with Capt Janeway and 7 of 9 :E

Impiger

14th Mar 2006, 18:10

I'm trying hard not to answer my own question and let the more cerebral Pruners make some points but we should at least acknowledge that a new system (either missile or submarine or both) is inevitably on the list of jolly expensive things to procure in the next few years and it will have an extremely distorting effect on the rest of the equipment programme.

So how do we get the best/cost effective solution? Single role, submerged delivery with a global reach is clearly one way. How about a nuke option for TLAM and then multi-platform it - T45 and ASTUTE for example or at the risk of exciting the BLUE STEEL club how about a Stormshadow launched from a Nimrod MRA4 - good reach when the mother is aerial refuelled even if speed of response might be a bit more sluggish (assuming the submerged bomber is in the right ocean). Even more futuristic are some of the things that were thought about for FOAS - some sort of cruise missile deployed from the ramp of an A400M that powers up as it falls away from mother. Come on chaps lets have some original, but sensible, thought!

g126

14th Mar 2006, 18:18

Unfortunately for MAD, which has worked up until now, there is one slight flaw when it comes to Iran et al. That is: they're mad. Stark raving mad. We are now moving from conventional warfare to a new kind of warfare in all aspects including political warfare. But as I said, it sure is worth keeping that insurance policy.

Let's look at it like this. UK loses its deterrent. Iran creates its own. Iran improves it to a standard where they can strike the UK. Who now holds all the cards? Iran: you have one week to leave all Muslim countries, UK, or we nuke you. What choice do we have then? Iran (or whoever) would then hold more political and physical might than the UK.

As for the RAF/Navy holding the all the toys debate, my personal views aside, a decision was made a number of years ago, whether it be from a beancounter perspective or 'lets have the most effective deterrent we can' perspective (ha) and that decision is unlikely to have changed in recent years as the purse strings get tighter and tighter and the deterrent becomes less relevant and less justifiable to Joe Public post-Cold War.

Easiest decision for TB? Politically and Economically: keep the deterrent. Keep it with the Navy.

Original thoughts: maybe a surface based ship launched missile? They are all floating about anyway and are capable of firing cruise missiles. Why not change a couple of warheads around? Maybe an easy target on the surface though? :hmm:

Tourist

14th Mar 2006, 18:41

Not trying to be funny althnick, but you are way out on your figures.
20bn gets you a couple of sqns of JSF not B2. Thats before we talk about through life costs.

Nimrod does not have realistic good reach unless host nation supported. How do you attack North Korea for example.
Do you think Japan would let you launch a Nuclear attack from their territory?
V boat does not need to be in correct ocean. That's the point.

Surface ships are vulnerable, as are TLAM, though an Astute launched Nuc has its advantages.

southside

14th Mar 2006, 18:49

Do we need a deterrent.....def But I remember a dit I heard on the Staff Course in which the Poseidon Submarines had been operational for a number of years but hadn't taken delivery of any missiles...the boats had been sailing around declaring a nucleur deterrent but didn't actually have one....the deterrent was in the fact that we declared we had a deterrent..

Dollond

14th Mar 2006, 21:54

Are the days gone when merely being a nuclear power gave you a seat at the table?

IMO, those 4 V boats give us a lot of clout on the world stage and have definitely allowed us to keep our permanent seat on the Security Council. (Same to be said for France's Triomphant Class SSBN). IMHO - worth every penny!

.... though an Astute launched nuc has its advantages.

Agreed, but (with the current 1st batch design) I assume this could only be a sub-strategic cruise missile nuc.

I would suggest we still need to keep ICBM nucs.

Unfortunately, having cruise missile nucs and ICBMs would be proliferation, wouldn't it?

I'm all in favour of another set of SSBN. Pity we can't do without the Yanks for the missiles. Could we not partner with EADS?

Onan the Clumsy

14th Mar 2006, 22:32

...or with EDS?

The fear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has help prevent further world conflict, which is why the cold war never really got any more than tepid.
I'm not sure I really buy that. For one thing who really knows what temperature the cold war rose to? I heard the Americans flew past their turnaround point during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that tepid?

In any event what happens when you're dealing with a nation of suicide bombers? If they think there's an afterlife full of virgins, they have no vested interest in the Earth still being sperical :(

And a good point was raised earlier. If MAD was so good, then give Nukes to everyone in the ME. It really doesn't matter if they launch them because if Star Wars is as good as we're told, they'll all get lasered out of the sky anyway.

Dollond

14th Mar 2006, 22:36

...or with EDS?
:confused:
http://www.eads.net/

BillHicksRules

15th Mar 2006, 07:07

g126,

"Let's look at it like this. UK loses its deterrent. Iran creates its own. Iran improves it to a standard where they can strike the UK. Who now holds all the cards? Iran: you have one week to leave all Muslim countries, UK, or we nuke you. What choice do we have then? Iran (or whoever) would then hold more political and physical might than the UK."

What do we do differently if we have a nuclear capability?

Do you think any politician in a western democracy will launch first?

So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?

I am not being facetious with this discussion. I am genuinely trying to understand your thinking.

To give you some background on myself, I did my masters thesis on the politics of nuclear warfare.

Cheers

BHR

ORAC

15th Mar 2006, 07:24

Do you think any politician in a western democracy will launch first?

If you include Israel amongst the western nations, yes.

Navaleye

15th Mar 2006, 07:30

BHR,

I for one am quite happy knowing that if I go up in a puff of smoke, I know that the offending nation and its entire population is toast. I sleep very easily with that concept.

nutcracker43

15th Mar 2006, 07:43

Onan the Clumsy

...or with EDS?

I heard the Americans flew past their turnaround point during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that tepid?
.

Rubbishes the rest of your argument!

Navaleye Amen to that!

BHR What conclusions did you come to?

NC43

jindabyne

15th Mar 2006, 08:02

NC43

He became a sales exec ----

brickhistory

15th Mar 2006, 08:11

g126,
So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?

BHR

Given your scenario, why on earth WOULDN'T the UK retaliate? If there is a large newly-glassed area with mass casualties in the UK, do you think that the rest of the British population wouldn't demand a key turn or two from your SSBNs? Me thinks your government would.

BTW, my background included 4 yrs babysitting some MMIIIs under North Dakota. However, with continued medication and therapy, I'm doing much better now.....

g126

15th Mar 2006, 08:16

What do we do differently if we have a nuclear capability?

Nothing. But if we don't have it, then there is no level playing field and Iran has one up on us before we even start. As I said, they can then make demands that we have no choice but to submit to.

To give you some background on myself, I did my masters thesis on the politics of nuclear warfare.

This doesn't make you right, but surly it should give you a good understanding of the importance of the UK nuclear deterrent?

Tracey Island

15th Mar 2006, 08:24

As with all deterrent debates, the result for both sides will invariably be a score draw. Undoubtedly the World would be a better place without nukes....however, as soon as just one member has them, the rest are disadvantaged and open to coercion. Almost a bit like Germans and sunbeds - you might hate them for doing it but if you don't get your towel down you don't get your lounger of choice. Or, as Harry Enfield so eloquently put it, "Better to be on the train pi$$ing onto the platform than running along the platform trying to pi$$ in."

Good! That's solved the deterrent debate then - drunk germans on their hols and weeing off trains!:)

BillHicksRules

15th Mar 2006, 08:44

Orac,

I do not. I also do not include Pakistan or India.

NC43,

To put it very simply we have been so far lucky with the politicians with have had on both sides.

No matter who bad they were none were crazy enough to step over the nuclear line. Not Stalin, Nixon nor any of the others. What I did learn which surprised me was that one of the greatest proponents for the removal of nuclear weapons was Ronald Reagan.

Naval,

Well all I can say is lets hope you are never in that position.

Brick,

I think you will find that any nuclear attack on the UK is pretty much going to be game over for all on the islands. “
“Square Leg was a 1980 British government exercise that assessed the effects of nuclear war. In it, 150 nuclear weapons were assumed to fall on Britain with a total explosive power of 280.5 megatons. This was felt to be a reasonably realistic scenario, although the report stated that a total strike in excess of 1000 megatons would not be unexpected. Mortality was estimated at 29 million; serious injuries at 7 million; short-term survivors at 19 million.” (Source Wikipedia) This is assuming a strike on both military and civil targets.
In the hypothetical “Iranian Strike” I think it is not wrong to assume that it would be simply an assault on the civilian population.

g126,

I never claimed omniscience in this subject.

As for "they can then make demands that we have no choice but to submit to", but yet you agree that having nukes does not mean we can do anything differently?

Cheers

BHR

brickhistory

15th Mar 2006, 08:55

BHR,

IF Iran can put together 150 ICBMs AND have them hit the UK, ok, you win your point. (If they can do that, then welcome to your seat on the Security Council, Mr. Iran. Neither event is likely)

I still say that the last surviving guy in the UK's nuclear release control chain would say, " 'ave at it, boys." to the RN SSBNs.

g126

15th Mar 2006, 09:04

Yes, as I have already said, Iran et al are a new kind of opposition and must be treaty differently. But the debate is not should we nuke Iran. The question is 'should the UK replace it's nuclear detterrent?' and if 'yes', what with?

Now with the arguments presented here, over what status the UK would have if it did give up it's detterrent, I can not see how you can justify it's removal.

G

Widger

15th Mar 2006, 09:12

BHR,I would put it to you that the very reason India and Pakistan are not at each other's throats is because they both have Nukes. MAD!I would also point out that it was a WESTERN leader that did use first strike on Japan.

brickhistory

15th Mar 2006, 09:14

I would also point out that it was a WESTERN leader that did use first strike on Japan.

Actually, Mid-Western if you please! :ok:

BillHicksRules

15th Mar 2006, 09:24

g126,

So now you are back full circle.

You claim we need a nuclear deterrent because Iran may someday threaten us with nukes. Yet you say that Iran will not be deterred from striking us. You further cannot say what we would do differently were we under threat from Iran should we have nukes or not.

With logic that circular and yet self-fulfilling I yield the floor to you.

Brick,

I do not doubt that there would be calls for retaliation from those unlucky enough to survive.

I was just questioning the futility of it.

Cheers

p.s. Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?

brickhistory

15th Mar 2006, 09:47

g126,
Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?

?Que?
My SMW, now defunct (although I swear there was no relation between me being a member and its de-activation.), was the 321st SMW who had a rather Village People-ish mascot, "Warrior of the North."

nutcracker43

15th Mar 2006, 09:55

Gentlemen.

We must all tread lightly here for I fear this will will be closed down as well as some might not like it...hijacking and all that!

NC43

BillHicksRules

15th Mar 2006, 09:58

Brick,

Sorry my mistake. I assumed you were posted at Minot. I forgot about Grand Forks.

Cheers

BHR

Tim McLelland

15th Mar 2006, 10:49

Aside from the argument about whay we will inevitably retain nuclear weapons (which is ultimately only about keeping our place on the Security Council, and ensuring that the other leading nations take us seriously - it has virtually nothing to do with deterrence), it is interesting to ponder of the possible future of our nuclear assets.
Clearly, the flexibility of stand-off missiles would be a good idea, although suitable carriers such as the Nimrod or an Airbus derivative aren't ideal for every situation. Even our much-missed Vulcans didn't have a global capacity, so unless we opted for buying prehistoric B-52's, we'd be left with B-2 Spirits, of which we could probably afford a couple at least!
More seriously, you can bet that the deterrent will stay with the Navy, as inter-service politics and rivalry still reigns supreme in the MoD, and having dragged the deterrent out of the RAF's hands, there's no way that the Navy would ever allow it to slip back, that much is certain.

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Mar 2006, 11:03

From Richard Beedall: Article (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/vanguard-r.htm)

Another submarine based solution now seems to be firmly favoured as the Trident replacement, but politically it would be very difficult to justify spending over £9 billion (in current money) replacing the four Vanguard’s with another class of ballistic missile submarines given their extremely specialist “doomsday” role.

In order to keep costs down, a new submarine design has become unlikely for a Vanguard replacement and current thinking assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.

althenick

15th Mar 2006, 11:07

Tourist,
I got my figure of 0.5bn per unit from Air Forces Monthly. Now whether 20bn would buy a weapon + Platform for the RAF is debatable. But currently the Uk spends a lot of money on a platform that can do not much else but sit on the bottom of the oggin and wait for the call. Think of the flexibility of a long range bomber not just Nuc but conventional too. Far more cost effective i think.

Acey ducey

15th Mar 2006, 16:11

IMHO we must maintain a nuclear deterrent of some description. Passive defense and much hugging of trees just doesn’t cut it when dealing with some of the less well balanced nations out there. The question it seems is do we need a strategic first strike platform like Vangard/Trident or a bottom spanking option with a little reach for all the mad Mullahs :eek: out there who would love to dish out a little instant sunshine :cool: to all the infidels.
The problem is does a suitcase bomb in London planted by an isolated terrorist group constitute a thumbs up :ok: to nuke Tehran (as much as we would like to). The threat we face today is asymmetric and not the clear cut ‘tit for tat’ cold war scenario.
20Bn buys you a lot of flexibility in tactical (nuclear) weapon systems/special forces etc. I guess it just takes the willingness to use it and a big advert in the Tehran Times or Pyongyang Weekly advertising that we have it.

g126

15th Mar 2006, 18:18

No, it is perfectly simple logic.

If the UK loses its nuclear deterrent then we are powerless to act against countries that have them or are developing them.

As I said, if rogue state says jump, then we will have to ask how high, if we have nothing to call their bluff with.

As for the new system, well it is a new enemy we face now and the Nuclear stockpile is not as important politically as it was 10 or 20 years ago. The new system should reflect this. We should have less missiles and as has been previously suggested, preferably a multi-role platform of some kind, although how feasible this is I couldn't say. And I can not see the deterrent changing back to the RAF either, as much as I would like to see it.

Tourist

15th Mar 2006, 18:59

Agree that V boats are not good for multi tasking, but ICBMs have the ability to get through any defence at present. The same cannot be said for any other method of delivery

TurbineTooHot

15th Mar 2006, 19:39

I for one think that we must maintain our nuclear capability, and quite frankly, the Navy can bl:mad: dy keep 'em.

Nuke tipped Storm Shadow or the like etc, how far d'ya think said GR4/JCA would get before the entire red fleet turns it's attentions to it.

I reckon sneeky little subs, parked off the odd hostile coastline are a much more powerful deterent.

To those who would like to shed this capability I ask this question:

Would you like the UK to lose it's presence on the world stage, its position on the UNSC and live in isolation? Discuss.

Tim McLelland

15th Mar 2006, 19:45

I think you're wasting your time even discussing whether the deterrent should be retained, because it undoubtedly will be. The question is what will replace Trident I guess, and my money is on more of the same:)

BillHicksRules

16th Mar 2006, 07:01

g126,

No, it is perfectly simple logic.
If the UK loses its nuclear deterrent then we are powerless to act against countries that have them or are developing them.
As I said, if rogue state says jump, then we will have to ask how high, if we have nothing to call their bluff with.

You getting dizzy yet? :) :) :)

Cheers

BHR

BillHicksRules

16th Mar 2006, 07:07

Capt H Peacock

16th Mar 2006, 08:05

Quite simply, the UK cannot rely on any other country to defend us if we are attacked. (We can barely rely on ourselves to achieve that, thanks to Blair). That was exactly the position the French adopted after WWII, when they never again wanted to have to rely on its allies if invaded. They developed, and maintain, their own independent nuclear deterrent.

Here’s a scenario for you then. A middle eastern theocracy called Nira completes the production of enough weapons grade uranium to make a crude, but operable, gun type fission weapon.

They put it on a Nira Airlines 747 and send it to London.

It goes off at 3000’ on final approach to 27R Heathrow.

They could not have more accurately targeted the city had they also developed a highly efficient ICBM with its associated guidance technology.

They could achieve this within months of enrichment.

Perhaps the threat of nuclear retaliation, and the destruction of Nira’s industrial base and oil infrastructure might just be enough to make them look elsewhere for a target.

There are those who fear that countries like Nira are going to get away with this because of the bleeding heart, hand wringing masses, and the fact that Blair/Bush screwed up the regime change in Iraq and will be twice-shy when it comes to taking firm action again.

What will they do this time. Serve Mr Ahmadinejad with an ASBO?

g126

16th Mar 2006, 08:44

You getting dizzy yet?

Er...no. :bored:
I can't see this big circle you are referring to. I'm still sticking to the fact that we need a 'deterrent'. Ok, granted it may not deter people from producing nuclear weapon, so we could call it something else if you like, a nuclear weapon, an A-bomb, hell we can make up a name if you like, lets call it a schmer.
The point still stands, no schmer = no political power.
It’s the same point I have made in the last few posts. The only circle I can see is the loop I appear to be stuck on, repeating myself.

ORAC

16th Mar 2006, 09:03

Doesn´t matter if we think we wouldn´t use it, it matters what the other side thinks.

So, for example, if Al Qaeda or another group got their hands on a weapon and used it in 10 years or so, what would happen to the country that the evidence pointed to supplying the material?

Now you might think we would not retaliate on the country concerned, but what do you think the Iranian/North Koreans think?

Archimedes

16th Mar 2006, 09:38

Perhaps a good time ime to deploy the Yes, Prime Minister scenario here: Prime Minister Hacker and Sir Humphrey debate the point of the nuclear deterrent..

Hacker: It's a bluff, I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know you probably wouldn't but they can't be certain.
Hacker: They probably, certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they're probably certain you know you probably wouldn't they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

Tim McLelland

16th Mar 2006, 19:08

As I said previously, what possible point is there in discussing whether we need a nuclear deterrent when there's not even the most remote possibility of it being disposed of?!:)

Conan the Librarian

16th Mar 2006, 23:24

Having started something of a lively thread, I must admit that my own thoughts are that ultimately, this may be a Red Herring. No doubt the Trident Update programme is going to be expensive, but set against the projected costs for a totally new solution, it will be cheap and more easily swallowed by all but those with a certain political motive.

Pardon me for being a tad cynical, but this also lets the present government out to a large extent. The real money spending decision will be passed on, the decision to be taken by another bunch of scallywags.

Conan

2Ronnies

17th Mar 2006, 14:22

And I can not see the deterrent changing back to the RAF either, as much as I would like to see it.

I wouldn't be so keen - the paperwork was horrendous!

BenThere

17th Mar 2006, 16:36

It should be noted that subs are the best platform for GB because they don't generate a counterforce strategy on the part of the adversary that would include nuclear attacks on Great Britain.

The reason the US and USSR built such huge missile arsenals was to be able to attack the many enemy nuclear launch sites with assured destruction.

Manned aircraft as a delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons is all but totally obsolete.

Just my opinion, but in the nightmare scenario of multiple Western cities experiencing near simultaneous nuclear detonations, the result would be an immediate nuclear response against all suspect nations from which they might have originated, subject to variability due to who is in the White House at the time.

West Coast

17th Mar 2006, 16:42

BHR
Does the UK need a nuclear deterrent?

Yes/no?

BillHicksRules

18th Mar 2006, 08:31

WC,

No.

Cheers

BHR

civobs

20th Mar 2006, 23:21

just curious..... why not?

SASless

20th Mar 2006, 23:27

The only way it is a deterrent is if the Oppos fear it and think it would be used. Everyone knows the Western Society is weak and thinks Nuclear War is abhorrent and will do anything to avoid it.

Shame so many folks on our side fail to believe the Fundamentalists are quite willing to use a Nuke on us.

civobs

21st Mar 2006, 12:32

ok so what's wrong with having a nuclear 'weapon' then?

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 12:38

Civobs,

For the UK, the cost is prohibitive.

For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose the UK can no longer afford (if it ever really could) it.

Make no mistake, no Western leader will ever launch a nuclear attack on another nation. Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.

From a weapons employment viewpoint, nukes are almost useless in modern combat. With precision weaponry and stealth aircraft a better result can be achieved in actual missions with the use of conventional weaponry.

Cheers

BHR

brickhistory

21st Mar 2006, 12:45

Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.

And who's to say that the world won't be unrecognizable 60, even 20 years, from now? Are friends, or at least current non-enemies, with nukes going to stay that way? Dropping your membership in the 'big boys' club seems an awful big gamble.
Best of luck!:ok:

(edited for spelling)

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 12:54

BH,
"The Big Boys Club"?
Are you kidding me?
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc.
Feel free to continue to waste money on holes in the ground and underwater dick compensators. By all means do not let reality intrude.

A future enemy is highly unlikely to be as stupid as to launch ICBMs at us in a pre-emptive strike. I mean even the Russians were aware how stupid that was likely to be and they actually had the throw-weight to kill us off before we knew a thing about it.

Now the ME loons so greatly feared are far more likely to deliver nukes to their targets in the UK and US by truck than by missile.

This gives them a much smaller CEP.

Cheers

BHR

Lazer-Hound

21st Mar 2006, 12:55

The UK's current position is farcical. We spent a fortune buying and maintaining an 'independent' deterrent that could be removed by another nation (the US) on a whim, given that the UK doesn't even own the missiles. If the UK is going to maintain nuclear weapons, then it should have a completely independent system like the French. Otherwise we should give them up. The current position is a ridiculous and expensive willy-waving exercise.

BTW, has anyone considered the implications of Scottish independence on the future of the UK nuclear force?

g126

21st Mar 2006, 12:58

For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose

Which intended purpose is that? To deter any rogue nations with nuclear weapons from attacking us, or as a tool of international diplomacy? :D

BTW, has anyone considered the implications of Scottish independence on the future of the UK nuclear force?

Thats about as relevent as asking 'has anyone considered the effect of the big-red-button operator eating raw chicken and becoming ill at a rether inconvinient moment?' It's not going to happen.

G.

brickhistory

21st Mar 2006, 13:04

BHR,

First, it's not my country's deterrent you are discussing, so my vote counts for nought.

I agree, basically, with the delivery method you described for any forseeable threat.

BUT, what happens when Russia, China or any other member of the nuclear club (That better? Banter assumes a degree of sarcasm, hence "Big Boys Club"), decides its aims differs from the UK's? Only 20 years ago, there was a genuine fear of the 'other side.' Why is it not conceivable for something else to change over the next 20-60 years?

If the nuclear saber is rattled, and that is not that outlandish a possibility (if its happened before, it could happen again), seems it would be embarassing to reach for your own scabbard and come up empty handed.

SASless

21st Mar 2006, 13:32

The UK gives up Nuclear weapons because they are too expensive, will never be needed....are evil to even consider...and what ho Spiffy...we can come to terms with those that mean us harm.

Then a year or two down the road...or a lot of years down the road......at the Changing of the Guard ceremony.....

http://www.nukefix.org/pixx/fire2.jpg

Now What? You ask your good friends and allies the Spams to drop a few nukes for you or just wring the hands you have left and think "Oh Sorryo...bad decision back then! What were we thinking?"

Kitbag

21st Mar 2006, 14:07

OK SASless, point taken, if Libya or China or any other recognised state did carry out an attack of that nature hurl a few buckets in their direction, (well maybe not the Chinese, we may get a serious kicking on that one!). but our leaders seem to be telling us that an assymetric threat will be in the form of an attack from a terrorist organisation, not nation. Who would you target in that case. On current form we should have nuked Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq in the search for OBL and Al Q. Ooh, perhaps not 'cos then we couldn't extract the oil from the last 2 places. :ok:

West Coast

21st Mar 2006, 14:32

BHR
"Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc"
Not nearly as tangible, but a valid question is what war did having nuclear weapons stop? Do you think the Fulda gap would have remained peaceful and not a one way road for T72's moving your way if the West didn't possess nuclear weapons? Kinda like car insurance, a pain in the ass till you need it, and then you really need it.

ORAC

21st Mar 2006, 14:35

Hmmm, remember the neutron bomb? CND really hated that one, "the capitalist bomb", killed people and left buildings and infrastructure intact. Now where did I put those plans....... :cool:

SASless

21st Mar 2006, 14:47

Orac,

The Chinese have them.....

Investigation of Theft of Design Information for the Neutron Bomb

The Select Committee received information about the U.S. Governmentís investigation of the PRCís theft of classified U.S. design information for the W-70 thermonuclear warhead. The W-70, which is an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead (or "neutron bomb"), also has elements that can be used for a strategic thermonuclear warhead. In 1996 the U.S. Intelligence Community reported that the PRC had successfully stolen classified U.S. technology from a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Laboratory about the neutron bomb.

This was not the first time the PRC had stolen classified U.S. information about the neutron bomb. In the late 1970s, the PRC stole design information on the U.S. W-70 warhead from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The U.S. Government first learned of this theft several months after it took place. The PRC subsequently tested a neutron bomb in 1988.

The FBI developed a suspect in the earlier theft. The suspect worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and had access to classified information including designs for a number of U.S. thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile at that time.

In addition to design information about the W-70, this suspect may have provided to the PRC additional classified information about other U.S. weapons that could have significantly accelerated the PRCís nuclear weapons program.

The Clinton administration has determined that further information about these thefts cannot be publicly disclosed.

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 15:53

SASless,

What was the delivery method for the lovely pic you posted? Who did it come from? Was it a single shot?

Brick,

The UK government during the "scary years" had a "better Red than dead" philosophy. Who is to say in the future the same concept will not prevail?

Put it this way. Iran/NK/PRC decide on regime change for the UK and decide to tell us it will be their way or instant sunshine followed by the UK turned into a no-go area for 48,000 years, which is going to happen? Will it be any different with 196 tac nukes as we have today?

g126,

"To deter any rogue nations with nuclear weapons from attacking us, or as a tool of international diplomacy?"

I do not believe it works in either case. We have a seat at the "big boys" table because of the way WW2 ended. At that time only one of the 5 at the table had nukes.

WC,

Fulda Gap-wise nukes were always likely to be a fallacy. A bit like pistols in the missile silo command centers. Nice to know they exist but if you use them it is game over anyway.

To all,

Sorry if I missed any points out it is not deliberate just a mistake on my part.

Cheers

BHR

Capt H Peacock

21st Mar 2006, 17:01

The famous picture is 'Shot Grable' of a 15kt 280mm artillery shell fired from 'Atomic Annie' in May 1953 in Nevada.
It was in fact the sort of weapon that might have been used if the Red Army crossed the Oder.
If you read about the Cuban Missile crisis, you'll see that it was precisely the unveiled threat of a nuclear strike against the Russian Homeland, the 'Rodina', that pursuaded Kruschev to withdraw his missiles from Cuba. (not actually all of them though!)
In my mind, saying that the UK cannot afford an expensive system like Trident is precisely the sort of beancounter-speak that has left this country in its parlous defensive condition. Unable to conduct an operation on more than one front, immobile without third nation and contractor infrastructure, critically underesourced as a naval power for a historically seafaring country.
Either keep the nuke, or start speaking Arabic.

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 17:48

Capt,

Try reading about the respective birth rates of the Western Democracies and the developed world.

Arabic is our future, nukes or not. Either that or Chinese.:) :)

Cheers

BHR

p.s. As for the CMC try reading a bit deeper on that and learn the real reason for the peaceful end.

g126

21st Mar 2006, 17:50

The last time this country saw this wide-spread liberalist attitude and large scale demilitarisation was the decade before the Second World War. "A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment". - Willis Player.

Think about if the tables turn and your interests are at stake. How bad will the people who have called for its removal feel? But I'm sure I can cope with the fact that we have bought a system and not used it. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

And remember, no matter how much we hope for it, we will never have 'the war to end all wars'. The last time we relied on that defence we were only just ready in time for the Second World War.

It's about time this country stopped concerning itself with whether it has offended individual people and instead stands up for what is right for the greater good of the nation. This goes for the procurement of nuclear weapons and many other areas of the UK's policy.

Rant over.

G.

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 17:52

g126,

You ever serve?

Cheers

BHR

g126

21st Mar 2006, 17:54

No, but I have signed up to serve and I have a lot of exposure to the forces?

You?

G

BillHicksRules

21st Mar 2006, 17:57

g126,

Yes but my point is this, ask those who do which they would rather have 4 SSBNs or that £20+ billion on kit they actually use and need. See what sort of answer you get.

The RN do not really want to spend the money on SSBNs but they will be damned if they let the Crabs carry nukes again. :) :) :)

Cheers

BHR

g126

21st Mar 2006, 18:06

I think that by posting on the 'Military Aircrew' Forum, we have already thrown that open to many current members of the armed services, and I have to say that overall the consensus has been for the retention of Nukes.
If there is anyone else here who is currently serving and has not had a say, I throw the floor open to you, I am willing to be proved wrong. Kit or nukes?
At the end of the day, if there was a nuclear attack on the UK, the majority of conventional forces would have a limited response capability, and the idea of Nuclear Weapons is to deter this, so we still have conventional forces to fight.
I will also, throw the question open here, where all the students are tied into the military and many of whom study international politics and I will let you know what they say.
G.
edited to add: btw, I don't suppose you served in the navy by any chance then? :ok:

civobs

21st Mar 2006, 19:36

bhr

'For the UK, the cost is prohibitive. For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose the UK can no longer afford (if it ever really could) it.'
it seems to me that £20bn is not such a huge amount for an economy the strength of £1000bn+ pa, more a matter of priorities (perhaps to borrow even).

'Make no mistake, no Western leader will ever launch a nuclear attack on another nation.'
a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. i'm curious as to why and how do you know?

'Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.'
what makes it less likely? greater economic interdependency, technological advances such as television, the internet, or a free media? to say the world is unrecognisable today ignores that there are changes afoot: there is supposedly impending resource scarcity and competition with huge nuclear equiped developing economies (life contingencies haven't much changed); there is the possibilty of a european superpower (assuming that doesn't all fall apart); there is an apparent change in the foreign policy stance of the us (from encouraging balance of power politics to a moral stance); all topped off nicely with large scale political apathy on behalf of the electorates in western democracies.

'nukes are almost useless in modern combat.'
that's not what they're for.

'Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc.'
whilst these incidents were horrific and disgusting are hugely important, their impact was relatively small in terms of preventing the target societies to function.

'... ask those who do which they would rather have 4 SSBNs or that £20+ billion on kit they actually use and need. See what sort of answer you get. The RN do not really want to spend the money on SSBNs but they will be damned if they let the Crabs carry nukes again.'
but their opinion on the matter of whether the state chooses to equip itself with nuclear weapons is utterly irrelevant. it's not a military choice, and that's why 'political' control is retained at all times.

is there such a thing as a preemptive deterrent? apparently, libya were 'reminded' at some point.... :eek:

ooh i forgot the impact of global warming!

West Coast

21st Mar 2006, 20:29

BHR
It comes down to believing nuclear weapons were a deterrent to the USSR and the Warsaw pact from invading west. You either believe it, or you don't. What empirical evidence as is indicates it did have a deterrent effect as they stayed on their side. Argue the other side of the coin and say the USSR thought the West to be the aggressor and the argument still validates the deterrent factor of nuclear weapons as we stayed on our side. Argue it was a fear of MAD, and the deterrent factor is still key.
Yes, we entering an asymmetrical world. Kinda hard to nuke an individual or small group for blowing up Harrods and killing tens of thousands. Does that mean traditional threats no longer exist, of course not. Does that mean the stage may look different in a few years and new threats from established states exist? Of course that possibility exists. You can either be ready to address these evolving threats or not.
Is your argument the ability to afford and maintain the weapons or a theoretical belief that the UK should renounce nukes in the real world we live in?

SASless

21st Mar 2006, 20:51

What would the RAF carry these things on nowadays? How does one equal the stealth of the subs?

ImageGear

22nd Mar 2006, 06:25

In my opinion the lack of political or public spine to deliver either a pre-emptive or MAD strike is rendering nukes obsolete faster than almost anything else.

On receiving a first strike scenario, politico's will take time to "identify the threat, produce a measured response, in a timeframe convenient, move assets in theatre, select targets minimising collateral damage, put in place plans to regenerate the smoking hole", by which time we will either all be crisps or wandering around subjugated.

Far better to seriously disadvantage them economically, politically and culturally before they can kick off their expansionist ideas.

Imagegear
(Cold War Codger)

Bruiser Loose

22nd Mar 2006, 09:03

BHR,

Do you suppose that if UK plc decides not to replace the current nuclear deterrent that the £20+ billion will be freed up for other kit? I think not. That money will be used in other areas of public spending. Areas that will win votes for politicians. The Armed Forces will continue to struggle with what we can afford.

I agree with the ppruner (sorry can't remember who it was) who used the car insurance analogy. It's expensive, rarely used, occasionally takes ages to research, but you really are up that proverbial creek if you don't have it when it's needed.

I agree with civobs with the irrelevance of what the RN want or do not want. These are political and strategic weapons. The fact that there has been a bomber on deterrent patrol continously (give or take) since 1969 is a testiment to those submariners. They generally do 12 week patrols (and that is all spent underwater I need to emphasis) and don't get any foreign runs, apart from very occasional trips to the USA. If the RAF want the Nuclear Deterrent, let them have it. However, it will mean more stretch and probably more complaining on Pprune.;)

Pureteenlard

22nd Mar 2006, 09:10

Assuming that an independent nuclear deterrent is maintained by the UK, then maybe it needs to be deployed by, to use an aircraft analogy, a "swing role" platform?

TLAM springs to mind.
Don't know the range of Storm Shadow off the top of my head but I'm sure it could carry a nuclear warhead if need be.

The platforms required to deploy such weapons have other uses although cruise missiles are less reliable than re-entry vehicles when it comes to penetrating hostile airspace.

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Mar 2006, 10:17

See these older PPRuNe threads....

RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=133423&highlight=trident)

Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196510&highlight=trident)

Widger

22nd Mar 2006, 18:23

Pureteen,

Just got to comment on your assumption that Bombers could be Swing Role. In the first instance that would add to cost and make it no good at either task as you are compromising the design of both roles. (Tornado a good example?) Also, the whole point of a submarine deterrant is that it is very difficult to find. They spend a lot of effort in NOT being detected. Popping up to periscope depth to launch of a few TLAM would instantly destroy your ability to launch a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike.

Tourist

22nd Mar 2006, 18:38

Widger, you are clearly barking. What are you talking about?:confused:

Launching TLAM is your preemtive/retaliatory strike!
You are correct in that the Subs hide, but once you have launched Trident/TLAM you have given yourself away. The point of Subs is that they will not know you are there until it is too late to stop the weapons.

And that is where the advantage of Trident comes into its own. Nothing will stop it getting to its target.
Unlike TLAM/Storm shadow etc, which would run the risk of meeting a decent SAM system, and which unless I am mistaken could not carry anything in the Megatonne Class

civobs

24th Mar 2006, 12:03

a disappointing lack of argument, perhaps that's why there's only 1000 or so members of cnd....

Widger

24th Mar 2006, 13:48

Tourist, you are the barking one and extremely myopic as well apparently. The question was why can't the bombers be swing role and carry TLAM. the answer is because once you fire TLAM you are nicked me old fella and there is no way you can now run and hide with those trident. Bombers hide until they need to use ultimate force. That's the point, you know that! When you sit down sign the papers with your name and read the bl**dy question. Have a good weekend shippers!

PPRuNeUser0211

24th Mar 2006, 14:22

Widger,

I think tourist's point is.... what if you replace trident with TLAM, and use that as your deterrent (i.e. a bomber hiding somewhere in the deepest darkest depths of an ocean somewhere) whilst you can have another one handy to rain tomahawk carried conventional death and destruction on whatever regime spongebob squarepants has decided is the one to go this month. Not exactly swing-role, more perhaps multi role? Not sure how many spare bombers we have floating around at the moment though!

Bruiser Loose

24th Mar 2006, 15:27

pba target, unfortunately, you need 4 SSBNs to keep one at sea permanently on deterrence patrol. One at sea, one working up to go to sea, one in maintenance after patrol and one in refit. The option of having 2 at sea with differing roles is not possible with 4.

The SSNs (or should I say SSGNs?) are ideal for TLAM strikes as well as ASW, ASuW, sneaky beeky sh%t and general presence ops, i.e. if a potential aggressor thinks an SSN is patrolling off his coast, he may think again before deploying his Navy.

Trident for world peace........

A piece for you and a piece for me ;) ;)