UK Future Deterrrent.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
From Richard Beedall: Article
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
out there who would love to dish out a little instant sunshine 
to all the infidels.
The problem is does a suitcase bomb in London planted by an isolated terrorist group constitute a thumbs up
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.
out there who would love to dish out a little instant sunshine to all the infidels.The problem is does a suitcase bomb in London planted by an isolated terrorist group constitute a thumbs up
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one think that we must maintain our nuclear capability, and quite frankly, the Navy can bl
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g126,
You getting dizzy yet?
Cheers
BHR
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g126,
You getting dizzy yet?
Cheers
BHR
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You getting dizzy yet?
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.