UK Future Deterrrent.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: someplace, nowhere.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
ooh i forgot the impact of global warming!
'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....
ooh i forgot the impact of global warming!
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?
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?
What would the RAF carry these things on nowadays? How does one equal the stealth of the subs?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stating the obvious:
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)
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)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Class G Airspace
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
See these older PPRuNe threads....
RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?
Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?
RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?
Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, you are clearly barking. What are you talking about?
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
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
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!
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Class G Airspace
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Bombers?
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
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
