Nuclear (trident replacement) do we need one?
Jacko
Believe it or not, the ability to hold a major powers (might be wearing furry hats, might not) capital at risk (the "old" Cold war rationale) is still entirely valid - particularly 20-30 yrs hence.
That means the chosen system has to be survivable (launch platform and weapon) and deliver a credible throw weight. SS fits neither of those two criteria, particularly against a good IADS remote from UK bases. You could argue that some form of "frikkin laser" might reduce D5 penetrability, but as the yanks are discovering, it's a very hard (and expensive) problem to solve.
It's the combination of future-proofing and survivability that points to SLBM. I suspect that by the time a sunshine variant of SS had been developed, together with the required security / PAL infrastructure, the cost would have started to reach parity with the V-boats. besides, would you really want Aspire (or whatever they're called) teaching release profiles & procedures??
Widgers post is the most illuminating. Would anyone care to speculate on how the Chancellors Office spends £50Bn pa? Can't all be spent on personality transplants can it?
Believe it or not, the ability to hold a major powers (might be wearing furry hats, might not) capital at risk (the "old" Cold war rationale) is still entirely valid - particularly 20-30 yrs hence.
That means the chosen system has to be survivable (launch platform and weapon) and deliver a credible throw weight. SS fits neither of those two criteria, particularly against a good IADS remote from UK bases. You could argue that some form of "frikkin laser" might reduce D5 penetrability, but as the yanks are discovering, it's a very hard (and expensive) problem to solve.
It's the combination of future-proofing and survivability that points to SLBM. I suspect that by the time a sunshine variant of SS had been developed, together with the required security / PAL infrastructure, the cost would have started to reach parity with the V-boats. besides, would you really want Aspire (or whatever they're called) teaching release profiles & procedures??
Widgers post is the most illuminating. Would anyone care to speculate on how the Chancellors Office spends £50Bn pa? Can't all be spent on personality transplants can it?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
The answer to the question "Do we need one?" seems to be answered by many on here by "Yes, because we want one so that we may sit at the 'big table'".
So we are now to make policy based on keeping our seat in a body we felt so pointless that we ignored it to go to war illegally?
Come, come, one cannot have one's cake AND eat it.
We do not have a permanent seat on the Security Council because we have nukes and anyone who thinks different should spend some time actually reading up on the UN, the Security Council and the UK's seat on it.
The SC was setup to include major winning powers at the end of WW2 (and China and France). At that time only the US had any nukes. So the argument that Nukes=Seat on SC is defunct.
The reason the SC has not changed in over 60 years is that it would take a unanimous vote of the five permament members to change it and none of them are ever going to vote for that. They may vote to add permanent members (but that is only slightly more likely).
The question about the replacement for Trident is where is the money going to come from?
As I read elsewhere today, if purchased it is the equivalent of the RNs shipbuilding budget for the next 15+ years.
The concept of Nuclear deterrence is one of mutual logical fallacy.
If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money. Nuclear Deterrence only works because both sides buy into the same illogical belief.
Put another way, can anyone suggest a crisis in the last 60 years that a nuke would have (not could have) been used had the USSR or China not had them?
Consider the Korean War as an example of what I am saying.
I will stop there for now and I look forward to comments.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. It is great to see a lively and informed debate on this topic.
p.p.s. Widger, what is your point about the £24.5billion for Scotland
The answer to the question "Do we need one?" seems to be answered by many on here by "Yes, because we want one so that we may sit at the 'big table'".
So we are now to make policy based on keeping our seat in a body we felt so pointless that we ignored it to go to war illegally?
Come, come, one cannot have one's cake AND eat it.
We do not have a permanent seat on the Security Council because we have nukes and anyone who thinks different should spend some time actually reading up on the UN, the Security Council and the UK's seat on it.
The SC was setup to include major winning powers at the end of WW2 (and China and France). At that time only the US had any nukes. So the argument that Nukes=Seat on SC is defunct.
The reason the SC has not changed in over 60 years is that it would take a unanimous vote of the five permament members to change it and none of them are ever going to vote for that. They may vote to add permanent members (but that is only slightly more likely).
The question about the replacement for Trident is where is the money going to come from?
As I read elsewhere today, if purchased it is the equivalent of the RNs shipbuilding budget for the next 15+ years.
The concept of Nuclear deterrence is one of mutual logical fallacy.
If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money. Nuclear Deterrence only works because both sides buy into the same illogical belief.
Put another way, can anyone suggest a crisis in the last 60 years that a nuke would have (not could have) been used had the USSR or China not had them?
Consider the Korean War as an example of what I am saying.
I will stop there for now and I look forward to comments.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. It is great to see a lively and informed debate on this topic.
p.p.s. Widger, what is your point about the £24.5billion for Scotland
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just twenty (20!) years ago, the Soviet Bear faced us all. Who could have imagined how rapidly the world would change?
In another 20, what else and who else could change? Any current or projected nuclear powers that might wish you harm or want to make you see things their way?
Sure seems short-sighted to ditch the 'reach out and touch someone' capability when so many others are scrambling to get it.
In another 20, what else and who else could change? Any current or projected nuclear powers that might wish you harm or want to make you see things their way?
Sure seems short-sighted to ditch the 'reach out and touch someone' capability when so many others are scrambling to get it.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I submit that in the case of Israel, for example, its SLBM threat is the trump card for its continued existence, and will increasingly prove its value as time passes.
Scenarios could conceivably develop where Great Britain finds itself in a similar position, perhaps as the last remaining liberal democracy in Western Europe during the life of a Trident. Can you rule it out?
MAD worked, albeit in a less mad world.
Scenarios could conceivably develop where Great Britain finds itself in a similar position, perhaps as the last remaining liberal democracy in Western Europe during the life of a Trident. Can you rule it out?
MAD worked, albeit in a less mad world.
The Polaris/Chevaline/Trident's supposedly unique ability to take out the lads in the biggest fur hats in their capital was almost certainly a sham, based on a dramatic over estimate of Soviet ABM capabilities, and you could almost certainly have done the job by throwing enough manned platforms with lay down bombs at it, as Mr Rust seemed to prove in his Spam Can. You could certainly do it with stand off missiles and a nuke TLAM.
The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.
If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.
The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.
If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,028
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would contend that we may be "at the big table" but as a hangar on. No one takes us that seriousely anymore. I think that it is too late to ditch the nuke but I would be happier with a brit or even, o lord I am choking to say it, French made one (no stop laughing that man). If we had the capability to hurt the US (not that we would ever want to) then maybe we would be taken more seriousely instead of running around emptying the spitoon. In addition, an effective, happy, well equipped air force, navy and army of decent sizes would give us a great deal of respect. Lets face it, it wasn't our nukes that we waved at Johnny Argie was it.
Umm, err, isn't that exactly what Black Buck Vulcans did, in effect?
But a fairly modest nuclear capability ought to be enough in the post Cold War world, spending the money saved on conventional forces that aren't continually over-stretched.
But a fairly modest nuclear capability ought to be enough in the post Cold War world, spending the money saved on conventional forces that aren't continually over-stretched.
SSBNs are a symbolic luxury for British forces in this day and age. The cost of developing and deploying (not to mention disposing of) these single-use submarines is simply not affordable. Why not spread the Nuclear issue around? Nuke SS shouldn't have been prohibitively expensive (and would have provided job security for AWE et al) and TLAM-N is already a mature technology - what's wrong with packing a couple of TLAM-Ns into an SSNs VLS? Plus, a combination of delivery systems enables you to make any potential enemy guess from where the threat is coming from. Is it from the SS equipped CVF CAG? The SSN? The Nimrod MRA4? The implied threat of using a nuke is massively enhanced by actually declaring bit of your hand; deploying a Sqn of nuke-capable TypHoons is a "diplomatic" message in itself. I think we're going SSBNs because of political pressure to keep Sub yards in business between SSN classes. This is not a bad aspiration, why not just come clean about it?
Or we could just contract out Nuclear Deterence to go with MFTS!
Or we could just contract out Nuclear Deterence to go with MFTS!
"I think we're going SSBNs because of political pressure to keep Sub yards in business between SSN classes."
Or perhaps to keep the Sea Lords sweet when we $hit can the CVF....?
Or perhaps to keep the Sea Lords sweet when we $hit can the CVF....?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am glad I started this
"It is quite conceivable, that within 20 years, a weak United Kingdom, without a Nuclear Deterrent could be under serious threat of destruction without any form of retaliation."
The kind of people and states that might do this to us arent interested if we are going to wack em back or not, they are martyrs and suicide extremists, hitting them with twenty trident isn't going to make any difference to em, those that survive will hate us more if thats possible and living conditions won't be much worse post strike than they are just now anyway!
If it is a cold war type scenario that we somehow go back to then whether we have nukes or not isn't going to stop us being wiped out, all we ever hoped to achieve was mutual destruction.
If we ever pressed the button it was already too late!
There has surely got to be some merit for tactical battle field nukes, launched as some others have said from air platforms like the stormshadow against a rogue state from over four hundred miles, you could launch them from a harrier deployed from a carrier or in the future the JSF.
You could also very cheaply adapt them to fit to tlam giving you a greater number of platforms and greater flexibility of strike.
Britian has got nearly twenty destroyers and over a dozen ssn subs that it could use to deploy this technology without investing the Guestimated 25 billion! in cold war scenario technology.
Does anyone believe that it will cost anything like tweny five billion anyway? you can probably double that and add ten years to its' in service date and still not be accurate ! cynical, your damn right I am, experience has taught me to be!
Tony Blair is desperate to go out with a bang pardon the pun! he ought to be doing what he thinks is right and not what he thinks will leave him a lagacy.
Margaret Thatcher said after the Falklands war that she considered the use of nukes if it got bad enough and I believed her, I for one don't believe Tony or his cronies would have the bottle to press the very expensive button that they would have us all pay for.
"It is quite conceivable, that within 20 years, a weak United Kingdom, without a Nuclear Deterrent could be under serious threat of destruction without any form of retaliation."
The kind of people and states that might do this to us arent interested if we are going to wack em back or not, they are martyrs and suicide extremists, hitting them with twenty trident isn't going to make any difference to em, those that survive will hate us more if thats possible and living conditions won't be much worse post strike than they are just now anyway!
If it is a cold war type scenario that we somehow go back to then whether we have nukes or not isn't going to stop us being wiped out, all we ever hoped to achieve was mutual destruction.
If we ever pressed the button it was already too late!
There has surely got to be some merit for tactical battle field nukes, launched as some others have said from air platforms like the stormshadow against a rogue state from over four hundred miles, you could launch them from a harrier deployed from a carrier or in the future the JSF.
You could also very cheaply adapt them to fit to tlam giving you a greater number of platforms and greater flexibility of strike.
Britian has got nearly twenty destroyers and over a dozen ssn subs that it could use to deploy this technology without investing the Guestimated 25 billion! in cold war scenario technology.
Does anyone believe that it will cost anything like tweny five billion anyway? you can probably double that and add ten years to its' in service date and still not be accurate ! cynical, your damn right I am, experience has taught me to be!
Tony Blair is desperate to go out with a bang pardon the pun! he ought to be doing what he thinks is right and not what he thinks will leave him a lagacy.
Margaret Thatcher said after the Falklands war that she considered the use of nukes if it got bad enough and I believed her, I for one don't believe Tony or his cronies would have the bottle to press the very expensive button that they would have us all pay for.
"Why is nobody suggesting the cheaper option of a stand-off air launched deterrent (perhaps even Storm Shadow based) augmented by cruise missiles, both of which would be carried by versatile, flexible platforms that might also have a useful conventional role"
The White Paper runs through the various scenarios considered including air based deterrent. Bottom line was that this was the most expensive option open to pursue.
The White Paper runs through the various scenarios considered including air based deterrent. Bottom line was that this was the most expensive option open to pursue.
The Polaris/Chevaline/Trident's supposedly unique ability to take out the lads in the biggest fur hats in their capital was almost certainly a sham, based on a dramatic over estimate of Soviet ABM capabilities, and you could almost certainly have done the job by throwing enough manned platforms with lay down bombs at it, as Mr Rust seemed to prove in his Spam Can. You could certainly do it with stand off missiles and a nuke TLAM.
The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.
If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.
The ability to hold a major power's capital at risk might still be useful - but I do not believe that one could not do that with nuke TLAM and nuke Storm Shadow.
If there's any doubt about that, then a nuke based on a hypersonic platform like Boeing's HyFly would be just as unstoppable as an SLBM, and would be cheaper to develop and deploy - and would then be carriable by more versatile and more useful platforms.
Which bit of limited range/overflight is passing you by? Whether Mr Rust got lucky (nearly twenty years ago) or not, I don't think tacair launching from NATO bases would have gone un-noticed back then, do you?
As for HyFly being cheaper to develop, I applaud your sense of the comedic.
I appreciate the idea that manned / or unmanned tac-air would provide another string to the Typhoo bow (or even whatever FOAS is now), but the truth is that they are not comparable to SLBM in deterrent value. We should actually have both - by pitching the argument at SLBM vs tacair, we are all accepting the received wisdom that defence should not get a larger share of the funding pie. Given the obscene sums being shunted out annually on welfare, not putting @rseholes behind bars and paying immigration officials to not police our borders, I think we should be making the case for more support for the forces rather than trying to decide the colour of the instant sunshine bucket.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If we have Trident and someone still launches a nuke then Trident has failed and been a waste of money. If we have Trident and no nuke is launched then it has been a waste of money. Either way a waste of money."
so if we don't have it and we do get nuked?
so if we don't have it and we do get nuked?
Guest
Posts: n/a
trident: complete waste of money, [just like the 2012 olympics]. it's absolutely sickening, just think what good that money good do in other areas of this country.
it makes me sick that our goverment can find money for illegal unjust wars and nuclear weapons, but is closing hospitals.
and if you think that the trident decision hasnt been made yet, think again. AWE aldermaston have been doing the prep-work for the new trident for a while now.
and if you think the tories will do any better, think again. all politicians are lying and self serving.
it makes me sick that our goverment can find money for illegal unjust wars and nuclear weapons, but is closing hospitals.
and if you think that the trident decision hasnt been made yet, think again. AWE aldermaston have been doing the prep-work for the new trident for a while now.
and if you think the tories will do any better, think again. all politicians are lying and self serving.
controller... tories are, iirc, in favour of trident replacement also.
Having (unfortunately) been forced to study the principle of nuclear deterrent for a while before this replacement issue came up, I have several points to add to the table... my two cents worth:
Billhicks: If we do have trident and we dont get nuked (in a scenario where otherwise we would have, if the threat of mad wasn't there) surely that's worth investing in? Even on the off chance that it could happen? £Xbn vs a possibility that, 20yrs in the future, all traffic congestion would be solved by turning central london into a glass carpark? Worth every penny some might say!
Toddbabe: Not everyone in the world that wants to poke a fight, past and present, has been a mad extremist in the "martyrdom" sense of the word. Fairly sure Hitler et al would have preferred to survive! And it's not that long ago, what could be happening in 60 years time?!
Evalu8er: "The implied threat of using a nuke is massively enhanced by actually declaring bit of your hand; deploying a Sqn of nuke-capable TypHoons is a "diplomatic" message in itself."
The reason we have one boat on constant patrol is so that "the sailing of a nuclear capable submarine in a time of crisis cannot be mis-construed." We'd rather not make people more nervous than they already are if a shooting war is about to start! Bearing in mind that we have declared we will never use nukes in a first strike, if we're deploying nuke equipped typhoon/type 45/whatever then it's against someone with nukes at the ready, and I'd rather not make them any more nervous than I have to thanks!
This is also one of the arguments against having a conventional nuke capability: It's far better in terms of twitchy trigger fingers etc to have one weapons system that's in the glass car park business, but does nothing else at all, whilst everything else is conventional. That way when jonny foreigner sees TLAM's a plenty coming over the hill (bearing in mind that jonny foreigner is not as cool, calm and collected as his british counterpart) he's less inclined to press his big red button of doom!
Just some collected thoughts!
Having (unfortunately) been forced to study the principle of nuclear deterrent for a while before this replacement issue came up, I have several points to add to the table... my two cents worth:
Billhicks: If we do have trident and we dont get nuked (in a scenario where otherwise we would have, if the threat of mad wasn't there) surely that's worth investing in? Even on the off chance that it could happen? £Xbn vs a possibility that, 20yrs in the future, all traffic congestion would be solved by turning central london into a glass carpark? Worth every penny some might say!
Toddbabe: Not everyone in the world that wants to poke a fight, past and present, has been a mad extremist in the "martyrdom" sense of the word. Fairly sure Hitler et al would have preferred to survive! And it's not that long ago, what could be happening in 60 years time?!
Evalu8er: "The implied threat of using a nuke is massively enhanced by actually declaring bit of your hand; deploying a Sqn of nuke-capable TypHoons is a "diplomatic" message in itself."
The reason we have one boat on constant patrol is so that "the sailing of a nuclear capable submarine in a time of crisis cannot be mis-construed." We'd rather not make people more nervous than they already are if a shooting war is about to start! Bearing in mind that we have declared we will never use nukes in a first strike, if we're deploying nuke equipped typhoon/type 45/whatever then it's against someone with nukes at the ready, and I'd rather not make them any more nervous than I have to thanks!
This is also one of the arguments against having a conventional nuke capability: It's far better in terms of twitchy trigger fingers etc to have one weapons system that's in the glass car park business, but does nothing else at all, whilst everything else is conventional. That way when jonny foreigner sees TLAM's a plenty coming over the hill (bearing in mind that jonny foreigner is not as cool, calm and collected as his british counterpart) he's less inclined to press his big red button of doom!
Just some collected thoughts!
How much real discussion has there been, I wonder?
The Beeb reported that:
"The options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.
Instead the system would remain one based on a fleet of submarines which carry the Trident missiles, each of which can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads.
Mr Blair said between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The submarines would take 17 years to develop and build, and would last until about 2050.
He said the UK would also join the US programme to extend the life of the Trident missiles until 2042 - and would then "work with" the US on successor missiles."
Nick Robinson's weblog says:
"Just what were the Cabinet doing at their lunchtime meeting today? In theory they've been discussing whether to renew or replace our nuclear deterrent. I say "in theory" since it's hard to see what the point of the discussion was.
The White Paper outlining the government's proposals is being published two-and-a-half hours after the Cabinet meeting ended. An hour-and-a-half before that, journalists had been invited to read the document at a Ministry of Defence "lock-in" (so-called because you can read the document but not leave the building or use your phone or laptops until after it's published).
Is it just possible that the document had been printed before the Cabinet met? When I asked the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, he insisted that he would not comment on "process".
This "process" matters, since ministers have made much of taking this vital and costly decision in an open, transparent and democratic way - they point out that the Cabinet have discussed the issue, there is a White Paper and there will be a vote in the Commons.
"So what?" you may ask. If you'd been around the last time a Labour government "updated" our deterrent you might think differently. Harold Wilson's government extended the life of Polaris with the Chevaline programme. Not only did he not have a vote, not only did he not even tell Parliament or the public, he didn't even tell the Cabinet. A handful of ministers took the decision which many members of the Cabinet and most MPs only learnt of when, years later, a Tory Government front bench spokesman revealed it.
Before today, Tony Blair's Cabinet did have discussion on what Number 10 calls "the context" of today's decision and Cabinet ministers have all had the opportunity to meet with the foreign and defence secretaries to discuss the likely contents of the White Paper.
There has been, however, no Cabinet debate about the government's detailed proposals. Why? Number 10 won't say. It's worth noting that the last time a decision was handled in this way was the assessment on whether to scrap the pound and join the Euro. The theory then was that it was easier to handle people's worries in individual meetings rather than around the Cabinet table."
Notaboff,
The point is that manned air with a good stand off missile could hit all conceivable and relevant targets - and Moscow, probably, though Moscow is no longer either.
And I'll bet you that HiFly comes in cheaper than £25 Bn, while the new subs and their weapons will come in at much more than that.
The Beeb reported that:
"The options of changing to a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system had been considered and ruled out.
Instead the system would remain one based on a fleet of submarines which carry the Trident missiles, each of which can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads.
Mr Blair said between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The submarines would take 17 years to develop and build, and would last until about 2050.
He said the UK would also join the US programme to extend the life of the Trident missiles until 2042 - and would then "work with" the US on successor missiles."
Nick Robinson's weblog says:
"Just what were the Cabinet doing at their lunchtime meeting today? In theory they've been discussing whether to renew or replace our nuclear deterrent. I say "in theory" since it's hard to see what the point of the discussion was.
The White Paper outlining the government's proposals is being published two-and-a-half hours after the Cabinet meeting ended. An hour-and-a-half before that, journalists had been invited to read the document at a Ministry of Defence "lock-in" (so-called because you can read the document but not leave the building or use your phone or laptops until after it's published).
Is it just possible that the document had been printed before the Cabinet met? When I asked the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, he insisted that he would not comment on "process".
This "process" matters, since ministers have made much of taking this vital and costly decision in an open, transparent and democratic way - they point out that the Cabinet have discussed the issue, there is a White Paper and there will be a vote in the Commons.
"So what?" you may ask. If you'd been around the last time a Labour government "updated" our deterrent you might think differently. Harold Wilson's government extended the life of Polaris with the Chevaline programme. Not only did he not have a vote, not only did he not even tell Parliament or the public, he didn't even tell the Cabinet. A handful of ministers took the decision which many members of the Cabinet and most MPs only learnt of when, years later, a Tory Government front bench spokesman revealed it.
Before today, Tony Blair's Cabinet did have discussion on what Number 10 calls "the context" of today's decision and Cabinet ministers have all had the opportunity to meet with the foreign and defence secretaries to discuss the likely contents of the White Paper.
There has been, however, no Cabinet debate about the government's detailed proposals. Why? Number 10 won't say. It's worth noting that the last time a decision was handled in this way was the assessment on whether to scrap the pound and join the Euro. The theory then was that it was easier to handle people's worries in individual meetings rather than around the Cabinet table."
Notaboff,
The point is that manned air with a good stand off missile could hit all conceivable and relevant targets - and Moscow, probably, though Moscow is no longer either.
And I'll bet you that HiFly comes in cheaper than £25 Bn, while the new subs and their weapons will come in at much more than that.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems 'Coincidental' that 'Blair' & his entourage have made this announcement, and that Relations with Russia are 'Boiling' up?
I do think that we need some form of Nuclear protection, But the cost of this option is collossal!
The MOD are already well-underfunded - so sources are always stating, The recent 'Chinook' unavailability out in the Gulf has highlighted that.
I think there should be a 'Public consultation' on spending this amount of money on a 'Nuke' protector.
I think 'Charity' starts at home, and the RAF/NAVY/ARMY should be the Governments priorities to invest in them at the moment.
Regards.
I do think that we need some form of Nuclear protection, But the cost of this option is collossal!
The MOD are already well-underfunded - so sources are always stating, The recent 'Chinook' unavailability out in the Gulf has highlighted that.
I think there should be a 'Public consultation' on spending this amount of money on a 'Nuke' protector.
I think 'Charity' starts at home, and the RAF/NAVY/ARMY should be the Governments priorities to invest in them at the moment.
Regards.
This has been discussed on PPRuNe before, as the SEARCH function will reveal. I must say that personally I am not totally convinced that we need a deterrent on the scale of the V Force/Polaris/Trident, or anyway near it.
A few links..........
1. See this from Richard Beedall: VANGAURD(Replacement)
In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably 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.
2. From BASCINT: Trident: Do we really need to make the decision now?
3. From the UK Defence Forum: Thinking the Unthinkable - Modifying the Vanguard class nuclear capacity
4. From the same group: Thinking the Unthinkable - New roles for Vanguard?
Note both of these papers were written in 1997.
BHR are you really saying you think nuclear weapons did not play a part in restraining the hot heads in both Moscow and Washington?
A few links..........
1. See this from Richard Beedall: VANGAURD(Replacement)
In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably 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.
2. From BASCINT: Trident: Do we really need to make the decision now?
3. From the UK Defence Forum: Thinking the Unthinkable - Modifying the Vanguard class nuclear capacity
4. From the same group: Thinking the Unthinkable - New roles for Vanguard?
Note both of these papers were written in 1997.
BHR are you really saying you think nuclear weapons did not play a part in restraining the hot heads in both Moscow and Washington?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that if we're going to have a nuclear deterrant, we should have one that can't be taken away from us on the whim of a foriegn government. Regardless of wehter the UK has operational control of Trident (and that's debatable in the absence of any UK TACAMO equivalent), we're wholly dependant on the US for missile and warhead design, missile development, testing, maintenance & support, warhead testing, submarine degaussing, etc. If the US decided, for whatever reason, that it no longer wanted the UK to have nukes, it could make it very, very difficult and expensive, if not impossible, for us to continue.
Also there's the issue of basing - can't see an independent Scotland being too keen on keeping them.
Also there's the issue of basing - can't see an independent Scotland being too keen on keeping them.