Trident. Yes or No
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need
Trident Replacement Concept Contract Signed
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we accept, as I do, that the MAD concept isn’t flawed, why should we or Europe in general expect the US to provide our ultimate insurance policy? Well, I don’t know; perhaps some representative Americans would shed some welcome light on that. The simplistic answer to that basic question is NATO as the Treaty obliges the Member States to defend against any attack on one or more of the Signatories. That said, does it oblige a Member State to commit suicide in the process? Again, I don’t know.
Who is our Nuclear Deterrent intended to deter? Assuming the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty works, USA, Russia, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea (sorry; nearly included S. Africa!) who, at the moment are all our friends? Apart from the obvious ones, which of those States can be guaranteed to remain our friends in times of increasing population and dwindling available resources? Let’s, for the sake of argument, pick our new friend Russia. Capitalism is alive and well there and they are not going to readily upset their new means of wealth creation on points of political dogma. Bearing in mind all the political/ethnic time bombs that Stalin inserted into the former USSR, what constitutes “dogma”? Russia needs resources, as do the rest of us, from foreign sources and, importantly, regions that it believes are Russian by right (Arctic Circle ring any bells?) and will likely assert claims over them. Russia has resources that we may increasingly need (gas?) and, although currently happy to meet by fair trade, may choose to do otherwise in the future. Failed trade agreements can become political and, as good old Von Clausewitz observed, war is "continuation of politics by other means". The salient point is, we don’t know who, where or why will be the source of future conflict. We also don’t know if Russia would make life in Europe difficult without concurrently antagonising the USA. I reiterate the point that I use Russia as a hypothetical example here.
The other recurrent argument is the credibility of the British IND (this is not directed at those who believe that isn’t independent as that would be truly futile) and the significance of our relatively small “throw weight”. Would we use it on the big day? Who knows; Dennis Healey wouldn’t but Jim Callaghan would have. Certainty would be an obvious advantage but even uncertainty can seriously bugger up an opponent’s decision making. Our throw weight is limited by SALT 2 but it would be sufficient to cause any opponent so much pain and grief to be probably not worth his (or her) while. What weight would we throw on the big day? The full provisioned Outfit or a fraction of it? Again, who knows? And that uncertainty diminishes any opponent’s planning options. For now at least, it doesn’t take the brains of an Archbishop to work out what financial saving there would be in sending Boats on patrol with part warloads: oh, did I miss out the phrase “if any”?
Getting rid of something that we could, probably, never legally get back is a big gamble on ones future political, commercial and, dare I say, ethnic survival.
Who is our Nuclear Deterrent intended to deter? Assuming the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty works, USA, Russia, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea (sorry; nearly included S. Africa!) who, at the moment are all our friends? Apart from the obvious ones, which of those States can be guaranteed to remain our friends in times of increasing population and dwindling available resources? Let’s, for the sake of argument, pick our new friend Russia. Capitalism is alive and well there and they are not going to readily upset their new means of wealth creation on points of political dogma. Bearing in mind all the political/ethnic time bombs that Stalin inserted into the former USSR, what constitutes “dogma”? Russia needs resources, as do the rest of us, from foreign sources and, importantly, regions that it believes are Russian by right (Arctic Circle ring any bells?) and will likely assert claims over them. Russia has resources that we may increasingly need (gas?) and, although currently happy to meet by fair trade, may choose to do otherwise in the future. Failed trade agreements can become political and, as good old Von Clausewitz observed, war is "continuation of politics by other means". The salient point is, we don’t know who, where or why will be the source of future conflict. We also don’t know if Russia would make life in Europe difficult without concurrently antagonising the USA. I reiterate the point that I use Russia as a hypothetical example here.
The other recurrent argument is the credibility of the British IND (this is not directed at those who believe that isn’t independent as that would be truly futile) and the significance of our relatively small “throw weight”. Would we use it on the big day? Who knows; Dennis Healey wouldn’t but Jim Callaghan would have. Certainty would be an obvious advantage but even uncertainty can seriously bugger up an opponent’s decision making. Our throw weight is limited by SALT 2 but it would be sufficient to cause any opponent so much pain and grief to be probably not worth his (or her) while. What weight would we throw on the big day? The full provisioned Outfit or a fraction of it? Again, who knows? And that uncertainty diminishes any opponent’s planning options. For now at least, it doesn’t take the brains of an Archbishop to work out what financial saving there would be in sending Boats on patrol with part warloads: oh, did I miss out the phrase “if any”?
Getting rid of something that we could, probably, never legally get back is a big gamble on ones future political, commercial and, dare I say, ethnic survival.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the implications are for the number of deployed warheads of the announcement in the White Paper CM6994 that the stockpile of operationally available warheads will be reduced from 200 to 160; and if he will make a statement. [108791]
Des Browne: As set out in Box 2-1 of the White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994), published on 4 December 2006, normally only one Trident submarine is on deterrent patrol at any one time, with up to 48 warheads on board..........
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(1) Why can't UK build its own functional equivalent of Trident? Keep British jobs at home for the lads, and so on.
(2) Why not build submarines similar to the Virginia class, which have vertical launch tubes for either Tomahawk cruise missiles, antiship missiles, or larger torpedos?
(2.a) I'd suggest building a ballistic missile small enough to fit in those tubes. This missile might carry either nuclear or non-noo-klur warheads.
The basic idea is to have multi-role submarines, instead of specialized, use-only-on-Doomsday ballistic missile boats.
(2) Why not build submarines similar to the Virginia class, which have vertical launch tubes for either Tomahawk cruise missiles, antiship missiles, or larger torpedos?
(2.a) I'd suggest building a ballistic missile small enough to fit in those tubes. This missile might carry either nuclear or non-noo-klur warheads.
The basic idea is to have multi-role submarines, instead of specialized, use-only-on-Doomsday ballistic missile boats.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Quick Question..
From the 2006 Defence White paper on the subject...
So if Trident is not designed for use, how does it deter?
our focus is on preventing nuclear attack.
The UK’s nuclear weapons are not
designed for military use during conflict
but instead to deter and prevent nuclear
blackmail and acts of aggression
against our vital interests that cannot be
countered by other means.
The UK’s nuclear weapons are not
designed for military use during conflict
but instead to deter and prevent nuclear
blackmail and acts of aggression
against our vital interests that cannot be
countered by other means.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it's a way of saying that it's not intended for 1st strike within a conflict. There will be variations of that within a true nuclear stand-off.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, the CMC contract is a good observation....but with one minor drawback:
The US Navy intends to buy its first replacement SSBN in 2019 and purchase one per year starting in 2024 with a view to the first replacement entering service in 2029 (when the first extended Ohio-class submarines is decommissioned). To ensure Continued at Sea Deterrence (ie 4 SSBNs) the RN need to have the first Vanguard replacement in Service by 2023 (when HMS Victorious is due out of Service). The UK 'outstanding' military procurement process will mean that in order to achieve this ISD, the design will need to be frozen very soon - Vanguard/Trident took 14 years, the 2006 White Paper estimates 17 years for the Successor-SSBN. Unfortunately for the UK, the somewhat slicker US procurement process means that in order to meet their SSBN-X ISD they can afford to faff-around with design changes for another decade.
Consequently, I wish I shared your optimism that the dimensions of the CMC (for a missile that does not yet even exist) will not change in the years between the UK and US needing to design-freeze. Quite literally anything, from improved propellants to improved anti-ballistic missile defences of our adversaries ,could alter the missile's design in that time.
The US Navy intends to buy its first replacement SSBN in 2019 and purchase one per year starting in 2024 with a view to the first replacement entering service in 2029 (when the first extended Ohio-class submarines is decommissioned). To ensure Continued at Sea Deterrence (ie 4 SSBNs) the RN need to have the first Vanguard replacement in Service by 2023 (when HMS Victorious is due out of Service). The UK 'outstanding' military procurement process will mean that in order to achieve this ISD, the design will need to be frozen very soon - Vanguard/Trident took 14 years, the 2006 White Paper estimates 17 years for the Successor-SSBN. Unfortunately for the UK, the somewhat slicker US procurement process means that in order to meet their SSBN-X ISD they can afford to faff-around with design changes for another decade.
Consequently, I wish I shared your optimism that the dimensions of the CMC (for a missile that does not yet even exist) will not change in the years between the UK and US needing to design-freeze. Quite literally anything, from improved propellants to improved anti-ballistic missile defences of our adversaries ,could alter the missile's design in that time.
