Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
Every time this issue comes up it never fails to amaze me the number of people who gleefully demand we waste billions of pounds on such an obviously pointless purchase.
Many people talk about a replacement for Trident being necessary not just in today’s world but in the future as well. They claim that we do not know who our enemies will be in the future. Who our enemies have been, are now or will be in the future is irrelevant. The continuing misuse of the word deterrent is one of the biggest con-jobs in history. Trident as a weapons system is not about deterrence but instead vengeance.
How can I say this?
Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.
Pre-emptive strike
Any use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively negates the concept of deterrence
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nuclear capable state is likely to be dooming several million of their own citizens to death in the more than likely reprisal attacks
Retaliatory strike
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a non-nuclear capable country would be viewed in the same light as the pre-emptive attack on a non-nuclear state as shown above.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country would be viewed as a massive escalation and would inevitably lead to a counter-retaliatory nuclear strike.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack.
So what I hope I have shown above is that the reasons given, both on this thread and by politicians of various persuasions, do not seem to stack up to scrutiny.
I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.
Cheers
BHR
Every time this issue comes up it never fails to amaze me the number of people who gleefully demand we waste billions of pounds on such an obviously pointless purchase.
Many people talk about a replacement for Trident being necessary not just in today’s world but in the future as well. They claim that we do not know who our enemies will be in the future. Who our enemies have been, are now or will be in the future is irrelevant. The continuing misuse of the word deterrent is one of the biggest con-jobs in history. Trident as a weapons system is not about deterrence but instead vengeance.
How can I say this?
Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.
Pre-emptive strike
Any use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively negates the concept of deterrence
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nuclear capable state is likely to be dooming several million of their own citizens to death in the more than likely reprisal attacks
Retaliatory strike
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a non-nuclear capable country would be viewed in the same light as the pre-emptive attack on a non-nuclear state as shown above.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country would be viewed as a massive escalation and would inevitably lead to a counter-retaliatory nuclear strike.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack.
So what I hope I have shown above is that the reasons given, both on this thread and by politicians of various persuasions, do not seem to stack up to scrutiny.
I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.
Cheers
BHR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR - I'm banning you from this thread for making some sense
how dare you!
That is actually a pertinent and interesting point, I'd never thought of it that way. I'd like to voice a what if theory now - if I spaketh Bolleaux then feel free to say so.
Some mad mental terrorist of choice aquires a nuclear device of some type, aha he thinks - time to make someone glow in the dark - BUT WHO?
does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare....
who is to say what it would take from who - what about a rogue state with a complete loony at the helm - aka kim jong so lonely. does the knowledge that either us or the septics or the CESM* could turn his palace into a glass puddle affect his thinking?
now comes the rub - how much are you willing to wager on us not ever needing the bomb? put yourself in shiny Daves position. how much does he gamble?
how about a dirty bomb or nerve gas? ?
the fact we have a big bucket of sunshine and a very accurate delivery system, might it possibly cause them to think - Hmmm, maybe not.
As to the others that keep banging on about seast at the top table and independantness of it all - do try and keep up.
CESM = Cheese eating Surrender Monkeys, AKA french.
how dare you!That is actually a pertinent and interesting point, I'd never thought of it that way. I'd like to voice a what if theory now - if I spaketh Bolleaux then feel free to say so.
Some mad mental terrorist of choice aquires a nuclear device of some type, aha he thinks - time to make someone glow in the dark - BUT WHO?
does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare....
who is to say what it would take from who - what about a rogue state with a complete loony at the helm - aka kim jong so lonely. does the knowledge that either us or the septics or the CESM* could turn his palace into a glass puddle affect his thinking?
now comes the rub - how much are you willing to wager on us not ever needing the bomb? put yourself in shiny Daves position. how much does he gamble?
how about a dirty bomb or nerve gas? ?
the fact we have a big bucket of sunshine and a very accurate delivery system, might it possibly cause them to think - Hmmm, maybe not.
As to the others that keep banging on about seast at the top table and independantness of it all - do try and keep up.
CESM = Cheese eating Surrender Monkeys, AKA french.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack.
If you use a nuclear weapon against us you will receive a total and overwhelming response - s0 do not even consider it. Your utter destruction is guaranteed.
You may consider that a retaliatory response would disprove the concept, it would state that the fact that the Cold war never turned hot proved the opposite and the threat deterred the attack.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bill, good points well made. The Second World War was a different country.
If ever there was a case for nuclear against non-nuclear then it was the Korean war and we know what happened there.
When it came to using the world's largest non-nuclear club 10 years or so later we know that even that was held back in case of escalation.
So, who or what would constitue a valid and achievable strike target?
While it would be quite reasonable to define criteria for a valid target set this would have to be ultra secret as any potential agressor could simply avoid the obvious nuclear trip wire.
We can argue all day on pprune but it would be a stupid politician that set out the criteria in public. The only worry is prevalence of stupid politicians.
If ever there was a case for nuclear against non-nuclear then it was the Korean war and we know what happened there.
When it came to using the world's largest non-nuclear club 10 years or so later we know that even that was held back in case of escalation.
So, who or what would constitue a valid and achievable strike target?
While it would be quite reasonable to define criteria for a valid target set this would have to be ultra secret as any potential agressor could simply avoid the obvious nuclear trip wire.
We can argue all day on pprune but it would be a stupid politician that set out the criteria in public. The only worry is prevalence of stupid politicians.
BHR
Considering over the last 7 years or so, we have made ourselves public enemy number one in a lot of countries, without a nuclear option, how would we defend against a rogue state?
How do you suggest we protect ourselves from the likes of Iran, Korea etc? What if Korea's new leader decides to try his new long range ballistic missile against us? We don't have conventional forces large enough to retaliate on the battlefield, or do we cross our fingers and hope he misses, or that someone else will help us?
It is a cliché but we do not know what tomorrow holds, as we deplete oil reserves around the world, how long before nations are reduced to fighting over what's left? Already we have Russia, Canada etc trying to claim more of the Arctic for themselves.
Do you think peace will prevail? that we will all make it home for tea and medals? You might think so, I don't. I think the future is very uncertain, but if it ever comes to the crunch and countries start fighting over resources, I would rather have the biggest stick available. It is not THAT expensive in the grand scheme of things.
Considering over the last 7 years or so, we have made ourselves public enemy number one in a lot of countries, without a nuclear option, how would we defend against a rogue state?
How do you suggest we protect ourselves from the likes of Iran, Korea etc? What if Korea's new leader decides to try his new long range ballistic missile against us? We don't have conventional forces large enough to retaliate on the battlefield, or do we cross our fingers and hope he misses, or that someone else will help us?
It is a cliché but we do not know what tomorrow holds, as we deplete oil reserves around the world, how long before nations are reduced to fighting over what's left? Already we have Russia, Canada etc trying to claim more of the Arctic for themselves.
Do you think peace will prevail? that we will all make it home for tea and medals? You might think so, I don't. I think the future is very uncertain, but if it ever comes to the crunch and countries start fighting over resources, I would rather have the biggest stick available. It is not THAT expensive in the grand scheme of things.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Some mad mental terrorist of choice aquires a nuclear device of some type, aha he thinks - time to make someone glow in the dark - BUT WHO?
does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare..
does he pick a state with no nuclear capability as he knows they can't revenge or does he pick a state with a bomber under the impression they would never dare..
You cannot nuke a mindset.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bhr
Only valid if ALL possible enemies actually give a damn about being considered war criminals.
You logic is circular. The point of Nuclear deterrence is based around the concept that the weapons are NOT used. You can not therefore frame a counter arguement that takes as its starting point ONLY the USE of nuclear weapons.
Its like saying "in all cases where the house burnt down the fire brigade were unable to extinguish the flames before the house burnt down" and then using that as a justification for disbanding the fire brigade.
pb
I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.
Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.
Its like saying "in all cases where the house burnt down the fire brigade were unable to extinguish the flames before the house burnt down" and then using that as a justification for disbanding the fire brigade.
pb
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like we're getting one whether we want it or not....
BBC iPlayer - Watch live - BBC Parliament
BBC iPlayer - Watch live - BBC Parliament
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
"If you use a nuclear weapon against us you will receive a total and overwhelming response - s0 do not even consider it. Your utter destruction is guaranteed."
Really?
A rogue Iranian General hits London with a single nuke what is our response?
Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?
What purpose does it serve?
Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?
To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.
Here is another scenario.
UK is hit by 20+ 1MT nukes by whomever. That is game over for the UK so any "response" again is simply a matter of vengance against innocent civilians in a far off land who as much deserve to die as all those killed here.
Should we be spending £100billion on the ability to kill millions of innocent people as an act of revenge?
Or should we spend £100billion on helping British citizens?
"If you use a nuclear weapon against us you will receive a total and overwhelming response - s0 do not even consider it. Your utter destruction is guaranteed."
Really?
A rogue Iranian General hits London with a single nuke what is our response?
Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?
What purpose does it serve?
Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?
To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.
Here is another scenario.
UK is hit by 20+ 1MT nukes by whomever. That is game over for the UK so any "response" again is simply a matter of vengance against innocent civilians in a far off land who as much deserve to die as all those killed here.
Should we be spending £100billion on the ability to kill millions of innocent people as an act of revenge?
Or should we spend £100billion on helping British citizens?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Pit Bull,
The point that has been made previously is that deterrence only works if your adversary considers you will use your nukes.
So therefore, it is logical to analyse when such use would take place.
If you can state that the weapons would never be used then they fail to be a deterrence.
Your "analogy" about fire brigades is logically incomplete since it fails to take into consideration the times when the fire brigade are used successfully.
The fire brigade is designed to be used yet you are comparing them to a weapons system you yourself state is designed not to be used.
This is as flimsy an analogy as those who say Trident is like an insurance policy. You hope never to use it but you like the fact that it is there.
This is false too since an insurance policy is designed to return you to a similar state to the one you were in before whatever accident befell you.
It is not designed to burn down the rest of your street if you have had a fire!
The point that has been made previously is that deterrence only works if your adversary considers you will use your nukes.
So therefore, it is logical to analyse when such use would take place.
If you can state that the weapons would never be used then they fail to be a deterrence.
Your "analogy" about fire brigades is logically incomplete since it fails to take into consideration the times when the fire brigade are used successfully.
The fire brigade is designed to be used yet you are comparing them to a weapons system you yourself state is designed not to be used.
This is as flimsy an analogy as those who say Trident is like an insurance policy. You hope never to use it but you like the fact that it is there.
This is false too since an insurance policy is designed to return you to a similar state to the one you were in before whatever accident befell you.
It is not designed to burn down the rest of your street if you have had a fire!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't using the fire brigade as an analogy of trident, I was using it as an example of faulty logic.
For myself, the jury is out regarding trident, but your argument is completely uncompelling.
For myself, the jury is out regarding trident, but your argument is completely uncompelling.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course nuclear weapons are terrible but that's the point.
I'm a mafia boss. If anyone crosses me I make sure I take horrific vengeance. Nobody crosses me.
It's a sad fact, but in diplomatic circles nuclear states are treated differently.
I'm a mafia boss. If anyone crosses me I make sure I take horrific vengeance. Nobody crosses me.
It's a sad fact, but in diplomatic circles nuclear states are treated differently.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bhr
And since I feel like arguing the toss, this assertion (upon which your arguement rests) is false.
The adversary does not need to consider that you will use nukes. It is sufficient simply to provide the possibility that they might be used. Since the consequence of their use is so drastic, even a small probability of use can not be ignored.
Bottom line, its the usual 'want peace, prepare for war' situation.
And since you ask:
Honestly? Pretty fanciful scenario that the remaining part of our command and control structure would be able to determine that it was the act of a single rogue individual. Clearly it would be morally reprehensible to nuke a thrid party just because some nutter has aquired a weapon.
But lets assume that there is clear incontravertable evidence that a particular state is responsible for London being nuked. Yes, deterrance has failed... but that doesn't mean the system is pointless. We would respond, until certain that the adversary could not repeat the attack. Such a response would probably requires the use of our nuclear arsenal. As someone that doesn't live in London, but a fair way away and upwind, I would not want an emboldened enemy to be left with any military capability whatsoever.
If there's going to be more massive civilian casualties, rather them than us. Give me the button, I'd press it in a heartbeat.
All the adversary needs to know is that some people think like me.... and thats a major factor in keeping that first nuke from arriving in the first place.
Ergo, deterrance is a viable strategy.
pb
The point that has been made previously is that deterrence only works if your adversary considers you will use your nukes.
The adversary does not need to consider that you will use nukes. It is sufficient simply to provide the possibility that they might be used. Since the consequence of their use is so drastic, even a small probability of use can not be ignored.
Bottom line, its the usual 'want peace, prepare for war' situation.
And since you ask:
A rogue Iranian General hits London with a single nuke what is our response?
Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?
What purpose does it serve?
Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?
To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.
Do we as you suggest unleash the entire nuclear arsenal on Iran?
What purpose does it serve?
Do we kill several million innocent Iranians to try and get the guy that hit us?
To me that is morally equivalent to worst war crimes in history.
But lets assume that there is clear incontravertable evidence that a particular state is responsible for London being nuked. Yes, deterrance has failed... but that doesn't mean the system is pointless. We would respond, until certain that the adversary could not repeat the attack. Such a response would probably requires the use of our nuclear arsenal. As someone that doesn't live in London, but a fair way away and upwind, I would not want an emboldened enemy to be left with any military capability whatsoever.
If there's going to be more massive civilian casualties, rather them than us. Give me the button, I'd press it in a heartbeat.
All the adversary needs to know is that some people think like me.... and thats a major factor in keeping that first nuke from arriving in the first place.
Ergo, deterrance is a viable strategy.
pb
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave up taking BHR's options fairly quickly, as has been said, the worry of being labeled a war criminal does not stop politicians doing anything!
Many many folks tell me that nukes are no deterrence at all, but then fail to point out the nuclear states that have been directly invaded or attacked recently!. On the other hand, is is easy to reel off twenty or thirty conflicts happening in non nuclear states in fairly recent history.
No matter how loony any despot is considered, none of them have gone nuclear, or risked it being unleashed on their state.
I suppose Cuba was the first demonstration of very tough talk, but with constant negotiations in the background to avoid going all the way. Both sides came out looking good (to their own side), but both had given in (the Americans kept their withdrawals quiet though).
While it is nice and polite to do lots of talking on why nukes are not needed, sadly the world does not work that way in reality IMHO.
On the other hand, and thinking holistically, nukes are a bit like the royal family in that they are not asked to do very much, but still bring revenue by just being here (revenue in political and industrial terms)
Many many folks tell me that nukes are no deterrence at all, but then fail to point out the nuclear states that have been directly invaded or attacked recently!. On the other hand, is is easy to reel off twenty or thirty conflicts happening in non nuclear states in fairly recent history.
No matter how loony any despot is considered, none of them have gone nuclear, or risked it being unleashed on their state.
I suppose Cuba was the first demonstration of very tough talk, but with constant negotiations in the background to avoid going all the way. Both sides came out looking good (to their own side), but both had given in (the Americans kept their withdrawals quiet though).
While it is nice and polite to do lots of talking on why nukes are not needed, sadly the world does not work that way in reality IMHO.
On the other hand, and thinking holistically, nukes are a bit like the royal family in that they are not asked to do very much, but still bring revenue by just being here (revenue in political and industrial terms)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BS, there is a certain amount of thought that Indonesia stepped back from a full blown war during Confrontation because they suspected we might have gone nuclear.
Remember this was only 19 years after first use.
A nuclear storage area had been built at Tengah.
The 8 Victors had been replaced by 4 Vulcans.
Four Vulcans were a wholly inadequate and probably ineffective conventional bombing force. Any logical opponent could only draw the conclusion that they were for nuclear operations.
It could be argued therefore that ownership of nuclear weapons detered a conventional attack.
Remember this was only 19 years after first use.
A nuclear storage area had been built at Tengah.
The 8 Victors had been replaced by 4 Vulcans.
Four Vulcans were a wholly inadequate and probably ineffective conventional bombing force. Any logical opponent could only draw the conclusion that they were for nuclear operations.
It could be argued therefore that ownership of nuclear weapons detered a conventional attack.
BS, there is a certain amount of thought that Indonesia stepped back from a full blown war during Confrontation because they suspected we might have gone nuclear.
Remember this was only 19 years after first use.
A nuclear storage area had been built at Tengah.
The 8 Victors had been replaced by 4 Vulcans.
Four Vulcans were a wholly inadequate and probably ineffective conventional bombing force. Any logical opponent could only draw the conclusion that they were for nuclear operations.
It could be argued therefore that ownership of nuclear weapons detered a conventional attack.
Remember this was only 19 years after first use.
A nuclear storage area had been built at Tengah.
The 8 Victors had been replaced by 4 Vulcans.
Four Vulcans were a wholly inadequate and probably ineffective conventional bombing force. Any logical opponent could only draw the conclusion that they were for nuclear operations.
It could be argued therefore that ownership of nuclear weapons detered a conventional attack.
We simply do not know what conflicts have been prevented as a result of being a member of the nuclear club. So for that reason it is a good thing to have, as I said earlier it isn't that expensive.
To remove the nuclear deterrent is akin to fighting with one hand tied behind your back, terribly British and sporting don't you know, but not very good when the other chap has a baseball bat!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a terrorist was to get hold of a nuke and then 'let it off' in say London, or Tel Aviv, how would we know who to nuke in retaliation?
Maybe they'd leave a card?
Maybe they'd leave a card?
