Alternatives to Trident: New Paper
Or a paper deterrent, such as the kind Saddam Hussein had. 
PS:
Or no deterrent, which is what the Ukraine has/had.
PS:
Or no deterrent, which is what the Ukraine has/had.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Feb 2015 at 16:11.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Saddam DID have "weapons of mass destruction" we just haven't found
them yet (source T Blair, The Bush memorial Library etc)
I'm with Wolf on this one
"The very uncertainty is an advantage: will they or won't they?"
I know Ronnie R scared the s*** out of me and I suspect he REALLY spooked the Russians...............
them yet (source T Blair, The Bush memorial Library etc)
I'm with Wolf on this one
"The very uncertainty is an advantage: will they or won't they?"
I know Ronnie R scared the s*** out of me and I suspect he REALLY spooked the Russians...............
Harry, while the usual anecdotes in re Saddam's guessing incorrectly on two Bush's intentions are popular, what I had in mind with that sound byte is based on some of the output of the interview / interrogation with Saddam after he was captured and before he was hanged.
One of the points raised was why he'd been playing the whole shell game with the UN / Sanctions / Cease Fire Agreement / Inspections of 1991 and beyond. Among other things it had to do with his bluff/deterrent posture towards Iran, and providing them with 'uncertainty' in his posing / posturing vis a vis his major regional rival.
Granted, that's not a nuclear deterrent in the classic sense of when someone knows for darned sure that you have nukes, but he had used chemical weapons on them before ... so perhaps that is a lesser included case of "deterrent" if he could convince them of possession of that level of nastiness.
I may be a lone ranger in the following, but I cannot stand the use of the imprecise term "weapons of mass destruction" and never have liked it, preferring the older term 'NBC' which addressed the Nuke/Bio/Chem weapons. While all are nasty, each is nasty in a particular way and I don't like the semantic games people played with the general term.
A "WMD" deterrent isn't as clear a deterrent posture as a nuclear deterrent.
I might gas you.
I might nuke you.
Two significantly different threats/challenges to address, two very different risks to manage.
Apply this point to the actual topic of the thread, which is a submarine based deterrent force.
It really doesn't do the trick if it's gas.
One of the points raised was why he'd been playing the whole shell game with the UN / Sanctions / Cease Fire Agreement / Inspections of 1991 and beyond. Among other things it had to do with his bluff/deterrent posture towards Iran, and providing them with 'uncertainty' in his posing / posturing vis a vis his major regional rival.
Granted, that's not a nuclear deterrent in the classic sense of when someone knows for darned sure that you have nukes, but he had used chemical weapons on them before ... so perhaps that is a lesser included case of "deterrent" if he could convince them of possession of that level of nastiness.
I may be a lone ranger in the following, but I cannot stand the use of the imprecise term "weapons of mass destruction" and never have liked it, preferring the older term 'NBC' which addressed the Nuke/Bio/Chem weapons. While all are nasty, each is nasty in a particular way and I don't like the semantic games people played with the general term.
A "WMD" deterrent isn't as clear a deterrent posture as a nuclear deterrent.
I might gas you.
I might nuke you.
Two significantly different threats/challenges to address, two very different risks to manage.
Apply this point to the actual topic of the thread, which is a submarine based deterrent force.
It really doesn't do the trick if it's gas.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Feb 2015 at 17:14.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several posters cite the uncertainty of response as strengthening the deterrent value of a national nuclear capability. That is neither logical nor credible. Faced with the options that a potential target MAY respond to an attack, or WILL respond to an attack, which is the more likely to make an aggressor think twice?
Uncertainty is only an advantage if it concerns the question of whether or not you actally possess the capability, as in the case of S Hussain.
Uncertainty is only an advantage if it concerns the question of whether or not you actally possess the capability, as in the case of S Hussain.
Last edited by Genstabler; 26th Feb 2015 at 11:07.
Disagree.
In the case of nuclear, it's equivalent, since you don't know and the damage of guessing wrong is prohibitive.
If other sorts of nastiness, the risk of being wrong doesn't exact the same price.
You can't demonstrate with complete certainty that "you will use nukes" without actually using them or so demonstrating. Any assertion is political rhetoric/speech, and must be treated as such (because that's the level at which this whole thing operates). What adds credibility to your deterrent is having systems that work, and that are known to work.
Why would anyone go to the expense of making and maintaining them if you won't use them under at least one circumstance, if not a variety of scenarios?
Will use? Certainty?
The only people who have used nukes are the US in 1945 before the deterrence game was even begun. Thus, from your expressed point of view, nobody has a credible deterrent (to achieve your absurd credibility standard) other than the US ... who has used two.
We both know that isn't how nuclear deterrence works.
As to any advantage Saddam's uncertainty provided, that didn't seem to work, now did it?
That is neither logical nor credible. Faced with the options that a potential target MAY respond to an attack, or WILL respond to an attack, which is the more likely to make an aggressor think twice?
If other sorts of nastiness, the risk of being wrong doesn't exact the same price.
You can't demonstrate with complete certainty that "you will use nukes" without actually using them or so demonstrating. Any assertion is political rhetoric/speech, and must be treated as such (because that's the level at which this whole thing operates). What adds credibility to your deterrent is having systems that work, and that are known to work.
Why would anyone go to the expense of making and maintaining them if you won't use them under at least one circumstance, if not a variety of scenarios?
Will use? Certainty?
The only people who have used nukes are the US in 1945 before the deterrence game was even begun. Thus, from your expressed point of view, nobody has a credible deterrent (to achieve your absurd credibility standard) other than the US ... who has used two.
We both know that isn't how nuclear deterrence works.
As to any advantage Saddam's uncertainty provided, that didn't seem to work, now did it?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf
I think we are divided by a common language to the point that we will never really understand what the other is saying. There's a useful lesson there.
As for:
"As to any advantage Saddam's uncertainty provided, that didn't seem to work, now did it?"
That demonstrates the weakness of trying to bluff your opponent when you don't have a hand. If he knows you can and will respond in kind, he will be deterred.
I think we are divided by a common language to the point that we will never really understand what the other is saying. There's a useful lesson there.
As for:
"As to any advantage Saddam's uncertainty provided, that didn't seem to work, now did it?"
That demonstrates the weakness of trying to bluff your opponent when you don't have a hand. If he knows you can and will respond in kind, he will be deterred.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several posters cite the uncertainty of response as strengthening the deterrent value of a national nuclear capability. That is neither logical nor credible.
And it doesn't just apply to the deterrent. As an example people are advised to keep their car keys out of sight from external observers. The reason being that providing a perpetrator certainty as to their location allows them to exploit that knowledge to evaluate the effort/risks in overcoming your security based on the confidence of acquiring them.
So uncertainty can increase the effectiveness of your security.
As it can increase the effectiveness of your deterrent.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
UK Boosts Submarine Assessment Funding
LONDON — Britain's Defence Ministry has increased spending on the assessment phase for a new generation of Royal Navy nuclear missile submarines.
The £285 million (US $429 million) deal primarily involves BAE Systems, but nuclear power plant builder Rolls-Royce and support provider Babcock also have small contracts. The deal covers the final phase of design work on the successor submarines to the four Vanguard-class Trident missile boats currently providing Britain's nuclear deterrent. The subs are planned to begin entering service in 2028.
A decision is due next year by the new government on whether to go ahead and build the new missile boats. "The successor program is the largest and most complex project we have ever faced. This funding will now allow us to mature the design over the next 12 months to enable us to start construction in 2016," said Tony Johns, the managing director at BAE Systems' Submarines.
More than £2 billion had been spent on the submarine's concept and assessment phase work by the end of the financial year 2013/2014 and that total continues to grow as part of a planned £3.3 billion spend ahead of approval for construction.......
LONDON — Britain's Defence Ministry has increased spending on the assessment phase for a new generation of Royal Navy nuclear missile submarines.
The £285 million (US $429 million) deal primarily involves BAE Systems, but nuclear power plant builder Rolls-Royce and support provider Babcock also have small contracts. The deal covers the final phase of design work on the successor submarines to the four Vanguard-class Trident missile boats currently providing Britain's nuclear deterrent. The subs are planned to begin entering service in 2028.
A decision is due next year by the new government on whether to go ahead and build the new missile boats. "The successor program is the largest and most complex project we have ever faced. This funding will now allow us to mature the design over the next 12 months to enable us to start construction in 2016," said Tony Johns, the managing director at BAE Systems' Submarines.
More than £2 billion had been spent on the submarine's concept and assessment phase work by the end of the financial year 2013/2014 and that total continues to grow as part of a planned £3.3 billion spend ahead of approval for construction.......
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Lone wolf, I have been told one of our premiers said he would retaliate but, my words, regretted it. That parties previous Minister of Defence, a former card carrying member said he would not.
Apparently one TB turned white after his election when he was briefed and given the codes. This is one of the first things when you enter #10 for the first time.
Would anyone ever have doubted Maggie?
Apparently one TB turned white after his election when he was briefed and given the codes. This is one of the first things when you enter #10 for the first time.
Would anyone ever have doubted Maggie?
Pontius, I'd say Dame Thatcher would have been more likely to not balk at the prospect. But I don't know for certain.
What bothers a lot of people about the nuclear deterrent game is that it very much resembles a poker game with some cards up and some hold cards.
And a lot of bluffing.
Gen:
We aren't in as much disagreement as one might think, but I do not agree with you here.
If he knows you can, me may be deterred.
Nobody knows if you will. All anyone knows is if you can or can't.
That is how having in one's possession working kit establishes the baseline for deterrence.
Do I want to risk him/her hitting that button?
I think we can agree that in Saddam's case, his only "WMD" of known quantity and/or use was gas, and the fear some folks had was that he was trying to establish a non bluff nuclear deterrent. Hence my point on his being a paper deterrent, which isn't a deterrent at all. He didn't have working kit.
If one looks at the efforts in Iran to establish working nuclear weapons, I will ask (returning to the opening post and this thread's actual topic) ...
Does Iran establishing the capability change the UK's nuclear deterrent posture? If not, whose does it influence?
What bothers a lot of people about the nuclear deterrent game is that it very much resembles a poker game with some cards up and some hold cards.
And a lot of bluffing.
Gen:
We aren't in as much disagreement as one might think, but I do not agree with you here.
If he knows you can and will respond in kind, he will be deterred.
Nobody knows if you will. All anyone knows is if you can or can't.
That is how having in one's possession working kit establishes the baseline for deterrence.
Do I want to risk him/her hitting that button?
I think we can agree that in Saddam's case, his only "WMD" of known quantity and/or use was gas, and the fear some folks had was that he was trying to establish a non bluff nuclear deterrent. Hence my point on his being a paper deterrent, which isn't a deterrent at all. He didn't have working kit.
If one looks at the efforts in Iran to establish working nuclear weapons, I will ask (returning to the opening post and this thread's actual topic) ...
Does Iran establishing the capability change the UK's nuclear deterrent posture? If not, whose does it influence?
The issue of uncertainty with nuclear use relates to the timing and necessary trigger actions, not whether they will be used at all. Potential enemies must be certain you will use nukes at some point, but not what that point is. Thus an enemy thinking of attempting to escalate gradually, or push the limits of what would cause a nuclear response would be less likely to do so if they could not be sure where the boundaries were.
I can't find the reference now, but I'm sure I read that it was official policy to portray the US President as slightly unstable for this reason. I'm pretty sure this started in the mid-1980's.
Of course, any propaganda is unnecessary if one's leader is actually senile, power-crazed, or liable to lash out randomly under pressure. This has been the case for quite a lot of nuclear armed countries most of the time since the mid-1980's
The question of a nuclear response is constantly on the minds of Russia, Iran, etc. However they probably regard the current incumbent as highly unlikely to order a first use in any circumstances, which is actually more dangerous in the longer run than the prospect that he might.
I can't find the reference now, but I'm sure I read that it was official policy to portray the US President as slightly unstable for this reason. I'm pretty sure this started in the mid-1980's.
Of course, any propaganda is unnecessary if one's leader is actually senile, power-crazed, or liable to lash out randomly under pressure. This has been the case for quite a lot of nuclear armed countries most of the time since the mid-1980's
The question of a nuclear response is constantly on the minds of Russia, Iran, etc. However they probably regard the current incumbent as highly unlikely to order a first use in any circumstances, which is actually more dangerous in the longer run than the prospect that he might.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the policy objectives of MAD was how to addess an adversary with a military command authority who was either insane enough or stupid enough to think he could go get away with it, without his command structure deciding to isolate him before he did anything highly consequential.
It's often said of Kruschev that he never understood how JFK, a man whom he considered to be a young Turk, was able to stand up against him. Actually, Kruschev was nothing more than an ill-educated bar room brawler,and a man of the soil, and it was his entourage who were able to finally defuse the situation by skilful posturing and managed withdrawal.
Whether ISIS too could be measured against the same pattern. Foolish hotheads, but backed by rational wealthy patrons in another ME entity, able to take the toys away when they start getting dangerous remains to be seen.
For the UK though; we have cut material defence whilst leaving the civilian element extant. Throwing White Papers at the enemy is about all that's left.
The fact that the enemy were able to put a submarine into Holyloch should be warning enough, the fact that we had no counter is a national disgrace.
That's what you get with a generation of professional politicians, rookies who know nothing abaout anything, and spin doctors who care only about the public perception of their actions.
I look forward to the rise of the professional soldiers who have spent the last 25 years in combat, and who know what it means to send a man to his death. When they step up and take the levers of power, I shall be able to sleep again.
For the UK, I fear it's too late.
It's often said of Kruschev that he never understood how JFK, a man whom he considered to be a young Turk, was able to stand up against him. Actually, Kruschev was nothing more than an ill-educated bar room brawler,and a man of the soil, and it was his entourage who were able to finally defuse the situation by skilful posturing and managed withdrawal.
Whether ISIS too could be measured against the same pattern. Foolish hotheads, but backed by rational wealthy patrons in another ME entity, able to take the toys away when they start getting dangerous remains to be seen.
For the UK though; we have cut material defence whilst leaving the civilian element extant. Throwing White Papers at the enemy is about all that's left.
The fact that the enemy were able to put a submarine into Holyloch should be warning enough, the fact that we had no counter is a national disgrace.
That's what you get with a generation of professional politicians, rookies who know nothing abaout anything, and spin doctors who care only about the public perception of their actions.
I look forward to the rise of the professional soldiers who have spent the last 25 years in combat, and who know what it means to send a man to his death. When they step up and take the levers of power, I shall be able to sleep again.
For the UK, I fear it's too late.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap,
"The fact that the enemy were able to put a submarine into Holyloch should be warning enough, the fact that we had no counter is a national disgrace."
When did this happen?
"The fact that the enemy were able to put a submarine into Holyloch should be warning enough, the fact that we had no counter is a national disgrace."
When did this happen?
November last year
Britain forced to ask Nato to track 'Russian submarine' in Scottish waters - Telegraph
The report only mentions "off the West coast of Scotland". That could be just off the dock at Holy Loch or 400nm off the Outer Hebrides, I don't know. If the latter, I suspect this would have been indicated by some form of words as 'no significant intrusion', which was not said. Maybe Cap knows more.
Britain forced to ask Nato to track 'Russian submarine' in Scottish waters - Telegraph
The report only mentions "off the West coast of Scotland". That could be just off the dock at Holy Loch or 400nm off the Outer Hebrides, I don't know. If the latter, I suspect this would have been indicated by some form of words as 'no significant intrusion', which was not said. Maybe Cap knows more.
Fox, while one of the assumptions in the linked paper is IMO fanciful (that is would be "easy" for India to head north and take on Pakistan with conventional forces, thus evoking a nuclear response from Pakistan) the follow on "what if Pakistan or India uses nukes and the other responds" analysis is pretty grim reading.
How does that apply to the UK's nuclear posture? Sad thing is that even if the traditional nuclear exchange that we all worried about in the Cold War never happens, the impact of even a local nuclear exchange that isn't aimed at the old school MAD, Eurocentric model, is still going to screw the whole globe.
The failures of the NPT, or maybe I should say its current status of decay, is indeed a grim prospect for the whole of civilization.
That overarching worry doubtless informs President Obama's current attempts at a deal with Iran. What I wonder at is why old Vlad isn't walking in lock step with us, and the leadership in China. I would think that the Chinese would be very concerned with nuclear proliferation. It would have a marked impact on them.
If you look at the linked analysis, the devastation to Asian, in general, and Chinese agricultural output is macabre should local powers in the South Asian and Asian sphere start lobbing buckets of sunshine at one another.
How does that apply to the UK's nuclear posture? Sad thing is that even if the traditional nuclear exchange that we all worried about in the Cold War never happens, the impact of even a local nuclear exchange that isn't aimed at the old school MAD, Eurocentric model, is still going to screw the whole globe.
The failures of the NPT, or maybe I should say its current status of decay, is indeed a grim prospect for the whole of civilization.
That overarching worry doubtless informs President Obama's current attempts at a deal with Iran. What I wonder at is why old Vlad isn't walking in lock step with us, and the leadership in China. I would think that the Chinese would be very concerned with nuclear proliferation. It would have a marked impact on them.
If you look at the linked analysis, the devastation to Asian, in general, and Chinese agricultural output is macabre should local powers in the South Asian and Asian sphere start lobbing buckets of sunshine at one another.
I'm aware of the details of a local nuclear conflict, and consider it a risk which needs to be taken seriously.
India could well get fed up with Pakistan failing to rein in its religious nutters, indeed even one more Mumbai could do it. Of course, they would have to be some kind of headcase to start anything, but the region is full of them.
Holy Loch - sorry, strictly speaking I mean HMNB Clyde in Gare Loch and RNAD Coulport just round the corner in Loch Long. Holy Loch is just across from them, where the Yanks used to be.
India could well get fed up with Pakistan failing to rein in its religious nutters, indeed even one more Mumbai could do it. Of course, they would have to be some kind of headcase to start anything, but the region is full of them.
Holy Loch - sorry, strictly speaking I mean HMNB Clyde in Gare Loch and RNAD Coulport just round the corner in Loch Long. Holy Loch is just across from them, where the Yanks used to be.
Adamant there was one there? I know not.
Vexed about it? Just about the only chance of tracking a 'boomer' is to follow it out of home port. Bye, bye second strike capability.
Vexed about it? Just about the only chance of tracking a 'boomer' is to follow it out of home port. Bye, bye second strike capability.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
BAE kicks off major nuclear submarine yard upgrade
BAE kicks off major nuclear submarine yard upgrade
LONDON — An eight-year redevelopment scheme enabling BAE Systems nuclear submarine facility to build a new generation of nuclear missile boats for the Royal Navy has got underway in northwest England. The rebuilding program at the Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, nuclear submarine yard has started with the construction of a £23 million ($36.1 million) logistics facility, BAE announced Aug 20.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the Conservative government is expected to decide next year to give the final go ahead to the Successor program aimed at replacing the four Trident missile equipped, Vanguard-class submarines, which have provided Britain's nuclear deterrent capability since 1995. The government is committed to build four Successor submarines, with steel for the first boat being cut at the BAE yard in 2016 and an inservice date of 2028.
To equip the yard for construction of the largest submarines it has ever built, between £300 and £400 million is being spent expanding and upgrading the yard. In it's 2014 update to Parliament on progress in the future nuclear deterrent, the overnment outlined its part in financing the facilities upgrade program.
The report said the Ministry of Defence had brought forward, or reprofiled, £261 million of funding into the current assessment phase offering better value for money investing in facilities at the yard. The reprofiling also allowed for long lead item ordering. "The MoD is able to re-pay the company for the cost of the facilities as building work progresses, rather than recovering the costs across the build programme as a whole. This approach is expected to reduce the cost by some £42 million from that originally planned," said the report.
BAE said the work will include a "mixture of new build projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities in what is the most significant redevelopment of the site since the 1980s." The company wouldn't provide details of the redevelopment but previous reports list a new quayside, extension of the Devonshire Dock Hall building, two new pressure hull unit facilities and refurbishing the main fabrication facility as being among the projects alongside the new logistics center. At nearly 300 meters long and over 50 meters high, the Devonshire Dock Hall where BAE assembles the submarines is already one of the largest buildings in northern England. .
Allan Day, the director of the redevelopment program at BAE Submarines, said "the infrastructure this redevelopment will provide, together with our highly skilled workforce, will be critical in delivering these submarines to the Royal Navy."
The improvement to facilities in support of the Successor program is not limited to BAE. Nuclear propulsion unit supplier Rolls-Royce is updating and refurbishing it's aging factory at Raynesway, Derby, to build the new PWR3 power plant.........
BAE kicks off major nuclear submarine yard upgrade
LONDON — An eight-year redevelopment scheme enabling BAE Systems nuclear submarine facility to build a new generation of nuclear missile boats for the Royal Navy has got underway in northwest England. The rebuilding program at the Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, nuclear submarine yard has started with the construction of a £23 million ($36.1 million) logistics facility, BAE announced Aug 20.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the Conservative government is expected to decide next year to give the final go ahead to the Successor program aimed at replacing the four Trident missile equipped, Vanguard-class submarines, which have provided Britain's nuclear deterrent capability since 1995. The government is committed to build four Successor submarines, with steel for the first boat being cut at the BAE yard in 2016 and an inservice date of 2028.
To equip the yard for construction of the largest submarines it has ever built, between £300 and £400 million is being spent expanding and upgrading the yard. In it's 2014 update to Parliament on progress in the future nuclear deterrent, the overnment outlined its part in financing the facilities upgrade program.
The report said the Ministry of Defence had brought forward, or reprofiled, £261 million of funding into the current assessment phase offering better value for money investing in facilities at the yard. The reprofiling also allowed for long lead item ordering. "The MoD is able to re-pay the company for the cost of the facilities as building work progresses, rather than recovering the costs across the build programme as a whole. This approach is expected to reduce the cost by some £42 million from that originally planned," said the report.
BAE said the work will include a "mixture of new build projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities in what is the most significant redevelopment of the site since the 1980s." The company wouldn't provide details of the redevelopment but previous reports list a new quayside, extension of the Devonshire Dock Hall building, two new pressure hull unit facilities and refurbishing the main fabrication facility as being among the projects alongside the new logistics center. At nearly 300 meters long and over 50 meters high, the Devonshire Dock Hall where BAE assembles the submarines is already one of the largest buildings in northern England. .
Allan Day, the director of the redevelopment program at BAE Submarines, said "the infrastructure this redevelopment will provide, together with our highly skilled workforce, will be critical in delivering these submarines to the Royal Navy."
The improvement to facilities in support of the Successor program is not limited to BAE. Nuclear propulsion unit supplier Rolls-Royce is updating and refurbishing it's aging factory at Raynesway, Derby, to build the new PWR3 power plant.........