NAO Report.

[NutLoose]

The deterrent is aimed at the threat that never really went away and is now re-emerging.

The Ukraine proved that, do you think Russia would have walked into Crimea if the Ukraine had not given away that deterrent on a few false promise from the good old USA and UK PLC. And that started with him calling the Wests bluff and sounding us out over Georgia.. the fact we stood by and did nothing meant he could advance his aims.

[Heathrow Harry]

which, of course, is why N Korea is developing its nuclear strike capacity as fast as it can

It makes sense ............................

And if I was Iranian I'd be doing the same

[Chinny Crewman]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

FFS not again! This has been done to death, not least in the LibDem-led review.


1. You don't have an IND to deter Achmed the Awful and his suitcase. You deter him (insofar as you can) with a big tub of lard / pile of bacon butties.
2. That is not the threat the deterrent is aimed at. The deterrent is aimed at the threat that never really went away and is now re-emerging.
3. The alternative that people think exist - yes, you, TLAM types - actually doesn't and is non-trivial to create, operate and support.
4. Any money saved on IND will go straight to the gaping maw of skools n ospiculs, innit. There is zero chance of it being reinvested in defence.

You are confusing the argument NAB, Arclite wasn’t advocating unilateral disarmament only a cheaper form of deterrent. The problem with the Cabinet Office review you refer to is that it was predicated on the current nuclear posture adopted by HMG. The question is do we still need the ability to inflict mass losses and maintain a second strike ability? Des Browne stated in 2007 that the re-emergence of a nuclear threat could outstrip our ability to regenerate a deterrent if we mothball it. This suggests that back then HMG didn’t consider the UK to be at threat of a nuclear attack. Does it still consider this to be the case? (I understand the need for ambiguity as a part of the deterrent but saying nothing feeds into the ‘waste of money’ argument). I appreciate your post was rather flippant however:

1. Apparently we do not have sufficient funds to purchase enough lard/bacon. So what do we spend the money on Successor or butties?
2. Did the threat never go away, is it re-emerging? (see Des Browne comments above). The Ukraine argument from others doesn’t really add up as they unilaterally disarmed and that is not being argued for here.
3. You are correct however change the nuclear posture and several other delivery systems become cheaper to create, operate and support.
4. Quite possibly but HMG has committed to 2% of GDP for defence and the IND is funded out of the defence budget so we would hope savings would remain within the budget. We have little choice other than take politicians at their word and hold them to account at the ballot box.

For what it’s worth I think we should maintain the current posture and continue developing Successor but I’m not sure what to get rid of to fund it?