UK Future Deterrrent.
 

Discussion of the UK position re: Trident replacement on the BBC News website here, which may be of interest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4804144.stm

Conan

Are the days gone when merely being a nuclear power gave you a seat at the table?

Break out the sharpened mangos. :hmm:

Dear all,

Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

Cheers

BHR

Yes, is the simple answer.

Key to world stability is nukes. (talking in terms of WW3, obviously we will continue to have smaller conflicts even with a deterrent)

Cue the Catch 22 replies :ok:

G126,

"Key to world stability is nukes"

Do you care to elaborate on this?

Cheers

BHR

The fear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has help prevent further world conflict, which is why the cold war never really got any more than tepid. Admittedly smaller proxy-wars did still occur, but no conflict on a WW2 scale between large developed nations since their development is a fairly good track record (so far).

I had a multiple email exchange with a writer on the Sunday Times about the fact that his article on the above suggested that Astute was procured to replace the Vanguard boats...:hmm:

G126,

Lets ignore the fact that MAD was not the reason for no nuclear exchange in the last 60 years and instead simply deal with the present and the future.

What purpose does a Nuclear Deterrent serve for the UK in the future?

Who does it deter and from doing what?

Cheers

BHR

A nuclear deterrent gives us the ability to defend ourselves and (as it says on the tin) deter those states who have/are developing weapons, from using them. You only have to look at the Dr. Khan network of recent years, demonstrating the modern proliferation of nuclear weapons to prove that the world does not yet have complete control over who develops nuclear weapons.

As for whom we are to deter, North Korea I would initially suggest, as they are producing missiles with greater and greater ranges. And there are a whole host of states queuing up to 'have a pop'. And are you saying you can predict who or what will appear in the next five, ten or even twenty years? Nuclear weapons are here now; we must come to terms with that. As Thatcher said, "You do not cancel your insurance policy, just because there has been a sudden decrease of burglaries in your neighborhood."

And as for the Cold War, what would you suggest was the reason for the relative stability was? Please don't suggest bi-polarity. :E

Any right minded logical analysis of the world today would surely come to the conclusion that if a nation has a nuclear capability it would be foolhardy to unilaterally give it up.

But do we need to maintain it in an expensive single role submarine? Would it not make sense to deploy the weapon on a more flexible multi-role platform?

Discuss .....

Impiger,

I believe you are right to question if we need single role assets to deliver a nuclear capability, but I also believe that we absolutely DO need a nuclear option. Leaving aside the means of delivery, possession of a credible nuclear option gives the Irans and North Koreas of this world pause for thought should they contemplate any aggressive action against us, our interests and our allies.

As for delivery, a submarine does have that handy capability to creep around the globe undetected. Not too many other ways of achieving global reach for a nation like ours. Carriers are all very well, but they are vulnerable without the full monty of screening vessels and aircraft, and that makes them pretty expensive.

Its just my opinion of course, and our well beloved government will have our best interests at heart. I'll rest easy in my bed tonight knowing just how many impressive ministers will be considering our nuclear defence option.

Of course the other question of delivery is if we were to use a 'flexible multi-role platform', then how much will it cost to implement a new/ more of a current platform, or do we over stretch our already grossily over-stretched resources. All this will be in addition to the cost of producing a new system anyway.

So we might as well let Iran have their nukes then. After all, they've threatened nuclear powers (Israel & USA) so, assuming that MAD is so secure, Iran won't be using any nukes they develop. If they can't use them, why not let them have them and place a huge financial burden on their country to no benefit.

Of course, MAD may not be such an assured path to peace, which would explain why the world is so worried about Iran...:uhoh:

Impiger.
There is no platform, other than a B2, that can give the same worldwide coverage combined with likelyhood of getting to target. Not by a long shot. Not even if they brought back Vulcan.
This combined with the difficulties of launching a nuclear attack from a host nation.

Sad but true. I heard a figure of £20Bn for trident replacement being bandied around on the Jeremy Vine show today. IIRC a B2 comes in at £0.5Bn a pop. Add to that a decent stand-off weapon and i reckon £20bn would buy you a couple of squadrons of B2's plus the weapons. Just the thing to pump some morale back into the RAF. However the Likelihood of the Yanks selling the UK Spirit is about the same as me getting an hour on the haulo-deck with Capt Janeway and 7 of 9 :E

I'm trying hard not to answer my own question and let the more cerebral Pruners make some points but we should at least acknowledge that a new system (either missile or submarine or both) is inevitably on the list of jolly expensive things to procure in the next few years and it will have an extremely distorting effect on the rest of the equipment programme.

So how do we get the best/cost effective solution? Single role, submerged delivery with a global reach is clearly one way. How about a nuke option for TLAM and then multi-platform it - T45 and ASTUTE for example or at the risk of exciting the BLUE STEEL club how about a Stormshadow launched from a Nimrod MRA4 - good reach when the mother is aerial refuelled even if speed of response might be a bit more sluggish (assuming the submerged bomber is in the right ocean). Even more futuristic are some of the things that were thought about for FOAS - some sort of cruise missile deployed from the ramp of an A400M that powers up as it falls away from mother. Come on chaps lets have some original, but sensible, thought!

Unfortunately for MAD, which has worked up until now, there is one slight flaw when it comes to Iran et al. That is: they're mad. Stark raving mad. We are now moving from conventional warfare to a new kind of warfare in all aspects including political warfare. But as I said, it sure is worth keeping that insurance policy.

Let's look at it like this. UK loses its deterrent. Iran creates its own. Iran improves it to a standard where they can strike the UK. Who now holds all the cards? Iran: you have one week to leave all Muslim countries, UK, or we nuke you. What choice do we have then? Iran (or whoever) would then hold more political and physical might than the UK.

As for the RAF/Navy holding the all the toys debate, my personal views aside, a decision was made a number of years ago, whether it be from a beancounter perspective or 'lets have the most effective deterrent we can' perspective (ha) and that decision is unlikely to have changed in recent years as the purse strings get tighter and tighter and the deterrent becomes less relevant and less justifiable to Joe Public post-Cold War.

Easiest decision for TB? Politically and Economically: keep the deterrent. Keep it with the Navy.

Original thoughts: maybe a surface based ship launched missile? They are all floating about anyway and are capable of firing cruise missiles. Why not change a couple of warheads around? Maybe an easy target on the surface though? :hmm:

Not trying to be funny althnick, but you are way out on your figures.
20bn gets you a couple of sqns of JSF not B2. Thats before we talk about through life costs.

Nimrod does not have realistic good reach unless host nation supported. How do you attack North Korea for example.
Do you think Japan would let you launch a Nuclear attack from their territory?
V boat does not need to be in correct ocean. That's the point.

Surface ships are vulnerable, as are TLAM, though an Astute launched Nuc has its advantages.

Do we need a deterrent.....def But I remember a dit I heard on the Staff Course in which the Poseidon Submarines had been operational for a number of years but hadn't taken delivery of any missiles...the boats had been sailing around declaring a nucleur deterrent but didn't actually have one....the deterrent was in the fact that we declared we had a deterrent..