Or a paper deterrent, such as the kind Saddam Hussein had. :p
PS:
Or no deterrent, which is what the Ukraine has/had.

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...............

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.

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.

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? :p

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.

It is actually logical.

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.

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.......

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :uhoh: :eek:

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.

Hmmm.

Holy Loch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Lo...ly_Loch_06.jpg

Why?

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.

Fox3

I know where and what Holy Loch is/used to be. I was merely wondering why the good captain was so adamant there was a boat in it and vexed about it.

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.

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.........

While this thread has had some very detailed or technical replies, the basic fact that Britain couldn't rely on ANY aircraft borne deterrent can't be changed.
If we were talking of North Korea then the airfields would be secure places, and would be protected by an IADS. We are talking about the UK, with carriers that would require most of their air compliment to protect themselves from a major adversary and airfields that are very easy to disable.

It seems to always come as a surprise to some that the RAF could be stopped in its tracks very quickly. I've heard lots of tales of tactics using low, medium and high altitude. Heard about DAS and evasive manoeuvres but none of these worried me. I still knew the UK was a free democracy, had only a few air bases and nowhere near enough RAF regiment to protect them from organised attack.
The RAF regiment/RAF FP don't even have enough manpower to protect airfields from rifle/grenade attack, let alone anything a bit more powerful of with a slightly longer range.
The new F35 may have super duper stealth and an advanced DAS suit, but sadly that won't help an aircraft that needs to fly from a known I'm moveable base, and use a known immovable runway.
Even something that could realistically disperse like the harriers could (with non heavy loads/fuel weights) are easy to find and track in today's western society with nothing more complex than an iPhone.

Let's not kid ourselves that in an all out conflict against an organised opponent that any RAF airfield would be operational for very long. The saddest part is that by only causing very limited damage the effects would be disproportionate as the RAF has been being stripped of its damage repair capabilities in successive defence budgets.

Many of you will have seen for yourselves that SF can quite easily get themselves inside an RAF station. Some posters here have come face to face with SF on top of or within buildings on the station during exercises. When the SF are using live rounds and have indirect fire weapons it's easy to see just how vulnerable an RAF station really is.

An airborne deterrent in a Western society with free movement just isn't a credible option IMHO. It's not even a question of numbers or cost, it's simply the fact it wouldn't work. The fact we don't have an air delivered weapon, enough aircraft or a training system seem to pale in comparison.

Some people have convinced themselves that abolishing Trident means more money for conventional forces. In reality, the conventional forces will just continue to be cut as they always do, and BOTH lots of money will go into paying for things that buy Tory votes like pensions or a national care service.

New UK Defense Agency to Oversee Nuclear Missile Subs Construction

LONDON - A new British Ministry of Defence agency being set up to oversee the construction of a fleet of nuclear missile submarines for the Royal Navy will start operations next April with ex-railway construction boss Robert Holden named as the interim chairman.

In an annual update to Parliament on progress with Britain’s £31 billion (US $38.4 billion) nuclear deterrent program, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that subject to formal approval staff currently employed on the project at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization will start moving across to the new executive agency from April 1.

“The new body will undergo a process of transformation and be optimized for submarine delivery and support under the leadership of a new CEO that MoD now intends to recruit. To assist in the process of establishing the body, Robert Holden has been appointed as interim chairman,” Fallon told lawmakers in a report Dec. 20.

Holden’s LinkedIn entry describes him as holding a number of non-executive and consultancy roles. His assignments in the UK cover some of the nation’s largest infrastructure programs, including work on High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 rail programs. He was also chairman of Crossrail, a major project involving the construction of a new rail line across London. The executive has also worked on projects associated with the Royal Navy Type 26 frigate and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier programs and has been involved in several aspects of the nuclear industry, including in his early career working at what is now BAE Systems submarine yard in northwest England.....

there's another 6-12 months wasted while they get new emails, business cards, offices and titles....................

Huh?
 

So, if we can do this for a sub procurement, what's stopping us doing it for a carrier or fighter or MPA? I suppose it's one way of focusing attention on the job in hand. I wonder what DE&S think of this?!

Apologies if this has been mentioned. I've skim read the thread and don't think I've seen it...

The UK government has gone down the road of Trident because it is a credible 'second strike' system the whole point of which would only be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK or one of its allies that warrants a full scale nuclear response. An aggressor does not know where the return volley will come from therefore can never target it as part of the first strike. There in lies the deterrent. If the Nuclear deterrent lies with aircraft carriers, the whereabouts of which are easily found, then they can be targeted, which destroys the actual deterrent part. I guess what I'm saying is, that if we want a deterrent (and I think we definitely should have one!) then it has to be a second strike system to be effective and therefore has to be a boomer.

That's because it has been done to death. If you can't be bothered to read this and the other extant threads on the subject, and want to start to regurgitate the same vast amount of discussion on the subject again, please don't.......

Otherwise it will end up being retitled the "Trident Hamsterwheel".....

Yes, please desist from discussion and leave the thread clear for ORAC to continue with his pasting of news articles.

How much is it costing again?
 

Trident replacement? How much? I've just driven home on an unlit A road where the white lines have long ago faded out, no cats eyes and everyone except me drives at 80.
Better spent public money......

Our pot holes have bits of tarmac around them

You don't know you're born!

Our potholes are sold in Australia as fish ponds.

'“defense diversification strategy” in which high-skilled defense workers would be retrained for industries like health technology.'

What if they don't want to be? Or indeed have no transferable skills, shipbuilding and surgery having relatively little in common.

Do you really think the individual will have any choice in Corbyn's Marxist dystopia? It will be like his beloved East Germany - a land where people liked Marxism so much they had to shoot them to stop them leaving.

We no longer can afford an SSBN based nuclear deterrent. The error was made many years ago when we became reliant on US missile and targeting technology. A pan European approach with France would have been the better option. Corbyn is a realist. The UK will shortly lose many friends as BREXIT will have impacts far beyond the EU, Trumps America first policy means the "special relationship" is dead. Trump will go the way which serves the US best. And who can blame him for that.
We need to spend the cash on increased conventional forces instead. A blue water navy of Frigates and Destroyers. SSNs equipped with cruise missiles. why not a nuclear tipped Tomahawk or similar. Not a global reach weapon but flexible and threat multiplied.by the number of platforms.

According to the Times the Defence Committee has said the RN was working with only 2 active SSBN's for the last year - the other two are in deep maintenance. The two active boats have been working shift on & shift off......

The Times article mentioned above.
Repairs left two in four Trident subs out of action

One is in a 3 yr +++ refurb which is 9 months over already.