The question was
Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident? Cruise missiles seem to be within the technological reach of a wide range of nations, and we have previously built medium and long-range aircraft capable of getting them within reach of a fair number of targets, so for me the answer is possibly...............whether it is better than SSBNs is another question. For this question it turns on whether it is cheaper, not whether it is technologically possible (it seems it is) or better (not part of the original question). And as for cheaper, no idea! |
Posted by Courtney Mil
Quote: Originally Posted by Malcrf Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French! Erm, do you mind if you don't? |
Originally Posted by malcrf
(Post 9078927)
For this question it turns on whether it is cheaper, not whether it is technologically possible (it seems it is) or better (not part of the original question). And as for cheaper, no idea!
If your criterion of successful deterrence is to be able to deliver a bucket of sunshine to an unspecified target, without much consideration of defences or potential vulnerability of that deterrent to an attack, that's one thing. Many describe that as the flatten Tehran / Pyongyang / Paris:} option. If on the other hand you consider deterrence to be against a much more capable threat, the old Moscow criterion (particularly given current trends) is rather hard to argue against. It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like..... |
Cruise missiles seem to be within the technological reach of a wide range of nations, and we have previously built medium and long-range aircraft capable of getting them within reach of a fair number of targets, so for me the answer is possibly...............whether it is better than SSBNs is another question. |
It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like..... However if you are only going to consider cost if you are comparing like with like then you're both narrowing the debate incredibly, and probably being rather unrealistic. The question remains would an RAF based deterrent offer sufficient deterrence regardless of whether it is as much of a deterrent as Trident, whilst costing less. Refusing to consider non like for like options is ignoring the question. And one has to wonder whether not having an independent nuclear deterrent is much of a deterrent at all.............................. |
Land(ish) based?
Just a thought, which will almost certainly be pooh-poohed, but still worthy of brief consideration:
In light of the fact that the UK has horrendous debts, and really can't afford to do anything expensive, new delivery mechanisms for these weapons are more likely to succeed politically if they are cheaper. How about putting the missiles in land-based silos? The missiles have a 7000km range, I believe, so that's enough to reach pretty much anyone that might feasibly need a nuclear spanking from the UK. No need to target any of the Americas, I don't see any of those states becoming nuclear-armed and belligerent during the remaining life of the Trident D5. Surely land based silos are much cheaper than nuclear submarines. The even cheaper option would be to just park the existing boats in dockyards and fire them from there, if technically feasible. Of course they would be vulnerable to sabotage or a surprise first strike, but then so is a submarine to some extent. If they are geographically dispersed, an enemy would need to take all of them out simultaneously. The Russians, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese all have land-based long-range missiles. Even though all of those countries are much larger than the UK (and hence can hide the missiles somewhat better), UK has a fairly wide spread of sovereign territory around the world that most of the others don't have. The UK's atomic weapons are now of a strategic nature only, and either will trigger a massive retaliation if used, or are themselves a massive retaliation. Once the missiles in the submarine(s) currently on patrol have been launched, that's yer lot. It's not like they'll tootle off to King's Bay to be re-armed. They are therefore a deterrent weapon. Would a potential aggressor really be able to wipe out say 4 locations simultaneously? Hell of a gamble to make, both ways. Fail to take them all out and you will be annihilated. Fail to prevent them all being taken out, and the UK will be annihilated. But annihilation is pretty much guaranteed anyway. |
May I very strongly suggest anyone interested in this reads the paper from 2006 when the replacement for Trident was first mooted.
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf |
Jimlad,
I think most people here understand the obvious advantages of SLBMs, so me real need to set us homework. Again, the exam question here was COULD not SHOULD. It's not necessarily about what the strategically superior option is, it's also about a number of interesting factors in the fiscal and political arenas. No one is trying to take away the RN's ownership of this important role, just enjoying considering the question. Thank you for the links, though. I suspect the Government will want to ask the questions again; a lot changes in ten years - not least the answer they may want from a review. NAB, I would hope we only fire nukes at SPECIFIED targets. |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9079084)
Again, the exam question here was COULD not SHOULD.
|
Originally Posted by Jimlad1
(Post 9079009)
May I very strongly suggest anyone interested in this reads the paper from 2006 when the replacement for Trident was first mooted.
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf |
Not a terribly convincing government papper from Blair and his mates in 2006. It raised a lot of questions in my mind. Just a couple for now.
The big elephant is the statement made in 06 that it would take 17 years to field and the extant system would be out of service in the early 2020s. Why didn't they do anything about it then before it was too late - especially considering the statement that life extensions were unlikely to be effective or for particularly long. We now have fewer that 10 years to decide upon a system and get it into service. The whole thing was clearly written to support only one option and to discount the others on cost and effectiveness grounds. SSBN is the obvious answer, but the other choices cited were so obviously flawed. The air option, for example, was 20 airliners carrying nukes, with the attached claim that they're easy to shoot down. Really? Whilst they include the costs of building bases for the air option, they have omitted to include the cost of emptying, cleaning and then rebuilding Faslane and Coleport. Oops. Way to much political spin in there to be convincing. |
LoneWolf,
I agree 100%. I was just establishing the exam question, not supporting the posit. |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9079133)
...government paper from Blair and his mates in 2006.
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9079133)
Way to much political spin in there to be convincing.
|
"I think most people here understand the obvious advantages of SLBMs, so me real need to set us homework. "
I'm not setting homework, I'm offering links to information that helps explain the HMG view on the case. This is a view thats not changed in over 50 years by the way, so its clearly got some legs! If you think its homework, you don't have to do it, but you can have detention and write 'I am a naughty crab' 617 times before you can go home. :E |
Roadster,
I see it now. Thank you. :ok: Jimlad, The conclusions are undoubtedly correct, the vehicle for getting the correct political answer is clearly as bent as an Aussie fast ball. I'll do my lines tomorrow. Honest. :cool: |
Perhaps I've missed it by scanning this thread too quickly - but has no one mentioned TASM? A huge amount of work was devoted to the development of TASM in the 1990s to replace WE 177 as a free-fall weapon.
|
he big elephant is the statement made in 06 that it would take 17 years to field and the extant system would be out of service in the early 2020s. Why didn't they do anything about it then before it was too late - especially considering the statement that life extensions were unlikely to be effective or for particularly long. We now have fewer that 10 years to decide upon a system and get it into service. e.g......... Defence secretary publishes update on progress with Trident replacement | Nuclear Information Service See pages 19-21.... http://researchbriefings.files.parli...26/SN06526.pdf |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9079084)
NAB, I would hope we only fire nukes at SPECIFIED targets. https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/bomb.jpg |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 9079483)
they have done something. About £1B has been spent since
|
Roadster, you haven't considered land prices in UK nor the cost of the public enquiry. We have yet to publish the GW 2 report.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.