The comments on the earlier post about the Liberal Democrat election manifesto got me thinking, are there cheaper alternatives than 4 new boats and a refreshed Trident?
Air Launched
We all understand that an air launched Tomahawk is unlikely to survive against a modern, integrated air defence system any air launched system would need another delivery missile. The Storm Shadow would be the obvious choice but it is a tactical system with relatively short legs. This means one would have to get the missile, its delivery aircraft and air base (whether on land or on CVF) within a short distance from the target and would of course signal our intentions because this might take some time.
Not suitable as a system of rapid retaliation against a pre-emptive attack; so whilst it could in theory be cheaper we would be severely limited in deployment options.
It is conceivable that we might find ourselves in a position where we need to attack a nuclear capable nation (or its allies) with a conventional cruise missile, they would be unable to distinguish between a conventional or nuclear warhead and this might lead to a dangerous nuclear escalation.
Ground Launched
Again, no suitable weapons exist so an expensive development programme would be needed and deployment options are even more limited than with an air launched systems. The UK does not have vast swathes of wilderness and the planning application for a series of missile silos would run into a wall of red tape!
We could of course put them on Ascension Island or make them a deployable system but usage would be signalled by having to slowly deploy them close to its target.
Surface Vessel Launched
Using a cruise missile of sorts, a new design or adaptation of an existing design but the same survivability, range and deployment issues as with an air launched system would apply. We also have very few surface ships; even fewer would be able to carry such a system.
Submarine Launched Cruise Missile
Perhaps the most realistic alternative, the Astute class would be easily adapted to carry a nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile (even though they are now out of service/production) and the same issues as survivability and closeness to target apply. There would also be a dangerous mixing of weapon types on the same boat.
Sharing
The obvious partner would be France but this option is fraught with political issues.
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile
Ticks all the boxes in terms of effect, survivability, separation from cruise missile flight profiles, reaction time and availability, the reason both the UK and France use this system is because it is the most sensible for a densely populated nation.
Accepting that this is the only sensible option we must look at ways to reduce the cost of the system as a whole. The refurbishment of missiles and warheads might actually be a modest cost because we would not actually need that many of them so the main cost lies in the submarines. The US has already embarked on the Trident II D5 Life Extension Programme to take the missile to beyond 2040 at a reported cost of approximately $800million.
Many have wondered if there are options to either extend the life of the existing 4 Vanguards but in order to carry out the work one would need to be out of action, in rotation, for some time so this would reduce the deterrent to 3 boats. 3 boats are not enough to guarantee 100% availability, however much modern engineering advances have produced low maintenance machinery. There is no way anyone is going to go down to 3 boats as a temporary measure because it would mean that 3 boats would be the new norm.
The Vanguards have 16 launch tubes and each D5 can have up to 8 warheads, the government announced in 2006 that the total warhead numbers would be cut to 160 and it might be possible to cut these even further.
The Astute class has 6 foot shallower draught than the Vanguards so inserting a missile silo ‘plug’ amidships might not be as simple as first thought but the Astute would be the obvious starting point for the design. Interestingly, the US Navy have recently ruled out using the Virginia class as a template for any Ohio replacement. That said, an extended ‘hump’ and silo plug might be able to be inserted to accommodate the extra height and one would imagine this would be a modest cost increment if a much reduced silo count was fitted.. Many of the combat systems, with the obvious exception of missile control, would be common to the two types.
Other stated costs have included a couple of billion pounds for infrastructure but what this actually comprises is not certain.
The US Navy is also facing similar issues but their Ohio class submarines will retire in roughly the same period as the Trident D5′s., that is called forward planning.
We face an unfortunate series of timing issues, the Vanguards go out of service between 2022 and 2028, much earlier than the Ohio’s and definitely earlier than the Tridents. It is worth noting that the expected service life for an Ohio class is about 44 years yet the Vanguards only 25, the Ohio class were life extended in the late nineties. The USS Alabama (of Crimson Tide fame) was commissioned in 1985, 8 years before HMS Vanguard and is expected to be withdrawn some considerable time after HMS Vanguard is decommissioned.
We have also made the assumption that from design to operational capability a Vanguard replacement will take 17 years. Because of the much shorter service life of the Vanguards we are having to make a decision much earlier than the US and will have to face some uncertainty about a Trident replacement whilst the replacement submarines are still in service.
So the question remains, accepting that a ballistic missile submarine is the only sensible and militarily/politically effective system if we ant to retain the capability, how can we reduce the costs?
The real sticking point is not the life of Trident, but Vanguard.
If we could extend the life of the Vanguard to a similar point as the Ohio class we could life extend the Trident as the US Navy is doing and take a decision on replacement of the whole lot, in conjunction with the US, much later than we are planning.
The only problem with this is that it would starve BAe of nuclear submarine work as the Astute production run finishes before a Vanguard replacement would start, maybe that is why we are in such a rush to get new ones.
Some questions need answering…
- Why do RN boats have a much shorter service life than USN boats especially given their much shorter at sea periods
- Can The Vanguards be life extended whilst maintaining continuous coverage
- What do we do when the last Tridents go out of US service from 2042 onwards
- Given the Vanguard replacement will be carrying Trident why will it take 17 years to complete a replacement
- Would it be possible to create a follow on Vanguard class, i.e. a repeat order rather than a new design
Or are there any alternatives not covered above?
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
103 Comments
Why write off sharing so rapidly ? All NATO’s non-nuclear nations, share the nuclear deterrent provided by NATO’s “nuclear powers”. That is surely the ultimate form of sharing.
Ahhh, yes, non of those nations have pretensions of “great power” status. The Dutch or Danish don’t find a need to permanent member status in the UN Security Council.
You could have a cheaper deterrent without loosing all nuclear submarine design / build skills – just buy the same boats as France and use the same missiles. OR, probably more expensive, just buy the boats and missiles direct from U.S. – either way you gain economic efficiency at the loss of ‘independence’.
Does anyone believe we keep an independent nuclear deterrent for actual military needs ? It keeps our politicians (and thus the country) in a small and exclusive club, and if we are no longer members of that club, what other clubs might we get excluded from ? Sorry, that is straying off topic…..
I like Nick Clegg. in an age of sleaze, he comes across as a genuine and well-meaning politician. But, if anything stops me dead from voting for the Liberal Democrats, it is this single issue of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
We have a small standing army, relatively few fighter aircraft and a tiny navy precisely because we have a nuclear deterrent. The value of the Trident SSLM system is not what it could do in the event of war, even though it has sufficient firepower to unleash Armageddon, but the fact that it puts off potential aggressors from attacking us.
In an era where rogue nations (no names, no pack drill) are rapidly obtaining new capabilities to develop nuclear weapons unabated, as well as the wherewithal to launch them, through intercontinental ballistic missile technology, can we really afford to give up the one thing that protects us from attack?
While the Soviet threat has receded, we live in even more dangerous time, because most rogue states are not stable enough or responsible enough to control who within their own countries can use their nuclear weapons. In short, Britain cannot abandon its nuclear weapons.
We’ve had land based cruise missiles based here, we had the air launched Blue Steel weapon and then we adopted Polaris. This was the ideal system for a small sea-faring island to protect itself, for all the reasons listed.
Of course, Trident is expensive. Unfortunately, its cost just happens to be the price of freedom. Lest we forget…
My understanding from GlobalSecurity, Navy Matters and other sites is that the US arsenal of Nuclear Tomahawk was withdrawn, not destroyed, and was partially life extended before budget cuts caused a cessation of the life extension program a few years ago. I also understand, but am not certain, Astute was designed to relatively easily take on the forward Tomahawk compatible 2X6 VLS arrangement of the Virginia Batch 3s. Tell me if this is not true…..
Try this for an alternative:
1)In exchange for the Royal Navy rights in the commingled Trident D5 inventory, the US gives over to the UK a specified number of nuclear Tomahawks that are now in storage, along with the intellectual property concerning the life extension. For the US this gives more missiles for the Trident life extension/ongoing reliability firing program, for RN a nuclear munition compatible with the in manufacture nuclear submarine design.
2) Instead of a four boat Trident based program, a eighth Astute be built followed on by a six modified Astute class each with a twelve missile VLS nuclear Tomahawk payload in addition to the existing 38 torpoedo/missile payload.
This would support a twenty two month drumbeat to keep the UK nuclear submarine industry alive, provide Aldermason continued work to sustain it, provide increased redundancy for the nuclear deterent, provide a nuclear deterent that was flexible enough to be used as a tactical nuclear weapon (note the nuclear Tomahawk has an adjustable yield and is retargetable)and achieve a high degree of commonality with the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile already bought for the Royal Navy. While strategic range, rapid strike capability, and first strike capability would be sacrificed, there are offsetting advantages, including if closer cooperation was acheived with France having the two nations having disimilar but complementary capabilities.
Also, this would be a substansial reduction in warheads and expense…..especially if the US and UK would do a weapons swap….
Any opinions?
Hi guys, just a thought…. Doesn’t the non proliferation treaty prohibit us from creating a new nuclear cabability? Only allowing us to carry on with the one we have and/or build a new version of? So can replace Trident but has to be like for like.
Jed, I don’t think you’re straying off topic at all. I think what you are saying is at the very heart of the nuclear deterrent debate. You’d have a good idea of my thoughts on the matter had my computer not decided throw a track a track the moment I hit the ‘submit comment’ button. I’ll try again and try to remember everything I wrote:
There is another alternative and that is to get rid of the Trident system once and for all. Who are we going to use it against…North Korea? Forget it, if you think for one moment that the Chinese and the Russians are going to let us drop a thermonuclear device in what is their backyard, then you are fooling yourself. All this talk of Kim Jong-il being ‘mad’, is absolute rubbish. He’s shrewd, devious, calculated, he’s also highly intelligent and unpredictable, he’s a lot of other things as well but not mad. If you believe that for one minute you are merely falling into the hands of the nuclear deterrent lobby. Try reading some documents by seasoned, foreign analysts and you might get a more sober and informed view.
How about Iran? With all that oil in the vicinity? No chance. It’s the economic powerhouse of the world, without it the current economic downturn will pale into comparison and even President Ahmadinejad knows that. He’d have an even bigger revolution on his hands as the Iranian people rose up to prevent their country becoming a radioactive wasteland. And what are you going to do when the radioactive cloud starts drifting towards Israel?
India and Pakistan? Their weapons are pointed at each other, and in the case of India, they are also looking over there shoulder at China. The only other threat comes from nuclear armed terrorists, so who do you bomb then? What if the perpetrators turn out to be Islamic extremists from the Midlands? What are you going to do? Drop a bomb on Solihull?
The very act of owning nuclear weapons makes you a target for other nuclear armed states and terrorists, it’s a simple fact.
What is a rogue state? A rogue state is any nation whose foreign policy happens to be different to that of the United States and poses a threat to its economic interests, if that isn’t true why have we not invaded Zimbabwe and liberated the people there?
If we gave up our nuclear arsenal we could afford to spend more on our conventional and intelligence capabilities. Conventional weapons can destroy nuclear facilities and stop nuclear armed terrorists in transit and minimise the radioactive contamination. Intelligence capabilities can stop terrorist groups from even getting hold of a device. That is not something you can do with an ICBM.
Jed said: “Ahhh, yes, non of those nations have pretensions of “great power” status. The Dutch or Danish don’t find a need to permanent member status in the UN Security Council.” and, “Does anyone believe we keep an independent nuclear deterrent for actual military needs ? It keeps our politicians (and thus the country) in a small and exclusive club, and if we are no longer members of that club, what other clubs might we get excluded from?”
That is what the nuclear deterrent is all about, nothing more, nothing less.
Nicholas said: “Of course, Trident is expensive. Unfortunately, its cost just happens to be the price of freedom. Lest we forget…” Forget what? That we are here to support the economic interests of the United States? Freedom? The fact that our personal liberties are more restricted now than they were during the Second World War, has Trident help maintain this freedom? Not one iota. Get rid of Trident, we can’t afford it and we can’t afford to use it, ever.
Here endeth the rant.
Rant part 2…I couldn’t hold it in.
We can’t afford more Nimrods but we can afford a Trident replacement.
We have to buy tankers through a crappy PFI scheme because they’re too expensive, but we can afford a trident replacement.
We retired the Sea Harrier and the Jaguar for cost reasons, but we can afford a Trident replacement.
There’s loads of kit we should have that we cannot afford, or we buy the cheap version….but we can afford a Trident replacement.
It was my understanding that Trident was actually fairly cheap, being spread out over such a long period of acquisition, and involves lots of high value technologies applicable elsewhere (i.e. space. It’s no coincidence that all the countries with space programmes have ballistic missiles)
The other advantage is that no practical amount of conventional weaponry (at present) can match a single SSBN.
I would suggest that having SLBMs and not using them is preferable to having larger conventional forces and being forced to use them.
Richard – with you entirely, in fact your comment echoes one I made some months ago on a different post here, except I think I swapped Solihul for Bradford !
Wayne – if we have to keep the politicians ego’s inflated with our “independent” nuclear deterrent, then I like your idea. To all those who say Tomahawk can’t penetrate a modern integrated air defence system I ask, who do you think we are firing them at ? Also, if we have got to the point of nukes, then nuking a few radar and SAM sites to clear a path to the main target should not be such a big deal.
As I have said in comments on this subject before, my balls are not crystal, and I don’t know what threats will appear in ten years time. However I would hypothesize that the current nuclear threat to the UK is a big ‘dirty bomb’ radiological threat being sailed up the Thames, Humber, Mersey etc… on a merchant ship. The would be perpetrators would be so called “non-state actors” – so who exactly do you think we are going to nuke in response ? Your not going to use Trident or Tomahawk on Afghanistan, Pakistan or even Iran on the inkling from your intelligence that the perp’s are supported / based in one of these areas.
So how about abolishing the deterrent, or maybe reducing it to a handful of torpedo tube launched Tomahawks for “special patrols” in times of tension. Spend the rest of the money on a proper para-military Coast Guard, armed Border Police and the intelligence services – because they are a bigger defence against the current nuclear threat to the UK and SSBN/SLBM. But no, we wont do it because we will be ejected from the club……
Jed
“Why write off sharing so rapidly ? All NATO’s non-nuclear nations, share the nuclear deterrent provided by NATO’s “nuclear powers”. That is surely the ultimate form of sharing.”
If you think the UK would nuke Moscow because Russia nuked Berlin you are wildly wrong, because a nuclear attack on Moscow would lead to a retaliation against London.
Wayne
Tomahawks are short ranged, our Astute Fleet would need to be east of the UK to fire, theres little chance of them surviving the first strike.
Even if they did, theres little chance of the missiles breaching GBAD around Moscow.
“including if closer cooperation was acheived with France”
France will not sacrifice Paris to avenge London, just like we would sacrifice London to avenge Paris.
Richard
Its a common arguement that some mythical Russian Chinese Alliance would prevent us from sterilising North Korea, but its rubbish.
What would they do?
Any nuclear retaliation against us would be met in kind with attacks on them.
Thats sort of the point of MAD.
Mr Fred
Capital Costs of about £20bn and operating costs of about £1.5bn.
If we assume 30 year life we get
Through life costs of about £2.5bn a year, against a defence budget of £43bn
Maybe enough to buy and run a Carrier, Airgroup and 6 Escorts.
In a world of wooden dollars, sure, we could cancel Trident and get the Navy back up to strength, but in the real world, money from Trident will go where its politicaly, not military, valuable.
Jed
“Your not going to use Trident or Tomahawk on Afghanistan, Pakistan or even Iran on the inkling from your intelligence that the perp’s are supported / based in one of these areas.”
Arent we?
I’d make sure you’ve got a clear run to the evac chopper before you say “get over it” to the dying.
“So how about abolishing the deterrent, or maybe reducing it to a handful of torpedo tube launched Tomahawks for “special patrols” in times of tension.”
In times of tension?
So every year from 1945-2010?
If we only launch “special patrols” at certain times, we could kick off a nuclear war as the other side sensibly bombs us before our nuclear fleet thats just left base bombs them.
“Spend the rest of the money on a proper para-military Coast Guard, armed Border Police”
Except it wont happen.
If politicians wanted us to have a proper border force, we would.
They dont, so we wont.
Abolishing Trident wont change that.
The money will go wheres its politicaly not military valuable.
In General
Either we have a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Force, or we have no nuclear weapons.
Theres no middle ground.
Any other solution is just a waste of time and money.
Air Launched.
Either we have a fleet of hundreds of Fast Jets with nuclear weapons attached constantly at the ready, or we lose our retaliatory capability and just have first strike capability.
If we dont want the ability to retaliate against a first strike, aircraft are great.
Ground Launched
As above, we couldnt build enough sites over large enough distances to survive an enemy first strike and retaliate effectivly.
If we want only the option on a first strike, fine, although probably costs more than air launched.
Surface Vessel Launched
Same problem, ok for a first strike, but anyone carrying out a nuclear attack against the UK would be able to prevent our fleet from getting within range to retaliate, if not sink it out right.
Submarine Launched Cruise Missile
Best idea so far, but limited range means it couldnt get close enough to ever retaliate.
Great for first strikes we want to deny carrying out.
Sharing.
LMAO
The only valid platform from which to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a submarine carrying ballistic missiles.
Theres a reason everyone else either has them or wants them.
In a rational world there are hundreds of reasons to ditch Trident but the problem is, we are not in a rational world.
@Andy and Wayne, welcome to Think Defence by the way
Dominic, I’m not thinking of a Russian/Chinese/North Korean alliance, I’m thinking from a self interest point of view. France may not want to sacrifice Paris for the sake of London, but the fact is radioactive contamination covers a huge area. It does not stop at borders, if Paris was hit, London would be contaminated whether we like it or not, as would most of Europe. If Iran threatened Paris we’d still be in the firing line. Reduce the threat, by getting rid.
With regard to costs: you said, “Through life costs of about £2.5bn a year.” The proposed Puma upgrade is costing £300million, and its been an arm-twisting session to get the b’stards to pay for that. Imagine the amount of rotary capability we could get for a £20bn outlay and £2.5bn a year, every year, we’d have better airmobile brigades than the US!
It should be no suprise that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are nuclear states. Does that not tell you anything.
We could be like Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia. All highly respected first world nations and not a nuke between them. Why are we so politically insecure as a nation that we can’t seem to live without them?
what happens to “the club” if Mr Obama gets his wish and nuclear weapons are binned?
I knowthere will be a flurry of “like that’s going to happen” responses,however it’s one of his goals, just like the never going to happen health care bill and also has he not reduced the US’s total yield again just recently.
For the record I’m on the fence, but i can’t help feeling some of the points here are valid especially the point that if we cancelled the 4 stars would get that money,there’s a £120 million deficeit in the MP’s pension pot to be sorted!!!
I think we should frighten BAe and put it out to tender, see if the price comes down, of course the british jobs for british workers gumff would be raised however they need a kick up the ar$e.
Richard
Why would the UK disarming unilateraly make Paris any safer from attack by Iran?
In regardss to wooden dollars.
Its only £1.5b a year, 2.5 included capital.
But we could have that now, it wouldnt stretch government finances to find money to double the defence budget, they simply dont want to.
Losing the nuclear weapons wouldnt be compensated by any uplift elsewhere, the money would go where it was politicaly wanted.
“Why are we so politically insecure as a nation that we can’t seem to live without them?”
Because some of us bothered to read the Soviet War plans that quite openlay stated every city in Western Europe would have been reduced to molten slag in the event of a war, unless they had their own nuclear weapons.
“Why would the UK disarming unilateraly make Paris any safer from attack by Iran?”
Because the UK tried to engineer a coup d’etat in Iran in the early 1950′s, which eventually suceeded with pressure from the US. Our current foreign policy has a greater, direct impact on Iran, compared with France. Hence, there’s less chance of Paris being a target.
“Because some of us bothered to read the Soviet War plans that quite openlay stated every city in Western Europe would have been reduced to molten slag in the event of a war, unless they had their own nuclear weapons.”
Yet this didn’t seem to affect the stance of all the European governments apart from Britain and France.
But if we get rid of our nuclear weapons, we would have to be MORE active in foreign countries, not less.
Isnt that one of the arguments, we’d be better off having spooks dealing with “rogue” groups to prevent an attack? Rather than maintaining Trident to strike back?
“Yet this didn’t seem to affect the stance of all the European governments apart from Britain and France.”
If thats there choice, thats there choice.
The issue at question is should the UK maintain nuclear weapons and if so how should they be maintained.
Not what were the foreign policy mistakes of the last 1000 years.
Dominic do you honestly think any politician of any ilk in this country has the balls to sanction a nuclear strike on a ‘terrorist group’ in a third party country, even if they have initiated a nuclear attack on us first ? Seriously now… ??
AQ smuggles small Iran supplied bomb into London… (do the 24 clock and music in your head), MI5 and 6 no nothing, surprise attack vaporises the city of London. Crises response shows no ICBM or other air tracks – so where did it come from ?
Months later what’s left of the intelligence services decide that they now know for sure that the whole thing was planned by an AQ cell out of the Sudan, with help from Iran. Iranian government says they were ‘rogue’ elements of the Revolutionary Guard, not sanctioned, and they are very sorry.
Think before answering this, do you think UK Gov would nuke Sudan or Iran in this scenario ?
You talk about Moscow and the Soviets a lot. If Russia, China or any other country with an ICBM destroyed Paris or Berlin then NATO would be required to respond in kind, its called collective security and its enshrined in the NATO charter. That’s why non-nuclear NATO nations allowed US tactical nukes to be held on their airbases to be deployed by Allied air forces.
However more to the point, in what scenario do you see Russia or China (or India or Pakistan, or Israel) launching a nuclear attack on the UK, but no one else ?
I would make the following general observations in response to JEDS comment on my previous post:
1) The United Kingdom needs a WMD/nuclear deterrent as long as there are nations/terrorist organizations that have Weapons of Mass Destruction who are potentially capable of using them. This does not mean that once has to have a balistic or first strike capable weapon, or have a great many warheads. The current cast of characters in Iran, for instance, is in my judgment quite capable of using a nuclear threat against any non nuclear nation, not likely to surrender that option once gained, and will only be deterred by a survivable WMD deterrent. This is not a question of false political manhood. These people will kill other people to get what they want, and until there is a political solution, you have to be ready to have a credible and proportional response.
2) Additional points in favor of a follow on modified Astute class (VLS for nuclear Tomahawk added)
-one of the reasons why VLS for nuclear Tomahawk was put into US submarines is the fact the VLS is outside the pressure hull, not inside the pressure hull like tube launched missiles. This provides a greater insullation for the submarine crew from warhead radiation…i.e. there is an a long term exposure problem caused by close and continuous proximity that you do not experience with land launched missiles, bombers, or even SLBMs which are contained in thicker sea pressure proof tubes isolated from working and berthing areas.
-I do not believe that there is a version of Nuclear Tomahawk qualified for torpedo tube launch. The effort that was gone through to specially qualify a version of TLAM for the Royal Navy torpoedo tube launch might have to be repeated.
-The modified Astute class would be able to take on the same mission set as the original Astutes. I think that a larger number of capable general purpose submarines makes economic sense in that presence may be maintained without the manpower and support demands of a surface group. I think a greater number of such submarines might in fact serve some of the same purposes as the “C2″ stabilisation combatant visualized in the Future Sukrface combattant studies, or at least let that mission be performed by a less expensive/capable surface combattant i.e a Global Corvette sort of vessel backed by a submarine in the wider area might suffice for a mission that would other wise take a frigate.
-the modified Astutes with VLS would have the advantage of being extremely useful even if the nuclear deterrent was abolished or reduced. The VLS tubes are compatible with a growing group of antiaircraft, antiairfield, antiarmor, missiles and dispensers. In the future, for instance, if I were the Argentines contemplating an action against the Falklands, how would they account for a nuclear submarine in the area that could hunt submarines, shoot down an aircraft, launch a runway crippling attack on airfields, lay mines,
and sink ships with a fifty missile/torpedo/weapon load. The VLS would be what makes the most advanced alternative from US research and development potentially available without requalification for torpedo tube launch.
Just some thoughts. Comments?
Wayne
“The issue at question is should the UK maintain nuclear weapons and if so how should they be maintained. Not what were the foreign policy mistakes of the last 1000 years.”
Trying to formulate a future foreign policy without looking back at historical events will mean you will simply repeat the same mistakes.
Should the UK maintain nuclear weapons? No.
And would I prefer having a hoard of spooks dealing with “rogue” groups to prevent an attack, rather than maintaining Trident to strike back? Yes I would. Intelligence organisations don’t have a radioactive half-life of 40,000 years or cause birth defects in children.
The Germans must be happy with this policy, as must the Australians, the Canadians and the Japanese, why can’t we? Its not an unachievable goal.
Nuclear weapons are WMD’s, as is Phosgene gas, Sarin and Anthrax. Why don’t we use these as weapons? They’d be just as terrifying to the victim. It would also be cheaper, or does a nuclear weapon retain some kind of moral high ground compared to chemical and biological agents?
Conventional weapons can be localised to hit purely military targets, with nuclear weapons everyone, including large numbers of civilians, will have to take a big ol’ bite of the sh*t sandwich. Ask the Japanese what they think, they’ve been on the receiving end already.
Jed
I think any politician that hasnt responded in kind against the likliest target by the end of the week will be dragged from his office and strung up on a lamp post by the angry mob.
Any politican who cant come up with a list of likely enemies better get a map and some darts.
“Think before answering this, do you think UK Gov would nuke Sudan or Iran in this scenario ?”
Both
The US invaded Afghanistan and wiped out its army, for the actions of foreign citizens who happened to live there.
If you think our response to a nuclear attack on London wouldnt be orders of magnitude more agressive, I respectfully disagree.
Especialy if they’re people who couldnt defend themselves.
“NATO would be required to respond in kind, its called collective security and its enshrined in the NATO charter.”
And my opinion of its claims is that they’d make bad toilet paper.
Do you really believe that the UK would gladly suffer the loss of London to avenge Berlin.
Rubbish.
Soviet War Plans that we would retaliate against a Soviet ally, and they are right.
We wouldnt strike Russia with nukes because they’d strike back, Russia would strike us because we’d strike back, anyone else is fair game.
The thing is, once Russia nukes the UK, realpolitik sets in.
For all intents and purposes, the UK barely exists. Why would the US suffer tens if not hundreds of millions of casualties for an ally of no military or economic use?
Tactical Nukes, deployed against soldiers, are a whole other kettle of fish.
“However more to the point, in what scenario do you see Russia or China (or India or Pakistan, or Israel) launching a nuclear attack on the UK, but no one else ?”
I dont, I see a general strike against none nuclear states in the event of war as being quite likely, because, erm, the other side said its what they intended to do.
But Who saw 11/9?
Or Operation Rosario?
Or the Fall of France?
Wayne
Multiple cruise missiles can be packed in one ballistic tube, so I’d rather see an all ballistic missile fleet, with most carrying cruise missiles.
Ballistic is still essential.
Richard
“And would I prefer having a hoard of spooks dealing with “rogue” groups to prevent an attack, rather than maintaining Trident to strike back? Yes I would. Intelligence organisations don’t have a radioactive half-life of 40,000 years or cause birth defects in children.”
And when those Rogue Groups are democraticaly elected governments?
Or even Tyrants?
Do we use spooks to overthrow them?
I also support the use of newer nuclear weapons, theres one that uses gold in its chemistry, half life of about a decade, but much stronger radiation, areas would be good as new in a century, but deadly to everything until then.
However considering people live at the only two sites where nuclear weapons were used militarily, I dont see current radiation as a long term problem.
“The Germans must be happy with this policy, as must the Australians, the Canadians and the Japanese, why can’t we? Its not an unachievable goal.”
I disagree, I’ll use my vote, you use yours, my side wins.
“Nuclear weapons are WMD’s, as is Phosgene gas, Sarin and Anthrax. Why don’t we use these as weapons? They’d be just as terrifying to the victim. It would also be cheaper, or does a nuclear weapon retain some kind of moral high ground compared to chemical and biological agents?”
I’m not against chemical/biological weapons on moral grounds, just military ones.
Chemical weapons arent anywhere near as good as strategic weapons and biological weapons are a loose cannon.
Against a nuclear missile there is no defence, stick on an isolation suit and bio/chem are irrelevent.
Obviously the civillian population would still take heavy losses from chemical weapons, biological weapons could get out of hand and wipe out half the planet.
I dont have a problem with battlefield chemical weapons.
Be pretty useful in ghanners, in some situations.
“Conventional weapons can be localised to hit purely military targets, with nuclear weapons everyone, including large numbers of civilians, will have to take a big ol’ bite of the sh*t sandwich”
Thats rather the point…
If you kill a large number of our civillians, we’ll kill a larger number of yours.
If you exterminate my populace, I’ll kill three Generals and a gaggle of a Majors doesnt have quite the same effect.
Nuclear weapons are horrible monstrous things of unthinkable proportions, I dont dispute this, since thats exactly the point.
I find tactical nukes much more worrying, because they provide stepping stones to armageddon.
Their is no cheaper deterrent, their are cheaper ways to maintain a nuclear arsenal, but none of the other methods of deploying nuclear weapons are an actual deterrent.
The V class and their SLBMs are actually the cheapest way to keep enough instant sunshine available to put people off (enough to wipe out any potential attacker), not to mention the fact that with the new flex tubes we’re designing with the americans, should the need arise, we can actually pull the nukes and fit a conventional war load.
Have updated the post with some new information and questions for your viewing pleasure!
“I find tactical nukes much more worrying, because they provide stepping stones to armageddon.”
Dominic, at least there’s one thing we can agree on…
As a card-carrying party member I am quite intrigued to find us Lib Dems the subject of discussion in this forum.
Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey came up with a paper which discussed several options some of which are covered in these comments. I submitted some suggestions to this paper and one that was not taken up has not been mentioned here either.
You wrote: “It is conceivable that we might find ourselves in a position where we need to attack a nuclear capable nation (or its allies) with a conventional cruise missile”. It is also conceivable someone might be able to do this to us one day, with conventional ballistic missiles, not just cruise missiles.
There is much concern in the Far East about Chinese Ballistic Missiles with conventional warheads being such a potent threat to US carriers, and also to airbases in Taiwan & Japan etc.
It seems reasonable to assume that what the Chinese can do the Russians can probably do also, so does that mean that one day soon those of our SSBNs not at sea might be vulnerable to a conventional strike?
The one at sea would be safe for the time being but one SSBN is not a realistic deterrent, we would be effectively disarmed.
This leads me to advocate what Wayne has suggested – a deterrent based on submarine-launched cruise missiles.
The deterrent ceases to be a discrete force and ‘disappears’ into the rest of the submarine fleet. Not only is the deterrent safer from pre-emptive destruction it also gives us a larger SSN fleet than we would otherwise have and that part of the Navy and RAF dedicated to protecting the current deterrent can be used elsewhere, giving another bonus.
Speaking politically, it would also be better to have our own cruise missiles, not Tomahawks leased from the US. I would have thought that Storm Shadow would be a useful starting-point.
Dominic
If your think NATO is toilet paper, then there is not point arguing on that subject.
However your example of invading Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, who openly provided support and succor to the perpetrators of what was considered ‘an act of war’ is not an apples for apples comparison with my scenario. The US has a long history of overthrowing governments it does not like, and Britains history of doing the same is even longer.
So, please explain to me who you think an independent nuclear deterrent is actually deterring ? Because I am failing to understand your arguments. I don’t expect you to see in to the future, so you can explain who you think we are detering now and say, for the next 15 to 20 years ?
Also can you explain how you think the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is applied to amorphous multi-national, distributed, non-state actors such as ‘terror groups’ ?
Ref tactical nukes, you maybe right, but your at odds with NATO / western doctrine, – unlike you, the wests politicians do have issues with both chemical and biological weapons, which is why we always told the Soviets that if they slime’d our air bases or troop formations, we would respond with tactical nukes, because we dont believe in chemical weapons. I know, weird eh, but true non the less…….
Thanks for your comments and welcome to Think Defence.
If any nation launched a ballistic missile then it track will instantly be identified and this is then an attack indicator, exactly what having an instantly available capability like SLBM provides. An attack on Faslane is also does the same thing. Normally two boats are in the water, one on patrol and one in transit. Both would be underwater and both would be fully operational. Each is armed with potentially 16 Trident D5, each of which might have up to 8 warheads (although we carry far fewer warheads). I would not say that is defencelesl by any stretch.
Developing our own missile might not cost the earth but they would have to be armed with a UK bespoke warhead, Storm Shadow/Scalp might be a reasonable starting point but it is relatively short ranged so would need some serious work, as would a sub launch capability. Not impossible but not bargain basement either.
The real cost though will be the warhead cost, it would need to be designed just for the UK missile and given there is a test ban treaty in place it would need some serious modelling.
By striping the capability across the whole fleet it would mean you putting nuclear weapons on potentially every boat with the resultant training and operational overheads.
The whole package might be cheaper but how much cheaper for what benefit.
“So, please explain to me who you think an independent nuclear deterrent is actually deterring?”
A nuclear attack on the UK.
Again, I dont know whats hard to understand about this, the Russians intended to nuke multiple cities in West Germany, Belgium, Denmark ect had the cold war gone hot.
But not the UK.
Job Done, enemy detered,
“Also can you explain how you think the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is applied to amorphous multi-national, distributed, non-state actors such as ‘terror groups’ ?”
By targetting their paymasters.
Theres no such thing as a “none state actor”, wars too expensive for anything but a state.
All none state combatants have a state provider, or the run out of steam pretty damn quick
@Steve Coltman: The reasons for not moving to a cruise missile based system have been discussed repeatedly. In the end most people usually see that it is no deterrent at all really, as any nation with a decent air defence system (S300 etc) can neutralise the threat without pre-emptive attacks. It also adds to the danger of a nation responding to a conventional missile attack which they mistook for a nuclear strike (the missile used would have a similar flight profile.)
In my opinion if people agree that a nuclear deterrent is necessary (that’s anything above total unilateral disarmament, and not just saying they’d look for an alternative as a platitude or token gesture) then the ONLY realistic option for the UK is the SSBN/SLBM combo. Any other option is less survivable (and therefore no deterrent at all), infeasible for the UK, and/or more expensive than simply renewing what we have now. All of this has been covered before for each individual option so I wont list each system and it’s specific drawback here.
Keep in mind no other option lets us massively cut costs by using US missiles (and warhead designs according to some).
I’ll just hit those last 5 points
1: The Vanguards don’t have a shorter service life than the Ohio’s, USS Ohio has had almost 5 years in refit during its 28 year service life (at a cost of over a billion pounds) and will still be out of service around the same time as HMS Vanguard
2: Perhaps, though a life extension at this point may not be cost effective (estimates come in around 250 million for 5-6 years service life)
3: If we did life extend the V class our last bout would still be out of service before 2042
4: Vanguard replacement will not be carrying Trident D5, it will be fitted with flex modules which can house D5, Trident replacement or conventional VLS, I have no idea why the design and build will take so long. HMS vanguard only took 8 years to build, I have a feeling that the 17 years figure is a timeframe created by the end of life of Vanguard, not the amount of time a replacement would take to draw up.
5: Yes, the Astute is an evolution of Vanguard, it shouldn’t be that difficult to pass the improvements back across, though the design would need an increase in scale to fit the new commen missile compartment (it’s about a metre wider)
As for starving BAe of submarine work, we will be anyway, which is why Astute boat 8 is almost assured beacuse their is no way we’ll be laying down a V class replacement vessel in 3 years time.
There are a heck of a lot of points that have been made here and I’m rather late to the game so I’m going to do bullet points I’m afraid.
• Jed about your original comment we are going for a common missile section design with the US which should lower costs in some and constitutes the bulk of a boomer. The forward and aft sections will naturally be different ours probably based upon an evolved improved Astute class.
• Nicholas you may like Nick Clegg but I urge you to do some digging he is after all a politician and I’m a cynic so they are all a bunch of dodgy cnuts although that is wholly my own opinion. I don’t care about party leaders as much as I do about sensible clear policy, direction and strong candidates for important appointments. That is what annoys me about the Tories with the ‘Well David Cameron said this…’ line and simply relying upon the personality rather than backing it up with clear policy that I can understand.
• Wayne and everyone else using nuclear cruise missiles in my mind is a bad idea as I still want the capability to TLAM someone out of the blue without it being somehow mistaken for a tactical nuke launch.
• Richard about your rant part 2 it’s all about priorities the 2 main parties want a Global position therefore prioritise keeping nuclear weapons while starving elsewhere.
• Mr.Fred replacing or keeping trident at £2.5bn annually in my mind is rather cheap compared to the £600+ Thousand Million pounds that is spent by the Government each year. (Thousand Million because I wanted to make the number seem bigger :-))
• Jed in response to hitting SAM sites I refer to the point I made earlier about conventional cruise missiles but I would add a point about the number of warheads each sub can carry.
• Admin true point in a rational different world we could ditch trident but the simple fact is we are not in a rational and different world although most people live in a cocoon.
• Paul good points made about the plainly obvious probability that the money saved would not be reinvested in anything at all useful nor spent efficiently at all. I think at £2.5 billion a year divided by 60 million people it would work out at under £50 per person per year for the ultimate insurance policy. (I would stump up)
• Dominic the point made to Wayne about cruise missiles in multiple round launchers is something I agree with they can be used for both if needed.
• Richard and Dominic add me to the list of people who agrees that tactical nukes are the stepping stones to Armageddon.
• About Chem and Bio weapons I agree partly with Dominic Biological weapons are a loose cannon and could easily go tits up as well as being frankly pretty scary, just watch films etc. Chemical weapons are also pretty nasty and I don’t think they should be used either as they don’t kill quickly enough so cause more suffering. Compared that is to a bucket of sunshine which would be faster as well as having physical effects other than killing people and there are other uses such as EMP. Although all agreeably are monstrous weapons and should ideally never be used.
• Jed I also think alliances are toilet paperish but I don’t get whether you agree or disagree with the point maybe I’m just a bit too sleepy. :| Something worth ‘discussing’ in my opinion as everyone has an opinion.
• I think Nukes deter both all three of the NBC options as well as conventional attacks on the UK by other nations states although a symmetrical conventional attack would be far more suitable.
Just so one of you can tell me “why not”:
What if the US, UK, and France get their SSBN deep maintenance done at each other’s vital navy bases?
The idea being to make it impossible to destroy the surfaced SSBN without attacking a major military port of another nuclear power, in turn provoking that other power to counter-attack.
E.g. One UK SSBN in Brest, another in deep maintenance in Newport USA, the third (of 3) on its way to the patrol zone.
Could they all be destroyed without provoking a nuclear counter-attack from the USA and France? (I suppose one could envision a conventional BM with target recognition good enough to distinguish sub classes – but we could be opperating a common sub class.)
Would this allow a reduction to 3 hulls – or not?
The need for 4 hulls isn’t based around anything like that, it’s the need for a sub available at all times, we have 4, of that one is in general maintainance (post patrol), one is in long refit (currently vigilant) one should be at sea and the other is building up to take over, so we need 4, which is why every expert laughed at Brown when he suggested a cut to 3 hulls, as it was we had to replace vanguard on partol early when she had a bump, if we had only 3 hulls we would’ve had a break in cover until the boat which Vanguard took over from could be put back to sea.
4 hulls is the minimum for unbroken coverage.
Grey, 3 hulls are perfectly feasible if one accepts that even a minor problem in the well oiled machine will create a gap in coverage. If one accepts the risk that a gap in coverage can be managed by other means then by all means cut away but the whole point about continuous deterrence is the word continuous.
As you say, 3 does not guarantee continuous coverage so if that risk is acceptable one might as well not bother.
On your other point, the first 5 or 6 Ohio’s have spent such a long time in refit because they have been converted to SSGN’s so I still maintain the class has a longer lifespan the the Vanguard. The example I gave was in service years before Vanguard and will go out of service years after.
We have a memorandum of understanding with the US Government that whatever missile they chose to replace Trident with will be compatible with the common launch system fitted to the Vanguard replacement (which we are paying for some of the design for) but we also have an agreement over F35 software access, that went well didn’t it. I am just saying by not making the missile and submarine co-terminus we are at risk.
“I am just saying by not making the missile and submarine co-terminus we are at risk.”
Its a lot harder to screw us on Trident replacement.
We have 60ish Trident Missiles.
Worst case scenario, we give 5 to BAE (And The French) and say figure out how that works and make another 60.
One of the issues we need to work out who we are trying to deter. Trident and an SSBN force made sense when that was the Soviet Union and they had upwards of 20,000 Strategic warheads and approaching 50,000 warheads in total at the peak. Easily enough to wipe the UK off the map do it again just for fun and still have enough left to threaten anyone who came to the UK’s aid.
Well that was then and this is now.
Russia took it’s SSBN force off continuous At Sea detterant patrols in the 1990′s and seems to have got back to a point of approaching delivery of reliable at sea patrols a year or two ago. Their SSBN fleet consists of: Delta 3 boats built in 76-82 in the process of being decommissioned and based in the Pacific out of range of the UK, there are at present 5 boats with one of them entering decommissioning, Delta 4 boats built 85 to 91 there are 6 boats 4 of which have undergone a significant overhaul and 2 are undergoing a significant overhaul.
So at present available are 4 boats presumably at best producing 1 CASD patrol facing UK and France from the Northern Fleet, and 4 boats producing 1 CASD patrol facing China, assuming the US stays out.
They plan to replace the Pacific boats with a new project 955 boat and Bulava combination, one of which is on sea trials and 2 more boats are under construction but neither have yet launched. The Bulava missile has it’s own troubles which has been having test failures since 2005!
Of course Russia also has 600 plus ICBMS, and tactical nukes which could reach the UK.
China has 20 ICBMS with a single warhead each which could reach France or the UK, 2 SSBN’s with a missile of so short a range that they could not reach India from Chinese waters.
France and the US are presumably seen as allies!
India, Pakistan and North Korea do not have a delivery vehicle other than commercial shipping up the Thames.
Israel with in flight refuelling could take out Gibraltar and more easily the Cyprus bases but London!, and even then is that scenario real?
NO ONE else has nuclear weapons, is it realistic to be planning for a scenario that for arguments sake not only does Iran have a weapon but has sufficient weapons with enough delivery vehicles with sufficient range that they could take out all RAF bases simultaneously. Iran getting a bomb is a threat but initially the threat is it sitting on a commercial shipping container and sailing up the Thames. Iran combining enough bombs with enough missiles with enough range to mean the only option for the UK is an at Sea deterrent patrol is nonsense.
So the honest answer is the CASD Trident is an insurance policy against Russia, it may be perfectly sensible to have it but a nuclear strike capability against any one else could be provided by a free fall bomb on a Tornado.
Once you realise that you can do a risk assessment which says we can upgrade the present boats for an extension of service of 10-15 years while taking 1 out of service and trying to provide deterrent patrols with 3 boats and liaising with France to try and ensure 2 boats at sea as normal between us.
The real issues are political, if we do not build boats then the skills to build boats disappear and are very hard to reinstate as Russia has found, we are now planning SSN and SSBN numbers around the requirement of the shipyard not the needs of the nation. The fact that Barrow is a seat that the Tories need to win to form a Conservative Government and Labour need to keep to stop them is another issue.
Could 3 boats provide a reliable at sea patrol for a period say 6 years while they were being upgraded, the answer is the Military fear that if they proved it could be done the politicians would say stay at 3 permanently. Again not a real reason for not doing it!
here’s my question on the nuclear deterrant, leaving aside ethics, politics etc.
Why 16 trident missiles?, I except the technical arguement for SSBM’s but given MIRV’s could cost savings be produced by going for the absolute minimum number of missiles, say for arguments sake “8″, considering we don’t have that many warheads anyway. Is the number 16 just the number required to incinerate Russia or is there more to it? reliability maybe?
Dan
Russias SSBN fleet is irrelevent to us, its just their land based weapons we care about.
Only the Americans could possibly destroy Russias arsenal on the ground.
Which is why Russians have SSBNs too.
“but a nuclear strike capability against any one else could be provided by a free fall bomb on a Tornado.”
How long ranged are your Tornados?
RAF ones cant reach New Zealand.
Vanguards can.
Even if we somehow convinced Pakistan to let us nuke India with Tornados launched from Islamabad, could we fight through their defences?
And if Londons a crater, what could we possibly offer Pakistan to convince them a full scale nuclear war with India makes sense?
C
I believe a Russo-American Treaty allowed them each 100 Balistic Interceptors.
So we’d need 101 weapons for even 1 to get through.
Although a submarine only carries 45ish nuclear warheads, it requires the rest of the capacity to overwhelm defences
16 missiles each with 12 warheads, 192 targets to engage, at least 92 will make it through, and 1 in 4 should be nuclear are getting through.
8 missiles with 12 warheads, 96 targets and 100 shots, with a 50/50 chance that any that make it through are duds.
I believe our strategy was to kill everything in and flatten Moscow, rather than devestate Russia.
Even a modern nuclear weapon leaves buildings standing a mile away, if a city is a 20×20 mile square, it needs a lot of warheads to do the job properly.
An interesting article to throw some more fuel on the fire :D
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=12768
So there’s an argument to say that cutting Trident may not mean additional funding for defence, but politicians may seriously consider cutting defence projects and procurement anyway to guarantee the survival of Trident.
Do you want the forces slashed even futher and keep Trident, or an adequately funded conventional forces? My biggest concern will be the Government will choose the survival of Trident come what may and bollo**s to everything conventional.
It seems I failed to explain myself.
Continuous Patrol is not a requirement, it is just a means to achieve the actual requirement.
The requirement is deterance.
I don’t see that “immediate” retaliation is required. (If smuggled in, it would take some time to work out who did it, so retaliation would not be immediate in any case.)
I see “survivable” as an absolute requirement. It must not be possible to destroy all of our ICBMs in the first strike.
Having one boat always hidden in the oceans is a (the current) way to achieve this.
But could this survivability not also be achieved by having the surfaced SSBNs in the ports of another, allied, nuclear powers?
E.g. “They” nuke London. 2 days later, the British SSBN in maintenance in Brest gets everything running, and nukes “them” from the quayside.
Or:
They nuke London, and Brest.
France nukes them, because they just nuked Brest.
And then:
1 week later, the SSBN in bring-up in US waters finishes, and gets into firing range.
I’m guessing there is a good reason “why not”..?
Mike
Russia nukes London
France impounds/sinks UK SSBN at Brest.
France and Russia announce joint management of North Sea Oil
Admin
I tend to view such comments in the same light as the RAF calling for carriers to be cancelled, and the Navy saying we dont need Heavy Armour, or Social Workers calling for the police budget to be cut and given to them.
If you ask an infantryman, an armour colonel and a UAV controller how to best keep a road clear, they’ll all give three very different “best possible answers”.
Thats just human nature.
Dont get me wrong, theres a hell of a lot elese we coul do with that money, I suggested running a Carrier, Airgroup, three Destroyers and Three Frigates wouldnt be beyond reach and no one argued, I just dont think the strategic nuclear element should compromised for anything.
On a different thread:
Suppose that in 17 years time, Russia and China each have 200 ABMs deployed, (just like the US,) with at least 100 able to intercept against any single launch direction.
Actually, lets play devil’s advocate, and say 400 ABMs, with 200 available per launch direction.
Then, one Trident isn’t enough against the large powers – but cruise missiles are (?) sufficient* against everyone else.
(* I say this on the basis that they seemed able to get through to Iraq and Serbia, though I can see that they are easier to intercept than ballistic missiles.)
What do we do then?
Dominic are you still deliberately avoiding my question by constantly going back to history and quoting the Soviet threat ?
I asked: “So, please explain to me who you think an independent nuclear deterrent is actually deterring?” and you responded: “A nuclear attack on the UK.” – Yes but by whom ??????
You then said: “Again, I dont know whats hard to understand about this, the Russians intended to nuke multiple cities in West Germany, Belgium, Denmark ect had the cold war gone hot.”
That’s “intended” – past tense, and I understand it very well, I was a “cold war warrior” in the RN.
But you seem to be ducking my question – who do you see as the current and future threat ? Your comments about nuking the ‘sponsoring’ states of non-state actors, and only states can afford wars etc are overly simplistic treatments of the argument.
I just want someone, not necessarily you, to plainly state what you see as the current or future threats that a so called ‘independent’ deterrent actually deters. :-)
The crux of this debate it would seem is about looking into the crystal ball.
What is the lifespan of the Vanguard/Trident replacement
What threats might we face over that same period
As I said before, there are hundreds of rational, sane and sensible arguments for binning it, a bonus might be to use it for something else but as we all know it is likely to get swallowed up by other things
The main reason we therefore should think very seriously about giving it up are
We are a big boy and the other big boys aren’t giving there toys up anytime soon
Can anyone really sanction giving up a status of our great power status whilst others are in a rush to get them
Can anyone look into the future
It’s the ultimate insurance ‘against the unknown’ policy and I would rather be fully comp
The ‘big boys’ are starting to reduce theirs, and how can we deride other nations for trying to get them whilst having them ourselves?
In this sense our nuclear deterrent policy is very hypocritical.
Admin said: “Can anyone really sanction giving up a status of our great power status”
And therein lays the crux of the matter -this is nothing at all to do with military capabilities, this is a geo-political driven decision. In my opinion you do not deserve ‘great power status’ if you do not fund your conventional forces to actually do things in support of your foreign policy, be that disaster response, or war-fighting. So for the current government, and probably its successors, keeping an independent nuclear deterrent is the only way to be ‘taken seriously’ by other major players, BECAUSE it is CHEAPER than keeping up conventional force levels, and it keeps us in the ridiculously un-effective old-boys club that is the UN Security Council.
How about spending the money on 3 (not 2 but 3) CVF, 100 Rafale, 20 E2D, 12 x Type 45, 12 x T26, 12 x Astute etc etc and actually using them as required to implement the UK’s foreign policy, not that of the U.S.A ??? If you really wanted to, you could buy some ASMP supersonic short-medium range nuclear missiles for the Rafales… :-)
Well Jed I’ll have a shot at answering that question although everyone might well have differing reasons and think my own are rubbish or a bit wide of the mark. First and foremost the nuclear deterrent to me is about a simple insurance policy to protect against big unexpected changes that could harm us. As admin noted and I agree with, I would also rather be fully comp than penny inching or having no insurance at all. There may be little reason for it at present it some people’s eyes however what about 40 years from now, again nobody has a real crystal ball that can see the future accurately. I firmly believe that a nuclear deterrent is not something you can have and then get rid of and then reacquire in the future. If you ditch the replacement you lose all the real living expertise in this area for instance looking after and operating the missiles, warheads, guidance systems etc to operating and maintain a SSBN at sea. Naturally SSN’s will allow you to keep basic skills alive however if we lose the nuclear weapons capability I can honestly see the SSN’s following the same path at some point. The reason? Well simple really the parties that want rid of the deterrent are the same folks who want rid of everything nuclear including SSN’s and power stations naturally making it FUBAR IMHO.
There is also the Great Power status to think about which still weighs in on my thinking but not as much as the others mentioned above I would be lying if the status or perception of our status meant bugger all. However conventional forces need to be bulked up and a more active or visible use of those conventional forces including sending CVBG’s, MEU’s and RAF assets to things like RIMPAC and FPDA meetings. Basically foreign policy would be directed at what is best for this nation and its interests not the EU and not the United States as well as what simply makes us look better to the wider audience.
As for who might be a threat well the usual suspects of North Korea and Iran are top of the list but I would also add Israel if we do anything to really piss them off which is not hard considering their actions. (Note: Israel probably has sub-launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles or so think many knowledgeable people) At a stretch I would also add Turkey which is a Muslim nation only held in check by the Kemalist fraction especially the military and things in my view don’t look good in the long run. The reason is that Turkey wants into the EU so the EU is forcing or requiring Turkey as part of a path to membership to reduce military influence and increase civilian control over the military amongst other reforms. Yes a bit farfetched for many since Turkey is a long standing member of the NATO alliance but a more radical Islamic Government could start changing things if the military loses its influence. There is also the big old bear and the dragon next door to them which in future being extremely nationalistic nations could cause trouble especially with their influence over the world’s natural resources. Pakistan looks to be going tits up or at the very least Is an extremely unstable country prone to easily slipping down a slope to chaos only China and the US are holding things together. India I don’t see as much of a problem as they have Pakistan to worry about which will always be a thorn in their side maybe even more so and they also have to keep an eye over their shoulder on china. Add to that relations between us and them are relatively good and there is a long history between us as well as a common language which many educated Indians (those likely to be in power) speak. Also I favour reinvigorating the Commonwealth improving diplomacy and trade relations for the benefit of all so we should have less to fight about if we worked with each other on important areas.
That is just what I can see or think about at the current time in 30-40 plus years who knows the EU might implode or collapse (Y) and many more nations could be nuclear armed as the trend is in that direction. Albeit with much smaller stockpiles than what we have seen in the past but a couple of dozen nukes is nothing to sniff at when you possibly have bugger all yourself. Add to that you are one of the most densely populated nations on the planet with a lot of idiots in power and things look a bit precarious. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as hard to acquire as they used to be thanks to the ability for students from all over the world to travel and study wherever alongside the spread of civil nuclear power. If North Korea and Pakistan can acquire the capability so can most medium sized nations and it could easily escalate into a global arms race as nations start to feel threatened by a nuclear armed neighbour.
“In this sense our nuclear deterrent policy is very hypocritical.” Meh it’s all politics so a large slice of hypocrisy pie with every sentence most of the time as well as the normal pinch of salt.
Dominic I accept, my short range Tornado’s can not reach NZ but I am really struggelling to see the situation were we would want to nuke Aukland!
You are right that land based air power needs bases and air to air refuelling only goes so far, but that is what the Carriers are for and I am sure you can hang a bomb of a JSF if we decide to.
The French at present have nukes on board the Charles De Gaulle and plan to provide the Raffalle with short range ALCM with a nuclear tip.
We seem to be bouncing around from a debate on what the Lib Dems are saying which is can we extend the life of the present boats and potentially look at a cheaper replacement, and total unilateral disarmament which they are not suggesting.
If we one of the reasons that we can not upgrade the present boats is that while we were doing it we would have less than 4 boats hence we would no longer have a gaurntee of continuous at sea patrols, the answer as of today is so what. The liklihood of Medvedev suddenley deciding to nuke London with no wanrning and no notice is effectivley nil. The risk is sometime between now and 40 years out his successor may be a very different charecter. Equally at present as a member of NATO with all those at Sea Ohio’s we should not have a problem and the liklihood of President Ron Paul being elected in 2012, dissolving NATO in 2013 and returning all US forces in Europe, Japan and Korea by the 2014 mid-terms is pretty unlikly. The risk that the US goes down that route in a timescale of 40-50 years is not impossible.
We at present have no airborne ASW aircraft until Nimrod MR4 comes along next year, a bad position to be in but if you are going to take the risk the time to do it is now. While the relationship between major states is resonably stable.
In terms of risks with a clash with other states, Russia is a risk potentially at some point in the future.
However of the others that are mentioned, North Korea, I am sorry they have a small detterant against the US, a more powerful convential force of South Korea and potentially Japan. If there was a clash in the area it simply is not in the national intrest of the UK to be involved. There is no realistic scennario were North Korea attacks the UK and only the UK.
China may well end up in a clash with the US over Taiwan or some other vital interest in the Far East. The Empire is gone, the UK does not have vital national intrests potentially East of Suez but certainly not East of Singapore.
The risk is a small state with a weapon in which case the detterant does not need to be an invurnerable sub with 16 tubes and multiple warheads.
The risk is Russia and then you need something close to Trident but at present that risk is low.
The risk is Russia AND an isolationist USA at present that risk is non-existant.
“Well simple really the parties that want rid of the deterrent are the same folks who want rid of everything nuclear including SSN’s and power stations naturally making it FUBAR IMHO.”
Personally speaking SSN’s and nuclear power station’s are acceptable as they operate under highly controlled conditions, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it is acceptable to utilise a weapon system that is nuclear armed for purely political reasons, not military ones, as Jed rightly points out.
Accepting the need for nuclear weapons is accepting that we are punching well above our weight, as if its the only thing that can make our country great, which in effect it is.
Admin says, “We are a big boy and the other big boys aren’t giving there toys up anytime soon
Can anyone really sanction giving up a status of our great power status whilst others are in a rush to get them.”
We aren’t a proper ‘big boy’ because its only this deterrent that gives us this ‘Great Power Status’, what are we without it? And others are only rushing to acquire them because they can see that they can also be like us. A small nation strutting the world stage as we have the same economic and military power as the US or China.
Can anyone give me an honest and simple answer. Discarding the threat of other nuclear armed nations for a moment, what would the UK be without nuclear weapons?
Without nukes we would be just another country in the middle to high end GDP range with a smaller Global Voice and influence alongside Italy and Spain on the pecking order. Basically we would probably be no longer invited to sit at the big table or tables and would have to sit at the kiddies table instead. Germany is a much larger economic power extremely capable in industry and technology not to mention much better governed and run so we cannot be compared to them IMHO. France would still of course have Nukes and would also be the second largest European economic power and would essentially become ‘the’ European power and voice or be seen as such.
It all boils down to your own personal preferences, I prefer a strong independent UK outside of the EU with a place at all the important big tables giving us a recognised global voice with weight behind It. Some people are more than happy to become just another middle power like Italy or Spain generally minding our own business until we are integrated into the Borg collective erm sorry I mean the European Union. However besides the morality of Nuclear weapons for what is essentially £2.5 billion pounds per year, peanuts compared to total annual spending, then I think it’s worth it in that sense. Anyhow all of the above might be complete bollocks to some but everyone can generally say what they think.
Richard yes you may agree that SSN’s and nuclear power stations are fine as they are tightly controlled and looked after as well as simply not being weapons to be used against people and things. However large numbers of people, a majority I would say, that don’t want nuclear weapons also don’t want anything nuclear not even nuclear research or experiments which could advance science. I don’t think using Nuclear weapons is acceptable at all unless in dire circumstances and that is the point in them. War, conflict or any violence itself is not something that should have to be used however sometimes it is the only way to pass on a message or deal with a problem; if someone hits me I hit them back simple. There is of course the problem of how we behave and frankly sometimes this nation and other nations misbehave so we cause problems and act like a bully to other nations which is not nice. So we probably deserve what we get returned from whoever we’ve bullied or annoyed in the past but if they hit you what would you do?
I tend to disagree with some of the comments that cruise missiles are not survivable. Even if Tomahawk is not (and what is the evidence behind this?), it would surely be possible to develop a stealthy, sub launched cruise missile that is survivable against modern air defence systems. This could likely be done at far less expense than a like for like Trident replacement, particularly as we already have the subs (Astute).
Our nuclear forces are there to act as a deterrent. All a potential enemy needs to know is that they face massive retaliation if we are attacked with nuclear weapons.
Take an example where we had Astutes armed with nuclear Tomahawks. No enemy would take the risk of attacking us with nukes in this instance even if they had an air defence system that they thought would be capable of taking out Tomahawks. How confident could they be about the capabilities of the missile? How sure could they be that every one could be shot down? It is likely that they would not be sure about either of these things, and so would not risk a nuclear attack. In this case, Tomahawk would have served its purpose as a deterrent.
In addition, on the point made in the article that:
“It is conceivable that we might find ourselves in a position where we need to attack a nuclear capable nation (or its allies) with a conventional cruise missile, they would be unable to distinguish between a conventional or nuclear warhead and this might lead to a dangerous nuclear escalation.”
I don’t see how this is an issue. We should really have a “no first use” policy, similar to China and some other nuclear weapons states. In this case, we would only be attacking a nuclear weapons state with nukes if they had already nuked us, and so “dangerous nuclear escalation” would be irrelevant!
Dan, just a few points on nuclear armed Tomahawks.
We don’t own any
Neither does the US
So those nice Americans, who are of course really into nuclear proliferation at the minute, would have to let us have the designs for the missile AND warhead that we would have to test and integrate with the Astutes, in direct contravention of our treaty obligations.
Putting aside the operational and political issues how much would that cost?
If we went alone we would have to take the Storm Shadow design, extend its range considerably, add a nuclear warhead, ensure it was OK for torpedo or VLS launch and go through the whole test and integration route again. Even an extended range one would still have relatively short legs compared to Trident which means you would need to put our submarines closer inshore and therefore more in harms way
A nuclear armed cruise missile launch would be exactly the same as a conventional one, this would be a big risk and compromise
It is tempting to think we can do it on the cheap but in my mind, if you are going to have the capability (which is another argument) then you do it properly
The LibDem idea of scrimping and trying to shave a few quid off here and there is just naive and sadly lacking in any real world scenario. They should have the conviction to say we will disarm which is what they really want but are too cowardly to do so, not tinker around the edges and talk about things which they clearly have no idea about.
At least that would present a real choice.
admin
I don’t think the political issues would be insurmountable in terms of cooperating with the US on a nuclear Tomahawk, particularly if we were giving up Trident which would be seen as a big step in terms of cutting back on our nuclear capability.
The warhead would be an issue though. It would have to be our warhead but it may be possible to retrofit the ‘physics package’ in the Trident warheads to fit in a cruise missile.
As you say, short legs would be an problem, but a range in the order of 1000 miles, as with Tomahawk, would put most potential targets within range.
I think significant cost savings could be made. Procuring a new cruise missile/refurbishing warheads for use on Astutes is bound to be cheaper than 4 new subs.
Yes being a nuclear power does give the UK a seat at the top table but so to does the uk’s willingness to deploy and use its armed forces, one of the key diffences between the conventional armed forces of the UK and the rest of the EU. My view on this is that a minimum effective nuclear deterrent must be maintained as insurance against an unstable and increasingly technologically proficient world.
Theres been a lot of discussion on how the future is unpredictable. An interesting read on the subject if you’ve got the time (its 169 pages) is the latest MOD Global Strategic trends out to 2040 found here:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/38651ACB-D9A9-4494-98AA-1C86433BB673/0/gst4_update9_Feb10.pdf
particularly the bit that says the likelihood of nuclear weapons usage will increase, that nuclear weapons will proliforate and that deterrence will become mmre important due to the military technological parity that other countries will have with us.
Euan said, “Without nukes we would be just another country in the middle to high end GDP range with a smaller Global Voice and influence alongside Italy and Spain on the pecking order. Basically we would probably be no longer invited to sit at the big table or tables and would have to sit at the kiddies table instead.”
Euan, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The UK having nuclear weapons is nothing about having a deterrent and everything about our global status as a nation. Trident turns the UK from an average first world country into a superpower.
For this we risk thermonuclear armageddon? Is it that important to us a nation? Why don’t we stop calling it a nuclear deterrent and call it by what it is a Nuclear Global Status Enhancer.
Lets get rid of them and get back to the reality of being a normal average nation, other countries seem to cope with it quite well.
There are a lot of good points made here.
My basic position is that it’d be nice to have SLBMs AND a decent level of conventional weapons but the reality is, that is not going to happen. So I’ve found myself being persuaded back and forth by the dialogue here.
I find myself, in the end, convinced that we need some form of deterrance, but that this should be either in the form of extending the life of the Vanguard fleet, or going down the Sub launched cruise missile route. Just the fact that 1 cruise MIGHT JUST get through might be considered deterrant enough.
I just wish we could back up this capability with conventional forces, but I know I’m leaning against an open door with that one….
As an aside – why is Clegg drawing a line in the side on the Tranche 3b Typhoon?
That should read “line in the sand”…. Sorry!
Richard we clearly have differing views I really want the UK to punch above its weight but I don’t really see it as such because we are a relatively wealthy nation with one hell of a national history. The United Kingdom or at least England has had an immense impact on the way the world is from geography and maps to the way we are governed and enforcing international laws and decisions. If anything I think other nations punch below their weight if that makes sense and generally mind their own business. They essentially don’t take risks by saying what they really think or taking action which is not really a bad thing as there have been times when it has backfired on us and others when we have done so.
A big part of the reason I want the United Kingdom to be a strong nation with a strong global voice is down to my extended family, I have family in Australia, America, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, South Africa (did live in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia). My dad also lived in Jamaica as a kid and my uncle was born there. That coupled with my interest in national and global history alongside geopolitics shapes my outlook and opinion to a massive degree although articulating why in text is not that easy to do. I’m not completely of that opinion however because if the UK was a different country and far more independent in almost every way then I would be on the other side.
As for the whole cruise missile deterrent discussion I’m not completely in SLBM camp but I’m mostly there as it’s the overall better option in my own opinion from what I know and can learn.
“Can anyone give me an honest and simple answer. Discarding the threat of other nuclear armed nations for a moment, what would the UK be without nuclear weapons?”
Erm, quite a lot really.
The worlds 7th richest nation.
The worlds second most powerful expeditionary capability.
“it would surely be possible to develop a stealthy, sub launched cruise missile that is survivable against modern air defence systems.”
That still leaves a problem of range.
Vanguards can sit in the atlantic and attack Russia.
Astute would need to be in the Baltic or the Arctic Sea.
We couldnt reliably maintain a boat there that the Russians couldnt get at.
As for the rest.
Some powers WOULD accept a few nuclear weapons getting through as acceptable losses.
The Russians suffered 20 million dead in the second world war, whats 250,000 to the odd missile?
Indias defence minister pointed out to Pakistan that India could afford a few hundred million dead from nuclear war, Pakistan couldnt.
” We should really have a “no first use” policy, similar to China and some other nuclear weapons states. In this case, we would only be attacking a nuclear weapons state with nukes if they had already nuked us,”
Words on paper.
They might think we’re, you know, telling a porkie.
“I think significant cost savings could be made. Procuring a new cruise missile/refurbishing warheads for use on Astutes is bound to be cheaper than 4 new subs.”
Why not abolish the Astute replacement instead?
A Vanguard sized boat could act as a submarine killer, ship killer, long range missile platform and a strategic nuclear weapons carrier.
Richard
“For this we risk thermonuclear armageddon?”
How does the UK having nuclear weapons risk armageddon?
Those without swords can still die on them, and generaly do so in larger numbers.
Once more, Soviet war plans were to use nuclear weapons on none nuclear states.
How does us being a none nuclear weapon state protect us?
No one sane is going to think, the UK has nuclear weapons, lets pick a fight with them solely for that reason.
If everyone else disarms, fine, lets disarm as well.
Lets wait for everyone else to disarm first.
George
“Just the fact that 1 cruise MIGHT JUST get through might be considered deterrant enough. ”
No, it wont.
I’m not sure what the rest of you think nulcear weapons are, but they aure as hell arent planet killers, nation killers or even city killers
They’re just big bombs.
A single cruise missile delivered weapon dropped in the centre of London would have a death toll in the hundreds of thousands at the absolute maximum.
THATS NOTHING
The US killed 70,000 Taliban soldiers in the first few weeks of the 2001 invasion with conventional airpower.
The second bombing of japan was a 21kt device and buildings a mile away were left standing.
Ours are at best 100kt, 5 times as powerful, but to double the area of effect, you have to square the explosive force.
Even if we’re generous and say a mile and half, my house would be standing if you bombed all the local town centres!
The question is, A Cheaper Deterrant.
The answer is no.
You can have cheaper nuclear weapons.
But you cannot have a cheaper nuclear deterrant.
not sure if this is a wish list item or an alternative to go in here, all in all it looks like sexual chocolate!!!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203874
VANGUARDS ARE A VERY GOOD VESSEL, THEY COULD BE RE MADE TODAY WITH FEW TWEEKS, BETTER SONAR, TOAHAWK CAPABILITY, AND BE A IMPROVED ALL ROUND SUB FOR RN AND WOULD NEED 6, 2 IN CONSTANT REFIT. SAVINGS WOULD ADD EXTRA FOR THE TWO SUBS.
“Why do RN boats have a much shorter service life than USN boats especially given their much shorter at sea periods”
because they are made that way, as we need a rolling drumbeat of one sub every 22 months in order to maintain sufficient skills within our nuclear submarine industry.
Just wondering – anyone still looking at this thread? A little while back, this looked done and dusted with Trident excluded from Review, but messages from the politicos remain oddly mixed, suggesting this hasn’t been decided after all.
My feeling is pretty strongly that Trident needs getting rid of (I know I’ve posted this opinion elsewhere) – too expensive, too irrelevant – other issues are (to me) more complex. Points about ‘no first use’ policy taken, but my gut says that any sort of like-for-like replacement fails to honour the NPT, and I don’t see how we can tell Iran (or whoever) what to do when we don’t practise what we preach. It just seems hypocritical and we could use the £££ to provide a decent non-nuclear defence.
The entire trident program is cheaper to purchase and operate than the two QE class carriers and their air wing.
Cancelling trident doesnt pay for 6 supercarriers and 30 escorts.
It does however, turn you from “conventional” to “nuclear” target in the eyes of soviet planners.
No one else with nuclear weapons is planning on giving them up, so I’m not convinced it makes sense
I’m not myself convinced that what’s actually needed (new boats for the pre-planned knackering of the Vanugards, since the missiles will likely last until at least 2040)violates NPT. By the same token, there is absolutely no need to spend outrageous sums — if the low-end figure of 12 *billion* quid on development and production is not just nervous voices at HMT, that would actually buy an enormous refit for the surface fleet — so that Big And Expensive can bulk up its stock values and contemplate eating a few more lucrative overseas firms. (Still really hoping that Babcock will find a way to make a move on the Barrow operation. Not that they’re not part of a conglomerate, but smaller companies than the LM/BAE giants of the field have less corporate-raider overhead to cover out of the public fisc as “defence inflation.”)
Really, what the RN needs rather than seven as-is Astutes and four SSBN replacements, is around four to five Astutes for use as fleet escorts with the carrier/amphib groups, and six to eight SSGNs. The latter would either be slightly stretched Astutes or chopped-down Vanguards (say eight tubes rather than sixteen), whichever design will turn out more cheaply over a 6-8 production order. Dont’ reinvent the wheel. Then put the planned American “flex tubes” into them so they can carry either a Trident missile, or launch casings for nine TacToms, or a similar “flexed” VLS set for SSMs.
Then you have real “modern battleships” (i.e. sneak up and wallop entire squadrons of tactically inferior vessels with a good chance at survival.) They’re among the stealthiest ships in existence and capable of loading many dozens of TacToms and/or ship-killers (probably Harpoon or Naval Strike Missile, plus of course the TTs.) Or, when asked, they load out Trident as the standing deterrent. An eight-tube boat could carry eight warheads per missile — nothing prohibits RN from doing so, it’s a diplomatic nicety — to deter one-on-one exchanges from emergent nuclear powers, backed by reserves. (In the near term, you could probably cut the number of live warheads slightly and the number of leased D5 missiles by half, providing further savings. When the likes of Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea have state-of-the-art ballistic missile defence, then we’ll talk about increasing the number of warhead trucks.) Shroud which boats have loaded Trident in opsec, and you’ve combined a massive filip to the RN’s conventional warfare capabilities with standing deterrent and “regenerative capability” to enlarge the deterrent in bad times. All at some real savings over the itch for novelty.
Errata: each “flex tube” would carry the options of one Trident, or nine TacTom cases in the tube instead, or VLS for SSMs, etc.
Jackstaff
A few minor changes and I might have to kiss you.
Tridents are the size they are because we need that many warheads and dummy warheads to breach Moscows theoretical Ballistic Missile shield and burn the city to the ground.
I dont disagree we need them, but they arent battleship replacements, that ship was replaced by the carrier. They are Carrier replacements.
I’d quite happily drop carriers and astutes for a single class of submarines capable of besting enemy submarines, escorts, capital ships, ground targets and carrying the nuclear arsenal.
Hmmm… it’s the whole ‘Soviet’ issue that doesn’t convince me here. There is Russia, there are various central Asian republics with the full spectrum of regimes from democratic to barking. ‘Moscow’ just isn’t relevant in the sense we’re talking about here – there is no Cold War – the ‘spy scandal’ in the news recently was pretty much a non-event – they didn’t seem to be spying on anything very much, nor were they particularly skilled – more like a training exercise for Russian ‘Foreign Office’ graduates.
Anyhow, I digress – back to my main musing i.e. where’s the threat? Not Moscow. Not China (if they fancied crushing us, calling in loans would probably do it). And so on. Dodgy breakway/terrorist groups with nuclear material? Well maybe these are a more likely threat in the modern world, but in that case, who would you attack with nukes? Not a nation surely as a nation wouldn’t be to blame (unless frying random civilians in a fit of pique seems a sane approach) – remember that Bin Laden is a Saudi, but do we do anything to Saudi Arabia? No, we head for Iraq…
I do feel that we risk putting everything into an irrelevant system – it’ll drain money from valid military uses and no doubt civilian as well. I think the non-nuclear Western states have got the right idea i.e. they don’t feel the need for OTT defences because they simply don’t make themselves targets in the first place.
Dave,
I do have some sympathies to the “who would nuke the UK at present?” argument, and think that despite public fury nuclear retaliation for nuclear terrorism is impracticable (who do you hit if sponsors hide or cut ties, or decide to wipe out the willing martyrs first as a canny act of expiation?) But over the last five hundred years the possibility for Russia at any given time (and France and Germany for that matter ;) to lapse into an authoritarian mess with schemes for expansion by either force or leverage crops up regularly. Likewise I’m personally more worried about a “Yugoslavia” scenario in Pakistan than Iran’s program, and about continuous constructive engagement with Brazil so that when it does ultimately go nuclear (on much the same argument as France — a declaration of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US rather than actual aggression) this is not a problem for the UK, linked as it is to global trade flows by geography even more than choice. But there are reasons to retain a minimum functioning deterrent, even in relation to official or possible friends: leaving Europe to a power dynamic where France and Russia are the sole nuclear poles rebalances things quite a bit over the long term. I don’t think it needs to be as large as it is presently, and not even remotely as expensive as the current low-end for Trident replacement. That’s a borderline criminal example of why Britain needs more aggressive anti-trust codes. Also why vesting most of the country’s big-ticket defence items in a corporation that’s as much or more a feudal fief than any nationalised industry ever managed is a really bad idea.
DominicJ,
We have to stop meeting like this, Harold is getting suspicious :)
I would, for the sake of sport and pedantry, argue some details about both subs and carriers (although the latter seems like it would go better in the Cold War relics thread. Will try to get there later in the pm.) If we look at the capabilities and operational behaviour of battleships both pre-Dreadnought and in the period once naval air had been well established (basically the Second World War), then what SSGNs have the potential to do is very battleship-like. More so than future carriers, which are for better or worse becoming mobile air forces as the logistics and fuel/basing costs of getting expeditionary air the old way become prohibitive unless your initials are USAF. You could readily stage a Cape Matapan scenario against a second- or third-tier fleet in squadron with a couple of SSGNs. Sneak in close and cripple a couple of ships with torps, then speed away to stand-off distance with stealth for armor and, when the relief arrives, wallop the Jesus out of all of them with flooding missile attacks. With much love for Jacky Fisher (yes I’m one of those people), speed was never going to be armor because surveillance and gun/missile range would eventually envelop the finite operational space of the ocean’s thin skin. When you can get three-dimensional under that skin, with lots of technology to vex sonar, it’s another ball game. SSGNs, with some potential help from surface combatants, kill navies and the merchant shipping they assure. That ought to sell itself.
Feh — “speed for armour.” Creeping North Americanisms :)
The problem with saying “do we need nukes now?” is that once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Its like none continously at sea deterance.
If Russia and Germany collapse into militaristic dictatorships, are you going to say, right, time for nukes, could we be more provocative?
Because lets face it, we’d be publicly announcing that we are readying ourselves to use nuclear weaons on them.
Its like not having constant patrols, what are we going to do, deploy nuclear weapons every time Russia invades one of its neighbours / break away provinces.
Or wait till they flood across Poland and nuke our subs at base.
This last of Dominic’s arguments — that, if one has gotten out of the nuclear business, getting back in is a great escalation — is the most persuasive. Shaking up the balance of armageddon should be undertaken with care, in increments. This is why an enlarged class of SSGNs is so valuable. They are wickedly effective conventional deterrent — you have, basically, a frigate navy of ten or less major combatants? We’ll sink them all with a boat or two before our own fleet even shows up in force. They are each *capable* of carrying Trident D5 in their flex tubes, though only a couple would do so at any given time. (This adds to security of deterrent: which one of these three identical boats has nukes aboard? In the contemporary world of gross defence inflation your ASW resources are finite — choose wisely.) They can maintain a minimum deterrent of perhaps 130-140 live warheads (at the maximum yield possible, these are ***not*** “battlefield” weapons, they are the wicked means to destroy a population and make even evil men pause) for either a one-to-one exchange with an emergent dangerous nuclear power, or as a component of the Europe-based arsenals of Britain and. This can be done with half the current number of D5 missiles and somewhat fewer warheads. But, with more boats that could potentially haul Trident around, one could regenerate a much larger arsenal if needed. In the opposite direction, if politicians in democratic debate decided to disarm, the capacity to recreate nuclear deterrence would still exist. They (SSGNs) are an absolute no-brainer. Well, to me anyway.
Oy. “Britain and France” in the sentence wrt European arsenals. The French, holding on as they do to the last authentic empire with the possible exception of China, will be loath to even cut the air arm of the Force de Frappe, much less all of it.
I think that there are many many logical arguments for binning off Trident but ultimately it comes down to illogical and emotional issues, the other boys have big sticks so must we!
On the SSGN idea, again very compelling but the only thing that deters me (see what I did there) is the need for operational and segregation between the deterrent and conventional weapons, clear blue water as it were.
A SSBN has one function, this concentrates minds and keeps thing distinct
I am willing to be persuaded but it is a niggle that won’t go away no matter how much I agree with the SSGN idea
Oh, I did see what you did there. And better you than me :) I spent two very long posts willing my fingers away from those keys.
This is of course an issue of cost (but given the numbers thrown around for boutique SSBNs and warhead replenishment something relatively contained) but perhaps a concept of “Trident crews” for nuclear duty (rather as the USN has “blue” and “gold” rotational crews for each of its Trident subs) might help? There would not need to be one Trident crew per each SSGN, just enough to cover however many you could actually equip with Trident at a given time. And with smaller crew size even on Vanguard (very big girls indeed) than a Type 23 it doesn’t seem prohibitive.
Jackstaff
I am not sure your multi-role SSGN idea would actually play very well with the RN. If someone sinks one, do you respond as if they have deliberately sunk a deterrent boat, or as if they have sunk a conventionally armed SSGN ??? I know thats overly simplistic, but you can see what I am getting at.
Interesting point ref the French, budgets not much bigger than ours (?), yet their own SSBN’s, their own missiles to fire from it, and their own air launched supersonic tactical nuke, because they don’t believe in using Ballistic Missiles at the “sub-strategic” level for “warning shots”.
Our deterrent could be much cheaper if we just bought “off the shelf” boats and missiles from either the US or France in a straight gov to gov commercial transaction – just fit our own warheads like we do now.
Jed,
Fair point. An even more pertinent example might be how a nuclear/possibly nuclear opponent would treat SSGNs operating near its shores even with clear no-first-use regulations that would ostensibly discourage sneaking nukes up to the coast for a first strike.
Perhaps the circle might be squared like this? Specific boats within the SSGN class take on the deterrent role at announced times — part of the effort to lengthen lifespan for the weapons as well as the hulls. This is formally announced (let’s go alphabetical with the future SSGN class): “As of [appointed date in the future] HMS Bellerophon, Barham, and Benbow will rotate through the Strategic Deterrent role.” This could in fact be linked to a no-first policy in these sorts of terms: we’ve told you which boats have “red” tubes and in peacetime will honour that as a form of treaty. They will remain in deep water because they are safest there and because the UK as abjured first strikes. In the event of conflict with a nuclear-armed foe, the UK reserves the right to disperse its D5 missiles in twos and threes among the full class, MIRVed to the full with live warheads, in order to ensure the survival of a counterstrike capability and perservation of deterrence (e.g. some British nukes will surely get through, it is a mad gamble to guess how many) to prevent such a war’s escalation. Such dispersal will be announced at the outset of any such conflict.
That seems like a sort of procedural mirror image to “launch on warning” which was always a hideous concept to my mind but there you are. Any nuclear-armed opponent will have thought already about trying to strike preemptively against the deterrent, and how the UK would respond. This seems like it might — might, and I will bow to your experience — preserve the best of the old system (the same initial calculus about enemies preempting the deterrent, which boats and how to respond) and some of a putative new one (confronting the enemy with some degree of MAD even if they launch a first strike on the deterrent.)
What may have been buried in my earlier rambles — I’d absolutely buy off the shelf by modifying the extant designs. Chop down a Vanguard by the sections for eight tubes, or modify and stretch the Astute for 6-8 single-row tubes (designs for four on the extant hull apparently exist already. But I and others could be wrong about that.) So not quite pure OTS but a “batch” solution. It’s purely a philosophical matter but something about the French “warning shot” system, taken out of the Cold War context of nuclear Maginot with Plutons, rubs me very the wrong way. Nukes are not there to win battles or ruin infrastructure, they are there to annhialate, poision, and terrify a population and the very land that sustains them with the wrath of creation itself. (Not a rant aimed at you btw, Jed, just a philosophical point that you seem to take seriously, being willing to debate a world beyond British nukes.) Warning shots use them as weapons, which is rather abhorrent to me: my notion of deterrence would be “shoot some at our lot, and you will face as total a release as your nation can bear without making your neighbours glow, and despite your best efforts far too many of ours will get through for you to avoid cataclysm.” That’s probably off track from our start point, but it falls under debating what Britain’s deterrent is there to do and how it should be managed.
Thanks for the voice of experience.
“ultimately it comes down to illogical and emotional issues, the other boys have big sticks so must we!”
Nothing illogical and emotional about that.
“I am not sure your multi-role SSGN idea would actually play very well with the RN. If someone sinks one, do you respond as if they have deliberately sunk a deterrent boat, or as if they have sunk a conventionally armed SSGN ??? I know thats overly simplistic, but you can see what I am getting at.”
Would we respond differently now?
Would enemy ASW forces ever be in a position to know the target on their screens was an astute not a vanguard?
“Our deterrent could be much cheaper if we just bought “off the shelf” boats and missiles from either the US or France in a straight gov to gov commercial transaction – just fit our own warheads like we do now.”
Possible, but our conventional submarines are so expensive because we dont really order enough already, outsourcing the deterant would only make that worse.
“Fair point. An even more pertinent example might be how a nuclear/possibly nuclear opponent would treat SSGNs operating near its shores even with clear no-first-use regulations that would ostensibly discourage sneaking nukes up to the coast for a first strike.”
I’m not sure it would be a big deal actualy.
If you think about it, a UK first strike on a nuclear opponant wouldnt threaten their retaliatory capability.
The Big Powers all have a mix of dispersed launch sites and submarine basing, the weaker powers lack the range to hit us anyway and our forces are just as effective in deep ocean as they are up river.
Hi jackstaff & DominicJ,
Busy at work, so quickly whizzing through responses – various points taken, and my feeling remains that the only arguements for Trident are:
1. It makes us a ‘big’ nation on the world stage – this doesn’t seem either very accurate or a good reason.
2. That it would be a real deterrent – the various points about ‘against who?’ given the realistic threats in the modern world still remain. To me at least, fears of fragmentation of Germany, Russia etc etc seem unfounded (or at least that they would subsequently threaten the UK – to what end?). Also, if we stop wandering round the world interfering, the non-national/terrorist threat would, I imagine, be greatly reduced – I do feel that we just tag along with US-led wars for resources and ideology and that this makes us a target. Plenty of other western countries don’t do this, and don’t feel the need for Trident or equivalent. I’m not pushing for pacifism, just for the use of our defence to be just that – defence.
A bit garbled as work is hectic, but I think the gist is there…
Jackstaff – OK, I see where you going with your idea, and it might be good enough to rotate nominated boats. However if we are talking about a sophisticated (peer / near-peer) threat, your never getting the other boats back to Faslane to get additional missiles fitted, they will be scrambled to where they are needed with their existing conventional weapons load I suspect.
As for the philosophy – I have to admit I have not really thought about it. Perhaps its the military mentality to think of nukes as just another weapon – “tactical nukes”, nuclear depth bombs, etc… Your right though, this road led us down the cold war path to the Neutron Bomb ! Oops boss on the phone, gotta go, more later perhaps…..
interestingly, from today’s point of view, why do we need to rely on the Americans all the time, if we cannot fire the dam things without American permission, then they are a waste of money, so you just saved billions very quickly,[ the future,]
we should be able to provide our own boats/missiles, without the Americans, the French have done it,, but just for an idea, for you experts,, satellite technology, why cant we have a couple of military satellites that are capable of tracking all missiles being fired from either land or boat, then use laser technology to shoot them down, not to far fetched surely, 2, self defence, what abt some kind of force field, that can be put up/turned on, in time of crises, an electronic device that covers British territory, and stops all incoming missiles, rockets .planes, ect ect, again surely not to far fetched, [just an idea] to put money into these things, and leave the rest to others, while we forged ahead,
and another thing
all those turbines everywhere, they create electricity thus, in turn creates power [is this correct]
then why cant this technology be used in helicopters with the rotary blades, creating power,
to fly the helicopter from say great Britain, to the Falklands, [don’t laugh] the rotating blades surely create power as long as the blades are going round, and when they are not, a battery back up, charged by the blades, to carry you along, just a thought,
LOL – Criss your off yer rocker mate :-)
Wind turns the wind turbines blades, which as you say actually generates energy.
The wind does not turn a helicopters blades, unless the engines have cut out and the forward momentum is used in the phenomenon called Auto-rotation.
Otherwise your burning fuel in an engine to create engine to spin the rotor blades to create lift. Complete opposite of the wind turbine :-O
Oops sorry typo – “to create engine” should obviously be “to create power” (or energy).
Chris Whicker
Are you thinking of wind turbines? The reason helicopters cannot power themselves is because of the loss of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted, therefore you need a machine to convert it. As machines aren’t 100% efficient it cannot power itself, as it will require additional power. Wind turbines cannot fly as they require a dynamic force to drive the blades, as soon as you lift off the ground, before you start to gain enough speed to create enough airspeed to drive the turbine, you will require a lot of energy, which needs an engine. Rotor blades on a helicopter only power themselves when in autorotation, but the power then comes from gravity. A helicopter cannot climb in this state, but can achieve brief ‘hops’, but this is due (I believe) to momentum only.
Until someone invents perpetual motion, which at the moment is an impossibility, (I’m sure it defies the laws of physics), then we will have to rely on a chemical reaction and a machine.
Hopefully someone will post a response which explains it all in a much simpler fashion.
thanks for that mates, just wild thinking,
interestingly, we still cant fly a helicopter/plane, that far, when you consider that the falklands are over 8, miles away, why in this day and age, cant we have something that can go that distence without refuling, ,yes i know everything needs refuling at some stage, but as we have interests 8,000 miles away, do we,or can we build something that can go that far, most planes fighter or otherwise can just abt do africa.or the united states, ,any more cutbacks and we wont even be able to refule anything, just an idea.
on the point of subs, if the astute is that good, and there is still a couple to be started on, cant these later edditions be converted to take nuclear missiles, british and not American, with our consent on the trigger,
Chris
Astute is big, but Vanguard is 50% longer and a metre wider, and its more or less the minimum size for a trident.
To mount nuclear arms on astute, we would need to make much smaller missiles or somehow better ones, and pay for them ourselves, or make much bigger astutes.
As for autonomy, The US has no ability to stop Vanguard nuking washington and new york, none at all.
The best they could do, is refuse to maintain our missiles any more, but realisticaly, we could do that ourselves and sell a few to Russia/China/France/India as punishment.
Chris,
With regards to aircraft that can fly 8,000 miles unrefuelled, yes we could do it and the technology to do so has been with us a long time. The problem is that the aircraft has to come back again, which means the range would need to be (theoretically) 16,000 miles. An aircraft that could fly that far un-refuelled would need to be pretty huge to carry sufficient fuel load. And it would only be efficient at carrying loads over that distance. You need to compare the size of a potential aircraft that would fulfill this role with the B-2 Spirit which has a range of about 6,000 miles.
Most conflicts tend to be fought at shorter ranges hence the need for smaller aircraft, and relying on in-flight refuelling as and when required. The requirement for long-range, strategic weapons is dependent on political policy, as opposed to military doctrine. That’s why we have a nuclear deterrent instead of a super, long-range conventional bomber force. They would also be very expensive to purchase and to operate, like the B-2 Spirit. Bombers are also very vulnerable when they’re sat on the ground, a submarine can hide in the ocean and sit on the sea bed out of harms way.
“With much love for Jacky Fisher”
Awesome Wiki.
I was aware “someone” took over the RN and scrapped everything with wood and sails, but didnt know who.
Interesting man
thanks abt the planes, but im still a little bit confused, and i do read things,
1, i was given to understand that only the American president could order the fireing of our nuclear weapons, in other words , the british goverment cannot fire by our selves, we need the permision of the americans,
2, again i read that the astue was the biggest sub every built for the royal navy at abt 7,000 tons,
are you saying then, that it is not the biggest,
criss
Chris
Nope, its a common argument but the US (or the PM or MoD) has no system to block a UK missile launch.
If the captain of whatever ships at sea starts fireing, no one can stop him unless they can find and sink him.
Or certainly, no one seems able to produce evidence that they have a lock out code.
Astute is the biggest attack submarine, but its half the size of Vanguard, which weighs 14,000t.
Easy to understand the mistake, had I not just checked the numbers, I’d be agreeing with you.
sorry lads, the vangards are abt 15,000tons
i presume the royal navy seperates the two ships, so the astute would be the biggest [normal] sub,
whereas the nuclear subs are classed differently.
so sorry abt that, but im still unsure as to who actualy has their finger on our buttons,
thank you dominic for your help
thanks
right i’m coming in!!! off thread however, criss if you want some interesting new development in helicopters look at EADS deisel/electric hybrid!! rotors tilt body stays straight for optimum drag thingy, but it’s a diesel!!!!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/07/342861/ila-eads-unveils-hybrid-eco-helicopter-concept.html
richard, airbus reckon the new A350 xwb(r) will do 19,100km (11842 miles) we’re getting there!
Howcome the Vanguards that were built after the Ohios are due to reach the end of their service lives sooner. Surely the ratio of boats deplyed etc is the same fro the USN as the RN ie a quarter at sea at any one time. Or did we do a shabby job of building our boats?
Given the SDSR is concentrating on capabilities, the related costs and the need for them, given the strain on the budget can we realistically afford this capability? It has often been said that Nukes are a political tool and I agree. They cannot be classed as a military weapon as there use would be after all other options including military have been exhaused.
The arguement that we need them just in case also does not really hold weight as is that is the basis of our defence strategy then we should beef up the Army to Cold War lewvels just in case the Red Menace reappears and comes west.
Remember many NATO nations had access to nuclear weapons and the US had a chemical arsenal. Why have these all gone? I know the Nukes were under US control but why did those countries that felt the need for them then get rid of them and why doesn’t it apply to us. The answer is politics and nothing to do with Military Capability
The Government and many others need to serious dose of realism. This is not the 1950′s and a Nuclear Deterent cannot be maintained at the expence of conventional arms, which are needed more now than ever.
If the Politicians decide they need them them the programme needs to be funded as a standalone with a dedicated budget.
Lord Jim
Intentionaly shabby job.
Our Boats are much more liable to soviet interception due to the smaller area they operate in, so need to be considerably better. A 25 year old boat is 25 years out of date.
Theres also an industrial issue, we build a submarine every 22 months or we pay staff to sit around doing nothing.
If we build long life submarines, we need to increase the size of the sub fleet.
“given the strain on the budget can we realistically afford this capability?”
Well thats the decision, do we raise taxes to pay for them, or do we cancel condoms for nigeria, or do we go without.
The Conventional Red Menace has gone, but the Russian Nuclear Arm is as big a threat as its ever been.
Theres also a time factor.
It takes three months to train an infantry army, if there was a need, the UK could have 10 million men under arms within a year.
It takes 22 months to build an SSBN, we’d need four for a CASD, so 7 years to build them, and how long to design them in the first place?
Can you honestly say the UK wont need nuclear weapons for a decade?
Two decades ago, it was the policy of the USSR to use nuclear weapons against civillian targets of none nuclear states.
Unless you can tell me tonights Euromillions numbers, I question your ability to accurately predict it will not be the policy of Russia to use nuclear weapons against civillian targets of a none nuclear UK and to revise that policy with more than a decades advance warning.
Many NATO nations didnt have access to nuclear weapons, the US, France and UK did, the USSR didnt believe a nuclear strike on Rome would be met with a nuclear strike on Moscow, wheres they believed a nuclear strike on Paris or London would.
It may have been official policy for America to arm its allies with nuclear weapons, but the Soviets didnt believe it would ever happen, even if said ally was reduced to a nuclear wasteland.
“This is not the 1950′s and a Nuclear Deterent cannot be maintained at the expence of conventional arms, which are needed more now than ever.”
What use is a fleet of conventional carrier battle groups against nuclear arms?
The carriers could be destroyed with ease, or even more humiliatingly, be ordered to sail into a russian port and surrender, with refusal met by a nuclear strike on the UK.
“If the Politicians decide they need them them the programme needs to be funded as a standalone with a dedicated budget.”
As is the case now, and will always be the case, because there is no such thing as a “military budget”.
The British Government and the MoD agree a set of objectives for the MoD, a set of assets required to accomplish those objectives, and a level of funding required to pay for those assets.
The Mod has no authority to abolish the British Army and buy a couple of super carriers.
Actually the Netherlands, West Germany, Belgium all had access to nuclear weapons in the form of warheads for the Pershing 1 (West Germany) and Lance (All three) but were kept under US control until needed. They were stored in the respective countries.
As for more likely to be detected, given the very poor state of the Russian Navy and it only having around 6 serviceable SSNs available in the Atlantic and Artic Oceans where the Vanguards patrol, this is very unlikeley especially as the backs are watched as they depart to prevent being followed.
No “State” is ever going to use Nuclear weapons again, there is little benefit and the repercussions are many and major. We cannot use them against third parties or at least would not have the nerve to, are we going to nuke IRan or Pakistan if a muslim extreemist group sets off a nuke in London?
We cannot afford to be prepared for every eventuality. We better equipped conventional forces for use against realistic threats. This is what both the MoD and Politicians have realised and why our conventional forces are going to go through a major change in size and shape over the next few years.
Of course there is such thing as a Military budget just as there is a budget ofr health and education. Each pot is only a certain size as set by the Government. WHat I am saying is that if the Government wants to renew our deterent then it need to set aside a dedicated pot of money for it and not try to fund it out of the already shrinking pot allocated to defence.
“Were kept under US control until needed. They were stored in the respective countries.”
With a promise that when TSHTF they would be handed over.
I disagree.
The agreement was a smoke screen that allowed the US to base nuclear weapons in Europe.
The Soviets agree.
They were american weapons, under american control, that would be used with American permission.
“given the very poor state of the Russian Navy”
The state of the Russian Navy today is not the state of the Russian Navy in 1970 or 2070.
“No “State” is ever going to use Nuclear weapons again, ”
Can I borrow your time machine?
“there is little benefit and the repercussions are many and major”
Destruction of an entire fleet or corps is hardly “little”, and the repercussions are? What exactly?
Had Thatcher nuked Argentina in 1982 what do you think would have happened? The UN would write us a very sternly worded letter.
“are we going to nuke IRan or Pakistan if a muslim extreemist group sets off a nuke in London?”
Yes.
Any Politician who tries to prevent a counter attack will be strung up from a lamp post.
“We cannot afford to be prepared for every eventuality.”
True, thats why I dont propose we prepare the forces to occupy China.
“We better equipped conventional forces for use against realistic threats.”
A nuclear attack on the UK is a far more realistic threat than a conventional attack currently. The RAF on its own is more than capable of batting away the current Russian Airforce, but Russia saved its nuclear weapons at the expense of its airforce.
“This is what both the MoD and Politicians have realised and why our conventional forces are going to go through a major change in size and shape over the next few years.”
LMAO
Its should be clear to anyone with eyes that the MoD is going to be cut to ribbons and a whole lot of rose tinted glasses will be built to make it a sensible option.
“Of course there is such thing as a Military budget just as there is a budget for health and education. Each pot is only a certain size as set by the Government.”
Exactly.
Government spending for a year is whatever the government says it should be for that year.
And Government departments do exactly what government tells them.
Theres not a fixed pot for defence and a fixed pot for health.
100 ta daa! where’s my prize?
Erm! 101st comment Woo hoo.
Paul i don’t think you get a prize but have a virtual beer :)
An independent nuclear deterrent buys politicians international prestige and possibly power. I doubt anyone would disagree whether they wished to grant the politicians their wish to retain such a system or not.
The problem is trying to work out how and when and why the UK might ever deploy a live Trident missile with the significant implications that the multiple warheads would have on the the target(s).
A single missile launch has a pretty obvious launch signature to most if not all of the super powers. If it looks like a Trident launch, it probably is but we must never ever forget that the US maintain many more of these at sea than we do.
So in the event of a nuclear ‘sniping event’ when the UK decides to simply wipe some part of the Globe off the map, it will not be obvious who fired it. The question will be the UK or the US? That gives me sleepless nights as the converse is also true.
I’d really welcome some reasoned scenarios when the UK – yes us – would call for a Trident missile launch. The argument I suspect will revolve around a failure of deterrence but that still needs to be supported.
It may well be that we are entering a post-Cold War period of entente or is it detente with what were traditional enemies of the past, but the most likely source of ballistic missile attack on the UK is from the emerging second tier owners of nuclear capability.
These Countries may start to possess the capability to deliver a single weapon but they are most unlikely to own or operate advanced air defence systems needed to defend against multiple cruise missile attack. A UK Trident MIRV would stand a very very good chance of striking a first tier Country but if we see the threat emerging from a tier 2 nation, non-ballistic options might just present a better, and dare I use the term, surgical capability if we ever needed to retaliate against a Tier 2 Country which had attacked the UK.
I do take the view that if the politicians want to retain such horrendous capability that Trident provides, it should be up to them to appreciate that if this is at the cost of more flexible capability which history has repeatedly shown us we need and use, the UK may well have to learn some rather painful lessons – while retaining a big and expensive stick which is in reality impossible to use.
JohnO
The Russian Federation maintains a large nuclear capability and the USSR had every intention of using nuclear weapons on none nuclear states.
If you dont mind the idea of Russia losing it and slagging the UK, then we can do without nuclear weapons.
Its not just paranoia, the poles published the bloody war plans, google seven days to the river rhine