I know this sounds like the title of some dodgy porn film but this is exactly what is happening with Trident, if we are to believe the papers and other media outlets
By pushing Trident into the MoD’s Core Budget the tofu munching, yoghurt knitting class (that would be the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat’s) have effectively pushed us closer to nuclear disarmament than any beardy weirdy managed to do in decades of CND peace camps and marches.
We are safer having an independent nuclear deterrent in an unsafe and uncertain world, we simply don’t know what the world will look like in 40 years’ time – David Cameron
Given the emphatic position of the Conservatives on trident prior to the Election was an under the table deal on Trident part of the real coalition agreement, it is looking increasingly like it. We can sound tough on trident to keep the Conservative right onside but by the skulduggery of shifting it into the core budget we will kill it off by other means.
Party politics has trumped national security
I must be living in some form of alternative universe, when the former leader of a political party that was once committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament said this;
I say to you, Nick – get real. Get real about the danger we face if we have North Korea, Iran and other countries with nuclear weapons and we give up ours – Gordon Brown
Come back Gordon, all is forgiven!
Strange days we are living in.
My own view is that the trident issue is being used to strong-arm the tory right, and that an accommodation will be reached:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/of-con-dem-mergers-and-the-trident-replacement-%E2%80%93-are-the-two-are-linked/
one way or another an accomodation will have to be reached, not least because of the £30 billion in unfunded procurement over the next decade!
The real story is off to the side as the D of ID’s 9billion ring fenced budget is coming under fire.
One of the things that amused me at uni’ was all the youngsters, the majority of them middle class, trotting out out the anti-nuclear line in tutorials. Blissfully unaware it seems that the nuclear deterrent was, still is, defence on the cheap; without it the West would have to push money into conventional weapons and large standing armed forces. There would have been no surplus money in the economy to sustain the growth of the middle class. And those youngsters instead of having an easy life on campus would have had to spent a significant time in uniform. But heck nuclear weapons are bad…….
As we all know the majority of the lads and lasses running around Afghanistan are drawn from the working and under classes. They have to put up with conditions that are poor and equipment isn’t all it could be as middle class politicians and civil servants set budgets; safe in the knowledge that their children are safe at uni’.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Iran gets the bomb. Or Pakistan disintegrates and their “specials” go missing.
As a LibDem (did someone shout something at the back?
, I’d like to put my 2 penneth in.
Deterrence, as recent RUSI papers such as the “Why Things Don’t Happen . . .” show, comes in Conventional and Nuclear flavours.
Now, while it may take a nuclear deterrent to “see off” a high-end threat from a well equipped state actor (Yes, I’m talking about Russia and China), in most cases – and in all cases where a non-state actor is concerned – a conventional deterrent will get us further in flexibility and availability of response.
Yet, by disproportionately spending on a nuclear deterrent we limit our capability for conventional deterrence. Our diplomacy becomes a mantra of “if you do x, we’ll nuke you”, which is dangerous and inappropriate in the current world. Effectively we’ll be limiting ourselves to the “tripwire” cold war strategy of the 1950′s.
The main test of any deterrence is “is it credible?”. Are we saying that deploying SLBMs to the worlds oceans waiting for any terrorist or Junta to piss us off is the most cost effective way? How many tinpot dictators and 3rd world “hard-men” would gamble that their actions against one of our overseas interests wouldn’t warrant the s**t-storm of global outrage we’d have to deal with if we nuked their Capital?
So, my view is that nuclear deterrence is nice, but it must be flexible of response (Trident isn’t, IMHO) and absotively, posilutely *must* be built on a flexible and credible *conventional* deterrence.
And if we can’t afford both, then my money goes on the conventional and putting the “special stores” into storage.
x, I hope that I can bring comfort by telling you that nothing has changed at universities. They are still full of deluded little marxists who think that everything should be equal for everyone. Of course they belong to the class of ‘have’ people who are telling the ‘have nots’ how they should live the lives.
I f***ing hate socialist monkeys.
It must be a bad situation when an open invitation is offered to Gordon Brown…..
In response to the Neocon elements of Think Defence, I must therefore be considered the left-wing revolutionary element, it would be good to see the back of the ‘nuclear global status enhances’.
Deterrent? Like the one Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan think’s so important? I’ve said it that many times I should have a default button on my keyboard.
Why can’t we have some decent statesmen that can actually stand up on the global stage and make other countries listen without them having to resort to giant uranium tipped phallus. Get rid of the things and use the money to properly fund things like CVF. Also, while I’m on the subject, the CVF should be nuclear powered then we won’t need to be so reliant on the oil producing countries next time something big kicks off in the Middle East.
Never mind strange days, I dream of the day the Trident subs head back to dock and the scrapmen spark up their cutting torches. One in the eye for nuclear annihilation, one up for the long term survival of planet earth.
Apologies for the rant, but yogurt knitting can be really frustrating……
@ 13th Spitfire
Until I left in December 2009 I was a second year mature student studying International Relations at a red-brick somewhere in the north west Midlands. I can’t say it was crap the lecturers came out with that caused me to leave. There was little point in arguing the case against, I would have had greater success teaching my cockatiels particle physics.
Speaking of conventional deterence, I quite like the idea that is sometimes banded about of either a ICBM or SLBM being fitted with a number of conventional warheads. Given the power of the SDB warhead, construct a penetrator warhead three times its size and put 8-12 in a Trident, giving you the capability to take out 8-12 high value targets with little or no warning and no need to worry about SAMs or AAA. Give a Vanguard 6 of these and 6 “Nukes” and you have both conventional and Nuclear deterent in one platform. OF course you would have to ensure certtian powere did not think they were under attack but I am sure that could be worked around.
There has only be one instance in world history where an advanced weapons technology has been scrapped. And that was when the Tokugawa Shogunate restricted firearms (which had surpassed European equivalents in quality) after the civil war ended in 1631. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The psychology of deterrence is complicated; it has many facets some of which are real and some of which are imagined. But can you really imagine a British PM scrapping or even scaling back the deterrent if Iran does demonstrate a nuclear capability? It is easy to argue that WMD only deter other WMD or that states possessing WMD are unable to use them in conflict with states without them for fear of “repercussions” from the international community. But the simple fact is nobody knows what will trigger there use, if ever. Mankind on the whole is to immature to cope with the enormity of the question. In fact arguing for “conventional deterrence” makes a mockery of the whole question of negotiating away WMD. If all sides are are mature enough to negotiate away the WMD then they surely, by extension, are mature enough to do without conventional weapons too? Morally it could be argued that WMD are perhaps the best weapons of all as they hardly if ever used; what was said about gas, “it is a higher form of killing.” While the misery caused by what the UN term “Small Arms and Light Weapons” grows year on year. And lets not forget mines, hunger, disease, etc. etc.
You’re wrong about advanced weapons not getting scrapped save for one example.
The Ottoman bow got scrapped even though it was not inferior to contemporary firearms, especially not for riders.
China scrapped its high seas fleet in the 15th century after sailing successfully to India and East Africa and dominating over Arab traders in these places.
The most advanced javelin ever – the Pilum – got scrapped in favour of longer-ranged, yet less dangerous and less tactically important designs.
The very advanced construction of Roman armour – Lorica Segmentata body armour, Scutum composite shield, iron quantity production helmet with semi-flexible cheek guards – got scrapped even before Rome’s final fall.
Several functioning attempts of effective rifles for line infantry were scrapped after small scale production before the most simple invention of the Minié bullet led to the rifle’s breakthrough.
Gatlings – despite proven (in about 1890) ability of extreme rates of fire with basic electric engine – were not used for two generations until reintroduced in the 60′s.
Korean turtle ships were scrapped after proving their value.
The most effective Greek fire fell out of use after a few centuries despite still being very effective and valuable.
Roman/Greek siege machine technology was lost in most of Europe after Rome’s final fall.
Germany scrapped its guided munitions projects of WW1 and didn’t restart guided munitions research until 1939.
Cataphracts – ancient armoured knights – fell out of favour and no similar concept was revived for about eight centuries.
The Macedonian Sarissa spear took almost 14 centuries till its revival in Switzerland – it experienced two lives, with about three centuries each.
The vastly superior Celt-Iberian and (regional only) Celtic metallurgy (in part based on special iron deposits) which produced steel almost at modern machine tool steel quality disappeared during antiquity.
Many modern armies have given up certain capabilities they had in WW2; especially major surface combatants.
Let’s face it: the electorate are thick and the mainstream media are incestuous. How much do we really have to worry about this defence review?
How often has the lie been repeated that the defence budget is £40billion? If you want to be seen to be doing something what better than to deceive from the outset?
So let us put our cynical hat on. Liam Fox announces that defence expenditure is to be set at current levels (said £40billion) – maintained in real-terms by a link to the CPI – over the duration of the current Parliament. Provision for the Trident+ subs are to be made from the capital allocation of said budget.
Now – thanks to defence inflation – this can be portrayed as a defence cut of 8% by 2015. Osborne can claim a moral victory whilst Fox is sated with a real-terms defence increase. All are happy.
I could, of course, be highly optimistic and wrong. But politicians are a deceitful mong of low-lifes so we should not put anything past them.
x makes an excellent point.
Forget the political ideology, nuclear weapons are defence on the cheap. As soon as you bin nuclear weapons, you have to dramatically beef-up your conventional forces to adequately defend yourself against various attack scenarios. You have to do this, because in a conventional war you invariably end up playing a game of attrition. it means you have to make sure your enemy runs out of supplies before you do. So don’t underestimate the resources that would be required if we abandoned Trident.
What makes a submarine launched system so appropriate for the UK is that we are a small island with little space to hide ground launched ICBMs. If the UK were ever blockaded, nuclear weapons might be the only way to prevent the country from starving. The ash cloud fiasco earlier this year showed how dependent we are on air and sea travel to get in and out of this country. As soon as those channels are disrupted, chaos quickly ensues.
The other point, well made by others on this forum, is that we invariably end-up preparing for the last war not the next one. Right now, asymmetric terrorist threats are defining weapon, vehicle, aircraft and other defence choices. Is it inconceivable that we could be attacked by a ‘civilised’ neighbour?
What if China goes for a land-grab in Taiwan to obtain the real-estate it needs for future economic expansion? What if Iran invades Afghanistan to drive out Western Infidels on behalf of what it seems as a legitimate Taliban government? What if Argentine invades the Falklands again? What if there was a civil war in a commonwealth nation and the legitimate government asked the UK to help? Maybe these are all unlikely, but you never know do you? For these reasons, we need to keep our options open.
Finally, if we believe we should stop trying to influence the destiny of countries where we have not been specifically asked to help, e.g. Iraq, then we should obviously favour a UK-centric defence strategy. The cheapest way to provide this is an independent nuclear deterrence: invade us and we’ll nuke you. Simple.
I’ve been through the apoplectic rage, throwing the nearest thing to hand at the television and kicking the dogs phase, I’ve been through the disallusioned and bereft mourning phase and now I’m back to the animated and very bloody irrited stage. All since the election.
It’s clear that many of the expected games and rituals are being played out between services and government departments and top of the tree is the Trident question. My only response is that none of the muppets making the decisions have a mandate from the voting public to do so.
As has been already highlighted, the response from the general public to backdoor disarmanent is likely to be one of apathy. Such is the result of dilution of nationalisim by immigration, and the passage of time since the country last faced a visible threat to it’s security. Out simply, we have virtually lost our collective sense of vunerabilty against external threat. A few terrorist bombs here and there simply haven’t affected enough people directly.
I hate to say it, but it would probably take something of the scale of 9/11, a catastrophic civil emergency or a threat to the supply of Bacardi Breezers, Big Macs or Burberry to motivate joe public to stand up and question the current process.
Jedibeeftrix makes a fair point but frankly, I think the Tory right should not acquiesce; they should call Osborn’s bluff and say, “ok, bin Trident but we keep our carriers and line infantry, guns and armour. You in the meanwhile, can go and explain to Dave why we’re not at the top table any more and less secure than at any time since 1940.”
Absolutely agree, I know we have room for all forms of opinion on Trident and to be honest I can see the disabling affect it will have on the wider defence capability which is why I liked the concept put forward by ‘Jackstaff’ that I blatantly nicked and made into a post !
And, leave off the Bacardi Breezers, how else do you think I get any sex these days!
@ Mental Crumble – “ok, bin Trident but we keep our carriers and line infantry, guns and armour. You in the meanwhile, can go and explain to Dave why we’re not at the top table any more and less secure than at any time since 1940.”
Were I Fox this is exactly what i would do.
“And, leave off the Bacardi Breezers, how else do you think I get any sex these days!”
Rohypnol?
As for nuclear deterent, scrap it. It’s pointless. If China or Russia decided to nuke us (so unlikely it’s laughable) then our little fleet of trident boats won’t stop them. If Iran gets a nuke then it can’t use it offensively anyway. If an extremist group gets a nuke then they won’t be deterred by the threat of retaliation because they are Doing Gods Work.
@13th Spitfire – I would suggest that you refrain from f***ing them then.
Sven, I thought the Chinese scrapped their high seas fleet because despite getting to Africa, the Emperor decreed that they had not discovered anything of use to their Empire, and that any further exploration would be a waste of money.
The waste of money bit describes my sentiments on nuclear weapons…..
Nicholas, so what if China goes for a land grab on Taiwan? I think its more of a case of when not if. How does this affect UK policy and why should we get involved? If they went for Oz or New Zealand, sure, give me a rifle and I join in. But Taiwan? That’s a US problem. If Iran invaded, I’m sure they would have the common sense to wait until Allied forces had withdrawn as it would become something of a turkey shoot given the experience of the Allies and the lack of it amongst the Iranians. Falklands? We had nuclear weapons when the Argentines invaded the first time around and that didn’t stop them.
In a lot of cases a nuclear power can be crippled by the very deterrent as foreign countries can give us a good slap in the face (and often do) and it’s still not enough to justify their launch. Also, I agree with you, we should stop interfering in the affairs of other countries without being asked, this could reduce our chances of being on the receiving end of any future aggression.
Mental Crumble, destroy the TV by all means but pity the dogs, although please feel free to lash out any of our politicians as a viable alternative. That way you’ll keep the RSPCA off your back and gain widespread support from the public. I think you hit a nail on the head about Dave been on the top table, that being the UN Security Council, and that is what it all comes down to. As for being less secure, the Iranians still thumb their nose at us and take our troops hostage, yet we still have a nuclear deterrent. By rights they should be quaking in their boots every time we speak but it never seem to happen that way. We’ve just got used to having them and the only thing holding us back is our own insecurity.
Its like asking an American cop to patrol UK streets without a firearm, I’m sure they’d find it strange at first but after a while I’m sure they would get use to the idea.
Admin, Bacardi Breezers?? Do you drink J2O’s as well??
The Mrs like them!
@ Sven
Ok. Well said. I am not going to revisit my post to adjust its context.
The deterrent costs 1billion a year; approximately 3 per cent of the defence. That is 250million to operate the Vanguards. And 750 (seven hundred and fifty) million on Aldermaston.
I should go and check the figures but 1 billion doesn’t cover even a whole quarter’s wages for the MoD.
There are no real savings here.
(I am still smarting over Sven’s mega post. I should respond….
@ Richard – Sven, I thought the Chinese scrapped their high seas fleet because despite getting to Africa, the Emperor decreed that they had not discovered anything of use to their Empire, and that any further exploration would be a waste of money.
I thought it was because it happened at a time when the middle-kingdom was going through a particularly introverted and isolationist episode of its history.
Does that apply to 21st Britain?
Oi! I like J20’s bloody nice fruit juice it is but then again I don’t drink.
Anyways I do agree that the Right wing of the Conservative party should call their leaderships bluff hell if they get that wound up or care enough they could always rip the party apart by also bringing up the EU. However I think they care more about their jobs than anything else to stand up for what they say they believe in and for the reasons the people that elected them into those jobs.
I would say my generation is doomed as we have both ourselves our parents as well as the normal idiots in power to level blame at but hey I don’t think we see it yet. Btw I’ve always wondered how old are you lot and what do you do in real life? Although that is being nosey.
Jedibeeftrix, I don’t think the way forward is a policy of isolationism, although a number of commentators have highlighted it. The present trouble the UK is directly attributable to interventionism. With regard to the Chinese, they may have proceeded upon a course of isolationism, but then so had the USA prior to WW2. This policy would be disastrous for the UK politically and economically, us being a trading nation and thus dependent on the rest of the world.
The point I would make is firstly if we’re going to maintain a policy of interventionism they we should properly equip our forces before hand to achieve it. Something that wasn’t done prior to the Iraqi invasion. Secondly, being interventionist there needs to be a system of political checks and balances that prevents us as a nation from being dragged unwillingly into a conflict that is not in our national interests or has a visible moral obligation. The irony being that our forces could have and should have been deployed to Rwanda, where they could’ve saved countless lives by restoring order. It would have also increased our international standing, the opposite of which was achieved by the invasion of Iraq.
Thought this was a thought provoking, if not unsurprising article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11296829 .
sorry, i wasn’t attibuting the sentiment to you, merely expanding on your response to Sven.
The Norwegians wield a lot of “soft power” globally and yet it could be argued that they are isolationist.
Jedibeeftrix, no apologies necessary, but I think its a very good question. UK in the 21st century, isolationism versus interventionism (2000 words, discuss?). I know a lot of people who suggest becoming insular, valiant rear guard action back to the borders and pulling up the draw bridge. But what would be the consequences?
Could we be like Norway? Admittedly their total population is less than London, so they don’t have much of an alternative. But the UK has significantly more power and influence, slaps from Iran aside. What should the next big campaign be after Afghanistan. Zimbabwe?
agreed, but the norwegians are a country floating on oil, their pension fund is stupendous, where as we depend on trade to a far greater degree, and have a great number of geographically dispersed responsibilities to boot.
right now i’m pissed, richard WE DID deploy to rwanda during the genocide, how do i know because i f**king went 4 months august to november and i can tell you it was it bloody good job well done, the medics were outstanding, order previalled and look at it now. time spent on research, is seldom time wasted
Along with their high quality education system……do they have urban depravation and high crime sink estates in Norway?
The Norwegions had the foresight to invest their oil revenues in their future, whereas we (under Thatcher) used it subsidise tax cuts and buy votes. Hmm, lets hear it for British economic short-termism!
I can see our forces being used purely to secure strategic supplies in the future, mainly food and fuel. Hence my earlier rant about the CVF’s being nuclear powered. Following that kind of scenario, I think it’s Interventionism 1 – Isolationism nil.
Paul G, apologies, there was no intention to slur. I had look-see on the internet and found little if anything. If you could give me a link I’ll gen up for future reference.
The point I was making was about a deployment to Rwanda in the thousands, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many UK troops went to Rwanda in total, again I’ve looked but can’t find a link.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/587341/why-hasnt-britain-got-a-sovereign-wealth-fund.thtml
@ Peter Arundel
I am not f***ing anybody, I said “I f***ing hate.” C’est tout.
op gabriel, 5AB logs, about 650 uk troops ditto canadians and australians, there were also turks and several other african nations as well. unfortunatley we could “only” muster one sapper losing a foot to a land mine during clearance so wasn’t sensational enough for news!
It was bloody hard work and like you say never mentioned, and like most other successes glossed over by hollywood (hotel rwanda anyone). I do remember euan macgregor on one of his trips apologising for our non attendance when visiting (kn*b) he was appalled when shown the massacare in the church, he visited 15 years later one of my collegues was sent about 2 days later to weld the doors shut. never got over what he saw and refused to talk about it.
I have some amazing photos and regard it as a personnal life changing experience.
http://www.paradata.org.uk/events/rwanda-operation-gabriel
X, that’s a really good article in the Spectator. Instead of paying our way for the last three decades, we’ve effectively handed the problem over to our grand-children to solve. And they’ll just have to pay the high costs anyway, in addition to our pensions.
So, some time in the future Norway will be the European equivalent of Kuwait and we’ll be flat broke.
I suppose we could always flog them military hardware or hire out our troops to enforce their foreign policies!
@ Sven
The majority of the examples you give are for a weapon being replaced by similar but inferior weapon.
The Japanese shogunate scrapped an entire class of weapon; a war winning (strategic?) weapon, not one just giving a tactical advantage, This is the only example in history of such a thing happening. Further remember this occurred with a specific geographical area within one society/culture. Therefore the likelihood of a group of disparate nations with wildly differing cultures and political structures negotiating away nuclear weapons seems highly unlikely.
I was actually surprised you didn’t mention South Africa’s unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Finally I would like to say that I am tremendously impressed with your knowledge of military matters and your strong line of argument in support of your opinions.
@13thSpitfire – Curses. that rather ruins the pun . . .
Dangerous Dave.
Trident is not disproportionatly expensive, its about 3% of the defence budget. Nor is it designed to ward off Johny African Tribal Chief.
Its designed so that in a peer-peer war, nuclear weapons are off the table in attacks on the UK.
The Soviets, in their final war games, had every intention of nuking Belgium and Denmark, but would only strike France and the UK with conventional arms.
Thats what Trident does.
Abolishing Trident doesnt get us three extra carrier battlegroups, it might just swing us an extra carrier airgroup, which isnt worth much if Londons been turned into a radioactive wasteland.
RS
“Deterrent? Like the one Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan think’s so important?”
Had the cold war gone hot in the 80′s, a dozen German cities and their populations would have been utterly destroyed with nuclear weapons.
Lord Jim
Its bandied around a lot, but I just dont think its worth the risk.
X
“states possessing WMD are unable to use them in conflict with states without them for fear of “repercussions” from the international community.”
That always amazes me, because its just such obvious balls.
Look at all the good “international pressure” does the Palestinians, or did Sadam.
Sven
Several of those arent really true.
Roman Siege engineering fell out of favour because no force could afford to build the fortifications it was required to assault.
The Long Spears of Macedon were rendered useless by an unarmoured bloke chucking rocks and werent rendered usefull again until the arms race between the knights lance and the infantrymans pike.
The Infantry Rifle was developed long before it was adopted, but it simply wasnt a better weapon than the musket until much later. I’m as big a fan of
Rifleman->Brigadier Sharpe as anyone else, but at 60 yards a musket was a deadlier weapon that could be fired faster, that required less training and was also cheaper.
Nicholas
Only two of those arguements favour nuclear weapons, invade us or starve us and we’ll nuke you.
We couldnt use them against China if they invaded Taiwan because they’d nuke us in response and we shouldnt use them against Argentina if they invade The Falklands (also we wouldnt need them, Fantasy Fleets did an awesome write up of a second falklands war).
Pete
Trident DID deter the Russians.
The USSR, in its final war games, (Seven Days to the River Rhine) planned to nuke Belgium and Denmark and conventionaly bomb France and the UK.
If they didnt care about Trident, military logic dictates swapping those targets around.
As for extremists, they might not care, but whoever supplies them the weapon damned sure does, and they will be on the receiving end.
This isnt selling AT rockets and saying “Who Me? Couldnt be”
RS Again
“The waste of money bit describes my sentiments on nuclear weapons…..”
I feel I have to point out that not long afterwards, European Powers didnt scrap their high seas fleets, and China was a vassel state for the next 450 years.
Dumping Trident wouldnt give the UK an uplift in conventional power great enough for us to whale around the world punching anyone and everyone in the face, its the operating cost of 40 odd Typhoons, so three squadrons, one of which can be deployed.
Jedi/RS
I’m a strong “interventionist”, but only when our interests are at risk, and only when they can be secured through a short, sharp, shock.
Hole up in our fortress, ride out, deliver slap, be back within three months, replaced by others or not.
We could topple Mad Bob, but we shouldnt try and run Rhodesia as a colony.
RS for a third time
Norways petrodollars are currently being pissed up the wall by its politicians trying to curry favour with the EU.
PaulG
650 is not 6,500 or 65,000.
We did a bit, but what could we have done?
To be fair probably not a lot, for a massacre, it was scarily well planned and well executed.
RS4
“And they’ll just have to pay the high costs anyway, in addition to our pensions.”
Best of luck with that…
An average of 200,000 well educated Brits have left the UK every year since 97, those who remain aint going to be able to support themselves, their families, and 10 retirees.
Demographic are destiny.
Admin
“Come back Gordon, all is forgiven!”
The Irony there being Gordons last throw of the dice in forming a Lab/Lib/SNP/WNP/Green/whover else wasnt a tory coalition was to offer full nuclear disarmament.
DominicJ,
“Had the cold war gone hot in the 80′s, a dozen German cities and their populations would have been utterly destroyed with nuclear weapons.”
Had Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and Leonid Brezhnev been in charge, I’m sure it would have. However, the eighties, especially from the mid-eighties onwards, heralded a new era in Soviet leadership. These new leaders, Yuri Andropov and Mikhail Gorbachev, demonstrated a new liberal thinking in the Politburo. NATO didn’t have a first strike policy, unlike the Soviet Union. But given the new Soviet political liberalism, the chances of nuclear strike significantly diminished from the early eighties onwards. Yes, the Soviet military plans would have meant a nuclear first strike, but this would have to be cleared by the leadership. I believe this wouldn’t have been given, although NATO military doctrine and Cold War Paranoia would suggest otherwise.
The difference in leadership stems from the German invasion during WWII, wear for Stalin, Khruschev and Brezhnev, it was a living reality. Whereas for the later leadership it was a childhood memory. Given the different ages of the differing leaderships, their styles will inevitably be different. We shouldn’t forget that the Cold War had began to thaw with Reagan and Gorbachev meeting at Reykjavik in 1986.
I’m sure the current Russian leadership has no desire to see their nation reduced to ashes, and I’m sure they would gladly reduce the number of missiles in their arsenal to a more manageable and cost effective level. The UK, the size it is compared to the US and Russia, could easily do without them and the world would hardly notice.
@ DominicJ.
See my third paragraph in the original post. I agree that scrapping Trident won’t be a panacea, but seeing as we are apparently struggling to afford even 2 CVF’s and the airgroups to go with them, then justifying *Trident* is necessary when balanced against cuts elsewhere (as the Treasury is forcing the MoD to do, by placing Trident costs in the MoD main budget).
Note that I emphasised *Trident* in this post. A nuclear deterrent is highly desirable, but does it have to be as inflexible as Trident? What about equipping all our attack subs as SSGN’s with tubes in an extended conning tower “fin”. If the payloads can be changed at sea (preferrably submerged) then these SLBMs could act as the 21st century equivalent of 18″ guns, turning our subs into sub-serface battleships!
Just a thought. . .
Re: Seven days to the Rhine – the planned Soviet attack on the West.
The Top Secret scenario that was released by the Polish Government regarding Soviet plans to invade Europe and has been used by several commentators to justify the UK’s nuclear arsenal.
Before we accept the arguments for a nuclear deterrent based on the ‘Seven Days to the Rhine’ scenario, we should bear in mind a few points that I‘ve managed to glean from the interweb:
1. The nuclear strike by the Soviets was based on a first strike principle by NATO, in support of an invasion by NATO into East Germany. The NATO nuclear strike was to centre on the Vistula River to prevent Soviet reinforcements getting through to East Germany.
2. The nuclear strike by Soviet forces was on a tactical level not strategic, hence no requirement for a strategic response. At that time the UK had tactical nuclear Lance missiles in Europe, as did the USA, which could’ve been used instead of Polaris.
3. France was a nuclear power and so would not have been hit, however, France at that time was not a member of NATO and so may have been spared for this reason also. Given the proposed nuclear strikes on Belgium, France still would’ve suffered.
4. The UK would have been spared also, due to the fact that it was also a nuclear power, however, we should also consider the fact that the Soviet attack focussed on the Rhine, where it stopped, not the domination of Europe, so an attack on the UK would have been unnecessary. In 1979, when the plans were produced, the greatest threat to Soviet forces from the UK were from the F-111’s based there. Given the limited range of the SCUD’s and FROG’s it would have been doubtful if they could’ve hit the UK accurately from the East of the Rhine.
Given that this was pre-1980, and still in the hard-line Brezhnev era, it lacks the liberal Soviet leadership policies that were subsequently brought in, which I mentioned earlier.