- Defence Policy
- Equipment and Support
- Modernising Defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land Vehicles
- Security
- HR and Training
- Defence Estates
News updates
Email
Print
Digg
reddit
StumbleUpon
Facebook
DeliciousContinuous deterrent 'not needed'
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
In "Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASD): Costs and Alternatives", professor Malcolm Chalmers examines several potential ways of saving government money while still providing an "effective" nuclear deterrent.
Professor Chalmers argues that tightening budgets and the reduced risk of surprise nuclear attacks mean the policy of maintaining a round-the-clock deterrent should be re-examined. Any nuclear threat, Chalmers says, is likely to be preceded by an "extended period of strategic warning".
"The commitment to maintain a nuclear-armed missile submarine on patrol at all times has remained largely unchanged since the 1960's, when a surprise attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Union was a central driver for UK force planning," Chalmers wrote.
The report looks at four possible options for maintaining the nuclear deterrent while keeping costs down, one of which includes extending the life of the Vanguard-class submarines, delaying peak spending on the replacement until 2019/2020 and cutting the replacement fleet from four boats to three.
Another option suggests abandoning the continuous deterrent but maintaining "a credible capability" to reconstitute it if required. This option could cut the fleet of successor submarines from four to two and delay peak spending until 2023/2024.
Chalmers also explores rationalising the submarine force around a single boat model which could be used for conventional or deterrent roles, eventually replacing both Vanguard and Astute-class boats.
For the fourth, most radical, option, Chalmers examines the use of a 'Non-Deployed Strategic Force', whereby the UK maintains the arsenal of nuclear weapons but not the boats. This would end the ability to respond promptly against future nuclear attacks.
The report says the measures may be necessary as the MoD continues talks
With the Treasury insisting that additional costs for Trident renewal be met from the MoD core budget, the effect of this on conventional capabilities will be "further multiplied" by expected real term cuts in defence spending.
"The fiscal situation facing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is significantly worse than was assumed in 2006, when current renewal plans were drawn up by the previous government," said Chalmers.
"MoD planners may decide to shift resources out of other areas - such as personnel - in order to help to pay for the increased strain on the equipment budget after 2015. What is clear is that the inclusion of Trident renewal in the core budget, on current plans, could require the MoD to plan for a further significant real reduction in annual conventional spending by 2020, over and above any reduction that the spending review decides to make over the next four years."
HAVE YOUR SAY
interesting: it is worth reflecting that for the first few years of the cold war the US armed forces did not have access to nuclear weapons- they were held by the Atomic Energy Authority- did this impact on their deterrent effect?
Ian Skinner - Enfield
Actually, the Nuclear Triad of bombers, submarines and ICBMs of the USA is funded by a completely separate and independent budget, because they are an asset of the nation with the supreme strategical relevance.
The call of the Treasury to have the MOD funding it all is absurd, and goes against previous agreements that would have seen a separate budget from Trident renewal, with the navy shouldering only the running cost of the system.
Gabriele Molinelli - Piacenza, Italy
Option four? ..... this is really disarming in any mans language. How long does it take to plan, develop and build the delivery system??
Perhaps we could buy some road haulers from Eddie Stobbart, put the weapons in containers and just roll them around Europe with a suicide driver who will drive across country through borders without stopping until he reaches the target when required? Thats if our European colleagues (I find it difficult to say "partners") don't mind that is.
Two boats with six crews and one at sea or on immediate notice to sail all the time may do the job??!!!
Noman - UK
Ever heard of Pearl Harbour or 9/11? An enemy is not going to wait for us to rearm.
The RN still needs at least 8 hunter killer Astutes, plus 4 stretched Astutes with 8 tubes each for Trident or M51. 6 warheads per missile means the new deterrent equals the warhead numbers of the early RN Polaris force.
However, you would also need at least a dozen tactical 10kt warheads on missiles like Storm Shadow/ASMP/Tomahawk or a reborn Sea Dart.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
"Continuous deterrent 'not needed'..."
'This week' world-wide threat and related factors might support this assertion, but what about next week??
Nuclear armed missiles can be re-targetted in a matter of minutes...
Bomber crews can be tasked to (nuclear) bomb hitherto not discussed/not contemplated targets- such as the UK/allies- without any forewarning...
It takes 4 to 5-years to construct & commission into service most classes of advanced-technology submarines- such as the UK's Vanguard class successors...
In the future, by the time UK authorities apprehended a threat type that warranted an 'at sea deterrrent'- it would be or could be too late...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
Lets face it, we are not going to be able to afford to replace Trident nuclear weapons, and for this reason most of the public don't want to replace them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
The option proposed by Malcolm Chalmers would be a useful halfway house - we can extend the life of the existing Trident system until the recession is over, and then think again.
It looks like we will only be able to afford to replace Trident by making big cuts in conventional forces. If it's a toss-up between nuclear weapons and the capability of any of the three armed services, then my money goes with the services every time.
Martin Jones - London