Dual-use nuclear subs 'a game-changer'

HAVE YOUR SAY

21 September 2011

CASD is an absolute must if you are to have a credible & more importantly deterrent nuclear response/first attack capability. The enemy will not hold off whilst you ready your submarine which is in refit or dock-not having CASD is the same as having no nuclear weapons at all-an attack could happen & we could do absolutely nothing about it…If we had land-based ICBM's as well as sub-based, that would be a different matter…

Dual use of CASD is interesting-however they would need to be armed with nuclear weapons for the CASD element-your enemy knows that they are too & if you're going to give away the location of your sub by firing harpoon/Tomahawak-your enemy now potentially knows where your prime asset is…

The US model is based around them having excess platforms to convert-we do not. 4 subs are required for CASD, we only have 4.

Realistically, we need to build 6 or more of the new subs to be able to have spare available for conventional missiles, or renew 1 or more of the Vanguards…

My opinion…
Laskovar - UK

21 September 2011

"…At the moment we have a once per generation mega-decision as to whether to expend a vast sum of money on a fleet of submarines that do nothing other than provide a nuclear deterrent.

From a defence minister this a rather odd statement,you might as well say ASW vessels do nothing other than provide ASW,or an AWACS aircraft provides nothing more than warning and control. Basicly all this is about is another way to save money and nothing else.
Without looking it up haven't the Ohio class been converted to a vertical launch cruise missile carrier,I wasn't aware that they were dual purpose i.e. Trident plus Cruise.
In any case the Americans are still in the enviable position of having a large number of boats to do with what they will.
Also IMHO a CASD is a must,it's OK saying that if your nuclear boats are hidden from sight under cover that an enemy will be unaware if they are at sea or not.
That will just make your nuclear base more vulnerable,as an enemy with any doubts about them being deployed will take no chance and take out the base 'just in case'.
I'm sure a 'dual purpose boat' could be made to work,but please not some sort of cheap compromise 'Jack of all trades,master of none' solution.
michael - notts

21 September 2011

Laskovar - UK,
It would appear that we sing from an almost identical hymn sheet on this one.
michael - notts

21 September 2011

... except that we do not face any strategic enemy at present, and in any case bolt from the blue attacks just aren't credible when we are in strategic relationship with the United States. Explicit CASD right now is a luxury our armed forces cannot afford.

Nick Harvey's idea of flexibility is interesting, as is the point that it can go in either direction. Having a platform that is dual-use means that it introduces doubt in the minds of any enemy as to whether the Astute-class that are out at sea have nukes on board or not. That's a gamble they would be foolish to count on. This enables us to step down the nuclear ladder, something we have to consider if we are to have ANY credibility at all at the global negotiating table necessary to strengthen non-proliferation norms.
Paul - London

21 September 2011

Whatever the deterrent must be ICBM based not cruise missile based.

However on the question of CASD I'm in complete agreement. It is a relic of cold war thinking and not required at present.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 September 2011

I am reasonably confident that Lib-Dems are not dim people, so I must conclude that their failure to understand deterrence is wilfull. They, alone amongst the parties, persist in talking about our deterrent as if it is a weapon system like a tank or fighter aircraft, it is not.

The Trident system and the submarines that carry it are nothing less than meta-physical statements of our nations right and determination to exist. By demonstrating an existential ability to respond to aggression with thermo-nuclear weapons, delivered to the target of our choice, using a system that it is verging on the impossible to interdict, we make the calculation for a potential enemy simple - it is never worth it.

By talking, as they have done, of cruise missile based systems or now this peculiar dual-use system they, paradoxically, make nuclear war far more likely. The calculation becomes more complex for an aggressor, who may one-day just feel lucky.

It is in any case a somewhat redundant argument. Whilst the nuclear threat remains, the system fulfills its function as "only" guaranteeing our ultimate right to national existence. However, should we arrive at a point where nuclear weapons are negotiated away globally, I am sure that the submarines could be converted like the Ohios (I believe that is a design requirement for the Common Missile Compartment).

In short, I wish the junior partners in the Coalition whose policies have failed the test at the hustings would spare us their half-baked musings on defence.
Richard - Edinburgh

21 September 2011

Gent's I must admit I am torn, firstly I am a big believer in the UK having CASD Ballistic missile based Nuclear deterrent, however (and I think I might be nicking Shaun ex RNZN's idea), the thought of perhaps an extra five or six Astute class with say 8 or 10 SLBM's in a common missile compartment with a full complement of 8 or 10 MIRV warheads and decoys. Would surely allow the Navy to keep one on "Bomber" duties, but allow the Submarine fleet to have a surge capablity of SSN's for other operations if required.

If that is not possible then I am all for the "luxury" of maintaining a seperate class of SSBN's, if other countries have or are trying to obtain Nuclear Weapons (N Korea, Iran) then we must have Nuclear weapons of our own to deter these rogue states.
Rob - Telford

21 September 2011

Rob - Telford

The problem with that idea is that we would be responsible for nuclear proliferation which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
Also it might actually result in more ICBM carrying subs but reduce the number of subs in total as they each become more expensive.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 September 2011

Pie in the sky. Cloud Cuckoo land. The Ohios are no longer Nuclear Deterrents; they are not multi-role.
Norman - UK

21 September 2011

Either you have 4 SSBNs with 12/16 tubes each, or you have 5 evolved Astute with 4 Trident tubes each for "heavy" deterrent purposes, plus a couple of dozen nuclear tipped Perseus or ASMP-A as your "light" deterrent. The second of the 2 options is more flexible. Most of the time only 3 Trident/Astutes would be needed for deterrent duties, leaving the other 2 for conventional cruise missile duties. If there was a nuclear crisis, pull out the Tomahawk & replace with trident.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

21 September 2011

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=12632

This was brought up before; there was another article on the subject, but I couldn't find it with the time available this morning.

As Rob has mentioned, I have previously muted a modified Astute with 4-8 CMS modules inserted; these would either have ballistic missiles for deterrent patrols; or a revolver SLCM system similar to the Ohio SSGN's when used as a normal Hunter Killer.

Ideally the number of CMS cells should be kept to a minimum to reduce the affect this would have on the manoeuvring and detection capabilities. This would also tie in with UK government moves to reduce the total nuclear weapon held; but enable the remaining missiles to be fitted with a larger quantity of warheads thereby improving their deterrent value.

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

21 September 2011

What is realy needed is in-depth analysis of the US's 4 converted Ohio class subs, their capabilities, uses and roles- in the context of how this type of vessel 'might' be of use in future by the UK- by the UK's largest main stream TV, radio and print news media companies...


Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

22 September 2011

"What the Americans have done with their Ohio class of submarine is very interesting. They have found other uses for those submarines."

I Take it hes talking about the four SSGN Ohio's here, in which case they are for land attack and not deterrent. We need to be careful not to confuse the two roles.
I can see a role for Vanguard sized boats with say 8 trident Missile tubes and 8x7 land attack tomahawk missile tubes. Any ideas of blurring the role of anti ship, anti sub and boomer would be at best fool hardy and worst dangerous.
tim dainton - romsey, hampshire

22 September 2011

CASD is worth surrendering to Treasury, as wear & Tear, reduction of crews and the world we live in currently does not justify denial of conventional forces for the sake of a Nuclear response I personally would not EVER envisage using.

BUT for deterence today the goals have shifted. We could lead a shift to ICBM type disarnament.

TLAM has been the "Opening shot" in all conflicts to date.
It has succeeded we are told in eliminating Air defence and Command & Control facilities. A few package updates (Range, speed, Air Launch (RAF & FAA) etc) and it will be good for the future. Freeing UK to use SSBN money for other equipments.

I do see a possible threat (Near term) of a state sponsored Terrorist organisation using a "Dirty bomb".

The sort of states that would do that are not so high tech that Cruise would not provide the ability to deter.

Should a higher tech adversary rise, then I am sure a VLS type launch system in an Astute type hull must be able to provide enough capability to swamp defences, if we really want to escalate to MAD.

But I personally do not see a need to change our country to a Nuclear waste ground, when we look at history, and see the Berlin Wall lasted a few decades, Libya 42 years....
Seems to me, use conventional power to fight, and then have minimal Nuclear threat capability but be prepared to "Wait it out"

Degradable - UK

22 September 2011

We only need minimal nuclear deterrence. Three modified Astute class subs with CMS carrying 8-12 Trident missiles is sufficient to prevent a state from either blackmailing or striking the UK.
Anything beyond that is unnecessary and simply comes at the cost of our conventional forces.

Nuclear weapons are an insurance policy, we don't need to be able to wipe China, Russia or Iran off the map we simply have to make an attack on the UK with nuclear weapons too costly to contemplate.

Another point, we must not consider lowering the nuclear threshold so any attempt to field tactical nuclear weapons must not be part of our strategy.

Also nuclear armed cruise missiles of any type in a conflict could trigger a nuclear response as they could be assumed to be nuclear even when conventional.

The reality is that if any part of the UK were to suffer a nuclear attack it would most likely be delivered in the back of a transit van and our nuclear deterrent would be as useful as a chocolate fire guard unless we had concrete evidence of a state player being involved. In which case if we found out in advance of an attack then both our nuclear and conventional forces would need to be employed to make sure that the state in question stopped immediately.
Graham - High Wycombe

22 September 2011

Degradeable,
A very laudable idea but I'm not so sure that countries like China,India,Russia,Israel etc etc would be willing to get rid of their nuclear arsenals.
When you talk of higher tech threats these are some of the countries you will possibly be faced with,sorry but an Astute with limited capabilities will provide no deterrent.
With countries like China and Russia you unfortunately need an 'Overkill response' to make them think twice and only a dedicated SSBN gives that.
The cold war in the west is over but the middle east is obviously extremely unstable,and in the East itself India and China have a very uneasy relationship not to mention Pakistan/India.
Do you honestly think that if hostilities arose in these areas that Europe/USA would not be dragged in.
I think the history books tell us differently.
michael - notts

22 September 2011

Degradable,

"The sort of states that would do that are not so high tech that Cruise would not provide the ability to deter."

Wouldn't bet on that the Russians will sell anyone S400 SAM systems which would take down cruise missiles.
Graham - High Wycombe

22 September 2011

The simple fact remains that continued reductions in conventional forces actually increase the risk of nuclear weapons being used, with china's build up this is probably more likely now than in the cold war.

While any other nation has ballistic weapons we need to counter them with something as robust and survivable, hence CASD and ICBM's.

Degradable's argument that we should surrender trident type weapons to the treasury is flawed, they would always try for more, as is any idea of preemptive removal of IBCM's from our deterrent.

History shows us this does not work. Japan not signing the Washington treaty on warship size and numbers during the 1930's would be a good example, continuing to build ever larger battleships leaving us at a disadvantage.

My earlier post mentioned about dual purpose boats with the ability to equip both sorts of weapons therefore a enemy would never know what its role was at any given time. It does NOT suggest that TLAM could replace ICBM, the two roles are different, it merely combines the two roles in one hull. This would require two boats at sea at all times, therefore you would still need a minimum of 4 vanguard sized boats, with port and starboard crews. It would however allow and increased conventional weapon load to offset some of the losses on surface hulls.

Laskovar's point about excess hulls is valid too, we are not the US navy, we would actually have to increase the number of boats to be able to deploy cruise missiles properly, we have too few boats to make hiding them a viable proposition, not to mention range and speed loss over ICBM.
tim dainton - romsey, hampshire

23 September 2011

Interesting conversation gentlemen.

I was not around during the cold war. Or at least I was only 1-2 years old when it finished. As such I am on the tail end of it.

While I understand the "insurance policy" type argument I can also see and understand the "Why risk MAD" argument. Once one person uses Nuclear weapons NO ONE wins.

Furthermore Britian as a country has changed, the amount of money the public (and thus country) are willing to spend on defence has changed.

Reduction of conventional forces to the point they are incapable of independent action to defend our trade routes, overseas territories or provide real presense in small/medium scale conflicts only furthers the risk of nuclear escelation.

To use an example, our police have an armed response unit... Not every policeman has a gun. If every UK policeman had a gun then they would use that gun more often... Resulting in more scenarios where overkill is applied.

So if Nuclear deterence threatens conventional capability (as it is doing currently) then I feel that it must go, or suffer a reduced compromise.

Dual nature Astute class make sense. Especially as it avoids redesigning a whole new ship. Which (no matter what BAE and the Politicians say) much be cheaper that a whole new design with the research phase, design phase, politics phase etcetcetc.

Also I am going to get attacked I feel for my next suggestion.

France has SSBN's. Any attack on us by a high power state, due to proximity, is effectively an attack on France especially with France being a western nation AND a NATO member.

Why not have dual purpose Astute class SSBN's. With a reduced number of cells using either TLAM-N or Trident replacement. Supplement that with the Frogs so that we can maintain 1 SSBN for CASD.

We have greater flexibility, still retain independence. Cover any short falls with an ally.

The savings help get us out of this financial crisis. Or can be channeled back into procurement to ensure we get enough T26, Astute, 2 Carriers etcetc.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

23 September 2011

Nuclear tipped SLCM's are not a credible deterrent. Even if such a missile did not have to contend with counter-measure systems to destroy them, the single-warhead missile is a complete compromise when compared to a ballistic missile with multiple re-etry vehicles and the targeting flexibility this provides. A deterrent by nature is suppose to counter the use of nuclear weapons in the first instance while providing a counter-punch if necessary.

The only replacement solution for Trident D5 missiles is a similar ballistic missile system.

However, whether the UK government continues CASD is a different matter.It would be prudent to maintain this capability, since a deterrent boat sailing for patrol could very well escalate any tension between the UK and the country in question.

4 boats is the minimum number required to support a CASD posture. As the accident with the French SSBN recently demonstrated; One boat in log refit, one just returned, and the other prepping for refit leaves no room for error. 3 boats would suffice if CASD was not maintained.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

23 September 2011

Removal of Nuclear weapons must be a priority.

China & other nations would be signaturies to an agreement I am sure.

Pariah states such as Iran and Korea need to have an ally in the global sphere. China would be influential in controlling Korean ambition. I do think it unrealistic that Korea would strike UK, I see no scenario for this.

Terrorists do not sign up to Deterrence. Therefore they have no purpose in defending us against this group it could be argued.

Only a few nations have Nuclear weapons, others that do not seem to "get along" ok. Germany, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Poland .... Many of them are now more influential on the world scene than UK or France.

If we make no effort to remove them, then the alternative is a slow increase in the countries that possess them. This is were the real risk now lies.

As less stable states try to have what we have...

It is laudable, it is Achievable, it is the right time, and it does allow us to reallocate finances at a very difficult moment in our time.

We have to be brave, remove our "Cold war" mentality, realise that many people (Me included) who were persuaded on the requirement for them, now seem to be questioning the wisdom of this route.
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Have to disagree. SLCM are a credible deterrent against a 3rd world state sponsoring terrorist groups. You wouldn't just launch 1 weapon would you. Instead you would launch a wave of the weapons with each following different way points. TLAM has that capability afterall.

Against a high state power then you might not be able to mount a credible deterent using SLCM however we are attempting to do the whole nuclear disarmament thing. Something which I happen to believe is a good goal and something which will require someone to lower the gun first.

Given the UK's financial problem, the UK's shrinking conventional capabilities AND the demonstration of how lucky we got off Libya it is really time to ask the question.

Is CASD deterrence hurting our armed forces conventional ability?
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

23 September 2011

Graham
Agreed, but Iraq 1991.

300 missiles fired allowing Coallition to target C&C. Stealth F117 and Cruise destroyed air defence. This barrage effectively attacked the air defences of the technologically capable nation.
I believe between 2 - 6 missiles were shot down.
Why if we used to destroy the SAMS are they seen as such a potential loser in strategic theatre.

We could argue (Could) that with more launch systems they will be a quicker response than Trident today ? As though the limitation of range is potentially an issue, we can deploy them from any Nuke boat or Aircraft in the area.

I would also add a caveat, that testing of missiles is rare. In todays environment it is probably even less.

RN tests of Sea Dart, I took part in could lead to the reality of the missiles reliability being exposed.
Considering the number of launches of Cruise, we do have a tested reliable system. Again from the launches in Iraq we see about 20 fail. So less than 10% in total of cruise missiles got there.
We have no statistics from Trident, as thank god we have not done extensive testing

Finally I am sure Britain was the only nation that did not sign up to the idea of Nuclear Nation threatening Non Nuclear Nation. How does that stand, are we the bullies in the playground ?
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

Oh
Adding to my last comment, Gentlemen, are we seeing a move to defence on the cheap.

3 Subs with massive strike capability.
No conventional forces, you touch us and we Nuke you ...

Could this be Georges favoured option.....

Tripwire
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

Degradable - UK

'Removal of Nuclear weapons must be a priority.

China & other nations would be signaturies to an agreement I am sure.'

I find the above remark absolutely unbelievable,don't you even recognise what is actually happening in Asia and the Far East at the moment.

There is an undeclared arms race between India and China,this is leading to neighbouring countries desparately trying to upgrade their armed forces,and you actually think that these two regional/world powers will sign away their nuclear weapons.

Sorry,but your naivety astounds me.
michael - notts

23 September 2011

Degradable - UK

I'm going to contradict myself a little, as I think a lot of what you say has merit and I think a lot of my own attitude is down to a lack of courage.

Personnaly I believe we must have Nuclear Weapons whilst rogue states still push for the capablitiy themselves. From personal experience in the Middle East, the only thing that this culture seems to understand is the big stick threat.

The point you make about the biggest threats to us being from Dirty Bombs or eventually suitcase devices delivered by terrorists is correct and retaliating against this kind of attack is totally unrealistic, imagine if the twin towers had been bought down by Suitcase Nuc's, would the US have launched a Trident / Minuteman attack against Afghanistan, Almost certainly not.

As I stated in my earlier post (and totally nicking Shaun ex -RNZN idea), I believe the only way to have a viable (affordable) Nuclear deterrent is for us to purchase a modified Astute class (4 or 5 vessls) with Common Missile Launchers, and have 1 available on CASD at all times.
Rob - Telford

23 September 2011

Michael
It is not naivety.

We have an accounts book, which is stretched to breaking point.

We have to determine our status/position in the world. My opinion is we are a significantly diminished power.

Therefore we need to step back from the position we are now in danger of starting to do badly.

Examples:
Politicians were lucky over Falklands. (Run down of fleet)

Politicians were lucky over Libya
(Diminished Air and Sea capability)

Afghanistan ...
Forces are trying but do not have the capability

I say to you, they will cut whatever....

SO I say I value our conventional forces and the assistance the presence of them can give to stabilise the world.

I see greater value now in them than India & China squaring off and us needing Nuclear response to do what with it....

Please give me your scenario !!

Other articles I on this site I have proposed us having carriers to allow our US ally to concentrate power leaving France/UK to manage Med/Atlantic.

BUT WE CAN not (DO NOT WANT TO), spend the sort of money to invest in all defences that are applicable.

So lets take the lead role and become like Germany, Belgium etc lets move to a UN resolution of no ICBM.

I think you are totally out of synch with UK opinion. Ask them about defence over hospitals and schools and you will look foolish

Then with what is left, are you proposing a pitifull conventional force and Nuclear response that is so pitifull the aggressor threatens us with first strike which will eliminate the force we have in harbour as it is down to 3 boats with 8 missiles.

Your response will cost us even less conventional forces, Government has stuck the unwelcome budget for Trident on Defence. It will cause untold damage to UK defence, therefore we HAVE to take the risk now to disarm.

Please also clearly state the significance of Germany not having Nuclear Weapons.
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

Dual use submarines which include a hard-to-verify nuclear missile component may blow a hole below the water line of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Defence treaties need to be implemented and supported because they are much cheaper on the defence budget and risk many less lives than an arms race does.
David - Peterborough UK

23 September 2011

Sorry about the awfully illegible script last submitted (Wish we could edit)

Could anyone cast light on Missile defences as well. We are reading of the capability of Laser/SM3 and numerous other systems that are capable of destroying ICBM.

Would that not just add weight to the argument. Or add cost to the replacement ?
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

Given the history of conflicts from the Suez, to Korea, to the Falklands, the 2 Gulf wars, Bosnia, Libya, Afghanistan....

I would rather have exceptionally capable and rapidly re-deployable conventional forces than some "nebulous" big stick.

The public don't want to spend the money and quite frankly that means we have to make choices.

Put it this way, since SDSR, Nimrod, the T-22's, the Ark Royal and Harrier would all be more useful than CASD.

I understand the argument I just don't know if Britain is powerful enough anymore without being willing to expand spending on our forces.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

23 September 2011

degradable - UK

'Please also clearly state the significance of Germany not having Nuclear Weapons.'

Sorry that I don't have time at the moment to answer in full,but in reference to your above question.

Please take a look at German history post WWII particularly in regards to defence and their constitution.
You can answer your own question !
michael - notts

23 September 2011

No Michael
I was not clear.

I know regards Nuclear Weapons and Japan and Germany and strike forces...

But could you explain for me and other interested parties the thought that German/Dutch/Japanese/Brazilian.. Lets turn on head Everyone on the planet except a small handful of nations.
Why do they manage not to be Nuclear Blackmailed etc ....

Why do they not lose sleep over lack of Nuclear deterrent ?

Maybe they build factories and Jobs to compete against us, £20BN goes along way.

I ask you
Be sure you are happy to spend this money at expense of conventional forces.
Because the Nation does not want to pay for both.

My choice, and it could be wrong is now clear to you.
Degradable - UK

23 September 2011

David - Peterborough UK

An absolutely valid point that we all seem to have forgotten, having been on the receiving end of CFE visits by Former Warsaw Pact countries, your comments on "missile counting" in the suggestion I made would be really hard to achieve and as you implied could jeopardise existing missile / warhead treaties.
Rob - Telford

23 September 2011

Degradable UK.
Do you actually read and digest what has been posted or do you just scim through it and carry on regardless with you pie in the sky theories.

I ask you once again to study post war German defence policy before asking me self explanatory questions.

Bringing Japan into the 'why dont they have nuclear weapons' discussion is even more of a childish question. I refer you to the Japanese constitution on Nuclear Weapons.

You are now just argueing for the sake of it and not very well to boot.

As for Brazil,well you might just take a look at their nuclear aspirations.

You really haven't done your homework have you.
michael - notts

23 September 2011

Degradeable
Each country makes a decision according to its local circumstances.
Germany did not have a nuclear deterrent, because of WW2 atrocities, plus they were protected by US, British & French nuclear weapons. After the Cold War, Russia withdrew, so there was still no need. If Germany became nuclear armed, Poland & Czech would probably want their own small tactical nuclear deterrents. The Germans know this & do not want an arms race on their border.
However, Pakistan & India ignored world opinion & became nuclear weapon states. North Korea, Iran, Israel, Argentina either have or have thought about nuclear weapon status.
Britain giving up its small deterrent, would not change anything. In fact it might create instability, as Commonwealth nations then felt forced to create their own deterrents.
If you want money for the NHS, stop paying doctors/consultants way above the European average.
Any money saved from scrapping UK nuclear weapons, would not go to conventional defence. It would be wasted on more EU contributions & more Mercedes for third world dictators.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

26 September 2011

michael - notts

Just a quick question. DO you know what Degradable does? Do you know what he has read? Do you know what he has and hasn't studied?

Just because he has a different opinion to you doesn't make him ignorant.

It's also important to bear in mind that on this forum we have little time and space to discuss in true depth our opinions. So we rely on a measure of politeness and understanding to further our discussions.

Lets TRY to understand each others points.

At the end of the day I do think that our nuclear capability is largely insignificant compared to some of the more provalent states around the world... PUBLIC opinion will not fund both nuclear and conventional...

Conventional is more flexible... Change public opinion OR go Conventional is our option I feel
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

26 September 2011

Michael, latest homework for you :-)

How rude...
No I don`t just skim, but I do have an opinion that is different to you.

I tend to agree with many of Johns comments, as It was the way I used to think.

Sadly two reasons make me think otherwise.
1. I do think the Nuclear deterrent being part of defence expenditure will have a huge impact upon the budget. Will conventional forces suffer as a result ... Yes I think they will

Therefore I feel in light of historic lessons that a Cruise Solution and conventional forces with an Astute permanently east of Suez would be sufficient deterrent.

2. The number of nations with Nuclear weapons can only increase if we do not actively try to decrease them. The proliferation of weapons is a greater risk.

I do consider that the UK should stand aside if it is not willing to invest in defence. We should give up our seat on the UN if we do not want to pay for it. (Personally I think we should pay, but average taxpayer does not want to.)
So with these considerations and a declining status of UK, I do not as a taxpayer want Trident over conventional forces.
I do believe we are a bit player now in the world. We will operate with allies in the future.
We should remove Trident...
Degradable - UK

26 September 2011

Anthony-Bristol-United Kingdom,

Please point out to me,where in any of my posts have I accused degradable of being ignorant,you are making a statement which is not only incorrect but also untrue.

Of course he has different opinions to myself that is obvious or we would not be having this debate. If one feels stronly about a subject then that feeling should come across,it is not rudeness but rather an attempt to get ones point over in as strong a fashion as possible.
I am sure degradable is quite capable of putting forward his arguement as strongly (which he has done)
P.S. As a child I was taught that it was rude to interupt someone else's conversation !
michael - notts

27 September 2011

It would appear I am in naive company.
George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn.
Indeed it would appear that Reagan and Gorbachev had a vision of No Nuclear weapons by 2000 which they explored in Reykjavik 1986.
But they are American, oh look British chiefs of staff....
The warnings came in a letter to The Times from former Chief of the Defence Staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, and Generals Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant General, and Sir Hugh Beach, former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7103196.ece
So having established I do homework, why are many learned (I am not including myself in that group) people now speaking AGAINST renewal or dual boat.

Is Trident Independent.
If we considered a joint French proposal, with sovereignty in the European sphere, would that give us more independence. Do we really see USA allowing us use of the missile. Does America show more respect to France than UK, due to independent nature of France.
We are not in a position to fire without US agreement ? Truth of this question is we do not really know.
Skybolt, Poseidon, Chevaline, Remember all these projects, if not have a read. One of our issues is we believe we are more important to America than in reality we are. We are hopeful that the Americans will not change the specification of a system we are designing Subs for, which has not been built.
PUBLIC LACK OF INTEREST & SUPPORT, without doubt Trident is not on the voters list. Michael, I do not immediately consider that to mean we should not build replacement, as sometimes leadership means unpopular decisions. But for me, a 3 sub solution or dual boats, and weak conventional forces is doing nothing well.
Proliferation of weapons.
This is an argument that is upheld by many, add Obama to that list of naivety. These people consider decision to replace weapons as a sign that UK considers NUCLEAR WEAPONS a must. As stated, "it would be like going to a no smoking group with an unlit cigarette in your mouth)
Brazil, Argentina and others have been talked out of Nuclear option.
Imagine a scenario, with China/India/Brazil. We have our 8 missiles with 3 warheads each. Some are low yield
They have a Sub with 16 and 3 warheads each,
Trouble occurs, we disagree, but ultimately a nuclear discussion is held, We say we will hit them, Optimism comes into play and we say 24 targets.
They then say, we are bigger nations, we will survive, and we will hit you with 48 warheads. We are a smaller nation with huge population density. Sadly we are the first losers of a Nuclear conflict.
Early 80`s that sort of scenario was considered a possibility, as USSR may have considered a first strike on US missile silo, then pointed out second strike capability. So "Winning" a nuclear exchange is a possibility.
I imagine you will call that far fetched, but please give the concept some of your time to consider it.
Technology, We will be running our own reactors, I am sure Aldermaston will continue to be "UP on weapons research, but not building " I realise that sort of statement is not in the spirit of my thinking , but I also realise we can not "unmake" weapons, therefore we perhaps need to satisfy sceptics by continuing research. Thus if we need to rebuild we can. Huge topic, lots of debate, please just leave that comment as indication I recognise requirements.
Speaking of Technology, we are all investing in anti ICBM missile systems, how many of our Trident type missiles would actually get through in 10-30 years time. Some of our colleagues on the forum will be able to point to weapon systems in development that will be capable of this action I am sure.
If we have to have Nuclear weapons then, I do state nuclear tipped missiles (Cruise) may be enough to give us the deterrent you seek against pariah states. But the cost would be significantly less. Again huge topic and I glance at the issues.

Arguments for Nuclear
Strategy for 20 years time , can we know what the world will be like, NO, we all agree with that, and so our fear makes us consider these weapons a must to ensure our sovereignty.
Do you or I want to be the person who gets rid of them, and ultimately is proven wrong. Undoubtedly I would not want to be that person. So that is worth considerable debate, and support needs to be convincing so they are not held to account….
John, not in NHS, but we all know, public want hospitals and schools. None of us can put up an argument against that as mostly it is correct. But budget and ring fence of NHS I am not sure about.
Degradable - UK

27 September 2011

Anthony. The fact is a ballistic missile trumps a cruise missile, of any denomination.

Degradable. You need to understand that with nuclear politics, a conventional weapons based conflict is more likely; due to the likelihood that with nuclear weapon releases there are really no winners. During the 1950's through to the 1990's the main protagonists of the Cold War exercised their ideological conflict in this manner through smaller scale conventional conflicts around the globe.

Talking numbers, large or relatively small WrT available warheads is largely a redundant argument, considering the targeting priorities in any initial strike or counterstrike would typically be high value targets - both military & political.

ABM systems are predominantly designed to engage ballistic missiles before the warhead(s) separate from the delivery vehicle. There is also the issue of decoys. A D5 can carry 12 warheads + decoys. In todays world this warhead number is greatly reduced, so the number of decoys can be increased, which increases the likelihood multiple warheads will actually hit their assigned targets. Realistically, no nation has enough or is likely to be able to deploy ABM defences everywhere. It is probably most ballistic missile attacks will be successful.

It is often forgotten the best deterrent posture is where the weapon system is deployed, and in the case of submarines this means CASD. Sending submarines to sea in a time conflict escalation could in fact trigger a nuclear event rather than prevent one if the nation has all it's eggs in one basket (like a three boat boomer non-CASD deterrent) - it is predictable and limited in it's strategic affect

If the UK was stupid (considering the recent government trends I do not discount it); then it would loose its influence with other nations, even more so than what it has experienced in the last 20 years since the disastrous 'Peace Dividend' process was instigated. The ultimate guarantor for soft power is the ability to back the talk by walking the walk with hard military power. The UK is severely limited in this capacity. Force 2020 is a long way off with some estimates that 2032 is the maturity date for some capabilities to be fully realised.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

27 September 2011

Shaun NZ has hit the nail on the head here, Harvey is after all a jumped up PR and marketing bod and i suspect that this speech is a spin exercise to stop everyone jumping up and down now and to get everyone to except it further down the road. By the looks of some of our comments here its working!

It also suggests they will use the savings to fund the 1% increase per year after 2015.....STINKS.
tim dainton - romsey, hampshire

30 September 2011

"You really haven't done your homework have you.
michael - notts"

Was pretty much the statement that implied heavily Degradable was ignorant.

Furthermore should you wish to have a private discussion via email then of course I would not interupt.

I was taught it was rude to attempt to have a private conversation in company. Far better to remove yourself so you don't need to attempt to "whisper".

This is a public forum and you are in company. That company will share views no?


Ultimately I feel it comes down to this.

1) We are the minority... Defence spending WILL NOT increase.

2) CASD NOW comes out of the Defence budget

3) The Defence budget is IN debt still.

4) CASD over large, flexible and capable conventional forces is not a good choice.

Conclusion:
CASD is a better choice to accept a reduction in capability.


Shaun, I'm pretty sure I'd rather have a number of nuclear tipped cruise missile for a small strike against a 3rd world state sponsoring a terrorist action against us than to launch a missile into outer space which results in several countries being wary!!
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

30 September 2011

Shaun,

You said;

"Degradable. You need to understand that with nuclear politics, a conventional weapons based conflict is more likely; due to the likelihood that with nuclear weapon releases there are really no winners. During the 1950's through to the 1990's the main protagonists of the Cold War exercised their ideological conflict in this manner through smaller scale conventional conflicts around the globe."

That is Degradables point I thought? That risking conventional effect to maintain a CASD without reduction is counter intuitive to the MOST LIKELY scenarios that Britain will face.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

30 September 2011

The argument of CASD vs. conventional is flawed since the two have very different purposes and outcomes. It should never be an option to trade one against the other.

Realistically no past, present or future government will maintain the sufficient conventional forces required to underpin British foreign policy (flawed as it is). Given this known quantity, the nuclear weapons in the Trident system actually provide clout to an otherwise superficially hollow conventional force. Remember the options Lady Thatcher was considering if the naval task force failed in '82...

There are differences in the nuclear warhead technology used in ballistic and cruise missiles in a submarine environment. The cost of the smaller SLCM warheads would also be more expensive than the ballistic missile option; the UK would have to go it alone in this regard (and pay all R&D) since the US have retired theirs under SALT; it is well known the UK get a good deal using the design work carried out by the US for their versions of nuclear warheads for their D5's. Crew safety is another, hands-up sleeping in the torpedo flat of a nuked-up Astute?....pass.

Nuclear weapons were envisioned for state vs. state conflicts, it would hard to see a 3rd world country getting sent back to the stone age for sponsoring terrorism; though depending on the initial attack (by the terrorists) and the support form the third-party nation, perhaps not out of the realm of possibility. The point is though, the UK needs the options against a sophisticated enemy; and in that, SLCM will never do.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

02 October 2011

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

I see your point. However we will have to agree to disagree. I would be more than willing to offer up the reduction of CASD and ICBM to the treasury as a heavy bargaining chip to gain an increase to 3.0% GDP.

I also think that that could be done. Afterall the extra money could go to more hospitals, schools and keeping the greenies happy.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom