- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
US 'would pressure Scots over Trident'
05 July 2012
The Scottish National Party opposes hosting the UK's nuclear deterrent in Scotland and has vowed to remove the system from the country if it succeeds in gaining a "yes" vote in 2014's independence referendum.
The Defence Select Committee, in its first evidence session on the possible implications of Scottish independence, has now been told that the US would also be likely to oppose any moves to quickly remove the deterrent from Scottish soil.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford told the inquiry that "it would be likely that immense pressure would be brought on Scotland from Washington not to pursue that course of action".
A compromise would have to be reached, he said, adding that he could see Trident remaining in Scotland until the next generation of nuclear submarines was introduced.
Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Service Institute, said that Scottish communities overseas were likely to oppose any rejection of nuclear weapons and NATO.
"An independent Scotland will need, like any small state, to have friends. There are large Scottish diasporas around the world, not least in the United States, who will be asking whether this is the sort of Scotland that they support. And they will not understand if an independent Scotland as one of its first acts decides it wants to throw out nuclear weapons and leave NATO. They will ask 'what sort of Scotland is this?'"
While a non-nuclear state might not be problematic in the long-run, any moves to hurry the expulsion of Trident would be questioned and strongly opposed, Chalmers said.
"In the very long term, over decades, the UK might become increasingly uncomfortable about basing its only operational nuclear system in a foreign country and might actually decide of its own volition that it would prefer to base it on its own territory."
While moving the deterrent submarines and nuclear weapons facilities would be difficult and costly, "nothing is impossible", he added.
"It would be a very substantial venture in terms of time and money to try to replicate those facilities elsewhere, particularly in relation to the Coulport facility," he said, "guesstimating" that it would take at least 15 years for the move to take place due to the complexity of the planning and appeals process.
"It would be a very long time before ground was even broken."
Chalmers also said that an independent Scotland would be unlikely to spend the NATO recommendation of 2 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, would have to "beg and borrow" military hardware, and would be unlikely to be able to patrol its own airspace without assistance.
"This is not going to be a matter of simply inheriting some assets and putting them straight out into the field," said Chalmers. "I imagine in this scenario in an independent Scotland it would be begging and borrowing and leasing assets all over the place."
HAVE YOUR SAY
05 July 2012
Of course they would, the US loves it that the UK takes out the Trident franchise, as it impoverishes the rest of the UK's armed forces and prevents the UK being a serious independent world power on the world stage. As someone else put it, Trident reduces the UK to 'Belgium with Nukes'. Add to that the UK has no operational sovereignty for Trident and one wonders just how gullible the transatlatics think the British public really are.
Note I use the acronym UK, as I don't think Alex Hammond, the supreme leader, has any chance of achieving independence. The Scots are far too canny for that.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
05 July 2012
Martin Bayliss,
This arguement alleging that Trident impoverishes the rest of the UK's armed forces,is really a red herring started by the anti nuclear lobby,and taken up by the anti Trident lobby.
As we laid down our first SSBN in 1964,at a cost in real terms comparible with today,that would suggest for the last 48yrs the sea borne nuclear deterrent has been nothing but a liability to the rest of the UK forces. This is patently not the case.
If one looks at the armed forces it is from the early 90's and the so called 'end of the cold war bonus' that governments have used this as an excuse to cut back our capabilities.
You keep on stating that the UK has no operational sovereignty for Trident,can you please explain what you mean by this.
The UK government has complete independence over any decision to use this weapon in defence of our country. You seem to be suggesting that we need the permission of the US when this is definately not case. So just what do you mean.
michael - notts
05 July 2012
The UK is totally reliant on the US for not only the supply and maintenance of Trident (with the boats going to the US every year to get the missiles serviced) but also the reactors the submarines use.
If the UK were ever to have foreign policy goals that differed to the US, then the US could simply withdraw support and supply for our Trident franchise.
That is not an operationally independent deterrent.
Also, 1964, which was when we committed to Polaris, was also the same time the UK started to scrap its big ticket world power status military programs, the TSR2, the strike carriers and so on.
Also, the Iraqistan wars demonstrate how we are tied to US foreign policy interests which are clearly not our own, no doubt with the threat of the Trident franchise withdrawal as the stick the US keeps the UK in line with.
A less capable but truly independent nuclear deterrent, UK developed submarine launched cruise missiles would be far better, and strike carriers with aircraft on that could drop nuclear free fall bombs also. Our own submarine launched ballistic missile would be the ultimate, but we threw that away under Heath in 1974. Mind you, many countries around the world, India & Pakistan for example are now developing their own ballistic missiles. If we have the ambition to be a respected Security Council member, perhaps we should do the same. Of course it would cost an awful lot, but I think we waste vast sums of money on the EU and foreign aid we could better spend.
Time to end the illusion where Trident is concerned I think. That does not mean unilateral disarmament, just an alternative and possibly cheaper deterrent in the long term, but one which is truly independent for sure.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
05 July 2012
Michael Notts
Sorry many of us see Trident as "Impoverishing" the defence budget. Especially as it is now part of that budget.
Many facet of the use of the system and potentially targetting "May" require US involvement. If that is the case then UK does not have true independence of action with Trident. Which of course applies politically, unlike France we do not have a "True independence" of action.
Finally and a little bit of fiction perhaps.
If the UK does use Trident, would the recipient of the "Bucket of Sunshine" consider the weapon to have been a backhand US response as well. I do wonder, if this was the case, I do think that we would be in an exceptionally difficult position if we did consider using them Independently.
Degradable - UK
05 July 2012
Martin,
Yes we do purchase Trident from the US and a good thing too. It is arguably the most reliable submarine launched ballistic missile in the worlds armoury.As far as the reactors are concerned,they use a rolls-royce built PWR2,the US did provide some design help with this,but we are certainly not reliant on the US for them. Just as matter of interest the government has just invested £1bn in rolls-royce to completely upgrade its Derby facility,ready to build the next generation of reactors.
As far as foreign policy goes,do you honestly see a time when we would use these missiles unilateraly,I think not. Quite frankly if they have to be used then any talk of re supply would be out of the question,there would be no one to either re supply,or customer to supply to.
Yes we do have operational sovereignty.
Submarine cruise launched nuclear missiles are a completly out of the question,as any defence proffessional will tell you.Note the number of countries with cruise missile potential,then imagine a nuclear power being attacked by cruise missiles in an all out war,how do they know if these missiles are nuclear or not,how do they react.When you have a ballistic missile inbound then you are pretty certain what it's carrying.
After stating that Trident impoverishes the rest of the UK forces,you then astound me by seriously suggesting that we should develop our own ballistic missiles,for heavens sake how much do you think that would cost.Talk about contradiction.
Carrier based aircraft with nuclear weapons,as for cruise,apart from the fact they are far more susceptible to detection than are SSBN's.
You want a proper deterrent that is the best on offer,then simply put,you pay for it.
michael - n
05 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
What is a cheaper and viable alternative please? Don't say Nuclear tipped cruise missiles because I asked for a viable alternative.
The reactors are Rolls Royce and are serviced in Plymouth UK.
Degradable does make a good point in that now that Trident is funded from the Defence Budget it has taken money away from other much needed projects, however I support Michael - Notts point in that for 46 of the last 48 years the money for CASD has come out of a seperate fund and has not impoverished the defence community over the long term.
Your use of the term Operational Sovereignty is incorrect, the use of the weapon is British, there is no dual key required, however I would not imagining us launching any form of attack without seeking support from the US, having spoken with friends of mine who have worked on the Bombers, there are no operational restriction to the UK's independent nuclear deterent
Rob - Telford
05 July 2012
As a little tit-bit for the debate, the UK Government is the only one in the world to my knowledge that has never stated that it will not use nuclear weapons in a 1st strike action...
That would be negated somewhat if we were tied to US policy & approval, therefore I think that answers the question of sovereignty.
PWR2 is Rolls Royce & British designed after the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement technology transfers, as far as I know. The Warheads are based on a US design but are entirely British built at AWE Aldermaston, again, as far as I am aware. The UK/US share a pool of Trident missiles, based in the US-but once they are onboard the V-subs, they are purely at British will, again, as far as I know...
It would be interesting if we could get an informed US response on here to give their appreciation of the situ...
Laskovar - UK
05 July 2012
The RN has now switched to PWR3 for future boats, which is US designed as far as I know. PWR2 are history (deleted for future boats), which were UK developed from the original 1960's US reactor designs. So RR have a contract to build the reactors, not design them from scratch, 2012 is year zero for UK reactor design therefore.
Something to do with passive reactor cooling (heat pipes) rather than active (beefed up auto-aircon basically) so they are inherently safer? Or at lest that was the excuse used to cancel further development of PWR2. I must admit my 'active' car air-con goes wrong quite a bit.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
05 July 2012
All very interesting. Lets be real?!!! The bombers and their use is national. As Rob and Laskovar say the PWR2 is British ... the PWR3 for the replacements will first go to sea in the last? seventh Astute.
As for all the crap about the yanks and their involvement .... it is inconceivable that we would be involved in anything at that level on our own ... therefore the yanks would also be involved .... and most likely the French too because they only live twenty or so miles away!! While unstable states are in the business of building up their strengths/options with regard to nuclear weapons (both missile and 'dirty container' type) we need them to also think "what are the odds on us getting away with this and what are the consequences if we don't?" End of sermon!
Norman - UK
05 July 2012
Martin,
You state:-
2012 is year zero for UK reactor design therefore.
But not for building them,which keeps your industrial skills level at the top of the pile.The very fact that the US release the design to us means that once again we save time and money on development costs. So we pay them for the licence to build,everyone is a winner.
May I say that you now seem to have changed tack,from 'Typhoon is the best' to 'Lets question our relationship with the US'
You do seem to be the champion of 'lost causes'
michael - notts
05 July 2012
1. PWR3 is Rolls Royce designed and will be built by them hence the recent spend by the government.
2. The UK and US actually share missile so what was in a US SSBN could after servicing end up in a Vanguard and visa versa.
3. The missiles are operationally independent and use British warheads. If God forbid they are used its because they failed in there purpose which is as a deterrent and we won't be here any more anyway.
4. The problem is that from the 2010 SDSR funding for the deterrent is now out of the core defence budget and not a supplementary budget funded separately by the treasury as it had been for decades. So in reality we are not going to spend 2.0% GDP on defence but substantially less hence the destruction of our conventional forces to pay for it. Therefore in reality the government must decide between either:
a) Returning to a supplementary budget and maintaining CASD.
b) Ending CASD and keeping one Vanguard at immediate readiness and another on extended readiness.
It is not possible to have it both ways otherwise the destruction of our conventional capability will go ahead.
Graham - High Wycombe
06 July 2012
".... it is inconceivable that we would be involved in anything at that level on our own ... therefore the yanks would also be involved .... "
Therefore, we don't need a pseudo-independent nuclear deterrent - the real purpose of which is to allow the British prime minister (regardless of party) to pose as a world statesman, by keeping up the charade that we're still a leading power.
Given that we would never use Trident unilaterally, and would not launch any form of attack without seeking support from the US, there is absolutely no point in paying a fortune to maintain an at-sea deterrent (against some unspecified third party) entirely dependent on rented US missiles, which the US could cause to wither on the vine simply by withdrawing support. We only have it at America's pleasure: we might as well follow the logic to its conclusion and accept that, for deterrence against any major power, we're dependent on America's nuclear umbrella. To deter our fellow junior league players, nuclear armed cruise missiles (aircraft or SSN-delivered) are adequate, and affordable for a country like the UK. And it really would be an independent deterrent, if a less impressive national virility symbol.
Stan - York
06 July 2012
Stan - York
I hear your argument, I don't neccesarily agree with it, as Nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles are not a viable alternative, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions before, it would lower the Nuclear threshold, as any country attacked by a cruise missile (by us), would never be sure whether it was a conventional weapon or nuclear tipped.
Cruise Missiles can also be shot down, as seen on numerous occasions on Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and of FYR, an SLBM or ICBM, with countermeasures / decoys are the only sure way of geeting a warhead through.
I have to agree with Graham on this one, CASD should go back to being funded by a supplementry budget (and not from the core defence budget)or we do not continue with CASD and opt for the high readiness option.
Rob - Telford
06 July 2012
CASD and high readiness would be fine if the delivery system and weapons were truly independent.
They aren't.
And yes submarine launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles are a less reliable delivery system, but they would still represent a formidable deterrent.
We could quite easily have had a UK version of Storm Shadow (we made a start but threw the towel in and bought French about 20 years ago) credible submarine launched nuclear capable cruise missile by now which did not involve the US or France, at a fraction of the cost of Trident. But no, the transatlantics in the MOD, FO and treasury have ensured we have remained the 51st state with a Trident franchise that impoverishes the rest of the UK armed forces and the wider UK military industrial complex.
Fact!
PS: Much the same applies to the F35 debacle
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
06 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
Your loathing of all things American is astounding. What else are you going to grumble about, Sidewinder, AMRAAM, C17's, come on get it off your chest.
Whatever you think we have an Operationally independent Nuclear Deterrent, (we may share missile bodies and have them serviced in the United States), but Operationally they are ours. FACT
Your comment regarding the use of cruise missiles (aren't they American) or a version of Storm Shadow (100 mile range!!!), shows that you really do not understand what is required from a Nuclear deterrent.
Rob - Telford
10 July 2012
There's an aspect of the bombers that is not coming to the fore here. They have a proposed, but little mentioned 'secondary' (though you could well argue more likely) role; which is in support of blue-water actions against an opponent's fleet - should the size of that fleet be judged a sufficient risk.
Gavin Gordon - Chichester
14 September 2012
Ribby22- yank ,USA
If you do not want the Tridents send them back. The reason you have them is to get away from US politics, meaning the recipient of the trident does not have to question (how the fact that a large portion of their country is gone ) ,how it relates to American politics. They just have to wonder why they pissed off England (UK), in addition in regards to deterrence one (enemy) could calculate the America would not risk a greater war with an adversary because England (UK ) got itself nuked. That is why they are yours and you ultimately have control of your own destiny, not on American yanks who might think that it is not worth going to war over a country that is already gone (If England was nuked). When an enemy picks a fight with England then they have to deal with England not us yanks, but if you would rather be at the mercy of American politicians in regards to your security then give them back !
Bill Ribblett - Jamestown/ NY/USA