Harvey - military chiefs support nuclear downgrade

HAVE YOUR SAY

27 September 2012

The sad truth is there is an alternative to anything when you need the money. Except the NHS or overseas aid, it seems.

Why don't we sell the nuclear deterrent and the rest of our defence assets to France and Germany? Oh, er, wait a minute...
Michael - Hertfordshire

27 September 2012

If the service chiefs are thinking like that then they all need to be replaced.when this Government came in the Treasury asked all departments to prepare savings of 25% and even 45%, so cutting the billions that the nuclear deterant will cost would be a dream come true for the Treasury, not a penny would be spent on other defence projects, it would be used to cut the deficit and get this Government out of its own big black hole.
The whole point of the continuous at sea deterrent is it works,infact it works so well that the USA,Russia,China,India,France and the UK are all planning to build or are building new missle subs,
and the new US subs will have an out of service date of 2080,get the point.Please stop trying to pull the wool over peoples eye's
gerald - Stevenage

28 September 2012

If the Independent Deterrent had not been moved into the defence vite by this gorvernment then the army "driving around in vehicles which are literally about to fall to pieces" would be irrelevant to Trident replacement. And anyway, the army having such vehicles wasn't helped by putting a "pause" on Scout SV whilst SDSR, 3-month exercises, endless tranches of options and other ruses were used by the newly-elected, parsimonious government to delay the demonstration phase. They say one thing in public, and behind closed doors they delay and cut like crazy.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

28 September 2012

Well this seems like common sense.

As I have said before, Trident is not independent or operationally sovereign. But it is easily the single biggest MOD program. Arguably it has been used as an excuse to reduce the UK's independent expeditionary capability to its current appalling state, particularly the RN.

I am not against a UK deterrent, far from it. But I think if we are to have a deterrent it should be truly independent and we should have operational sovereignty.

I think the best option is a combination of submarine and air launched cruise missiles. True, they are less reliable than a ballistic missile, but in time they will become vulnerable too. And cruise missiles are cheaper and can be more numerous and hence the mere presence of nuclear sea and air launched (by both the RN & RAF, unless we want to be limited to a air launch radius of deterrence of 300 miles, the Jersey better watch out!) cruise missiles should be a powerful deterrent.

I think Israel's nuclear capability is a good example of how a nuclear deterrent need not be ballistic missile based. And for the UK there is also a lesson in that Israel is able to field its deterrent independently of the US, giving Israel leverage we currently don't have.

A UK program to develop and build more capable cruise missiles than the ones we currently buy from the US and France would also be a welcome boost for the UK defence industrial base.

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

28 September 2012

The reason the defence chiefs are worried about conventional trade-off is that chancellor Osborne managed to get the nuclear deterrent included in the defence budget for the first time ever instead of a separate supplementary budget that we always had before as it was considered a strategic deterrent.

However alternatives to a submarine launched ICBM are a non-starter:

Forget land basing that is politically impossible.

Forget cruise missiles they can be shot down, are too short range and could mean a conventional attack results in a nuclear response as a nuclear armed enemy would not wait to find out if they are conventionally armed.

So the question is what do we do then? Well we have to replace the Vanguards before Trident itself is due for replacement from 2042 so the Vanguard replacement will have entered service probably 12-15 years before Trident is replaced by a compatible missile.

So what about now? first as there is no credible threat of a first strike against the UK from any nuclear armed state we have to scrap CASD which costs a considerable amount. We can put two Vanguards at readiness and two at extended readiness with a crew and backup available in rotation.

The Vanguard replacement can be delayed to enter service by 2030 and we will only need three with a 12 missile compartment and one warhead per missile which is a perfectly credible deterrent as we must get out of the mindset of needing to flatten Russia or China merely a response that is capable of inflicting enough damage to deter a strike against the UK by any state in the future which could include a number of new players in the next 50 years.

We would only need two or three dozen warheads and if we stop CASD now we can start to reduce our current stockpile. These measures will mitigate somewhat against loss of conventional capability at the cost of nuclear deterrence.

However the nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent to other nuclear armed states and it is a fact that the most likely form of nuclear attack would be by non state group with the backing of a state. In this case the only help the deterrent would provide is if we were able to get enough intelligence on a state helping terrorists to warn that state that should we be attacked we would hold them responsible and retaliate against them.
Graham - High Wycombe

28 September 2012

Sensible comments from someone who, as a defence insider, has shown principled support for the armed forces and their personnel for many years.

Trident will almost certainly not be replaced, partly because the UK can't afford it and partly because the public no longer see any need for it. Apart from a few dinosaurs who are still stuck in a political rut 30 years old, most MPs and politicians now seem to accept this.

We need to spend money on ensuring that the armed forces have the kit they need to fight the battles they are asked to and, most importantly, on preventing wars starting in the first place.
Steve - Romford

28 September 2012

Steve-Romford,
You have answere your own question,why do you think that for nearly 50yrs of the cold war with the USSR,a hot war never started.

It was soley because the west had nuclear weapons,any war that went nuclear would have meant 'mutualy assured destruction' for all concerned. Even Kruschev backed down from going to war over the Cuban crisis,knowing he was in a no win situation.

Yes the cold war is over,but we have rogue states with nuclear weapons,or soon will have. We have countries with nuclear weapons that are very unstable politicaly and could become a future threat. Then we have burgeoning powers in Asia who could become threats.

We need a credible nuclear deterent,whether we like it or not.
michael - notts

28 September 2012

Martin,

Trident IS operationally independent.
Graham - High Wycombe

28 September 2012

Michael, Notts

But we're not facing off the USSR any more - and like it or not, the real truth is that, even when we were, we were sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella anyway (just as we presently keep up the charade of having our own "independent" deterrent through the indulgence of Uncle Sam). If the USSR would have found the degree of damage that the relatively small British nuclear arsenal could have inflicted unacceptable, then why did the US go to the expense of building up a far larger one? We don't need the hugely-sophisticated and expensive weapon system that is an SSBN to deter "rogue states with nuclear weapons", and we have no conflict of interest with "burgeoning powers in Asia", unless we choose to create one by gratuitously meddling in their backyard in an attempt to kid the world, and the more credulous element of public opinion at home, that our truly unremarkable politicians are big men presiding over a Britain that is still able to behave as it did in the 1890s. Trident is just an unconvincing national virility symbol for our leaders to wave about. We don't need it, and we can't afford it.
Stan - York

28 September 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Without US maintenance and support how long to you think the trident missiles would remain viable. And do you really think we could fire the damn things without the White House agreeing.

Come on, be realistic!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

28 September 2012

I especially love the reference to launching our nuclear deterrent from surface ships....... eh...what ships might they be exactly?? The paltry few we do have come with 'fitted for but not with' on the box as it is! This government - and previous ones to be fair - are a joke. That said, it's Cameron's decision to STILL harp on about how we need to increase overseas aid.... have you ever heard such rubbish! Defence of the country is his FIRST priority! What this country needs is another Churchill - someone with a spine and not afraid to put the interests of the British people first and not be soooo afraid of offending others; if they don't like it, they can lump it!
David McKevitt - USA

28 September 2012

Stan-York,
That is just the sort of short sighted attitude that left us patheticaly equipped at the start of WW2

No one is going to attack us mentality shown by the then PM waving a piece of paper guaranteeing 'peace in our time' which proved to be absolutely worthless.

The world is a more dangerous place now than it has been for years. The middle east being a flash point on our doorstep,with one nuclear power we know of and one in the making,or perhaps you believe otherwise.

India and Pakistan,traditional enemies,both of whom are nuclear powers and have fought in the recent past.

India and China have also fought over the border between the two countries,and both are building military bases along that border as fast as they can,again both nuclear powers.

It will not need us to meddle in the far east,as China seems to be doing very well on its own upsetting numerous countries in the area by its beligerence.

You are aware that we have members of the commonwealth in that sphere,that we would be bound to assist should push come to shove.

You may wish to bury you head in the sand,and blame everything on our politicians,but in truth some things are beyond our control.

Yes we do need the successor to Trident,and yes in spite of all you hear,we can afford it.
michael - n

29 September 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

Considering the agreement between the UK and US has lasted around 50 years I don't think there is any chance of the US withdrawing support for maintenance of the missile systems.

As I said they are operationally independent, when a Vanguard is at sea they can launch on the request of the British PM.

As for the US agreeing that would be the case politically anyway if we were considering a first use so makes no difference. In any case we would never launch a first strike they would only be used in retaliation for a strike against the UK in which case we would not care about seeking anyone's permission!
Graham - High Wycombe

30 September 2012

Just how many times has this issue been done to death on here, particularly the issue of cruise missiles replacing a SLBM!

Cruise could be intercepted and shot down, thus where is the deterrent?

What happens when we replace Trident with cruise or similar and the USA, Russia, China, India, France etc all keep theirs??

Further belittling of my country.
We keep Trident or similar as long as other world powers keep theirs.

As to whether Trident is fully independent or not from the US as the Graham - Martin debate often brings up, well I'm really not sure.

We have the CTF345 to control the system ourselves along with the CCC dealing with data and software, but all that material is forwarded to us by US Strategic Command, thus we are dependent on them.

Indeed the UK has personnel embedded in the US Command systems to process data that has been sanitized for non US citizens ( us!) to see, as well as our system being integrated into the US SIOP for targeting purposes.

That we lease the missiles from the USA and have them rotated through Kings Bay does not really matter.

So while being nominally independent, we are embedded with the US in the support of the system.

This is my understanding and I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

30 September 2012

I don't think there is any direct connection between the cost of a replacement for Trident and the problems the Army have been having with their armoured vehicles, that sounds like another excuse for MOD ineptitude to me.
To listen to some people, you would think that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it. With respect to the armoured vehicles, the MOD (and the DoD) have already tried that- and ended up with a lot of badly designed vehicles. What they should have done was to buy up all the Casspir APCs that were lying around in South Africa, and maybe put that vehicle or something similar back into production.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

01 October 2012

SSBNs are necessary because we can't base silos on land, they'd be targetted constantly, and then wiped out in any first strike.

As to independence of the deterrent - France doesn't seem to have any problems maintaining theirs. And are we happy for France to retain its permanent Security Council seat, whilst we give up ours?
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

11 October 2012

There is no workable alternative to SSBN's armed with ballistic missiles. If Mr havey thinks Russia, China, Iran And N Korea are no longer threats I suggest he looks out the window more often.

Cruise can not at this present time, guarantee it will be able to penetrate anything but the most benign air defences. Or is Mr Harvey suggesting we only target Third world countries?

If you turn the ballistic missile with a conventional warhead idea around, that was discounted because the enemy couldn't distinguish it from a nuclear tipped missile and that could start a nuclear war. The same would apply with cruise, a conventional strike cruise could start a nuclear war if you have nuclear tipped cruise in your inventory. Simply because the enemy cant tell the difference.

Anything other than CASD is pointless and leaves the submarines too vulnerable to a first strike, they have to be at sea to work.

One final point, Its too late for senior Officers to start complaining now, they should have public ally threatened to resign when the reductions in conventional forces and the switch of the deterrent was made to the defence budget were announced in the SSDR.
Tim Dainton - Romsey