UK Trident
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier targets for ADA systems. Any nation at or above 2nd tier status can attrit or completely suppress an attack using those systems. Only the US and Israel have working ABM systems, and AFAIK neither have sufficient interceptors to handle more than a handful of incoming.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
There are a few circumstances where an independent nuclear capability would be needed (such as a biological/nuclear attack traced to Pakistan). The current generation of cruise missiles (both air and sea launched) are vulnerable to modern air defence systems, and not suitable as a last resort weapon.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
I think the answer depends very much on what sort of country the UK wil be in the 17 years it will take to get this done. If, by then, we are an integral part of europe then we're spending the money on behalf of the greater european community and £20 billion is a lot of money to piss away. Further, who knows what type of political party or system will be in power and what they might deem to be a fit purpose? Another argument might be that what on earth do we need this weaponry for? We'll never use it aggressively and to use it defensively probably means it's too late anyway. MAD has only 1 outcome. Perhaps what we could do to offset the cost is withdraw troops and shut bases, especially in Germany. WTF are we still doing there??? So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons. If we'll never use it so why have it? (We're too soft and flimsy to do anything like that cos we've handed the keys of the asylum to the weak and inept).
-
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier targets for ADA systems. Any nation at or above 2nd tier status can attrit or completely suppress an attack using those systems. Only the US and Israel have working ABM systems, and AFAIK neither have sufficient interceptors to handle more than a handful of incoming.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
dan neely wrote:
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier targets for ADA systems.
That is certainly true. However, if the deterrent is primarily against smaller nations (rather than Russia or China) then a cruise missile system should be enough. Even with an anti-missile system, the nation doing the threatening has to be absolutely sure they will get all your missiles - even the US admits that its anti-missile systems can only cope with a few missiles. I suppose my question boils down to: what is a suffient nuclear deterrent for the UK rather than what is the best.
-
I think the answer depends very much on what sort of country the UK wil be in the 17 years it will take to get this done. If, by then, we are an integral part of europe then we're spending the money on behalf of the greater european community and £20 billion is a lot of money to piss away. Further, who knows what type of political party or system will be in power and what they might deem to be a fit purpose? Another argument might be that what on earth do we need this weaponry for? We'll never use it aggressively and to use it defensively probably means it's too late anyway. MAD has only 1 outcome. Perhaps what we could do to offset the cost is withdraw troops and shut bases, especially in Germany. WTF are we still doing there??? So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons. If we'll never use it so why have it? (We're too soft and flimsy to do anything like that cos we've handed the keys of the asylum to the weak and inept).
digital man wrote:
So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons.
I think, at present, the UK is punching above its weight. Trident effectively buys a place on the UN security council. I suspect that is why it is such an attractive option for politicians who are or have a realistic shot at leading the country.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
-
digital man wrote:
So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons.
I think, at present, the UK is punching above its weight. Trident effectively buys a place on the UN security council. I suspect that is why it is such an attractive option for politicians who are or have a realistic shot at leading the country.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
Dan Bennett wrote:
Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent?
Much better than spending it on a low-end nuclear deterrent that needs upgrading as soon as it's taken out of the box.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
It is not unknown for "old style" labour party politicians to voice their views about the wrongness of the UK to have a nuclear deterrent. This has been the case since the 1960's when Britain acquired Polaris, even though the modern Labour Party is more right-wing there still remains some of the old guard. Aircraft and Cruise missiles are generally vulnerable from enemy defense systems so there is a choice of battlefield nuclear weapons which are vulnerable from enemy actions, land-based silos, or submarine weapons. When at sea, submarine based weapons are not easily locatable by an enemy until the missile trail is evident, by that time, the weapons are on-route to destination. Land-based silos are stationary and are easy for an enemy systems to target. If the choice is either nuclear or non-nuclear weapons, the later would be preferable but if there is a need for a "weapon of last resort" then it must be submarine based, and if the price of that is £20billion then so be it. And it would be wholly inappropriate to rely upon the USA for our nuclear umbrella because of the policies the US Administration could develop that could a some future time be to Britain's disadvantage.
-
What's the point for UK to have nuclear weapons, it cannot use them without the agreement of the US anyway.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Are you referring to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement[^] (renewed in 2005)? It doesn't mention that we would need US approval to actually deploy nukes, but back in the Cold War that might of made some sense. However, some parts of the agreement are classified, so who knows. I think we still need a nuclear deterrent, as no-one can foresee the future. Whether we should be spending £20bn on upgrading Trident or not, well, I haven't made up my mind.
-
What's the point for UK to have nuclear weapons, it cannot use them without the agreement of the US anyway.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
What's the point for UK to have nuclear weapons, it cannot use them without the agreement of the US anyway.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Yes, if use of the weapons requires US agreement then there seems little point in having them. A similar point could be made about France given that it fails to back up its rhetoric with military action (e.g. Lebanon) - is there really any point in having nuclear weapons if everyone knows you won't use them?
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
Dan Bennett wrote:
Was just wondering what others think of this issue.
I think it'd send a good message to the rest of the world if the UK agreed to nuclear disarmament. It's the only way the UK will mentioned in history books pertaining to the present day ;P
-
digital man wrote:
So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons.
I think, at present, the UK is punching above its weight. Trident effectively buys a place on the UN security council. I suspect that is why it is such an attractive option for politicians who are or have a realistic shot at leading the country.
Dan Bennett wrote:
the UK is punching above its weight
We have a population of 60 million plus people and the 5th largest economy. In theory we should be able to deliver a far bigger 'punch'. The problem? The welfare state. This drains our economy in a completely disproportionate fashion leaving little for anything else and causing year-on-year tax rises to cope with the ever increasing demands on an outdated and corrupt system. I'm not saying I'd rather have weapons than the welfare system but there is room for both.
-
It is not unknown for "old style" labour party politicians to voice their views about the wrongness of the UK to have a nuclear deterrent. This has been the case since the 1960's when Britain acquired Polaris, even though the modern Labour Party is more right-wing there still remains some of the old guard. Aircraft and Cruise missiles are generally vulnerable from enemy defense systems so there is a choice of battlefield nuclear weapons which are vulnerable from enemy actions, land-based silos, or submarine weapons. When at sea, submarine based weapons are not easily locatable by an enemy until the missile trail is evident, by that time, the weapons are on-route to destination. Land-based silos are stationary and are easy for an enemy systems to target. If the choice is either nuclear or non-nuclear weapons, the later would be preferable but if there is a need for a "weapon of last resort" then it must be submarine based, and if the price of that is £20billion then so be it. And it would be wholly inappropriate to rely upon the USA for our nuclear umbrella because of the policies the US Administration could develop that could a some future time be to Britain's disadvantage.
I agree with your points about the vulnerability of lesser systems. However, is the deterrent primarily there for China and Russia, who may have the capability to bring down cruise missiles or is it aimed at smaller nations which do not? I'm in favour of a nuclear deterrent but I'd like a balance between need and effectiveness. It is a gamble of course, but we take calculated risks all the time and I don't think this should be any different.
-
"Tony Blair may face his biggest Commons rebellion since the start of the Iraq war when MPs vote on the £20bn plan to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm[^] Was just wondering what others think of this issue. Should the UK really be spending big money on a top-of-the-range nuclear deterrent? I've heard it suggested that submarine launched cruise missiles would be a cheaper alternative (and dropping them from aircraft would be cheaper still). If it were a credible deterrent then it it seems like a better option to me. Of course we could just give up the nuclear option altogether and hope the US looks after us...
Read elsewhere: £20 billion would last 17 years with Trident, or 3 months in the NHS. As an investor, which would you choose?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Dan Bennett wrote:
the UK is punching above its weight
We have a population of 60 million plus people and the 5th largest economy. In theory we should be able to deliver a far bigger 'punch'. The problem? The welfare state. This drains our economy in a completely disproportionate fashion leaving little for anything else and causing year-on-year tax rises to cope with the ever increasing demands on an outdated and corrupt system. I'm not saying I'd rather have weapons than the welfare system but there is room for both.
Agreed.
-
digital man wrote:
So, bottom line: don't do it: the money would be far better spent beefing up our present military or building some hospitals or schools or prisons.
I think, at present, the UK is punching above its weight. Trident effectively buys a place on the UN security council. I suspect that is why it is such an attractive option for politicians who are or have a realistic shot at leading the country.
-
Are you referring to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement[^] (renewed in 2005)? It doesn't mention that we would need US approval to actually deploy nukes, but back in the Cold War that might of made some sense. However, some parts of the agreement are classified, so who knows. I think we still need a nuclear deterrent, as no-one can foresee the future. Whether we should be spending £20bn on upgrading Trident or not, well, I haven't made up my mind.
This one, plus the Quebec Agreement of 1943, plus the Polaris Sales Agreement[^].
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I think we still need a nuclear deterrent
Agreed, but it lacks of credibility when the weapon system is provided by somebody else.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr