Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: MAD and Britain's Nuclear Deterrent
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Over on the Jeremy Corbyn thread, unsurprisingly there has been a lot of debate around Trident renewal. Similarly, some of the issues were debated in a Hell thread [now in Oblivion]. I wondered if we put it all here whether that would allow the Corbyn thread to go back to Corbyn.
I have a lot of sympathy with a unilateral-disarmament argument but I do think most of the arguments put forward are quite poor. So I just want to lay out a few things and then we can hopefully talk about them. I do not claim any real expertise, other than I’ve looked stuff up. I am happy to be corrected by those who know more. Obviously, everything here is in the public domain.
What is Britain’s nuclear deterrent? Britain currently has 4 Vanguard Class nuclear submarines. These are both nuclear powered and carry Britain strategic nuclear weapons. The weapons they carry are Trident D5 missiles. The warheads and British made. Trident is a very sophisticated system. It is launched from just below the surface of the sea, it has a range of up to 12,000km (7,500 miles). Each missile can carry multiple re-entry vehicles. This means that each missile can be fired at several targets and can carry countermeasures against any defences. According to official statements the UK submarines carry 48 missiles each with an average of 3 warheads per missile. The yield of each warhead is variable but up to 100 kT TNT. (Hiroshima was 15kT). Using a combination of an inertial navigation system and stellar reference system they are very highly accurate. After a journey of 12,000 km the CEP is 90m. CEP is ‘Circular Error Probable’ which is how you measure these things it means: if CEP is n meters, 50% of rounds land within n meters of the target, 43% between n and 2n, and 7% between 2n and 3n meters, and the proportion of rounds that land farther than three times the CEP from the target is approximately 0.32%.. So for Trident that means 99.68% of the warheads fired will land within 270m of the target. Given the blast range of a 100kT weapon that’s a direct hit, however you look at it. (Having looked it up, I had previously been told that the GPS system used by the subs was important for accuracy but it seems that the designers believed that in a real crisis, GPS might not be available and hence they built a system that didn’t need it). The reason for having 4 submarines is that one is always at sea, on deep patrol and undetectable. Hence at any one time, the UK could launch 142 100kT warheads. At least 141 of these would hit and destroy utterly whatever they are aimed at. There is (probably) no defence against sea-launched missiles. You may detect the sub when it comes shallow to fire it’s missiles but you’re only realistic hope is to destroy it after all the missiles have been fired.
British nuclear doctrine is never to strike first but to tell the world that in the event of an attack, a UK retaliation would annihilate whomsoever had attacked us. And thus even the most vehement of aggressors would not dare to launch a nuclear (or chemical or biological) attack on Britain. This is different to US/soviet strategy in that both have multiple systems and have invested a lot of planning in the concept of counter-strike. If you can fire first and destroy the enemy's missiles then you can threaten nuclear all-out attack without retaliation and win whatever confrontation you are in. This is theoretically possible with land-based missiles and nuclear bombers. The reason why the US and the USSR had so many missiles was to counteract this threat. In order to make such an attack, you have to be confident of taking out all the missiles. Hence the move to submarine-based systems and it’s just not possible to track the submarines on deep patrol. This is also why the disarmament treaties were so tricky as neither side really trusted the other and the balance of forces is critical to the strategic position.
So Britain’s nuclear weapons mean that theoretically we could destroy any nation who attacked us and the theory goes that such a threat will deter any such attack. If that is your nuclear doctrine, there really is no other system to have.
Cost So Trident is needing renewal (or scrapping). It’s coming to the end of its current life. The missiles have had their life extended by the US program to at least 2030 with a planned replacement to follow. The Vanguard submarines need replacing.
How much will this cost? Well the official figure is £15-£20Bn. Of which something like £1-3Bn has already been spent. If you factor in decommissioning costs, the outside figure from the MOD is £28Bn. Greenpeace says this is really £34Bn. But that’s over at least 40 years, so a more meaningful number is the 6% of the defence budget taken up by Trident. Corbyn uses the critics' figure of £100Bn. I don’t know of any basis for this number other than the fact that military procrument always costs lots more than estimates. Which is fair criticism of past performance. However most of this money is spent in the UK – in Barrow-in-Furness and Faslane and the costs of not doing it, in terms of jobs lost and reduced money in the economy are not small. Thus if you said we weren’t going to spent the £28Bn over 40 years, it would probably cost more money in the short term.
For me that makes the money argument rather mute.
Arguments
For me, the real debate comes down to 2 questions: 1. Does it make sense to have a strategic nuclear deterrent? (i.e. does Britain’s real threat over the next 50 years come from something like the Soviet Cold War threat and does it work to be able to threaten complete destruction in retaliation?) 2. Is it ever morally defensible to threaten such destruction?
The reason I say this is that if the answer to both of these question is yes, then Trident is the way to do it. If the answer to either is no then everything else is irrelevant and we should all move on.
Independence Whilst the missiles are American and on long-term lease with servicing in the US, to all intents-and-purposes on a day-to-day basis they are under British control. As are the warheads and the submarines. Hence no-one other than the British command-and-control systems can order them fired. It is a myth to say it’s not an independent system.
Unilateral disarmament Conceivably one could differentiate Britain from the US in this regard and argue that the US couldn't unilaterally disarm as this would be dangerous for all the western world. That may have merit. Even if true that does not apply to the UK and some will argue that having nuclear weapons make Britain a target. In which case we should not renew Trident and stop being a nuclear power.
Morality I think most (all?) of us would argue that to threaten another nation with destruction is unbelievably morally abhorrent. As a defensive posture we really don’t want to but could if your forced us it might be defensible. You may feel that Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded by Russia is they’d kept their nukes. But practically this has interesting moral problems.
In order for deterrence to work, you have to convince your opponents that you are always in the position to retaliate. Hence the constant sub patrols. However, it’s not just about equipment, you have to train your crews and motivate them such that they could if needed fire such horrific weapons. I have big moral issues with that. I think the film Crimson Tide with Denzil Washington and Gene Hackman encapsulates this well. Also, you face the dangers of accidents and trigger-happy dictators. I think most of us would feel that a nuclear-free world is a much safer one.
Anyways, I am sure there is a lot to talk about here as it has persisted on the Corbyn thread but I hope I’ve laid out the argument in a way that I hope frames it well: What say you Shipmates?
AFZ
Some references if anyone's interested: Nuclear Weapon Archive Trident D5 Missiles
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I disagree about the independence of the deterrent. The US are heavily involved in the maintainance of the current system, making it highly likely they have the ability to sabotage a launch in flight if they want to.
I also think it would be helpful to separate the question (and costs) of whether we maintain a nuclear deterrent, from whether we maintain a small fleet of nuclear powered submarines. If we could improve / develop communications technology appropriately, subs are potentially less vulnerable to attack than surface ships and could have a useful strategic role.
I don't believe in the doctrine of MAD, I think it is immoral and we have no evidence it works. It may have prevented world war 3, or everybody's memory of how hideous world war 2 was may have prevented world war 3.
I would like to see serious investment in strategies / technologies that stop a nuclear strike landing - or possibly being fired in the first place.
(Whilst we are on the subject of duff military strategies, how is it we can take out two of own citizens in a drone strike in Syria but apparently either unwilling or unable to assassinate Bashar Al Assad. In so far as we say we can't negotiate properly whilst he's in place it seems like the obvious way to cut the Gordian knot.)
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
As I said over on the Corbyn thread, we have an independent nuclear deterrent only so far as we can choose not to launch them.
There's no way in God's (currently) green Earth that we could choose to launch without the US having launched first, while the contra position of the US launching without asking our permission is clearly possible.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: As I said over on the Corbyn thread, we have an independent nuclear deterrent only so far as we can choose not to launch them.
There's no way in God's (currently) green Earth that we could choose to launch without the US having launched first, while the contra position of the US launching without asking our permission is clearly possible.
Why? That makes no sense to me.
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Any of our alleged enemies who are sufficiently threatening to make a nuclear launch plausible are also enemies of the US. It's marginally more plausible that the UK will choose not to engage in US global power plays in future than that the UK will engage in such plays without US backing. The last time the UK tried it was Suez and was humiliated.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
In April this year, former Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Portillo said: quote: Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn't constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds that might otherwise be spent on perfectly useful and useable weapons and troops. But some people have not caught up with this reality.
Source (CND website) IIRC, he had previously made the point that Trident really has very little to do with military defence: it was rather, he claimed, a status symbol, giving Britain a free pass to the "top table" of military powers.
Worth it? I really don't think so.
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Didn't notice it already mentioned, but in terms of nuclear deterrence, MAD is an acronym for "Mutually Assured Destruction".
-------------------- Siegfried Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: As I said over on the Corbyn thread, we have an independent nuclear deterrent only so far as we can choose not to launch them.
There's no way in God's (currently) green Earth that we could choose to launch without the US having launched first, while the contra position of the US launching without asking our permission is clearly possible.
Why? That makes no sense to me.
AFZ
My understanding is that the Trident force is assigned to NATO as part of its force. NATO has its own command and control structure and nothing much would happen without leaders other than the Prime Minister being involved. Our boats and missile are not therefore independent.
Not that is, until the deterrence concept has failed and the commanders get to open the letters written by the PM to tell them whether or not to shoot.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would like to see serious investment in strategies / technologies that stop a nuclear strike landing - or possibly being fired in the first place.
But surely that would make a nuclear war more likely. If one side is convinced that they have the technology to avoid destruction in the event of a nuclear launch, then the whole concept of MAD has broken down. It makes a nuclear war "winnable", and hence something a politician or military commander would argue in favour of.
The only technology that prevents the weapons being used is disarmament. And since we cannot disarm other countries - only ourselves - unilateral disarmament is the only available option.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think that unilateral disarmament *paired with* effective strike protection is the way to go.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink.: I think that unilateral disarmament *paired with* effective strike protection is the way to go.
Back in the eighties America had the Strategic Defense Intiative (SDI), known as "Star Wars". It was designed to prevent an effective enemy first-strike but it had the disadvantages of a) being incredibly expensive and b) scaring the Hell out of the Russians who feared that once America could protect her cities and military bases, it could carry out a first strike with impunity.
Reagan didn't like MAD but is on record saying "Let's bomb the hell out of the Russkies" which is consistent with his backing for SDI. Thatcher OTOH did not like SDI. She felt it could destabilise the balance that kept the Cold War cold.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Not just back in the 80s. National missile defense has been an area of interest since ICBMs were first introduced in the 50s, and Reagan's SDI was followed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and now the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The latter notes that the US has spent over $170B since 1985; current spending is ~$8B/year. Despite the expense, ambitions have been drastically scaled back; while the 80s vision was of a shield against a massive Soviet attack, the hope now is to provide some defense against a state with a much weaker capability, like Iran or North Korea.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The defensive shield was an issue for Russia because the States were retaining an offensive nuclear capability. If the countryndoesn't have nukes the position is different.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: As I said over on the Corbyn thread, we have an independent nuclear deterrent only so far as we can choose not to launch them.
There's no way in God's (currently) green Earth that we could choose to launch without the US having launched first, while the contra position of the US launching without asking our permission is clearly possible.
Why? That makes no sense to me.
AFZ
My understanding is that the Trident force is assigned to NATO as part of its force. NATO has its own command and control structure and nothing much would happen without leaders other than the Prime Minister being involved. Our boats and missile are not therefore independent.
Not that is, until the deterrence concept has failed and the commanders get to open the letters written by the PM to tell them whether or not to shoot.
That's one of those things that's both true and not true. Much like any use of British forces by NATO.
This written answer from the MOD lays out the policy. The tension between national security and democratic accountability is one we can debate. quote: From the MOD: Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?
No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes, procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.
Anyway - for me - this is clear: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent is independent. If you don't think we should have nukes, that's fine but I don't think talking about independence adds anything.
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: Anyway - for me - this is clear: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent is independent. If you don't think we should have nukes, that's fine but I don't think talking about independence adds anything.
Can you think of any scenario in which we launch nuclear weapons without the USA having done so already? I keep asking this question of people who believe our deterrent is independent, and get precisely no answers.
(I can think of two, but I'll tell you what they are after you've done your bit.)
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: Anyway - for me - this is clear: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent is independent. If you don't think we should have nukes, that's fine but I don't think talking about independence adds anything.
Can you think of any scenario in which we launch nuclear weapons without the USA having done so already? I keep asking this question of people who believe our deterrent is independent, and get precisely no answers.
(I can think of two, but I'll tell you what they are after you've done your bit.)
I suppose if (we'll say Russia) launched an attack on us. And successfully managed to persuade the US that it was still safe if they deferred MAD (perhaps they only needed conventional weapons, because we sold them to buy trident). Though as it approached that point the US would probably be putting heavy pressure on the submarine and our launch would basically be with the intent of forcing Russia and US to nuke each other.
Alternatively a small nuclear war with France or North Korea (though one of them's in the wrong location, and the other surely wouldn't...).
Or alternatively if we have a Maiden situation. At that point America, could leave it as a purely British situation, and 'it was clearly necessary'.
Fourth, I guess is an external attack that America wants to wash it's hands off.
None of them are particularly nice stories though.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Back in the eighties America had the Strategic Defense Intiative (SDI), known as "Star Wars". It was designed to prevent an effective enemy first-strike but it had the disadvantages of a) being incredibly expensive and b) scaring the Hell out of the Russians who feared that once America could protect her cities and military bases, it could carry out a first strike with impunity.
I thought the other problem wth SDI was that it wasn't technically feasible or anywhere near it? Was it really a bluff designed to worry the Soviets?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Back in the eighties America had the Strategic Defense Intiative (SDI), known as "Star Wars". It was designed to prevent an effective enemy first-strike but it had the disadvantages of a) being incredibly expensive and b) scaring the Hell out of the Russians who feared that once America could protect her cities and military bases, it could carry out a first strike with impunity.
I thought the other problem wth SDI was that it wasn't technically feasible or anywhere near it? Was it really a bluff designed to worry the Soviets?
Or perhaps more plausibly to comfort the US public? Thinking about which, there is the "Yes, Prime Minister" defence for Trident:
Sir H: "What is the point of UK defence policy?"
BW: "To defend Britain!"
Sir H: "NO Bernard! The point is to make people think that Britain is defended."
BW: "Ah, you mean the Russians"
Sir H: "NO Bernard - the British!"
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
All of which is an argument that Britain's nuclear deterrent doesn't make strategic sense.
Which comes back to question 1. in the OP.
The reason I think this matters is that if you want to convince people we should disarm, you should stick to things that are true. Trident is not expensive. If it's really necessary then almost no price would be too high. If it is completely useless in any real world situation then it doesn't matter how cheap it is, it is still a waste of money. Actually it's the cheapest way of doing what it's meant to do. I think that it's perfectly logical to argue that what it does is pointless or counterproductive but to worry about cost makes it look like you don't care enough about security. I know this is not true but it is an argument that goes well with people who already agree but repels those who don't.
The independent/not argument is the same. It's silly as it is an independent system controlled by the UK. By saying it isn't doesn't advance the case for unilateral disarmament.
I maintain that the key questions are the 2 I mentioned. Yes, yes and we should keep Trident. No, no or no, yes / yes, no then nothing else matters and disarm now.
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: The independent/not argument is the same. It's silly as it is an independent system controlled by the UK. By saying it isn't doesn't advance the case for unilateral disarmament.
I disagree. "You can only fire these weapons when we tell you its okay at people we're also firing at" is an argument for unilateral disarmament, since it matters not one jot to the aggressors whether we have them or not*.
*One of my scenarios of a possible 'independent launching' is if the USA unilaterally withdraws from its NATO obligations to collective defence.
The other is if we were launching at the USA.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: The independent/not argument is the same. It's silly as it is an independent system controlled by the UK. By saying it isn't doesn't advance the case for unilateral disarmament.
I disagree. "You can only fire these weapons when we tell you its okay at people we're also firing at" is an argument for unilateral disarmament, since it matters not one jot to the aggressors whether we have them or not*.
*One of my scenarios of a possible 'independent launching' is if the USA unilaterally withdraws from its NATO obligations to collective defence.
If there is a Tea Party dominated Congress and a Tea Partier in the White House then that could happen. Moreover I'm sure some of those Tea Partiers would be of the "Bring Your Judgement Now Lord" tendency, so nuclear war would be just what they want.
I don't know if Trump is a Tea Partier but I'm sure he'll get support from some of them.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: The independent/not argument is the same. It's silly as it is an independent system controlled by the UK. By saying it isn't doesn't advance the case for unilateral disarmament.
I disagree. "You can only fire these weapons when we tell you its okay at people we're also firing at" is an argument for unilateral disarmament, since it matters not one jot to the aggressors whether we have them or not*.
*One of my scenarios of a possible 'independent launching' is if the USA unilaterally withdraws from its NATO obligations to collective defence.
The other is if we were launching at the USA.
The argument for unilateral disarmament is that it's pointless the UK having nukes as in an all-out nuclear exchange Britain's small number of warheads would be irrelevant.
I'll buy that.
But Britain has an independent nuclear force in the same sense as we have an independent army. We can and do use the army on our own, in NATO and in non-NATO cooperation with the US.
Whilst the scenarios may be unlikely, in which we would use nukes without our allies doing likewise, it doesn't change the fact that we could. And no one on earth could stop us.
It does come back to the fact that it might make no strategic sense for Britain to have Trident but it's still 'ours.'
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: If there is a Tea Party dominated Congress and a Tea Partier in the White House then that could happen. Moreover I'm sure some of those Tea Partiers would be of the "Bring Your Judgement Now Lord" tendency, so nuclear war would be just what they want.
Already written the book waaaay back (2002). I'm now considered in some circles as scarily prophetic.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Can you think of any scenario in which we launch nuclear weapons without the USA having done so already?
The two scenarios that come to mind are if the U.K. decides to nuke someone as part of a war outside the purview of NATO (either because the U.K. is the aggressor or because the U.K. is attacked in territory that isn't unambiguously part of the U.K., such as the Falklands), or if the U.K. decides it needs to nuke some fellow member of NATO.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: Anyway - for me - this is clear: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent is independent. If you don't think we should have nukes, that's fine but I don't think talking about independence adds anything.
Can you think of any scenario in which we launch nuclear weapons without the USA having done so already? I keep asking this question of people who believe our deterrent is independent, and get precisely no answers.
(I can think of two, but I'll tell you what they are after you've done your bit.)
I'll play.
How about this? A coup by the French military installs a fascist dictator who forges an alliance with Russia. The only nation posing a military threat to the Franco-Russian plan to dominate Europe is the UK. Germany looks strong militarily on paper but my understanding is that's mostly an illusion. What about the US? Well, the White House just happens to be occupied by a liberal Democrat who has the same qualms about nuclear weapons as Jeremy Corbyn. The White House could also be occupied by a paleoconservative Republican who is isolationist and not totally unsympathetic towards Putin and the French Right. The Franco-Russian alliance decides to use nuclear weapons to neutralize the UK.
Not a very likely scenario granted...
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We did not and would not nuke over the Falklands FIRST. We WOULD have nuked Iraq during Desert Storm if they'd have used ANY ABC WMDs. Thatcher told Saddam that.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: We did not and would not nuke over the Falklands FIRST. We WOULD have nuked Iraq during Desert Storm if they'd have used ANY ABC WMDs. Thatcher told Saddam that.
Which doesn't count, since the U.S. has exactly the same policy (any use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against U.S. troops invites a nuclear response) and the game is to pick a circumstance where the U.K. decides to nuke someone without the U.S. doing the same.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: We did not and would not nuke over the Falklands FIRST. We WOULD have nuked Iraq during Desert Storm if they'd have used ANY ABC WMDs. Thatcher told Saddam that.
She may well have said that, but would she have done it?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: According to official statements the UK submarines carry 48 missiles each with an average of 3 warheads per missile.
<pedantry>A bit of error there - a Vanguard-class sub has 16 missile tubes, with each missile carrying 8-12 MIRVs (though START I limits them to 8 MIRVs)</pedantry>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine
your missilethreat.org link
-------------------- We are punished by our sins, not for them. --Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by jbohn: quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: According to official statements the UK submarines carry 48 missiles each with an average of 3 warheads per missile.
<pedantry>A bit of error there - a Vanguard-class sub has 16 missile tubes, with each missile carrying 8-12 MIRVs (though START I limits them to 8 MIRVs)</pedantry>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine
Pendantry good. Sorry, yep 16 missiles, 48 warheads per sub.
My bad.
Thanks
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: quote: Originally posted by Martin60: We did not and would not nuke over the Falklands FIRST. We WOULD have nuked Iraq during Desert Storm if they'd have used ANY ABC WMDs. Thatcher told Saddam that.
She may well have said that, but would she have done it?
Would she have said that if he had any, with the delivery system to hit the British bases on Cyprus?
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Pendantry good. Sorry, yep 16 missiles, 48 warheads per sub.
My bad.
Thanks
AFZ
I get 16 missiles, with 8 MIRVs each, making 128 warheads/sub.
Of course, at some scale, it's "near-total annihilation" vs. "total annihilation". Kind of a distinction without a difference, really.
-------------------- We are punished by our sins, not for them. --Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Yeah, apparently according to the MOD they average 3 warheads per missile. So some might have one and some 8. For obvious reasons they are a bit coy about these things.
But yeah, there aren't many countries in the world who you could describe as anything less than decimated after being hit by 48 100kT weapons.
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We liberated Kuwait. We did not invade Iraq. Under Thatcher. She'd have said and done the same if he'd had medium range nukes. If he'd had long range nukes? The same. He had grandchildren. He was a rational man. Even with maskirovka, we'd have known the launch sites. He'd have had 10 minutes to launch before a pre-emptive strike, he'd have needed more.
Not that I identify with 'us' of course ...
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But yeah, there aren't many countries in the world who you could describe as anything less than decimated after being hit by 48 100kT weapons.
AFZ
Indeed. In fact it would be a war crime. These are WMD. And our prime minister has said he is willing to order their use. Why don't the Americans invade us?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Humble Servant: Indeed. In fact it would be a war crime. These are WMD. And our prime minister has said he is willing to order their use. Why don't the Americans invade us?
Ahh, yes. I see why you're confused:
We're the good guys...
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by alienfromzog: Yeah, apparently according to the MOD they average 3 warheads per missile. So some might have one and some 8. For obvious reasons they are a bit coy about these things.
A missile with MIRVs will carry a mixture of real warheads and dummies, since it is possible (at least in highly staged tests) to intercept individual birds with a supersonic missile defence system.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The problem ISTM with nukes is at what point in an escalating conflict does a Country use them? Say we had nukes when AH was huffing and puffing in 1939, would we have used them when he invaded Poland? Nope. Would we have used them after retreat at Dunkirk? Nope. Would have used them if the Luftwaffe had dropped on on London in the Blitz ? Yes, there is no doubt we would have.
But of course if we wish to stay in hypothetical argument mode, then I sure many would say that had European countries been equipped with nukes prior to 39 then chances are WW2 would never have happened.
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
But if you seriously believe that, then we should be trying to ensure that ALL countries have nuclear weapons! Why restrict this amazing, peace-keeping technology to only a favoured few? North Korea are visionary pioneers, sacrificing their international image in the interests of world peace! If only South Korea would develop nuclear weapons too, we could all relax, content in the knowledge that the world was now a safer place!
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: But if you seriously believe that, then we should be trying to ensure that ALL countries have nuclear weapons! Why restrict this amazing, peace-keeping technology to only a favoured few? North Korea are visionary pioneers, sacrificing their international image in the interests of world peace! If only South Korea would develop nuclear weapons too, we could all relax, content in the knowledge that the world was now a safer place!
The cat's out of the bag. Good luck getting it back in.
-------------------- "Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward." Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Seems to have worked with India and Pakistain ....... So far.
If every country and nation were to spend a year dismantling all nuclear weapons and destroying all the information required to build them, (which in truth couldn't be guaranteed), I very much doubt the world and it,s people would stable, peaceful, and safe for very far into the future.
It says an awful lot about humanity's desire for war when it takes some like MAD to restrain it.
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by rolyn: Say we had nukes when AH was huffing and puffing in 1939, would we have used them when he invaded Poland? Nope. Would we have used them after retreat at Dunkirk? Nope. Would have used them if the Luftwaffe had dropped on on London in the Blitz ? Yes, there is no doubt we would have.
Say Nazi Germany had nukes when AH was huffing and puffing in 1939.
Feel safer yet?
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm having a hard time imagining a Paleo conservative United States President in favor of a fascist French and Communist Russian alliance. Maybe if they brought back the Czar....
When you decide to junk the Tridents, are you going to try to get the United States to promise that if someone bombs you that the U.S. will refrain from bombing that someone? Might take a little work, but it probably can be arranged.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by rolyn: It says an awful lot about humanity's desire for war when it takes some like MAD to restrain it.
Yeah, it is all rather depressing.
If you argue that MAD worked in the sense that a true East / West confrontation never happened, you probably can't avoid the conclusion that the major powers fought multiple conflicts through surrogates because they were terrified of fighting each other directly. Whilst this may be less horrific for the main powers, I suspect that is no comfort to those affected.
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Say Nazi Germany had nukes when AH was huffing and puffing in 1939.
Feel safer yet?
It's a paradoxical point that nuclear weapons aren't offensive weapons in the conventional sense. If you plan to invade a country, for land or control of the people or resources, (you know, the standard reasons) nuking them first is not going to work. You can use them in 3 ways: 1) To intimidate people in to surrender 2) To intimidate people in to not intimidating you in to surrender (MAD) 3) To destroy a country completely.
Who here thinks that nice Mr Hitler wouldn't have used nukes against an area with a large Jewish population if he'd had the chance?
AFZ
-------------------- Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. [Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mere Nick: quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: But if you seriously believe that, then we should be trying to ensure that ALL countries have nuclear weapons! Why restrict this amazing, peace-keeping technology to only a favoured few? North Korea are visionary pioneers, sacrificing their international image in the interests of world peace! If only South Korea would develop nuclear weapons too, we could all relax, content in the knowledge that the world was now a safer place!
The cat's out of the bag. Good luck getting it back in.
So let's get on with getting that cat fully out of the bag then. Distribute the nuclear technology freely. Stop wasting all that effort trying to get Iran and N. Korea to comply. Let them get on with making nukes - in fact, why not sell them some?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
As Sir Humphrey said, (probably inaccurately now) "Trident is the nuclear deterrent Harrods would sell."
I agree very largely with Michael Portillo and that's not something I ever expected to be able to write. Regardless of its degree of independence (which I always saw as a very last resort in the most unlikely of scenarios) it's pretty hard to see at as value for money any more. Even if it ever was. I suppose a cancellation may affect our "special relationship" with the US but my guess is that could be got around by obtaining other conventional armaments from the US. Or other forms of joint ventures.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The problem with war AFZ is that it isn't depressing . It can bring tremulous euphoria in it's onset, the sense of futility and waste only comes after a type of reflection.
See the look of pure jubilation on the faces of Taliban fighters the other day? Even mr AH after he'd conquered France found it hard to contain he usual demeanour. War with rules means we'll always have war.
Dor Tor, I felt safe even in the time when on May Day the USSR liked to strut around in Red Square, hauling their phallic missiles around. Safe in the knowledge that the Communist leadership had to think extremely long and hard before ever lighting the fuses on those Birds.
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Barnabas62, I am sure the USA wouldn't mind at all if we got rid of our nuclear weapons. They'd probably be secretly or openly delighted. They're mainly interested in stationing their nuclear weapons here.
rolyn, alas I think it probable that we'll always have war, whether or no that war has rules.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by rolyn: Dor Tor, I felt safe even in the time when on May Day the USSR liked to strut around in Red Square, hauling their phallic missiles around. Safe in the knowledge that the Communist leadership had to think extremely long and hard before ever lighting the fuses on those Birds.
Well, I'm going to disagree with you. I was raised in the triangle between Aldermaston, Burghfield and Bramley, with Greenham Common just down the road.
Admittedly, it would have been all over for us in the blink of an eye, but feeling safe? No. Never. We were all one accident away from annihilation. And still are, for that matter.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: Barnabas62, I am sure the USA wouldn't mind at all if we got rid of our nuclear weapons. They'd probably be secretly or openly delighted. They're mainly interested in stationing their nuclear weapons here.
rolyn, alas I think it probable that we'll always have war, whether or no that war has rules.
I think they might value the humongous quantities of wonga we'll pay to US defense contractors if we renew; or if some of that work is sourced abroad, it might be a way of spreading some US Defense Costs. I always look for the money angle. It may be a small percentage of the whole Trident cost, but it's still a lot of wonga! [ 10. October 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|