The future of Britain's nuclear weapons have been in the news recently. It's an old debate, but now seems like as good time as any to write about it. The informal debate over at Think Defence has certainly been going strong of late (Edit; and I've just noticed that TD has his Trident article up here, which can be found here).
The primary question is whether we still need nuclear weapons (and can we really afford them)? There was a time when I would have absolutely said "yes" and not even considered an alternate view to that. I was adamantly pro-nuclear. Now? Hmm, I'm not so sure. I guess that in a sense I still support nuclear weapons, I'm just not sure the current system is the right one.
At the minute the UK employs a Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) provided by the Royal Navy. This takes the form of four Vanguard-class submarines, each capable of carrying 16 Trident ballistic missiles. Each missile is capable of carrying multiple warheads out to ranges believed to be around 7,000 miles, but with no more than 48 live warheads being carried on any one ship. The vessels currently take turns to rotate through periods of patrol, maintenance and training, but always with one armed vessel patrolling deep beneath the waves of the Atlantic.
The Vanguards, however, are getting old. The Trident missiles themselves are getting old. Even the warheads need a bit of tender loving care. The system needs replacing and at the minute the current government estimates run to around £20 billion to build a new class of submarines, to upgrade the missiles, refurbish the warheads, and build the necessary infrastructure to support the continued operations. Then maybe another £1-1.5 billion on top per year to maintain the system.
One word of caution here though; that's the governments initial estimate. If history has taught us anything it's that the government is - if you'll pardon my French - shite, at estimating the costs of military projects, with large cost over runs not uncommon.
This situation is made worse by the fact that the costs will have to be met out of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) own budget, as opposed to being centrally funded by the treasury. That is basically guaranteed to put a massive strain on the conventional military forces, not longer after they've suffered severe cuts to all three services.
That brings the question of affordability up on to a par with that of whether we need the weapons in the first place. So do we?
Britain has sought after nuclear weapons since the very first detonation produced by the Manhattan Project. Indeed, UK scientists were involved in that program and as a result it was almost assumed that the United States would share the full details of all of its work with the UK after the end of the Second World War.
Things didn't quite work out like that. It wasn't until the UK was able to demonstrate the ability to independently develop and test weapons that the US came around to the idea of sharing secrets and technology that lead to a much more rapid growth in the UK's nuclear capabilities.
The rational behind possessing these weapons, despite the massive size of the allied US nuclear arsenal, was the guarantee of retaliation against the Soviet Union in the event of a future war. Based on experience gained during the second world war it became clear that the US could not always be relied upon to act in the best interests of the UK, such as diverting resources to stop the V-weapon attacks.
In a nuclear stand off/war it was believed that the US would prioritise defence of its own cities over actions that could potentially save UK cities. Which if we're honest isn't really that unreasonable. But nor was it considered acceptable and as such the UK has retained a nuclear arsenal (albeit a small one) of its own, capable of being independently targeted without authorisation from Washington.
Of course the number of scenarios in which the UK could find itself preparing to use nuclear weapons against modern Russia, independent of the US, are few and far between. Indeed the whole spectre of Russian aggression has largely faded.
While Russia manages to impress many a blogger, journalist and military analyst with its latest designs for military equipment (and some of them are very impressive), it fails to turn that hype into reality. The numbers of new aircraft, ships, tanks etc that actually find their way into frontline service with Russian forces is quite small. Much of their equipment is simply out dated and in a poor state of repair.
On top of this it's estimated for example that the average Russian pilot of a "tactical" aircraft gets just 20 hours of flying time... per year. By comparison, pilots of the RAF have to put in almost that many hours a month just to retain their flying currency.
At this rate it'd be a miracle if Russia could even invade Poland, what with the German, French, Danish, Dutch, Belgian and Italian forces behind them. If some reports are true, the Russian armoured columns would be doing well if they could just find Poland.
The reality is that Russia is not going to be rolling down the great northern plain any time soon and nor does it really have cause to. Western forces are drawing down from their old cold war bases and frankly Russia needs the money to be made from greater economic ties to the West.
The great games of geopolitical strategy are by no means over, but the stakes are a little lower now, the urgency is lacking, and generally things have gotten a lot more peaceful and cordial. Relatively speaking, at least.
The need then to retain something like Trident is a lot more questionable in this modern era. Even if we argue that the future is a murky thing, difficult to predict (which it is), do we really need a safeguard on the level of Trident? Personally I no longer think so.
£20 billion is a lot of money to be sucked out of the budget. I think we have alternative options, that should prove cheaper, and in the long run I think would be more suitable for the UK. The first of these centre's around the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM).
TLAM is designed to carry a conventional explosive warhead up to 1000 miles, striking at high value targets. It already comes in a variant with a nuclear warhead, capable of delivering a blast effect of around 200 kilotons, or about 13 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, during world war two.
A TLAM-N is not without its problems though. The three main identifiable ones would be 1) range, 2) survivability and 3) the possibility of mistaking a conventional TLAM for a TLAM-N.
The first of these is not insignificant. The immense range of Trident means that a Vanguard submarine can hit most targets around the world with very little in the way of prior movement before launch. A submarine carrying a TLAM-N would have to get much closer to the Russian main land in order to get off a shot.
In order to hit Moscow a submarine carrying TLAM-N would have to slip into either the Black Sea or Baltic sea, which is understandably quite a risky proposal, sailing into the enemies back yard and into relatively confined waters. Hitting a target like St. Petersburg though is a little less problematic being within range of the North Sea, although the Danish, Swedish and Estonians might be a bit miffed at having nuclear tipped cruise missiles soaring over their heads.
Again though, we have to come back to the underlying theory of the nuclear weapon. It's designed as a deterrent, to guarantee that any aggressive action could be countered. And in all likely hood it's conceivable that a submarine carrying a TLAM-N would be able to get close enough to get off a shot.
If it does, would the shot survive though? I hear a lot about how vulnerable TLAM's are, given their low cruising speed (around 550mph) compared to a ballistic missile. But I'm not sure if I really buy that argument. TLAM's have been fired in the hundreds now and recorded cases of shoot downs are quite low.
Yes the TLAM is slow and takes a while to reach the target. But at the same time it's quite small, reasonably quiet, and flies at very low level. The Soviets were so concerned about US ground launched TLAM-N's deployed in Europe during the late 80's that they practically rushed to sign a treaty banning them and gave up significant chunks of their missile inventory to secure this deal.
It's not like every single one of the TLAM have to make it through. Just one shot creates a bloody great bang and one great bang is enough to kill a significant number of people.
The third issue, that of mistaken identity, is a red herring to me. The US has nuclear bombs in the very literal sense, such as the B61 and B83 free fall bombs, as well as Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM). They even have specialist vehicles to carry these on, such as the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress bombers.
The B-2 in particular was designed from the ground up to penetrate Soviet air defences undetected and deliver nuclear bombs onto targets deep in enemy territory. Yet when the B-2 takes to the skies on a fairly routine basis it doesn't seem to trigger world war three.
The US has pounded various nations with bombs from all three of the above mentioned platforms, fired ALCM's at them, Tomahawks, and dropped tons of bombs from other aircraft such as the F-15, F-18, F-111, A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder and other aircraft that are also capable of deploying nuclear weapons.
Simply put, unless you're dropping bombs directly on a nuclear capable nation then the risk of someone getting the wrong end of the stick is limited. Even the Russians tempt fate themselves, sending large "Badger" bombers to probe western air defences, despite the Badger being rated to carry nuclear weapons. I can't remember us or the Americans getting all excited and launching a massive pre-emptive strike in response, can you?
Providing we don't go randomly shooting off TLAM's in the general direction of the Russians or Chinese (or the French for that matter) we shouldn't have too many issues.
So what are the advantages of TLAM-N?
Well for start it should be a lot cheaper. Not free, but cheaper. You need warheads, of which the US has some pre-built but currently in storage, or you can cough up the cash to put modified UK warheads into current TLAM.
As for the launch platform, the obvious candidate is the new Astute submarine. Capable of carrying close to 40 weapons in a mix of torpedoes and TLAM, Astute could take over the nuclear role with minimal re-design work needed. Additional vessels could be added on to the end of the current production run to raise the size of the fleet and this would permit you to put some boats to sea on other, more general duties, while still preserving a small number to operate the new deterrent.
Or you could go a step further in reducing the cost and capability of the deterrent, along with a little increase in risk. This would mean learning to love the bomb once more. And by that I mean the free fall variety.
In other words, what is the feasibility of going back to airborne weapons like the American B61 and B83? The B61 in particular is intriguing as it is being redesigned to fit the bomb bay of the new F-35 Lightning.
Such a deterrent would work in the same manner that Frances air launched deterrent does (another possibility there for you in the ASMP missile) in that it would be designed first and fore most as a warning shot against an aggressor force, with the credible potential of an attack being launched against land targets.
A fully tanked Typhoon fighter could make the dash to Russia for a strike. Whether it made it back is another matter entirely. Likely following this path would mean doing a bit of work to build a longer ranged air launched weapon. Something like Storm Shadow, but redesigned to reverse the current trade off of range for speed.
Of course the next logical step from there is towards a life without any bomb. Well, almost.
The warheads could be kept in storage, like a pile of cash stuffed under a mattress for a rainy day. Some could be converted to peaceful means maybe. In theory you'd still possess a deterrent effect. It might not be immediate, but the potential would still exist to enact the ultimate retaliation at some unspecified point in the future. If world events changed, so could the countries stance, bringing the warheads out of retirement in response to an increasingly escalating geopolitical situation.
And if I'm honest, over the course of writing this article I think I've just convinced myself that the UK probably could disarm, going with that final option laid on the table of putting some of the warheads into storage while finding other uses for the rest of it.
The world is a different place now than it was 20 years ago, or 30 years ago. Yes, Trident is a very powerful defensive tool. Yes, it represents the ultimate guarantee against an attack on sovereign soil. But such an attack is extremely unlikely. To the point of being vanishingly unlikely.
The prospect of finding another £20 billion out of the defence budget, plus another £1 billion a year to sustain the whole thing is not unlikely. It's a solid reality. And I think maybe the time has come to let go of the bomb. It's served us well so far, but the time has probably come to allow Trident to quietly retire as the Vanguards naturally wind down from service.
But what do you think?
Next up on my list is to look at the concept of a "regional bomber" that seems to be all the rage at the minute. Then I had something else on my list that I was quite eager about, but I'll be buggered if I can remember what it was now.
Will have a read in the morning Chris, time for bed :)
ReplyDeleteHello again Chris - WTF happening with the Patriots!? Lose to Ravens then bury the Bills. World's gone mad.
ReplyDeleteNice article; you've arrived at pretty much the same conclusion I have. I was taking part in an open thread discussion about our nuclear deterrent just before TD posted his article; about the last thing I said was that if push came to shove I would not only give up CASD but the bomb itself in order to safeguard our conventional forces. As you say we are in greater danger today of the dirty bomb in a transit van scenario than state on state exchange; you can't deter fanatics but you can defend yourself, or at least retaliate, with conventional forces, while Trident is useless in such a scenario. And what about the Falklands - if you're not going to nuke someone for invading your territory, when are you? Perhaps if someone invades Wales? Or does it have to be the Home Counties?
I used to be in the "Yes but you never know" camp, in favour of retaining CASD "just in case," but the parlous state of our finances I think no longer allows us the luxury of maintaining such an expensive insurance policy. The one caveat I have though is this: we can actually afford Trident (or it's replacement) AND maintain stronger conventional forces if we choose to do so. But it would require the political will to channel money from other budgets into the defence budget (e.g. some of the billions we p@ss into the EU or the foreign aid budget). However, that will is totally lacking and we have to deal with realities not "fantasy fleets."
I look forward to your regional bomber article, even though I will be totally against it!
Have linked back to this from my house Chris, good post, although I disagree :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood evening chaps. Another highly topical and interesting piece Chris. I have also read TD's piece as well and found that more aligned to my way of thought on the subject. It also seems to point out exactly why none of the alternatives above prove the ultimate guarantee.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to mention the costs of trident,lets not forget that a lot of the money is spent in the UK economy creating a lot of jobs and tax receipts. We also have no clear indication of the cost of the alternatives and even if they are cheaper would not be anywhere near as effective and therefore not provide the guarantee and so not be worth the cost at all.There is plenty of money in the government budget to cover the nuclear deterrent it is simply a matter or priority. But should it come down to a choice between conventional forces and the nuclear deterrent I will take the nuclear deterrent any time as it is the ultimate guarantee of our protection. Meaning at the very least that any bast...s who attack us is going to have their country decimated.
Though I am curious as how the estimated cost of the 4 submarines is £20bn. How much are the current estimates for the Astutes? I thought they were going to be around £2bn each.
As for doing away with the nuclear deterrent are you M.A.D!
"Yes, it represents the ultimate guarantee against an attack on sovereign soil. But such an attack is extremely unlikely. To the point of being vanishingly unlikely."
Chris I bet at some point in time you must have written "no one can tell the future" or "even the SDSR couldn't predict the most recent events" or something along those lines. Who knows what the world will be like in 50 years time, and lets not forget that it was most likely nuclear weapons that stopped the cold war from going HOT. More and more nations are acquiring nuclear technology and the ability to launch these weapons in even more effective ways. Therefore to throw away the most effective and cheapest way of guaranteeing our security/ the ability to retaliate seems ludicrous to me. Trident also ensures we remain a major player therein our thoughts, opinions are listened to and we have a louder voice.
@ WiseApe,
ReplyDelete-- I don't even understand yet how the Bills let you off the hook. When I saw the half time score I was laughing my butt off. Then I saw the final score and was like "What? What happened?".
"The one caveat I have though is this: we can actually afford Trident (or it's replacement) AND maintain stronger conventional forces if we choose to do so. But it would require the political will to channel money from other budgets into the defence budget (e.g. some of the billions we p@ss into the EU or the foreign aid budget). However, that will is totally lacking and we have to deal with realities not "fantasy fleets."
-- I'd agree. If the treasury agreed to pay for it and not touch the defence budget, dressing it up perhaps as investment in skills and industry or something, I might be a little more inclined to shrug my shoulders and say "ah go on then, why not?".
I think the trouble is that I have difficulty seeing a scenario where someone takes a shot at us? I'm going to go back to this and briefly some alternate methods of defense soon, just need to double check a few things.
As for the Regional Bomber, I'm not convinced by the concept myself. It might have merit. I'll be going over some options and looking at some of the problems.
@ Think Defence,
-- Cheers. Don't make me send you to the Ministry of Love though. You will come round... in time ;)
@ Mick 346,
ReplyDeleteSorry, just found your reply.
I believe the cost of the boats themselves (with none of the missiles etc) is pegged at £12-15 billion, which makes them about £4-4.5 billion per boat. The Astutes are currently priced at around £1 billion each, which I believe still includes some of the development cost.
I personally would not take the deterrent over conventional forces, because the deterrent only works by not being used. It's a fail safe against attack as it were, and has no ability to conduct other operations, the kind of which we need much more.
I also disagree that nuclear weapons prevented the cold war going hot. The Russians took a long while to develop their weapons, weapons which the US already had in 1945. Neither side attacked the other during this period of imbalance. Looking at it now, I suspect nuclear weapons actually did the reverse and made a tense stand off even more tense.
I do agree with you that the future is very difficult to predict. But on a grand scale we can make certain predictions that are likely to hold true, such as the unlikely hood that Afghanistan will ever become a major naval power.
I don't think anyone really has a cause to invade the UK, not with the way the world economy functions now. There is very little to be gained by attacking our mainland. And indeed, some nations in the future such as Iran might develop a missile that can reach the UK. But for what purpose? What would they stand to gain? If we possessed a limited ability to retaliate, that could still deter.
Thank you for your reply Chris and not to worry. Below are some of those that I came up with. I can be a bit argumentative and so would like to apologise in advance if you feel I'm attacking any of your thoughts/opinions, that is not my intention. I enjoy debating points and finding out other peoples point of view, as I find at the very least it broadens my thoughts and makes me aware of things that otherwise I would have been totally in the dark about.
ReplyDelete"The Russians took a long while to develop their weapons, weapons which the US already had in 1945."
True but lets not forget that the world had just fought for 6 long years, millions of people had died, there was no appetite for another war on either side.
"I don't think anyone really has a cause to invade the UK, not with the way the world economy functions now. There is very little to be gained by attacking our mainland."
Surely if we think along these lines then we can with a very small step then say why do we need such large conventional forces?
Also assuming that the cancelling of trident was done by the MOD, i.e them being unwilling to fund it, would the government accept this decision? Also if it was cancelled would all of the money be used in conventional forces? Which then brings us to the question, do we need larger conventional forces? If so, in what areas? In what way can this money actually significantly increase the effectiveness of our armed forces or what extra capabilities can it add? Are they worth the money? Would it be better of spent in other public services? Could it be used to pay of the deficit instead? Perhaps a tax cut? All these questions appear when you question whether or not to drop trident and each have debatable answers.
Also lets not forget without replacing the V boats then the recent revitalisation of our ability to produce SSN's will again vanish and will need to be brought back all other again when we need to replace the Astute's. This may even lead to there being no replacement for the Astute's due to lack of political will to spend the money to again recreate the industry.
"£4-4.5 billion per boat"
Is that in today's money? I don't quite see why a submarine although significantly larger would be 3-4 times more expensive. When you consider that a lot of the technology will come from the astute's, including the reactor, and the fact that we have just built a modern SSN that there will be no requirement for massive investment in recreating the infrastructure and skills.
Hello Mick,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to post this as two parts. Bloody Google!
"I can be a bit argumentative and so would like to apologise in advance if you feel I'm attacking any of your thoughts/opinions, that is not my intention. I enjoy debating points and finding out other peoples point of view, as I find at the very least it broadens my thoughts and makes me aware of things that otherwise I would have been totally in the dark about"
-- I'm all for a good argument! I find it very stimulating. Picking up your last point there about broadened thoughts, I once had a very ferocious back and forth debate on one of the Think Defence forums with "Phil" about education. We ended it agreeing that neither had convinced the other. But having sat down and thought more about it over time, I think I see some of the merits of Phils position now and would be happy with a hybrid solution that incorporated elements of what both of us were suggesting. Also interesting when you see your own position evolve over time as new ideas sink in. Now onwards!
"True but lets not forget that the world had just fought for 6 long years, millions of people had died, there was no appetite for another war on either side"
-- Indeed. But I think had the Russians really been hell bent on world domination they would have had a go, rationalising that it was easier to attack now when they were prepared than give the allies time to recover. Fundamentally I don't think the Russians have ever really been that keen, at least not in the last 100 years or so to develop some kind of Empire.
This is a nation whose psyche is scarred with the memories of many invasions that have caused large casualties upon them. They have always sought to ally with the nations around them to build a buffer, or find some other external supporter to help them balance against central european powers like Germany, Austria and France (typically, and slightly ironically to this discussion, Britain). They've also learnt to their cost that subsidising a wide alliance is unsustainable, which is why they have been more eager in recent years to find partners, most notably Germany in the last 5-10 years.
I'm not convinced that Russia is the big black bear that many believe they are. They're not a cuddly kitten either however ;)
ReplyDelete"Surely if we think along these lines then we can with a very small step then say why do we need such large conventional forces?"
-- The critical difference with conventional forces over nuclear forces is the ability of conventional forces to affect theatres outside of our own territorial boundaries.
This ranges from defending somewhere like the Falklands against Argentina (something that nuclear weapons haven't and cannot do) while also allowing us to positively intervene in situations of interest like Libya, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan and almost anywhere else that we see the need (and potential) for our forces to step in and achieve some limited objective that has a positive affect on the UK.
Flexibility is the key to the conventional (and unconvential in the case of the SAS/SBS) forces. Use of nuclear weapons scales from a small blast in one location to a very big blast in multiple locations, but that's about it. Conventional forces give us such a wealth of options ranging from credible intimidation without actually firing a shot, all the way up to a full scale assault of someones territory.
"Also assuming that the cancelling of trident was done by the MOD, i.e them being unwilling to fund it, would the government accept this decision?"
-- This is why I think the government is playing a dangerous game. If the forces reject it, or opt for an alternate solution (say, land based Trident or TLAM-N) then the government would have to intervene if it wanted Trident. The forces then turn around and lambast the government for going against military advice.
I'd imagine that if the forces rejected Trident then the treasury would respond by cutting the budget, which I suspect is what all this is about. If the forces go with Trident then they have to cut their conventional budget to find the funding for it. If they reject it then they get their budget cut by an appropriate amount. The forces themselves likely can't win.
"Also lets not forget without replacing the V boats then the recent revitalisation of our ability to produce SSN's will again vanish and will need to be brought back all other again when we need to replace the Astute's"
-- I'm planning an article broadly along the lines of this question, but looking at it from the flip side. Essentially, does it make sense to spend £15 billion now to potentially save a few billion later?
"Is that in today's money? I don't quite see why a submarine although significantly larger would be 3-4 times more expensive."
-- I believe it is, yes. The problem is that a lot of what will go inside is actually brand new. The reactors I believe are going to be a shiny new design. The missile silos themselves will be new. The whole software system for the launch will need to be updated to match the upgrades in the missiles. Brand new shiny sonar. Extensive redesign of the interior spaces compared to Vanguard.
And the fact that large submarines made of expensive materials cost a lot of money! Only having four subs doesn't help either, because the cost is spread over so little units. Perhaps if it was just a "stretched" Astute it would probably be cheaper, but I think the plans thus far are for a completely new submarine design built from scratch.
The UK has a four minute warning before a complete nuclear annihilation.
ReplyDeleteNuclear bombers and warheads in storage dont tie in with that reality.
The reality is, we have a very poor record of preparing for future conflict.
The idea that we could predict a Russian resurgence with enough notice to build a fleet of ballistic missile firing nuclear submarines, seems, naive?
Russias military weakness makes it going nuclear MORE likely, not less.
Imagine theres a misunderstanding, and British and Russian air forces open fire on one another.
Russia, on account of the fact that I've spent longer airborne this year than a Russian fighter pilot, is thrashed.
Does Putin
A. Surrender, appologise, and get slotted by a former intel buddy?
B. Nuke the British Surface fleet in the north sea?
C. Nuke London and announce to the world that its prepared to go all the way if anyone retaliates?
D. Sterilise the UK with nuclear weapons
"-- I'm all for a good argument! I find it very stimulating. "
ReplyDeleteGood to hear.
I totally agree conventional forces are more flexibly in responding to a crisis compared to nuclear weapons and gives us more choice. But the money saved from not replacing the V boats where does it get spent? You have already hinted that its highly unlikely the government will allow the MOD to cut trident and maintain its current budget estimates.
"I'm planning an article broadly along the lines of this question, but looking at it from the flip side. Essentially, does it make sense to spend £15 billion now to potentially save a few billion later?"
Thats a good point, but lets not forget we do get a unique capability with that money as well as keeping an industry in good shape.On top of this its not £15bn right now today, its £15bn over the next 20 years. You could even say its £12-£15bn divided by ~30 years of the submarines service life, which is only £500m a year Also you could argue the flip side of that point. Why save a few billion now by cutting capability and then have to spend several billion in the future to regenerate that capability, as has been shown on many programs.
I thought the reactor is the one they are developing for the last boat of the Astute class? Also the CMC will be developed in collaboration with the USA reducing costs. Though I do agree that four boats does reduce the economies of scale but it does spread the R&D costs over a reasonable number of vessels.
"The whole software system for the launch will need to be updated to match the upgrades in the missiles. "
Is that to be done before they enter service? As Trident isn't to be replaced until ~2040 with the replacement for vanguard coming into service in ~2030, I assumed that would have to be some mid-life upgrade. Though again there will be much collaboration with the U.S.A on this.
@TrT
I think Putin has other options.
@ TrT
ReplyDeleteHe does none of the above because that's the most bizarre and absurd clap trap I've seen so far. Sterilise the UK? He'd have to fire a significant chunk of the active (e.g. ready to go) Russian missile arsenal. Do you think the US would sit back and watch him do that, saying to themselves "Gee, glad that wasn't us,"
If he - or indeed anyone - was to fire on London over something that trivial would people really sit around and let him? Look how much consternation (rightly) there is in the world everytime a dictator fires a few live rounds at his own people. I imagine a random nuclear attack on London would be perceived as the first shot of an all out war.
How about a more reasonable reaction, like when a Chinese fighter collided with a US intelligence aircraft. Both sides strongly condemn the other, they exchange barbs, the UN security council preaches caution, everyone preaches caution, both sides call the incident regrettable but promise more "robust" action in future, while quietly chiding their own forces for making them look stupid with their carelessness and causing an international incident.
Russia has no more of a desire to blast us than we do them. They've had plenty of chances to "have a go" and each time they've backed down, as has the US. Why? Because everyone realises how monumentally stupid it would be to start a major war that leaves no winners behind.
I remind you that Russia went to war with Georgia and neglected to use its nuclear arsenal on that occassion. It's hardly going to break out the Tsar Bomba because of something as insignificant on the international scale as a couple of fighters taking pot shots at each other over a misunderstanding.
You have just the most bizarre view of how world leaders think and act, one that seems to be detached from anything that might remotely be regarded as reality.
@ Mick 346,
"But the money saved from not replacing the V boats where does it get spent?"
-- It depends which government we get next ;)
It also assumes that the money has to be spent on defence. It could be used to pay down the debt, ensuring we meet our future fiscal targets, which avoids further cuts to defence to make up a short fall at a later date.
"Why save a few billion now by cutting capability and then have to spend several billion in the future to regenerate that capability, as has been shown on many programs"
-- Because the regeneration premium is less than the cost of a what is essentially a make work program, especially when you factor in the salaries of the service personnel needed to run the make work equipment. The knowledge can be collected, or at least should be.
For an example, my dad used to be a charge hand at a plastics factory. They had these bloody great machines that you shove a bunch of chemicals in at one end and then get rolled sheets of plastic at the other. Over the years he wrote down all the numbers, temperatures, quantities, speeds etc, etc and when he retired he made copies and passed that knowledge on to the other charge hands.
I would hope that we are able to record some best practice data and then preserve that?
As for Trident, I believe they're doing some big upgrade in time for when the new boats enter. Obviously right now details are scant in the extreme.
I also just look at that number £15 billion, and nothing about the MoD in recent years convinces me that number will be met, even taking into account inflation.
Chris
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what relevance a war Russia won has on one it lost.
Compared with, say, Sadams quick fall back on chemical weapons when the Kurds resisted his ground troops effectively.
You say Russia wouldnt go nuclear for no reason, but you base that arguement, on the idea that the US would go nuclear for no reason.
Again, history shows us nations abandon their "friends" when their friends are crushed, they dont invite nuclear attack on themselves.
The UKs commitment to a free Poland wasnt exactly strong in 1945.
So why would the US commitment to avenging the UK be any stronger?
The relevance is that your whole argument is centred around suggesting a Russian President would order a nuclear strike in reponse to what is - on the international stage - nothing more than a minor blip, a few pilots drifting off course and getting a little excited.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime they've fought a number of successful and unsuccessful wars in the last few decades which had a much greater impact on their international standing, and yet in none of these did they opt to use nuclear weapons, despite them being ten times more valid (and even then tenuous) a reason than a mere dispute.
You say the US would have "no reason" to go nuclear. I would humbly suggest that having an allied nation attacked with a nuclear weapon would be considered a pretty blood strong reason.
Look. In your world, Russian Presidents order major nuclear strikes as revenge for little diplomatic upsets. That means you're not even operating on the same mental wave length as most of the rest of the world. To try and discuss this issue further with you, I'd have to appeal to your reason and logic. The same reason and logic that made you suggest in a comment on another site about gassing goats or whatever it was now.
There is no debating with you, because you're on a completely different planet to the rest of us.
"It depends which government we get next ;)"
ReplyDeleteYes but you want to save the money from replacing the vanguard boats so what's your alternative to: 1- replacing the deterrent or will you do away with it completely? 2- what to do with any money left over. With regard to using the money to tackle the deficit, the money would be small change. The amount saved from completely getting rid of the nuclear deterrent is unlikely to have a very big impact as we had a deficit of £125bn last year and would only be saving about £2bn a year by getting rid of the deterrent.
"what is essentially a make work program"
I dont understand, how is our nuclear deterrent a make work program?
"I would hope that we are able to record some best practice data and then preserve that?"
Its not that simply there are always going to be many problems when creating cutting edge technology and having people that are experienced makes the whole process a lot quicker and efficient, not to mention cheaper. Plus how do you train someone to do a job when the last person to do that job retired 10-20 years before?
"I also just look at that number £15 billion, and nothing about the MoD in recent years convinces me that number will be met, even taking into account inflation."
Yes I agree, but what do you expect of such a bureaucratic organisation.
Hello Mick,
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of ways you could replace the SSBN based deterrent, such a cruise missile based system or land based ICBM/MRBM system (or a combination of the two). Or you dispose of the whole system altogether.
The money saved can be used for whatever you want. Contributing to the deficit reduction. Invest in schools and universities. Use it as a fund for regenerating social housing. Regenerate an MPA capability for the conventional forces. Take your pick.
"I dont understand, how is our nuclear deterrent a make work program?"
Not specifically the deterrent program, but any program that operates on the prinicple of "need to keep this production capacity open for the future". You're buying something not because you believe you need it or need it in the numbers bought, but on the prinicple of keeping people in work until the next replacement program comes due. Thus it becomes a make work program.
"Plus how do you train someone to do a job when the last person to do that job retired 10-20 years before?"
Who trained the Wright Brothers in aircraft manufacturing and piloting? Who trained the first engineers to build jet engines? Who trained the guy that first invented telephones, computers, radios, fax machines, cars, diggers, drills, rockets, industrial scale bridges?
We have a system of education, where young minds can be filled with ideas about fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, materials science, engineering, nuclear physics, mathematics etc.
There are people involved in a variety of industrial processes that share similarities with military production (aircraft manufacturing, ship building). There are outside experts you can hire. We have current equipment and people that work on them who know the details inside out.
Like I say, I have an article planned on this kind of thing. Can we justify spending billions on a program to "retain skills" so that in 15 years time we can save a few million on the early stages of design etc.
I'm not sold on this notion that once you shut down some company all of a sudden the skills and knowledge are lost to mankind forever. Historically speaking continuity in military manufacturing has not seen any great cost reductions, and capabilities are still able to be regenerated with similar initial costs.
[Ummm, think I might need to break this into two comments: 4,096 character cap doesn't go far these days....]
ReplyDeletePART ONE
Hi Chris - I'm crazy busy so I'll try to keep it brief. From our TD discussion about this subject, the below is what I was getting at - naturally my argument is more based on assumption, conjecture, and my take on human nature rather than the good hard things that neither of us really knows about (or we wouldn't be talking about it) and could maybe therefore prove; so it's pretty much just opinion most of which you may well disagree with.
I take the view that if it's possible (particularly if it's also heinous) then it is eventually inevitable - which is where force (which is all people *really* respect) comes in. The WWII nuclear strikes on Japan, Cold War and relative fragility of our globalised economies (and cutting all infrastructure to the quick) has more likely than not ended (more or less) functional state vs (more or less) functional state WMD exchange.
What we haven't experienced yet is a 'failed' or ideological nutcase state trying it on with a major WMD (bio for my money) attack, but we will eventually. They'll be hoping that they can get away with it with the 'rogue elements' or proxies blag. If they do get away with it then there'll *absolutely certainly* be more of these horrors, but if they don't then there might not be, so they need a good nuking in response, literally for the good of the world.
I suspect that it may well be us doing this for a collection of reasons, that mostly boils down to our blend of prestige as a target, grudges caused by our Imperial history and current foreign policy, and weakness (like most Western powers we've been eroded from within by decades of Cultural Marxism, which has made us weak and pathetic with difficulties in responding militarily, appropriately - see PC and ludicrous RoE etc).
We're not unique in having this blend, so it could be us or France (maybe the US if a particularly Right On! leftist President was in office) who's the target, but we'd be the most likely of those three powers to actually respond with a nuke. US has other options (conventional destruction/invasion) and might not want to add to History's 'nuclear blood' on its hands, and France waxes and wanes in its lefty fluffiness vs martial ferocity - whereas when the chips are actually down we don't: We're an uncommon hard-faced and brutal people, to the core, when our blood's up.
Now, I'm firmly in the camp that the lion's share of our weapons of a given type should 'err' on the side of being vs peer quality, pretty much however much that might eat into numbers because you plan for the worst case scenario in these matters. So vs peer, CASD with SSBNs is the only answer; being the surest possible deterrent. You can debate whether that level of surety is worth the extra money but not that it is the surest. That debate's been gone over loads, and there's no point in repeating it again here - I think that it's more than worth the extra for this reason, you might not, shrug.
PART TWO
ReplyDeleteBut that's by the by since I'm coming at this from the point of view that an SLBM is also the best response to some 'rogue/failed' state that simply couldn't resist trying it on (a bioweapon attack on London) vs your suggestion of nuke cruise missiles having to penetrate his AD network.
One of the greatest curses afflicting humans is their ability to rationalise (see Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil'), which is especially facilitated by repetition. I know that slippery slope and thin end of the wedge are technically logical fallacies, but the problem is that they're actually not for the most part. Nukes must always be the taboo of taboos, we poor humies getting to the end of our History having used them fewer times than the fingers on one hand, for our survival. Treating them as regular weapons (like your multiple cruise missile strike to 'ensure' penetration to the target) normalises them way too much: robs them of their godlike mystique and greatly multiplies the number of nukes launched in anger in one single strike.
Fire a wave of four and you've trebled the number of nukes used in History, fire six and you've quadrupled it just like that. It's important for human survival that we don't do that, and in terms of world opinion and History's opinion of us. It just normalises it way too much, where an SLBM keeps it special and unique: hopefully being only the third - but final! - nuke launched in History (and the response so spectacular and unstoppable that it will also be the final trying it on major WMD attack in History too - these fundamentalist dictators don't really tend to be as mad as they're made out in the tabloids; they've got it good and don't want to lose it... the BS dogma and virtue of sacrifice/martyrdom is for their masses not them).
It is my assumption that given that flexible and measured response is at the very heart of Western military doctrine, that we would never have retired our full range of nukes if our remaining weapon wasn't also capable of this; say one or two Tridents per submarine with one or two (depending upon reliability) low yield MIRVs in the bus, the rest being ballast or decoys or something. I'd be *really* amazed if that wasn't the case, but will never know obviously.
My point is largely predicated upon this, but even if it isn't the case, then I maintain that it is child's play to spin the single Trident as a single weapon launched (just get all the MIRVs to hit the same target if necessary), where a single wave of nuke cruise missiles is not considered a single weapon since it's made up of discrete missiles throughout the whole process. Pretty much the same thing as the difference in media/public perception between hitting someone with eight 0.32 pellets from a single 12 gauge discharge, and rapidly shooting him eight (or even just three, say) times with a 0.32 pistol.
Hey TSZ52.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a huge amount of time to respond right now (gone 5am, such is the way during the NFL season!).
The two things I would suggest is that if a non-state actor is responsible for some atrocity then I think we're going to have a huge difficulty in responding to that with a nuclear weapon.
Killing thousands/millions of civilains in response for an attack perpetrated by a small terrorist group - even if it was state sponsored to some degree (tough to prove) - is not going to do us many favours. A more likely response would be the formation of a coalition of people very ardently behind us to go get the bad guys.
As for the point about multiple nuke strikes. The quality of detection/analysis/forensics these days is such that if you launched a multiple warhead strike from an SLBM, even if it was on one city for example, would be fairly easy to identify as having been a multiple warhead strike. Just because they detonate near each other, that's not going to stop headlines in international newspapers about how GB dropped 6-8 warheads or whatever on the target.
Total casualties caused would probably be more of a concern.
For your first suggestion, we're getting into the heart of The Deterrent; since the deal is that we have both the tool and the will to use it. If we can absolutely solidly project, "We will discover the state sponsor/s responsible and *will* unilaterally nuke them in response," then we'll never need to, and won't be the target for the atrocity in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is to make possible sponsors avoid contributing to the atrocity like the plague (and ideally stop it or report it as it's being planned to avoid catching any possible nuclear vengeance).
You're throwing a storm at them that they can't even entertain any fantasy that they can possibly weather (an SLBM) - and it's vital that they absolutely internalise that fact. They may well think that they can survive a "formation of a coalition of people very ardently behind us to go get the bad guys."
I'm also not sure about the certainty of that coalition forming, if the possible partners have just witnessed something like a major bioweapon attack on a capital city at the hands of said enemy (there'll be more appeasement than alliance).
For the second point, do you disagree that it's likely that we have some Tridents with just one or two low yield warheads on board for situations just like this? I'd be totally staggered if we didn't; even if that omission didn't fly in the face of our core military doctrine, the bean-counters will have pushed for that one to save costs if nothing else.
If we don't, then I suggest that a single Trident will be generally perceived as a single weapon, as most weapons with sub-munitions are. Further, in times of crisis, friendly media always toes the line....
I'm not suggesting that you can in any way physically hide the fact that you've actually dropped 6-8 warheads, but that the wording in the media and history books can reinforce the perception that will naturally be there anyway with most people - that it is a single weapon/strike - which most friendly folks will also actively want to believe. That one really is ours to lose.
[Unfriendly media simply gets drowned out and marginalised - and bombed nowadays if there's a conventional military action to go along with the nuclear response.]
Here we probably have a fundamental difference in opinion about how the overwhelming majority of people perceive things, and how the media works, that we'll probably just never agree on. Like I wrote over on TD, I often think that you consider that most folks inform themselves, remember, reason, and laugh in the face of obvious BS the way you do - but most people really just don't, unfortunately.
Just to back up my argument with a case study that you can test for yourself (please don't think that I'm suggesting that there was actually anything dodgy or untoward about this example, but it's a really good one for how these things actually work): If the 6-8 warheads are not part of the general media narrative, then there simply weren't 6-8 warheads to most (>90%) people; in *exactly* the same way that, for whatever the reason, WTC7 is not generally part of the 9/11 narrative (the most media-covered and discussed event in world history), and therefore 'didn't happen' to most people.
Essentially, all of the people you randomly ask who are completely unaware of WTC7 will be exactly the same people who will be completely unaware that 6-8 warheads were part of the missile, and for exactly the same reason (not part of the general narrative, and they get *all* of their information passively from the mainstream media, and never actively find things out for themselves, or read books and, like, stuff). Child's play.
@tsz52,
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with non state actors is that they're not especially inclined to care much about who supports them, and states that support such groups know that responses to their atrocities are likely to have some degree of proportion to them. Libya understood this all too well I'm afraid. Also look at how the US responded to the atrocity of 9/11.
As far as Trident, as I understand we hold some kind of capability for limited response. Obviously we can't be entirely certain what that means, but many believe that includes a missile loaded with just one warhead.
With regards to WTC 7, the reason that does not get much attention is because it was not hit. It was more a casualty of what was happening around it, than being directly struck itself.
There really is no way of massaging the fact that you've dropped 6-8 warheads on someone. The sheer scale of the damage will prompt news coverage to dig out their graphics and show how the multiple warheads enter and then split up to hit different targets/parts of a city.
There is literally almost zero chance that you will get away with portraying it as a "single strike".
I'm not really buying the 'non state actors' thing for this particular scenario: the nuclear response would only ever be used to a major WMD attack, and WMDs require state-level sponsorship and infrastructure - at least for the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteSo the US 9/11 response isn't relevant here, since the atrocity didn't use WMD (the one and only justification for using nukes), and even if it had then the US is really the only country in the world who could respond with overwhelming conventional force - unilaterally if necessary.
I'd also point to the general reluctance to join the US response coalition and flak that the US (and UK) caught for this particular response. If we were to add that the response is due to the bad guys having effectively destroyed London (they have demonstrated that power and willingness to harm), then I can't see many of our 'allies' wanting to mess with that sh*t - possibly inviting that level of destruction upon their own capital cities (look at Spain's response to the Madrid bombing, and then multiply that atrocity by several orders of magnitude).
For all those reasons, it would likely be a unilateral nuclear response from us (in which we have an essential responsibility to humanity and History to avoid normalising the use of nukes in any way).
WTC7 was merely to illustrate how trivially easy it is to make something extremely significant simply not be part of most people's memory or consciousness, even in the midst of unprecedented coverage and discussion about the general event, and even the official inquiry into that general event. Simply don't make it any part of the narrative, and to all intents and purposes it just didn't happen - job done.
I make no claims at all as to why it isn't part of the narrative.
A similar example (that you can also empirically test for yourself) would be our Apaches vs Libya, in the wake of the SDSR when the political (and 'intelligentsia') wind was very much blowing against carriers.
The media certainly covered the Apaches, but completely airbrushed the platform that they were operating from (our [helicopter] 'carrier', and largest warship, HMS Ocean) out of the picture and narrative.
So you can be reporting from the very deck of that bloody great big ship herself and still successfully hide the fact that she's there, or even exists at all, from the overwhelming majority of the public.
I tested this at the time by asking everyone I know, "Where or what do you think our Apaches are operating from?" Discounting the vanishingly small minority like us who actively follow military affairs, the breakdown was roughly: 75% "An island in the Med,"; 20% "Ummm... no idea,"; and 5% "One of the French ships." Flat zero had any idea that it was one of our ships, let alone a 'carrier'.
That's how it really works where the MSM and vast majority's concerned, I'm afraid [I really, really wish that it was otherwise, but it just isn't].
Again, I guess that we'll never agree on this (the absolutely trivial ease with which you can 'hide' 6-8 warheads); but luckily we don't need to, since it's moot if you accept that we likely do have some limited response Tridents for just such a scenario - which was my assumption and point from the very beginning.
Anyroad, I just wanted to tie off the hanging loose threads from our previous chat on TD; if you agree that there's not much further that we can go with this, then I bid you and yours a very Merry Christmas good sir. :)
Erm, it was fairly widely reported that the Apaches were operating off the deck of Ocean.
ReplyDeleteWTC7 doesn't get mentioned much because nothing of great note happened there. As far as I'm aware nobody inside the building died. It collapsed much later, largely because of fire damage. In the grand scheme of things it was fairly insignificent.
And no, I don't think we'll agree on the idea you can hide 6-8 nuclear warhead drops on a city. When it's considered that the scale of destruction would fairly obviously be caused by more than one blast and the worlds media would be smothered by pictures of 6-8 smoke columns rising from the city, I think you're going to have a hell of a time hiding that.