Is it time for the UK abandon nuclear weapons.

[StobieWan]

Hmm hardly clear and present though was it, nor a direct threat to the UK. Neither to be honest would a UK deterrent have any appreciable effect on the outcome of that situation should it ever turn hot in the future.

That scenario also leads to the question of how "independent" our deterrent actually is. Could we even physically launch in retaliation if Washington was not in agreement?

To Mr Conservative
Trying to maintain a status quo in a world that is rapidly changing is a futile effort and will generally take you at great fiscal and indeed diplomatic cost to an inevitable climbdown in the future that could have been carried at little cost or damage far earlier. Real power will not be denied as that is the nature of power. If too many members of the UNSCPM are no longer truly relevant, it will simply devalue the institution to that of an old buffers club, while real power makes its own arrangements, elsewhere.

An attack on a NATO country would invoke a response along treaty lines - which would put the UK in direct line of fire. I'm not suggesting it'll happen but it does demonstrate things can turn awfully nasty in a heart beat.

Cast your mind back to the Oman crisis back in the early 70's in which we covertly engineered a a coup then stabilised the country around the chosen successor. Not long after this, Iran donated both aircraft and assistance and we worked alongside Iran in building up a decent airforce. Fast forward to a few short years later and we're looking at Iranians burning flags and chanting a lot.. It's just an example of how pear-shaped things can go in a short span of time.

It would take a *long* time to rebuild a deterrent and a short time to regret losing it - what I'm saying is, the argument that we don't need a deterrent right this second is not compelling.

In terms of independence of deterrence, yes, at any time we can launch without reference or consent from the US. We do not have the capability to maintain the missiles. The missiles are leased from the US, and they are stored on US soil (mainly because it's cheaper for us - we tap into existing facilities for storage, maintenance and refit)

The warheads are of a UK design, with, it's alleged, strong US input and are not tied into the PAL system that the US uses. In short, if we have valid missiles and warheads at sea, the PM can pick up the phone and deliver instant sunshine to most of the globe without asking nicely first.

A further consequence of ditching the deterrent would be to greatly increase the costs of a replacement for Astute - we're allegedly pretty close to the wind with 8 attack and 4 boomers, dropping to 8 attack boats would make that capability very expensive by comparison.

 

[RobWilliams]

That scenario also leads to the question of how "independent" our deterrent actually is. Could we even physically launch in retaliation if Washington was not in agreement?

Interestingly, in 2005 someone made a FOI request to the MOD in regards to the independence of the UKs nuclear deterrent, i'll pick out the key questions the person asked, but obviously there are a couple more.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf

2. 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.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own
nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use
nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the answer to your second question.

It's interesting what you can find out from FOI requests. To be honest, those are the responses I would expect, the baseline being - "We are independent, but we would consult with America first"

EDIT: A bit more info from Parliament on the issue from 2006

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

78. The missile: Dr Lee Willett, of RUSI, stated that the Trident II D5 missile was "a totally self-contained package" which had "an inertial guidance system that takes it to a point in space, and then the ballistic trajectory then takes it to the latitudinal and longitudinal point on the target" and that "t does not…. rely on external guidance systems such as American satellites".[66]

80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto—legal or physical—if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

So it appears the urban myth that Trident uses US satellites for targetting information and the US has the ability to essentially 'shut down' our nuclear deterrent are pretty much defunked.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, the myth that Trident *needs* GPS is something that I think CND have worked tirelessly to promulgate - Trident came into service before GPS so it was a bit of a no-brainer. The submarine can proceed to launch point using inertial guidance only and launch in the total absence of a GPS. The D5 is obviously a lot better off for having a GPS fix prior to launch but you can't use GPS to update in mid course in any event - the missile is moving too fast.


It keeps popping up despite it being obviously dim

 

[Sampanviking]

Thank you Stobie and Rob, your answers are very informative and helpful.

When I look at "independence" in this context though, I see that the business end as the tip of the iceberg and I realise that you cannot conduct a sensible conversation without looking at the rest of infrastructure.

I recall a lot being said that our Research Establishments and even operating bases have now large stakes held by major US contractors such as Carlyle Group and Haliburton.

This means that the facilities are run by boards with foreign nationals sitting on them, who have a very close connection with at least one major foreign government and that these will have access to very sensitive security information and influence over the setting and use of budgets. It seems to me that this enables overseas interest to exert subtle but effective pressure on the UK's Strategic Defence and run counter to the national interest.

 

[StobieWan]

Thank you Stobie and Rob, your answers are very informative and helpful.

When I look at "independence" in this context though, I see that the business end as the tip of the iceberg and I realise that you cannot conduct a sensible conversation without looking at the rest of infrastructure.

I recall a lot being said that our Research Establishments and even operating bases have now large stakes held by major US contractors such as Carlyle Group and Haliburton.

This means that the facilities are run by boards with foreign nationals sitting on them, who have a very close connection with at least one major foreign government and that these will have access to very sensitive security information and influence over the setting and use of budgets. It seems to me that this enables overseas interest to exert subtle but effective pressure on the UK's Strategic Defence and run counter to the national interest.

We're already heavily reliant on US input for reactor, warhead and submarine design, not to mention my previously stated point about the missiles themselves being stored and maintained in the US.

We've had an up and down history with this all - in the late forties early fifties we flew B29's with US nuclear weapons under RAF roundels, then post Suez we were locked out of co-operation. With that gauntlet thrown down we ran a very well organised and successful program to design and test our own thermonuclear weapon with no assistance from the US.

Since then, things have come back around and we're pretty much in a funny position as being one of the very few countries in the world that has a working relationship with the US over nuclear weapons design and testing. I'm half tempted to say we're the *only* one but I've probably missed something.

I wouldn't be worrying very much about foreign boards sitting on companies in the UK - it's so much by the by compared to other items that are in the mix.

 

[Sampanviking]

Thanks again Stobie, I think I get the general picture.

I suppose in the overall scheme of things, three or four subs is not going to be overly expensive, when the cost of fixed facilities and the security they would need is taken into account.

I do however share the sentiment that somebody expressed earlier, that it may be preferable to have an auxiliary use for these subs for launching conventional munitions, it would to my mind settle the matter beyond debate.

 

[StobieWan]

Thanks again Stobie, I think I get the general picture.

I suppose in the overall scheme of things, three or four subs is not going to be overly expensive, when the cost of fixed facilities and the security they would need is taken into account.

I do however share the sentiment that somebody expressed earlier, that it may be preferable to have an auxiliary use for these subs for launching conventional munitions, it would to my mind settle the matter beyond debate.

Well, the basic capability comes "free" with the common missile compartment - the USN plans to replace their SSGN's with dual role boats as far as I can tell. I have no idea how this sits with verification for START obligations but I guess they can fall off this bridge when they burn it or whatever.

I don't think we'd want boats out at sea tasked with both roles at the same time as a) the nuke boat needs to be in a bastion zone agreed with the French and b) squirting off a cruise missile while on a nuke patrol pretty much breaks the whole "unseen, unheard, undetectable" routine.

Ergo you either find a way of generating both missions out of four boats or get a fifth. Incrementally, I think a fifth would be brilliant - relatively cheap in terms of the whole program and we'd have the capability to get a fair few TLAMs into the air if need be.

We have done good work on the nuclear stuff before - the Chevaline update for Polaris is still one of the most sophisticated warheads built in terms of countermeasures and penetration aids - I'm not sure how much of that capability is still current however.

 

[Beatmaster]

I might be the pessimistic jerk here, but i personally believe that having nukes is a fake anyway for the simple fact they are being silently used to subdue smaller nations without nuclear a deterrent into submission.
The US will not go anywhere near the ones that do have them as they know that whatever they give they will receive back.
So i personally believe either everyone is having nukes or none and it should not be the case where a few dictate others to have them or not while waving with that same deterrent to accomplish their diplomatic interests and global politics.
I could understand a not nuclear power to finally get them just to be on a equal level with the " big" boys/.
And for the UK to abandon their nuclear deterrence will change the ball game significantly for the other players as well.
At this point both US and Russia are being in a status Quo to disband nukes and at the same time to keep them, so by having bigger members like the UK abandon their nukes it might force the US to finally drop those nukes which in turn will also get Russia to follow suit.
Simple fact Russia will never disband its nukes unless US, China, Pak, India, NK, Israel, France, Uk and??? did i forgot someone? disband their nukes to.
And imo this is never going to happen the world is being so used to nukes that it does not take a genius to figure out that nukes will remain and that if this lasts long enough more and more nations will drop out of the NPT.
But then again who is actually mad enough to kill few 100 million people with a few nukes, knowing that the starter will receive a care package of their own wiping both nations of the face of the earth?
So on one hand nukes keep the balance and on the other hand they proven to be obsolete.
That being said i believe that it is a sovereign right to those having nukes and to those obtaining nukes and in this day there are a number of nations that can have them if they wished to but it takes a real hero to say stop this BS and get rid of them.

 

[RobWilliams]

I might be the pessimistic jerk here, but i personally believe that having nukes is a fake anyway for the simple fact they are being silently used to subdue smaller nations without nuclear a deterrent into submission.
The US will not go anywhere near the ones that do have them as they know that whatever they give they will receive back.

I don't agree, the US has had plenty of engagements with smaller countries who were not at all phased about the US' nuclear arsenal (like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq) and from what i've read, the general reasons behind this (although true, there are others) is that this would signal an escalation of intent to the USSR at that time.

Not go anywhere near the ones who have them? Have you not heard of the Cold War?

 

[Beatmaster]

I don't agree, the US has had plenty of engagements with smaller countries who were not at all phased about the US' nuclear arsenal (like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq) and from what i've read, the general reasons behind this (although true, there are others) is that this would signal an escalation of intent to the USSR at that time.

Not go anywhere near the ones who have them? Have you not heard of the Cold War?

Sure i have heard about the cold war, where the warschau pact did outnumber the US and NATO/EU by loads to one and where Russia alone did have like 2 times or more the arsenal of us and all its allies combined and the source of the CW is being found in Stalins actions and the US making the westernblock.
That all has been covered, today there is no CW anymore (There might be one around the corner) but at this point there is none. But after the CW the use and possession of a arsenal is just being fueled by the US and Russia, forcing others to keep them around, as its just more then just a bomb is a golden key in terms of diplomatic ball game.
Eventually other nations will wanna have a arsenal of their own or at least the technology to build them.
And this is partly a direct result of US politics.So by having the 2 major arsenals trimming down their numbers (Then finding ways to keep them around) more will follow the list of N-Powers eventually.
And even with the huge benefits from having nukes at all on a diplomatic and strategic level i personally it takes balls for the UK to seriously think about disbanding them......
Imo the only nation that is going to miss its arsenal is the US for the simple fact that their whole diplomatic ball game changes. it simply is build around the effect of nukes.

 

[RobWilliams]

That all has been covered, today there is no CW anymore (There might be one around the corner) but at this point there is none. But after the CW the use and possession of a arsenal is just being fueled by the US and Russia, forcing others to keep them around, as its just more then just a bomb is a golden key in terms of diplomatic ball game.
Eventually other nations will wanna have a arsenal of their own or at least the technology to build them.
And this is partly a direct result of US politics.So by having the 2 major arsenals trimming down their numbers (Then finding ways to keep them around) more will follow the list of N-Powers eventually.
And even with the huge benefits from having nukes at all on a diplomatic and strategic level i personally it takes balls for the UK to seriously think about disbanding them......
Imo the only nation that is going to miss its arsenal is the US for the simple fact that their whole diplomatic ball game changes. it simply is build around the effect of nukes.

Whilst there may not be a Cold War right now, that doesn't neccesarily make disbanding a countries nuclear deterrent the correct decision, nor would it in any way dissuade other countries from continuing down that path. If anything, if the major powers threw out their nuclear armament it may compel other smaller, more radical nations to persue nuclear weapons as - should the route be successful - it would be the ultimate bargaining chip.

Not that i'm saying keeping nuclear weapons would stop this from happening, as it clearly isn't,but what it does provide is the cold-war-esque status quo of understanding which wouldn't exist should the major powers get rid of their stockpiles.

Then as far as i know, the UK hasn't considered disbanding it's nuclear weapons at all, the recent £350m contracts on designing Vanguards replacement were planned for by the previous government (i think), it's the LibDems that want to look for a cheaper alternative than the current plan.

 

[Beatmaster]

Whilst there may not be a Cold War right now, that doesn't neccesarily make disbanding a countries nuclear deterrent the correct decision, nor would it in any way dissuade other countries from continuing down that path. If anything, if the major powers threw out their nuclear armament it may compel other smaller, more radical nations to persue nuclear weapons as - should the route be successful - it would be the ultimate bargaining chip.

Not that i'm saying keeping nuclear weapons would stop this from happening, as it clearly isn't,but what it does provide is the cold-war-esque status quo of understanding which wouldn't exist should the major powers get rid of their stockpiles.

Then as far as i know, the UK hasn't considered disbanding it's nuclear weapons at all, the recent £350m contracts on designing Vanguards replacement were planned for by the previous government (i think), it's the LibDems that want to look for a cheaper alternative than the current plan.

Fair enough i can more then feel comfortable with what you say as infact you are very right.
But then my question to you is what would be a acceptable middle of the road way?
Because obviously one cannot have it all.

Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

Fair enough i can more then feel comfortable with what you say as infact you are very right.
But then my question to you is what would be a acceptable middle of the road way?
Because obviously one cannot have it all.

Cheers

My point of view? My view is that it's now impossible to rewind the nuclear clock and thus they are - and will remain - part of our global security for the forseeable future. For the UK, maintaining the current fleet/warhead capacity seems a reasonable thing to do as any sort of 'cheaper compromise' would be pointless as it would either; reduce the current fleet to 3 and reduce the ability for continuous at sea deterrent, pick cheaper (and therefore smaller range) missiles to mount warheads, or build cheaper submarines ultimately resorting for a relatively ineffective force for such a powerful role.

In terms of global nuclear weapons, that's a tricky one. The thing about nuclear weapons is, they're a privilege, not a right (in my opinion). Then as such, the country trying to aquire nuclear weapons has to demonstrate a certain level of political stability to maintain nuclear weapons.

 

[Equinox]

Eventually other nations will wanna have a arsenal of their own or at least the technology to build them.
And this is partly a direct result of US politics.So by having the 2 major arsenals trimming down their numbers (Then finding ways to keep them around) more will follow the list of N-Powers eventually.
And even with the huge benefits from having nukes at all on a diplomatic and strategic level i personally it takes balls for the UK to seriously think about disbanding them......
Imo the only nation that is going to miss its arsenal is the US for the simple fact that their whole diplomatic ball game changes. it simply is build around the effect of nukes.

...You do realise that a lot of nations considered pursuing and even started pursuing nuclear weapons back in the 50's/60's? Or that quite a few have the capability to develop nuclear weapons given a little time, if they wanted?

It's not a matter of everyone suddenly coming to the realisation that they've been cheated and jumping on the bandwagon, most countries have simply decided it's not worth it. Though, in saying that, it's fairly likely the number of nuclear powers will increase over the coming decades within the asia pacific region; depending on what happens.

 

[Robmauler]

Hi guys, not sure if i've posted this right, it's my first comment. Basically I am a student of international relations and politics: Strategic Studies, so have got quite a view on this.

Indeed, although many people advocate disbanding nuclear weapons all together, it could be argued despite minor conflicts between larger powers and smaller ones. Nuclear weapons have in fact been one of the ultimate guarantors of peace between the larger powers: the UN P5+1. Indeed despite conflicts: Falklands-UK, USA-Vietnam, Coalition-Iraq/Afghanistan. these have all been conflicts between nuclear and non nuclear states. Therefore, it is sound to find that nuclear weapons despite there destructive power have in fact ensured peace between nations to flourish: the 50 years to 1950 there were 2 major world conflicts, the past 62 years there have been none.

Any comment on this would be appreciated, i hope i posted right!

 

[Beatmaster]

Hi guys, not sure if i've posted this right, it's my first comment. Basically I am a student of international relations and politics: Strategic Studies, so have got quite a view on this.

Indeed, although many people advocate disbanding nuclear weapons all together, it could be argued despite minor conflicts between larger powers and smaller ones. Nuclear weapons have in fact been one of the ultimate guarantors of peace between the larger powers: the UN P5+1. Indeed despite conflicts: Falklands-UK, USA-Vietnam, Coalition-Iraq/Afghanistan. these have all been conflicts between nuclear and non nuclear states. Therefore, it is sound to find that nuclear weapons despite there destructive power have in fact ensured peace between nations to flourish: the 50 years to 1950 there were 2 major world conflicts, the past 62 years there have been none.

Any comment on this would be appreciated, i hope i posted right!

In a sense you are right, but the past 62 years did have numerous major conflicts, obviously not in the way as WO 1 & 2 but do not forget the smaller conflicts who where for a large part based upon nuclear weapons in terms of : Having, producing or allegedly having / producing them or having a program.
Also the Cold war was a time where in a public way it was a cold war, but behind the scenes it was anything but cold and there have been moments where both sides literally would decide if they would have a go at each other based upon impulsive actions and decisions made by either side, causing to trigger a stand down.

So yes peace is being guaranteed by nukes and the prospect of M.A.D
On the other hand it caused some serious situations and conflicts.
IMO Nukes only serve US and Russia and to a smaller degree China.
All the other nations who do posses nukes could do without them, with the exception of Pakistan and India as they have a sort of smaller cold war version between the 2 of them which brings back the M.A.D concept.

I personally would love to see the nukes gone...all of them period.
But fact is as some others said in this day and age nukes will remain and i am convinced that in the future we will see the actual use of it or at least a stalemate where 2 powers cross each other in such way that the use of nuclear weapons becomes a reality.

Ones there was a movie about a nuclear sub (USS Alabama) about 2 captains fighting over who is right or wrong after a fragmented order came in to hit a target (Damn forgot the name)
And during the dinner they where smarting eachother out with Von Clausewitz quotes and one of them said: In a nuclear world the true enemy during the war is not the side you are fighting but the very war itself.

And this would apply very much to this situation where the world still has enough nukes to make mother earth shine brighter then the sun itself.
My point here is that with the best intentions the biggest mistakes are being made and thus it only takes one wrong judgment call and it cannot be undone.
That being said in a conventional war calls are being made some wrong some good, but neither of those calls carry the dangers that a nuclear exchange would have.
So we cannot disband the nukes we have, but it would be in everyones best interest to do so.

 

[Robmauler]

In a sense you are right, but the past 62 years did have numerous major conflicts, obviously not in the way as WO 1 & 2 but do not forget the smaller conflicts who where for a large part based upon nuclear weapons in terms of : Having, producing or allegedly having / producing them or having a program.
Also the Cold war was a time where in a public way it was a cold war, but behind the scenes it was anything but cold and there have been moments where both sides literally would decide if they would have a go at each other based upon impulsive actions and decisions made by either side, causing to trigger a stand down.

So yes peace is being guaranteed by nukes and the prospect of M.A.D
On the other hand it caused some serious situations and conflicts.
IMO Nukes only serve US and Russia and to a smaller degree China.
All the other nations who do posses nukes could do without them, with the exception of Pakistan and India as they have a sort of smaller cold war version between the 2 of them which brings back the M.A.D concept.

I personally would love to see the nukes gone...all of them period.
But fact is as some others said in this day and age nukes will remain and i am convinced that in the future we will see the actual use of it or at least a stalemate where 2 powers cross each other in such way that the use of nuclear weapons becomes a reality.

Ones there was a movie about a nuclear sub (USS Alabama) about 2 captains fighting over who is right or wrong after a fragmented order came in to hit a target (Damn forgot the name)
And during the dinner they where smarting eachother out with Von Clausewitz quotes and one of them said: In a nuclear world the true enemy during the war is not the side you are fighting but the very war itself.

And this would apply very much to this situation where the world still has enough nukes to make mother earth shine brighter then the sun itself.
My point here is that with the best intentions the biggest mistakes are being made and thus it only takes one wrong judgment call and it cannot be undone.
That being said in a conventional war calls are being made some wrong some good, but neither of those calls carry the dangers that a nuclear exchange would have.
So we cannot disband the nukes we have, but it would be in everyones best interest to do so.

you're absolutely right beastmaster, you've explained what I was trying to much better than i could. Nuclear weapons ideally should be disbanded but in all reality will not be due to the fact they provide the ultimate security through MAD. (mutually assured destruction) I agree with what you say about it's probably more important for the larger powers to maintain nuclear arsenals, though in a world which is becoming increasingly unpredictable, having a "big stick" as T. Roosevelt put it is important for the smaller powers of UK, France and in any case India and Pakistan though that conflict has the potential to escalate beyond a cold war soon.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Swaggie]

Ones there was a movie about a nuclear sub (USS Alabama) about 2 captains fighting over who is right or wrong after a fragmented order came in to hit a target (Damn forgot the name)

The movie was Crimson Tide
(Apologies for the one-line post, just wanted to contribute this information.)

 

[exPrivate]

Guys, I recommend reading that document. It reflects entirely what I think and it is RUSI stuff.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/CASD.pdf
And it is high time to do sth about it apart from discussions.

 

[PCShogun]

You could *potentially* base silos at known targets, say, London and Birmingham, then add in ABM defences in the outlying areas so you'd be defending the silos from an incoming strike plus the cities they'd be based in.

Yes, the U.K. just isn't really large enough for land based missiles to be really effective in giving a time to target difference either. the United States put its missiles in the Mid West on the thought that incoming missiles and bombers would be over the U.S. and detected, with enough time remaining to launch those missiles before the inbounds struck. The U.K. being much closer to potential aggressors, and not nearly as wide, would not be able to do that. For an ABM system to truly work against inbound MIRVs, you need a lot of them. It's much easier to intercept a single target on its boost phase, then it is to take out all those MIRV's, and decoy MIRV's, on the inbound track. Remember the game, Missile Command?

That's what makes the European missile defense work, and what peeves Russia off so much. Placing an interceptor base in Poland or the Czech Republic drastic reduces the effectiveness of Russian Missiles as they can be intercepted in the boost phase, reducing the potential number of warheads dramatically, and raining the radioactive debris inside Russian territory, not ours. Missiles that are in the launch phase cannot perform evasion tactics, nor are the warheads scattered across the sky. They remain one nice, tightly packaged, target.

Still, the purpose of a large conventional force is so that you do not have to use nuclear weapons for your defense. I do not see the British government using a Trident missile against Argentina over an issue like the Falklands. Without a conventional force capable of removing Argentine forces from that area, the U.K. would be forced to release the islands to Argentina, hope her allies will come and help, and use the threat of a nuclear weapon to enforce her desires in the matter, not a politically nice thing to do, and generally only useful against a non-nuclear armed enemy.