Should the UK to lose its nuclear capability

[A4kscooter]

The UK armed forces conventional weapons and personnel are been reduced at an alarming rate with more to come.
Is it now time for the UK to scrap its nuclear weapons and concentrate on building up its its fleet of aircraft, ships etc.
The UK is no longer a world power and through apathetic governments its defence forces have been slashed in numbers with even more reliance on the US.
In an ideal world I would love the UK to have replacement for Trident, aircraft carriers with huge air wings, a large air force with many squadrons of fighters, helicopters, transports etc. and a large army with all the resources it needs but this is never going to happen.
Currently the military seems to be heading towards 3 or 4 SBLM submarines and very limited conventional forces which if the UK wants to still be active contributor around the world is not the way to go but a large conventional force could be of real use.

 

[icecoolben]

The Wider View: The biggest submarines ever built in Britain

The UK armed forces conventional weapons and personnel are been reduced at an alarming rate with more to come.
Is it now time for the UK to scrap its nuclear weapons and concentrate on building up its its fleet of aircraft, ships etc.
The UK is no longer a world power and through apathetic governments its defence forces have been slashed in numbers with even more reliance on the US.
In an ideal world I would love the UK to have replacement for Trident, aircraft carriers with huge air wings, a large air force with many squadrons of fighters, helicopters, transports etc. and a large army with all the resources it needs but this is never going to happen.
Currently the military seems to be heading towards 3 or 4 SBLM submarines and very limited conventional forces which if the UK wants to still be active contributor around the world is not the way to go but a large conventional force could be of real use.

They are the biggest submarines ever built in Britain - and the most technologically advanced in the world. HMS Astute and HMS Ambush are the Royal Navy's first two Astute Class nuclear-powered subs. Each is 318ft long and will displace 7,400 tons of water... as much as 62 blue whales.

Cameron And Sarkozy Sign Deal On Defence
Cameron And Sarkozy Sign Deal On Defence

*
*
*
o Share
* Comments (205)

10:30pm UK, Tuesday November 02, 2010

Alison Chung and Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online
Prime Minister David Cameron and French president Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed to share troops, aircraft carriers and nuclear testing facilities.

In signing two new treaties, the pair pledged a new era of collaboration, tying British and French forces together for decades to come in order to save cash.

At an Anglo-French summit in London they agreed:

:: Co-ordination of aircraft carriers to ensure there is always a British or French vessel available for joint operations.

:: The creation of a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force training British and French troops to deploy on operations together.

:: The development of a new nuclear testing facility at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and its French counterpart at Valduc.

:: Co-operation on the development of new unmanned aerial drones, satellite communications and submarine technology.

Speaking at the summit, the two leaders said citizens of both countries would be "better protected" as a result.

Mr Cameron denied the agreement was about weakening sovereignty, saying: "This is not about a European army. This is not about sharing our nuclear deterrents.

"Britain and France are and will always remain sovereign nations able to deploy our armed forces independently and in our national interests when we choose to do so."

He added: "It is about defending our national interest. It is about practical, hard-headed co-operation between two sovereign countries."

If you, my British friends, have to face a major crisis, could you imagine France simply sitting there, its arms crossed, saying that it's none of our business?

French president Nicolas Sarkozy

Mr Sarkozy said: "We are not identical, there are many things on which we don't agree and I know that there is the Channel between our two countries.

"However, our values are the same, we share the same values, our interests are fair. All my political life I have argued in favour of rapprochement between London and Paris."

He added: "If you, my British friends, have to face a major crisis, could you imagine France simply sitting there, its arms crossed, saying that it's none of our business?"

The agreement comes as both countries try to cut the cost of their armed forces.

Mr Cameron announced two weeks ago that Britain's defence budget will be slashed by 8% over the next four years as the Government tackles the deficit.
Downing Street has insisted defence co-operation with France is based on a "hard-headed and practical assessment" of the UK's national interest.

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said he supported international co-operation but added: "Interdependence, however, is different from dependence, and binding legal treaties pose some big questions for the Government.

"We know British aircraft carriers won't have a strike force on them for a decade.

"Is (the) treaty going to usher in an era where we are reliant on our allies to fill in the gaps in the Government's defence policy?"

But the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, insisted: "This is a bilateral arrangement. It doesn't mean that we won't have everything that we have got today.

"Where we will pool with the French is where it makes military sense and where there is a political mandate to do so.

"It doesn't mean that we're automatically only going to be able to things with the French."

Does this answer your question:rel

 

[riksavage]

The UK armed forces conventional weapons and personnel are been reduced at an alarming rate with more to come.
Is it now time for the UK to scrap its nuclear weapons and concentrate on building up its its fleet of aircraft, ships etc.
The UK is no longer a world power and through apathetic governments its defence forces have been slashed in numbers with even more reliance on the US.
In an ideal world I would love the UK to have replacement for Trident, aircraft carriers with huge air wings, a large air force with many squadrons of fighters, helicopters, transports etc. and a large army with all the resources it needs but this is never going to happen.
Currently the military seems to be heading towards 3 or 4 SBLM submarines and very limited conventional forces which if the UK wants to still be active contributor around the world is not the way to go but a large conventional force could be of real use.

The UK plans to maintain five fully deployable and self-sustainable brigades. Stop looking at numbers alone, look at deplorability and logistical capabilities in a POST COLD WAR ERA.

Let's not forget NO other military outside the US currently fighting in A-Stan is self-sustaining to the same level as the current UK commitment, from infantry, engineers, REME, right through to strategic/tactical lift, attack helo's, UCAV's and fast-air. Calling the UK government 'apathetic' is simply crackers - who are you bench marking them against: the Germans, French, Dutch, Australians? Whilst you complain about an alarming reduction in equipment you appear to have missed the fact that the teeth arms have been almost entirely re-equipped for role since the fighting in A-Stan intensified (over ten new vehicle types, five new individual weapon systems, new uniforms, body armour, helmets et al). Name another nation, which has introduced the same level of new equipment in such a short period of time specific to mission?

There are many nations, which on paper have larger militaries, but can't or won't deploy beyond their national borders. As an Island nation surrounded by Allies the UK needs to focus on a highly flexible well equipped professional force capable of dealing with likely asymmetrical threats and contributing to a major conflict (NATO lead). Unfortunately one of the biggest ticket items in any defence budget is man-power costs, hence ALL European countries are reducing numbers to help pay for modernization and the growing demand for better ISTAR.

The nuclear deterrent will remain simply because nuclear proliferation is increasing not decreasing. It may not be similar in size to a Vanguard Class Cold War asset, but it will ensure mutually assured destruction should a rouge state decide to threaten nuclear war. A stretched Astute will do the job nicely, whether that carries a joint UK/French missile or Trident replacement, I don't know. Depending on how the French / UK test/research programme evolves, a joint warhead development is a possibility, even though the UK currently uses US missiles the warheads are built in the UK. The big question is what will the Trident replacement look like? The sub needs to be designed around the missile spec's, and as yet the dimensions haven't been finalised.

Finally I wish people would stop harking back to cold war orbats and days of empire, the world has changed, can we all move on please and start dealing with the changing geopolitics of the 21st Century and how it applies to Europe (a collective of Allies)

 

[Ananda]

The nuclear deterrent will remain simply because nuclear proliferation is increasing not decreasing. It may not be similar in size to a Vanguard Class Cold War asset, but it will ensure mutually assured destruction should a rouge state decide to threaten nuclear war. A stretched Astute will do the job nicely, whether that carries a joint UK/French missile or Trident replacement, I don't know. Depending on how the French / UK test/research programme evolves, a joint warhead development is a possibility, even though the UK currently uses US missiles the warheads are built in the UK. The big question is what will the Trident replacement look like? The sub needs to be designed around the missile spec's, and as yet the dimensions haven't been finalised.

Rick, what's the time frame that's available for UK to finish the studies on Trident replacement. I believe (read it somewhere) that the time table will not be that long. Do you think UK still have a chance to review possible join missiles productions with French ?

Considering French SLBM is smaller than Trident (which reflected to smaller current French boomers compared to current UK's Boomers), it's potentially more economical in the end for UK's to build her own Missiles with French rather than taking part with bigger US missiles. Well afterall for Nuclear deterences, UK's wil not have to worry with huge range of Pacific.

 

[StobieWan]

Rick, what's the time frame that's available for UK to finish the studies on Trident replacement. I believe (read it somewhere) that the time table will not be that long. Do you think UK still have a chance to review possible join missiles productions with French ?

Considering French SLBM is smaller than Trident (which reflected to smaller current French boomers compared to current UK's Boomers), it's potentially more economical in the end for UK's to build her own Missiles with French rather than taking part with bigger US missiles. Well afterall for Nuclear deterences, UK's wil not have to worry with huge range of Pacific.

I doubt it - we got a very good deal on Trident as far as I can understand it and the missiles are maintained jointly with US stockpiles, as well as being secured when not deployed at the US arsenal. Switching horses to the French isn't likely to be anything other than more expensive due to economies of scale we're achieving with the US.


Range wise, we'll still need a global capability - Trident can hit pretty much anywhere on the globe from home and that's the way it needs to stay.


Ian

 

[OpinionNoted]

I doubt it - we got a very good deal on Trident as far as I can understand it and the missiles are maintained jointly with US stockpiles, as well as being secured when not deployed at the US arsenal. Switching horses to the French isn't likely to be anything other than more expensive due to economies of scale we're achieving with the US.


Range wise, we'll still need a global capability - Trident can hit pretty much anywhere on the globe from home and that's the way it needs to stay.


Ian

Question-why does the british need a nuclear deterent?
-why does the uk need a strategic nuke deterent with a global reach?...just curious as to the justification for it all...shouild be good,please enlighten me.