Nuclear Warheads in a Cupboard R Us?

#2
However, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director at the defence think-tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), raised concerns about possible savings by scrapping a Trident replacement, saying he was not yet convinced by the figures.

"If you end up going for an option which steps down the ladder but you don't save any money it's a political non-starter," he said.
Politicians eh?
 
#3
Pretty much entirely defeats the purpose of having SLBMs.
 
#4
So ships would be fitted for but not equipped with missiles, escorted by carriers fitted for but not equipped with airyplanes and frigates fitted for but not equipped with ASW weapons. You know it makes sense.
 
#6
And interestingly Nick Clegg withdrew the (LibDem) minister responsible for the Successor decision from the MoD - you might think he's about to play the 'nothing to do with me guv' card when further CASD is recommended.
 
#7
And interestingly Nick Clegg withdrew the (LibDem) minister responsible for the Successor decision from the MoD - you might think he's about to play the 'nothing to do with me guv' card when further CASD is recommended.
Sir Menzies Campbell - much underrated - actually changed LD policy to be pro-trident. To my knowledge there has not actually been a motion at conference since changing the policy back to unilateralist.

****ing pointless locking nukes in a cupboard, you may as well abolish the whole thing.
 
#8
****ing pointless locking nukes in a cupboard, you may as well abolish the whole thing.
In one respect, I am inclined to agree with you, but I thought that this is what the Israeli's did to get around the Non-Proliferation Treaty i.e. the delivery systems and the warheads were not ohysically mated togther, but could be very, very quickly if the need ever arose. We're meant to be getting 7 Astute-class boats - I wouldn't be at all surprised if this number increases to 10 and all of them become capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
 
#9
In one respect, I am inclined to agree with you, but I thought that this is what the Israeli's did to get around the Non-Proliferation Treaty i.e. the delivery systems and the warheads were not ohysically mated togther, but could be very, very quickly if the need ever arose. We're meant to be getting 7 Astute-class boats - I wouldn't be at all surprised if this number increases to 10 and all of them become capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
That is the popular theory. My (less popular) theory is that the Israelis do not have a nuclear weapon.

Personally I am in favour of abolishing all nuclear weapons except second-strike, ideally CASD. However if you're not going to invest in that don't bother. You lose all strategic advantage if (even in theory) your arsenal can be wiped out before you've even assembled it, let alone gotten it on a sub and out to (below) sea. CASD or don't bother.
 
#11
I agree with your second paragraph in it's entirety; however, CASD doesn't have to be delivered via the SLBM-option - cruise missiles might prove to be a cost-effective and realistic alternative. I thought that the French were considering this option too, given that they have to modernise their conventional armed forces in a similar timeframe and are findign the Force De Frappe ruinously expensive.
 
#12
That is the popular theory. My (less popular) theory is that the Israelis do not have a nuclear weapon.

Personally I am in favour of abolishing all nuclear weapons except second-strike, ideally CASD. However if you're not going to invest in that don't bother. You lose all strategic advantage if (even in theory) your arsenal can be wiped out before you've even assembled it, let alone gotten it on a sub and out to (below) sea. CASD or don't bother.
...and to be honest, SLCM does not really qualify as CASD IMHO...

Too low, too slow to be a viable sole second strike capablity.. It's just a drone FFS - you could bring one down with a couple of barrels of #6 shot from your Granpa's Purdey..!

Also using a hunter-killer boat in a strat role could lead to all sorts of unintended misunderstandings...!

Bombers work - leave them alone..

Edited to add.. Interesting theory about the Oy Vey deterrent capablity.. one wonders how their stocks of 3H are doing these days..?
 
#13
Typical dumb f**kwit student level thinking
Yes thanks.

I agree with your second paragraph in it's entirety; however, CASD doesn't have to be delivered via the SLBM-option - cruise missiles might prove to be a cost-effective and realistic alternative. I thought that the French were considering this option too, given that they have to modernise their conventional armed forces in a similar timeframe and are findign the Force De Frappe ruinously expensive.
Embarassed to say I don't follow French military developments as closely as I ought.

Also using a hunter-killer boat in a strat role could lead to all sorts of unintended misunderstandings...
Yes could send out the wrong message!
 
#14
Yes thanks.



Embarassed to say I don't follow French military developments as closely as I ought.



Yes could send out the wrong message!
At the same time, loading the warheads from their secure store and transporting them to the Naval base, as the boats themselves are recalled to the base to be armed take the boats away from whatever task they're engaged in, which may be very important, sends all the wrong signals at a time of world tension.

Brillant plan...........
 
#15
Cruise missiles would mean the nuclear detergent would be downgraded from a strategic, annoy us and we flatten a city in 20 minutes time capability, to a tactical, at some point in the future limited counterstrike capability against annoying sub-strategic nation states like Pakistan/Iran.

Not so much guarded by a pack of Rottweilers, as a Staffie called Tyson.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
The limited range of cruise missiles means the submarine is more exposed to detection. It is its historic immunity from detection because it can be literally anywere in the ocean that is key to the deterrent. Over the years we have been all round the houses many times on this. The dedicated ICBM-carrying submarine is the ONLY way we can achieve a deterrent BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE PROOF AGAINST ANY SORT OF INTERDICTION ON ITS USE. Anything LESS is NOT a deterrent and not worth spending £1 on.

As long as we have the system at sea, nobody can park a nuke on UK without the certainty of getting one back. Simples.
 
#17
The limited range of cruise missiles means the submarine is more exposed to detection. It is its historic immunity from detection because it can be literally anywere in the ocean that is key to the deterrent. Over the years we have been all round the houses many times on this. The dedicated ICBM-carrying submarine is the ONLY way we can achieve a deterrent BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE PROOF AGAINST ANY SORT OF INTERDICTION ON ITS USE. Anything LESS is NOT a deterrent and not worth spending £1 on.

As long as we have the system at sea, nobody can park a nuke on UK without the certainty of getting one back. Simples.



<Penny pinching Treasury Minister mode ON>

Well Prime Minister, we've looked at the options and sub launched cruise missiles are the only affordable option&#8230; but!

The but? Well, PM, the submarines would be very vulnerable to counter attack and the missiles could get shot down... very expensive and not an assured retaliation capability.

Quite so PM, in the circumstances it does hardly warrant spending £20 Billion on such a limited capability, will you announce the abandoning of nuclear weapons or shall I?

Cue smug PM riding off into the sunset with his Noble Peace prize and self satisfied smiles all round at Chequers as another £20 Billion is lopped off defence spending

<Penny pinching Treasury Minister mode OFF>


Cynical? Moi?
 
#18
Bombers work - leave them alone..
Pretty much this.

Although it does sort of raise my tin-foil hat hypothesis again, that there's something out there in "black project" territory which is trumping ballistic missiles.
 
#19
Britain, naked in the conference table again.
 

Latest Threads

Top