case against UK nuclear deterrence

Post Reply New Topic

the precise ballistics are largely a moot point.

Unless you are telling me a submarine (underwater) can match or even near the velocity of a rocket travelling mostly through a vacuum.

On a global level, the world is safer than you seem to make out. Sure there are small conflicts in pockets but none of the big players has made any moves that drastically change the picture.



Exactly, just like the billions spent on the hypothetical movement of the gulf stream. Oh, wait. They haven't.

The bottom line is that having a Nuclear option gives the politicians a few more chips when they go bartering and debating with other countries. It's not a military decision, it's a political one and at the moment, having that chip with the Nuke symbol results in achieving diplomatic victories. Military wise, Nuclear is never on the table, they're obsolete.

In other words, you don't have the information.

i can say with no lack of certainty that Russia or China could hit Britain with a ferocity and efficiency that would render britains attempts to retaliate irrelevant.

As long as there are hostile nations that have or may acquire nuclear weaponry then there is a need. Nukes have already been invented so there’s no turning back now.


So much for allies, eh……


Me either but it’s too late and way too unrealistic to even think about that.
We crossed that bridge in 1945 and there’s no way back.


I believe most of the missile subs are kept deployed as they should be.
Russia would win but there’s’ no reason not to slit her throat as you go down….

Of course. Take any nuclear armed countries and substitute to your sentence:

i can say with no lack of certainty that <country 1> or <country 2> could hit <country 3> with a ferocity and efficiency that would render <country 3>'s attempts to retaliate irrelevant.

Only <country 3>'s attempts to retaliate might be irrelevant to the people living in <country 3> (after all, who cares if you bomb your enemies back to the stone age if you yourself are bombed back to the stone age too - such a "victory" would be hollow at best), but would certainly not be irrelevant to the people living in <country 1> or <country 2>.

If Russia or China nukes Britain today and Britain takes a week to retaliate, and then does retaliate and succeeds in hitting Russian cities with a few hundred nukes, do you think the Russians will care much that it took Britain a week to get around to it? Plus the idea behind sub launched ballistic missiles as a deterrent is that you try to have at least one sub hidden and on patrol at all times, so that your potential adversary cannot be sure of knocking out your ability to retaliate, and the potential cost of your retaliation being so high that they cannot strike you unless they are absolutely certain they can prevent you from retaliating.

I think the North Korea test this morning shows that nuclear weapons are sadly going to get more common. I personally believe we need to keep ours as a deterrent. I think if it wasn't for nuclear weapons and the threat of mutual destruction, the cold war would have turned hot a lot easier.

Nuclear deterrence is conducive to peace.

Can you name one country with a nuclear weapon that was invaded by another country with a nuclear weapon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_warning

its a tempest in a teacup.

North Korean missile technology is barely a threat to Japan and South Korea, let alone the West coast of the USA or the UK. Besides which i do not think DPRK is preparing for war. I think they are building bargaining chips to use for concessions later on. Secondly North Korea is tiny and impoverished, it would be stupid of them to contemplate launching a nuke at anyone. As immature and naive as Kim Il Un is, I do not think even he honestly thinks he can take on NATO.

The multilateralist countries of Europe have the right idea - Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland etc have it right. For a small and modestly wealthy country like the UK nukes are an enormous white elephant. It is pointless and wasteful to arm up with nuclear weapons for a war you cannot possibly win. I'd also add that for geographic reasons, larger countries like the USA, Russia or China it makes more sense to have nuclear weapons because the blast salvos would be somewhat spread apart and it is more likely the country would survive in some capacity. For the UK to be engaged in a nuclear war the surface of the country would be completely incinerated.

@Screwywabbit

The countries named are not arbitary.

Last edited by thomas81 on 12 Feb 2013, 2:12 pm, edited 5 times in total.

by that logic, North Korea having nuclear weapons makes peace between the USA and North Korea more likely.

You still have no evidence of knowledge of British nuclear weapon deployment.

I've seen the Faslane submarine base with my own eyes. Does that qualify as evidence?

This discussion is ridiculous.

The Vanguard class submarines are armed with Trident II missiles. Several sources list the range of Trident II as > 10,000 kilometres.

In other words: From London, they have the range to hit the easternmost city of Russia, Anadyr. They don't need to sail *anywhere*, so travel time is irrelevant. They just need to surface.

Both Russia and China have the capability to wipe out the UK in a single nuclear strike.

But the UK has the capability to annihilate all life on Earth several times over with a nuclear retaliation strike (and most certainly two adjacent countries on the same continent).

One (1) fully armed Vanguard has a maximum payload (very conservative estimate) equivalent to 1,280 Hiroshima bombs (3,840 without treaty restrictions). And the UK has four of these submarines.

*That* is what nuclear deterrence is about.

war with Russia is the least likely. How long would it take for trident to get within launch range of beijing?

Zero seconds from London. Beijing is 8,161 kilometres from London, well within Trident II range... And good luck trying to shoot down 4-12 warheads per missile moving at Mach 17.