case against UK nuclear deterrence

Post Reply New Topic

Britain has absolutely no need for trident or nuclear weapons of any shape or form. Britain has no enemies that have both the technology and political motives to deliver a nuclear warhead to british soil through the conventional motives where a nuclear retalliation would be appropriate. Our need for them died with the Warsaw Pact.

More importantly the £1.8 billion or so every year that is needed purely on maintenance costs would be far more beneficial to the general public were they spent on our ailing health, housing and education infrastructure.

First off, no nation should ever need to respond to a nuclear attack against that nation with a retaliatory nuclear strike of its own, for the simple reason that starting a nuclear war is utter madness and there would have to be a complete and utter breakdown of government or at least government controls on the part of the country that would start such a war.

That said, a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have a nuclear deterence of its own at least might make the idea of an attack against that nation slightly less mad.

Plus having nuclear weapons can deter nations from engaging in other types of warfare against you. I'm sure any nation/state adversary of the UK would think twice about attacking the UK with chemical or biological weapons, knowing that the UK's response would quite possibly be a nuclear one. Or, for that matter, when is the last time a nuclear-armed state was attacked with conventional weapons on its own soil by a state without nuclear weapons?

So I do think that there is some value in having nuclear weapons.

Also, Britain certainly has enemies (or at least countries that would probably be considered less than ideal friends) like Russia and China that at the moment do have the technical means to attack Britain with Nuclear Weapons, even if they currently lack the political will to do so. But governments can change in a heart beat, and political will can change right along with them. If Britain dismantled its nuclear capability, it may take far longer to re-establish it than a rapidly changing geopolitical situation would necessitate.

Nukes are only useful for Britain if it was an independent power which it is not. If if it remains the junior partner of the US it simply makes itself more of a target during a US war against someone else.

I guess its a question of how confident the UK is that the US would act to protect the UK's interests should the need ever arise. Its a matter of self-reliance vs. relying on others.

In fact, more importantly, its really a matter of how a would-be UK attacker would anticipate the U.S, to react to a given situation.

I'd much rather have education, healthcare and housing upon demand rather than have a superfluous deterrence to a hypothetical gas or biological attack from a hypothetical country that 'may' happen. I could just as easilly argue that having high steel railings outside my house protects my family from tigers and bears.

moreover we need to argue is a country that fails to put the wellbeing of its citizens first worth protecting? I think nuclear arms should be prioritised below universal public services across the board and somewhere between a space program and an enormous gold effigy of the flying spaghetti monster.

Last edited by thomas81 on 11 Feb 2013, 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't believe ANY country should have nuclear weapons.

they should'nt, unfortunately the million dollar question is how to disarm them all in such a way that no country loses face.

I think nuclear weapons are great for Britain, and possibly more than for other countries. Britain is on an austerity binge at the moment, and needs to cut its defense budget. Nuclear weapons are lower cost than other defense solutions, and far more lethal. In the event of war, two or three nuclear warheads would be more efficient than a carrier group.

Brown stuff. Nuclear weapons are useless for conventional warfare, and would be useless against a country with the means to invade (such as Russia or China) because they could easilly swamp us with paratroopers and we could never match them in terms of nuclear warheads.

Moreover Britain lacks an independent space vehicle and submarines, which take an eternity to get into range of their target, can be easilly intercepted by countries with larger or more sophisticated navies.

Well nuclear weapons aren't really meant as an invasion tool. They are meant as a retaliatory tool. Besides, invasions are expensive and messy. I find it convenient just to send a clear message to your enemies.

Of course, Britain would be swamped by a hypothetical superpower enemy, but that kind of war can't be planned for. A nuclear war would be great against another power though. For instance, what if another country decided to grab one of your overseas territories?

While I cringe at the the cost of Trident, while the UK wishes for a global role I think its needed.

I also hold the view that part of the point of an army is to deter enemies from attacking you, and while the UK seeks a global role we need Trident as insurance against other nuclear armed states such as Russia and China.

My personal problem with Trident is its dependence on the USA, as apposed to the French nuclear deterrent.

I didnt say they were but they are useless for defence. Unless they planned to take us out along with the enemy.

Russia or China could fly an invasion force here faster than submarines can get within range of China or Russia. Even then, those countries could blow us to kingdom come with their own arsenal. If they wanted, which they don't.

China certainly, is not interested in war, it wants the status quo. We are more valuable to them as immediate term trading partners and in the future, credit recipients.


As I've said before I would rather our national fiscal policy was orientated around reality than hypotheticals. No country hostile to the UK can strike with conventional or nuclear means, and the most part of it is hot air and toothless sabre rattling anyway.

Last edited by thomas81 on 11 Feb 2013, 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You could argue that, but then its really a balancing act. How much resources do you devote to building society vs. the amount of resources you spend protecting what you've built. It makes little sense to build something wonderful and unprotected, given what the world is currently like. It also makes little sense to spend a lot protecting relatively little.

As far as putting people's well-being first - that's just part of the equation / balancing act. People's well being is multi-dimensional but the dimensions are not mutually exclusive. Safety is one of those dimensions. Quality of day to day life is another. A high quality of day to day life can be wiped out if you aren't safe. Yes, protecting against hypothetical military action by another country is of course spending money to handle a contingency that might never happen. On the other hand, failing to spend that money may make your country appear weak and vulnerable and make it more likely that such a contingency will eventually happen.

The UK lacks an independent space vehicle but not submarines, see the Vanguard class.

Regarding an invasion, no other nation would invade if the costs outweighed the gains, and nuclear weapons would have to be factored into that calculation.

you're not understanding the thrust of my point. Say for the sake of argument, If Russia for example, wanted to nuke us, it can press a button and nuclear warheads will rain down upon London in 4 minutes.

If Britain wanted to retaliate it would take several days for British submarines to attack Russia. By which time there will be nothing left of Britain worth fighting for. Thats assuming they even fuel up in time and make it out of dry dock before the Russian missiles arrive.

You sound like Tony "45 minutes" Blair....

The "thrust" of of your point requires me except the following assumptions as true (see below).

You have information regarding the deployment and speed of Russian nuclear warheads

You have information regarding the deployment and speed of British nuclear warheads

Until the above is proven, that "thrust" has a lot of drag on it.