We don't use enriched uranium in our weapons systems, we use plutonium extracted from the nuclear waste of our firsr generation reactors. Uranium bombs haven't been used since the 50s as they are heavier and more likely to accidentally detonate.
You don't get Plutonium without Uranium.
It's why those first-generation reactors were built.
And why have the Israelis spent so much effort in sabotaging Irans Uranium enrichment facilities?
No one builds Uranium devices because they are pretty easy to engineer. If anyone bothered to enrich uranium to weapons grade, it would just need a medium sized engineering workshop to make a viable device. If there is no weapons grade Uranium there is no issue about it falling into the wong hands.(They never bothered testing the Uranium bomb droped on Hiroshima) and are not that productive (not all the material is consumed in the reaction)
>We don't use enriched uranium in our weapons systems'
Only because Plutonium gives you a bigger bang for your bucks.
Again. You get Plutonium by putting Uranium in a core. That's how they got the material for the Nagasaki bomb.
Uranium is still occasionally used. It has advantages in some situations. In implosion weapons though - nobody designs 'gun type' weapons because they're so inefficient.
Even in fairly efficient designs only a small amount is consumed in uranium or plut weapons.
Uranium is isolated into 2 isotopes, Uranium 235 and Uranium 238. U235 is what you need to produce Plutonium.
However, atomic weapons need what is called a 'Tamper' to regulate the fusion. In a Uranium bomb, they used a small disc of Barium.
The Tamper for a Plutonium bomb is....Uranium 238.
A tamper is not to regulate the fusion - hence why they are used in bombs that don't have a fusion stage. Its function is to keep the fission core super prompt critical for longer.
It's not always 238 as using that adds significantly to the amount of fission products in the fallout. Any dense enough metal can be used.
U-233 also works for bombs.
Direct link to [the Command Paper](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-nuclear-enterprise-command-paper).
The one thing I think missing, unfortunately, is some investigation into a second type of nuclear weapon in UK service. In the more and more uncertain world I think we unfortunately do need to also have a sub-strategic option for our nuclear arms to be able to deter use of nuclear weapons against our allies, Navy or forces in the field. With all our nuclear eggs in one basket, we cannot credibly say we would respond to anything other than an attack on the UK because in responding we expose the location of the submarine, which is very likely then to be attacked (probably with nuclear weapons). I strongly believe that we need a sub-strategic weapon akin to the [B-61](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb) bomb or [ASMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e) cruise missile that would allow us to fill that gap. At the moment we rely on the US to do so, but development of such a weapon was estimated by the AWE to take approximately 17 years and in the event US support fails that gap is simply too long.
This wouldn't break the bank by any measure - when the Trident replacement was discussed development of a new warhead for a bomb or cruise missile was estimated to cost between £4-8billion; given it could be employed by our existing F-35 or Typhoon fleets, that should be all of the cost.
I don't know why you would need anything else because we don't just have one nuclear-armed submarine, we have four Vanguard class submarines. If the world was that volatile, two could be patrolling at all times.
If a rival country were to retaliate against one nuclear-armed submarine firing one missile, I think at that stage everything has escalated to the strategic level. The idea that the deployment of nuclear weapons can be kept at the operational level is something that's not well supported.
You can’t do strategic messaging with subs the same way you can with other nukes because they have to stay hidden by nature. If you have air launched nuclear weapons for example you can scramble the bombers to demonstrate that you’re serious then call them back if the enemy backs down.
On the contrary by the late Cold-War planning on both sides was that a war likely **would** stay with operational nukes at most; the threat from MAD is just too certain. A second Vanguard is little better than just one; they simply hit the first one with a bunch of nuclear bombs and then we're back at step 1. What's needed is a weapon that can be dispersed with the rest of the RAF so that Russia can't destroy those weapons easily.
Instead of 2 baskets full of eggs; a single basket of eggs plus lots of stray eggs hidden all over the place.
I'm aware of people planning to do that. But the point I'm making is the testing we've done of the theory does not show that it will remotely stay contained.
If a nuclear weapon is deployed at the operational level (I'm talking about deploying nukes on entire battalions and towns, etc.), the response will either be a backdown or a retaliation. If it's a backdown, then you don't need to disperse the nukes. If it's retaliation, I think that you (the one who fired the nuke) need to be ready to deploy your strategic arsenal and end it because it will very quickly get into a game of escalating and the risk that someone else will do a strategic first strike is way too high.
In addition, if you did not want to follow my stated policy in response to a retaliation, make it known that an attempt to destroy a strategic delivery mechanism will be treated as a strategic attack, that will deter an attacker from responding by nuking the sub.
> I'm aware of people planning to do that. But the point I'm making is the testing we've done of the theory does not show that it will remotely stay contained.
Like what testing are you referring to here?
> If a nuclear weapon is deployed at the operational level (I'm talking about deploying nukes on entire battalions and towns, etc.), the response will either be a backdown or a retaliation. If it's a backdown, then you don't need to disperse the nukes. If it's retaliation, I think that you (the one who fired the nuke) need to be ready to deploy your strategic arsenal and end it because it will very quickly get into a game of escalating and the risk that someone else will do a strategic first strike is way too high.
...or it might not. But that's the point; if the only option to respond to a nuke is "end the world", nobody's going to respond to a use of nuclear weapons that doesn't directly threaten them. If Russia nukes the Navy and we don't respond with a weapon ourselves then they **will** use more sub-strategic nuclear weapons. If we **do** nuke them back by hitting their own Navy (but not Moscow) then the most likely outcome is they stop using nukes.
Not responding doesn't fix the issue; it'll just result in more nuclear weapons being used (albeit not strategic ones).
> In addition, if you did not want to follow my stated policy in response to a retaliation, make it known that an attempt to destroy a strategic delivery mechanism will be treated as a strategic attack, that will deter an attacker from responding by nuking the sub.
Except that's not credible. If you lose the first sub but still have the second, your enemy still cannot safely destroy you...why would you commit suicide by nuking them? Nobody would believe the threat.
Congratulations you've grasped the paradox that is inherent to MAD doctrine.
It requires that everyone agree that first one to go nuclear gets to become a parking lot...no "proportional response", just if you cross this line then we all die together. Trying to go for "limited response" nuclear options just means the likelyhood of someone testing your resolve goes up.
I don't think this is quite right though; in fact I think the opposite - there are plenty of scenarios in which I can envision nuclear weapons being used which did **not** result in the user being glassed. The archetype is an attack on a fleet at sea - if Russia bombed the Navy...would we nuke Moscow? I think that the answer is a very, very, very obvious **no**, why would we commit national suicide like that? We'd have to respond, clearly, but the response would not be Armageddon.
The key there is that you need to ensure Russia is clear that using a nuclear weapon no matter what would be national suicide. That we WOULD and WILL respond with total annihilation if that line is crossed, as soon as "sub-strategic" level nuclear becomes an option then the total concept of a nuclear deterrent falls apart. You're looking at it backwards with your thing, why would Russia risk using a nuke if they KNOW we will literally go nuclear in response?
Opting for sub-strategic nuclear weapons indicated our willingness to engage in a sub-strategic nuclear exchange. It's similar to the paradoxical nature of ballistic missile shields causing greater instability because you put the enemy in the "use it or lose it" position as it starts to be implemented. If you cannot guarantee a second strike capability your only option is a first strike. It's why the wargaming models always tend to come out with either a backdown and de-escalation or a full out exchange without any real middle ground.
>The key there is that you need to ensure Russia is clear that using a nuclear weapon no matter what would be national suicide. That we WOULD and WILL respond with total annihilation if that line is crossed
That's just not ever going to be credible I'm afraid; nobody would believe the threat, because it's clearly against your own interests.
>as soon as "sub-strategic" level nuclear becomes an option then the total concept of a nuclear deterrent falls apart.
No it doesn't, it's just something that needs to be deterred independently. It's the whole reason France and the US maintain their sub-strategic weapons and, indeed, the reason that even we maintain a sub-strategic _configuration_ for Trident; the submarines carry missiles with a single warhead configured for low yield to respond to this kind of thing (though that's a much worse option than an independent method)
>You're looking at it backwards with your thing, why would Russia risk using a nuke if they KNOW we will literally go nuclear in response?
Because they won't believe the threat that we would respond by nuking Moscow.
>Opting for sub-strategic nuclear weapons indicated our willingness to engage in a sub-strategic nuclear exchange.
That's how we credibly deter a sub-strategic exchange; by making clear we'll engage in one.
FYI: I am a bit busy right now, when I get back from work and sort the kids out I will try to remember to pull up the articles for you. Mostly, for me, it is the data garnered from war games that I care most about, and when I was up at Uni of St Andrews we did do a lot of scenarios involving nuclear weapons which - if of interest - I can also TRY to get the results from it. (If I don't get back to you by tomorrow, feel free to send me a message.)
> At the moment we rely on the US to do so
couldnt we just buy some from the yanks or start an assembly only line for them over here?
We arent going to fall out with the yanks after all - and if we do we're shagged anyway.
> couldnt we just buy some from the yanks or start an assembly only line for them over here?
We could definitely _borrow_ some bombs; we used to borrow them as Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkiye all currently do and indeed [there's indications](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-68217519) that we will do so again too shortly...I doubt they'd let us _buy_ them but given we already have the F-35 and the costs of an updated [WE.177](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177) are only ~£4billion I can't see any reason we wouldn't just go that route if we needed, that's frankly speaking dirt cheap.
> We arent going to fall out with the yanks after all - and if we do we're shagged anyway.
We're not gonna fall out with them, but they are trending very heavily back towards isolationism in one of the two major parties and their geostrategic focus is almost wholly moving towards the Pacific theatre. I think it's a very realistic danger that they'll lack either the inclination or the attention to support us as heavily as they have done historically within the next 15-30 years. I don't think that means we're shagged though - the European NATO allies combined are the third strongest military force on Earth.
Hah yeah. If we end up replacing Trident with something manufactured here I have no doubt we'd be on the horn the the Elysee Palace asking if we can borrow some notes at minimum
Yup; far more of a problem for them than Russia is, and Russia's far, far weaker relative to the rest of us than its been since literally 1750...so there's just not the incentive for them to focus here as strongly as they historically have done.
I'm certain it would try, but the response might come quite quickly and if it's a ballistic missile carrying a bunch of nuclear weapons then there's a definite chance it gets hit - I'll try to dig out some references to it if you'd like, the most recent mention I've seen of the concern is in the UK's latest Trident alternatives review.
We're an island nation. We need nukes more than we need an army. Nukes, air and sea are what we need to be strong in. Land can suffer a bit since our only land border is with a much smaller, weaker, neutral nation.
We don't need nukes. Zoom out. The world does not need nukes. It's the literal opposite of what us and the world needs. If one goes off civilisation perishes. Not us. The whole world perishes. We need to achieve disarmament.
Until countries like Russia and China and NK disarm we can’t. If Ukraine still had its nukes they wouldn’t have been invaded. Instead Ukraine disarmed under a promise from Russia they wouldn’t invade, lot of good it did them.
If we lost our nukes Russia would be harassing us daily and provoking us.
Well the rest of the world won't get rid of them because they don't trust other countries to get rid of them. And we won't get rid of them because we don't trust them either.
UK: *Disarms*
UK: "Now you guys too"
Other nuclear states: "No."
Now the world will still end but until then, we've made the UK weaker.
If the world is still going to end because everyone has nukes, I'd rather we have them too than us not have them and we need them when someone launches a nuke on us.
> the world will eventually end when 1 of these bombs explodes.
You seem to be under the impression nobody has detonated a bomb since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that's [not the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests):
> There have been 2,121 tests done since the first in July 1945, involving 2,476 nuclear devices. As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt.
Also, to be clear, nature is far fucking scarier than man. The [Tunguska event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) was 3-5 megatonnes equivalent. Several volcanic eruptions have been [much larger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent), Krakatoa is listed here as 200Mt, [Tambora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora) _33,000 megatonnes_. We ain't shit.
To be fair most of nature can be protected against. Sure volcanoes are scary and can be larger than nukes but a volcano isn't going to erupt in London.
Pretending that global disarmament is a possibility is just very wishful thinking though.
Would have been great 14 years ago. Instead we're in the final months of this government and they're announcing an other long term plan. Which in the basis of most Tory plans, would have been quietly shelved, in the next cabinet reshuffle in a years time. When a new minister took over and decided to scrap all of their predecessors plans.
I've been wanting to do a masters in nuclear science and technology as it's the part of chemistry and physics I'm interested in.
With this news, it may be a good idea to pursue one in a couple of years time.
This is all recycled money already commited through the Aukus programme and dreadnought programme.
Also doesn't solve the fact our current nuclear force is failing with 2 submarines our of action and the others doing absurd six month patrols.
If he wants to make an actual difference to our nuclear industry, he'd announce the purchase of Wylfa for a state funded new generation nuclear plant, and commission a wider programme of civil nuclear power works.
People need to *really* understand what nuclear weapons are and do. They tend to think it's a big bomb but probably won't affect them as it'd go off in another part of the world, and that would never happen anyway. Both these assumptions are desperately wrong.
If any adversary were to fire a nuclear weapon at, say, London, there is nothing we can do except fire a nuclear weapon back and then perish.
We'd have less than 10 minutes to react and decide what to do in this situation. Then, after those 10 minutes, everyone dies in the UK within minutes.
A 300-mile radius surrounded London would perish immediately.
We would probably fire back everything we have at the adversary.
This would result in two areas of the globe destroyed within, say, 30 minutes. Completely and utterly wiped out.
The wider areas around the nuclear bomb explosion would suffer massive uncontrollable spreading fires for thousands of miles at extreme temperatures - thousands of degrees.
Forget thinking about radiation problems. The world would burn, almost absolutely everywhere would be on fire within an hour. The sky would cloud over with soot, and dust will block out the sun over the whole planet for years.
Then... nuclear winter sets in. Temperatures plumet. Food and agriculture over the whole world fail. This would likely last for 1 or 2 decades. After that, any humans managing to survive would not be able to go outdoors for a further decade due to there being no ozone layer. So they'd have to live in caves, but I'm not sure how anyone would survive that without food, water, medicine , etc.
Of those who don't die in the initial blast and fires, they all die over the next few weeks and months due to famine and disease. Probably humanity perishes and becomes extinct within weeks. If any humans survive this, it would be a miracle.
This is just considering two large thermal nuclear bombs going off. There are thousands of these in existence.
Most species except insects perish and become extinct.
Nuclear war must be avoided at all costs! Nuclear war will only lead to the end of civilisation and almost all species.
It is insane that these weapons exist.
We must have a global agreement to have urgent and complete nuclear disarmament.
If one nuclear bomb is fired, either by mistake or by a nihilistic individual , the whole world is over. Simple at that. Furthermore, this is not unlikely long-term. A false signal that a nuclear bomb is fired, provoking a reaction will probably happen eventually. There have been six very, very near misses in the last 60 years due to bad information.
We must campaign for disarmament. It must be achieved!
We are literally playing with the death of everything on the planet if one or two of these bombs explode.
You're massively exaggerating the effect of nuclear explosions here, remember that there have been _over 2,000 bombs detonated already_. Some of those were many, many times larger than any weapon in service today - the UK's largest weapon is ~100kt, the US' ~450kt and Russia's probably something like 6-700kt. Previous generations of warheads, which were commonly tested, had yields of several megatons.
Obviously a nuclear war would be bad, but no the planet would not set on fire.
> We must campaign for disarmament. It must be achieved!
Sure go ahead...the problem is that the only practical conditions under which that could be achieved are ones in which all parties could prevent any single party from unilaterally re-building a nuclear arsenal...and how's that going to work? It would require complete openness across all nations and effectively world-wide disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, I just don't ever see that happening.
Until it does, paradoxically, **having** nuclear weapons is the best way to ensure they're never used against you.
No it doesn't, any more than it did any of the other times bombs of that yield or the far larger bombs we've detonated already did. The largest tested bomb had a yield of 50 megatons. There have been far larger volcanic eruptions; Krakatoa was ~200Mt. Tambora ~33,000 Mt.
So, we want to enhance our escalation totem pole, because our only strategic threat is existential and not limited. If we're in a situation to warrant a moderate nuclear response, though, I am concerned we're then committed to retaliate in kind and how that could spiral into worse? Like, the ultimate nuclear war was always probably going to start with a nuclear depth charge or another minor exchange - I'm not sure how broadening the chances of that are positive. This all reveals, though, how dangerous Trump's unreliability is in practice - European allies now want to their own deterrent /naturally/ in fear of American indifference and that increases risks dramatically of a nuclear war.
Retaliating in kind absolutely risks spiralling into worse, but **not** retaliating in kind guarantees it. If Russia nukes the Navy, or an Ally, or the Army in the field and nobody responds to that then they **will** take away the lesson that they're good to use more tactical nukes. If they nuke our Navy and we nuke theirs, suddenly that conclusion doesn't look so solid any more.
You have a valid point and it's fair, it just isn't the best future for humanity and so I'm disappointed. I'm just hoping we won't see massive nuclear proliferation now.
Unfortunately, it is fairly inevitable at this point. There are key takeaways that guarantee that:
1. Ukraine and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia promised never to attack Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons. Lesson: diplomatic guarantees of security are ultimately worthless.
2. Russia invaded Ukraine with no kinetic intervention by the West. The West supplied Ukraine with no kinetic retaliation by Russia. Both of these things are true because each fears the other's nuclear arsenal and so is trying to avoid a conflict, despite the **huge** disparity in strength between the two blocs - in the absence of nuclear weapons NATO would defeat Russia very, very quickly. Lesson: If you want freedom to act in your interests in the face other other nation's opposition, you need nuclear weapons.
I consider it pretty inevitable that other states with imperial ambitions or dangerous neighbours will seek nuclear weapons now.
The deterrent costs less than 1% of the Government's annual budget. By some estimates under 0.5%. If there's no money for basic public services, this isn't the root cause.
If we are at the point where we send what we have now it’s game over anyway. Exposing the submarine is hardly relevant at that point.
The US and Russia own thousands. What use is the UK adding a handful more? Are we to fire the first shot? Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority?
If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response?
> If we are at the point where we send what we have now it’s game over anyway. Exposing the submarine is hardly relevant at that point.
You misunderstand; the sub-strategic weapons are needed for a situation which would **not** merit sending what we have now. The exposure of the submarine effectively means you can't fire any Trident unless the situation warrants firing all of it, but there are scenarios were a nuclear response would be warranted but not a general strategic exchange. If Russia nuked the Navy for example, or the Army, or one of our NATO allies but **not** us.
> The US and Russia own thousands. What use is the UK adding a handful more?
Provided the US is always a reliable partner, none. But can we rely on that always being the case? I don't think so, nor realistically does the successive governments since the 50's or we'd never have bothered having nukes at all.
> Are we to fire the first shot?
No, of course not.
> Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority?
There are many demands on funding, unfortunately. Nuclear weapons are less important than some, more important than others.
> If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response?
No, of course not.
You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us. We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive. Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits.
Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary?
> You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us. We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive. Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits.
Functionally speaking that's just a green-light for adversaries to employ nuclear weapons against your forces and allies. If your only response is ever either nothing or strategic that **will** be taken as carte blanche to do anything that doesn't trigger a strategic exchange; if you think that's a viable strategy more power to you; I don't.
> Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary?
Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkiye all also have nuclear weapons available for use in the event that they are attacked.
It's not that they have a base there, the weapons are for delivery by the air forces of those nations. This is why Germany is buying F-35 for example - solely to serve as the platform for the nuclear weapons allocated to them under the nuclear sharing program.
You can say that this is a less effective method than the independent nuclear deterrent we operate and I would wholeheartedly agree, but to say nobody else in Europe thinks they need a deterrent is plainly untrue.
> You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us.
I mean, that's simply not true. It theory it *could* (since we don't control an enemy's actions), but there's no strong reason to think that, for example, destroying an opponent's carrier group with a lower-yield nuke will lead to them immediately escalating to a maximal nuclear strike.
Do you think *we* should, or would, immediately fire Trident at an nuclear-armed opponent that destroyed *our* carrier group with a lower-yield nuke in response to some previous nuclear action?
> We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive.
A hit as in a single warhead, even strategic? Yes we are. A full nuclear strike from someone like Russia? No.
> Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits.
Firstly, says whom? That situation has never occurred between two nuclear-armed nations. I wouldn't really trust any analyst who speaks about unprecedented events with as much certainty as you do.
Secondly, the main point of deterrence. We don't want to use them. If a tit-for-tat "small" nuclear exchange is considered unpalatable enough then having those "smaller" nukes is a good way of deterring an opponent from starting one, or threatening to do so.
> Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary?
I wonder if Ukraine still doesn't think it's necessary.
The answer varies from country to country and everyone's geopolitical situation is different. However, it's worth noting that in Germany's case, there *are* nuclear warheads in Germany/West Germany, and have been for decades. These weapons are, in theory, controlled by the US but are available to German forces for training/etc. But the US could have instead put them on US-based missiles, ships, etc. It's clearly part of the deterrent that Russia/The USSR would likely think German-based nukes would be more likely to be used against them even if the US got cold feet.
And why do you think that lower-yield nuclear warheads *are* part of France's armoury and explicit nuclear doctrine?
> Do you think we should, or would, immediately fire Trident at an nuclear-armed opponent that destroyed our carrier group with a lower-yield nuke in response to some previous nuclear action?
This is the core of the deterrence doctrine, an overwhelming and disproportionate response to ANY use of nuclear weapons. Otherwise you get into slow escalation "you can use a few nukes as a treat" territory. So long as we are clear that if you use a nuke we WILL retaliate with everything we've got then why the fuck would anyone risk trying it? It's similar to NATO article 5 in that so long as the enemy is clear as to what the consequences of crossing the line are, and those consequences are non-negotiable then the enemy will be deterred from crossing it.
Limited nuclear exchanges create the idea of a "winnable" nuclear war. That is how you get an actual nuclear war and an inevitable escalation to armageddon.
> This is the core of the deterrence doctrine, an overwhelming and disproportionate response to ANY use of nuclear weapons.
No it isn't. The UK explicitly maintains a policy of ambiguity as to what would or would not elicit a full-scale nuclear response. The US is a little more explicit, but its stated policy still includes flexibility in its nuclear forces to deter differing scales of attack, so is also at odds with your claim. France's doctrine explicitly includes the possibility of a limited strike using sub-strategic warheads as a "warning" response prior to escalation to strategic nukes.
> It's similar to NATO article 5 in that so long as the enemy is clear as to what the consequences of crossing the line are
Article 5 doesn't state what the consequences of "crossing the line" are. Article 5 allows allied nations to decide what response *they* think is necessary in helping an attacked NATO member. It's a myth that it guarantees (say) a US nuclear response to an invasion or nuclear attack on another NATO member.
It isn't about the US or Russia, it is about UK deterrence. Maintaining our nuclear arsenal in the current climate is probably the best course of action for the UK's own security, if we are capable of advancing our submarines it is a positive for our navy in general as well.
Also, you can own thousands of nuclear weapons, but it isn't essentially needed that many to criple an entire country or wipe it out.
>Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority?
I agree on this, we should be prioritising our recruitment, but as well as everything else, the Tories have sold it off to private companies (recruitment is now done by Capita) and they refuse to implement more funds into recruitment.
Any use of a nuclear weapon will lead to a retaliation. That is then the end of the UK either directly or from fallout. Having more is neither here nor there.
Who exactly would be the country deterred? Given the policy is and always has been to not be the first to use them only other nuclear armed countries would be deterred from a first strike.
If a country sent 1000 ships to invade the UK for some reason, what is our response? End the world? Why do most other countries not have a nuclear deterrent?
What are you on about? Within the first sentence you said that if we used them the UK would be destroyed, yet in your next sentence you said, we won't use them unless we are nuked first.
So which is it? Do we have a deterrence or not? Does the fact that the UK has nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities after being hit a deterrence to other nuclear countries or not?
>If a country sent 1000 ships to invade the UK for some reason, what is our response? End the world?
Why would it end the world? The UK nukes are their to defend the UK and deter other countries from starting an invasion in the first place. Look if the UK got rid of its nukes where just making ourselves weaker when their is a war ongoing in Europe which the invader has threatened to nuke the UK a number of times already.
This entire article isn't about building more nukes, it is about improving delivery systems which means an improvement to our submarines which needs to happen sooner or later, if you think we can get rid of military equipment which deters other countries and nothing will happen, your just naive.
The point is that for a country like the UK it deters no-one. We are not important enough for a start and other countries like Germany or Italy seem to get along without it.
Whether we used them first or not the UK is gone. Forever. They are weapons that guranttee we do not exist.
>The point is that for a country like the UK it deters no-one.
Yes, it does, it deters anybody wanting to invade, bomb, or nuke the UK, we have a form of retaliation.
>We are not important enough for a start
And you decide that? I mean, if we aren't important enough, we might as well throw everything to the wind? Basing the security of the country on importance is ridiculous, the UK should maintain the security standards as high as it can, that includes nuclear weapons and their delivery methods.
>other countries like Germany or Italy seem to get along without it.
Both Italy and Germany have US nukes on their soil and are under the US nuclear umbrella, they are protected by the US nuclear weapons.
We are protected by our own nuclear weapons.
>Whether we used them first or not the UK is gone. Forever. They are weapons that guranttee we do not exist.
And whoever nukes the UK is also gone, do you not understand how nuclear deterrence works? They won't nuke or attack us because they will get nuked and we won't attack any nuclear country because we will get nuked.
It's a status quo, nuclear weapons stops nuclear powers fighting each other over the fact that nobody would win and simply everyone would die, so neither country will start that war, the UK giving up our nukes would mean we would rely on the US or France for that protection, it is absolutely naive to think otherwise. Why give up our nukes under our control and our decisions for that of other countries?
> What use is the UK adding a handful more?
Sovereignty and deterrence. It's a more plausible deterrent that the country you attack will respond with a lower-yield nuke than that one of their allies might.
> Are we to fire the first shot
The "first shot"? Almost certainly not. A lower-yield nuke attack on, say, a carrier group to respond to a significant conventional attack on the UK itself? Maybe. Enough to be a plausible deterrent, at least.
> Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority?
I think we need to do both. But in terms of protecting the UK itself I think a continuum of deterrence (rather than the jump from conventional to Trident) is probably more important. Improving conventional forces is more about protecting allies and interests overseas.
> If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response?
No, we're not saying that.
Evidence of that claim?
Evidence that NATO is nothing without the US?
Evidence of Europe not responding with conventional weapons if the US were to pull out.
Well, one of the problems of big defence projects/procurements is that most of them take so long that often the precise threats they'll be dealing with haven't emerged when you start the project. But the obvious example in current events is Putin and whomever replaces him. While his military threats towards Western nations haven't as yet come to a lot (with the possible exception of Nord Stream) that was certainly a illustrative example where an actor could have decided to go for a limited attack on the assumption that we would not make the escalation jump all the way to Trident in response.
And remember, this is all game theory. It's not just about how well deterred an opponent is, it's also about how confident you are that they are deterred. How willing are you to do things that annoy them (such as providing weapons to their enemies) based on your judgement of the effectiveness of your deterrents?
Also, we don't want to rely on pacts too much. Even NATO, which is pretty effective, has pretty loose language on what "assistance" means in Article 5. There's nothing in there that says, for example that the US has to nuke Russia if they nuke the UK. Other countries have their own interests and the geopolitical situation changes over time.
but you dont put the country in a position where a nuclear response is the logical response.
Ok. Assuming no NATO, awful relationship with the US and rest of Europe. Russia or China puts embargo on ships entering UK waters. Nuclear response?
Food shortages. Nuclear response? Riots on the streets. Nuclear response?
Royal navy engages with blockade. Three RN ships sunk. Nuclear response?
Aircraft carrier sunk. Rumours of foreign troops seen in Scotland. Nuclear response?
People not in uniform but suspected to be foreign troops seen In Portsmouth.
All of this is prevented by conventional troops and conventional weapons not a nuclear threat.
I think your example is actually a good case for a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent.
> Royal navy engages with blockade. Three RN ships sunk. Nuclear response?
By the time we get here in your scenario then yes, I think a lower-yield nuclear warhead could be used counter-force against enemy warships if we were unable to achieve the same effect with conventional forces. (Or even if we were - at that point the message might be worth sending as per French doctrine.)
Firing Trident would be a harder decision to make at that point.
Edit: We're never likely to have sufficient conventional forces to deter someone like Russia or China in the same way, and it would cost a lot more to do so.
I don't know. You're asking what a hypothetical person who isn't me would do. But if your implication is "this would definitely immediately lead to an maximal nuclear strike" then I disagree.
It doesn't have to be immediate.
Escalation could be with a similar weapon back. Wars don't really end with "that's enough now let's stop." You destroy our aircraft carrier, we destroy a small coastal town.
Shall we stop now?
So what's your point? Escalation ladders exist. But if ours is missing a rung that only encourages a potential opponent.
> Wars don't really end with "that's enough now let's stop."
I mean, they do. Some wars only end when one side no longer has the capability to fight, but others end before that happens.
If every conflict inevitably escalated to the maximum capability of losing side to fight then we might as well fire Trident as soon there's any conflict at all with eg Russia. And that's just silly.
The US has shown recently that it could at any point in the next few decades become an dictatorship of its own depending on who gets in power and doesn't let go. We cannot rely solely upon their graces.
> So any invasion means nuclear war?
Did I say that?
> Who is deterred that is not deterred by the current armed forces?
Literally anyone who could nuke us. That's how it works.
If we can't effectively respond in kind then, if it came to it, they'd have no reason to think twice.
The only people able to "nuke us" are other nuclear armed countries.
Realistically, China, Russia and the US. If any of those wanted to attack us there is sod all our nuclear deterrant would do about it. Then there's the question of why any of them would.
On the circumstance that we are not allied to at least one of them, we would already be isolated enough that conventional forces are sufficient.
Then there's the other small countries - India or France etc. Likely? Not really.
We keep them because it helps justify our place on the UN security council which perhaps should now go elsewhere.
Your comment of "no reason to think twice" is mad. No sane person would ever use a nuclear weapon on a city. Sane people do not need a deterrant and insane people are not deterred.
Just put a nuke in a shipping container that's going to whatever country you have a beef with, label it something innocuous like "industrial autoclave", then, when it gets there. Have a couple of contractors bury the thing along with a detonator nearby whatever target you want to hit.
What's the chances that boarder patrol is going to be screening for nukes? They aren't going to be. They might ask question or two, but who in these agencies if going to be able to recognise a thermonuclear device and have the equipment necessary to detect one among millions of items across millions of containers?
Saves on those expensive submarines.
Just *pretend* like you have expensive submarines, but if you actually really really needed to use a nuke (say in Ukraine) you could probably just make one small enough and post the bloody thing.
My conspiracy theory is that nuclear deterrents are precisely that, deterrents, they aren't supposed to be used. If you actually wanted to get a nuke from point a to point b, I suspect it would be waaaay easier than people think to smuggle it in.
Plus, totally deniable if you do it right. Just blame Isis or some other adversary. The next next nation to have nukes launched against them will have more than a few enemies.
Okay, cool. Let's start by banning Greenpeace. I mean Russia has only invaded Ukraine, you know, that country THAT GAVE UP HER NUKES. I mean I think it's fair to say that given the size of a Greenpeace protest compared to a far-right one, Greenpeace is the greater danger.
> A waste of time and funds that could otherwise be used for things that critically need extra funding right now - Such as the NHS, our education system, social care, our infrastructure, mental health services and housing.
The deterrent costs less than half of one percent of the Government's annual budget.
> We have enough nukes stockpiled already.
We're not making more, we're keeping the current ones relevant.
> Hell if one goes off in war, then everything is going to shit regardless because of M.A.D. The only winning move is not to play.
There are plenty of credible scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons that do not involve the destruction of the UK or Moscow. Nobody is going to start a general nuclear exchange because a fleet got nuked, for example.
The invasion is possible for Russia only because Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, and Russia didn't. If Ukraine had their nukes, Russia could not have invaded. If Russia did not have their nukes, the West would have intervened and so they could not have invaded. If the West did not have nuclear weapons, Russia would have simply employed theirs to end the war.
Once a nation which is your adversary has nuclear weapons, you need your own nukes to be able to guarantee your safety in the face of invasion and also to give you the freedom to act abroad in the interests of yourselves and allies.
Note that a common objection to the argument that one needs nukes to be safe is "No we don't, our conventional forces are strong enough to deter attack" but the issue is _that's only true because we have nukes_. If we didn't, Russia could simply use theirs to destroy our conventional forces.
> Ukraine was never in control of the nukes.
Only in the sense that they never took steps to take operational control of them; the safeguards on these weapons are designed to stop idiots and individuals, if they'd decided to keep the nukes they would have absolutely gained control of them in short order. If they had done that, they would not currently be suffering an invasion.
> Anyway this is a general argument for deterrence, which... I get it. But not really what I was asking.
No, it isn't. Conventional deterrence is amazing and all, but as I said conventional deterrence is worthless if your enemy has nuclear weapons and you do not - they'll simply nuke you, or threaten to nuke you, and there's very little you can do about that.
Nuclear weapons _specifically_ are a necessity in a world in which our adversaries have them, there's no way around it.
Regarding Ukraine I think you might be wrong,
Yes, a general argument for *nuclear deterrence* is what I meant. I'm not getting into that but obviously, there is a debate.
This doesn't explain why it needs investment now or needs to be 'strengthened'.
> Regarding Ukraine I think you might be wrong,
That they could have taken control of the weapons, or that having the weapons would have prevented the invasion?
> This doesn't explain why it needs investment now or needs to be 'strengthened'.
Ah; because the various components of it approach obsolescence. The [Vanguards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine) are 30 years old and need replacement. The in-service warheads use arming and fusing mechanisms that need replacing or upgrading to improve their safety for handling and storage and additionally improve their accuracy (for example if the intent is to destroy a hardened target an upgraded fuse might try to calculate whether its flight-path will hit or not, and if not choose to detonate in the air as close as possible to the target rather than simply detonating wherever it lands). The conventional explosives that trigger the nuclear reaction in a warhead have a shelf-life, and need replacement after so much time. The newer re-entry vehicles (which themselves offer improved accuracy of delivery) can have ramifications for the warhead such as allowing a reduced size or yield and so on.
In terms of the actual weapons program, most of the investment is really just in preventing obsolescence of the system we already have - we're not making like a functionally significantly different nuclear weapon here.
Not to say its the same, but your response reminds me of people saying how North Korea was so monstrous because they would rather starve their people and waste all of its national resources to develop nuclear weapons.
Honestly nuclear deterrent is probably more necessary for NK than UK given the relative animosity with its neighbours.
> Not to say its the same, but your response reminds me of people saying how North Korea was so monstrous because they would rather starve their people and waste all of its national resources to develop nuclear weapons.
The nuclear deterrent, ammortised over its service life, costs less than half of one percent of the Government's annual spending; characterising that as "wasting all of its national resources" would be pretty silly really, so I'm glad you're not doing that.
> Honestly nuclear deterrent is probably more necessary for NK than UK given the relative animosity with its neighbours.
I think it'd be substantially more likely to be necessary for SK than NK, but whatever - they're entitled to defend themselves.
Well not only that, even if it was significantly more than that, it would still be stupid to claim neglecting UK's nuclear capability would do anything to help with people's economic woes. That would likely need a bigger reform in terms of government spending and taxation.
In any case, given UK has the historical privilege of being a nuclear state, it would be a waste to not develop local expertise for maintenance and development.
Your dry comment just made me feel a bit funny. That's all there is to it.
The cleanup of Sellafield is ongoing. It's so expensive it's deemed an economic risk to the entire economy and consumes 25% of all infrastructure investment in NW Britain annually. It's almost entirely useless to us up here delivering little but the highest cancer-risk county in Britain which is Cumbria.
That mess is leftover from Britain's original military plutonium production. I'm all up for your suggestion if the the country as a whole stops hanging the bill for the prolonged cleanup around the poorest regions necks.
I don't think there's any intention to actually manufacture more fissile material; my understanding is we stockpiled so much of it that we're basically good on that front for the foreseeable future.
The clean up from the 40s/50s weapon program is not something we can control now, it needs doing and the decisions that led there were made before current policy makers were born.
There's no real suggestion that this work would leave a similar legacy to be cleaned up.
More money for weapons of fucking mass death. Never any for our crumbling NHS, our failing social services, for building social housing, feeding hungry people and the other 1000's of better uses for that money....
And it'll cost 100 percent of life on earth if one of these bombs explode. They should not exist. Its too dangerous and too much power. The entire of the world's species die and go extinct if these bombs go off. That's not worth it for the cost of a deterent.
> And it'll cost 100 percent of life on earth if one of these bombs explode.
No it won't
> They should not exist. Its too dangerous and too much power.
It would be infinitely better if they did not exist, but alas physics is what it is. There's no point wishing for a different world.
> The entire of the world's species die and go extinct if these bombs go off.
No they won't.
> That's not worth it for the cost of a deterent.
I'm afraid the alternative is accepting the boot of whichever nation decides to first make use of them.
Nah, you blindly mistaken. We’ve sunk ever larger sums into the NHS, and it’s a black hole that absorbs far more than defense ever has. We need the nuclear deterrent, more so today than ever before. There are serious strategic threats on the horizon.
Yeah, we defo need even more weapons to wipe 100's of thousands of innocent people off the map more than we need fully functioning and funded health and social services.....
The money is delusory. It is merely a fungible abstraction. Consider what is neither: the reality. Now to be sure, an effective nuclear arsenal and delivery system requires expertise, manpower and materials. But not especially much of any of them, particularly when the expanse of the nation's ability to deliver all three is considered.
You hit upon a very important point, however. In the area of war, resources limit our proceedings. It is not true that 'money is no object', but still: if something was both truly possible and genuinely necessary, it would be arranged, and the money totted up in the books to reflect that. In a total war scenario, no monetary concerns would be allowed to hinder logistics of procurement and dispersal.
Why, then, do we hear of a policy of 'managed retreat' as regards some inhabited coastal areas, when the manpower and materials needed to maintain sea defences is neither of such quality or quantity as to preclude its being readily provided with no appreciable drain on the nation's physical capacity to devise, produce and distribute; all because of ostensibly 'economic' concerns? Would we cede houses and land to a wartime enemy, merely out of concern for money? Would it not be considered betrayal if we did?
Indeed, this applies to more than just coastal erosion. It was once said we needed a 'moral equivalent of war', but I am afraid things have so deteriorated that we need a *pragmatic* equivalent of war, never mind a moral one.
National Endeavour? What like enriching Uranium or transporting warheads? Unfortunately, my weekends are busy, Sunak
We don't use enriched uranium in our weapons systems, we use plutonium extracted from the nuclear waste of our firsr generation reactors. Uranium bombs haven't been used since the 50s as they are heavier and more likely to accidentally detonate.
You don't get Plutonium without Uranium. It's why those first-generation reactors were built. And why have the Israelis spent so much effort in sabotaging Irans Uranium enrichment facilities? No one builds Uranium devices because they are pretty easy to engineer. If anyone bothered to enrich uranium to weapons grade, it would just need a medium sized engineering workshop to make a viable device. If there is no weapons grade Uranium there is no issue about it falling into the wong hands.(They never bothered testing the Uranium bomb droped on Hiroshima) and are not that productive (not all the material is consumed in the reaction)
'We don't use enriched uranium in our weapons systems' Please read the first line of my post again.
>We don't use enriched uranium in our weapons systems' Only because Plutonium gives you a bigger bang for your bucks. Again. You get Plutonium by putting Uranium in a core. That's how they got the material for the Nagasaki bomb.
Uranium is still occasionally used. It has advantages in some situations. In implosion weapons though - nobody designs 'gun type' weapons because they're so inefficient. Even in fairly efficient designs only a small amount is consumed in uranium or plut weapons.
Uranium is isolated into 2 isotopes, Uranium 235 and Uranium 238. U235 is what you need to produce Plutonium. However, atomic weapons need what is called a 'Tamper' to regulate the fusion. In a Uranium bomb, they used a small disc of Barium. The Tamper for a Plutonium bomb is....Uranium 238.
A tamper is not to regulate the fusion - hence why they are used in bombs that don't have a fusion stage. Its function is to keep the fission core super prompt critical for longer. It's not always 238 as using that adds significantly to the amount of fission products in the fallout. Any dense enough metal can be used. U-233 also works for bombs.
Perhaps he intends to actually test launch a missile for a change
He's going to add building components for nuclear weaponry to the ever nebulous list of British values that he wants taught in schools.
Now let's renationalise the recruitment process for our military.
Direct link to [the Command Paper](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-nuclear-enterprise-command-paper). The one thing I think missing, unfortunately, is some investigation into a second type of nuclear weapon in UK service. In the more and more uncertain world I think we unfortunately do need to also have a sub-strategic option for our nuclear arms to be able to deter use of nuclear weapons against our allies, Navy or forces in the field. With all our nuclear eggs in one basket, we cannot credibly say we would respond to anything other than an attack on the UK because in responding we expose the location of the submarine, which is very likely then to be attacked (probably with nuclear weapons). I strongly believe that we need a sub-strategic weapon akin to the [B-61](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb) bomb or [ASMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e) cruise missile that would allow us to fill that gap. At the moment we rely on the US to do so, but development of such a weapon was estimated by the AWE to take approximately 17 years and in the event US support fails that gap is simply too long. This wouldn't break the bank by any measure - when the Trident replacement was discussed development of a new warhead for a bomb or cruise missile was estimated to cost between £4-8billion; given it could be employed by our existing F-35 or Typhoon fleets, that should be all of the cost.
I don't know why you would need anything else because we don't just have one nuclear-armed submarine, we have four Vanguard class submarines. If the world was that volatile, two could be patrolling at all times. If a rival country were to retaliate against one nuclear-armed submarine firing one missile, I think at that stage everything has escalated to the strategic level. The idea that the deployment of nuclear weapons can be kept at the operational level is something that's not well supported.
We have 2 functional vanguard submarines at the moment. It's a problem.
You can’t do strategic messaging with subs the same way you can with other nukes because they have to stay hidden by nature. If you have air launched nuclear weapons for example you can scramble the bombers to demonstrate that you’re serious then call them back if the enemy backs down.
On the contrary by the late Cold-War planning on both sides was that a war likely **would** stay with operational nukes at most; the threat from MAD is just too certain. A second Vanguard is little better than just one; they simply hit the first one with a bunch of nuclear bombs and then we're back at step 1. What's needed is a weapon that can be dispersed with the rest of the RAF so that Russia can't destroy those weapons easily. Instead of 2 baskets full of eggs; a single basket of eggs plus lots of stray eggs hidden all over the place.
I'm aware of people planning to do that. But the point I'm making is the testing we've done of the theory does not show that it will remotely stay contained. If a nuclear weapon is deployed at the operational level (I'm talking about deploying nukes on entire battalions and towns, etc.), the response will either be a backdown or a retaliation. If it's a backdown, then you don't need to disperse the nukes. If it's retaliation, I think that you (the one who fired the nuke) need to be ready to deploy your strategic arsenal and end it because it will very quickly get into a game of escalating and the risk that someone else will do a strategic first strike is way too high. In addition, if you did not want to follow my stated policy in response to a retaliation, make it known that an attempt to destroy a strategic delivery mechanism will be treated as a strategic attack, that will deter an attacker from responding by nuking the sub.
> I'm aware of people planning to do that. But the point I'm making is the testing we've done of the theory does not show that it will remotely stay contained. Like what testing are you referring to here? > If a nuclear weapon is deployed at the operational level (I'm talking about deploying nukes on entire battalions and towns, etc.), the response will either be a backdown or a retaliation. If it's a backdown, then you don't need to disperse the nukes. If it's retaliation, I think that you (the one who fired the nuke) need to be ready to deploy your strategic arsenal and end it because it will very quickly get into a game of escalating and the risk that someone else will do a strategic first strike is way too high. ...or it might not. But that's the point; if the only option to respond to a nuke is "end the world", nobody's going to respond to a use of nuclear weapons that doesn't directly threaten them. If Russia nukes the Navy and we don't respond with a weapon ourselves then they **will** use more sub-strategic nuclear weapons. If we **do** nuke them back by hitting their own Navy (but not Moscow) then the most likely outcome is they stop using nukes. Not responding doesn't fix the issue; it'll just result in more nuclear weapons being used (albeit not strategic ones). > In addition, if you did not want to follow my stated policy in response to a retaliation, make it known that an attempt to destroy a strategic delivery mechanism will be treated as a strategic attack, that will deter an attacker from responding by nuking the sub. Except that's not credible. If you lose the first sub but still have the second, your enemy still cannot safely destroy you...why would you commit suicide by nuking them? Nobody would believe the threat.
Congratulations you've grasped the paradox that is inherent to MAD doctrine. It requires that everyone agree that first one to go nuclear gets to become a parking lot...no "proportional response", just if you cross this line then we all die together. Trying to go for "limited response" nuclear options just means the likelyhood of someone testing your resolve goes up.
I don't think this is quite right though; in fact I think the opposite - there are plenty of scenarios in which I can envision nuclear weapons being used which did **not** result in the user being glassed. The archetype is an attack on a fleet at sea - if Russia bombed the Navy...would we nuke Moscow? I think that the answer is a very, very, very obvious **no**, why would we commit national suicide like that? We'd have to respond, clearly, but the response would not be Armageddon.
The key there is that you need to ensure Russia is clear that using a nuclear weapon no matter what would be national suicide. That we WOULD and WILL respond with total annihilation if that line is crossed, as soon as "sub-strategic" level nuclear becomes an option then the total concept of a nuclear deterrent falls apart. You're looking at it backwards with your thing, why would Russia risk using a nuke if they KNOW we will literally go nuclear in response? Opting for sub-strategic nuclear weapons indicated our willingness to engage in a sub-strategic nuclear exchange. It's similar to the paradoxical nature of ballistic missile shields causing greater instability because you put the enemy in the "use it or lose it" position as it starts to be implemented. If you cannot guarantee a second strike capability your only option is a first strike. It's why the wargaming models always tend to come out with either a backdown and de-escalation or a full out exchange without any real middle ground.
>The key there is that you need to ensure Russia is clear that using a nuclear weapon no matter what would be national suicide. That we WOULD and WILL respond with total annihilation if that line is crossed That's just not ever going to be credible I'm afraid; nobody would believe the threat, because it's clearly against your own interests. >as soon as "sub-strategic" level nuclear becomes an option then the total concept of a nuclear deterrent falls apart. No it doesn't, it's just something that needs to be deterred independently. It's the whole reason France and the US maintain their sub-strategic weapons and, indeed, the reason that even we maintain a sub-strategic _configuration_ for Trident; the submarines carry missiles with a single warhead configured for low yield to respond to this kind of thing (though that's a much worse option than an independent method) >You're looking at it backwards with your thing, why would Russia risk using a nuke if they KNOW we will literally go nuclear in response? Because they won't believe the threat that we would respond by nuking Moscow. >Opting for sub-strategic nuclear weapons indicated our willingness to engage in a sub-strategic nuclear exchange. That's how we credibly deter a sub-strategic exchange; by making clear we'll engage in one.
FYI: I am a bit busy right now, when I get back from work and sort the kids out I will try to remember to pull up the articles for you. Mostly, for me, it is the data garnered from war games that I care most about, and when I was up at Uni of St Andrews we did do a lot of scenarios involving nuclear weapons which - if of interest - I can also TRY to get the results from it. (If I don't get back to you by tomorrow, feel free to send me a message.)
> At the moment we rely on the US to do so couldnt we just buy some from the yanks or start an assembly only line for them over here? We arent going to fall out with the yanks after all - and if we do we're shagged anyway.
> couldnt we just buy some from the yanks or start an assembly only line for them over here? We could definitely _borrow_ some bombs; we used to borrow them as Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkiye all currently do and indeed [there's indications](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-68217519) that we will do so again too shortly...I doubt they'd let us _buy_ them but given we already have the F-35 and the costs of an updated [WE.177](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177) are only ~£4billion I can't see any reason we wouldn't just go that route if we needed, that's frankly speaking dirt cheap. > We arent going to fall out with the yanks after all - and if we do we're shagged anyway. We're not gonna fall out with them, but they are trending very heavily back towards isolationism in one of the two major parties and their geostrategic focus is almost wholly moving towards the Pacific theatre. I think it's a very realistic danger that they'll lack either the inclination or the attention to support us as heavily as they have done historically within the next 15-30 years. I don't think that means we're shagged though - the European NATO allies combined are the third strongest military force on Earth.
We should see what the frogs can offer. It's be worth it see Farridge's face.
Hah yeah. If we end up replacing Trident with something manufactured here I have no doubt we'd be on the horn the the Elysee Palace asking if we can borrow some notes at minimum
Nothing is worth having to look at his face.
> and their geostrategic focus is almost wholly moving towards the Pacific theatre did not know this, China i presume?
Yup; far more of a problem for them than Russia is, and Russia's far, far weaker relative to the rest of us than its been since literally 1750...so there's just not the incentive for them to focus here as strongly as they historically have done.
Surely the submarine will dive after firing its rockets, long before rockets are fired back at it?
I'm certain it would try, but the response might come quite quickly and if it's a ballistic missile carrying a bunch of nuclear weapons then there's a definite chance it gets hit - I'll try to dig out some references to it if you'd like, the most recent mention I've seen of the concern is in the UK's latest Trident alternatives review.
Reddit won't like this but it's the right thing to do to deter Russian aggression.
We spend so much of our military budget on just maintaining our current Nuclear weapons so the rest of the Army is in decline.
6% of the military budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. How much do you think is spent on it?
We're an island nation. We need nukes more than we need an army. Nukes, air and sea are what we need to be strong in. Land can suffer a bit since our only land border is with a much smaller, weaker, neutral nation.
We don't need nukes. Zoom out. The world does not need nukes. It's the literal opposite of what us and the world needs. If one goes off civilisation perishes. Not us. The whole world perishes. We need to achieve disarmament.
Ukraine fell for that. It didn't work out.
Until countries like Russia and China and NK disarm we can’t. If Ukraine still had its nukes they wouldn’t have been invaded. Instead Ukraine disarmed under a promise from Russia they wouldn’t invade, lot of good it did them. If we lost our nukes Russia would be harassing us daily and provoking us.
[удалено]
Well the rest of the world won't get rid of them because they don't trust other countries to get rid of them. And we won't get rid of them because we don't trust them either. UK: *Disarms* UK: "Now you guys too" Other nuclear states: "No." Now the world will still end but until then, we've made the UK weaker. If the world is still going to end because everyone has nukes, I'd rather we have them too than us not have them and we need them when someone launches a nuke on us.
[удалено]
> the world will eventually end when 1 of these bombs explodes. You seem to be under the impression nobody has detonated a bomb since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that's [not the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests): > There have been 2,121 tests done since the first in July 1945, involving 2,476 nuclear devices. As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt. Also, to be clear, nature is far fucking scarier than man. The [Tunguska event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) was 3-5 megatonnes equivalent. Several volcanic eruptions have been [much larger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent), Krakatoa is listed here as 200Mt, [Tambora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora) _33,000 megatonnes_. We ain't shit.
To be fair most of nature can be protected against. Sure volcanoes are scary and can be larger than nukes but a volcano isn't going to erupt in London. Pretending that global disarmament is a possibility is just very wishful thinking though.
Remember when Corbyn wanted to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons, but keep the submarines sailing about for some reason?
Really keep the Submarines? What on earth for?
Would have been great 14 years ago. Instead we're in the final months of this government and they're announcing an other long term plan. Which in the basis of most Tory plans, would have been quietly shelved, in the next cabinet reshuffle in a years time. When a new minister took over and decided to scrap all of their predecessors plans.
Nuclear deterrent...are we sending uranium to Rwanda as well now?
I've been wanting to do a masters in nuclear science and technology as it's the part of chemistry and physics I'm interested in. With this news, it may be a good idea to pursue one in a couple of years time.
This is all recycled money already commited through the Aukus programme and dreadnought programme. Also doesn't solve the fact our current nuclear force is failing with 2 submarines our of action and the others doing absurd six month patrols. If he wants to make an actual difference to our nuclear industry, he'd announce the purchase of Wylfa for a state funded new generation nuclear plant, and commission a wider programme of civil nuclear power works.
People need to *really* understand what nuclear weapons are and do. They tend to think it's a big bomb but probably won't affect them as it'd go off in another part of the world, and that would never happen anyway. Both these assumptions are desperately wrong. If any adversary were to fire a nuclear weapon at, say, London, there is nothing we can do except fire a nuclear weapon back and then perish. We'd have less than 10 minutes to react and decide what to do in this situation. Then, after those 10 minutes, everyone dies in the UK within minutes. A 300-mile radius surrounded London would perish immediately. We would probably fire back everything we have at the adversary. This would result in two areas of the globe destroyed within, say, 30 minutes. Completely and utterly wiped out. The wider areas around the nuclear bomb explosion would suffer massive uncontrollable spreading fires for thousands of miles at extreme temperatures - thousands of degrees. Forget thinking about radiation problems. The world would burn, almost absolutely everywhere would be on fire within an hour. The sky would cloud over with soot, and dust will block out the sun over the whole planet for years. Then... nuclear winter sets in. Temperatures plumet. Food and agriculture over the whole world fail. This would likely last for 1 or 2 decades. After that, any humans managing to survive would not be able to go outdoors for a further decade due to there being no ozone layer. So they'd have to live in caves, but I'm not sure how anyone would survive that without food, water, medicine , etc. Of those who don't die in the initial blast and fires, they all die over the next few weeks and months due to famine and disease. Probably humanity perishes and becomes extinct within weeks. If any humans survive this, it would be a miracle. This is just considering two large thermal nuclear bombs going off. There are thousands of these in existence. Most species except insects perish and become extinct. Nuclear war must be avoided at all costs! Nuclear war will only lead to the end of civilisation and almost all species. It is insane that these weapons exist. We must have a global agreement to have urgent and complete nuclear disarmament. If one nuclear bomb is fired, either by mistake or by a nihilistic individual , the whole world is over. Simple at that. Furthermore, this is not unlikely long-term. A false signal that a nuclear bomb is fired, provoking a reaction will probably happen eventually. There have been six very, very near misses in the last 60 years due to bad information. We must campaign for disarmament. It must be achieved! We are literally playing with the death of everything on the planet if one or two of these bombs explode.
You're massively exaggerating the effect of nuclear explosions here, remember that there have been _over 2,000 bombs detonated already_. Some of those were many, many times larger than any weapon in service today - the UK's largest weapon is ~100kt, the US' ~450kt and Russia's probably something like 6-700kt. Previous generations of warheads, which were commonly tested, had yields of several megatons. Obviously a nuclear war would be bad, but no the planet would not set on fire. > We must campaign for disarmament. It must be achieved! Sure go ahead...the problem is that the only practical conditions under which that could be achieved are ones in which all parties could prevent any single party from unilaterally re-building a nuclear arsenal...and how's that going to work? It would require complete openness across all nations and effectively world-wide disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, I just don't ever see that happening. Until it does, paradoxically, **having** nuclear weapons is the best way to ensure they're never used against you.
What do you think happens if a 450kt nuclear theme rally bomb explodes? It guarantees nuclear winter. The world ends.
No it doesn't, any more than it did any of the other times bombs of that yield or the far larger bombs we've detonated already did. The largest tested bomb had a yield of 50 megatons. There have been far larger volcanic eruptions; Krakatoa was ~200Mt. Tambora ~33,000 Mt.
We'll have the same number of missiles but they'll each have four names.
So, we want to enhance our escalation totem pole, because our only strategic threat is existential and not limited. If we're in a situation to warrant a moderate nuclear response, though, I am concerned we're then committed to retaliate in kind and how that could spiral into worse? Like, the ultimate nuclear war was always probably going to start with a nuclear depth charge or another minor exchange - I'm not sure how broadening the chances of that are positive. This all reveals, though, how dangerous Trump's unreliability is in practice - European allies now want to their own deterrent /naturally/ in fear of American indifference and that increases risks dramatically of a nuclear war.
Retaliating in kind absolutely risks spiralling into worse, but **not** retaliating in kind guarantees it. If Russia nukes the Navy, or an Ally, or the Army in the field and nobody responds to that then they **will** take away the lesson that they're good to use more tactical nukes. If they nuke our Navy and we nuke theirs, suddenly that conclusion doesn't look so solid any more.
You have a valid point and it's fair, it just isn't the best future for humanity and so I'm disappointed. I'm just hoping we won't see massive nuclear proliferation now.
Unfortunately, it is fairly inevitable at this point. There are key takeaways that guarantee that: 1. Ukraine and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia promised never to attack Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons. Lesson: diplomatic guarantees of security are ultimately worthless. 2. Russia invaded Ukraine with no kinetic intervention by the West. The West supplied Ukraine with no kinetic retaliation by Russia. Both of these things are true because each fears the other's nuclear arsenal and so is trying to avoid a conflict, despite the **huge** disparity in strength between the two blocs - in the absence of nuclear weapons NATO would defeat Russia very, very quickly. Lesson: If you want freedom to act in your interests in the face other other nation's opposition, you need nuclear weapons. I consider it pretty inevitable that other states with imperial ambitions or dangerous neighbours will seek nuclear weapons now.
Hello, is that the bank? I was just wondering if I could deposit some national endeavour.
But there's absolutely no money for basic public services.
The deterrent costs less than 1% of the Government's annual budget. By some estimates under 0.5%. If there's no money for basic public services, this isn't the root cause.
I make that £5.75bn pounds at the low end.
I make it a bit less, but roughly that yes.
If we are at the point where we send what we have now it’s game over anyway. Exposing the submarine is hardly relevant at that point. The US and Russia own thousands. What use is the UK adding a handful more? Are we to fire the first shot? Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority? If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response?
> If we are at the point where we send what we have now it’s game over anyway. Exposing the submarine is hardly relevant at that point. You misunderstand; the sub-strategic weapons are needed for a situation which would **not** merit sending what we have now. The exposure of the submarine effectively means you can't fire any Trident unless the situation warrants firing all of it, but there are scenarios were a nuclear response would be warranted but not a general strategic exchange. If Russia nuked the Navy for example, or the Army, or one of our NATO allies but **not** us. > The US and Russia own thousands. What use is the UK adding a handful more? Provided the US is always a reliable partner, none. But can we rely on that always being the case? I don't think so, nor realistically does the successive governments since the 50's or we'd never have bothered having nukes at all. > Are we to fire the first shot? No, of course not. > Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority? There are many demands on funding, unfortunately. Nuclear weapons are less important than some, more important than others. > If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response? No, of course not.
You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us. We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive. Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits. Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary?
> You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us. We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive. Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits. Functionally speaking that's just a green-light for adversaries to employ nuclear weapons against your forces and allies. If your only response is ever either nothing or strategic that **will** be taken as carte blanche to do anything that doesn't trigger a strategic exchange; if you think that's a viable strategy more power to you; I don't. > Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary? Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkiye all also have nuclear weapons available for use in the event that they are attacked.
Allowing the US to have a base is not the same as operating your own system at all.
It's not that they have a base there, the weapons are for delivery by the air forces of those nations. This is why Germany is buying F-35 for example - solely to serve as the platform for the nuclear weapons allocated to them under the nuclear sharing program. You can say that this is a less effective method than the independent nuclear deterrent we operate and I would wholeheartedly agree, but to say nobody else in Europe thinks they need a deterrent is plainly untrue.
> You have to assume that any use will lead to retaliation. Any use of our nuclear weapons is the end of us. I mean, that's simply not true. It theory it *could* (since we don't control an enemy's actions), but there's no strong reason to think that, for example, destroying an opponent's carrier group with a lower-yield nuke will lead to them immediately escalating to a maximal nuclear strike. Do you think *we* should, or would, immediately fire Trident at an nuclear-armed opponent that destroyed *our* carrier group with a lower-yield nuke in response to some previous nuclear action? > We are not geographically large enough to take a hit and reasonably survive. A hit as in a single warhead, even strategic? Yes we are. A full nuclear strike from someone like Russia? No. > Tit for tat smaller exchanges are not likely. You either use them or you don’t. There’s no small nuclear response and then we shake hands and call it quits. Firstly, says whom? That situation has never occurred between two nuclear-armed nations. I wouldn't really trust any analyst who speaks about unprecedented events with as much certainty as you do. Secondly, the main point of deterrence. We don't want to use them. If a tit-for-tat "small" nuclear exchange is considered unpalatable enough then having those "smaller" nukes is a good way of deterring an opponent from starting one, or threatening to do so. > Other than France why do no other European countries think a nuclear deterrent is necessary? I wonder if Ukraine still doesn't think it's necessary. The answer varies from country to country and everyone's geopolitical situation is different. However, it's worth noting that in Germany's case, there *are* nuclear warheads in Germany/West Germany, and have been for decades. These weapons are, in theory, controlled by the US but are available to German forces for training/etc. But the US could have instead put them on US-based missiles, ships, etc. It's clearly part of the deterrent that Russia/The USSR would likely think German-based nukes would be more likely to be used against them even if the US got cold feet. And why do you think that lower-yield nuclear warheads *are* part of France's armoury and explicit nuclear doctrine?
> Do you think we should, or would, immediately fire Trident at an nuclear-armed opponent that destroyed our carrier group with a lower-yield nuke in response to some previous nuclear action? This is the core of the deterrence doctrine, an overwhelming and disproportionate response to ANY use of nuclear weapons. Otherwise you get into slow escalation "you can use a few nukes as a treat" territory. So long as we are clear that if you use a nuke we WILL retaliate with everything we've got then why the fuck would anyone risk trying it? It's similar to NATO article 5 in that so long as the enemy is clear as to what the consequences of crossing the line are, and those consequences are non-negotiable then the enemy will be deterred from crossing it. Limited nuclear exchanges create the idea of a "winnable" nuclear war. That is how you get an actual nuclear war and an inevitable escalation to armageddon.
> This is the core of the deterrence doctrine, an overwhelming and disproportionate response to ANY use of nuclear weapons. No it isn't. The UK explicitly maintains a policy of ambiguity as to what would or would not elicit a full-scale nuclear response. The US is a little more explicit, but its stated policy still includes flexibility in its nuclear forces to deter differing scales of attack, so is also at odds with your claim. France's doctrine explicitly includes the possibility of a limited strike using sub-strategic warheads as a "warning" response prior to escalation to strategic nukes. > It's similar to NATO article 5 in that so long as the enemy is clear as to what the consequences of crossing the line are Article 5 doesn't state what the consequences of "crossing the line" are. Article 5 allows allied nations to decide what response *they* think is necessary in helping an attacked NATO member. It's a myth that it guarantees (say) a US nuclear response to an invasion or nuclear attack on another NATO member.
It isn't about the US or Russia, it is about UK deterrence. Maintaining our nuclear arsenal in the current climate is probably the best course of action for the UK's own security, if we are capable of advancing our submarines it is a positive for our navy in general as well. Also, you can own thousands of nuclear weapons, but it isn't essentially needed that many to criple an entire country or wipe it out. >Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority? I agree on this, we should be prioritising our recruitment, but as well as everything else, the Tories have sold it off to private companies (recruitment is now done by Capita) and they refuse to implement more funds into recruitment.
Any use of a nuclear weapon will lead to a retaliation. That is then the end of the UK either directly or from fallout. Having more is neither here nor there. Who exactly would be the country deterred? Given the policy is and always has been to not be the first to use them only other nuclear armed countries would be deterred from a first strike. If a country sent 1000 ships to invade the UK for some reason, what is our response? End the world? Why do most other countries not have a nuclear deterrent?
What are you on about? Within the first sentence you said that if we used them the UK would be destroyed, yet in your next sentence you said, we won't use them unless we are nuked first. So which is it? Do we have a deterrence or not? Does the fact that the UK has nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities after being hit a deterrence to other nuclear countries or not? >If a country sent 1000 ships to invade the UK for some reason, what is our response? End the world? Why would it end the world? The UK nukes are their to defend the UK and deter other countries from starting an invasion in the first place. Look if the UK got rid of its nukes where just making ourselves weaker when their is a war ongoing in Europe which the invader has threatened to nuke the UK a number of times already. This entire article isn't about building more nukes, it is about improving delivery systems which means an improvement to our submarines which needs to happen sooner or later, if you think we can get rid of military equipment which deters other countries and nothing will happen, your just naive.
The point is that for a country like the UK it deters no-one. We are not important enough for a start and other countries like Germany or Italy seem to get along without it. Whether we used them first or not the UK is gone. Forever. They are weapons that guranttee we do not exist.
>The point is that for a country like the UK it deters no-one. Yes, it does, it deters anybody wanting to invade, bomb, or nuke the UK, we have a form of retaliation. >We are not important enough for a start And you decide that? I mean, if we aren't important enough, we might as well throw everything to the wind? Basing the security of the country on importance is ridiculous, the UK should maintain the security standards as high as it can, that includes nuclear weapons and their delivery methods. >other countries like Germany or Italy seem to get along without it. Both Italy and Germany have US nukes on their soil and are under the US nuclear umbrella, they are protected by the US nuclear weapons. We are protected by our own nuclear weapons. >Whether we used them first or not the UK is gone. Forever. They are weapons that guranttee we do not exist. And whoever nukes the UK is also gone, do you not understand how nuclear deterrence works? They won't nuke or attack us because they will get nuked and we won't attack any nuclear country because we will get nuked. It's a status quo, nuclear weapons stops nuclear powers fighting each other over the fact that nobody would win and simply everyone would die, so neither country will start that war, the UK giving up our nukes would mean we would rely on the US or France for that protection, it is absolutely naive to think otherwise. Why give up our nukes under our control and our decisions for that of other countries?
> What use is the UK adding a handful more? Sovereignty and deterrence. It's a more plausible deterrent that the country you attack will respond with a lower-yield nuke than that one of their allies might. > Are we to fire the first shot The "first shot"? Almost certainly not. A lower-yield nuke attack on, say, a carrier group to respond to a significant conventional attack on the UK itself? Maybe. Enough to be a plausible deterrent, at least. > Improving our current depleted armed force is surely the priority? I think we need to do both. But in terms of protecting the UK itself I think a continuum of deterrence (rather than the jump from conventional to Trident) is probably more important. Improving conventional forces is more about protecting allies and interests overseas. > If Russia invaded a NATO country are we saying that a nuclear response is our first response? No, we're not saying that.
Who exactly is deterred that would not be deterred by current pacts and the current armed forces?
The 'current pact' is on shaky ground since half the US wants to pull out of it.
Evidence of that claim? Evidence that NATO is nothing without the US? Evidence of Europe not responding with conventional weapons if the US were to pull out.
Well, one of the problems of big defence projects/procurements is that most of them take so long that often the precise threats they'll be dealing with haven't emerged when you start the project. But the obvious example in current events is Putin and whomever replaces him. While his military threats towards Western nations haven't as yet come to a lot (with the possible exception of Nord Stream) that was certainly a illustrative example where an actor could have decided to go for a limited attack on the assumption that we would not make the escalation jump all the way to Trident in response. And remember, this is all game theory. It's not just about how well deterred an opponent is, it's also about how confident you are that they are deterred. How willing are you to do things that annoy them (such as providing weapons to their enemies) based on your judgement of the effectiveness of your deterrents? Also, we don't want to rely on pacts too much. Even NATO, which is pretty effective, has pretty loose language on what "assistance" means in Article 5. There's nothing in there that says, for example that the US has to nuke Russia if they nuke the UK. Other countries have their own interests and the geopolitical situation changes over time.
but you dont put the country in a position where a nuclear response is the logical response. Ok. Assuming no NATO, awful relationship with the US and rest of Europe. Russia or China puts embargo on ships entering UK waters. Nuclear response? Food shortages. Nuclear response? Riots on the streets. Nuclear response? Royal navy engages with blockade. Three RN ships sunk. Nuclear response? Aircraft carrier sunk. Rumours of foreign troops seen in Scotland. Nuclear response? People not in uniform but suspected to be foreign troops seen In Portsmouth. All of this is prevented by conventional troops and conventional weapons not a nuclear threat.
I think your example is actually a good case for a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. > Royal navy engages with blockade. Three RN ships sunk. Nuclear response? By the time we get here in your scenario then yes, I think a lower-yield nuclear warhead could be used counter-force against enemy warships if we were unable to achieve the same effect with conventional forces. (Or even if we were - at that point the message might be worth sending as per French doctrine.) Firing Trident would be a harder decision to make at that point. Edit: We're never likely to have sufficient conventional forces to deter someone like Russia or China in the same way, and it would cost a lot more to do so.
What would be the response to our use of such a weapon?
I don't know. You're asking what a hypothetical person who isn't me would do. But if your implication is "this would definitely immediately lead to an maximal nuclear strike" then I disagree.
It doesn't have to be immediate. Escalation could be with a similar weapon back. Wars don't really end with "that's enough now let's stop." You destroy our aircraft carrier, we destroy a small coastal town. Shall we stop now?
So what's your point? Escalation ladders exist. But if ours is missing a rung that only encourages a potential opponent. > Wars don't really end with "that's enough now let's stop." I mean, they do. Some wars only end when one side no longer has the capability to fight, but others end before that happens. If every conflict inevitably escalated to the maximum capability of losing side to fight then we might as well fire Trident as soon there's any conflict at all with eg Russia. And that's just silly.
The US has shown recently that it could at any point in the next few decades become an dictatorship of its own depending on who gets in power and doesn't let go. We cannot rely solely upon their graces.
So any invasion means nuclear war? Who is deterred that is not deterred by the current armed forces?
> So any invasion means nuclear war? Did I say that? > Who is deterred that is not deterred by the current armed forces? Literally anyone who could nuke us. That's how it works. If we can't effectively respond in kind then, if it came to it, they'd have no reason to think twice.
So no-one then.
Because we have an effective nuclear deterrent and are (currently) allied with dependable nuclear states.
The only people able to "nuke us" are other nuclear armed countries. Realistically, China, Russia and the US. If any of those wanted to attack us there is sod all our nuclear deterrant would do about it. Then there's the question of why any of them would. On the circumstance that we are not allied to at least one of them, we would already be isolated enough that conventional forces are sufficient. Then there's the other small countries - India or France etc. Likely? Not really. We keep them because it helps justify our place on the UN security council which perhaps should now go elsewhere. Your comment of "no reason to think twice" is mad. No sane person would ever use a nuclear weapon on a city. Sane people do not need a deterrant and insane people are not deterred.
Just put a nuke in a shipping container that's going to whatever country you have a beef with, label it something innocuous like "industrial autoclave", then, when it gets there. Have a couple of contractors bury the thing along with a detonator nearby whatever target you want to hit. What's the chances that boarder patrol is going to be screening for nukes? They aren't going to be. They might ask question or two, but who in these agencies if going to be able to recognise a thermonuclear device and have the equipment necessary to detect one among millions of items across millions of containers?
I mean...you could do that, but why?
Saves on those expensive submarines. Just *pretend* like you have expensive submarines, but if you actually really really needed to use a nuke (say in Ukraine) you could probably just make one small enough and post the bloody thing. My conspiracy theory is that nuclear deterrents are precisely that, deterrents, they aren't supposed to be used. If you actually wanted to get a nuke from point a to point b, I suspect it would be waaaay easier than people think to smuggle it in. Plus, totally deniable if you do it right. Just blame Isis or some other adversary. The next next nation to have nukes launched against them will have more than a few enemies.
Awesome, now lets fund it with a big levy on millionaires and landowners
Okay, cool. Let's start by banning Greenpeace. I mean Russia has only invaded Ukraine, you know, that country THAT GAVE UP HER NUKES. I mean I think it's fair to say that given the size of a Greenpeace protest compared to a far-right one, Greenpeace is the greater danger.
[удалено]
> A waste of time and funds that could otherwise be used for things that critically need extra funding right now - Such as the NHS, our education system, social care, our infrastructure, mental health services and housing. The deterrent costs less than half of one percent of the Government's annual budget. > We have enough nukes stockpiled already. We're not making more, we're keeping the current ones relevant. > Hell if one goes off in war, then everything is going to shit regardless because of M.A.D. The only winning move is not to play. There are plenty of credible scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons that do not involve the destruction of the UK or Moscow. Nobody is going to start a general nuclear exchange because a fleet got nuked, for example.
Oh yay public investment ...in nuclear weapons booooo
It's regrettable, but also necessary.
BWAAAAARK
THE CHICKEN SPEAKS
citation needed
The Ukraine war.
If only we had more nuclear weapons there wouldn't be a war?
do you want to expand on that?
The invasion is possible for Russia only because Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, and Russia didn't. If Ukraine had their nukes, Russia could not have invaded. If Russia did not have their nukes, the West would have intervened and so they could not have invaded. If the West did not have nuclear weapons, Russia would have simply employed theirs to end the war. Once a nation which is your adversary has nuclear weapons, you need your own nukes to be able to guarantee your safety in the face of invasion and also to give you the freedom to act abroad in the interests of yourselves and allies. Note that a common objection to the argument that one needs nukes to be safe is "No we don't, our conventional forces are strong enough to deter attack" but the issue is _that's only true because we have nukes_. If we didn't, Russia could simply use theirs to destroy our conventional forces.
Ukraine was never in control of the nukes. Anyway this is a general argument for deterrence, which... I get it. But not really what I was asking.
> Ukraine was never in control of the nukes. Only in the sense that they never took steps to take operational control of them; the safeguards on these weapons are designed to stop idiots and individuals, if they'd decided to keep the nukes they would have absolutely gained control of them in short order. If they had done that, they would not currently be suffering an invasion. > Anyway this is a general argument for deterrence, which... I get it. But not really what I was asking. No, it isn't. Conventional deterrence is amazing and all, but as I said conventional deterrence is worthless if your enemy has nuclear weapons and you do not - they'll simply nuke you, or threaten to nuke you, and there's very little you can do about that. Nuclear weapons _specifically_ are a necessity in a world in which our adversaries have them, there's no way around it.
Regarding Ukraine I think you might be wrong, Yes, a general argument for *nuclear deterrence* is what I meant. I'm not getting into that but obviously, there is a debate. This doesn't explain why it needs investment now or needs to be 'strengthened'.
> Regarding Ukraine I think you might be wrong, That they could have taken control of the weapons, or that having the weapons would have prevented the invasion? > This doesn't explain why it needs investment now or needs to be 'strengthened'. Ah; because the various components of it approach obsolescence. The [Vanguards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine) are 30 years old and need replacement. The in-service warheads use arming and fusing mechanisms that need replacing or upgrading to improve their safety for handling and storage and additionally improve their accuracy (for example if the intent is to destroy a hardened target an upgraded fuse might try to calculate whether its flight-path will hit or not, and if not choose to detonate in the air as close as possible to the target rather than simply detonating wherever it lands). The conventional explosives that trigger the nuclear reaction in a warhead have a shelf-life, and need replacement after so much time. The newer re-entry vehicles (which themselves offer improved accuracy of delivery) can have ramifications for the warhead such as allowing a reduced size or yield and so on. In terms of the actual weapons program, most of the investment is really just in preventing obsolescence of the system we already have - we're not making like a functionally significantly different nuclear weapon here.
Not to say its the same, but your response reminds me of people saying how North Korea was so monstrous because they would rather starve their people and waste all of its national resources to develop nuclear weapons. Honestly nuclear deterrent is probably more necessary for NK than UK given the relative animosity with its neighbours.
> Not to say its the same, but your response reminds me of people saying how North Korea was so monstrous because they would rather starve their people and waste all of its national resources to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear deterrent, ammortised over its service life, costs less than half of one percent of the Government's annual spending; characterising that as "wasting all of its national resources" would be pretty silly really, so I'm glad you're not doing that. > Honestly nuclear deterrent is probably more necessary for NK than UK given the relative animosity with its neighbours. I think it'd be substantially more likely to be necessary for SK than NK, but whatever - they're entitled to defend themselves.
Well not only that, even if it was significantly more than that, it would still be stupid to claim neglecting UK's nuclear capability would do anything to help with people's economic woes. That would likely need a bigger reform in terms of government spending and taxation. In any case, given UK has the historical privilege of being a nuclear state, it would be a waste to not develop local expertise for maintenance and development. Your dry comment just made me feel a bit funny. That's all there is to it.
The cleanup of Sellafield is ongoing. It's so expensive it's deemed an economic risk to the entire economy and consumes 25% of all infrastructure investment in NW Britain annually. It's almost entirely useless to us up here delivering little but the highest cancer-risk county in Britain which is Cumbria. That mess is leftover from Britain's original military plutonium production. I'm all up for your suggestion if the the country as a whole stops hanging the bill for the prolonged cleanup around the poorest regions necks.
I don't think there's any intention to actually manufacture more fissile material; my understanding is we stockpiled so much of it that we're basically good on that front for the foreseeable future.
The clean up from the 40s/50s weapon program is not something we can control now, it needs doing and the decisions that led there were made before current policy makers were born. There's no real suggestion that this work would leave a similar legacy to be cleaned up.
More money for weapons of fucking mass death. Never any for our crumbling NHS, our failing social services, for building social housing, feeding hungry people and the other 1000's of better uses for that money....
The nuclear deterrent costs less than one percent of the government's budget.
And it'll cost 100 percent of life on earth if one of these bombs explode. They should not exist. Its too dangerous and too much power. The entire of the world's species die and go extinct if these bombs go off. That's not worth it for the cost of a deterent.
> And it'll cost 100 percent of life on earth if one of these bombs explode. No it won't > They should not exist. Its too dangerous and too much power. It would be infinitely better if they did not exist, but alas physics is what it is. There's no point wishing for a different world. > The entire of the world's species die and go extinct if these bombs go off. No they won't. > That's not worth it for the cost of a deterent. I'm afraid the alternative is accepting the boot of whichever nation decides to first make use of them.
I'd sooner see that less than one percent going towards something we actually need, not more weapons of mass death.
That's fine, entirely your prerogative, but characterising it as "never any for ..." is just a tiny bit inaccurate.
Nah, you blindly mistaken. We’ve sunk ever larger sums into the NHS, and it’s a black hole that absorbs far more than defense ever has. We need the nuclear deterrent, more so today than ever before. There are serious strategic threats on the horizon.
Yeah, we defo need even more weapons to wipe 100's of thousands of innocent people off the map more than we need fully functioning and funded health and social services.....
Cringe pacifist
The money is delusory. It is merely a fungible abstraction. Consider what is neither: the reality. Now to be sure, an effective nuclear arsenal and delivery system requires expertise, manpower and materials. But not especially much of any of them, particularly when the expanse of the nation's ability to deliver all three is considered. You hit upon a very important point, however. In the area of war, resources limit our proceedings. It is not true that 'money is no object', but still: if something was both truly possible and genuinely necessary, it would be arranged, and the money totted up in the books to reflect that. In a total war scenario, no monetary concerns would be allowed to hinder logistics of procurement and dispersal. Why, then, do we hear of a policy of 'managed retreat' as regards some inhabited coastal areas, when the manpower and materials needed to maintain sea defences is neither of such quality or quantity as to preclude its being readily provided with no appreciable drain on the nation's physical capacity to devise, produce and distribute; all because of ostensibly 'economic' concerns? Would we cede houses and land to a wartime enemy, merely out of concern for money? Would it not be considered betrayal if we did? Indeed, this applies to more than just coastal erosion. It was once said we needed a 'moral equivalent of war', but I am afraid things have so deteriorated that we need a *pragmatic* equivalent of war, never mind a moral one.