I can imagine a situation in the not too distant future where a USA would decline to defend / retaliate on behalf of Europe against a limited attack if within Europe there was no nuclear retaliatory capability. We need the ability to deter against that limited attack and Trident is the ideal system. To what extent it is truely independent would be interesting to know.
Sheesh. There I am arguing logically for Britain to retain its nuclear deterrent and along comes Cameron with a thinly-veiled piece of scare-monger propaganda that wouldn't fool a Sun reader ... North Korea warns safety of British diplomats 'cannot be guaranteed' I swear, I need to go into politics. This current lot couldn't stage-manage a nativity play for four-year-olds.
@ Loz... I have asked this question before, and no-one has come back with a coherent answer - Britains "nuclear deterrent" : who, exactly, are we supposed to be deterering? The soviet threat is no more... Any tin-pot nutcase dictator who is threatening local or global armageddon honestly DOES NOT care that we have nuclear weapons of our own. The whole concept is flawed... Do you think life for the average citizen in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Mexico or wherever is worse than it is in the UK purely because they don't have a nuclear deterrent? Seriously? I don't...
JR45, I am sure Loz will be along shortly but here are my thoughts. At the beginning of the twentieth century how many people would have accurately forecast 2x world wars and numerous smaller yet devastating conflicts. The answer to your 'who' question is we simply do not know what the future holds. What we do know is that the history of mankind is full of conflict triggered by all sorts of motives and nuclear weapons exist. They are a threat and they must be countered. If N Korea felt it had military superiority over an isolated S Korea do you think they would quietly sit in the north ? Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Mexico all know that they can count upon allies for help in the event of conflict. That help has the backing of a nuclear capability, all of them are, to some extent, under a nuclear umbrella. I would also suggest that any tin-pot nutcase dictator (who by defintion has a 'state') who is threatening local or global armageddon honestly DOES care that we have nuclear weapons of our own, they know that the response would be a devastation that they would not survive. What is less clear is how an idealogically driven movement could be detered, but that doesn't alter the clear benefit of a nuclear deterent against a 'rogue' state in my opinion.
In the beginning nuclear doctrine was about 'we have more warheads than you', the 'bomber gap'. Then there was the realisation of the global consequence of large numbers of warheads detonating and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction was developed. MAD relied upon the ability to survive an incoming first strike and still have the guaranteed capability to deliver a retaliatory second strike of sufficient magnitude to deter that initial first strike. I don't see anything that makes that less relevant today than it did back in the 60's and 70's. There is a strong case to negotiate a reduction in warheads and delivery systems, which is what happened in the SALT talks. The problem remains about limiting the number of states with a nuclear capability and preventing weapons getting into the hands of terrorists. However if it could be shown that a rogue state passed on weapons to a terrorist organisation that subsequently used them then it could be argued that was a proxy strike by that rogue state who could then be held to account. It is unlikely that any terrorist organisation could develop a nuclear weapon themselves. That is why I believe that nuclear deterence is still a valid concept today.
A nuclear deterrent does not deter... You are assuming that other people think and judge things in the same way as we do - basically a western view of life, death and the values of each. Some parts of the world do not think that way - if they did there would be no such thing as suicide bombers... A nuclear deterrent did not stop Argentina invading the Falklands. It did not stop Iraq invading Kuwait. It does not stop Pallestinians lauching rockets into Israel. It did not stop North Korea invading South Korea all those years ago - when the nuclear attacks on Japan were still a very clear and recent reminder of what an atomic bomb can do. It has not prevented wars in Afghanistan, the Balkans, the middle east, Africa or countless other places. The only place it has ever worked is detering the Soviets from invading (some parts of) Europe. No, we don't know what is in the future - but how about this for an idea, lets stop pretending to be in the "big boys club" and interfering in other nations affairs, and try working towards peace for a change (and not in the "peace through superior firepower" American way). As my dad once said "fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"...
I'm not sure I can answer your question, JR, in a way that will satisfy you. I'll answer for myself, though. I see it as a combination of factors. As things stand, right here and now, the practical effect of Britain's deterrent, tiny as it is, is pretty small. When and where could it be used? If the Falklands are invaded again, nukes won't help us there. Russia doesn't look likely to start rolling West anytime soon. Any conceivable threat from, say, China, is covered by the good old US of A. Where could we use nukes? Same place as anyone else on the planet - nowhere it would be prudent or sane to do so. I feel it is, frankly, cheap of Britain to think of dismantling its nuclear deterrent "because the Yanks have it covered". Cheapskate thinking. I feel we wouldn't be "paying our way" on the global stage. That's a personal feeling and probably doesn't persuade anyone else, but it's a good enough reason for me. Do I think that other nations are being cheapskates by sheltering under another nation's nuclear umbrella? It depends. If they never had nukes in the first place, then perhaps not. If they had nukes at one stage but got rid of them to save money, then - wait, has any country ever done that? The practical effect may be small but the political effects are probably greater - but very difficult to measure. All I can tell you is that I feel differently about Iran and Pakistan, compared to Syria and Burma. Why? Answer starts with an 'N' and ends in 'ukes'. Other nations look at nuclear Britain and non-nuclear very differently, I am sure of that. If you consider what I've described as "small potatoes" and unconvincing, then look at the long view. If you go non-nuclear now, you will forever be non-nuclear. If you find in the future that you actually need the security that nuclear weapons and MAD supply, you are stuffed, as the existing nuclear nations will fight to stop you - even assuming you can rebuild your nuclear expertise and engineering ability. Britain has one foot in Europe and one foot in the USA. It seems to be doing its best to alienate Europe and the long-term future of the way that USA conducts its foreign policy is uncertain. Who is to say they don't all go crazy-christian on us and withdraw from the world stage? An isolationist doctrine could sweep away old alliances, leaving Britain and the rest of NATO without any credibility. I don't like having all my eggs in one basket - I like even less the idea of relying on my neighbours to lend me their eggs when I want omelette. So I will rely upon both the USA's enormous deterrent and our own small one. Finally, consider this. Pete has mentioned that the nuclear deterrent costs us 10% of the overall annual defence budget. How much would it cost us to maintain a conventional army/weapons deterrent that is worth even a fraction of the effect of the nuclear one?
Loz - given that the nuclear deterrent doesn't actually deter - it would cost us nothing to have a conventional deterrent that has the same effect ! And Pete's assertion that it costs 10% of the defence budget only takes into account the cost of the catual system - not the cost of all the manpower, estate and infrastructure that could be far better deployed doing something more useful...
Heh. :smile: That said, I have yet to be convinced that Trident isn't a deterrent. My fear is that with the money we save on not having a deterrent we could be building up a wonderful infrastructure for some future aggressor to take advantage of. Is a nuclear arsenal ever a deterrent? I think it was, during the Cold War. Could it be one again, in the future? It seems foolish or at least risky to bet against that, as things currently stand. Is it a deterrent now? I think so, you don't think so - seems a moot point to me when looking forward to the future.
No. The current UK defence budget is about £40 Billion per year. 10% of that is £4 Billion. Over the next 40 years, that would be £160 Billion at 2012 prices. That figure covers everything - 4 submarines, nuclear propulsion, rockets, MIRVs, 96 warheads, and all the manpower, infrastructure and maintenance for 40 years. All UK built except for the 64 solid-fuel rockets, so nearly all the money comes back into the UK economy anyway.
To be a deterrent you have to show a willingness to use it. I don't believe either our present or past governments demonstrate that willingness.
Has there been a point after the fall of the Soviet Union when governments have had to demonstrate willingness?
No. The deterrent is the "thing", not the intent. To be a deterrent, you have to show you have the capability. The US did this in 1945, and certainly are the only nation to actually demonstrate the willingness to use it by action, not words or posturing. Did Kennedy show a willingness to use it in 1962, or did he get lucky, or did the obvious capability of the US military on display & based on history have the desired effect? Without actually using it, how do you demonstrate willingness to use it, or conversely, how do you show a lack of willingness to use it to support the fact that the deterrent may not work. Whether anyone on this thread agrees or not, the following are facts....... 1) Viable nuclear weapons have been known to exist since they were used by the USA in anger in 1945. 2) Since then, many nations have developed a nuclear capability, many tests have been undertaken, but the weapons have never been used in anger in a conflict. How does the fact that they have not been used (whether we can demonstrate a willingness to use them or not), prove that they are not a deterrent? Again, what is the evidence that a country having a nuclear capability is NOT a deterrent to other nations using their nuclear capability against that country?
You seem to be saying that if a known enemy detonated nuclear weapon(s) in the UK the Prime Minister of the day would refuse to authorise the use of Trident in retaliation. Really? You really think Cameron/Brown/Blair/Major/Thatcher would do nothing in that situation? Seems highly unlikely to me. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for that supposition?
Well, for it to be a deterrent, you'd have to know who you think you were deterring. Since the demise of the Soviet bloc, who are we deterring (as Penny Mordaunt said "on a daily basis")? it's like the old joke about the bloke putting a white powder on the street. "What are you doing that for?" he gets asked. "To keep the lions away," he answers. "But there aren't any lions around here," comes the reply. "See? It works, doesn't it?" he says. Your question is like saying, on what basis of evidence are posters asserting that there is no God. It's the other way around. You'd have to prove that our nuclear capability was deterring a specific someone before I'd believe that it was. But if you can't prove it, I'll accept reasonable suspicion.
Too tired to come up with any enemy more credible than someone like North Korea - they are probably deterred but they hardly qualify as rational. I'm sure there are better examples. So I will take the lazy way out using logic. Say for the sake of argument that there are currently no enemy nations or states that we could conceivably use nuclear weaponry on, for whatever practical or political reason ... Can you promise me that no such threat will arise in the short to medium term? Can you?
Not really. If some OAP has got a baseball bat to defend themselves in a burglary, most burglars will not be deterred. Having the thing is not the deterrent. Having the will and the capability to use it is part of the equation. This is surely why there was all that guff in the 80s about how to survive a nuclear holocaust. It was to give the impression that we were preparing for nuclear war, going to survive it and lob big ones back. It was a posture, (an imposture, you could say) which was designed to prove intent. That was an integral part of the deterrent. We've given up on that (fortunately) so now the posture is no longer MAD, in which case it has to be first strike willingness. This is clearly a fantasy, so consequently, there is no credible deterrent. Under what circs would the UK be prepared to launch a first strike? We wouldn't. Ever. I suppose the idea of the submarines is that even if the UK was obliterated, we could still respond (though who would be giving the order in a country with no government is a moot point). Though it would be a bit late to do anything useful, wouldn't it? I think there is some really woolly thinking around this idea of deterrence, and all the more so in a post communist bloc world.
OK, unilateral disarmament then. Then - along comes an emboldened Iran and sets off a suitcase nuke in London. What do you do? Did the threat of a nuclear reprisal deter Iran from that course of action prior to disarmament? No? Did disarmament encourage the aforementioned atrocity? Are you sure of your answers?
