Nuclear Deterrence Questions

[exile]

Heseltine just said it would be dreadful if France was the only European nuclear power. Can anyone think of a better candidate? Would it be good for Germany to have nuclear weapons? If you believe in multilateral disarmament, would it matter if Germany took on nuclear weapons instead of UK renewing them?

Presumably it's not seen as a good idea for non-nuclear countries to start having nuclear weapons...

Would it be OK for the EU to have nuclear weapons instead of France and UK holding them 'independently'? So instead of UK renewing our Trident alone, we take on the next generation of nuclear weapons on an EU wide basis.... they are hosted on the Clyde but paid for by any/all EU nations wishing to contribute...

Or is it not OK to have nuclear weapons on the Clyde controlled from Europe but it's OK if it's Westminster - or under the influence of the US?

To what extent is UK's nuclear deterrent independent anyway? Could UK use it without US consent? Why didn't the deterrent deter Argentina from invading the Falklands? Because they didn't think the UK would use it, or because they didn't think the US would let them use it?

What's the point of having Trident on the Clyde if the UK can't use it unilaterally?

[Toepoke]

I don't think the UK can launch without the permission of the US.

Having a read there, the Trident missiles themselves will be able to be used right into the 2040s. The submarines are what needs replaced imminently, but despite the US has extending the life of their own boats by 10-15 years, the UK gov seem hell bent on spending a fortune on new subs.

Personally if the UK must have a nuclear arsenal I'd rather it was a more strategic system like cruise missiles than the Cold War relic that is Trident....

Edited February 20, 2015 by Toepoke

[JasMc1973]

the US technically own the missiles anyway, one of our billions of dollar subs is taking them over to the states for a 6 month jolly, i mean refurb or something.... our nuclear subs can only go to port in the UK or the USA

[phart]

From the House of commons report into the independence of the uk's nuclear arsenal.

"the UK would, in practice, not be able to use its nuclear deterrent in circumstances in which the US was either neutral or actively opposed to UK policy, or where the US was an adversary."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

From same report

Professor Colin Gray accepted the UK's dependence on the United States, but claimed that he was not concerned by it:

Britain's nuclear deterrent since the 1960s… has been thoroughly dependent upon the co-operation and indeed the willingness of the United States to sell us or loan us the most vital equipment… the independence of the deterrent is obviously highly questionable… I am not the least troubled by the American connection, but for anyone who wishes to question the true independence of the British nuclear deterrent I would concede that it is… a hostage to American goodwill… the dependency is critical and will continue.

Edited February 20, 2015 by phart

[phart]

How many countries would pay about £4 billion a year to have a permanent seat on the UN security council and a veto? The Chinese and Indians signed an agreement stating they'd never use nuclear weapons First and then tried to get everyone else to sign, didn't go too well.

[exile]

Thanks for these replies.

So we could only use the nukes in a 'coalition of the willing' scenario.

[Huddersfield]

Thanks for these replies.

So we could only use the nukes in a 'coalition of the willing' scenario.

I think the point is really that it goes well beyond that. "We" can only really use them where it is clearly in America's interest that we do. Tony Benn used to write about this at one time. If Britain launched a nuke, the US could navigate it to the middle of the sea rather than its intended target. They can I'd imagine (not that I'm an expert on these things) disarm it as well.

As phart suggests & I agree with, this is more about successive British Governments paying to look like they are in the big boys club rather than any sort of deterrence.

[Bristolhibby]

The strategic assumption is we would always be on Americas side.

With that assumption we would form part of an alliance that would be able to wipe out any aggressor who threatened Nuclear destruction of the UK and or the U.S.

That is all Trident does. It a counter balance to the unknown.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that it lets enemy States know we (the Royal we with America) have the means when push comes to shove to destroy an agressor.

Whether we do it (nuclear strikes) unilaterally or with the Americans is a moot point, as by that time deterrence has failed and likely that Washington and London along with Moscow, Bejing and Poyonyang have been wiped out anyway.

J

[Huddersfield]

The strategic assumption is we would always be on Americas side.

Or another way of putting that is that the strategic assumption is that we will always broadly align our foreign policy to America's (hence our complicity in the invasion of Iraq & general denial of responsibility for the subsequent havoc that & related foreign policy interventions has created in the region). The presence of Trident embeds that at significant cost to us.

[Kirk]

get them tae

[Bristolhibby]

Or another way of putting that is that the strategic assumption is that we will always broadly align our foreign policy to America's (hence our complicity in the invasion of Iraq & general denial of responsibility for the subsequent havoc that & related foreign policy interventions has created in the region). The presence of Trident embeds that at significant cost to us.

I think we can have the same strategic objectives, but differ on a case by case basis event comes to specific cases (not bombing Syria as an example). Not for the want of trying I might add by out glorious Prime Minister.

It says somthing that only the Greens, SNP, and Plaid, have getting rid of Nuclear weapons as a policy. That would suggest that the bulk of the population want them kept.

J

[biffer]

Switzerland. Avowedly neutral, act as a world policeman with no axe to grind.

[Huddersfield]

It says somthing that only the Greens, SNP, and Plaid, have getting rid of Nuclear weapons as a policy. That would suggest that the bulk of the population want them kept.

J

Sad but true I suspect. It's interesting to see how Russia are being repositioned as an old school enemy at the moment. ISIS can't nuke us (at least not yet & if they could you'd assume they'd do it regardless of deterrent), so I think there's a need to re-invent a Cold War enemy to make sure the population continue to see the need to spend those billions.

[giblet]

Anyone that says they want to keep our Nukes and are a multilaterist, just ask them what have they done recently to promote the idea. Its a cop out answer to what they really mean is that they are happy to have them and wont get involved until someone else makes the move to get rid. (which is what we could have started with a Yes vote in September.)

[ZoltanBuchan]

How many countries would pay about £4 billion a year to have a permanent seat on the UN security council and a veto?

One still struggling to accept that it's lost its empire, and is no longer a 'major player'?

[Huddersfield]

Bizarrely the BBC has an article today on 'How to spot a Russian bomber', with a nod to the old WW2 aircraft recognition cards.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31537705

Re-issue this I say.

[fishcumnock]

How to you find out if any mp or lord is a shareholder in the suppliers chain in the nuclear

deterent procurement companies ? as in conflict of interests .

[Huddersfield]

How to you find out if any mp or lord is a shareholder in the suppliers chain in the nuclear

deterent procurement companies ? as in conflict of interests .

You can download the Register of Member's Interests easily enough, a quick Google will do it, but you would need to know the names of the companies you were interested in to find anything. Have a look at theyworkforyou.com as well which can help see who is making a noise about what, but (unless anyone is any the wiser) I think you probably have to do your own research or tap into anyone else who is doing it. From a purely legal point of view being a shareholder & having a conflict of interest in anything is generally deemed to be legitimate & legal as long as it's declared & the appropriate voting strategy adopted. Tracking influence elsewhere in the system though is way more difficult.

[hunchy]

What about giving Russian ship recognition cards to those living round the moray firth

[Bristolhibby]

Bizarrely the BBC has an article today on 'How to spot a Russian bomber', with a nod to the old WW2 aircraft recognition cards.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31537705

Re-issue this I say.

I wonder how many times Nato jets have buzzed Russian airspace, but is never reported. It simply does not fit the narrative of "Russia = Bad Guys".

J

[phart]

I wonder how many times Nato jets have buzzed Russian airspace, but is never reported. It simply does not fit the narrative of "Russia = Bad Guys".

J

there's american fleets in the black sea. Russia haven't shat the bed about it though.

[fishcumnock]

You can download the Register of Member's Interests easily enough, a quick Google will do it, but you would need to know the names of the companies you were interested in to find anything. Have a look at theyworkforyou.com as well which can help see who is making a noise about what, but (unless anyone is any the wiser) I think you probably have to do your own research or tap into anyone else who is doing it. From a purely legal point of view being a shareholder & having a conflict of interest in anything is generally deemed to be legitimate & legal as long as it's declared & the appropriate voting strategy adopted. Tracking influence elsewhere in the system though is way more difficult.

aye thought it would be well hidden !

[Clyde1998]

This appeared in my local news (Berkshire) today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31692268

Last time it happened 10 were charged - nobody arrested today it seems.

Also, it shows that nuclear disarmament is not just a Scotland-only issue.

[Auld_Reekie]

It's a symbol of power, nothing else. If the assumption is that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we'll always be aligned with the US, then I have no problem with that. It's pretty difficult to imagine a situation whereby the global security outlook to such an extent we were looking to deploy nuclear weapons AND US/UK foreign policy diverged to the point that we were isolated, so I have no problem with the general theory. However, if you come to accept this fact, you really struggle with the next question: if you assume UK and US foreign policy will align for the short and medium term, why bother with any nuclear weapons at all? If foreign policy is so aligned, the UK and the US are one and the same, and the question of deploying nuclear weapons is unaffected - the US has more than enough firepower to destroyed the developed world and an attack on the UK will surely see a retaliation by the US on our behalf.

Sure, you could make a case that the weapons buy us access, buy us power, keep us in the game, pay our way in the world of warfare, but at least then you are accepting and acknowledging that nuclear weapons are about power and nothing else.