ACG Scenario - Should the Royal Navy scrap Trident II and their SSBNS?

[Achtung Baby]

Would the Royal Navy be better off scraping their SSBNs and beef up their surface fleet?

On a similar note, I did a thread about this idea but the timeline was back in 1980. https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...elling-trident

[Herman Hum]

No, especially in the face of the resurgent Russians; just ask the Georgians and Ukrainians. I bet Kyev rues the day they exchanged the nuclear weapons in their possession for a scrap of paper that turned out to be worthless.

[johns624]

As I posted in the other thread, I'd say yes. They are under the nuclear umbrella of the US. No use to double the effort. IIRC, they supply their own warheads but the US supplies the missiles. It would be different if they had a well rounded conventional surface fleet but they don't anymore. They need their entire complement of T26s, not some watered down T31s. They could also use 2-3 more Astutes to keep an eye on the Bear. This would also allow them to have a more robust CBG, and maybe a reasonable amount of F35Bs.

[Mountain Man]

Would the Royal Navy be better off scraping their SSBNs and beef up their surface fleet?

On a similar note, I did a thread about this idea but the timeline was back in 1980. https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...elling-trident

They have a responsibility to both their own defense and that of NATO. Backing out of their obligation means someone else, likely America, would have to take up that burden, but who pays for that? Should be England, not us.

England does not have the funds to beef up its surface navy. That's why I still wonder why they went ahead and built a modern carrier without a battlegroup to support it? A national monument to days gone by?

[MarkV]

As I posted in the other thread, I'd say yes. They are under the nuclear umbrella of the US..

Which given the current administration's volatility and willingness not to honour treaties is made of rice paper.

BTW given the thread title one has to ask have they got barnacles on them?

[Mountain Man]

As I posted in the other thread, I'd say yes. They are under the nuclear umbrella of the US. No use to double the effort. IIRC, they supply their own warheads but the US supplies the missiles. It would be different if they had a well rounded conventional surface fleet but they don't anymore. They need their entire complement of T26s, not some watered down T31s. They could also use 2-3 more Astutes to keep an eye on the Bear. This would also allow them to have a more robust CBG, and maybe a reasonable amount of F35Bs.

And again, why should America pay for Britain's defense? How much longer can America keep up paying for everyone else? Especially given that Britain does not want American nuclear forces stationed on their soil. Like the Japanese, they enjoy the benefits but do not want to shoulder the responsibilities and would prefer it all be done from a great distance.

[MarkV]

And again, why should America pay for Britain's defense? How much longer can America keep up paying for everyone else? Especially given that Britain does not want American nuclear forces stationed on their soil. Like the Japanese, they enjoy the benefits but do not want to shoulder the responsibilities and would prefer it all be done from a great distance.

There are facilities for over 100 nuclear weapons at Lakenheath but it is believed (but not confirmed) that currently none are deployed there.. As Lakenheath is not extraterritorial (ie it remains British Sovereign territory) The US would need to notify the British Government if it wished to redeploy weapons there but there appear to have been no such notification nor any refusal to allow it,

[Andy H]

And again, why should America pay for Britain's defense? How much longer can America keep up paying for everyone else? Especially given that Britain does not want American nuclear forces stationed on their soil. Like the Japanese, they enjoy the benefits but do not want to shoulder the responsibilities and would prefer it all be done from a great distance.

Hi MM

Its like a broken record and a very scratched one to boot.

Your premise would hold true if America withdrew from all its interests and bases around the world and just existed within its sovereign borders. However being the worlds only true superpower comes with responsibilities and costs.

If the ACG had been around in the C19 & C20 then the British would be carping about the costs they incurred keeping world trade inc American trade essentially free from interference. The US spent barely anything on its national defence, relying on the UK/British Empire.

As various US Presidents (both Rep/Dem) have stated that US National Defence starts in Europe and only the truly naďve would suggest that the US would be safer if it didn't help/pay/subsidise those countries either unable or unwilling to pay. This doesn't mean that European countries should be given a free ride and personally I think we should spend more on our National defence.

In terms of the original question, I'd say yes if we could ringfence the Trident money to actually go on conventional forces etc but I doubt that would happen. Equally having the money is one thing but without people willing to serve it means nothing. The UK like the US is struggling to recruit suitable candidates, and both countries have relaxed entry requirements in a bid to help recruitment numbers.

Regards

Andy H

[Herman Hum]

Which given the current administration's volatility and willingness not to honour treaties is made of rice paper.

The silver lining is knowing this beforehand instead of in the midst of an actual conflict; like calling the fire department and having no one come.

[Mountain Man]

Hi MM

Its like a broken record and a very scratched one to boot.

Your premise would hold true if America withdrew from all its interests and bases around the world and just existed within its sovereign borders. However being the worlds only true superpower comes with responsibilities and costs.

If the ACG had been around in the C19 & C20 then the British would be carping about the costs they incurred keeping world trade inc American trade essentially free from interference. The US spent barely anything on its national defence, relying on the UK/British Empire.

As various US Presidents (both Rep/Dem) have stated that US National Defence starts in Europe and only the truly naďve would suggest that the US would be safer if it didn't help/pay/subsidise those countries either unable or unwilling to pay. This doesn't mean that European countries should be given a free ride and personally I think we should spend more on our National defence.

In terms of the original question, I'd say yes if we could ringfence the Trident money to actually go on conventional forces etc but I doubt that would happen. Equally having the money is one thing but without people willing to serve it means nothing. The UK like the US is struggling to recruit suitable candidates, and both countries have relaxed entry requirements in a bid to help recruitment numbers.

Regards

Andy H

Actually, those "responsibilities" are largely an outside assumption and are demanded by other nations who expect a free ride. "Noblesse oblige" is not relevant unless America is the dominate power in your nation and you are subservient to us Your world view is not shared by many Americans, who are tired of doing all of the heavy lifting and paying all of the bills, in addition to monstrous amounts of foreign aid to nations that don't even like us. And if that sounds like a broken record to you, then I can only assume that you haven't grasped the fundamentals behind it, because you will hearing it more and more frequently. I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that you know the amount of the American national debt and how much of it was accrued on behalf of other nations.

That has to stop and it will stop, because we are not a nation of infinite wealth. That money comes from taxing an increasingly smaller portion of our society, one that is itself struggling to survive in today's economic conditions.

Maintain your defense obligations or do not. That is your right as a sovereign nation. What is NOT your right is to ask us to step in. Either you are willing to pay the costs of your freedom or you are not. We, however, have no obligation to pay those costs for you. Choices come with consequences.

The world today is like a very high stakes poker game - if you want to be a player, you must ante-up and pay to stay in the game.

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by MarkV View Post
Which given the current administration's volatility and willingness not to honour treaties is made of rice paper.

American is not obligated to honor treaties routinely broken at will by the other parties. Treaties obligate all parties to adhere to the conditions, period.

[Andy H]

Actually, those "responsibilities" are largely an outside assumption and are demanded by other nations who expect a free ride. "Noblesse oblige" is not relevant unless America is the dominate power in your nation and you are subservient to us Your world view is not shared by many Americans, who are tired of doing all of the heavy lifting and paying all of the bills, in addition to monstrous amounts of foreign aid to nations that don't even like us. And if that sounds like a broken record to you, then I can only assume that you haven't grasped the fundamentals behind it, because you will hearing it more and more frequently. I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that you know the amount of the American national debt and how much of it was accrued on behalf of other nations.

That has to stop and it will stop, because we are not a nation of infinite wealth. That money comes from taxing an increasingly smaller portion of our society, one that is itself struggling to survive in today's economic conditions.

Maintain your defense obligations or do not. That is your right as a sovereign nation. What is NOT your right is to ask us to step in. Either you are willing to pay the costs of your freedom or you are not. We, however, have no obligation to pay those costs for you. Choices come with consequences.

The world today is like a very high stakes poker game - if you want to be a player, you must ante-up and pay to stay in the game.

Hi MM

Those responsibilities that America either continues or takes on, are of her own making and that own her electorate, by the Government's they elect who continue to spend vast amounts on defence spending.

America could withdraw from all its overseas commitments but I doubt you'll find many Americans will feel that such an action would make them or America safer.

Like I said 'we' should spend more on our defence but it would never be enough compared to the US given its dominant position.

Back in the late C19 US defence spending fluctuated between 1-2% of GDP, spiking at 22% in WW1 and over 41% in WW2.
The UK in the late C19 UK defence spending was 39%, spiking at 47% in WW1 and to 52% in WW2.

The British Tax base at the start of WW1 was 2% of the popn, rising to 8% by the wars end.
Governments and the popn are always keen on slashing taxes, and I doubt many Politicians will get elected by promising to increase either the tax base or the tax rates.

Regards

Andy H

[Mountain Man]

Hi MM

Those responsibilities that America either continues or takes on, are of her own making and that own her electorate, by the Government's they elect who continue to spend vast amounts on defence spending.

America could withdraw from all its overseas commitments but I doubt you'll find many Americans will feel that such an action would make them or America safer.

Like I said 'we' should spend more on our defence but it would never be enough compared to the US given its dominant position.

Back in the late C19 US defence spending fluctuated between 1-2% of GDP, spiking at 22% in WW1 and over 41% in WW2.
The UK in the late C19 UK defence spending was 39%, spiking at 47% in WW1 and to 52% in WW2.

The British Tax base at the start of WW1 was 2% of the popn, rising to 8% by the wars end.
Governments and the popn are always keen on slashing taxes, and I doubt many Politicians will get elected by promising to increase either the tax base or the tax rates.

Regards

Andy H

I can only assume that you have never heard of the UN or the international pressures exerted on America to get involved in other peoples' affairs. I have nothing further to say on this subject, beyond what I said previously. Do...or don't do...but take full responsibility for your actions Frankly, the fact that you're still arguing tells me that you are not prepared to shoulder the burdens you have already accepted. You're looking to justify running away.

[BELGRAVE]

I can only assume that you have never heard of the UN or the international pressures exerted on America to get involved in other peoples' affairs. I have nothing further to say on this subject, beyond what I said previously. Do...or don't do...but take full responsibility for your actions Frankly, the fact that you're still arguing tells me that you are not prepared to shoulder the burdens you have already accepted. You're looking to justify running away.

Which might be reasonable thinking until it is remembered that the British lost 405 personnel (Australia: 41) by enemy action in Afghanistan, fighting in what was essentially a US war,engaged in response to the 9/11 attack.

Is that not helping to "shoulder the burdens"?

[Gooner]

Would the Royal Navy be better off scraping their SSBNs and beef up their surface fleet?

On a similar note, I did a thread about this idea but the timeline was back in 1980. https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...elling-trident

The Royal Navy's biggest current problem is recruitment and retention. The crew savings from scrapping the SSBNs would provide enough for maybe 2-3 Astutes plus a couple of Type 26s.

The cost of Britains nuclear deterrent is about 5-6% of Defence spending.