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

[Nick the Noodle]

I have to wonder if this thread isn't in the wrong forum. Nuclear weapons are not military weapons in the conventional sense: they're political weapons, meant to be never used militarily, but only for political purposes.

One of the most intelligent responses ever.

[slick_miester]

One of the most intelligent responses ever.

The really amazing thing is that it came from me.

[Achtung Baby]

A question for the UK members, when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal?

[johns624]

A question for the UK members, when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal?

The silence is deafening...

[Achtung Baby]

[johns624]

Maybe it's because they think it's the last vestige of the British Empiah!

[Gooner]

A question for the UK members, when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal?

Every minute of every day if I was in charge!

Seriously, I would expect only after attacked by same.

[Achtung Baby]

Every minute of every day if I was in charge!

Seriously, I would expect only after attacked by same.

So it’s not a deterrent.

[slick_miester]

A question for the UK members, when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal?

Seriously, I would expect only after attacked by same.

So it’s not a deterrent.

As patently nonsensical as the initial question was, this latest response defies all earthly logic. How, pray tell, does a nuclear arsenal NOT represent a strategic deterrent?

[johns624]

The initial question wasn't nonsensical. Twenty years ago I read a British Defence white paper (yes, I actually read it) and it stated way back then that the UK wouldn't get involved in any major conflicts except as a junior partner of the US. I found it astounding that they would admit it, but they did. Since that is the case, they would be effectively be under our nuclear umbrella. France would likely keep theirs since they have a much more independent foreign policy than the UK. With how strained the UK defence budget is, in the real world, wouldn't their limited resources be better spent on a larger conventional deterrent? Having 2 more Astutes along with not having them have to provide sanitation patrols for the boomers would be more helpful keeping an eye on the Chinese and the Russian bear. Right now, 2-3 of their frigates/destroyers (out of 19) are tied up due to lack of crews. The 13 ASW frigates are only going to be replaced with 8 first class ships due to cost reasons. The navy can't afford to provide the QEs with a full complement of F35Bs. The army only has 3 tank battalions. The stronger your conventional forces, the less chance of someone trying to challenge you.

[slick_miester]

The initial question wasn't nonsensical.

I was not referring to the OP, but to the question that kicked off that particular exchange:

A question for the UK members, when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal?

The thing with nukes is that there's not too many options about how to employ them. I mean, you wouldn't use an atomic shaped charge to blow a door off its hinges, would you?

Yes, I know that thinkers throughout the atomic age considered and experimented with all sorts of ways to employ atomic and nuclear power: tactical ballistic missiles, backpack nukes with programmable time delay detonators, the 11" (280mm) "Atomic Annie," the jeep with the recoilless rifle that fired an atomic warhead whose blast radius outdistanced the weapon's range -- yet by the 1980s both US and Soviet authorities finally understood that those sub-strategic uses of nuclear weapons were wasteful to the point of absurd. Combined with advances in targeting technology, sub-strategic nuclear weapons were rendered unnecessary, and negotiations banning such weapons were relatively easy affairs: both the US' and the USSR's leaders knew that they wouldn't be giving up very much giving up sub-strategic nuclear weapons. So the answer to that question, "when would you consider using the nuclear weapons at your disposal," can reasonably have but one answer, which Gooner provided most succinctly: "seriously, I would expect only after attacked by same." Any other answer would indicated a previously undiagnosed mental illness.

[Achtung Baby]

As patently nonsensical as the initial question was, this latest response defies all earthly logic. How, pray tell, does a nuclear arsenal NOT represent a strategic deterrent?

Gooner said he wouldn’t use them except in a retaliatory fashion, that only suggests that his Trident II hasn’t made the expected deterrent. Do you seriously think that if the UK was hit, the US and/or other allies would not retaliate as well? It’s conventional forces aren’t in a position to even threaten a large modern military force, so why would that country resort to nuclear weapons instead? And it’s been pointed out that the UK will only support the US, thus be under their umbrella.

[slick_miester]

Gooner said he wouldn’t use them except in a retaliatory fashion, that only suggests that his Trident II hasn’t made the expected deterrent.

Would you characterize the nuking a nuclear-armed opponent the act of a sane person?

That was the foundation of MAD -- "Mutually Assured Destruction": that no reasonable player would nuke a nuclear power, knowing full well that he'd be on the receiving end of "massive retaliation" within about 30 minutes.

Do you seriously think that if the UK was hit, the US and/or other allies would not retaliate as well? It’s conventional forces aren’t in a position to even threaten a large modern military force, so why would that country resort to nuclear weapons instead? And it’s been pointed out that the UK will only support the US, thus be under their umbrella.

And as I pointed our earlier, unqualified reliance on the US' strategic deterrent and NATO's conventional power in exchange for a "lapdog" foreign affairs stance can easily backfire. What that MoD white paper mentioned by johns624 does is neuter the UK's foreign policy, renders her dependent on other powers for her strategic existence. No wonder Britons appear so perversely fascinated with US politics: every four or eight years the UK risks being cut loose from her protector, based on nothing more than the whim of the American voter. That's f cking frightening. Maybe Pres Trump is just blowing hot air, and maybe he's not. Until the sh*t hits the fan, there's no honest way to tell. Doesn't that fact -- that the UK might have positioned herself to be totally dependent on a possibly unpredictable and/or unreliable partner for her strategic existence -- doesn't that cause any jitters among Britons? Were I a Brit I might break into a cold sweat in today's climate.

[johns624]

. Doesn't that fact -- that the UK might have positioned herself to be totally dependent on a possibly unpredictable and/or unreliable partner for her strategic existence -- doesn't that cause any jitters among Britons? Were I a Brit I might break into a cold sweat in today's climate.

No, what's strange is that, except for Gooner, no other Brits have answered. They must all be down in the Current Affairs forum, studying American politics. The last month AB and I have had a two man dialogue trying to get others interested in current navies but no one else seems interested in the least. Maybe we can change the name of the site to Armchair Politician.

[slick_miester]

No, what's strange is that, except for Gooner, no other Brits have answered. They must all be down in the Current Affairs forum, studying American politics. The last month AB and I have had a two man dialogue trying to get others interested in current navies but no one else seems interested in the least. Maybe we can change the name of the site to Armchair Politician.

In a backwards sort of way, that makes sense. Before you lay the first keel, there has to be a political commitment to build and sustain a fleet. Without it, there's no R&D, no MENS statements, no appropriations -- no money. Since the UK has pretty much thrown in the towel on an independent and sovereign existence, political developments in DC are much more impactful than any work going on in the RN's Admiralty. Brexit may very well prove to be the final nail in the coffin. Joe Chamberlain's dream of a united anglosphere may very well come to pass -- only in this iteration the British Isles are decidedly the inferior partner.