Hulver's site || Step AWAY from the keyboard!

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Pretensions To "Great Power" Status?

By jump the ladder (Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:18:13 AM EST) (all tags)

So Prime Minister in waiting, Gordon Brown, has opened the debate about replacing Britain's current nuclear deterrent, Trident/Vanguard. It's going to cost a lot at £10-25 bn and what the follow up system will be is unclear as the US doesn't seem to have a follow up system in the works to replace Trident and there is also the possibility of co-operation with the French who also maintain a submarine based deterrent.

Poll: should the UK replace Trident?

Weighing Up

My view is that at the moment we don't actually face a threat from a nuclear armed state, unlike when we first purchased Trident in the early 80s, and the most likely nuclear threat is from a terorist group who would not be deterred by such a system. This of course could change but £10-25 bn is a lot of money for very outside probabilty.

Also the timing is strange as the US seems to be planning to refurnish rather than replace Trident in the medium term so why do we have to make decision now? I suspect it's Gordon Brown making himself look strong on national defence...

Arguments for going ahead seem mainly to be about prestige, keeping the Security Council Pemanent membership and the French having nukes. I could see that it might be viewed as sign of weakness in some of the wankier countries out there for us to give them up. But then it would set a very good example if we did give them up voluntarily and definirtely give us the moral high ground when negotiating with the Iranians and the like...

< Kiss kiss bang bang | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Poll

Votes: 11
Results	\|	Other Polls

Related Links

- opened the debate
- Trident/Vanguard
- submarine based deterrent
- jump the ladder's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Pretensions To "Great Power" Status? | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Nuclear by priestess (4.00 / 1) #1 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:22:06 AM EST

Don't we have a legal commitment to phasing them out? I think that perhaps if we want to tell Iran it has to abide by the NNPT then we should hold up our end of the bargain too.

If we don't, we have no right to stop them either, surely?

Pre.........
---------
Yes! The Conspiracy Really Exists...

: Pretty vague by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #2 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:33:35 AM EST

It says "plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles". No time frame given and we have reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile since the Cold War.

[ Parent ]
: I think it's more about delivery systems. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:12:33 AM EST

It's the question of replacing the submarines rather than the missiles, I think.

[ Parent ]
: *sigh* by gazbo (4.00 / 3) #21 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:33:25 AM EST

Have you seen the colour of our skin? Have you seen the colour of their skin?
What more right do we need?
"Engarde!" cried the larvae, huskily. - Scrymarch

[ Parent ]

Hang on, shouldn't we be talking about football? by nebbish (4.00 / 3) #3 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:40:50 AM EST

I agree with you completely. There isn't any real advantage to having nuclear weapons, and getting rid of them, as well as being a good example, would really strengthen our role in negotiations: "Come on Iran, we've got rid of ours..."

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

Brown's Midnight Runners by cam (4.00 / 4) #5 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:13:27 AM EST

C'mon Iran
Oh I swear Iran
..... something ....
Take off everything!

Russia has fallen back to autocracy, though not with the same seperation from the west as it was under communism. If there is an escalation for a nuclear stand off, I suspect it will be with Russia again.

Another issue that UK/France/Germany has to consider is will the US bleed so badly they cease to be an active deterrent. There was that fear in the 70s over Vietnam. In Australia there was genuine fear that the US would become isolationist and spurn the Pacific.

UK is in a hard place as they straddle the EU and US in political outlook. But it might be wise for the EU to have some kind of longer outlook and strategic plan in relation to Russia.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Long term by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #8 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:36:36 AM EST

Is the problem I suppose, all those could happen. But maybe making a move towards disarmament would be stabilising.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

So why doesn't Australia by jump the ladder (4.00 / 3) #10 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:45:33 AM EST

Get nukes then? If the UK is justified in having them surely you guys are also. And you're closer to China and North Korea than us.

[ Parent ]

: GAPF doctrine by cam (4.00 / 2) #19 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:51:39 AM EST

'great and powerful friends' doctrine. We make our foreign policy submissive to the US in return for supposed security and economic benefits. It is a fallacy, but hasnt stopped the government from using it to do defence on the cheap and avoid having to do power politics.
Au bulldozed a site in preparation to go nuclear in the 70s when US power looked like collapsing. It might be argued that the current push to create a nuclear power industry is to cement the indiginous know-how to go nuclear on a moments notice if US power collapses over the middle east.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

rid of them is silly by martingale (4.00 / 2) #6 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:19:20 AM EST

I don't see how it makes sense for the UK to get rid of its nukes, when half the world is into an arms race or gearing up for one.

Let's see: the US is showing no signs of slowing down its military investment, the Asia/Pacific is in an arms race, so is Pakistan/India, the Iranians are certainly interested, the Russians are showing no signs of getting rid of theirs.

Terrorism is certainly not going to be deterred by MAD, but that doesn't mean that the UK won't be bullied or threatened by nuclear powers in the future.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

As we've seen before by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:41:10 AM EST

The problem with trying to keep up with others in nuclear parity is that it's an unending process that ends in bankruptcy. Somewhere like the US might be able to manage it, but the UK certainly can't. We've got NATO, I don't think an independent nuclear force is necessary.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

as you've seen by martingale (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:48:26 AM EST

The cost of such short sightedness is terrorist attacks in London, and spending a fortune first blowing up and then reconstructing Iraq.

If the UK was more independent, it wouldn't have had to get into this mess in the first place.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Hang on by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #12 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:53:17 AM EST

What has Iraq or 7/7 got to do with either nuclear weapons or NATO? NATO isn't the USA.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

remember polaris? by martingale (4.00 / 2) #15 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:16:28 AM EST

The Trident subs are built to use American nuclear missiles sold to the UK under the Polaris program. It was presumably cheaper for the UK than developing its own, but it means the US controls the tech, just like they're trying to control the tech of the JSF. Whoever controls the supply and the maintenance of military hardware is in a great position to pressure its clients on foreign policy.

NATO is dominated by the USA. The top commanders of NATO are US military. The other members are mostly small countries with few resources. The biggest non-US resources in NATO are (at a slight guess) UK/France/Germany, maybe Italy. UK has a great fleet, France has nukes and a pretty good fleet, Germany has strategic location. The others aren't worth talking about.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Ok, good point by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:40:18 AM EST

And you obviously know more about it than I do so here is where I bow out...

I think herring and jump the ladder are discussing just how independent our nuclear deterrent is below.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

: cam's the one to ask by martingale (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:49:31 AM EST

I expect he's more expert than you or me together, or one of the sleepy head colonials, if they stop taking about dko55 for five minutes.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

No, see, 7/7 had nothing to do with Iraq by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #50 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:44:32 AM EST

Mr the Prime Minister said so, right out loud. Are you trying to bring down the government by coercive use of lies?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: come on come on by martingale (4.00 / 1) #52 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 06:40:44 AM EST

Stiff upper lip and all that. You're at war, leave those innuendos to those no good hippies.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Who wins in an arms race? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:24:02 PM EST

How about a nice game of chess?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

it's not about winning by martingale (4.00 / 1) #45 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:50:47 AM EST

An arms race is about not losing. I expect you to know that.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

What would a loss entail? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:41:03 AM EST

Invasion? Nukular death from the skies? From whom? Would those be worse than suicide bombings, and if so, by how much?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

invasion by martingale (4.00 / 1) #51 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 06:08:01 AM EST

Except if you have nukes of your own, you get nuked then invaded. Deterrence works for others too: North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel.

About suicide bombings, they're not as bad as that. I'd rather die together with a smelly suicide bomber than die from a missile remotely controlled by a fat soda pop drinking youth in a bunker in Ohio, in between two mouthfuls of a cheeseburger.

Then again, I'm not at war, so I'll just walk in front of a lorry when the time comes, shall I?
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

A very interesting piece of history. by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #54 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:14:05 AM EST

But anyway, back to that question that I asked. I live in Soviet UKistan in 2006. Who is going to invade me? Who is going to nuke me?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: who by martingale (2.00 / 0) #56 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:33:39 PM EST

USA (unstable regime). Russia (don't like NATO). India (colonial miscontent). Pakistan (xtian bastards).
On the plus side, I think China is too far to care.
Of course, the UK won't be nuked, because it has nukes.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

So, £50 billion then? by Rogerborg (4.00 / 3) #7 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:25:03 AM EST

Solution.

Get rid of the Cold War era submarine based fleet.
Build loads of mini-nukes disguised as Tizer vending machines.
Ship them to various dusty asspits and plug them into the local power and intarwebs, safe in the knowledge that nobody will ever, ever try and use them.
If we're bothered by terrorist riff-raff, log on to https://www.wheredoyouwanttonuketoday.gov and get clicking.
Spend the difference on space research, by which I mean, a moon based rock flinger, before the North Koreans get there.
Give me a pony for suggesting this.
The pony should have Alyson Hannigan on it.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

8. Dressed like Lady Godiva. by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:38:45 AM EST

Or is that implied?

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

It's INFERRED by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #24 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:47:45 AM EST

I was thinking more of a rubber catsuit, maybe something in a nice deep purple.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Purely out of interest, by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #26 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:53:01 AM EST

You know, when someone takes off a rubber catsuit, is it, you know, fresh down there? Because it always struck me it may be a little, well, sticky.

[ Parent ]

Talcum powder [n/t] by Herring (4.00 / 1) #28 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:40:28 AM EST

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

^^^^^ by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:59:59 AM EST

What he said. Apparently they went through a metric assload of the stuff while filming Oops!

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Assloads? by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #41 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:13:26 PM EST

Oops, wrong hole.

[ Parent ]

: Used advisedly by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:39:54 AM EST

For all the attention of La Spear's rack (before she became a genuine porker), I always had a soft (*) spot for her caboose.
(*) Metaphorically.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

EDIT REQUESTED by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #32 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:25:36 PM EST

https://www.wheredoyouwanttoglowtoday.gov

Good job I didn't get that right the first time, or my head might have nukesploded from joy.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Laughable concept by Herring (4.00 / 4) #13 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:07:05 AM EST

"Independent nuclear deterrent".

Since Maggie signed an agreement with the US that we're not allowed to use them without their permission.

For the same amount of money, we can probably kill more people with the NHS IT programme. Or intimidate more people with the ID cards programme.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey

: In theory they are independent by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #14 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:16:27 AM EST

According to the Nassua Agreement. In practice considering the fact that we don't actually own the missiles and are reliant on GPS for targetting, I doubt that it is trully independent.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHA WIPO: by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #17 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:49:29 AM EST

Keep the Trident, give us back our nukes.

Yes, ours. Look it up.

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!

UK Nukes by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:12:55 AM EST

My understanding was that the British scientists at Aldermaston had to reverse engineer the US Trident nuclear warheads with the Americans giving guidence on whether they were on the right lines to get around the US law on nuclear technology transfer.

[ Parent ]

Nukes on your Tridents: by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 03:14:27 PM EST

They're on loan to you.
In fact, they're brought back to King's Bay, Georgia for regularly scheduled maintenance.

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

Other way round by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:06:21 PM EST

The missiles are sent back therefor maintenance. In fact they operate a common shared pool of Trident missiles. I researched all this for my degree. The bombs are manufactured in the UK in Aldermaston as the US military is not allowed to transfer bombs straight to foreign militaries by law.

Britain has the technical capabilty to build the bombs no problem as it has built H-bombs since 1950s, it's the delivery system that is the difficulty hence the deal.

I'm afraid to ask the nature of your degree. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:35:36 PM EST

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

Also, let's split hairs. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:04:08 PM EST

The ~~missiles~~delivery systems are on loan, the explody bits are yours.

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

if the US was smart by martingale (4.00 / 1) #46 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:54:02 AM EST

then the missiles would be on pay as you go end user license.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

: Consider yourselves lucky by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #57 Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:50 AM EST

...they're not on a sub-prime mortgage
Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]

Where do you want yours? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:26:46 PM EST

Round the back, or shall we try getting it down to the basement?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

a terrorist group who would not be deterred by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:40:16 AM EST

I dunno. Islamic Jihad is supported by Iran, so I doubt they would use nukes on anyone who could retaliate.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}

I beg your pardon by motty (4.00 / 2) #25 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:59:58 AM EST

Are you seriously suggesting that the Islamic Jihad folks sit around saying 'Oh no, we couldn't possibly do that, the Brits have nukes?' I know it's terribly easy to mistake terrorist organisations for whole countries, and 'retaliate' against the latter when hit by the former, but let's not make a habit of it, shall we. Quite apart from anything else it isn't exactly an effective strategy.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T
[ Parent ]

: It sure is fun though. by garlic (4.00 / 1) #27 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:57:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Surely ... by Herring (4.00 / 1) #29 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:44:28 AM EST

this whole threat of retaliation thing assumes an adversary who thinks rationally. This may not be he case.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

No, see, it makes perfect sense by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #34 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:29:16 PM EST

If you die in battle against the infidels(*) you get m4d s3xx0rz from 72 virgins for eternity. It's written down in a book, so you know it's true.

(*) Or get bitten by a snake or just fall off your horse and smack your head on a rock, LOOK IT UP.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

I've probably asked this before by Herring (4.00 / 1) #35 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 02:54:23 PM EST

but does it specify that these virgins are female? We might be talking about 72 Lunix fanboys.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

They're ripe and delicious by Farmgirl (4.00 / 1) #37 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 03:31:52 PM EST

Shh, don't let this get around or it'll ruin my Haliburton investment.

I can't be bothered to change this sig.
[ Parent ]

: I TOLD YOU TO DIVERSIFY, BITCH by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 04:47:48 PM EST

Get out of my portfolio.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Actually this is the right time to discuss it by LinDze (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:19:21 PM EST

ISTR that your defense dept estimated 15 years to design and deploy a Trident replacement. With the first gen of Tridents reaching EOL around 2024 youll have to make a serious decision by 2008ish.

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei

Tsk by DullTrev (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:44:24 PM EST

Brown is seen by the city and middle England as being a bit too left. Left wing MPs in the Labour Party get het up about nuclear weapons. Solution is to have Brown say we should keep weapons.

What, you thought this was about defence? It's politics, man, politics.

--
DFJ?

Don't think by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #47 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:58:22 AM EST

His main problem is being perceived as left wing by "middle" England, more like he's perceived as a dour, humourless, Scottish git very much associated with current govt's failures.

[ Parent ]

: him and rogerborg both. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:12:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Possibly by DullTrev (2.00 / 0) #55 Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:13:34 AM EST

But he was as much an architect of New Labour as Blair - his instinct is to attack the left to gain wider credibility.

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]

Pretensions To "Great Power" Status? | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback