British aircraft nukes again?

Anyway
Relevant link on fissile materials.
fissilematerials.org

United Kingdom

United Kingdom is a nuclear weapon state member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. In 2010 it made a commitment to reduce the nuclear arsenal to "no more than 180 warheads." In 2015 the United Kingdom officially declared that its nuclear...
fissilematerials.org

According to the official HEU balance, released in 2006, the total audited stock of military HEU was reported to be 21.86 tonnes as of March 31, 2002.
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't expect the UK to go all out like they did in the Cold War with nukes on Sea Kings, Sea Harriers, Nimrods, Frigates etc.

Rather, I'd think they go for a small number of air launched weapons for 'theatre' strikes, to give a visible and more useful in a war-fighting sense deterrent option, compared to the world ending Tridents.
 
Are you talking about a tactical use of British nuclear weapons?

As far as I know, British nuclear weapons were designed and built as a deterrent tool during the Cold War along with significant research into CBRN substances: attack me and we will die together.

Does anyone think it would be possible to station these retaliatory weapons elsewhere to threaten some power unrelated to the survival of the UK?

A couple of nuclear bombs would be enough to turn the British Isles into unhabitable territory... why unnecessarily provoke those who can do it at any time?
 
Justo Miranda said:
Are you talking about a tactical use of British nuclear weapons?

As far as I know, British nuclear weapons were designed and built as a deterrent tool during the Cold War along with significant research into CBRN substances: attack me and we will die together.

Does anyone think it would be possible to station these retaliatory weapons elsewhere to threaten some power unrelated to the survival of the UK?

A couple of nuclear bombs would be enough to turn the British Isles into unhabitable territory... why unnecessarily provoke those who can do it at any time?
Click to expand...

During the Cold War the British, and everybody else, had both tactical as well as strategic nuclear weapons which gave it options for nuclear use at various levels of threat. It was crudely described as; fight with conventional weapons until we're losing, then fight with tactical nuclear weapons until we're losing, then blow up the world.

The thing is this gave deterrence across a broad spectrum of scenarios, as it's not realistic to obliterate the entire Soviet Union over a border incident or a small nuke used in some proxy war or even a small nuke in Europe. Just like now, while Britain apparently has sub-strategic nukes on it's Tridents, but once a satellite detects an SLBM launch I can't imagine the response being 'Dont worry, it's probably a sub-strategic launch', instead it will 'Launch the ICBMs'. I can't imagine the sub-strategic Trident deterrent is realistic the way an aircraft launched missile would be, as there's no mistaking that for anything other than a theatre weapon.
 
Rule of cool said:
During the Cold War the British, and everybody else, had both tactical as well as strategic nuclear weapons which gave it options for nuclear use at various levels of threat. It was crudely described as; fight with conventional weapons until we're losing, then fight with tactical nuclear weapons until we're losing, then blow up the world.

The thing is this gave deterrence across a broad spectrum of scenarios, as it's not realistic to obliterate the entire Soviet Union over a border incident or a small nuke used in some proxy war or even a small nuke in Europe. Just like now, while Britain apparently has sub-strategic nukes on it's Tridents, but once a satellite detects an SLBM launch I can't imagine the response being 'Dont worry, it's probably a sub-strategic launch', instead it will 'Launch the ICBMs'. I can't imagine the sub-strategic Trident deterrent is realistic the way an aircraft launched missile would be, as there's no mistaking that for anything other than a theatre weapon.
Click to expand...
At that time there would have been little that British troops deployed in Berlin could have done against an attack by FOBS missiles entering from the North and South Poles at the same time. The Russians could do this since 1965 with the Yangel R-36.
 
Justo Miranda said:
At that time there would have been little that British troops deployed in Berlin could have done against an attack by FOBS missiles entering from the North and South Poles at the same time. The Russians could do this since 1965 with the Yangel R-36.
Click to expand...

British troops in Berlin would have been engaged by the East German NVA conventional forces, that was part of the WarPac 'deal' so they'd get 'their' city back. There wasn't much expectation that the NVA would push much farther west than that, it was doubtful they'd even make it to Denmark.

Tactical nuclear does provide a lot more flexibility than repurposed sub-strategic. It was generally accepted that the first nuclear use in a Hot Cold War would have been ASW and counter-CVN, tolerable to all sides due to limited collateral effect, and then probably air-delivered tac nuke on bunkers, remote storage yards and forming-up areas. After that it would get dicey.
 
Kiltonge said:
British troops in Berlin would have been engaged by the East German NVA conventional forces, that was part of the WarPac 'deal' so they'd get 'their' city back. There wasn't much expectation that the NVA would push much farther west than that, it was doubtful they'd even make it to Denmark.

Tactical nuclear does provide a lot more flexibility than repurposed sub-strategic. It was generally accepted that the first nuclear use in a Hot Cold War would have been ASW and counter-CVN, tolerable to all sides due to limited collateral effect, and then probably air-delivered tac nuke on bunkers, remote storage yards and forming-up areas. After that it would get dicey.
Click to expand...
Don't be fooled, after the first nuclear explosion there will be no way to stop it.

 

Attachments

  • Guns-of-August-1-600x825.jpg
    Guns-of-August-1-600x825.jpg
    99.5 KB · Views: 4
Its fair to say that noone in NATO really knew what would happen after the first tactical nukes were used in West Germany.
Anyone who suggests otherwise was not there in those days.
A popular paper wargame from the 70s about a war in Germany suggested that anyone wanting to use more than tactical nukes should just set fire to the game.
This stuff really is not very nice.
 
Rule of cool said:
Just like now, while Britain apparently has sub-strategic nukes on it's Tridents, but once a satellite detects an SLBM launch I can't imagine the response being 'Dont worry, it's probably a sub-strategic launch', instead it will 'Launch the ICBMs'. I can't imagine the sub-strategic Trident deterrent is realistic the way an aircraft launched missile would be, as there's no mistaking that for anything other than a theatre weapon.
Click to expand...
The explanation I've heard for Sub-strategic Trident on the US side is "escalate to de-escalate".

Smack something operationally critical with a small nuke to make the other side stop and reassess.
 
uk 75 said:
Its fair to say that noone in NATO really knew what would happen after the first tactical nukes were used in West Germany.
Anyone who suggests otherwise was not there in those days.
A popular paper wargame from the 70s about a war in Germany suggested that anyone wanting to use more than tactical nukes should just set fire to the game.
This stuff really is not very nice.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it's not a rationale to equip a nuclear arsenal with. If you're going to buy/build them you at least need to have a justification as to why.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The explanation I've heard for Sub-strategic Trident on the US side is "escalate to de-escalate".

Smack something operationally critical with a small nuke to make the other side stop and reassess.
Click to expand...

That's fine once the enemy and everyone else gets the trajectory sorted out and the warhead detonates, until then it's a potential 'decapitation' first strike against leadership in order to win the ensuing general exchange.
 
This is all theoretical. One needs the troops as well as nuclear weapons. One needs to occupy the country in question. This talk about a little damage then a lot more damage, all the way up to blow up the world is not realistic. That's why no atomic/nuclear weapons have been used in combat since the end of World War II. Even small/low yield nuclear weapons can't be viewed as conventional bombs.

Let's face it. For Europe, there is only one enemy, Russia. Surveillance has just gotten better. I'm sure Russian intelligence is aware of every bomb and warhead held by the various parties.

So, someone is just going to blow up someone else and that's that? It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to launch anything without prior provocation. A threat would have to occur, followed by a counter-threat, followed by negotiations. No one wants to deal with radioactive fallout. No one wants a return to the "launch on warning" doctrine. A calm assessment of the present threat level posed by Russia and a thorough review of future capabilities and developments needs to be made. Example: how many bombs and warheads does Russia have? What is their current troop strength? And the most important: What are the actions that could be taken by other countries that might provoke them? Russia wants to guarantee its own security too.
 
Rule of cool said:
That's fine once the enemy and everyone else gets the trajectory sorted out and the warhead detonates, until then it's a potential 'decapitation' first strike against leadership in order to win the ensuing general exchange.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I can only see it happening as a "we are going to destroy X location with a Trident Missile launching in about 3 minutes. Last chance to stop this shit."
 
Justo Miranda said:
At that time there would have been little that British troops deployed in Berlin could have done against an attack by FOBS missiles entering from the North and South Poles at the same time. The Russians could do this since 1965 with the Yangel R-36.
Click to expand...
Why would the Soviets waste one of their handful of expensive FOBS missiles on the UK when they could use a much cheaper IRBM from Belarus or Ukraine?

The role of tactical nuclear weapons in the Cold War was to guarantee escalation. A conventional attack in Germany would inevitably lead to nuclear release, which would lead to a strategic exchange. Without the tactical weapons, all the nuclear powers had to do was keep it inside Germany. From Germany's point of view, they're all strategic.

The calculation is slightly different at sea (NDBs are actually useful as a weapon, unlike most other nukes!) but fundamentally similar.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Why would the Soviets waste one of their handful of expensive FOBS missiles on the UK when they could use a much cheaper IRBM from Belarus or Ukraine?

The role of tactical nuclear weapons in the Cold War was to guarantee escalation. A conventional attack in Germany would inevitably lead to nuclear release, which would lead to a strategic exchange. Without the tactical weapons, all the nuclear powers had to do was keep it inside Germany. From Germany's point of view, they're all strategic.

The calculation is slightly different at sea (NDBs are actually useful as a weapon, unlike most other nukes!) but fundamentally similar.
Click to expand...
The FOBS would be the answer to a tactical first nuclear strike in Europe and was designed to attack in low orbit with no possible response time, the Americans had some missile defenses such as the Spartan and the Sprint, but the British did not (as far as I know), and I doubt very much that they would have dared to fire first.
 
The failure of deterrence is due to the removal by NATO of its clear ladder of escalation after 1991.
Putin can fire nukes at European cities to force capitulation knowing that UK and France will not use their SLBM in reply.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The FOBS would be the answer to a tactical first nuclear strike in Europe and was designed to attack in low orbit with no possible response time, the Americans had some missile defenses such as the Spartan and the Sprint, but the British did not (as far as I know), and I doubt very much that they would have dared to fire first.
Click to expand...

We don’t HAVE to fire first - our SSBNs can fire second.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Exactly. And even ONE Vanguard has enough nukes onboard to remove the Russian leadership.
Click to expand...
Toss coin to overwhelm Moscow ABM(assuming Vanguard can in fact salvo launch)&achieve British part of MAD on key other cities.

This is not removal of Russian leadership. And what to do then?
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
I hope you will forgive me that I am slightly dubious about that with the current US administration.
Click to expand...

I believe this is what's behind France's proposal or whatever it is. It's also the reason why I asked the question about British aircraft nukes, as they may also want to follow the French lead.

I've thought for years now that large multilateralism has run its course, things like NATO, EU and WTO are now so large that members no long have tightly aligned interests. I can see the US taking risks for Britain even now, apparently the US is moving nukes to Britain again after 20 years, as they are tightly aligned. I can also see France, Germany and Poland etc taking risks for Ukraine, but not Canada and the US.
 
US movement of nukes to the UK is a double edged sword....at least.

Very political.
 
zen said:
US movement of nukes to the UK is a double edged sword....at least.

Very political.
Click to expand...

Very political indeed.

Perhaps a sign of the US reaffirming it's commitment to old allies, but not supporting further expansion of NATO?
 
Rule of cool said:
Very political indeed.

Perhaps a sign of the US reaffirming it's commitment to old allies, but not supporting further expansion of NATO?
Click to expand...
An attempt to dissuade the UK from working with European states on nuclear weapons?

Both and more can be behind this.
 
zen said:
An attempt to dissuade the UK from working with European states on nuclear weapons?

Both and more can be behind this.
Click to expand...

There is speculation that although refurbished the vaults at Lakenheath won't actually contain B-61/12. Lakenheath is to act as a backup/reserve storage facility for the continental ones. But...Lakenheath is also the location for US F-35A and F-15E in Europe so would also be the main force for the US for tactical deployment.
 
How many can be stored in Lakenheath and how many actually be stored in European members of NATO?
 
uk 75 said:
Its fair to say that noone in NATO really knew what would happen after the first tactical nukes were used in West Germany.
Anyone who suggests otherwise was not there in those days.
A popular paper wargame from the 70s about a war in Germany suggested that anyone wanting to use more than tactical nukes should just set fire to the game.
This stuff really is not very nice.
Click to expand...

Interestingly though the traditional assertions that tactical use on land would inevitably lead to strategic escalation were based on wargaming, in which the players suffered no tangible risk in escalation. But at what point would a real-world player decide to open the silos? Is it possible to keep tac nuke use below that psychological barrier? Or to avoid hitting 'trigger' targets?
 
zen said:
US movement of nukes to the UK is a double edged sword....at least.

Very political.
Click to expand...
Could just be the US planning to move its European-based B61s to the UK, if tensions continue with the Continental allies.
 
Rule of cool said:
I've thought for years now that large multilateralism has run its course, things like NATO, EU and WTO are now so large that members no long have tightly aligned interests. I can see the US taking risks for Britain even now, apparently the US is moving nukes to Britain again after 20 years, as they are tightly aligned. I can also see France, Germany and Poland etc taking risks for Ukraine, but not Canada and the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, my thoughts as well. The UK and France developed nukes because the geopolitical abyss they stared into in the forties convinced them that they couldn’t rely on anyone else. Ultimately would any sane country make a retaliation strike on behalf of another, albeit friendly country, with the likely horrifying consequences?

I reckon we could see a whole bunch of countries developing nukes in quick succession,…..worrying times ahead.
 
It doesn't have to be nukes, just have Europe get its house in order again.

Sadly, Ukraine was a very corrupt country which drastically limited its ability to defend itself. Given the threat for maybe 30 years was being totally overrun by Russia a good course of action would be for Ukraine to get its house in the best possible order to meet that threat. Non corrupt institutions making good use of national resources could have made Ukraine a formidable power, obviously too much for Russia to profitably take on.

A lot of countries in Europe (and around the world frankly) haven't pursued policies that have made them at the very least resilient, if not stronger. Preferring at least to chase the apparently easy money and other 'less concrete' goals.
 
The use of nuclear weapons is too serious a matter to be left in the hands of politicians who are perfectly expendable, as well as their predecessors and predecessors. I believe that the nuclear states have some kind of INVARIABLE foreign policy in this regard, and I am not referring to any conspiracy theory or any shadow government. The guys we see on the news talking about what they don't know are just the paint on the bomb.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The use of nuclear weapons is too serious a matter to be left in the hands of politicians who are perfectly expendable, as well as their predecessors and predecessors. I believe that the nuclear states have some kind of INVARIABLE foreign policy in this regard, and I am not referring to any conspiracy theory or any shadow government. The guys we see on the news talking about what they don't know are just the paint on the bomb.
Click to expand...

In theory in a democracy politicians embody the will of the people and are granted powers on that basis. They are the best option we have to ensure that nuclear weapons policy, strategy and heaven forbid use is discharged with the best outcomes of the people in mind. I don't think giving them to an unelected bureaucrat, military officer or NGO is a better option.

The problem is that in the last 30+ years politicians have been obsessed with the easy GDP figures etc and I don't think they're serious people with leadership qualities doing their jobs seriously.
 
Ainen said:
Toss coin to overwhelm Moscow ABM(assuming Vanguard can in fact salvo launch)&achieve British part of MAD on key other cities.

This is not removal of Russian leadership. And what to do then?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't a missile sub be able to salvo launch? As soon as you launch one missile, every asset in the area is going to be running directly towards the world's largest flare to destroy you!

It just takes the proper lineup for the hydraulics to move as much fluid as flopping hatches requires, and Vanguards have fewer hatches to flop than Ohios.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why wouldn't a missile sub be able to salvo launch? As soon as you launch one missile, every asset in the area is going to be running directly towards the world's largest flare to destroy you!
Click to expand...
No one other than USSR tried it, and there this capability was forced by constant threat to boomers. It's a capability you have to specifically design into the boat (space launches themselves are violent events, and you're offloading big chunk of submarine's displacement in a short order).
Chances that such full salvo will either (1)force interruption, or (2)damage the boat even without even enemy interference (potentially making part of its load temporarily or permanently useless) are quite high.

Also, for smaller nuclear powers, launching full salvo of your only SSBN on patrol leaves your country effectively at a mercy of an opponent(even if it's already a fighting zombie).
In case of extended deterrence, mercy is also extended to those relying on it.

Full salvo as a concept is somewhat viable when you can expect to have >1 boomer in position (or in dispersal bases).
In this case yes, imminent and unavoidable threat to single unit, upon judgement of commander, may force full salvo.

Realistically, full salvos are almost universally impractical for UK and France. Even at a cost of potential immediate counterforce on the boomer itself, and despite full assumption that second tier nuclear power's C&C will not make it.

Scenarios where it's reasonable are truly rogue/mad ones, and are deeply secondary.
While nuclear warfighting is an insane concept, it's a very cold-blooded, calculated insanity.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Someone, presumably in the Starmer government, has been flying kites and floating trial balloons in the British media regarding the possibility of Britain building a new stockpile of tactical/sub-strategic nukes (a baseline number of at least a hundred warheads has been mentioned) using existing designs to among other things replace US B61 freefall bombs deployed in European NATO countries, as well as the setting up of a joint Anglo-French effort to develop and produce new nuclear warheads, SLBMs, and a future SSBN design to replace the now endangered W93, Trident II, and Dreadnought programs.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom