- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,579
- Reaction score
- 4,685
'm sorry Armageddon is postponed because we've forgotten the code![]()
It's ok....it was 0000 anyway...
'm sorry Armageddon is postponed because we've forgotten the code![]()
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
Don't be fooled, after the first nuclear explosion there will be no way to stop it.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.
The explanation I've heard for Sub-strategic Trident on the US side is "escalate to de-escalate".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.
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.
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.
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."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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.
Exactly. And even ONE Vanguard has enough nukes onboard to remove the Russian leadership.We don’t HAVE to fire first - our SSBNs can fire second.
I hope you will forgive me that I am slightly dubious about that with the current US administration.automatic invocation of Article 5 bringing US nukes into play
Toss coin to overwhelm Moscow ABM(assuming Vanguard can in fact salvo launch)&achieve British part of MAD on key other cities.Exactly. And even ONE Vanguard has enough nukes onboard to remove the Russian leadership.
I hope you will forgive me that I am slightly dubious about that with the current US administration.
US movement of nukes to the UK is a double edged sword....at least.
Very political.
An attempt to dissuade the UK from working with European states on nuclear weapons?Very political indeed.
Perhaps a sign of the US reaffirming it's commitment to old allies, but not supporting further expansion of NATO?
An attempt to dissuade the UK from working with European states on nuclear weapons?
Both and more can be behind this.
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.
Could just be the US planning to move its European-based B61s to the UK, if tensions continue with the Continental allies.US movement of nukes to the UK is a double edged sword....at least.
Very political.
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.
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.
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!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?
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).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!
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.