Giving up Britain's Nuclear Deterrent

[uk 75]

Sorry about the title.. What I am trying to think through from the many times we have discussed aspects of the British Nuclear Weapons programme is from the technical point of view rather than political or financial standpoint when would have been the best moment to give up the Deterrent.
The first moment seems to be the 1950s.when the US and Soviet Union deploy the first Hydrogen Bombs..Britain was still trying to get its A bombs into service. By not developing H weapons for the RAF and gradually removing the early Atom Bombs in the early 60s once it clear that V bombers can no longer get to Moscow etc.
The second moment is the cancellation by the US of Skybolt. Instead of going for Polaris the UK could have decided to phase out its bombs along with the Thors by 1965.
The final moment is the decision in 1979 to buy Trident. Instead the Polaris boats could have left service gradually up to 1995.
Whether these decisions could have been made politically is obviously doubtful but the opportunities were there.

 

[zen]

Probably the first instance is the most likely. Though arguably if the UK hadn't been excluded out of Manhattan.....

 

[Dilandu]

Probably the first instance is the most likely. Though arguably if the UK hadn't been excluded out of Manhattan.....

But psychologically most improbable; in 1950s nearly everyone were absolutely sure, that nuclear weapon would gradually replace conventional even in local conflicts.

 

[martinbayer]

What would be the rationale for the UK taking that step?

 

[uk 75]

What would be the rationale for the UK taking that step?

I hope I have made it irrelevant by limiting the issues to technical ie options in line with the theme of this site. We all &&&_dy well know what the political and economic rationales might have been as they are still discussed ad nauseam today.

 

[uk 75]

Probably the first instance is the most likely. Though arguably if the UK hadn't been excluded out of Manhattan.....

But psychologically most improbable; in 1950s nearly everyone were absolutely sure, that nuclear weapon would gradually replace conventional even in local conflicts.

which part of only technical not political or economic reasons did you not understand. Of course it was b&&&&dy impossible that is why this is in alt hist.

 

[Orionblamblam]

which part of only technical not political or economic reasons did you not understand. Of course it was b&&&&dy impossible that is why this is in alt hist.

Calm yourself. You're getting so upset you seem to have forgotten how to type "blooody." At least that's what I think you tried to type, but with four ampersands between the "b" and the "dy," it could be something else, I suppose. "Boobedy," perhaps? Angry Englishisms are strange and unusual.

 

[uk 75]

fair point. But it did seem interesting to discuss the technical reasons which might have weighed in at these points.

 

[Orionblamblam]

fair point. But it did seem interesting to discuss the technical reasons which might have weighed in at these points.

Well, you're dealing with humans here. And you can't tell humans "contemplate this massive change to the timeline, but only contemplate this one specific aspect that *I* want to discuss, never mind the much, MUCH bigger implications" and expect everyone to fall in line.

You might want to keep the focus that narrow, but other people won't. The wider issues here are obvious and fair.

 

[uk 75]

fair point. But it did seem interesting to discuss the technical reasons which might have weighed in at these points.

Well, you're dealing with humans here. And you can't tell humans "contemplate this massive change to the timeline, but only contemplate this one specific aspect that *I* want to discuss, never mind the much, MUCH bigger implications" and expect everyone to fall in line.

You might want to keep the focus that narrow, but other people won't. The wider issues here are obvious and fair.

I can and have. If people here then want to raise political issues I will leave it to the moderators to weed any pointless tirades.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I can and have. If people here then want to raise political issues I will leave it to the moderators to weed any pointless tirades.

It's hardly a "pointless tirade" to ask "how did the situation evolve, what was the POD." And then to debate whether that was even possible, or how it might have happened. "A cat was elected President of the United States in 1997. Discuss what that would do to the litter box situation in the West Wing of the White House. Don't ask how it happened in an off-year election."

 

[uk 75]

I think if you read what you have just posted you will have the answer to your own question..I suggest a virtual beer or two might be in order.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think if you read what you have just posted you will have the answer to your own question..I suggest a virtual beer or two might be in order.

I suggest you read it again. There was no boobedy way you could read a "political issue" into that. or even a question when it was a statement of fact.

 

[uk 75]

Reagan: 'There you go again' - CNN Video

Ronald Reagan chuckles as he delivers what proved to be a devastating one-liner in response to Jimmy Carter.

edition.cnn.com

 

[alertken]

The purely "technical" A is: "at any of the new-spend points, Ministers might have told Staffs to delegate AW to US and spend resources on (even) more conventional capability" (my oft-blather abour Task/role-sharing with Allies). So, e.g:
1955: PM Churchill, then Eden: shall we try fusion? No, too hard;
1958: PM Mac: we have access to US Art+Article in the MDA: so bank it for now, come back later, maybe, produce Red Beard, then pause;
1960: PM Mac: after chopping any Blue Steel beyond Mk.1, we...could have let MBF gently expire.
Both R.Moore and M.Jones have Mac as accepting Skybolt and planning then to let UK Deterrence gently expire, circa 1970.
1963: PM Mac, then Home: we reject solo-Skybolt, Hound Dog, MLF babel-manning (Monty: "poppycock!"), decide we add nothing to USN's boomer fleet, so we let MBF/Blue Steel/Yellow Sun gently expire.
(May I comment this has much in its favour, and it is (IMHO) much to the credit of PM H.Wilson that he continued to spend on Polaris).
1970: PM E.Heath, finding the £/$ black hole of Chevaline could have said: let Polaris A3T gently expire, and similarly:
1979: PM Lt Callaghan (RN) deciding not to lobby Lt/submariner-engineer Carter(USN) for Trident C4.

So: if Skybolt had been retained in USAF's ample quiver...Mac's successor, Home, ANOther Tory, or H.Wilson, circa 1967, £ devaluation (the £ in your pocket) could have let MBF gently expire. I think this is the most credible A to OP's Q.

 

[uk 75]

alertken thank you for understanding what I was driving at.
The renewal points involved both leaps in spending and technology. As I hoped he might, Alertken has listed them concisely and accurately.
The cancellations that do occur Avro suoersonic bomber Blue Streak, Skybolt and the fifth Polaris sub of course also had political factors but I think the technical issues also loomed large.

 

[zen]

Not being excluded from Manhattan, would imply US supply of nuclear weapons. Though in turn UK input on weapons safety would not be a bad thing.....

In turn UK contributions would primarily be research and components. Along with civil power generation.

Effectively this would make withdrawal from retention of nuclear weapons for RAF use an easy move, even retaining involvement in the Anglo-American nuclear research effort.

Weird possible consequences of that, beyond the obvious acquisition of say B58 Hustler or A5 Vigilante. B68 instead of TSR.2?

Skybolt does seem a strong POD, but it only works if US don't cancel it.