The Nuclear Deterrent

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,824
Reaction score
5,792
Between 1945 and 1991 the existence of nuclear weapons held by the US and then by the US and Soviet Union prevented their leaders from commiting their forces to fight each other. They did not prevent war as Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan showed, but Soviet and US armies never met in battle.
For nuclear weapons to deter, political leaders need to be rational. A Royal Air Force in 1939 able to flatten German cities would not have detered Hitler from his insane schemes.
Since the Cold War a growing number of individuals and political movements have emerged who do not seem afraid of the use of nuclear weapons.
Faced with such an opponent if your convenional forces cannot defend territory or allies, you may one day be forced to use nuclear weapons before or after they do. We are in a much worse place than Kennedy and Kruschev.
 
I agree that it helped that the leaders on both sides knew the horrors of World War 2.
It is significant that politicians born after WW2 have been much more relaxed about sending young people to fight their wars.
 
uk 75 said:
I agree that it helped that the leaders on both sides knew the horrors of World War 2.
It is significant that politicians born after WW2 have been much more relaxed about sending young people to fight their wars.
Click to expand...
That’s highly debatable and is rather impacted by the specific context of a given conflict and the personalities of particular politicians.
For example Korea, Vietnam, China Civil War, various India/ Pakistan and various “end of empire” and other conflicts short and long were waged at terrible cost by leaders of a generation born before WW2.
And generally speaking those leaders probably had rather more scope to wage ongoing bloody: “messy” colonial-style “small scale” conflicts with more compliant/ “managed” media and other stakeholders than most of their modern equivalents.
And the approx. coincidence/alignment of the end of the Cold War (with increased instability) and the natural generational transfer of power to leaders born post-war leaders is probably more of a significant factor.
 
If I could hand wave all fissile material off Earth's surface to a depth of 300 miles...and put it in a nice lunar reactor system for power beaming...I think more conventional wars would happen-less proxy wars. Commerce is more a restraint now-against attacking China.
 
Neville Chamberlain was attracted to the economic savings to be had if Britain could use the RAF to deter potential opponents instead of building up credible land and naval forces.
Sadly when faced with someone not at all afraid of the impacts of air bombardment Chamberlain revealed he was very afraid.
Postwar British governments were attracted to using nuclear weapons to deter war rather than build up costly conventional forces.
A consensus has existed since 1991 amongst British politicians that a single Trident submarine is a better deterrent than conventional forces able to resist an opponent.
As Ukraine demonstrates day after day we are like Neville Chamberlain deterred by our own deterrent. Sadly we have again found an opponent who is n't.
 
We are certainly in interesting times.

And definitely a series of assumptions underlie the balance and composition of UK military forces.
Assumptions that seem to have fallen apart and may yet fall apart further. From exiting the EU, the China problem, to current events in the East of Europe.

In context of current events, defence is back on the agenda. But in essence my conclusion "we've got your back Poland and Germany " seems the right course militarily. I have a strong suspicion we will fund Polish re-armament, in what might be called the Prussian Option (from a British perspective). Essentially resurrecting a major power on the Eastern side of Northern Europe.

It's arguable the we should increase the Deterrent. Currently reliance on the US is yet another assumption.....

I have a suspicion we may yet see a certain state breach the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As much to prove their weapons work, as to intimidate. This will throw things into stark relief.

And that's always the forgotten element in nuclear weapons. That their lifespan is limited, by the very nature of what they are constituted from. Keeping things working is the hidden task. Unglamorous and dull, but essential.
 
Resurrecting this old thread and hoping to keep it focussed on whether the Nuclear Deterrent still deters?
During the Cold War the US and USSR had a range of nuclear options from battlefield shells and mines to ICBMs.
Since the 1990s the West (US, UK and France) has reduced the variety of nuclear weapons considerably. Growing accuracy and potency of conventional weapons has contributed to this.
But NATO continues to be a nuclear alliance. Its ability to wage a long conventional war remains as limited as it was in the Cold War.
The only nuclear weapon available to NATO in Europe is the US tactical nuclear bomb (Mk61?) stored at various airbases.
The UK retired its own WE177 weapon in favour of a reduced yield Trident warhead.
Even during the Cold War British General Carver expressed doubts about how NATO could actually use its nuclear weapons.
France had perhaps the most cogent nuclear portfolio. By the 1980s a combination of SLBMs and MRBMs backed up Mirage IVA bombers while Jaguar and Mirage aircraft had tactical AN52 bombs and the French Army had Pluton battlefield missiles. This force had one aim, to "dissuade" Warsaw Pact forces from crossing the Rhine into France.
No evidence has emerged to suggest that Soviet planners were dissuaded.
From the parochial British point of view it is hard to see at what point a British PM would order use of Trident. To do so would invite destruction of London and other British cities at worst or key British military targets at best. For both the PM and the RN having to use Trident would be the biggest failure of British military policy since the Battle of Hastings.
 
The realm of nuclear weapons use, is inherently exceptional. It's not easy to envision use under 'normal' conditions.

Consequently it's not easy to debate this, because all such scenarios of use be 'unlikely'. So it's easy to throw out phrases like "that wouldn't happen" or "would be self defeating to use it".
But such statements be based on the normal. Not the exception.

UK weapons be 'most likely' used after the UK has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Summed up by the phrase...
Revenge from beyond the grave.

The second most likely is under circumstances where the UK has no option left but to trigger armagedon itself. Summed up by the phrase...
Let us all burn together (subtext: you will not escape the consequences of our defeat).

From there we peek into the mad world of limited exchanges and if we're sane come back the simpler cleaner world of armagedon.
 
I seem to recall a R4 programme about the 'letters of last resort' and the most recent ones the programme's makers had access to were Callaghan's ones. Once again from memory, he wrote something along the line's of "If Northwood is gone and if you feel it will gain anything; you have your targets. Failing that, place yourself under the command of the RAN and if you really must, the USN". Sorry if memory is inaccurate....

There was also another anecdote wherein a submariner said that the end of the world felt like 16 small shudders felt through the deck.

And on that cheery note, evening everyone! ;)
 
zen said:
The realm of nuclear weapons use, is inherently exceptional. It's not easy to envision use under 'normal' conditions.

Consequently it's not easy to debate this, because all such scenarios of use be 'unlikely'. So it's easy to throw out phrases like "that wouldn't happen" or "would be self defeating to use it".
But such statements be based on the normal. Not the exception.

UK weapons be 'most likely' used after the UK has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Summed up by the phrase...
Revenge from beyond the grave.

The second most likely is under circumstances where the UK has no option left but to trigger armagedon itself. Summed up by the phrase...
Let us all burn together (subtext: you will not escape the consequences of our defeat).

From there we peek into the mad world of limited exchanges and if we're sane come back the simpler cleaner world of armagedon.
Click to expand...
Currently the UK weapons would be used automatically if a nuclear bomb goes off within or above the UK, this was decided by a full House of Parliament vote. I don't know if a 'first strike' is possible but I suspect it would need another full vote or, at the very least, a (war) cabinet decision.

SRJ.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom