Posted on 02/15/2015 5:51:33 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
REPLACING Trident with a nuclear deterrent dropped from the air would save up to £13 billion for priority defence equipment spending, a think-tank has claimed in a new report.
Trident nuclear submarines at Faslane are an “expensive and excessive” solution to the UK deterrence requirements and would have been ineffective even during the Cold War, CentreForum said in its analysis.
Instead, the UK’s forthcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighters – a stealth aircraft bought for conventional missions – should be adapted to deliver a “minimum nuclear deterrent” based upon a stockpile of 100 British built B61-12 nuclear bombs, the “independent liberal” think-tank stated.
The proposal echoes that of the Royal Air Force’s V-force of the 1950s and 1960s, when the UK’s nuclear deterrent was carried by Valiant Vulcan and Victor bombers.
Nationalist politicians have made the replacement of Trident in the next parliament a key election issue, with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon suggesting that the SNP would make the scrapping of the system a condition of propping-up a minority Labour government.
Toby Fenwick, the author of the report, said the cost of an “air-dropped nuclear deterrent” was half the £33 billion estimated cost of replacing the four Faslane-based Vanguard class submarines that carry nuclear weapons.
Mr Fenwick said a government led by Labour or the Tories would face a “tough challenge” to fund the renewal of Trident, which he claimed would put the UK’s defence budget under financial strain.
He said: “Trident is a gold plated solution that risks the modernisation of the UK’s conventional forces. Its advocates need to explain how they can fund their expensive system without doing irreparable damage to the UK forces.
“Our costed proposal provides a credible minimum independent UK nuclear force whilst providing our soldiers, sailors and airmen with the equipment they need.”
CentreForum’s report claimed replacing Trident with an air-dropped nuclear deterrent would “significantly strengthen the conventional armed forces”. It said it would free up funds for a further five Astute-class attack submarines and four Type 26 frigates for the Navy, as well as eight maritime patrol aircraft to fill the gap left by the cancellation of Nimrod aircraft in 2010.
Mr Fenwick added: “Our costed proposal provides a credible minimum independent UK nuclear force.”
However, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman, said a UK Cabinet Office review in 2013 had examined similar proposals for free-fall air bombs, but “judged such a system insufficiently credible”.
A Nationalist MSP also criticised the plan from CentreForum, which he said “misses the point entirely” and would leave nuclear weapons in Scotland.
SNP MSP Bill Kidd said: “Moves to simply replace one eye-wateringly expensive nuclear weapons system with another one misses the point entirely.
“Nuclear weapons are a moral obscenity and the prospect of wasting tens of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction at a time when more and more people are relying on foodbanks is utterly wrong.”
The F-35 is a “strategic bomber” — right — with a 4,000 pound payload and short range “legs”? Sorry, RAF, that doesn’t impress anyone with a brain.
I got a better idea! Why doesn't formerly-Great Britain just totally disarm, and give all its nukes to ISIS! That would be the non-racist and liberal thing to do. Just disarm, and preemptively surrender to ISIS. I mean, hey, they imams need little British white girls to marry, anyway, so they won't blow up England.
The Tridents are still a useful MAD tool. They could destroy an enemy long after their own nation had been rendered ruins. Deterrence rules.
Didn't the people on the dole get bumped off the dole in countries like France once Germany occupied the country?
Erm, we had several real bombers. The likes of the Vulcan (which I saw last year in flight up close, amazing) surpassed anything at the time that even the big two of the US and USSR could produce.
In fact despite appalling govt interference or lack of money and resources at critical times, Britain from 1946 to 1966 produced a list of brilliant technology, military and civilian, that matched and even surpassed the US and USSR.
Given how close the UK is to an Islamic takeover, I’d be happier if they got rid of the Tridents.
It’s a report by a think tank, backed with quotes from Scottish Nationalist agitators, all to do with removing UK nuclear capability from Scottish land in lieu of independence.
There is nothing here that the UK Gov will do.
The Successor (Trident delivery system) subs will be built, the question will be the number; three or four.
Quite spurious by yourself to say otherwise.
There are other questions that could be discussed here, such as the UK MPA (decision coming after the May General Election - read P8 or P1), or increasing Astute numbers at the cost of reduced T26, but I’ll leave that for another day.
But the UK..........oh whats the use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.