 |
Oh-oh. If Brits have Emma Peel and nukes Limeys might conquer the world! |
Posted on 06/22/2006 9:35:05 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Do UK nukes make military sense?
By Rob Watson
Defence and security correspondent, BBC News
There is no doubt Chancellor Gordon Brown has set off a major ideological debate within his own, once avowedly, anti-nuclear Labour Party.
But what are the military arguments for and against Britain retaining an independent nuclear deterrent?
Nuclear submarines are based at Faslane on the Clyde
Perhaps the first question to consider is why this is an issue now.
At the moment Britain has 16 Trident missiles, based on four nuclear submarines, providing a total of 200 warheads.
The problem is that the missiles will reach the end of their operational life by the year 2024 and it is argued by some experts that a decision is needed now to allow enough time to replace the system, if indeed Britain is to retain a nuclear weapons capacity.
The arguments against doing so run something like this:
It is said by some critics Britain would not really have an independent nuclear deterrent because it would rely on the US for operating and maintaining any new system, just as it has with Trident.
And then there is the cost, estimated at anywhere between £12bn and £25bn, which not surprisingly some would rather see spent on things such as schools and healthcare.
The most pointed military argument against replacing Trident however is that it is hard to see Britain ever using a nuclear weapon independent from the US.
The point being that, while it is conceivable to imagine a confrontation with a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran for example, it is very hard to imagine Britain having to go it alone without the US.
And what use would nuclear weapons be against the asymmetrical threat posed by international or domestic terrorism?
But there are also powerful arguments for it.
What many military analysts believe, including Dr Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is that ultimately retaining an independent nuclear weapons system is an insurance policy against the unknown, and a reasonably priced one at that.
With countries like North Korea and Iran presumed to either have or be determined to acquire nuclear weapons and others such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia nursing such ambitions, Dr Willett argues this is not the time for Britain to be getting out of the nuclear game.
Then there is the political and diplomatic argument - that it is vital for Britain to maintain its big power role in the world, including its permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and its status within the European Union and with the US.
As to the independence of the deterrent from the US, supporters say though it is true any system would likely be acquired from America, its use, like the existing Trident, would be controlled by Britain.
In many ways these are arguments that have been rehearsed over and over again since nuclear weapons were first invented and proliferated around the world.
Does the possession of a nuclear arsenal deter potential foes from attacking you or is their use so inconceivable as to make them in the end a poor deterrent?
"The United Kingdom probably does not need nuclear weapons, and could actually encourage other middle or small countries from acquiring such weaponry. Simply because the United Kingdom is currently a strong ally of the United States is not a reason for supporting them having such weapons."
Kind of like the same thing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (of whom Blair was a member back then)was saying around 1984 when it was advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament (along with the Labour party at the time;one of the reasons it was kept out of power for 18 years): if we give up everyone else will.
We'll have to wait and see won't we? The past is not necessarily a guide to the future. I do know we've just let in over 300000 Polish/Eastern Europeans in which people on here view as a positive (well, maybe not the unpronouncable surnames!)
Whenever this subject comes up in the news (whether we should have them/replace them, whatever) all the people against our nuclear deterrent come out with some reason or other such as there is no threat (the Soviets were supposed to be no threat in the early Reagan/Thatcher years), there's no threat now etc. The antis are against them full stop. I am surprised the BBC showed an opposing viewpoint in favour of them on this occasion though.
That's pretty.
How about a source?
But even by this rather dubious graph of yours, it doesn't back up your claim that Muslims will be in the majority by the end of the century.
Population growth among minorities tends to start to mirror the rest of the country much sooner than you think.
Remember the similar extrapolations in the early 1990s projecting similar extrapolations on AIDS statistics. They just weren't borne out...
If the UK gives up nukes, that does not change the desires of Iran. The only nation, which may pay attention is Brazil. However, I would note that North Korea ploughed ahead with its program despite South Africa and many ex-Soviet countries giving up nukes.
You could sling a few Tomahawks on a Nimrod.
I think the RAF is planning to modify their Nimrods to deploy Storm Shadows.Air Launched Tomahawks are not in use by anyone.
'Unless you would like to be the one taking a knife to a machinegun fight!'
In the assault on Port Stanley during the Falklands War, the Scots Guards took a bayonet charge to an Argentine machine gun fight and won. . . . . :D
'By the end of the Century Britain will be a majority-Muslim nation. Do we want the Ayatollah Londoni, the head of the Islamic Republic of Britain to have an independent nuclear force come then?'
Won't be a problem because by then the Mexicans will have taken over the US and will get along just fine with the muslims.
LOL - you should see the same made up graph for the US - Spanish willbe the official language by 2024!
Cavalry. Calvary is a hill of some note. Cavalry are mounted soldiers.
You need to buy them some vowels.
'But even by this rather dubious graph of yours, it doesn't back up your claim that Muslims will be in the majority by the end of the century. '
I wouldn't worry Propertius - the CIA Factbook shows the UK to be 92.1% white anglo-saxon and celtic, the US figure is in the high 60's with latinos making up most of the rest. The US will disappear culturally and politically a long time before Britain does. Tenga un día agradable!
Absolute nonsense
Just because you give up the SSBNs doesn't mean giving up nukes. Instead of replacing them the money might be better spent on SSNs with nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That would give them more flexibility.
Actually one of the options for Trident replacement is pretty much like what you said!!It involves modifying soon to be built Astute Class SSNs with a small VLS section to carry N-tipped cruise missiles or the new IRBM which the USN appears interested in.
Why??? Were they starving to death?
Couldn't they wait till somebody with some ammo showed up?
Were the Argentinians blind stinking drunk?
|
Oh-oh. If Brits have Emma Peel and nukes Limeys might conquer the world! |
LOL! Good point.
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.