UK General Election 2015

[Zaune]

That goes double after all that oil turned up near Gatwick Airport. That makes us actually worth invading if the current shitstorm in the Middle East spirals any further out of control.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That goes double after all that oil turned up near Gatwick Airport. That makes us actually worth invading if the current shitstorm in the Middle East spirals any further out of control.

Is this snark or something I missed on the news?

[Zaune]

Is this snark or something I missed on the news?

Yes.

[Eternal_Freedom]

In that case we should definitely keep Trident. Plus on general principles I'd rather have the damned things and not need them than vice-versa.

[madd0ct0r]

the green party's political broadcast is suitably silly:

[jwl]

I think that four party leaders should actually do that, it would be great. Maybe someone could convince them to have a go for comic relief or something.

In terms of SNP scrapping trident, weren't the lib dems calling for something similar? Also, is spending on trident included in our defense spending commitment to NATO?

[Darth Tanner]

The Lib Dems wanted a cheaper option, the subsequent report however came to the conclusion that ground or air deployed systems would be both infeasible and more expensive than just renewing Trident. Cruise launched from existing attack submarines was out due to both cost and legality issues. The report may have been setup to come to those conclusions though!

I can see us downsizing to give up guaranteed permanent at sea deployed deterrent to save a few billion perhaps.

[madd0ct0r]

ugh. still fighting the cold war. That's what, 5 wars ago?

Trident is an astonishingly inefficient use of resources that is well on the way to fully obsolete. How many years until missile lasers are expected to be ship mounted, let alone land based?

[Zaune]

You have an alternative suggestion? One that isn't vulnerable to being taken out by stealth bombers in the first wave of airstrikes?

[madd0ct0r]

so you are positing

1) someone else attacks the UK, getting first strike in, destroying a good chunk of our defenses/capability
2) A trident sub somewhere launches missiles for our revenge strike
3) their laser dome system shoots down majority of our missiles. Revenge attack does little damage.

is better then

0) we save "the cost of the Trident replacement at £17.5-£23.4bn, including the subs at £12.9bn-£16.4bn":
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... r-election
1) someone else attacks the UK, getting first strike in, destroying a good chunk of our defenses/capability
2) we respond with our reduced capability for a revenge strike
3) their defenses shoots down majority of our forces. Revenge attack does little damage.

MAD dosen't work without the M part. Once missiles are NOT a High probability delivery vehicle (eg due to laser systems or similar) then nuclear missiles are not an effective deterrent and secondary launch capability isn't needed. As I said, Trident is nearly obsolete.

[Darth Tanner]

Laser based defence systems are not really capable of intercepting ICBMs yet and are unlikely to ever offer remotely the covered needed to prevent MAD being a realistic risk against anything but very small numbers of launched weapons, especially from a submarine launch where the start vectors will be unknown. Only America has remotely approached a realistic laser defence system and it remains firmly theoretical and on our side!

Also in your scenario 2 there would be no part 2 - without nuclear capability the UK would have almost no option to retaliate against a first strike attacker with access to nuclear weapons, our conventional forces are never going to be sufficient to cause anyone serious damage in a traditional slugging match, especially not once the large majority of them, including the largest UK cities have been irradiated.

Without it we would be reliant on either America or France taking revenge for us which if the combatant retains its own nuclear capabilities would be pressing it for them to involve themselves.

Of course I'd say its a safe bet the UK could surrender nuclear capability without risking getting glassed by Russia/Iran/N Korea but if you give it up your very unlikely to ever get it back in time if that changes.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Laser based defence systems are not really capable of intercepting ICBMs yet and are unlikely to ever offer remotely the covered needed to prevent MAD being a realistic risk against anything but very small numbers of launched weapons, especially from a submarine launch where the start vectors will be unknown. Only America has remotely approached a realistic laser defence system and it remains firmly theoretical and on our side!

Also in your scenario 2 there would be no part 2 - without nuclear capability the UK would have almost no option to retaliate against a first strike attacker with access to nuclear weapons, our conventional forces are never going to be sufficient to cause anyone serious damage in a traditional slugging match, especially not once the large majority of them, including the largest UK cities have been irradiated.

Without it we would be reliant on either America or France taking revenge for us which if the combatant retains its own nuclear capabilities would be pressing it for them to involve themselves.

Of course I'd say its a safe bet the UK could surrender nuclear capability without risking getting glassed by Russia/Iran/N Korea but if you give it up your very unlikely to ever get it back in time if that changes.

Assuming you could even get it back at all- I'm assuming that regardless of how much Trident would cost to keep/update, it would still be better than having no nuclear weapons and starting from scratch. So unless you get everyone else to give up their nuclear weapons at the same time it's never gonna fly.

I believe that the cheaper option the Lib Dems suggested was to drop from 4 Trident subs to 3. Assuming of course that the 4th sub is merely mothballed and not scrapped it's just about the only way to save money without sacrificing nuclear capability.

IMO it's a very dangerous idea to entirely rely on our allies and shelter under their protection- not least because the only one we can really count on is the USA. I really don't see anyone on our side of the Atlantic rushing to our defense.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Is this snark or something I missed on the news?

Yes.

Given how high energy bills have gotten in recent years (and all the opposition to fracking), discovery of oil on our very doorstep going to be highly beneficial. And if it helps get us out of the financial hole we're in, so much the better.

[madd0ct0r]

Laser based defence systems are not really capable of intercepting ICBMs yet and are unlikely to ever offer remotely the covered needed to prevent MAD being a realistic risk against anything but very small numbers of launched weapons, especially from a submarine launch where the start vectors will be unknown. Only America has remotely approached a realistic laser defence system and it remains firmly theoretical and on our side!

Also in your scenario 2 there would be no part 2 - without nuclear capability the UK would have almost no option to retaliate against a first strike attacker with access to nuclear weapons, our conventional forces are never going to be sufficient to cause anyone serious damage in a traditional slugging match, especially not once the large majority of them, including the largest UK cities have been irradiated.

Without it we would be reliant on either America or France taking revenge for us which if the combatant retains its own nuclear capabilities would be pressing it for them to involve themselves.

Of course I'd say its a safe bet the UK could surrender nuclear capability without risking getting glassed by Russia/Iran/N Korea but if you give it up your very unlikely to ever get it back in time if that changes.

eh, Zaune mandated stealth bombers which are also an all american specialty for the moment. Since we're looking at 5 years + from the present, it seemed reasonable for a country planning to open a war with nukes to have also invested heavily in anti-missile technology research. You are completely right that in my scenario 2 the UK counterattack would be minimal. Not zero, as we have bases around the world and not all conventional weapons would be taken out in the first attack (unless you are positing a truly ridiculous enemy, in which case why wouldn't they also have missile defenses able to absorb 4 subs worth of flights?).
Of course, that leads back to my other scenario where the UK counterattack is also minimal. We gain nothing by keeping the subs operational.

[Zaune]

Frankly, it's the US I'm more worried about than China or Russia, considering 50% of their two-party system has decided "moderate" is a dirty word; if they stay on their present course I reckon Tom Kratman has a look-in as their candidate come 2024.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Of course, that leads back to my other scenario where the UK counterattack is also minimal. We gain nothing by keeping the subs operational.

Well if we counter with conventional forces instead of nuclear, the only difference is that there's gonna be a hell of a lot more casualties on our side, both in terms of personnel and materiel, so from that standpoint having the subs is still the better option.

[madd0ct0r]

So your main argument for spending "the cost of the Trident replacement at £17.5-£23.4bn" is to reduce British armed force casualties in the event of a nuclear war where the enemy gets a first strike via stealth bomber?

[TimothyC]

maddoctor, what is your proposal for maintaining a reliable and survivable British deterrent in the face of a limited lifespan for the Vanguards?

[Captain Seafort]

I believe that the cheaper option the Lib Dems suggested was to drop from 4 Trident subs to 3. Assuming of course that the 4th sub is merely mothballed and not scrapped it's just about the only way to save money without sacrificing nuclear capability.

Under the Lib Dem plan the 4th would never exist - they're talking about only building a 3-boat class to replace the Vanguards.

Frankly, anything short of of CASD is both idiotic and dangerous - it would a) leave us vulnerable to a first strike taking out the entire force in harbour and more importantly b) risk escalating a crisis through the very act of sending a boat to sea. With CASD, sending a bomber out is just routine business as usual. If it's non-continuous that ceases to be so, and might be interpreted as preparatory to a first strike.

[madd0ct0r]

maddoctor, what is your proposal for maintaining a reliable and survivable British deterrent in the face of a limited lifespan for the Vanguards?

I've been reading the mod's gts5 paper for a week or so now but it's 1) 200 pages and 2) my notes have been energy focused. I might start a dedicated thread for it in a bit, but for now I'm going to go with heavy research into laser defense and dedicated supporting power plants that can operate on the national grid the 100% of the time we are not at total war.

[Zaune]

Better missile defences would certainly be nice, but we still need to be able to retaliate; no missile shield is going to be 100% effective.

[madd0ct0r]

Neither is any form of retaliation. Any circumstance where someone sneak attacks us with nukes is one where that country has already committed to a vastly expensive war. If only 1 or 2 of our missile get through their shield that's still a tiny cost in the war overall. Anyhow I need to read up on projected threats.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

An expensive war that is going to be even more so if they're facing nuclear retaliation- and if we have no nukes to retaliate with it boils down to a war of attrition, where our forces will achieve less and die more.

[madd0ct0r]

BUT, and once again i'm having to hammer this point home, if they have a moderately effective shield, then they are NOT facing nuclear retaliation.

Say we estimate that 80% of our bombs will be shot down by their shield system. According to wiki, each trident sub carries 40 warheads at the moment. One sub is typically docked while 3 are out at sea. So that's a total of 120 warheads capable of making the retaliatory strike.
Now, if 80% of them are intercepted, we are left with only 24 missiles - which may or may not be sufficient from your point of view (the 120 is undoubtedly set with some expected interception losses in places already). If you want to make sure 120 get through the sheild to the next layer of defenses (to match current capability), you would need to launch 600 missiles, meaning 15 subs at current capacity. The subs could carry more each, but you'd still need to double or triple the current program.

That's a massive peace time cost the enemy has imposed upon us, that costs us every year. Would anyone care to put numbers to the cost of a war of attrition?

[Crazedwraith]

Figures this thread would only take off when people started talking about nukes. (yes me included there)

Am I missing some great looming nuclear threat though? Who exactly is about kick off the war to end all wars? and how soon are we likely to see superlaser missile defense grids going up everywhere?

Particularly amused at EF quoting Yes, Minister to make his point. When the series particular in its Prime Minister years was very anti-nuke.