Does the UK's nuclear deterrent matter?

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by william walker, May 29, 2014.

  1. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am sure many of you will have heard about the Scottish independence referendum and the possible removal of nuclear warheads, missiles and SSBN's from Faslane. Then England would only have Devonport as a base for the SSBN's. Would this mean England has a less meaningful deterrent than before with two bases or does it make no difference?

    How would it change the US view of England in NATO if its deterrent was less meaningful or if England changed from a submarine based deterrent to a land based deterrent for money reasons? Would Scotland limiting the UK/Englands nuclear deterrent harm relations with the US in any way?
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In practical terms I don’t think they matter at all. They’re like high castle walls in the age of cannon.

    They remain a political tool and something of a penis-extension for those politicians who like to have something to wave about. Given that's a major cause of the recent Scottish independence debate too, I'm sure it'll be part of the game.
     
  3. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you keep the subs, I don't see how your nukes become less meaningful, so no, I don't think it makes any difference.

    I really doubt it; all it would mean in real life is a little shifting around of other assets to cover any 'holes' caused by you moving yours around.

    I don't see how it would; we're very used to countries that make big noises about being all 'anti-war and anti-imperialist n stuff', while hiding under other countries' defenses and sacrifices of blood and treasure, and then crying and running around peeing their pants and demanding protection from the bullies when something hits the fan. See the Philippine govt. for just the latest hypocritical example in a long history of that sort of silliness. Most Americans don't even notice any more.
     
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As long as the number of nuclear armed subs remain the same, I'm not sure it makes that much difference, other than to the logistics of the Royal Navy expanding facilities at the remaining port to handle the extra ships, crew, and associated logistics.

    I don't think the UK nuclear deterrent makes much difference to NATO or US planning, at least as far as I know. However the UK's nuclear deterrent may become more important to the UK in the next few years as the US becomes a less reliable partner.
     
  5. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not talking about wether the UK should have SSBN's or not, rather if only having one base after Scotland leaves the Union will mean England is not as important to the US and NATO strategy. I try and ask other British people but they are bias, the Unionists say it would make no difference at all and the Scottish nationalists say England would have to scrap half its navy because Scotland is so important.

    My most objective view with my very limited understanding of tactics is that Scottish independence means Englands SSBN's would lose unfettered acess to the North sea, making it much harder to cambat the Russians and support Norway and Denmark, unless England build a HMNB on the east coast of England which would be easy to attack for the Russians and less protected from the weather making it harder to service the submarines and keep them operational. This then means England is less important to the NATO strategy and therefore less important to the US. Much of the political reason we have SSBN's rather than land based defensive nuclear missiles is because we want the support of the US, so being less able to bring SSBN's to aid NATO could make SSBN's pointless politically.

    My own view is that this means England should get rid of its SSBN's and replace them with a number of land sites for nuclear missiles. England could afford to keep the SSBN's that isn't the issue, it is more about geo-politics and domestic considerations. I have no doubt at all that the UK should have SSBN's as they are a vital part of NATO and relations with the US.

    I don't really know, I maybe over reading into it?
     
  6. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I don't have any idea how much of your military budget is dependent on Scotland's tax base, but if it were me I would prefer to keep the subs over the land based missiles any day if had to choose one or the other; imo the land based ones make the country even more of a target, while the subs would be a bigger deterrent, just by their uncertainty factor alone.

    Good point. I don't think Russia's Navy is anything you couldn't handle, though. There are other listening posts possible, in any case, though I can't think of why Scotland wouldn't want one around, but I don't know anything about their domestic politics and what sort of nuttery is currently in fashion there. Are the Scottish radicals trying to run off everything or just the nukes, as some sort of silly symbolic 'statement'?
     
  7. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. That's how most would see it.

    Actually it makes a big difference; the UK is a far more reliable contributor than nearly every other country in the Treaty, more willing than most to back up the whole strategy. The rest are rather fickle and easily politically bullied by nearly anybody.
     
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would agree in most aspects of NATO, but I'm just not aware of how the UK nuclear deterrent plays in concert to that. There isn't much public discussion of it anyway.
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly don't think the military leadership of NATO really care about our nukes regardless. I see Scottish independence as a more significant issue for them to the impact it would have on the size and flexibility of the UKs conventional armed forces, something even an independent Scotland also joining/remaining wouldn't entirely compensate for.

    Even if the subs were relevant, I'm not convinced re-homing them is a major factor given how long they stay at sea and how quickly they can redeploy. I'm also sure that, were it to come to negotiations between the UK and Scotland over the details of independence, some kind of free movement for military shipping would likely be agreed. Anyway, though maybe unlikely, it's not impossible for it to be agreed for the subs to stay in Scotland.

    I'm half-English, half-Scottish and a realist. :)
     
  10. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not just the nukes, though; it's their top notch Foreign Service pros and top and mid-level operational military people, all of which still operate regardless of political fashions and whims of the day. From some personal experiences over the years in many places around the world it's far better to go to the local British embassies and consulates or deal with British military people on the ground than it is with our own people when needing some input or aid or other. The vast bulk of American 'Ambassadors' and their aides are utterly ignorant morons and mostly worse than useless.
     
  11. xAWACr

    xAWACr Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    IIRC you have three SSBNs, of which two are in port and one at sea at any given time. If this is correct, I don't see how the loss of Faslane will matter. What I find more interesting is the fact that 'Scotland' is not a member of NATO. Do they plan to apply for membership? If so, will they object to the presence of nukes a la New Zealand? If they don't want any nasty old nukes defiling their country, I don't see any reason to let them in the club.
     
  12. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    4 Vanguard class submarines 1 at sea, 1 on standby, 1 in port and 1 in service or refit. So I guess 3 operational at any given time.

    In my mind Faslane was vital to NATO strategy in the North sea and the GIUK gap. Devonport is in a terrible geographical position to get access to the North sea, either going through the Irish sea, around the west coast of Ireland or through the English channel and up into the North sea. This also has an effect for the SSN's to support Norway and Denmark in the North sea. However the (SNP) Scottish National Party say they would be willing to keep servicing the attack submarines and be willing to operate them from Faslane, but not the SSBN's.

    The SNP say they want an independent Scotland to join NATO, the trouble is they don't want nuclear weapons in Scotland and they don't like nuclear energy either. Much of the nuclear waste that has leaked into the river Clyde according to the SNP doesn't come from the SSBN's which they hate, rather the SSN's which they for some reason don't mind while making the point about nuclear waste. If it was just nuclear weapons they had a problem with then they could be rehoused somewhere else, but it is their convoluted argument that anoys me.
     
  13. xAWACr

    xAWACr Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Haven't you heard? The Cold War is over.:roflol:

    Then screw 'em.
     
  14. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I heard. However the US is cutting huge numbers of submarines, Norway is unsure about a replacement for its submarines, Denmark scrapped its submarines. The Russians are finally starting to morderise and rebuild some what. The UK and Norway have very good and close military ties which could be curtailed by the loss of all North sea bases.

    I couldn't agree more.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I pretty much see this as irrelevant, since even the most supportive polls give this only a 41% chance of passing (most place it in the 30% range).
    And what this has to do with the UK deterrence, I have no idea.
     

Share This Page