There are various questions to which we might give varying combinations of answers and I think need to be disaggregated:
1. Do we need a nuclear deterrent?
2. What or whom are we deterring?
3. Would the UK ever authorise a first strike (we don’t need to broadcast the answer to that but we do need to know what it is)?
4. Is there a case for re-acquiring a tactical nuclear capability?
5. If we think we should have a strategic nuclear deterrent, how much are we willing to pay for it, or is it so vital in geopolitical terms that it’s tantamount to “money no object”?
6. What would be the political and strategic effects of giving up nuclear weapons?
7. What items or materials must we preserve within sovereign capability?
8. How does the possession of the deterrent not merely support immediate survival through deterrence against nuclear strikes but sit alongside a broader picture of British national interests?
While the author seems to demonstrate useful competence in the field of weaponry, the following suggests that this is not matched by much political understanding.
"As Russia has demonstrated its willingness to attack its neighbour in Ukraine, China is rapidly increasing its nuclear stockpile..."
The comment about Russia is wilfully, even spitefully misleading; and of course China is seeking to protect itself by creating a credible retaliatory capability against the USA, which has 1,670 deployed warheads (with another 3,607 in reserve) compared to China's 24 (with another 576 in reserve).
"...the current Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was himself a human rights lawyer and worked to strengthen international law during his career before formally entering politics".
And now works to weaken and override international law in favour of the USA's "rules-based order". (In which they make the rules, own the bases, and order everyone else around).
"Whether Britain would actually use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on a NATO member is debatable..."
I myself find it utterly unbelievable that any British decision-makers would order a nuclear strike in the knowledge that they themselves would be vaporised no more than 30 minutes later.
Actually, under any circumstances whatsoever, including the Russian army occupying all of Europe's capitals and Washington, DC. Although even if the UK did not launch, any US launch would also bring devastating retaliation to the UK. Thus London has achieved the very worst of all worlds: the maximum risk and expense with absolute no benefit.
I am inclined to believe Michael Portillo's version:
'The post-war Labour government spent vastly more on defence than on the welfare state partly in an attempt to give Britain influence. Whilst it was deciding whether the UK should also develop an independent nuclear deterrent, the foreign secretary Ernest Bevin arrived back from demeaning negotiations in Washington. “I never wish to be spoken to like that by an American again,” he said, “Britain must have the bomb”'.
"The UK is the only country with which the US shares nuclear warhead designs, submarine propulsion technologies, ballistic missile systems, enriched uranium and tritium stockpiles, and nuclear test data".
Other than Israel - wittingly or unwittingly, intentionally or unintentionally.
A reassessment of global security is long overdue!
https://open.substack.com/pub/ozzeren/p/the-simple-reason-why-nato-can-not?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3aajie
The solution is to buy U.S. nuke subs while breaking away from U.S. goals to make China our enemy.
Nuclear deterrence has prevented Soviet missiles so far and that gives deterrence credibility.
You know the U.S. nuclear Navy is no longer under Admiral Rickover.
Under Rickover nuke sub officers were elite, the top one percent.
Now, I hear the U.S. Navy has to actively recruit officers for submarines. They are no longer the selected few.
Hopefully soon, we will make ballistic missiles obsolete, and therefore no longer need deterrent forces.
Fantastic article.
It looks , from this article , that the UK will NOT be the second nuclear-armed muslim state , after all . Phew .
Well, THAT'S a stupid comment!
France IS a nuclear armed State and has twice the Muslim population of Britain. Might be worth checking facts before talking crap.
There are various questions to which we might give varying combinations of answers and I think need to be disaggregated:
1. Do we need a nuclear deterrent?
2. What or whom are we deterring?
3. Would the UK ever authorise a first strike (we don’t need to broadcast the answer to that but we do need to know what it is)?
4. Is there a case for re-acquiring a tactical nuclear capability?
5. If we think we should have a strategic nuclear deterrent, how much are we willing to pay for it, or is it so vital in geopolitical terms that it’s tantamount to “money no object”?
6. What would be the political and strategic effects of giving up nuclear weapons?
7. What items or materials must we preserve within sovereign capability?
8. How does the possession of the deterrent not merely support immediate survival through deterrence against nuclear strikes but sit alongside a broader picture of British national interests?
Britain has done a fine job “killing itself slowly”, after all it IS a DEAD empire.
While the author seems to demonstrate useful competence in the field of weaponry, the following suggests that this is not matched by much political understanding.
"As Russia has demonstrated its willingness to attack its neighbour in Ukraine, China is rapidly increasing its nuclear stockpile..."
The comment about Russia is wilfully, even spitefully misleading; and of course China is seeking to protect itself by creating a credible retaliatory capability against the USA, which has 1,670 deployed warheads (with another 3,607 in reserve) compared to China's 24 (with another 576 in reserve).
Not sure how it's misleading, did you think the Russian military got lost and wandered into Ukraine?
"...the current Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was himself a human rights lawyer and worked to strengthen international law during his career before formally entering politics".
And now works to weaken and override international law in favour of the USA's "rules-based order". (In which they make the rules, own the bases, and order everyone else around).
"Whether Britain would actually use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on a NATO member is debatable..."
I myself find it utterly unbelievable that any British decision-makers would order a nuclear strike in the knowledge that they themselves would be vaporised no more than 30 minutes later.
Actually, under any circumstances whatsoever, including the Russian army occupying all of Europe's capitals and Washington, DC. Although even if the UK did not launch, any US launch would also bring devastating retaliation to the UK. Thus London has achieved the very worst of all worlds: the maximum risk and expense with absolute no benefit.
I am inclined to believe Michael Portillo's version:
'The post-war Labour government spent vastly more on defence than on the welfare state partly in an attempt to give Britain influence. Whilst it was deciding whether the UK should also develop an independent nuclear deterrent, the foreign secretary Ernest Bevin arrived back from demeaning negotiations in Washington. “I never wish to be spoken to like that by an American again,” he said, “Britain must have the bomb”'.
- Michael Portillo (Sunday Times, 3/12/2006, http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/articles/art_nipress/special.htm
"The UK is the only country with which the US shares nuclear warhead designs, submarine propulsion technologies, ballistic missile systems, enriched uranium and tritium stockpiles, and nuclear test data".
Other than Israel - wittingly or unwittingly, intentionally or unintentionally.