Shoud the UK keep its nuclear deterrent?

[easynow]

poll coming up? For me, Yes.

 

[crasher]

No.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

No. The best thing this country could do for itself is rightsize itself.

 

[easynow]

No.

Why?

 

[TomandJerry]

Costs too much money

 

[easynow]

No. The best thing this country could do for itself is rightsize itself.

What does that even mean?

 

[Creaky]

The important word in the poll question is 'deterrent' - if our nuclear arsenal really were a deterrent I would unreservedly vote yes - the simple fact though is that it isn't.

We have insufficient weapons for it to be a real deterrent and even if we increased the number held they would/could never be used without the assent of the USA.

Our current 'nuclear deterrent' is nothing more than a vanity project that costs a fortune.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

What does that even mean?

It means that we should no longer pretend to be a big player. Give up Security Council seat, accept that there is no "Special Relationship" (except when it suits the Americans), stop joining in pointless, unwinable wars and get rid of a nuclear deterrent which costs a huge amount of money that could be better spent.

 

[Camicus]

No get rid

 

[easynow]

It means that we should no longer pretend to be a big player. Give up Security Council seat, accept that there is no "Special Relationship" (except when it suits the Americans), stop joining in pointless, unwinable wars and get rid of a nuclear deterrent which costs a huge amount of money that could be better spent.

And let France be the only nuclear power in Europe? Is that what you are saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

Downing Street Declaration[edit]
The 2 November 2010 Downing Street declaration[4] by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron. The elements of this declaration are as follows.

Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty: The purpose of this is to develop co-operation between British and French Armed Forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment including through mutual interdependence, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation.
Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship: Collaboration on the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of both countries' independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, including a new joint facility at Valduc in France that will model performance of nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety – this will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the UK.
Operational Matters: It was also decided to sign a Letter of Intent, creating a new framework for exchanges between UK and French Armed Forces on operational matters.
Industry and Armaments: It was decided to direct the UK-France High Level Working Group to strengthen its work on industrial and armament cooperation.
Operations and training[edit]
Combined Joint Expeditionary Force[edit]
It was decided to develop a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF) suitable for a wide range of scenarios, up to and including high intensity operations. It will involve all three armed Services: there will be a land component composed of formations at national brigade level, maritime and air components with their associated Headquarters, and logistics and support functions. It will not involve standing forces but will be available at notice for bilateral, NATO, European Union, United Nations or other operations. It will begin with combined air and land exercises during 2011 and will develop the concept before the next UK-France Summit and progress towards full capability in subsequent years. The Force is intended to stimulate greater interoperability and coherence in military doctrine, training and equipment requirements.

Aircraft carriers[edit]
The UK had earlier announced its decision to install catapults and arresting gear on its new aircraft carriers (currently under construction) which French aircraft would be capable of using, creating opportunities for UK and French aircraft to operate off carriers from both countries. Building primarily on maritime task group co-operation around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, the UK and France would have aimed to have, by the early 2020s, the ability to deploy a UK-French integrated carrier strike group incorporating assets owned by both countries. This was to ensure that the Royal Navy and the French Navy would work in the closest co-ordination. The decision to install the catapults and arresting gear was later reversed.

Equipment and capabilities[edit]
They agreed cooperation in the following areas.

A400M support and training.
Submarine technologies and systems
Maritime mine countermeasures
Satellite communications
Air to air refuelling and passenger air transport
Unmanned air systems
A 10 year strategic plan for the British and French Complex Weapons sector.
Research and technology
To continue with their significant R&T co-operation, devoting an annual budget of €50m each to shared research and development, with the aim of increasing this where possible.
To focus on a set of 10 priority areas that will include time critical research support to satellite communications, unmanned systems, naval systems and complex weapons. including new areas of critical industrial importance such as sensors, electronic warfare technologies, and materials, as well as novel areas such as simulation and a jointly funded PhD programme.
Cyber security. France and the UK agreed a framework which will govern their enhanced co-operation in this area, leading to strengthened individual and common resilience.
Counter-terrorism[edit]
To develop co-operation in the following areas:

The early detection of terrorist activities and terrorist recruitment.
The sharing of information on changes in the national threat level.
The prevention of terrorism through nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical and explosive devices, including through the Cyclamen programme for screening traffic passing through the Channel Tunnel;
The protection of our populations and critical infrastructure.
The security of commercial aviation.
Support in building the capacity of countries outside Europe for the fight against terrorism.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I would like to see the UK and France merge its nuclear capability and heavy armaments such as aircraft carriers. We will never be at war with each other and have similar strategic interests and values. It would save vast amounts of money, avoid major inconveniences if and when Scotland becomes independent and seriously irritate Nigel Farage.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

And let France be the only nuclear power in Europe? Is that what you are saying?

Why not? Although chances are they'll have surrendered before they get to push the button, so not much of a deterrent.

 

[beorhthelm]

yes. the question is misdirected, we should be asking in what form should we be keeping the deterent in an active state. as i understand the majority of the cost comes from the submarine fleet rather than the weapon system itself. we should explore alternatives using cruise missle delivered from ship or airborne platforms.

 

[clippedgull]

 

[vegster]

Yes, because we need to be big players... er, even though we can't afford it.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Reminds me of the classic Yes Prime Minister, where Sir Humphrey informed the PM that the reason we had nukes, was not because of the USSR, it was because the French had them

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The important word in the poll question is 'deterrent' - if our nuclear arsenal really were a deterrent I would unreservedly vote yes - the simple fact though is that it isn't.

We have insufficient weapons for it to be a real deterrent and even if we increased the number held they would/could never be used without the assent of the USA.

Our current 'nuclear deterrent' is nothing more than a vanity project that costs a fortune.

So if, say, US politics undertook a change in direction and they went empire building, and decided that they wanted to make the UK a part of their empire (a sort of servant becoming the master thing) would we be able to stop them or simply deter them from doing that with only conventional weapons? (* not saying that they ever would try it) the threat of nukes would surely help prevent this should something similar ever happen.

Get rid of ours and you could have countries like North Korea and other less stable countries developing and getting their own nukes could shift the balance of world power and threaten us too (think of it as the old adage of a knife beats a fist but a gun beats a knife and so on upto nukes, if they have them and we don't, arn't we more likely to have to give in to their demands- - the US can't take on everyone)

Get rid of ours and rely solely on the US and we could potentially become a bit of a puppet on a string to them and could give them greater say in how we run our own country (do things in a certain way or we won't defend you) Nuclear weapons have had a stablising effect on large areas of the world like Europe because without them, the 2nd world war could have very well continued and Russia may have gone on a land grab across Europe, replacing the power vacuum left by the Nazis when a lot of countries wouldn't have been able to put up a lot of resistance (we were dismantling, the US withdrew back to the Pacific / US)

Also, how do you stop undesirable countries from developing their own nukes, by having the threat of destruction if they were to try it and nukes make it more likely that they will cave in and back down rather than risk a war because they know that they can't win that war where they may have been able to do better with a more conventional conflict

 

[5mins-from-amex]

So if, say, US politics undertook a change in direction and they went empire building, and decided that they wanted to make the UK a part of their empire (a sort of servant becoming the master thing) would we be able to stop them or simply deter them from doing that with only conventional weapons? (* not saying that they ever would try it) the threat of nukes would surely help prevent this should something similar ever happen.

Get rid of ours and you could have countries like North Korea and other less stable countries developing and getting their own nukes could shift the balance of world power and threaten us too (think of it as the old adage of a knife beats a fist but a gun beats a knife and so on upto nukes, if they have them and we don't, arn't we more likely to have to give in to their demands- - the US can't take on everyone)

Get rid of ours and rely solely on the US and we could potentially become a bit of a puppet on a string to them and could give them greater say in how we run our own country (do things in a certain way or we won't defend you) Nuclear weapons have had a stablising effect on large areas of the world like Europe because without them, the 2nd world war could have very well continued and Russia may have gone on a land grab across Europe, replacing the power vacuum left by the Nazis when a lot of countries wouldn't have been able to put up a lot of resistance (we were dismantling, the US withdrew back to the Pacific / US)

Also, how do you stop undesirable countries from developing their own nukes, by having the threat of destruction if they were to try it and nukes make it more likely that they will cave in and back down rather than risk a war because they know that they can't win that war where they may have been able to do better with a more conventional conflict

Great post sir.

 

[Southwest Seagull]

No brainer. Absolutely yes.

 

[OzMike]

Yes, just as a deterrent.