Wednesday 17 March 2021

Defence - against what?

Among the boasting and bluster of our government's defence review published  yesterday the one piece of concrete information seems to be that we are to increase our stockpile of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260.

Given that the US already has 3 800, and that it is inconceivable that we could use some of ours without the co-operation and permission of the US, who I understand control the the delivery system, it is difficult to see the point of our having  an extra 80.  

Maybe it's to appear to be in the same league as France, which has 300 (and their own delivery system) and China which has 320.  Russia has 4 300

It is also difficult to see why we should go to the trouble of replacing, or even maintaining, the four Vanguard class submarines in which the rockets and warheads are housed, with new ones called Dreadnought class, though this is not as expensive as I'd expected: a mere £31bn  for a lifetime of 35 to 40 years.

 This  looks relatively  modest compared with £37bn for a test and trace system over two yeas which, so far, has had no significant effect of the speed of coronavirus.  (A friend has pointed out in a letter to the Guardian  that this amounts to around £350m a week: an interesting figure to put on the side of a bus).

 Even so there are better things, even militarily, on which £31b could be spent.  I have just finished reading "The Changing of the Guard" by a young(ish) author, Simon Akam.  This is a detailed examination of the performance of the British  Army in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent operations there.  

 It does not reinforce the fond boast of the "best little army in the world" skilled from its experience in Malaya and Northern Ireland  in counter-insurgency techniques.  "We are not occupiers in helmets and  riot gear, but  your mates in berets with interesting cap badges, here to help you. Above all we are "not the Americans."'

 Rather our forces were under-resourced, ill-equipped,  badly led. and in both spheres eventuality to be rescued by the Americans.

I know, I wasn't there, but Akam's account seems to be based on a willingness to be sympathetic, and thoroughly documented.

So instead of grandstanding to appear to remain in the big league with nuclear weapons we can't use and a swanky aircraft carrier useful mainly for hosting cocktail parties,  let us equip and train our forces properly for the on-the-ground peace keeping and humanitarian operations for which they are likely to be used.

9 comments:

  1. it is inconceivable that we could use some of ours without the co-operation and permission of the US, who I understand control the the delivery system,

    They don't. They do control the GPS system, which our missiles use for guidance, but as I understand it the missiles also have a back-up guidance system which doesn't depend on the US satellites (but presumably isn't quite as accurate). So there is no technical reason that they couldn't be fired without the co-operation and permission of the USA (of course there could be political consideration, but then there are always political considerations).

    it is difficult to see the point of our having an extra 80.

    From what I gather it's because active missile-defence systems have got better over the last few decades, and are continuing to improve, so in the foreseeable future we will need to be able to launch more warheads to be sure that some of them will get through an opponent's missile shield.

    It is also difficult to see why we should go to the trouble of replacing, or even maintaining, the four Vanguard class submarines in which the rockets and warheads are housed

    Because there is no other way to guarantee a second-strike capability that is anywhere near as cheap.

    The thing about nuclear weapons is that they take decades to make, so you have no idea what the world might be like when they come into service (could someone in 1980 have foreseen the global situation in 2010?), and it's far better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do control the GPS system, which our missiles use for guidance, but as I understand it the missiles also have a back-up guidance system which doesn't depend on the US satellites (but presumably isn't quite as accurate).

      I was wrong: the Trident missiles don't actually use GPS at all. They use an inertial system with stellar-sighting navigation. Even the USA can't turn off the stars.

      The USA does supply gravity and weather data over targets for extra accuracy.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your correction to and clarification of the guidance system. I gather that the delivery rocket, Trident, is manufactured in the US, and those used by the UK are leased rather than owned by us. Hence there are two grey areas as to whether or not the UK could unilaterally launch a nuclear attack without US approval.
      More to the point, though, is to ask under what circumstances the UK would actually want to launch a nuclear attack when the US didn’t. We also ned to ask ourselves in what sense has the UK, over the past 70+ years, been ore protected than such countries as Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia and most of the rest of the world. (I under stand that Canada has made some contribution towards the US deterrent but I doubt that has given them the right to launch it unilaterally.)
      Had we remained in the EU there’s an argument to say that, if the US became grumpy about bearing the whole cost of “deterrence” of behalf of the West, we could have combined with France in order to provide a European contribution. By itself the UK’s puny “independent” force is hardly likely to make much difference to world security. Nor does it add much the British “influence.” I think it is fair to say that both Germany and Japan, and possibly Canada, now carry more international clout than the UK.
      So it is more sensible and useful to contribute to world security by equipping our conventional forces more adequately so that they can more effectively help in peace keeping and humanitarian assistance on the ground.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your correction to and clarification of the guidance system. I gather that the delivery rocket, Trident, is manufactured in the US, and those used by the UK are leased rather than owned by us. Hence there are two grey areas as to whether or not the UK could unilaterally launch a nuclear attack without US approval.

      I can't see any grey areas, let alone two. Which two areas were you thinking of?

      (Yes, the missiles are leased, but once the Royal Navy takes delivery of them they are entirely under British control until they are handed back for servicing).

      More to the point, though, is to ask under what circumstances the UK would actually want to launch a nuclear attack when the US didn’t.

      The most obvious circumstance is if a first-strike were launched against the UK, and the USA was hesitant to get drawn into the conflict by retaliating on our behalf. Yes, obviously Article 5 of the NATO treaty would oblige them to do so, but it doesn't hurt to have our own independent second-strike capability just for certainty — if we had been attacked during the last four years, for example, are we absolutely certain that Mr Trump would have been willing to trade Boston for Birmingham?

      Had we remained in the EU there’s an argument to say that, if the US became grumpy about bearing the whole cost of “deterrence” of behalf of the West, we could have combined with France in order to provide a European contribution. By itself the UK’s puny “independent” force is hardly likely to make much difference to world security. Nor does it add much the British “influence.”

      A credible second-strike capability certainly does contribute to British security.

      I think it is fair to say that both Germany and Japan, and possibly Canada, now carry more international clout than the UK.

      This would be the Germany whose army is so badly equipped they had to use broom handles in place of rifles for a NATO exercise?

      Delete
  2. Can't we just pretend to have a nuclear deterrent? Think of all the money we'd save and who would risk calling our bluff? (I MAY have underestimated our recent governments and they have been carrying on an elaborate pretence all along...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't we just pretend to have a nuclear deterrent?

      It would probably be more expensive to mount a convincing deception (not least because the people you're trying to deceive know how much these things cost and would get suspicious if you seemed to be spending less money on it than it would take) than it is just to build and run the bloody thing.

      Delete
    2. Severn Boar has a point. I have friends who display a picture of a fearsome-looking dog in their window and warn potential burglars to beware of it, but they don't actually have one, or even a cat.

      Delete
    3. I have friends who display a picture of a fearsome-looking dog in their window and warn potential burglars to beware of it, but they don't actually have one, or even a cat.

      But by the time they've bought all the tins of dog food, emptied them down the sink, and put the empties out in the bins; fixed up the shaggy toy on its wheels and pulled it around the neighbourhood on a string yelling, 'Walkies!'; and sat in their front room yapping and barking to keep the entire street awake all night; and done all the other things necessary to keep up the pretence…

      … would it not have been easier just to get a damned dog?

      Delete
  3. BE SMART AND BECOME RICH IN LESS THAN 3DAYS....It all depends on how fast 
    you can be to get the new PROGRAMMED blank ATM card that is capable of
    hacking into any ATM machine,anywhere in the world. I got to know about 
    this BLANK ATM CARD when I was searching for job online about a month 
    ago..It has really changed my life for good and now I can say I'm rich and 
    I can never be poor again. The least money I get in a day with it is about 
    $50,000.(fifty thousand USD) Every now and then I keeping pumping money 
    into my account. Though is illegal,there is no risk of being caught 
    ,because it has been programmed in such a way that it is not traceable,it 
    also has a technique that makes it impossible for the CCTVs to detect 
    you..For details on how to get yours today, email the hackers on : (
    atmmachinehackers1@gmail.com ). Tell your 
    loved once too, and start to live large. That's the simple testimony of how 
    my life changed for good...Love you all ...the email address again is ;
    atmmachinehackers1@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete