Trident

[Hamann Pineapple]

Thats another reason we have a deterrent. To make sure our allies stand to to the agreements they have signed.

Sounds like a protection racket to me, I'll take my chances.

 

[BobKowalski]

The US is unwilling or unable to defend Europe, NATO is fragmented and ineffective, French nukes are under EU control and cannot get consensus when / whether to use them, the Russian military has invaded western Europe, but the EU army can put up only token resistance.

In a preemptive strike, Russian nukes hit London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Belfast and several other sites in Britain. British casualties estimated at 15 million dead, mostly civilians.

Would the PM fire?

NATO has collapsed. The Russian army is marching through Europe unopposed. The French nukes being under EU control is just your EU hate coming through - I mean seriously the French would just tell the EU to fuck off - but okay I'll give you that one. Now so far so good but here is the kicker. Under your scenario Russia is taking Western Europe with token resistance so why the hell would they bother launching a nuclear strike on the UK? Makes zero sense. So far the Americans are staying well out of it so why ratchet up the ante from conventional to nuclear? Furthermore you say French nukes are off the table. Well nuking the UK puts them right back on the table given France is only 22 miles away. The EU maybe slow to decide but mushroom clouds on the horizon and fallout over Western Europe would probably bring a quick consensus.

I get you have gone for a doomsday scenario; NATO collapsing, EU all but gone, Americans out for some unspecified reason but it's still makes no sense to nuke the one country that could retaliate. It also doesn't say much for 'Trident the deterrent' argument. All it seems to have done is put a big bullseye over the UK.

 

[goalmole]

It depends on the PM. Any Tory PM would in a jiffy.
The wargames for this sort of thing would be a proportionate response. Taking out cities of similar scale: Moscow, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg,Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Omsk etc. It only works if any enemy is ssure there would be a response.

If the PM, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary were wiped out retaliation would happen automatically as described previously.

Eventually you get to Mutually Assured Destruction.

BTW casualties would be q lot higher than you state for the targets specified. More like 25m

For me the idea of proportion isn't if they hit 6 of our cities then we hit 6 of theirs. It's more like if they hit 10% of our cities we hit 10% of theirs.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Humour me. How do you know? pm me if its a bit sensitive

Our missiles are operated under NATO authority primarily. The public position is that PM has the final say in theory but has to "consult" with NATO before exercising the use of nuclear weapons. The MoD says there are circumstances where our national interests could be threatened outside the framework of NATO and that the PM has complete discretion in these circumstances.

So let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might apply. Argentina's in a mess economically (which isn't hypothetical) and there's civil unrest. The military are ordered to shoot protestors but refuse and instead mount a coup. To divert attention from their domestic issues they invade the Falklands. They know we'll struggle to mount a conventional response so think they've got the upper hand. But to make sure, they threaten to shoot 50 islanders a week until we cede the islands to them.

Our PM is a somewhat hawkish figure and threatens to retaliate if they do that so they call our bluff and shoot the first 50. The PM, knowing we are incapable of mounting a conventional operation, orders a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires. Do you seriously believe, regardless of anything the MoD might say publicly, that the USA would allow something like that?

 

[BobKowalski]

Would you care to expand on this part of your post. What do you think would happen to the PM if he/she did defy the US and use Trident.

The US would probably bomb the shipyard in Scotland and sink the one sub we have at sea. Acting without American consent would put them at odds with the UK. Confining any fallout of any nuclear conflict to UK/Europe would be their primary concern. This assumes that the US is no longer an active ally in helping UK/Europe overcome whatever unspecified threat we are facing. If they are helping us and still an active ally then consent may be given to use Trident in a second strike capacity but even then they may pressure us not to if it posed a threat of escalation and a threat to US soil.

Essentially my argument is that not getting American consent to use Trident will put us in effective conflict with the US and that is something we will never do. Trident is an extension of the American military and in time of conflict Trident will be under American/NATO control.

 

[smudgedj]

NATO has collapsed. The Russian army is marching through Europe unopposed. The French nukes being under EU control is just your EU hate coming through - I mean seriously the French would just tell the EU to fuck off - but okay I'll give you that one. Now so far so good but here is the kicker. Under your scenario Russia is taking Western Europe with token resistance so why the hell would they bother launching a nuclear strike on the UK? Makes zero sense. So far the Americans are staying well out of it so why ratchet up the ante from conventional to nuclear? Furthermore you say French nukes are off the table. Well nuking the UK puts them right back on the table given France is only 22 miles away. The EU maybe slow to decide but mushroom clouds on the horizon and fallout over Western Europe would probably bring a quick consensus.

I get you have gone for a doomsday scenario; NATO collapsing, EU all but gone, Americans out for some unspecified reason but it's still makes no sense to nuke the one country that could retaliate. It also doesn't say much for 'Trident the deterrent' argument. All it seems to have done is put a big bullseye over the UK.

Well of course it's a doonsday scenario, you wanted a scenario where the PM would issue, unilaterally, an order to fire the nukes. I wrote 'In a preemptive strike' for a reason.

 

[goalmole]

Our missiles are operated under NATO authority primarily. The public position is that PM has the final say in theory but has to "consult" with NATO before exercising the use of nuclear weapons. The MoD says there are circumstances where our national interests could be threatened outside the framework of NATO and that the PM has complete discretion in these circumstances.

So let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might apply. Argentina's in a mess economically (which isn't hypothetical) and there's civil unrest. The military are ordered to shoot protestors but refuse and instead mount a coup. To divert attention from their domestic issues they invade the Falklands. They know we'll struggle to mount a conventional response so think they've got the upper hand. But to make sure, they threaten to shoot 50 islanders a week until we cede the islands to them.

Our PM is a somewhat hawkish figure and threatens to retaliate if they do that so they call our bluff and shoot the first 50. The PM, knowing we are incapable of mounting a conventional operation, orders a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires. Do you seriously believe, regardless of anything the MoD might say publicly, that the USA would allow something like that?

They wouldn't, but they wouldn't allow us to do that regardless of whether the missile system we were using was American or indigenously manufactured, and if we weren't that bothered about defying the Americans, we would go ahead and use Trident as we saw fit anyway. It isn't about the missile system as such, it's more about how much leverage we are prepared to cede to the US in the matter of our defence.

 

[smudgedj]

Our missiles are operated under NATO authority primarily. The public position is that PM has the final say in theory but has to "consult" with NATO before exercising the use of nuclear weapons. The MoD says there are circumstances where our national interests could be threatened outside the framework of NATO and that the PM has complete discretion in these circumstances.

So let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might apply. Argentina's in a mess economically (which isn't hypothetical) and there's civil unrest. The military are ordered to shoot protestors but refuse and instead mount a coup. To divert attention from their domestic issues they invade the Falklands. They know we'll struggle to mount a conventional response so think they've got the upper hand. But to make sure, they threaten to shoot 50 islanders a week until we cede the islands to them.

Our PM is a somewhat hawkish figure and threatens to retaliate if they do that so they call our bluff and shoot the first 50. The PM, knowing we are incapable of mounting a conventional operation, orders a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires. Do you seriously believe, regardless of anything the MoD might say publicly, that the USA would allow something like that?

How would they stop it? Once the order is given it's followed to the conclusion.

 

[marco]

i might be well off here but i could never see the UK using them 'the first to push the button' we have them and yes we would use them in a tit for tat situation but at that stage 'the game is over' as there would be incoming nukes from say Russia so taking into account any damage our nukes could create would most likely have no impact on us whatsoever as we would be deceased, let sleeping dogs lie and keep them for the big day 'that's if it ever comes' remember though that sleeping dog is working every day as a deterrent

 

[goalmole]

The US would probably bomb the shipyard in Scotland and sink the one sub we have at sea. Acting without American consent would put them at odds with the UK. Confining any fallout of any nuclear conflict to UK/Europe would be their primary concern. This assumes that the US is no longer an active ally in helping UK/Europe overcome whatever unspecified threat we are facing. If they are helping us and still an active ally then consent may be given to use Trident in a second strike capacity but even then they may pressure us not to if it posed a threat of escalation and a threat to US soil.

Essentially my argument is that not getting American consent to use Trident will put us in effective conflict with the US and that is something we will never do. Trident is an extension of the American military and in time of conflict Trident will be under American/NATO control.

Why do we even have it then? Countries like Pakistan, India are striving to acquire their own independent nuclear capabilities, what the fuck are we doing handing over ultimate control of our defence to the Americans and paying billions for the pleasure. The French don't seem to have a problem developing a missile system independently to the Americans maybe we should think about doing the same.