Well, except for the fact that ISN’T the ONLY point.
Blowing the fuck outa some asshole enemy has it’s own rewards.
My thinking, as a Brit myself, is that Britain does not need a nuclear deterrent. We are attempting to prevent other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons, and I think that disarming our own would be an important marker that it’s something we’re serious about.
Joking aside, the fact that the French have them should not even be an issue.
Its true that the UK being the second country to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons (South Africa was the first), would be a powerful message. But unfortunately that message would be “you don’t need nuclear weapons as long as your best buddies with the US” rather than “you don’t need nuclear weapons.”
I would retain Trident, and fund any necessary successor system. Having nuclear weapons means the UK preserves a valuable independent deterrent and an important place in the international community. Churchill once said that having nukes is “the price of admission to the adults’ table,” or words to that effect.
These might also be of interest:
I voted to keep the subs, but I’m not even sure about that. It would depend on how effectively they could function as attack subs, whether they could launch non-nuke cruise missiles, etc.
IIRC, the US took a couple of old boomers and rigged them up to carry masses of cruise missiles, maybe a hundred or more. That might be a reasonable use, providing the missiles would be non-nuke and maybe also for anti-shipping strikes.
Correct. See the second paragraph under “U.S. Navy” here: Cruise-missile submarine - Wikipedia
Thanks. I hadn’t recalled they could also be used to launch UAVs, presumably for surveillance, and other things like covert SEAL/SAS infiltration teams. That strike sme as a far more useful platform than a missile boat.
Corbyn was rightly mocked for suggesting keeping the subs, but without the missiles as running the world’s most expensive Uber rides.
Keep the system as it is.
If the United States were to sell the UK several SSBNs of the same type as its Ohio-class replacement, wouldn’t that be best, financially, for the US and the UK?
The US gets to make money off of an arms sale, and the UK gets to save money because simply buying SSBNs from the US off-the-shelf would be cheaper than designing and building a new British SSBN.
Bumped.
Parliament voted by a wide margin on July 19 to fund replacement SSBNs: MPs vote to renew Trident weapons system - BBC News
The nuclear deterrent as a make work program?
Seems reasonable. I have always thought the reason for US allies to have their own nuclear weapons was a suspicion that although the US might be fully ready to retaliate if Washington was nuked they might not be so inclined if London was.