Defence Review

seasideone

Well-known member
I don’t get why we are looking at increasing Nukes by 40%.

I am no unilateralist, and believe if others have them we must.

Yes update them - but surely 180 is enough!!
 
I don’t get why we are looking at increasing Nukes by 40%.

I am no unilateralist, and believe if others have them we must.

Yes update them - but surely 180 is enough!!

Reading between the lines it seems we're cutting back on "conventional" spending - soldiers tanks etc - and funnelling into new areas (Space, Cyber-security and artificial intelligence), but to make sure nobody would think to engage us through conventional methods they're increasing the amount of nukes as a deterrent.

We're in a weird place right now technologically in that wars will probably be fought very differently relatively soon, but we're in transition so at the moment they're having to balance new and old. Some say we're already practically in a state of war against China in terms of cybersecurity.
 
Reading between the lines it seems we're cutting back on "conventional" spending - soldiers tanks etc - and funnelling into new areas (Space, Cyber-security and artificial intelligence), but to make sure nobody would think to engage us through conventional methods they're increasing the amount of nukes as a deterrent.

We're in a weird place right now technologically in that wars will probably be fought very differently relatively soon, but we're in transition so at the moment they're having to balance new and old. Some say we're already practically in a state of war against China in terms of cybersecurity.
Just been reading The Times on this, and I think you sum it up very well.

I also think we are in danger of being left behind with the tech of war and we need to get as tech level as we can - as quick as we can!!!!
 
As our global power continues to decrease as does our military projection power.

There have been many times throughout history where technology has been hailed as the dawn of soliderless warfare, all have proved to be false dawns with boots, tanks and ships on the ground always being required.

Some of the review is eminently sensible, the amour reduction at this point would seem to make sense as defensive technology against drone and static AT weaponry currently lags way behind, look at the conclusions from last years Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

How the Army plans to reduce another 10,000 personal is baffling, and points for me, towards the Army being in all intents and purposes disbanded, the hypothetical culmination would be the Para’s to the airforce and the Rifles to the Marines. That’s something which is now not out of the realms of possibility.

As our power projection shifts would that actually be the worst thing? Perhaps not. But time and again this country has needed to call on its Army just as it’s hit its lowest point, history doesn’t generally repeat its self as the saying goes, but it does rhyme an awful lot and this reduction will likely be deemed as a misstep in the future.

On the Nukes, it’s a logical step forward with the rise of China, as other threats take a step back. How on earth would a coalition of powers deter China from a military take over of HK or Taiwan? How could any nation hope to aid India in a naval exchange within the next 10-20 years. Nukes.
 
I am not at all pleased with the huge increase in nuclear weapons. It sends out the wrong signals internationally and over-commits the nation to a singular strategy of the defence of these islands. We have seen, over the last forty years, the absolute need for conventional troops, resourced to a high standard: The Falklands, the Gulf, Afghanistan, the Balkans. All of these theatres (bar the Balkans) have involved British military commitment and they are all off-shore. We need to be significantly increasing both our conventional materiel and personnell alongside significant investment in cyber-technology and research. These investments should come from a halving of our nuclear capability, not the other way around.

Britain's place in the world today is not to rule the waves or to stand alone in some romantic nod to Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. We should be a flexible, well trained, well manned and well armed partner in a regional, European alliance as well as in NATO. And yet, no mention in this Review of the EU; a hugely important player in the regional military and diplomatic strategy of deterring Russian aggression.

We also need to be able to respond, alongside our allies, to threats to our supply lines - particularly in the Middle East. In that respect Britain could be the quick-response partner in conflicts where a solo American military response might heighten the prospect of an East-West face-off.

No, this looks like an engradisement strategy that addresses neither the shape of armed conflict nor the size and type of commitment suitable to the UK in today's globalised world.
 
The threat of nukes is highly unlikely unless the foreign power perceives that someone unstable eg Trump has their finger on the red button.

If China invades Taiwan I expect they think it very unlikely that we would justify using nukes.

The reduction in our armed forces is understandable if they are pitted against Russia or China but doesn't take into account events such as the Falklands.
 
The threat of nukes is highly unlikely unless the foreign power perceives that someone unstable eg Trump has their finger on the red button.

If China invades Taiwan I expect they think it very unlikely that we would justify using nukes.

The reduction in our armed forces is understandable if they are pitted against Russia or China but doesn't take into account events such as the Falklands.
In the nuclear age, it only takes one mans miscalculation that the other side won’t react, say over Taiwan to start the chain reaction to a nuclear exchange, as I say history rhymes, Hitler calculated that the Western Allies wouldn’t do anything to stop his invasion of Poland, after they hadn’t done anything to oppose Anschluss or the take over of the Sudentenland. Paralleled this with the U.S. attempted appeasement of N.K and lack of activity over the Spratly Islands, and the worlds spectator stance on HK.

I think the reduction is actually to avoid minor asymmetric conflicts in places like the Balkans or Afghanistan, both had very negative outcomes in review of the nations military capabilities.

The review seems to be calculating, the Flaklands, Gibraltar, and N.I. will continue to remain peaceful which I’d largely agree with given the potential adversaries ability, However with increased Turkish aggression in their sphere of influence I could see a scenario where our bases in Cyprus are threatened and we’d have to make a judgment call. Whilst after two decades of Middle Eastern adventures I doubt there’s appetite for more.

We’re shifting back to symmetrical warfare, with the nukes being the first deterrent and the last weapon.

The Army being basically disbanded, is a mistake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would guess if someone was going to initially use a Nuke it would be against a carrier group or similar.

God knows what would happen next though 😳
 
, no mention in this Review of the EU; a hugely important player in the regional military and diplomatic strategy of deterring Russian aggression.
I am not sure the EU could deter Russian aggression, with Germany in particular amongst other EU members including Italy dependant on gas from Russia, only NATO providing America is in the game could deter any threat from the east.
 
There are also other scenarios. What if China threatened Australia? They are already considering building a base on an island 200 km off the Australian coast. Would we help our Aussie cousins and how would we help them?
 
It’s not the number of nukes that is important, it’s the number of weapons platforms to deliver them. Currently, that means Vanguard class submarines of which we have four. Why four? To guarantee at least one boat on station in the Atlantic at all times, while one is in long-term maintenance, one in dock and one on at-sea training or on passage to and from station.

Clearly, if the defence strategy is to increase nuclear capability then a single boat is vulnerable to counter strike. So the best response is to have a second boat on station, which would mean a fifth sub. The next generation of subs succeeding the Vanguard class will be similar. However, long-term, and we are talking 50 years ahead, it may be that the sub platforms are much smaller, there are more of them and they are unmanned. Subs will be going the way of aircraft in being replaced by unmanned drones. It’s the human life support systems and the sailors themselves that are the main restriction on operational capability.

Unfortunately, the move towards unmanned warfare makes war more likely than not, imho. But these disputes will be carried out at arms length, in the oceans and atmosphere, but also perhaps in poorer client states as recently, where the Middle East and North African have been the “playground”. While there are nukes, major strikes on the homeland of nuclear powers are unlikely, and the aggression is at the sporadic terrorist level. But all terrorists are funded by someone and that ultimately finds it way back to some form of renegade state funding if you dig deeply enough.
 
Last edited:
I cannot see any point in having more than 50 and even that I’d question.
if you wiped out 10 of any countries cities then you’ve pretty much obliterated them and their future with radiation spread.

I’m struggling to see a roll for tanks either. There won’t be a WW2 tank battle and in an urban environment they’d just be sitting ducks trundling along through streets.
In the open you can wipe them out with air attacks or drones.

Id much rather see massive resource shift into cyber and small unit special forces defending against terrorism. A nation on national type war is so unlikely to play out in any other way but air/missile attack it’s a false investment
 
Each Vanguard boat can carry 16 missiles, though they could be loaded with fewer. Each missile could carry 8 independent warheads (MIRVs) though probably carry fewer in order to increase missile range.
So, say maybe 8 missiles x 4 warheads = 32 nukes per boat. If at least three of the four boats are bombed up at any one time that’s 96 nukes. Also, the missiles are installed from the US-UK pool in the US Naval base at King’s Bay, Georgia where there will be spares. All this stuff is in the public domain.

The current complement of 180 nukes would appear to allow for the full complement of 16 missiles for each of three boats, with 3 or 4 MIRVs per missile. That would seem to be enough, surely? Unless Bozo wants that second boat on station which would account for the warhead increase?

The next wars may be over resources, food and water as climate changes. Nukes are not much use there.
 
Last edited:
More nuclear weapons, give me strength.

This isn't a forward looking review, it is a backward one. Beefing ups cyber capability, fewer more mobile and techie troops, marvellous. Drones, unmanned ships and subs, logical. Vast increase in intelligence network, understandable. More of a type of weapon which would basically mean suicide for Homo sapiens, utter insanity. We already have enough to wipe out a big chunk of the world, why on earth do we need more?
 
It’s not the number of nukes that is important, it’s the number of weapons platforms to deliver them. Currently, that means Vanguard class submarines of which we have four. Why four? To guarantee at least one boat on station in the Atlantic at any one time, while one is in long-term maintenance, one in dock and one on at-sea training or on passage to and from station.

Clearly, if the defence strategy is to increase nuclear capability then a single boat is vulnerable to counter strike. So the best response is to have a second boat on station, which would mean a fifth sub. The next generation of subs succeeding the Vanguard class will be similar. However, long-term, and we are talking 50 years ahead, it may be that the sub platforms are much smaller, there are more of them and they are unmanned. Subs will be going the way of aircraft in being replaced by unmanned drones. It’s the human life support systems and the sailors themselves that are the main restriction on operational capability.

Unfortunately, the move towards unmanned warfare makes war more likely than not, imho. But these disputes will be carried out at arms length, in the oceans and atmosphere, but also perhaps in poorer client states as recently, where the Middle East and North African have been the “playground”. While there are nukes, major strikes on the homeland of nuclear powers are unlikely, and the aggression is at the sporadic terrorist level. But even terrorists are funded by someone and that ultimately finds it way back to some form of renegade state funding if you dig deeply enough.
Agree with a lot of this, but I think I’m correct in saying the next upgrade of Trident which has just been agreed, allows for more warheads and therefore more MIREV possibilities. Which I think ties in to the warhead increase.

I think you’re right that the submarine fleet needs to be expanded if we’re serious about using nuclear as a power projection option.

An interesting theory I was taught was the conventional weapon exchange against nuclear options, in effect using an adversary’s own land based nuclear arsenal against them. I can’t say I ever thought it would work.
 
I am not sure the EU could deter Russian aggression, with Germany in particular amongst other EU members including Italy dependant on gas from Russia, only NATO providing America is in the game could deter any threat from the east.
I wasn't thinking of a mass military invasion. The EU is massively more powerful economically than Russia. The Russian mafia need the EU, UK, USA and the far East as conduits through which to trade. Also Russia cannot afford to go back to the days of mass shortages in goods and services. That is why the vast majority of Russian aggression is normative and primarily for the benefit of a home audience. In practical terms they are a pest but highly unlikely to swarm across the north German plain.
China is a different matter.
 
I suppose it is also possible that some of our RN surface fleet which carry cruise missiles might be nuke equipped but I have no idea if that is a factor.
 
It’s not the number of nukes that is important, it’s the number of weapons platforms to deliver them. Currently, that means Vanguard class submarines of which we have four. Why four? To guarantee at least one boat on station in the Atlantic at any one time, while one is in long-term maintenance, one in dock and one on at-sea training or on passage to and from station.

Clearly, if the defence strategy is to increase nuclear capability then a single boat is vulnerable to counter strike. So the best response is to have a second boat on station, which would mean a fifth sub. The next generation of subs succeeding the Vanguard class will be similar. However, long-term, and we are talking 50 years ahead, it may be that the sub platforms are much smaller, there are more of them and they are unmanned. Subs will be going the way of aircraft in being replaced by unmanned drones. It’s the human life support systems and the sailors themselves that are the main restriction on operational capability.

Unfortunately, the move towards unmanned warfare makes war more likely than not, imho. But these disputes will be carried out at arms length, in the oceans and atmosphere, but also perhaps in poorer client states as recently, where the Middle East and North African have been the “playground”. While there are nukes, major strikes on the homeland of nuclear powers are unlikely, and the aggression is at the sporadic terrorist level. But all terrorists are funded by someone and that ultimately finds it way back to some form of renegade state funding if you dig deeply enough.
I find the talk about how Britain's deterrent works somehow besides the point. There is no scenario where Britain would go nuclear without the USA, rendering the specifics about four boats v five somewhat redundant - although I do understand the theory.
 
I find the talk about how Britain's deterrent works somehow besides the point. There is no scenario where Britain would go nuclear without the USA, rendering the specifics about four boats v five somewhat redundant - although I do understand the theory.
Agreed. With China’s increasing belligerence the concern might be over rogue elements in their state, I suppose. Perhaps with Hong Kong in the mix. Resulting in a plan to make our sole sub in the Atlantic ‘disappear’. But we are getting into James Bond territory here. It’s still extremely unlikely, I expect, as long as NATO exists. Mind you, Trump was chipping away at that alliance for a while. Thank goodness he went.

However, tongue-in-cheek, I have often thought a particular reason why we may still have nukes is because the French have them. Yes, I do know that France rejoined NATO.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. With China’s increasing belligerence the concern might be over rogue elements in their state, I suppose. Perhaps with Hong Kong in the mix. Resulting in a plan to make our sole sub in the Atlantic ‘disappear’. But we are getting into James Bond territory here. It’s still extremely unlikely, I expect, as long as NATO exists. Mind you, Trump was chipping away at that alliance for a while. Thank goodness he went.

However, tongue-in-cheek, I have often thought a particular reason why we may still have nukes is because the French have them. Yes, I do know that France rejoined NATO.
A senior admiral was once asked why we still had nukes - answer, because the French have them!
 
The Yarkshire Seasiders were asked about defence and said 'as laang as t'ferrets cant run underneath it, it'll be a raaht' fine job'.
 
There are also other scenarios. What if China threatened Australia? They are already considering building a base on an island 200 km off the Australian coast. Would we help our Aussie cousins and how would we help them?
If we don’t then it would be a disgrace.
 
What a complete waste of money....
USA or Russia could prob wipe Briton out in an afternoon, so us having in relative terms a few nukes, is that going to stop that potentially happening..? ...
 
Surely it doesn't matter that much?
The one who strikes first must have an advantage, and it won't be the UK.
 
Back
Top