A big part of owning nukes is prestige. Ownership of nukes makes a country, on a global scale, one of the big boys. After years of sitting at the adults' table, I doubt UK would want to give up that perk and move over to the kiddy table.

"I doubt UK would want to give up that perk and move over to the kiddy table." That is rather an odd way to put it. The UK would not be the first to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, if we did. South Africa developed nuclear weaponry (or was it just atomic, but then does it matter?), and then gave it up, as not worth it, too much hassle etc. The first the international community heard of South Africas nukes, was when they gave them up, no less. In my opinion, the UK should have a weapon equal to the next mans, we must have nuclear weaponry for their deterrant value. On the other hand, I don't see why our deterrant should be so expensive. I think making free-fall nuclear warheads (Or even a nuclear warhead for Apache?), and using Typhoon or F35 as the delivery platform makes a great deal more sense. This would allow us to maintain a credable nuclear delivery capability (all be it with a squadron or two on a few minutes rediness), while doing away with the costs of the 4 Vanguard class SSBN's. Perhaps this would allow for funding for the 4 cancelled Type 45's.

Does this get to be debated in parliament? Or in our democracy is this kind of question answered for real behind closed doors? YIMMY - “In my opinion, the UK should have a weapon equal to the next mans, we must have nuclear weaponry for their deterrant value.” I agree with Yimmy that what we need is a weapon as good as the next countries. But given the emerging possibilities of Directed Energy Weapons and our control of airspace and orbit where is the need to threaten the general population of a country with destruction when it is the national command authority that should be threatened. Why not develop a rapier instead of rebuilding the bludgeon. That might even silence some of us who know of legal niceties that prohibit mass murder of innocent people. YIMMY - “using Typhoon or F35 as the delivery platform makes a great deal more sense. This would allow us to maintain a credable nuclear delivery capability (all be it with a squadron or two on a few minutes rediness), while doing away with the costs of the 4 Vanguard class SSBN's” If the only threat to us conceivable is a “bolt out of the blue” attack then we may ask if the usual suspects would feel threatened by our nuclear weapons if they are not deliverable for several hours after the initial attack, as an air-drop/cruise missile response would be. Indeed are the major threats to us ever located at a point we can target? If slow development of hostile relations leading up to nuclear exchange is a possibility then in theater basing of our air-drop/cruise missile assets can then offer a prompt response which may reduce the time our opponent has to do us harm. I believe that reliance on such an air-drop/cruise missile strategy solely would perhaps push our future opponent(s) to launch a “bolt out of the blue” attack. Pre-positioning of our nuclear strike force around the planet may offset some of this risk but it opens up a host of new problems. YIMMY - “On the other hand, I don't see why our deterrant should be so expensive. I think making free-fall nuclear warheads (Or even a nuclear warhead for Apache?),” Using a hellfire to deliver a kT or so would provide useful force multiplication in an especially vicious fight. It would be an interesting challenge certifying such a weapon as that to fly hung off the side of an egg beater. So I presently think that a reliance on a SLBM to deliver is best for us. However if we actually plan to use nuclear weapon in future conflict for hard target defeat and destruction of bio/chemical stockpiles (AGENT defeat?) then I think developing a thermonuclear airdrop/Stormshadow variant would be merited. Why do we need to redevelop our version of the W76 anyway? What can’t be built today that could be “back in the day”. If Health & Safety stuff is stopping us machining the materials or gluing things together well enough why not just exempt the processes from the law. After all the end products use is above the law. If the US has had a change of heart and won’t give us critical components like neutron sources then why don’t we put some money into redeveloping them in house, not rebuilding the whole physics package. That smacks of pork.

>That is rather an odd way to put it. The UK would not be the first to >voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, if we did. South Africa developed >nuclear weaponry (or was it just atomic, but then does it matter?), and >then gave it up, as not worth it, too much hassle etc. The first the >international community heard of South Africas nukes, was when they >gave them up, no less. It had been long believed to a near certainty, that the Apartheid government had nukes, but like with Israel it was never "proven" that they had them. Also the change of policy was due to the change in government from the whites only Apartheid government to the majority rule government. The Apartheid government had nukes for much the same reason countries like the US, China, or Russia as an ultimate deterrant. In the Apartheid government's case, it was faced with a hostile continent due to their policies. The majority rule government wasn't facing a hostile continent and had to look after the entire (mostly impoverished) population not just the white minority and couldn't justify the costs. >In my opinion, the UK should have a weapon equal to the next mans, >we must have nuclear weaponry for their deterrant value. I'm not really sure the UK has anyone to deter with abandonment of the Empire and the collapse of the USSR + the Communist Block. I'm not sure even that it gives the UK a "seat at the Big Boy's" table. Japan doesn't have any and they seem to get invited to all the "in" countries summits. The only stuff they get excluded from are the "military" based ones and that's probably just as well. So improving the British military would probably do more to boost the UK's standing in the world than retaining nukes would.

Nuclear weapons are a political weapon. I believe that militarily speaking they have little use, you wage war, mostly, for territory or resources and you can never achieve your objective if you employ nukes. However the UK has to maintain it's arsenal because nuclear capability is essential if you want to have a word in the world's political arena. I support a downsizing of nuclear forces although the capability itself must never be questioned because there people out there who still thrive in search of the same capability and the west has to maintain a adequate level of deterrence. It's political, not military the problem is someday nuclear weapons might just be another weapon to be employed and that's the greatest danger.

H.