Dreadnought Class SSBN

[cockneyjock1974]

Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.

An example is that even the diehard independent voters who voted yes at my work during the referendum, are completely disillusioned with the SNP and are now migrating back to labour. The local political experts in the press are saying that even if the SNP get a third term in office, the wheels are guaranteed to fall off the wagon! I.e. they couldn't manage a shite never mind a country.

Sorry for OT just wanted to emphasise that Scotland will remain home of the Nuc boats.

[WhitestElephant]

An ageing Scottish population will also cement its future within the United Kingdom.

[WhitestElephant]

Agreed that drone warfare or terrorism is irrelevant to this discussion. However, one aspect of nuclear deterrence that has not been seriously discussed is the emergence of Putin-style hybrid warfare (since Russia is basically the only realistic state that we have our nuclear deterrent to deter). In such a case, if Russia launched a nuclear offensive against us, it would be engineered so as to be completely deniable - for instance, they would say that some of their missiles had been stolen by a naughty unidentifiable and untrackable third party, then suddenly out of nowhere we get armageddon on British soil. Or a number of other scenarios that don't clearly put Russia (or any sovereign state, for that matter) in the picture for second-strike retaliation. Clearly the current solution cannot deter against such a threat, even though it is by far the most probable state-on-state strategy that would be employed in the modern age. Certainly the Putin regime is not going to be stopped by it.

So what you are saying, is the Russians will plant one or several nuclear warheads within the United Kingdom, detonate them, and claim it was someone else, or keep quiet and hope we think it was someone else.

Certainly underhanded, but relies enormously on the assumption that British and American intelligence are incompetent to the extreme. Which as we know, isn't the case.

The Russians would be the first to say just how capable Western intelligence is, and the risks of getting caught would potentially expose Russia to similar underhand actions from the West. I doubt Russia wants to open that door.

[marktigger]

Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.

An example is that even the diehard independent voters who voted yes at my work during the referendum, are completely disillusioned with the SNP and are now migrating back to labour. The local political experts in the press are saying that even if the SNP get a third term in office, the wheels are guaranteed to fall off the wagon! I.e. they couldn't manage a shite never mind a country.

Sorry for OT just wanted to emphasise that Scotland will remain home of the Nuc boats.

yes but they have learnt from the EU referendum in Ireland they will keep making the Scots vote for independence until they come up with the right answer and if that doesn't happen I wonder will they look across the Irish sea for inspiration!

[marktigger]

Agreed that drone warfare or terrorism is irrelevant to this discussion. However, one aspect of nuclear deterrence that has not been seriously discussed is the emergence of Putin-style hybrid warfare (since Russia is basically the only realistic state that we have our nuclear deterrent to deter). In such a case, if Russia launched a nuclear offensive against us, it would be engineered so as to be completely deniable - for instance, they would say that some of their missiles had been stolen by a naughty unidentifiable and untrackable third party, then suddenly out of nowhere we get armageddon on British soil. Or a number of other scenarios that don't clearly put Russia (or any sovereign state, for that matter) in the picture for second-strike retaliation. Clearly the current solution cannot deter against such a threat, even though it is by far the most probable state-on-state strategy that would be employed in the modern age. Certainly the Putin regime is not going to be stopped by it.

So what you are saying, is the Russians will plant one or several nuclear warheads within the United Kingdom, detonate them, and claim it was someone else, or keep quiet and hope we think it was someone else.

Certainly underhanded, but relies enormously on the assumption that British and American intelligence are incompetent to the extreme. Which as we know, isn't the case.

The Russia's would be the first to say just how capable Western intelligence is, and the risks of getting caught would potentially expose Russia to similar underhand actions from the West. I doubt Russia wants to open that door.

ahhhh the 4th protocol scenario didn't someone write a book/make a movie about that

[WhitestElephant]

ahhhh the 4th protocol scenario didn't someone write a book/make a movie about that

And fiction is where these scenarios firmly belong!

[cockneyjock1974]

Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.

An example is that even the diehard independent voters who voted yes at my work during the referendum, are completely disillusioned with the SNP and are now migrating back to labour. The local political experts in the press are saying that even if the SNP get a third term in office, the wheels are guaranteed to fall off the wagon! I.e. they couldn't manage a shite never mind a country.

Sorry for OT just wanted to emphasise that Scotland will remain home of the Nuc boats.

yes but they have learnt from the EU referendum in Ireland they will keep making the Scots vote for independence until they come up with the right answer and if that doesn't happen I wonder will they look across the Irish sea for inspiration!

It is the Irish derived element in Scotland that want independence, the generations that have been here since the famine. It's a non starter now anyway as the talk on the street is, if we leave the EU will I still get cheap flights on Easyjet?

[Tiny Toy]

So what you are saying, is the Russians will plant one or several nuclear warheads within the United Kingdom, detonate them, and claim it was someone else, or keep quiet and hope we think it was someone else.

Certainly underhanded, but relies enormously on the assumption that British and American intelligence are incompetent to the extreme. Which as we know, isn't the case.

The Russians would be the first to say just how capable Western intelligence is, and the risks of getting caught would potentially expose Russia to similar underhand actions from the West. I doubt Russia wants to open that door.

That is certainly one scenario. And in it you describe a valid deterrent - which is our intelligence services, not Trident. Trident serves no purpose as a credible deterrent in just about any realistic modern attack scenario.

I'm not as convinced as you are of the strength of this deterrent, however - for instance, the risk of exposure to "Western underhandedness" didn't prevent the invasion of the Crimea. From a Russian perspective the West are already sneaky and underhanded.

[WhitestElephant]

So what you are saying, is the Russians will plant one or several nuclear warheads within the United Kingdom, detonate them, and claim it was someone else, or keep quiet and hope we think it was someone else.

Certainly underhanded, but relies enormously on the assumption that British and American intelligence are incompetent to the extreme. Which as we know, isn't the case.

The Russians would be the first to say just how capable Western intelligence is, and the risks of getting caught would potentially expose Russia to similar underhand actions from the West. I doubt Russia wants to open that door.

That is certainly one scenario. And in it you describe a valid deterrent - which is our intelligence services, not Trident. Trident serves no purpose as a credible deterrent in just about any realistic modern attack scenario.

I'm not as convinced as you are of the strength of this deterrent, however - for instance, the risk of exposure to "Western underhandedness" didn't prevent the invasion of the Crimea. From a Russian perspective the West are already sneaky and underhanded.

I think we would all appreciate that the difference between Russia's actions in Ukraine is in stark contrast to if they were caught trying to detonate a nuclear warhead in London. Both merit totally different levels of response, the former being sanctions as we are already doing, the latter being a door neither Russia nor the West wants to open, and likely never will.

For example, if Russia is caught, can it now guarantee the West will not reply in kind, with a similar underhand method to detonate a warhead in Moscow? They cannot, and suddenly, the threat of nuclear weapons for both sides enters a whole new level of unpredictability and an even greater level of danger.

The deterrent against Russia here, is that if caught, both Britain and America are equally as capable of playing this game.

Therefore, I believe the use of nuclear weapons among the great nations will stay unchanged.

[Pseudo]

Even in a best case scenario for Russia in this fantastical scenario they'll face a big comeback for allowing a nuclear weapon to be stolen in the first place. The absolute minimum would be demands for Russia to massively reduce its arsenal backed by stringent sanctions from NATO countries.

[ArmChairCivvy]

emergence of Putin-style hybrid warfare (since Russia is basically the only realistic state that we have our nuclear deterrent to deter). In such a case, if Russia launched a nuclear offensive against us, it would be engineered so as to be completely deniable - for instance, they would say that some of their missiles had been stolen by a naughty unidentifiable and untrackable third party, then suddenly out of nowhere we get armageddon on British soil. Or a number of other scenarios

Much more likely:
- threaten a non-Nato country with tactical nukes
- by accident, have one explode, not in their territory/ waters nor in Russia's (would make it over international, or under, international waters or global commons). No harm done, therefore no retaliation. However, even from a tactical nuke fall-out, evacuations on a scale that would kill a nation's economy, could follow.

Sorry, fat fingers, no intention (!), no retaliation, still much effect.

[ArmChairCivvy]

for allowing a nuclear weapon to be stolen in the first place. The absolute minimum would be demands for Russia to massively reduce its arsenal backed by stringent sanctions from NATO countries.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, there were $$ bns of US money poured into the various (previous) constituent parts, in order first to safeguard and then to decommission warheads that, otherwise, might have ended up just as said above

[Tiny Toy]

I think we would all appreciate that the difference between Russia's actions in Ukraine is in stark contrast to if they were caught trying to detonate a nuclear warhead in London.

You're missing the point, which is that in just about any imaginable scenario they are not caught, certainly not provably so.

both Britain and America are equally as capable of playing this game.

I would hope not. I sincerely hope we're the good guys and would never consider a first strike.

Defence is all about countering threats. If your capability doesn't actually counter any credible threats then it's not worth investing in. If it's not actually about defence but instead keeping some weapons around just in case we decide to attack, that's clearly a different issue. As I say I hope the latter is not the case.

[Pseudo]

You're missing the point, which is that in just about any imaginable scenario they are not caught, certainly not provably so.

Have you by any chance been marathoning James Bond films over the festive period?

[Engaging Strategy]

Ok let's play hypotheticals with Russia shall we?

In the event of a major war between NATO and Russia the former has the overall conventional strength to defeat the latter. However, Russia will likely have the local conventional advantage at the start of the conflict (if we assume that military aggression won't be initiated by NATO). They'll try to impose a swift conventional victory, take what they want (the Baltic states, corridor to Kaliningrad etc...) then hunker down and attempt to use theatre level tactical nuclear weapons to deter a NATO counter offensive.

In this, not entirely unrealistic, sketch scenario the role of NATO's nuclear arsenal (which the UK Trident/SSBN system is a part of) would not be to deter the initial sub-nuclear conventional action. Instead it would be used to deter Russia from risking the nuclear option as a means of stopping the overwhelming NATO counter offensive.

So long as the fighting is broadly confined to the territory Russia invades, and NATO forces aren't sent into Russia proper (possibly excluding Kaliningrad) I believe you could successfully deter Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons against Western forces. The threat of uncontrolled escalation after nuclear first use, and the weapons rendering Russia's territorial gains an irradiated mess would make a move to nuclear weapons use foolish.

All this talk of suitcase nukes planted by Russian proxies in the heart of New York or London is nonsense straight out of a bad Tom Clancy story. What would Russia gain by doing that? The attack would never remain deniable with every intelligence service in the world digging into it, remember the atmosphere after 9/11. It'd be that but orders of magnitude worse. Russia would end up more of a pariah than North Korea (at least China still nominally supports them). Russian leaders like to pretend their country is a "co-hegemon" with the United States, not a pariah terrorist state. They're interested in furthering their national interests, prestige and one upping the US. Detonating a nuclear bomb in downtown New York achieves none of this.

[WhitestElephant]

I think we would all appreciate that the difference between Russia's actions in Ukraine is in stark contrast to if they were caught trying to detonate a nuclear warhead in London.

You're missing the point, which is that in just about any imaginable scenario they are not caught, certainly not provably so.

both Britain and America are equally as capable of playing this game.

I would hope not. I sincerely hope we're the good guys and would never consider a first strike.

Defence is all about countering threats. If your capability doesn't actually counter any credible threats then it's not worth investing in. If it's not actually about defence but instead keeping some weapons around just in case we decide to attack, that's clearly a different issue. As I say I hope the latter is not the case.

I see, the whole premises of your argument is that British and American intelligence is utter crap, and the Russians could sneak a nuclear warhead into Britain and detonate it without being caught!

I don't think that is very plausible, at all. Britain and America are very capable in the intelligence domain, in all likely hood, I believe it far more likely than not, we would discover and foil Russia's twisted designs on our country. Therefore, I believe Russia would never attempt such an underhand plot, because the consequences of getting caught far outweigh the potential rewards.

What do I mean by "consequences of getting caught"? Well imagine; what if Russia was caught trying to detonate a nuclear warhead in Britain? Considering that Russia has now opened the door of underhand and unconventional nuclear warfare, could Russian authorities guarantee the West will not respond by trying to sneak in and detonate a nuclear warhead in Russia too? No, they couldn't... nobody, not even Russia wants to open the door of unconventional nuclear warfare, because it is far too unpredictable and far to dangerous, for every side involved.

Furthermore, if Russia was caught, the global reaction and level of response would be catastrophic for Russia. The whole world would sanction Russia, including countries like India and China. Russia would be suspended from the UNSC and every other international forum (G20 etc). Russia would lose all the credibility it has left... it would be a rouge state, worse than North Korea.

Your scenario doesn't work in the real world.

[Pseudo]

Russia would lose all the credibility it has left... it would be a rouge state,

Do you think they'd use eye-shadow and lipstick too?

[ArmChairCivvy]

After the Eastern Ukraine/ Crimea land grab (and the possible land corridor between them), where are the areas where Russian roulette might be tempting, without directly enroaching NATO areas?

It has been speculated that Gotland and Aland might be tempting (both belong to neutral countries) in order to secure sea lanes in to and out of Kaliningrad ( a land corridor would be an attack on NATO).
- one is certainly doable, as a surprise
- both would already deprive Russia of strategic (airborne) reserves, for use elsewhere

OK, sea lanes secured, what happens next? Nobody knows, but what's for sure is that no Russian flagged ship would pass through the Straits of Denmark. So
- how to provide the elite (and everyone else, if they can afford it) living in St. Petersburg with life's little luxuries? Railroad them in from Murmansk?
- why create an other Bosporus problem (for Russia) when it does not exist

More importantly, what would there be to gain? Except making the Baltic states feel isolated... and what is the value of that?

Russia is in survival mode. By floating the rouble, the living standards for the masses were effectively halved:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... r#media-10

At the same time, the state coffers are kept going (as the oil & gas proceeds in dollars now turn in twice the roubles than otherwise/ before). A nice transfer of on-going incomes; it's not that the ordinary Russians wouldn't notice. It is more like: what can they do about it?

[Tiny Toy]

Have you by any chance been marathoning James Bond films over the festive period?

It wasn't me that came up with the Fourth Protocol scenario, it was WhitestElephant. All I have said is that in the event of an incident it is highly probable that blame will be unable to be immediately and definitely assigned, a set in stone prerequisite for a nuclear second strike. This is supported by numerous recent military events including, for instance, the downing of MH17. Much as we might like to think that Western intelligence would be able to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is not borne out by recent history, in fact quite the opposite.

[Tiny Toy]

I see, the whole premises of your argument is that British and American intelligence is utter crap, and the Russians could sneak a nuclear warhead into Britain and detonate it without being caught!

Straw man. The Fourth Protocol suitcase nuke scenario was yours not mine.

Britain and America are very capable in the intelligence domain, in all likely hood, I believe it far more likely than not, we would discover and foil Russia's twisted designs on our country.

Just as we were able to discover and prove who shot down MH17? Or discover and prove Saddam's WMD? Or foil the invasion of the Crimea or the London tube bombings?

The intelligence services do a great job, but they are not magicians.

if Russia was caught, the global reaction and level of response would be catastrophic for Russia.

Whereas if they simply declare war on us and then launch ICBMs at us then it would all be fine?

[ArmChairCivvy]

by any chance been marathoning James Bond films over the festive period?

As everyone is in denial. I confess: got them for Xmas present (minus the latest one and the one produced outside the franchise}.
- I can still separate them from these discussions

[cockneyjock1974]

What James Bond is fiction!!!!!!!!!

[2HeadsBetter]

Nonsense. He's survived into the future to infiltrate the Stormtroopers. Who do you think really blew that Death Star/planet thingy up?

[Pseudo]

Nonsense. He's survived into the future to infiltrate the Stormtroopers. Who do you think really blew that Death Star/planet thingy up?

I can't help feeling that had the Daniel Craig Stormtrooper actually been Bond the force would have been no match for his manly manliness and Rey would have ended up waking up in his bunk the next morning.

[WhitestElephant]

It wasn't me that came up with the Fourth Protocol scenario, it was WhitestElephant.

Don't dare say I came up with this bullshit. It was in fact yourself. I quote you below...

In such a case, if Russia launched a nuclear offensive against us, it would be engineered so as to be completely deniable - for instance, they would say that some of their missiles had been stolen by a naughty unidentifiable and untrackable third party, then suddenly out of nowhere we get armageddon on British soil.

Quite the imagination... but just how did you expect to convince people I came up with this work of fiction? People are quite capable of reading your posts you know!

Just as we were able to discover and prove who shot down MH17? Or discover and prove Saddam's WMD? Or foil the invasion of the Crimea or the London tube bombings?

With the exception of 7/7, those examples prove absolutely nothing as to the quality of Western intelligence. I would also argue, that 7/7 actually supports the idea British intelligence is rather good, as it is the one time in recent memory a major terrorist attack actually succeeded on British soil. I wonder how many similar or indeed far worse attacks have been prevented due to our excellent security and intelligence services? I suspect we will never truly know.

Look it, I am simply not buying your idea that Trident is an ineffective deterrent because Russia will use underhand methods to bring "armageddon" on us "out of nowhere". You are aren't likely to receive popular support for that assertion either...