Nuclear Missiles Could be Sited Again on British Soil in New 'Cold War' with Russia

[The Armchair Soldier]

Nuclear Missiles Could be Sited Again on British Soil in New 'Cold War' with Russia

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons.

The UK could site American new nuclear missiles on British soil amid heightened tensions with Russia, Philip Hammond has indicated.


The comments raise the prospect of a return to a Cold War-type arms race with Russia over the use of nuclear missiles.

The Foreign Secretary said there were “worrying signs” about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons.

Mr Hammond said there was “no clear sign” of an imminent attack on Ukraine but Vladimir Putin is “keeping his options open”.

But he warned against making “unnecessary provocations” against Russia, which has a “sense of being surrounded and under attack”.

Mr Hammond told BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme that Mr Putin “has not ruled out a military option”.

Read More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ussia.html

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[IrishT]

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons.

The comments raise the prospect of a return to a Cold War-type arms race with Russia over the use of nuclear missiles.

Haven't the Russians already been increasing the number of warheads they have active? There's also the matter of the INF treaty from the 80s to deal with.

[seaspear]

Does the U.K have anti ballistic missile capabilities that are ground based Im not aware if the U.K is precluded from this by previous treaties

[Foxbat]

There's also the matter of the INF treaty from the 80s to deal with.

Well the Russians appear to have already potentially given up on the INF. The latest versions of the Iskander missile reportedly have a range in excess of the 500km maximum.

Does the U.K have anti ballistic missile capabilities that are ground based Im not aware if the U.K is precluded from this by previous treaties

Not currently. Our only nuclear weapons are the sub based Trident II missiles. We operated Thor IRBMs in the late 50s and early 60s and we were developing our own Blue Streak missile around the same time but this was cancelled before any were actually deployed.

As far as I'm aware the only treaty regarding nuclear weapons that the UK is party to is the Non-proliferation treaty. Certainly I do not believe we are a party to the INF treaty as that treaty is between the US and Russia.

[IrishT]

Not currently. Our only nuclear weapons are the sub based Trident II missiles. We operated Thor IRBMs in the late 50s and early 60s and we were developing our own Blue Streak missile around the same time but this was cancelled before any were actually deployed.

As far as I'm aware the only treaty regarding nuclear weapons that the UK is party to is the Non-proliferation treaty. Certainly I do not believe we are a party to the INF treaty as that treaty is between the US and Russia.

He asked about anti-ballistic missiles, not ballistic missiles.


And I don't believe you have any, but I might be wrong. Have a nuclear deterrent is probably enough to stop ICBM attacks.

[shark bait]

This would never be allowed to happen, and rightfully so too.

[Foxbat]

He asked about anti-ballistic missiles, not ballistic missiles.

Apologies to all, had a long day

And I don't believe you have any, but I might be wrong. Have a nuclear deterrent is probably enough to stop ICBM attacks.

Indeed we don't heck we don't have any long range SAM systems other than Sea Viper on the Type 45s.

[IrishT]

This would never be allowed to happen, and rightfully so too.

Why rightfully so? France's stand-off nuclear weapons were one of the reasons why the Soviets never wanted to try a conventional war. The French don't feck around.

[IrishT]

Apologies to all, had a long day

I wouldn't worry, it was easily misread.

Indeed we don't heck we don't have any long range SAM systems other than Sea Viper on the Type 45s.

Has the Navy looked into ABMs? Or does that come under the Army or RAF?

[shark bait]

This would never be allowed to happen, and rightfully so too.

Why rightfully so? France's stand-off nuclear weapons were one of the reasons why the Soviets never wanted to try a conventional war. The French don't feck around.

In that case the French and NATO supplying strategic nukes and protecting Europe, why bother with more, it will only escalate tensions. It will give nukes even worse press and then the hippys will gain power and trident may be threatened.

We already have our own deterrent, which is pretty much the perfect deterrent. We don't need the Americans stepping in a disrupting things, we need to prove we have a big enough stick by ourselves. After all you deterrent is only as good as its perceived to be, why add to it, that shows a lack of confidence.

[seaspear]

The Daring class destroyers are as I understand being assessed for anti ballistic missile capabilities as part of a number of international destroyers ,wouldn't this capability be better if land based ,I understand that Russia has opposed further cuts in nuclear weapons and has aims of increasing its anti ballistic missile system with deployments of S500 and other types

[shark bait]

The Daring class destroyers are as I understand being assessed for anti ballistic missile capabilities as part of a number of international destroyers ,wouldn't this capability be better if land based ,I understand that Russia has opposed further cuts in nuclear weapons and has aims of increasing its anti ballistic missile system with deployments of S500 and other types

I believe they were using standard radars with modified software to asses the capabilities in tracking a ballistic projectile. I guess it was successful because the research has been given more money.

I guess its ship based because that's where the sampson radar is. Anti ship ballistic missiles may become a reality soon, china are reportedly advancing with such a capability which would be a big threat to something like a carrier, so it may be wose to have it at sea. On the plus side , if it will work on a T45 it would be relatively simple to bolt it to some solid ground to cover the UK .

[IrishT]

I guess its ship based because that's where the sampson radar is. Anti ship ballistic missiles may become a reality soon, china are reportedly advancing with such a capability which would be a big threat to something like a carrier, so it may be wose to have it at sea. On the plus side , if it will work on a T45 it would be relatively simple to bolt it to some solid ground to cover the UK .

From what I've read, China's ASBM is nothing to be truly worried about for a carrier... More the fact that to launch one means the US would be launching their own ICBMs (you can't really tell what ICBM was launched, or where it's heading, so US-Russian doctrine dictates they launch theirs anyway) and potentially ending the balance of the world.

[seaspear]

Would the abm installed on the Daring class be capable of shooting down satellites directing such ballistic missiles against carriers

[shark bait]

From what I've read, China's ASBM is nothing to be truly worried about for a carrier... More the fact that to launch one means the US would be launching their own ICBMs (you can't really tell what ICBM was launched, or where it's heading, so US-Russian doctrine dictates they launch theirs anyway) and potentially ending the balance of the world.

True the threat is minimal for the time, but it will increase so its good to be ahead of the game. Your probably right about the retaliation point.
Current ballistic missile tend to follow a nice shape, and the longer you track it the more sure you are about where it will land. Its also possible to guestimate the type of missile using satellites to analyse its infra-red image. Neither are an exact science but its ok.

Would the abm installed on the Daring class be capable of shooting down satellites directing such ballistic missiles against carriers

The radar has shown to be capable of tracking satellites, it would depend on the missile and its range.
It really depends on the technology used. If the warhead can home in on the carrier autonomously, then that approach would have little impact. Presumably a satellite would be required for the initial positioning, but then you would have to pre-empt a strike and knock out satellites early, which would case many problems.