A nuclear deterrent – politicalbetting.com
A nuclear deterrent – politicalbetting.com
“Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a “fully independent British nuclear deterrent” to end the UK’s reliance on the US.”
0
Comments
First strike.
She was quite supportive of the Lib Dems though, Simon Hughes' mum or aunt was a neighbour and she liked him, possibly an early symptom of her Alzheimer's.
Very underrated
It's certainly possible for Britain to have a fully independent nuclear deterrence. Achieving this would require choices about spending that look unlikely to be made, but they're more likely to be made if someone is advocating for it than pretending it doesn't need to be done.
Davey has taken the first step. It might be part of his pantomime attempts to establish himself as the most anti-Trump politician, but it's a necessary first step and I'm glad a British politician has taken it.
British politicians need to take many more such steps in order to improve British defence.
Perhaps the biggest interdependency is in our intelligence and cyber defence. GCHQ is very integrated into the US system and needs to start thinking about how it would meet our needs if that were no longer the case. This is not going to be easy, not going to be cheap and in many ways it will reduce our global footprint markedly. But it needs to be done. It is not just Trump it is a country that is daft enough to elect him. Twice.
Unfortunately I think that (for different reasons) Starmer, Badenoch and Farage don't fall into that category
'We've got to 'ave it, and it's got to have a bloody Union Jack on it.'
Sadly successive Prime Ministers didn't listen.
If countries like Iran, North Korea, Israel can have a nuclear deterrent or get close to it - can't see why it is too expensive or technically difficult for the UK to manage.
It might cost a bit? But less I'd imagine than 2 useless aircraft carriers....
Would an independenent nuclear deterrent be cheap? No.
Is it the best use of resources? I'm not convinced.
But is it impossible and a sign of the LibDems fundamental unseriousness? Errr, not really.
The United States and Israel did not start the war with a clear strategy. There was a hubristic assumption that if the adversary was hit badly enough that it would either collapse or surrender.
The current US intelligence assessment is that regime collapse is not close. If there was a serious internal move against the regime then air support might make a difference but an armed opposition has yet to emerge. The president [is] in overall charge, saying one moment that the war will end soon and the next that it could go on for some time.
The Iranians have got themselves into a position where they must be a party to any decision to end the war. The stresses and strains on Iran will grow, with risks of economic distress and consequent unrest if people get desperate. This is likely to be the case even with an immediate end to the fighting. There are occasional rumours of disputes between Artesh, the regular army, and the IRGC as well as supply problems. If they want their current advantages to tell, the regime therefore could use some form of negotiation. As with Trump they deal in hyperbole, as if every act will be of unprecedented ferocity and terminal in its impact, and overstate the strength of their position. So long as the US appears at a loss about what to do next, and anxiety is growing about economic impacts, they will be tempted to keep going.
(a) enriched uranium or plutonium
We have a civilian nuclear industry so we have the raw materials. We don't have HEU, currently. But this also isn't that technically complicted to achieve; you just need a bloody load of centrifuges, which can be relatively easily and cheaply acquired.
(b) to build a warhead
Nuclear warheads are not that complicated. The basics, unless you want to go the hydrogen bomb route, are terribly simple. Sphere of HEU. Shaped charges. With today's modern electronics, it really wouldn't be that complicated.
(c) a delivery system (i.e. a missile)
There's really no reason why Storm Shadow could not carry a nuclear warhead. It would only be a small one (it can carry a 450kg warhead), and there are clearly some engineering challenges involves. But ultimately Storm Shadow (like every cruise missile) is basically just a plane, and while it might look a little ungainly to stick a nuclear warhead in there, it could clearly be done.
(It's a lot easier to make a cruide missile nuclear capable than a ballastic one.)
It’s perfectly possible to build a two/three stage missile that will take a nuclear warhead to Moscow, or pretty much anywhere.
And to do so for reasonable cost.
The South Korean Hyunmoo-5, which is a road mobile ICBM, was developed for about $250 million. Unit cost would be a small fraction of that. That’s a Minuteman III class ICBM.
To build a Trident D5 sized launch vehicle would probably take not much more money. Solid rocket motors are actually fairly simple.
The real cost issue is the use of Big Aerospace, which has an almost religious belief in high costs.
The South Koreans simply ignore this.
Edit: note that Japan also builds three stage “orbital rockets” which bear a remarkable resemblance to the cancelled American MX heavy ICBM.
Nuclear is necessary to deter Russia and form a European deterrent. Top priority.
For drones, I think quantity is almost as important as quality. So we need ability to manufacture loads in short space of time. Doesn't have to be crazy expensive though. Second priority.
Aircraft carriers seem redundant.
Likewise tanks, ajax - would deprioritise.
We’d only need to make more is we vastly expanded our arsenal - even at peak, we had vast quantities of spare material in storage. This was because the early UK designs were incredibly inefficient at using nuclear material - megatons/kg of fissile material.
The modern UK/US designs are probably plutonium only for the primary. HEU might be used to enhance secondaries.
We re-manufacture the Trident warheads on a rolling basis. We could start making WE177 again, fairly easily. Both are small enough to fit into just about anything.
The myth that a basic nuke would be large went away when flying plate design were invented. Given you can test an implosion design without nuclear material, why would you bother with 5 foot spheres of explosives, when you easily do a design of 15 inch diameter?
The basic yield is 100kt, but that could be easily boosted by using HEU to replace natural uranium in the tamper - the Americans did this for several designs.
Holyrood Voting Intention (Constituency Vote):
SNP: 36% (+1)
LAB: 20% (+4)
REF: 16% (-2)
LDM: 10% (+1)
CON: 9% (-2)
GRN: 7% (-2)
Regional Vote:
SNP: 26% (-2)
LAB: 19% (+1)
GRN: 16% (-1)
REF: 14% (-3)
CON: 11% (-1)
LDM: 10% (+3)
via @IpsosScotland, 19-25 Feb
(Changes with Dec
https://x.com/oprosuk/status/2033139099196891232?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
So yes, we need to re-establish our sovereignty, calmly and diplomatically, over a long period, but it needs to be regardless of whether the President is of a blander flavour next time. I can already read the statements from the likes of Davey decrying such a process as a waste of time as soon as they elect an Obama or even a Biden.
(I suspect that Lynn and Jay weren't joking in Yes, Prime Minister; the argument that nukes are good as a deterrent against nukes, but not for much else, seems fairly convincing. And that points to keeping them, but on as basic a basis as possible.)
Much as I would like there to be a lake that slides aside when missiles ascend from it per James Bond, I don't think it'll help.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/15/epstein-arranged-for-mandelson-botox-on-government-trip/
Price tags for corruptung UK officials seems very cheap. Free college course here, some botox there.
I wouldn't suggest we decommission Trident, because that would be awkward diplomatically, and probably have an impact on security council seats and everything. So I would carry on, but just eke it out and not renew with the US.
In the meantime, I would work on complementary systems, like nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and missiles deliverable by air and land. We should have those anyway.
It's a target anyway
OK he's a former Tory politician - big whoop. Every active right of centre politician of recent times is going to have been a Tory. Is what you're so salty about actually the fact that he isn't a David Coburn comedy figure that you can make a nice meal out of?
Once the air lens was invented - in the late 1950s - nukes stopped being 5 foot in diameter.
When they started building warheads with non-spherical boosted primaries, the trouble is finding a weapon that can't carry a nuke.
In the late 1960s, Livermore designed a nuke that could fit in a *105mm* shell
That wasn't done - mainly because 155 artillery was already done, and there was no need.
The Russian stories about having one sound exactly like their other bullshitting about weapons.
Bearing in mind the failures of the last couple of British Trident missile tests it might be sensible to develop a replacement anyway. The current ones don't seem to work.
Unless you happen to be very close, a response will take a minimum of 30 minutes (instantly targeted return ballistic missile).
After launch, the sub goes off at 20kn+ on a random bearing.
If you are underwater and 10nm a way, you will survive any nuclear explosion.
The problem we currently face is a nuclear programme that depends on another independent nation, who are free to elect someone that we cannot depend upon, and who may oppose our interests.
Enter stage left the utterly loony idea of 'a piece of' the French nuclear deterrent. Quite apart from the idea of France nuking someone because they've nuked Britain - thus laying France open to nuclear attack being f***ing idiotic, what if they go and elect Marine Le Pen? Who do you suggest we go to for 'a piece' then?
It's a classic of unserious remoaner guff from the 'serious people in the room'. Completely deranged, but it involves throwing money at the French combined with a nice bit of eating crow for the Brexiteer crowd, so it must be a great idea.
Another is that FPTP is inimical to a many party contest, and voters realise this. How the next GE is framed will decide lots of seats with little regard to the general trend or swing. I think the most likely framing is a simple Left v Right (which is Tory and Reform v All Others in practice.)
If the framing is that the great majority want the outcomes of 'Kick Labour Out' and at the same time 'Not Reform' then we are in for a unique election.
I’m struggling to see why you get all snowflakey at the mildest dig (compared to your constant vitriol aimed at eg Starmer) at Offord. I imagine Reform’s drooping polling is the only thing preventing you from popping out that PB classic ‘ooh, you must feel threatened by X cos you say disobliging stuff about them!’
Erm. Recollections may differ…
(and yes, I know I frequently play the man not the ball. But I’m not claiming otherwise)
Sarwar’s distancing himself from Starmer might produce one of the few bright spots for Labour in the May local and devolved elections
We are, of course, already committed to replacing the Trident boats, with three Dreadnought class already under construction (though not to be delivered until the next decade) - and well over £17bn spent by the middle of last year:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8010/
He's not Swinney who unionists would never vote for and the Tory brand is still toxic aside from a few pockets.
Any small up tick or down vote for Lab Con could have massive repercussions on overall vote share and who comes 3rd 4th 5th for Party Leaders.
I do think Starmer is safe Until ME sorted.
Badenoch needs to be above Labour or is toast
The idea the UK could not independently develop/maintain/replace Trident is absurd. It would be difficult, but entirely doable.
The US got the Manhattan Project going without any prior development or technology, during the war, over 80 years ago.
The UK already has nuclear weaponry and technology and has done for nearly a century. The UK already has advanced nuclear facilities and firms working in the nuclear sector.
Making the leap from dependent technology to independent technology would be difficult, but is entirely doable. If we prioritise it.
While the Greens clearly won the argument in Gorton and Denton as to who was best placed to beat Reform, it's going to take a much bigger leap of faith for people to expect a Green candidate to overtake someone who is already the local MP.
Not Aaron.
You don't even need to put a warhead in most of them - the enemy won't know which are armed, and which aren't, and will have to try and bring them all down with their $1 million missiles.
And as we've seen, 'falling debris' can cause a hell of a lot of damage.
We live now in a more multipolar world. If there is a point to nuclear weapons today, it’s partly about deterrence against new or minor nuclear powers. If Iran got a nuclear weapon, they wouldn’t be in a position to wipe out our nuclear forces, but they would be in a position to explode a small number of weapons. Do we want the ability to deter that, independent of the US?
Russia is not the Soviet Union. If Russia threatened us with nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t be a surprise first strike, I suggest. It would be an escalating diplomatic crisis, during which we would choose to mobilise our weapons.
Not practical.
Allies name-tagged by Trump earnestly respond to calls to supply ships to Hormuz
https://bsky.app/profile/benbraun.bsky.social/post/3mh3zacufyc2l
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service:
▪︎Army Service Ribbon
▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal
▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal
▪︎National Defense Service Medal
▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal
▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
Zahid Chaudhry is currently waiting for his new hearing—living back at home with his wife and 2 U.S. citizen children in Tacoma, Washington.
https://x.com/LongTimeHistory/status/2033151726543307030