It’s the wrong time for any serious party leader to advocate getting rid of our nuclear weapons. Yesterday, Ed probably said the most sensible thing anyone could say. If we’re going to keep nuclear weapons, there is now a pressing need for them to be British.
It’s been said that it might be possible to jailbreak an F35. It’s also been said it doesn’t work like that. I don’t know if you can jailbreak a nuclear missile, but maybe we should have somebody working on it.*
But there is a substantial argument that our nuclear weapons will soon be useless – if they aren’t already – and the massive amounts of money spent on them prevents us from building up arms and capacity that we could actually use. And in my view we need to have a serious discussion about that.
Firstly, the unique characteristic of our deterrent is that it hides. Nobody knows where it is. Within a few years, I think five at most, that feature will be lost. Seagoing drones are already being used effectively. It will not be long before someone litters the oceans with drones. One will sit outside Faslane, watch as our nuclear sub sets sail, and hand it off to its mate as the sub gets out of range. And then everybody will know where HMS Vengeance is all the time, and our deterrent will be worthless.
In my view it already is, and the extraordinary sums of money we are spending on it, and we plan to spend on it, should be much better spent on other things which we can actually use effectively. Some options (others are undoubtedly available):
- we are a long way behind in drone warfare, and the capacity to build drones. We should build our own drone industry, modelled on the way the Ukrainians are now doing it, with massive input from small and medium
businesses scattered about the country, and nimble enough to increase or adapt production and assembly.
- the big players in our defence industry are failing us. We still need them, but we need to make sure they deliver, instead of spending £6 billion on an armoured fighting vehicle that makes its occupants sick after years of development. We need a government that stands up to them and focuses them on
delivering, and we need a defence department that knows how to manage a project (see James MacCleary’s excellent speech at conference).
- we need much more investment in cyber warfare in all its forms, including combatting what is now called fake news. The best defence is educating our children to be able to tell the difference, on the Finnish model, but I’m going to be realistic: that will not happen here with an education system that is designed to secure compliance rather than critical thinking – it’s going to take years, probably decades, to turn that tanker round.
- we still need big budget items – tanks, missiles, artillery. The latest figures I’ve seen are that in Ukraine 70% of casualties behind the front line are caused by drones; 70% of casualties at the front lines are caused by artillery. A thousand guns and a million shells will deter more than one submarine.
In my view it is already the case that spending Trident money on the above will be far more use to us. In a few years time, that case is going to be unarguable.
* Said tongue in cheek. Well, partly.
* Rob Parsons is a Lib Dem member in Lewes. He blogs at http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.co.uk. He curates Liberal Quotes on Facebook
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
Iain Donaldson
4 Comments
Within a few years, I think five at most, that feature will be lost. Seagoing drones are already being used effectively. It will not be long before someone litters the oceans with drones. One will sit outside Faslane, watch as our nuclear sub sets sail, and hand it off to its mate as the sub gets out of range. And then everybody will know where HMS Vengeance is all the time, and our deterrent will be worthless.
I think you hugely underestimate both the technical challenges there, and the effectiveness of anti-drone countermeasures.
So those proposed B-61s to be carried on F-35A aircraft
that the RAF cannot refuel? The proposal in the Strategic
Defence Review. Should we cancel that and save money?
Ask the French instead for ASMP/A that we could put on
Typhoons? Join a Northern Group tactical deterrent?
Oh dear, where to start.
a) “Seagoing drones are already being used effectively. It will not be long before someone litters the oceans with drones”. I think the writer underestimates how very big and very deep the oceans are. He also ignores that two can play at the drone game and drones pretending to be the SSBMs would also proliferate
b) “we need much more investment in cyber warfare in all its forms, including combatting what is now called fake news” The two are entirely different. What makes the authour think our broader cyber defences are inadequate ?
c) “an education system that is designed to secure compliance rather than critical thinking” This must mean something. But what ?
d) ” A thousand guns and a million shells will deter more than one submarine.” This is nonsense. We should certainly have more artillery and stocks of munitions but this is for fighting a land war . Nuclear deterrence is for an entirely different purpose
Thanks for replying, Simon. I was beginning to think nobody had noticed.
a) Ukraine and Russia between them are manufacturing – and then destroying – well over 7,000,000 drones per year. Imagine how many China could make. Covering all the oceans of the world is not beyond reach. And, yes, of course, there will be counter strategies. But overall, I think, the inviolability of the deterrent – which is its only key strategic advantage – is compromised beyond use.
b) I know they’re different things, I’m guilty of generalising to save space. As to whether our cyber defences are adequate, knowing what we know (and what we know we don’t know) about Russian interference in our elections, are you saying that you are confident our cyberdefences are good enough? One main factor is that we have done everything on the cheap for decades; I doubt very much that our profit driven, slash costs to the bone approach to absolutely everything could withstand a determined assault. Do you seriously believe the likes of Thames and Southern Water have invested enough to withstand a purposeful attack on their control systems?
c) I’m surprised you don’t understand. Our education policy is designed to secure results and league table places at all costs. Teaching to the test, disciplinary systems that enforce compliance by arbitrary and condign punishments for minor infractions like having the wrong brand of shoe or not keeping eye contact while the teacher is talking (who does that in real life?). They are designed to produce a workforce trained to obey orders and work as hard as possible.
d) Yes, I know they’re different. My point was that the deterrent no longer has value, yet we persist in spending gargantuan sums of money on it.