Defence of the Realm ?

[The Lone Gunman]

It does not say anything about nukes. Yes they would enter "war" and quickly negotiate it down to reduce possibility of total nuclear war.

The best one could have expected from USA is to use tactical nukes in Europe in case the war broke out, however USA in my view would never use nuclear arsenal on USSR unless they themselves received nuclear strike.

Let me say that once again for the hard of thinking.
ANY ATTACK ON A MEMBER STATE WILL BE REGARDED AS AN ATTACK ON ALL STATES.
Which part of ANY did you associate with not mentioning nuclear?

Whether the US will live up to it's commitment is another question.

[Cyberman]

The main issue with Trident as I see it now is not just the age of current nukes, but the fact that they were meant against USSR, where as current nuclear deterrent should also take into account possibility of having to do nuclear strike against country like Iran. The difference is that in this case you'd want low yield nukes just to show you are serious first. I think new Tridends will have variable yield selector so that same nuke can deter big countries (Russia) and small (Iran).

All in all the choice the UK has is either upgrade Trident or go beg the French to share their missiles (which apparently are pretty good). Maybe the latter option is better long term thinking.

.. but I don't see us ever using nukes, and anything that Iran develops would be blasted within a few years anyway by the Israelis. A deterrent should be enough and we already have it. That 27 Billion could go towards the high speed railway system in the UK.

[AtW]

Whether the US will live up to it's commitment is another question.

That's the main question in case of nuclear conflict.

Sure if UK was nuked by USSR (or more likely Soviet tanks from Eastern Germany crossed border into West) then war starts and US gets involved. However involvement in war does not mean it will be total war - if nukes were used (tactical at start), then you bet all sides would prefer to wind down the conflict. If some country was already nuked then tough luck - they got caught into cross fire and the rest of the world won't choose to die in nuclear fire just because they did.

So, from this point of view USSR was planning to use tactical nukes in Europe - there were plans for that, estimation of Soviet generals (and I think they were correct in that) was that nuclear conflict will mainly be in Europe as USA won't strike at USSR cities just like USSR won't strike at USA.

That's why if UK ain't got nuclear deterrent it means that if UK gets nuked then it is highly unlikely the attacker will get nuked too. The French will certainly not use their nukes for that as they get nuked themselves, and do you really think USA would use more than tactical nukes? I think not. I don't think anyone in their position would do that. They will probably "make-up" for it by resettling UK survivors for 1000 years until radiation levels in the UK would drop down to habitable levels.

[AtW]

hat 27 Billion could go towards the high speed railway system in the UK.

No - £27 bln should go towards rail system from the money wasted on bailing out B&B and NR - a lot more money will be left as well that can be spend on many other things.

If UK wants cheaper price for nukes it should talk to the French. Afterall if you trust the French with your nuclear power stations why not go all the way and take up their missiles? The price will certainly be cheaper.

[Moscow Mule]

The main issue with Trident as I see it now is not just the age of current nukes, but the fact that they were meant against USSR, where as current nuclear deterrent should also take into account possibility of having to do nuclear strike against country like Iran. The difference is that in this case you'd want low yield nukes just to show you are serious first. I think new Tridends will have variable yield selector so that same nuke can deter big countries (Russia) and small (Iran).

All in all the choice the UK has is either upgrade Trident or go beg the French to share their missiles (which apparently are pretty good). Maybe the latter option is better long term thinking.

Variable yield has been available on Trident D5 for ages.

There was a hoo-har about it last year when it was revealed NuLie had upgraded the warheads without telling anybody.

[AtW]

Variable yield has been available on Trident D5 for ages.

Those D5s are very good - very reliable regular testing. Maybe that's an arguement against upgrading as it would introduce new issues, but in any case UK needs good nuclear deterrent - since it went the route of dependance on USA in this matter then you don't really have a choice but to agree to upgrade if they say so (otherwise they'd probably say they won't service current nukes or something).

[Moscow Mule]

Those D5s are very good - very reliable regular testing. Maybe that's an arguement against upgrading as it would introduce new issues, but in any case UK needs good nuclear deterrent - since it went the route of dependance on USA in this matter then you don't really have a choice but to agree to upgrade if they say so (otherwise they'd probably say they won't service current nukes or something).

This is probably more likely - the missiles are held in a common silo in the USA and rotated out as and when boats are commissioned.

[AlfredJPruffock]

All in all the choice the UK has is either upgrade Trident or go beg the French to share their missiles (which apparently are pretty good). Maybe the latter option is better long term thinking.

Now that is a very interesting response as I reached practicaly the same conclusion.

[AtW]

It is not a coincidence that USSR plans for war in Europe involved tactical nukes that would mainly hit Poland/Germany etc - they were not planning strikes on UK/France and especially USA because they knew they'd get response back.

Right now Russia has got good relations with Germany where it sells most of gas and a lot of oil, so nuking them would be rather counter-productive, on the other hand doing UK would seem more preferable option in the eyes of Putin's strategists as frankly UK is not very fitting into Europe anyway. That's why UK needs very good nuclear deterrent - be it Trident upgrade or French missiles. The latter probably not going to fit existing submarines so really I think there is no choice here apart from not having nuclear deterrent at all.

[Advocate]

Let me say that once again for the hard of thinking.
ANY ATTACK ON A MEMBER STATE WILL BE REGARDED AS AN ATTACK ON ALL STATES.
Which part of ANY did you associate with not mentioning nuclear?

Whether the US will live up to it's commitment is another question.

I believe that the NATO treaty simply indicates that members must respond to an attack on a member state as an attack on all states. It certainly does NOT mandate what that response should be; diplomatic responses are acceptable.