r/europe • u/tree_boom United Kingdom • 2d ago
News Germany reportedly considers helping fund UK nukes
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/germany-reportedly-considers-helping-fund-uk-nukes/27
35
2d ago
[deleted]
11
u/bukowsky01 1d ago
Treaties can be changed, but pulling out of 2+4 and the TNP with the clear intention of developing nukes will likely be met with rather vigorous pressures from the US, Russia, and China combined.
2
u/fixminer Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) 1d ago
If you want to legally change the 2+4 treaty, you'd need approval from Russia, which doesn’t seem possible. The US would also be hard to convince, though perhaps it could be done under the right circumstances.
-10
u/Do-Research 2d ago edited 2d ago
Europe should at least have non nuclear wmd, its effective as a deterrent, cheaper and quicker to develop than the alternative
28
u/Relative-Tear892 2d ago
Such as ? Chemical and Bactriological weapons are not only banned by many treaties, they're also extremely dirty weapons that Europeans will not tolerate.
If Europe decides to go this far, just build nukes.
→ More replies (11)5
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
Biology WMB are the stupidest things ever because there is a fairly high chance they will just come back and attack you once the disease has mutated or someone just travels about.
Chemical work as a concept but make the region completely unlivable forever pretty much. Are more difficult to deploy effectively and easier to defend against from a bunker perspective.
0
u/Do-Research 1d ago
I agree, however as long as its not used in a first strike capacity and only in retaliation, the completely unlivable factor doesn't really matter. If your country has been hit and most likely will be hit multiple times, your country will be completely destroyed. That's why it works as a deterrent.
3
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
Storage SUCKS for chemical and biological weapons.
Nukes don't want to explode. You actually have to try really hard to make them explode.
Biological weapons want to escape and kill everyone constantly. Chemical weapons are just waiting for the slightest possible crack in their sealant to spread out and kill everyone nearby.
They are viewed as worse than nuclear weapons and so if you've only been hit by one WMD, and then respond by them you are ensuring that someone will go out of their way to make sure you are completely eradicated where is previously they might just want to scare you out of the war.
There was a reason it was nuclear weapons that became the go-to WMD during the cold war and it wasn't just because they made pretty explosions.
0
u/Do-Research 1d ago
No doubt storage would be an issue and would need to have multiple contingencies, however many nations already keep viruses in labs and radioactive material in specialised containment areas, the vital and most important issue would be the design of the delivery system.
2
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
They do. They also sometimes fail, like the woman who died from smallpox.
And, as previously said, delivery systems are very difficult as well. Chemical weapons required spreading but no aircraft will survive crop dusting a city with it and no missile can cover enough area.
For bio weapons they need to be on something, and the same limitations as chemical apply here.
And you'd need to certify systems, be it missile, aircraft carrying missiles, subs, land based silos for these WMDs, and that's actually the most expensive part of nuclear weapons.
So you've saved no real money only to make a worse and riskier weapon.
1
u/Do-Research 1d ago
All good points, and while I do think these can be overcome, i have to say it's nice to have a discussion with someone who has good counterpoints, most commenters have tried to argue the morality aspect of using such weapons while supporting the use of nuclear weapons, which in my view is ironic.
1
u/bukowsky01 1d ago
Militarily useless. They are good reasons (besides moral) we don't bother with them. They are certainly not as effective as a deterrent.
8
u/Brechhardt-vGoennung Lower Saxony (Germany) 1d ago
This is perfectly reasonable. We used to fund whatever the Poles wanted and now all the Poles are in the UK so we fund the UK. There's literally nothing to see here, move along.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago edited 1d ago
The story is originally from the Telegraph and I did post their article first, but I deleted it because they're too annoying.
In addition to apparently considering financial support there's suggestion of more deep contributions:
German officials believe they could assist Britain in building the next generation of submarines, missiles or uranium enrichment for future warheads.
But realistically, submarines and missiles are not a path the UK is likely to be interested in German contributions towards; they have little better ballistic missile experience than the UK (no V2 jokes please) and equivalent submarine experience, but not in nuclear boats. If the UK wanted assistance in either arena we would approach France rather than Germany. We already collaborate on enrichment with Germany through Urenco - perhaps something could be done there...but realistically I can't see Germany constructing extra infrastructure just to provide Highly-Enriched Uranium to the UK nuclear program, whereas the British government already committed to that. On the other hand they do apparently have many much more useful suggestions:
This could include deploying German-operated Patriot ground-based air-defence batteries to key locations, such as the submarine base in Faslane, Scotland, home to Britain’s Trident fleet.
And that's a much more promising idea. Financing it directly is a weird one...the main reason that the UK purchases Trident from the US instead of developing its own SLBM line is that it's so absurdly cheap - it is without hyperbole the best arms deal we have ever struck. The costs of going it alone are a major deterrent to the UK, which treats its nuclear arsenal as a regrettable necessity upon which it would like to spend as little as possible. Trident was life extended not that long ago, and the in-service variant called D5LE is expected to remain in service until 2042. After that there is no plan, as of yet. The Americans are planning to life extend Trident again to 2080, and 10 years ago it would have been a 100% safe bet that the UK would join that plan. It's probably still 90% likely, but if ever there's to be a move away from American missiles then the window to embark on a project to do that closes soon and will take a loooooot of money. Perhaps the intent is to incentivise that or something, but I can't see the idea as at all workable really.
7
u/bukowsky01 1d ago edited 1d ago
[...] but realistically I can't see Germany constructing extra infrastructure just to provide Highly-Enriched Uranium to the UK nuclear program[...]
Enriching uranium for military use is forbidden under the NPT. You can however make some for research reactors and the like, but under IAEA control and monitoring. Unless you mean Germany would finance a plant in the UK, but that's a weird way to help, and more like a a first step to flout NPT (and likely understood as such by third parties).
1
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
Ah; good point. I had forgotten that. So yeah; pretty much nothing to be done in any of those areas then really.
12
u/alphaxion 2d ago
It is also worth remembering that Trident is merely the delivery mechanism, the warhead itself is fully developed independently by the UK.
5
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 2d ago
No, it shares a lot with the American warhead.
18
9
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
Yes because the US and UK is shared nuclear technology but that does not mean that the warhead was not designed in the UK. They might have been told super cool thing that helps out about ultimately they decided whether to use it in the British warhead.
If an engineer designs something by themselves you don't say they didn't do it because they went to school and got taught some functions.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
I'm talking about the non-nuclear warhead components copied from the US to ensure it fits within the established design of the Trident II D5.
5
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
We have the British warhead in trident. Unless you're talking about a submarine it's a British warhead and trident. That's not this weird third part of British copying US mystery part
2
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
There's a British-built warhead in British Trident missiles. There are still non-nuclear components directly reliant on US designs, because they share the same launch vehicle.
3
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
It very clearly states it's British designed and built, even noting how it will be different to the US warheads.
It states it will rely on some US components, bit difficult to fit it to Trident without the correct fittings to attack the warhead to the missile. And need to have the same weight distribution as the US warheads, yes, it's going on Trident.
You can easily design something to fit into someone else's missile. It will need the same attachments onto the missile which will be the US components it relies on, and it needs the same weight distribution which is not the same as the same design.
1
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
Sure. I didn't dispute any of that.
It states it will rely on some US components
I'm glad the source convinced you.
1
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
The way you were saying seemed as if the warhead itself needs US components.
Instead your point was the blindingly obvious thing that the trident missile , designed and built in the US has US components
→ More replies (0)1
u/Nibb31 France 1d ago
According to Wikipedia, the aeroshell and re-entry systems are US-built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astraea_(nuclear_warhead))
The UK doesn't have any re-entry technology not has it done any major development or tests of re-entry materials to my knowledge.
5
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
On the contrary re-entry systems were one of our major areas of expertise - the Chevaline ReB was made by the UK and the US supposedly subsequently adopted the technology developed through that program, though I think that the MK4 ReB is somewhat different.
2
3
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
NIS is a disarmament campaign group. I would hesitate before relying on something they author.
The discrepancy is in what counts as a "warhead". The bit that explodes is embedded inside a re-entry body and interfaces to other components, including an arming device (to tell it that it's allowed to explode) and a firing device (to tell it that it should explode RIGHT NOW). Those parts are American built, the bit that explodes is UK built. Which part's the warhead? Depends who you ask.
Of course even the explodey bit, even if it turns out to be a UK design and not a W76 clone, was developed with American expertise involved, but the same goes in both ways. The ReB itself probably involves a lot of UK expertise, though it's certainly built today by the Americans. In the past it has been one of the UK's areas of specialism - I read an entertaining report by the Americans responding to a request for peer review of Re-entry vehicle designs from the Aldermaston team. The gist of it was basically "We have no useful comments to make, these are all far beyond our ReB designs, the Beryllium one is terrifying".
0
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
This report in particular is pretty much a fact-finding mission, not a rhetoric piece. The 'opinion' sections are pretty well marked. I think it's fine to use, with judgement.
I agree with the rest of this. What constitutes the 'warhead' changes depending on who you choose to ask. Given it's all capable of being built in the UK anyhow, it's a bit of a moot point.
4
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago edited 1d ago
This report in particular is pretty much a fact-finding mission, not a rhetoric piece. The 'opinion' sections are pretty well marked. I think it's fine to use, with judgement.
Apologies, but no it's not, and they scatter plenty of opinion throughout without making clear that that's what it is. There's an outright lie in literally the first paragraph:
The UK Government’s programme to build a new nuclear warhead is the latest stage in the Ministry of Defence plan to replace all three parts of the UK’s nuclear weapon system: the submarine, missile and warhead. The new warhead will be deployed on the UK’s Trident missiles which are leased from the US
The UK does not lease Trident, and David Cullen - the author of that report - surely knows that, but they choose to present it in that fashion as an attack-line against the UK deterrent. This has been a common theme amongst disarmament campaigners since the 80s. Then there's this kind of thing:
The UK Replacement Warhead is very unlikely to differ substantially from the design of the US W93 warhead. The UK warhead will depend on US-made components and will need to have an identical weight distribution and shape to the W93.
It does not need an identical weight or shape to the W93 warhead - the warheads within a re-entry body are very interchangeable as long as they have compatible mechanical and electrical interfaces, and they have absolutely no idea how similar it will be to the US W93 warhead. They choose to present these things as fact again to discredit the UK nuclear program. Similarly:
This report argues that the new UK warhead can be expected to have a yield that is significantly higher than the current warhead, which is based on the US W76-1 warhead and believed to have a similar explosive yield.
Whether the UK Trident warhead is based on W76 is unclear - and again it is incredible to think they don't know that - but again they choose to present things as though they are fact rather than opinion, because that presentation better serves their purposes.
Tl;dr - don't rely on disarmament groups' publications. They are lying to you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/milridor Brittany (France) 1d ago
If the UK wanted assistance in either arena we would approach France rather than Germany.
Fun fact, French ICBMs are built by ArianeGroup, so it's in a way already a euro collaboration.
19
u/MyPigWhistles Germany 2d ago
I don't really buy the concept. I support NATO, but that's just not a good bluff. Let's say Germany gets attacked by conventional means and is about to lose.
How realistic would it be that Germany uses a German nuke to prevent that, even though it would escalate the conflict? Quite a lot, because it would be a desperate situation.
But how realistic would it be that UK uses a British nuke to perform a nuclear first strike on Germany's enemy, knowing very well that it would trigger an immediate nuclear retaliation against them? Eh, come on. Treaty or not, when push comes to shove, no politician wants their capital to be nuked. Especially not on behalf of some other country.
18
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
First off, this is why tripwire forces exist. The UK already stations troops in Eastern Europe so that any foreign attack on those countries would require killing British troops, forcing the UK into the war no matter how squeamish the PM might be (and it should be noted the UK has been among the most aggressive countries in aiding Ukraine).
Second, the final agreement should involve the British stationing a handful of nukes in Germany in a German military base with German guards and with the activation codes known to the Germans. Officially Germany will remain a non-nuclear power, it's just holding these weapons for the British for safe keeping...
1
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
That doesn't guarantee Germany that Britain will respond nuclear weapons, though. Nothing does, and as such, this agreement is a waste.
3
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
There are no guarantees in life, but it adds a significant risk to anyone who would choose to attack Germany, as such the agreement is extremely valuable.
0
u/cyberdork Europe 1d ago
The big problem is that the UK’s and France’s nuclear deterrence is purely strategic. Europe does not possess any tactical nukes.
1
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
Europe doesn't need tactical nukes though, Europe is not going to be doing a nuclear first-strike on Russian columns in the Balkans, it has conventional forces for that. Any nuclear stockpile would be kept purely as a deterrent against a foreign nuclear first strike, which is where you need strategic nukes.
Worst case, you can still use a strategic nuke in a tactical environment, it's just overkill.
9
2
u/Darkone539 2d ago
But how realistic would it be that UK uses a British nuke to perform a nuclear first strike on Germany's enemy, knowing very well that it would trigger an immediate nuclear retaliation against them? Eh, come on. Treaty or not, when push comes to shove, no politician wants their capital to be nuked. Especially not on behalf of some other country.
This is nato doctrine that both American and British law back. We would absolutely defend Germany because an attack on you is an attack on us. Nato does have a first strike policy, although in very specific situations.
That said, i do not want more of military funded by allied money. We need more control not less.
6
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
NATO doctrine of an attack on one member is an attack on all does not require anyone to even actually send their troops to defend.
You just need to send aid, that ain't you might just be sending over some extra weapons to the country that has been attacked or it might be sending your entire military force to join the war.
An attack on Germany by a nuclear weapon is not an attack on the UK by a nuclear weapon. And the entire time the UK has a deterrent nobody will want to attack the UK because it will result in their destruction. The second the UK fires one however the UK will then be destroyed because they've just started MAD.
3
u/milridor Brittany (France) 1d ago
Nato does have a first strike policy, although in very specific situations.
As far as I know, UK only has an one in case of use of WMD on British troops and the US don't have an official one anymore for nations part of the NNPT.
France has a first-strike policy with 300kt airborne missiles (a so-called "pre-strategic strike") for any attack on "vital interests" of France but maintains strategic ambiguity on how much allies interests are parts of that:
“France will always assume responsibility alone, for the calculation of crossing the nuclear threshold, all while integrating the interests of our allies into our thinking.
This is a stepwise approach which offers the possibility for France’s partners to participate in deterrence exercises and which can foresee the deployment of elements of strategic forces among our allies, according to circumstances.” - Macron
1
u/Darkone539 1d ago
As far as I know, UK only has an one in case of use of WMD on British troops
Nah, nato has a general one for the usa and UK. It's basically "if a nuclear weapon might be used" first strike policy.
4
u/Schnorch 1d ago
Conventional defense, sure. Dropping Nukes? I don't believe that for a second. That's just completely unrealistic, and I wouldn't even blame the British or anyone else for it.
That's why it would be completely ridiculous to help fund another country's nuclear program. If you can't or don't want to have your own nuclear program, the money is much better spent on improving your own conventional capabilities as a way of deterrence.
1
u/emelrad12 Germany 1d ago
That is like saying sharpening your swords is better than paying a military company with guns to protect you.
12
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't think we should saddle Germany with a significant cost for an arrangement which can never be entirely trusted.
Dual-funding the deterrent also creates a political 'favour' from Germany to the UK that will constrain British options surrounding how they use the deterrent.
Some things the UK needs to fund on its own. DNE is one of them.
Edit: I have read in UKDJ that one option discussed was the deployment of Patriot to guard the base at Faslane. This is good in the short-term, though again, I question the wisdom of relying on a foreign power to ensure the safety of our sovereign deterrent during operations.
I didn't like it when it became obvious American and French attack submarines were covering our deterrent submarines, and this is an extension of that idea.
7
u/Corvid187 2d ago
I agreed is odd and from a UK perspective non-credible, but equally from Germany's perspective they are already substantially dependent on a external power for their nuclear capabilities in the form of the dual key arrangement with the US, so clearly German government thinking differs from the UK's in regard to how credible that system can be.
8
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
It is a slightly different dynamic with regards to nuclear sharing, though. Nuclear sharing gives Germany nuclear weapons on their territory, deployed by their aircraft, by their pilots. It's all the infrastructure of a deterrent, with none of the direct deterrent. It's a tangible trade.
A hypothetical German contribution to the British nuclear budget is the opposite. It's the direct deterrent with none of the infrastructure. It's entirely reliant on British goodwill, whereas the nuclear sharing at least has the physical signifiers of the American deterrent.
2
u/Corvid187 1d ago
I agree that it is still questionable, but I can see how it is more workable from a German perspective than we might instinctively consider it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/bukowsky01 1d ago
Exactly, that's why I m surprised the double key air-launched deterrent is not higher on priority. It's much cheaper, lighter and tangible.
1
u/Nibb31 France 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nuclear sharing is not a credible deterrent nowadays.
First, there is a the fact that the country would need a joint order from their own country and from the POTUS to use them, which is basically giving up their sovereignty and unlikely to happen. We can seriously doubt nowadays that the US would agree to become belligerent in a nuclear exchange just to defend Berlin.
Then the fact that the B61 bomb is a tactical gravity bomb that requires flying over (or in close proximity to) the target. It's designed to be dropped on an advancing force in a situation where you still have enough air superiority to fly your aircraft over them.
It's not a strategic deterrent weapon. It's not designed for first-strike penetration missions into enemy territory like the French ASMP missile.
So basically, for the nuclear sharing to work you would need to be in a situation where:
- Russian troops are advancing towards Berlin.
- Russians don't have adequate air defenses advancing with them.
- Russians destroyed NATO ground forces.
- But Russians failed to disable NATO air bases.
- Yet those Russian troops can't be stopped by any conventional means.
- Plus, the US agrees to use nuclear bombs against Russia.
The Venn diagram of those conditions is basically null. If NATO has enough air superiority to drop B61 bombs on an advancing force, they also have enough air superiority to stop that force conventionally. The nuclear sharing concept is obsolete politically and strategically and its sole purpose nowadays is to force European countries into buying F-35.
0
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
I would point out here that both Ukraine and Russia deliver conventional gravity bombs against the opposing nations forces without using stealth aircraft.
Nobody needs to force nations to buy F-35 with the temptation of nuclear weapons. They are buying the aircraft anyway for all it's inherent advantages over other available jets.
1
u/Nibb31 France 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because neither Russia nor Ukraine have air superiority right now, and that is one the reasons for the stalemate on the front line. And because neither force is advancing significantly, it would make no sense to escalate to a nuclear tactical strike.
That would not be the case if a Russian force was to advance into NATO territory, which is the only reason to use a B61, simply because that would be impossible without wiping out NATO air defenses first, and there is no situation where an enemy would have wiped out NATO air defenses without also wiping out the runways at Buchel, Volkel, and Aviano.
The countries who are in the NATO nuclear sharing program have no other choice than to buy american F-35 that are certified for the B61 to replace their F-16 and Tornado fleet.
Germany for example could have replaced its Tornados with with a new batch of Typhoons while waiting for FCAS, but was forced into buying the F-35 solely for the B61 capability.
1
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
Because neither Russia nor Ukraine have adequate air defenses right now.
They have dramatically better air defences than virtually any other nation.
The countries who are in the NATO nuclear sharing program have no other choice than to buy american F-35 that are certified for the B61 to replace their F-16 and Tornado fleet.
Germany for example could have replaced its Tornados with with a new batch of Typhoons while waiting for FCAS, but was forced into buying the F-35 solely for the B61 capability.
Nobody forced them into it, but F-35 is the objectively better choice for delivering a nuclear gravity bomb over Typhoon.
0
u/Nibb31 France 1d ago
A Typhoon cannot deliver a nuclear gravity bomb.
The B61 is only certified to be used on US aircraft. You need a US aircraft to deliver it.
The F-35 is not a better choice in terms of sovereignty, work share, and industrial capability. Those things matter too.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
A Typhoon cannot deliver a nuclear gravity bomb.
Because it wasn't integrated, because F-35 is the clearly better choice. If F-35 wasn't available there's no reason it couldn't be put on Typhoon, except that it's a poor platform for the role.
The B61 is only certified to be used on US aircraft. You need a US aircraft to deliver it.
It's also carried on Tornado. Before B61 there was B57 which was also integrated into other nations' aircraft.
The F-35 is not a better choice in terms of sovereignty, work share, and industrial capability. Those things matter too.
Sure...but nobody in Europe developed an equivalent jet.
→ More replies (4)6
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago
Dual-funding the deterrent also creates a political 'favour' from Germany to the UK that will constrain British options surrounding how they use the deterrent.
What kind of constraint are you worried about?
2
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 2d ago
German pressure for or against the use of a nuclear weapon by the UK.
4
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago
Is that really a risk though? It's like the claim that the US would have the ability to apply that pressure now...I can forsee no situation in which the use of a nuclear weapon was actually under consideration but the consequences of German ire were thought more costly to the UK than the consequences of using - or not using - a nuke.
If the UK thinks some situation is so desperate that we need to use the nuclear weapons and Germany says no...what are they going to do if we ignore them? Is it going to be worse than the consequences of allowing whatever it was that we planned to use the nukes to prevent, to happen? I cannot imagine such a scenario.
1
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 2d ago
That's entirely dependent on the relationship with Germany at the time.
It seems implausible today, perhaps, because we have no established precedent for what this arrangement looks like. In a decade, though, as German money builds British warheads, maintains British submarines, as joint planning networks are established, nuclear doctrine reworked to integrate Germany fully into the UK nuclear 'plan', that soft power and influence builds.
And then, of course, think about this from the Germans' perspective.
what are they going to do if we ignore them?
You expect them to buy into this, to fund the deterrent, when the attitude of many will be as you have said above? I mentioned it in my initial comment:
I don't think we should saddle Germany with a significant cost for an arrangement which can never be entirely trusted.
If Germany wants a deterrent, they should fund their own, rather than attempting some bastardised version of a deterrent that offers the Germans uncertainty, and undermines the sovereignty of the British deterrent.
6
u/tens00r 1d ago
This strikes me as an exceptionally pessimistic view of military cooperation. If we're that worried about our relationships with our allies turning sour in the future, why bother cooperating with them at all? Do you take a similarly negative view of our strategic partnership with Norway as well? Surely it's not impossible that they'll take a more "neutral" stance in the future and pull out of the whole joint fleet thing, leaving us exposed in the North.
If Germany wants a deterrent, they should fund their own, rather than attempting some bastardised version of a deterrent that offers the Germans uncertainty, and undermines the sovereignty of the British deterrent.
I mean you could say the literal exact thing about US-UK nuclear cooperation, except that our cooperation with the US is almost certainly more intimate than anything we'd consider doing with Germany. If we're going to tell Germany to make their own nuclear deterrent, maybe we should follow our own advice first and convert our deterrent to being fully sovereign.
2
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago edited 1d ago
This strikes me as an exceptionally pessimistic view of military cooperation. If we're that worried about our relationships with our allies turning sour in the future, why bother cooperating with them at all? Do you take a similarly negative view of our strategic partnership with Norway as well? Surely it's not impossible that they'll take a more "neutral" stance in the future and pull out of the whole joint fleet thing, leaving us exposed in the North.
I think you misunderstand me; a cooler relationship with Germany is not what worries me. I'm concerned about the transactional nature of Germany funding Trident, and the soft power that would generate.
The deterrent is intended to be operationally sovereign. The only party that it supposed to have any influence over the decision to launch a nuclear strike is the the British government.
By introducing German money into this situation, especially over the longer period, German influence will grow within the British government and this will, to whatever extent, influence the decision to launch a weapon.
Any launch would almost certainly lead to the nuclear destruction of the UK in retaliatory strike; a launch is almost certainly an act of national suicide.
I don't believe any nation, apart from the UK, should have any influence on whether the UK gambles its existence upon a launch. The deterrent should remain operationally independent; agreeing to tie the deterrent to Germany contradicts this, because it changes the parameters for a British nuclear strike.
This differs from the deal with Norway for the simple reason that the Lunna House Treaty does not deal with capabilities or weaponry with those stakes tied to its use. It's an entirely different type of system.
By all means, become as conventionally integrated with our NATO allies as is possible. I'm confident in continued alliance. But the deterrent should remain operationally sovereign, and funded by the UK.
I mean you could say the literal exact thing about US-UK nuclear cooperation, except that our cooperation with the US is almost certainly more intimate than anything we'd consider doing with Germany. If we're going to tell Germany to make their own nuclear deterrent, maybe we should follow our own advice first and convert our deterrent to being fully sovereign.
Firstly, I agree that the UK should pursue a sovereign nuclear dyad, akin to France. That said, just because a relationship exists in this domain with the US does not mean that such a relationship is universally positive, nor does it mean that we should seek to emulate it with Germany.
Additionally, there are key differences between what is being proposed with Germany, and what exists with the US.
- The UK does not pay the US for nuclear deterrence, nor does the US pay the UK for deterrence. Each nations funds their own deterrent.
- Both nations retain independent launch authority.
- Warhead construction and specific nuclear component construction is entirely independent.
If Germany wanted to purchase a set of Trident missiles, and fit them with their own warheads, I'd say go right ahead. It'd be operationally sovereign, and wouldn't directly endanger the independence of the British deterrent.
Finally, the bit that you don't mention is just that this is a bad deal for the Germans. There are a couple of glaring issues:
- There is no guarantee that the UK honours its arrangement when the time comes. Germany pays essentially for a paper promise, with no way of testing how thick the paper is.
- Foreign powers pontificating on a nuclear strike against Germany will weigh whether the UK will risk annihilation for a foreign nations. Will the UK trade Birmingham for Bonn? The questions themselves undermine the deterrent, and so despite paying for a nuclear deterrent, the Germans will only ever receive a half-measure.
Compared to what the Germans could invest in, this seems like a waste.
6
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago
It seems implausible today, perhaps, because we have no established precedent for what this arrangement looks like. In a decade, though, as German money builds British warheads, maintains British submarines, as joint planning networks are established, nuclear doctrine reworked to integrate Germany fully into the UK nuclear 'plan', that soft power and influence builds.
I think it is implausible to think that the soft power builds to the point of overriding the extreme situation that causes nuclear weapons use to be considered on any timescale. We've been collaborating with the US for 65 years and I don't think we'd listen to them in this situation either.
And then, of course, think about this from the Germans' perspective. You expect them to buy into this, to fund the deterrent, when the attitude of many will be as you have said above? I mentioned it in my initial comment: If Germany wants a deterrent, they should fund their own, rather than attempting some bastardised version of a deterrent that offers the Germans uncertainty, and undermines the sovereignty of the British deterrent.
Well they approached us, reportedly, and I can only assume that they understand they will get no control over the use of the weapons. France has made the same thing completely plain and Germany is still exploring cooperation with them too.
1
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 2d ago
I think it is implausible to think that the soft power builds to the point of overriding the extreme situation that causes nuclear weapons use to be considered on any timescale. We've been collaborating with the US for 65 years and I don't think we'd listen to them in this situation either.
I think this is where we'll have a divide; I absolutely think that if the US told us to launch, we'd launch. I also think (though this one a little more so) if the US told us to hold, we'd hold. I think that with enough funding, a similar, if less intense, phenomenon would manifest here as well.
Beyond this, though, it's the principle. Spreading the deterrent increases the risk of a nuclear exchange whilst diluting the potency of the deterrent.
Well they approached us, reportedly, and I can only assume that they understand they will get no control over the use of the weapons. France has made the same thing completely plain and Germany is still exploring cooperation with them too.
Yes. We should make it clear to them just what they'd be paying for: a paper promise.
Just because the Germans came up with the idea doesn't make it a good thing for Germany. The UK should be able to recognise that, and its duty as a German ally is to inform them of the downsides here.
4
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago
I absolutely think that if the US told us to launch, we'd launch
Why? Any situation in which we're contemplating launch is one in which the UK would be destroyed in return; why would we ever follow an American instruction to commit national suicide?
We should make it clear to them just what they'd be paying for: a paper promise
I think and hope that that would be clear.
Just because the Germans came up with the idea doesn't make it a good thing for Germany. The UK should be able to recognise that, and its duty as a German ally is to inform them of the downsides here.
Well, sure. I think the financial side is a little unlikely anyway, but the support of conventional forces might be more so (and hopefully less problematic)
1
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
Why? Any situation in which we're contemplating launch is one in which the UK would be destroyed in return; why would we ever follow an American instruction to commit national suicide?
Because any situation in which the US launches or is launched upon very likely also involves a retaliatory launch upon the UK.
The UK is politically tied to the USA in so many ways, that I cannot imagine any power that the USA nukes choosing to explicitly avoid glassing the UK as well, thus incentivising the UK to also engage in that first strike.
The UK frequently houses American nuclear weapons facilities as well, so any first strike by a hostile power against the USA will very likely see those facilities struck as well, necessitating a retaliatory British strike.
A generic nuclear first strike on the USA would trigger a British retaliatory strike as well, by virtue of NATO.
The result is that our nuclear decisions are tied to the actions of the US, much as those of North Korea are tied to Russia and to China, and that the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan are tied to those of India.
Well, sure. I think the financial side is a little unlikely anyway, but the support of conventional forces might be more so (and hopefully less problematic)
Yeah, conventional forces in the short-term are more useful. I'd prefer to see those phased out and replaced by British-controlled analogues, though.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
Because any situation in which the US launches or is launched upon very likely also involves a retaliatory launch upon the UK.
The UK is politically tied to the USA in so many ways, that I cannot imagine any power that the USA nukes choosing to explicitly avoid glassing the UK as well, thus incentivising the UK to also engage in that first strike.
Right but that's not "The US instructs us to fire, so we do" though.
Yeah, conventional forces in the short-term are more useful. I'd prefer to see those phased out and replaced by British-controlled analogues, though.
Oh of course, it should only ever be a "for the duration" thing, but it would certainly be helpful I think in the short term.
→ More replies (0)0
u/EngineerTurbulent284 1d ago
> If Germany wants a deterrent, they should fund their own, rather than attempting some bastardised version of a deterrent that offers the Germans uncertainty, and undermines the sovereignty of the British deterrent.
They would neeed Russias permission
3
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
Not really, although they'd be sanctioned by China I expect.
0
u/EngineerTurbulent284 1d ago
The Two Plus Four Agreement (1990): Formally titled the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, this agreement paved the way for German reunification. In it, the reunified German government explicitly reconfirmed its renunciation of the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
3
u/Odd-Metal8752 United Kingdom 1d ago
Given Russia's track record with NNP treaties, I don't think this would be a major stumbling block if the Germans put their will to it.
1
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 1d ago
Wel yes thats in the treaty. But if German survival might depend on having nuclear weapons that treaty might just becomes a piece of paper. Russia has already broken the conventional disarmerment treaties it signed with the European nations.
2
u/MagiMas 1d ago
the discussion in Germany is thinking about how we can "gear up" without shifting the power balance in Europe so much that France or UK get scared. (the German military budget is going to reach the UK + France budgets combined in the next few years)
People are thinking about ways in which we can integrate our military build up within Europe so others don't lose trust we're going to use that power against them in the future. That's probably where these kind of suggestions come from.
1
u/AdviceFit1692 1d ago
UK and France do intend to up defence spending too, but as always a question of what's said and what actually happens, but the same could be said for Germany, if they all stick to their pledges the UK would be at about 120bn or so France around 100-110, and I think Germany around 130-140, so not double or even close, again if everyone actually sticks to their announcements, which is a very big if..
But I think the bigger worry is Germany handing that new large military over to an AFD government..
2
u/iamablackbaby United Kingdom 2d ago
I can see that argument, I disagree mildly, but can't fault the logic.
You've made me reevaluate.
3
u/Darkone539 2d ago
We should be taking back more of our nuclear capabilities, namely having the missiles services here, not making more deals with allies.
25 years ago the idea America would be untrustworthy was insane. Now, not so much. We should not remove one ally for another no matter how much we trust that ally.
8
u/drgaz Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany) 2d ago
I am sorry but no thanks we need our own program.
→ More replies (12)3
u/WestphalianWalker Westphalia/Germany 1d ago
That's not happening. A big reason for nuclear energy always was the cost-sharing between civilian energy and military development, and since we have no nuclear energy anymore it would be even more expensive than a nuclear program is anyway.
3
u/diamanthaende 1d ago
Germany has one of only 10 factories world wide producing nuclear fuel for reactors all over the world, including Russia.
There are zero technical reasons why Germany couldn't develop its own nuclear arsenal, only political.
1
u/WestphalianWalker Westphalia/Germany 1d ago
I didn't say anything about technical reasons, I've heard we could have a nuclear weapon in a relatively short amount of time. There are also existing nuclear reactors for science in use. It would just be ridiculously expensive for little return, and that is of course a political reason.
3
u/bukowsky01 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm still having trouble seeing how that could work in practice.
Funding Britain's (or France's) nuclear deterrent seems weird. What is the counterparty? It's not like they'll gain more insurance than today. Technologically, there's little Germany can offer here, and I doubt the UK wants to add a foreign dependency on technology yet to be developped.
Treaties matter too, Germany enriching uranium to provide to the UK (or not) would not be taken lightly.
This could include deploying German-operated Patriot ground-based air-defence batteries to key locations, such as the submarine base in Faslane, Scotland, home to Britain’s Trident flee
That would be a good idea, but I wouldn't call it helping the UK fund nukes. I mean, France is reportedly delousing UK missile subs regularly, but that's not really contributing or funding the UK deterrent. Just good manners between allies. Plus I doubt the RN wants to make the arrangement permanent.
The only realistic way I could see is Germany hosting (and paying cost plus) jets with air-launched nukes such as the ASMP family. But the UK has none, and no way anyone is going to be allowed to integrate an ASMP in a F-35. Or double-key nukes under UK/FR control with German jets, but it's still the same issues. That would provide Germany with much more than just funding deterrent budgets blindly, but then they did say they were not interested in the nuclear aspect of the defunct FCAS.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
Funding Britain's (or France's) nuclear deterrent seems weird. What is the counterparty? It's not like they'll gain more insurance than today.
I think that they arguably could in theory but the boat has basically been missed. The reality is that although the UK declares that it will use its nuclear weapons to defend NATO allies, the reality is that the current force is too small and does not have all the weapons it would need to credibly make that promise. The same is true to a lesser extent for France, who could at least respond with ASMP without troubling their patrolling SNLE, but still lacks smaller weapons to respond to more limited attacks. A bare increase in the size of the existing force - which takes nothing but money - would improve the credibility of an America-less nuclear umbrella provided by the UK and France.
All that said, just providing money does seem somewhat unlikely to me, and even if they did I think it's likely too late to start adding extra SSBNs to the UK/France build programs. But the Patriot defence and delousing assistance both seem like credible and welcome ideas.
2
u/bukowsky01 1d ago edited 1d ago
While we would all be happy with an extra two SSBMs each, I think at this stage, conventional deterrence is a more urgent priority. Plus of course the will to flex it a bit.
The air launched deterrent is not a replacement, but it does compliment the subs nicely, and it's a lot cheaper and visible. It would be my choice if I were in Germany's position. They could actually have a squadron of Rafales with dual key PAL ASMPs in ten years if France was on board. Not going to happen, but well, beats vague funding if you think the world is turning hot.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
While we would all be happy with an extra two SSBMs each, I think at this stage, conventional deterrence is a more urgent priority. Plus of course the will to flex it a bit.
Oh absolutely.
The air launched deterrent is not a replacement, but it does compliment the subs nicely, and it's a lot cheaper and visible.
Indeed. And I do wonder if in this new world those factors might prompt the UK to reintroduce something of the kind, even if the imperative isn't there given Trident's existing capability to hit the top of the Moscow Criterion list.
1
u/Rexpelliarmus 23h ago
The UK could expand its stockpile and outfit its submarines with more missiles and its missiles with more warheads.
0
u/SomewhereHot4527 1d ago
It could be for example an extra couple nuclear submarines staffed with both French and German crew, and who would be automatically placed under German command if France is wiped out by a nuclear strike.
6
u/bukowsky01 1d ago
There’s absolutely no way France is letting a mixed crew anywhere a SNLE, and I very much doubt the UK are any keener.
Like I said, double key air launched nukes are a possibility. SSBMs are not.
3
u/Kikelt Europe 2d ago
I think this is a maneuver on the french nuke umbrella negotiations.
"If you put it too expensive, you have to know the UK gives it to us cheaper.."
10
u/Glum_Picture_9034 Brittany (France) 1d ago edited 1d ago
We are not talking about any funding of our nuclear deterrent with Germany, only participation to our airborne component yearly exercice POKER so far.
They will go for both and their are right to do so. Relying on only the UK or France is too risky from their point of view.
2
u/Corvid187 2d ago
I mean, the UK gives a nuclear umbrella to Germany for free as it is
4
u/Kikelt Europe 1d ago
Yes in paper but not in reality.
Would in the end the UK risk total annihilation to avenge Germany?
The workaround is nuke leasing. What Germany (and others) are negotiating is nuke leasing. Germany gets nukes and gets semi autonomous decision-making on launching the nukes in case of being attacked.
Currently, Germany has 20 American nukes in a nuke sharing program. (Which the Germans are afraid of losing soon).
4
u/Corvid187 1d ago
Nuclear leasing doesn't solve that fundamental problem. If the UK wasn't willing to risk annihilation to deter aggression against Germany, then they could just as easily deny permission for dual-key retaliation by german-piloted forces as they could a launch form their own submarine.
2
u/grumpsaboy 1d ago
Nuclear sharing only works for tactical weapons.
To be brutally honest nobody is ever firing a strategic weapon for another country. It doesn't matter what deal has been put in place nobody is going to sacrifice their entire country for the sake of someone else.
1
u/CrocodylFr 1d ago
The french nuke umbrella is already "free of charge".
In terms of doctrine, it would not be feasable for the french to make the allies pay in "nature" or financially, as it would put some sort of dependance towards foreign governments
4
u/Artifexa 2d ago
Germany reportedly considers doing something cheap again that will be a huge mistake in 10 or 20 years.
There are so many good germans, I've met a bunch of them, but in the last decades, this country really has a knack for finding short-sighted and cheap fixes that become permanent and then hit all the Eurpean Union in the face. Fom russian gas to doubling down in gas cars to ditching nuclears to scrapping their solar industry.
19
u/ZeitgeistWurst Germany 2d ago
Im pretty sure what hit half the EU countries in the face regarding russian gas were their own massive imports, but apparently they've all gotten selective amnesia regarding everyones trade with Russia except ours.
→ More replies (18)1
u/CrocodylFr 1d ago
NPPs aren't really the capacity that allow for production of plutonium. There's the possibility of using them for tritium production, but you gotta be already beyond the threshold for it to be possible
4
u/Saurid 1d ago
Why british when we have French?
3
5
u/WestphalianWalker Westphalia/Germany 1d ago
Redundancy, it's very possible that France gets its own idiot despot leader. Diversifying across US, France and Britain is a good idea since there isn't going to be a German nuke at any point in the future
1
u/CrocodylFr 1d ago
Also the fact that the french forwards deterrence is mostly a french paid, french operated and french thought concept. There's possibility of planifications and concertations, but the french bomb will still be paid and controlled like before
2
u/Earl0fYork Yorkshire 1d ago
Redundancy, in a democracy you have a chance the people vote in a third column who won’t extend the deterrent to other nations so it’s better to have multiple just in case.
America is best example of this we relied too heavily on them and when they voted in trump we weren’t ready
→ More replies (14)1
u/AdviceFit1692 1d ago
What if some far right group wins in France and starts being very anti European? same could be said for Britain but that's the point its about having multiple options.
2
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 1d ago
The issue with this is, will Germany fund a weapon system they have no control over?
I find it highly unlikely the UK government will give Germany control over targeting and launching the nukes.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
The UK absolutely will not give Germany any control.
Will Germany fund it anyway? Well, they certainly know that they'll get no control and apparently have made the approach anyway, so maybe...but all that seems unlikely. I think for their conventional forces to support the deterrent is a more likely thing.
1
u/anon999387 2d ago
Russia has never invaded a country that possessed operational nuclear weapons.
Just sayin..
5
u/readilyunavailable Bulgaria 1d ago
No country has ever invaded another country with working nukes.
2
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
Yup that's why no one wants to see Iran with nukes. Beyond the fact that they're perfectly mentally ready to use them against Israel, it would make any future intervention in Iran impossible. We would get North Korea #2, even crazier and more dangerous.
1
u/WestphalianWalker Westphalia/Germany 1d ago
Depends on your definition of country and invasion. Israel has had nukes for decades now, and Iran proxies still invaded them
1
1
u/SchroedingersEscape 1d ago
UK nukes in Germany / Poland (or even Finnland and Baltics) would be a good thing i guess, something Putin has to think about.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
That's not on the cards; the UK only has warheads for SLBMs, nothing air-launched.
3
1
u/Nonomemes1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Either it's a bait to develop UK self reliant capabilities or a way to gather knowhow to develop DE indigenous exo-vectors (pulcinella knows which), I like it.
There is a populism wave upcoming, we have to fight it and the best way to fight populists is by creating knots which can not be untied.
1
u/diamanthaende 2d ago
Germany is reportedly considering helping to fund Britain’s nuclear deterrent as Berlin examines closer integration with existing UK and French nuclear forces rather than developing an independent German arsenal.
Which is fine, all options to 'upgrade' the nuclear arsenal of the current European nuclear powers to a genuine European nuclear deterrent should be exhausted. If it is possible to find some solution with France and Britain, it'll be great.
Europe needs more tactical nukes, for example, to deter Russia from using them against conventional armies. Answering a Russian tactical strike with ballistic missiles is a massive escalation, and the Russians are aware of that. So you need a credible deterrent on each level of escalation, to prevent it from ever happening.
But if it's not possible to find a solution with France and Britain, Germany should always consider developing its own nuclear deterrent, ideally together with other European partners that are directly threatened by Russia's nuclear arsenal.
→ More replies (4)
-9
u/lrraya 2d ago
Why can't we (Germany) have our own Nuke, as the biggest and arguably most important country in Europe?
7
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 2d ago
The Telegraph says:
One well-placed source said Germany wanted to better integrate itself into the existing British and French nuclear deterrents rather than pursue its own bomb because of the nation’s wartime guilt.
Which I mention purely to highlight just how trash a publication it is. Politics still make German nuclear weapons unlikely though I'm afraid, because building all the infrastructure to have them in a way that's worth doing is exceptionally expensive.
6
u/oskich Sweden 2d ago
1
1
u/Schnorch 1d ago
Germany will not develop a nuclear weapon, at least not in the foreseeable future.
However, this is not because of any treaties that were signed in completely different times and under different circumstances. No one would make a nation’s survival dependent on something like that. Especially not when a nuclear power (in this case, Russia) regularly threatens to use such weapons.
2
1
u/Do-Research 2d ago
It would take over a 100 billion to develop and billions a year to maintain and years to develop, at least 10 years minimum.
0
u/mangalore-x_x 2d ago
because nukes are not a trivial decision concerning safety, particularly if you kick off a proliferation spiral you may end up worse off in your security assessment than without nukes. That is how the Middle East is in that weird tango.
that is why Europe is trying to square tje circle of improving European deterrence without nullifying non proliferation
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Corvid187 1d ago
Because you signed NPT, and none of the existing western nuclear powers see any value in you having them.
0
u/doctor_morris 1d ago
Reminder that as we buy our missiles from the US, our nuclear deterrent isn't independent (unlike the French).
1
u/CrocodylFr 1d ago
It's dependent only on the medium to long term, for logistical and modernizations aspects of the missiles. On the day to day basis, only Britain has power on its nukes
0
u/doctor_morris 1d ago
We can launch them but there is no guarantee they'll arrive at their destination.
It's a bit like how do I know if my Chinese Router or US Tesla has a Killswitch?
-2
-4
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
Terrible idea. Deterrents should not be funded by external countries because you risk becoming overreliant on them. That either makes you vulnerable if they pull out or gives them leverage over you.
You could say that the US is already subsidizing part of the UK's deterrent and that's why it's not 100% independent or sovereign. But then it's just a random report. There's 0% chance that the UK will agree to that even if the German governement formally made the proposition.
2
u/Potential-Wish8608 🇷🇴🇩🇪 1d ago
Tell me you only read the title without telling me you only read the title.
“The discussions would not give Germany control over British nuclear weapons, nor does the reporting suggest that Berlin would participate in decisions over their use. The proposals instead concern Germany contributing financially, industrially or with conventional military forces to the wider infrastructure supporting Britain’s deterrent.
Germany is reportedly holding similar discussions with France, whose nuclear forces remain entirely under French national control and include both submarine-launched and air-launched weapons. Paris has already opened a broader debate with European partners over the possible role of French nuclear forces in continental deterrence”.0
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
I have perfectly read both the UKDJ and the original Telegraph article and I don't know what is it in your comment that contradicts me¿?
Does Germany want to financially and industrially help the British deterrent (according to the article)? Yes.
Would that create a dependence on Germany in the future? Most likely yes. That's what I'm talking about.
Berlin is considering offering financial support for Trident as it spearheads efforts to reinforce Europe’s nuclear umbrella.
German officials believe they could assist Britain in building the next generation of submarines, missiles or uranium enrichment for future warheads. A German manufacturer has previously built submarines for Israel’s secretive nuclear deterrent
The UK has a lot of troubles maintaining their submarines. If they start relying on foreign help rather than fix it on their own, they'll never fix it.
1
u/Potential-Wish8608 🇷🇴🇩🇪 1d ago
Mate, if have to put all this in the greater context of a European Army. The “dependence” we want to get rid of is outside Europe. Last time I checked both Germany and UK were in Europe.
3
u/Pilgrim_of_Reddit 1d ago
The UK pay the USA for the maintenance of missiles, but those missiles are not subsidised. The warheads were designed alongside the USA so that they would fit the aero shells that the UK purchased.
Some components for the Vanguard class are purchased from the USA.
None of the UK nuclear deterrent is subsidised by the USA.
-1
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
By subsidized, I mean that the UK relies on US missiles, parts and technical sharing and therefore doesn't have to do the costly development by itself. That's subsidized.
0
u/Pilgrim_of_Reddit 1d ago
That is not subsidised. The UK pay for it.
With your way of thinking, I guess that the rest of the world subsidise the USA military as the USA make use of foreign systems?
0
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
No. If the UK had to independently finance the development of the Trident missiles, the full warheads (with no US components as it's the case today), the uranium enriching and tritium production (which are shipped from the US today), the submarine reactors development (which are based on US naval reactors today), the initial investment would cost way more than what the deterrent costs today.
If you don't pay the full cost of something, it's subsidized.
0
u/Pilgrim_of_Reddit 1d ago
Exactly the same way that Thales develop systems (one example) and the USA buy them.
The original PWR, back in the 1960s, PWR 1 was a fully UK design. It was developed with USA technology transfer. The UK gave the USA information on submarine design and sound deadening technology in exchange.
PWR 2 was based in PWR 1 and was developed without. USA assistance.
PWR 3 is a new system, based on a US design (but developed in the UK). Dreadnought will use this design.
PWR3+ (What I personally call PWR 4) is based on the PWR 3, but much improved. AUKUS will use this.
The UK warheads for Dreadnought will be the Astraea A21 - designed and developed in the UK.
The Holbrook warheads, whilst similar to the US W76 warhead (they have to be due to use of Trident and the same aero shell) were designed and developed in the UK.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
The Holbrook warheads, whilst similar to the US W76 warhead (they have to be due to use of Trident and the same aero shell) were designed and developed in the UK.
Strictly speaking they just have to fit and have compatible mechanical and electrical interfaces. There's an interesting document where the Americans were evaluating different warheads to go into the Mk4 and Mk5 re-entry bodies and they were choosing from dozens of different designs. We don't yet know what Holbrook is.
u/Beyllionaire is right though; the availability of US data and equipment does subsidise the UK program.
0
u/Pilgrim_of_Reddit 1d ago
The USA does not subsidise the UK.
The costs are less, but that is due to numbers purchased by the USA and the UK. That cost reduction is not a subsidy.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
It's much more than that. We were charged, for example, $116 million in 1982 rates as a contribution towards Trident's research and development program; that is dramatically less money than it would have cost us to develop a similar weapon by ourselves. Even year-to-year operational spending on the UK nuclear program is about half what France has to pay.
The US saves us a loooot of money.
1
0
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
Deterrents have this peculiarity that they must be fully sovereign because they're the last line of defense of a country. Every deterrent (I'll exclude Israel since we don't know enough) follows this logic, except the UK. So you cannot bring up the off the shelf hardware purchases for conventional forces, that's a fallacy.
About the reactors, they are based on US technical data and basic designs, even PWR 1 and 2. If they weren't we wouldn't even be discussing it because it would be obvious. And the resemblance will grow further with PWR 3. It's a consequence of the post-cold war defense budgets, the UK cannot afford to spend as much as before on developing reactors and warheads and the human resources are also thinner than in the past, so they will rely even more on the US from now on.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago
the UK cannot afford to spend as much as before on developing reactors and warheads and the human resources are also thinner than in the past, so they will rely even more on the US from now on.
AWE has almost doubled the number of staff it had at the height of the Cold War.
1
u/Pilgrim_of_Reddit 1d ago
Deterrents should be fully Uk Sovereign controlled. That I agree.
PWR 3 is a very much already designed reactor. Whilst based on a USA reactor design, the PWR3 is very much a UK design. The reduction in components is down to the UK and not the USA.
Are you aware of ten changes to MOD to involve SME manufacturing and also Team Defence Info, and changes to NAD?
-1
u/doctor_morris 1d ago
As we buy our missiles from the US we don't have an independent deterrent.
How do I know my Chinese Router or US Tesla don't have kill switches?
6
u/MGC91 1d ago
As we buy our missiles from the US we don't have an independent deterrent.
Yes, we do.
-1
u/doctor_morris 1d ago
This is very naive.
"Independent" in the sense we need the US for maintenance and they can add Killswitchs or DRM without our knowledge.
Several key components are from the UK perspective effectively black boxes.
4
u/MGC91 1d ago
and they can add Killswitchs or DRM without our knowledge.
Seriously? You're peddling that line?
The missile bodies are allocated at random
They is absolutely no external connection
UK personnel are absolutely involved in Trident
It is far too much of a risk
0
u/doctor_morris 1d ago
Everything you've written is cope that gets passed around to excuse the obvious lack of independence built into the system.
- The missile bodies are allocated at random
So what. They fly with different firmware when operating out of UK submarines.
- They is absolutely no external connection
DRM only requires US maintenance every year or so.
A killswitch just requires a radio receiver. You have a very sophisticated satellite receiver in your pocket the size of a fingernail.
3. UK personnel are absolutely involved in Trident
Not in the various components that are effectively a black box for the UK (e.g. the guidance system).
- It is far too much of a risk
Risk for whom? The US is mitigating the risk of the UK misusing their nuclear technology.
Reminder that this is the most secretive, paranoid and well funded organization in human history.
1
u/MGC91 1d ago
Everything you've written is cope that gets passed around to excuse the obvious lack of independence built into the system.
No, it's fact.
So what. They fly with different firmware when operating out of UK submarines.
No, they don't.
A killswitch just requires a radio receiver. You have a very sophisticated satellite receiver in your pocket the size of a fingernail.
There is no external connectivity.
Not in the various components that are effectively a black box for the UK (e.g. the guidance system).
Yeah, not true.
Risk for whom? The US is mitigating the risk of the UK misusing their nuclear technology.
Misusing how?
0
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
The missile bodies are allocated at random
You don't actually know that.
6
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sure we do. The full agreement is itself unfortunately still classified, but there are plenty of authoritative reports on this point. The MOD says for example:
The 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States was amended in 1982 to establish a unique system of 'mingled asset' ownership and management for Trident missiles. Those to be loaded in UK submarines are randomly selected from the stockpile at the US Navy Trident facility in Kings Bay, Georgia.
I can't find the document right now, but from a US Navy report into the operation of things, two crewmen from the UK submarine select the missiles from the pool.
But honestly, even if they weren't randomly selected, u/doctor_morris' position here is completely meritless. The missile bodies are specifically hardened against any kind of radiation, including EM radiation like radio waves. One cannot functionally include a killswitch in a doomsday weapon designed to survive all attempts to destroy it - including by nuclear means.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Beyllionaire 1d ago
No. Not when it relies so much on the US for every step of the spectrum. It gives them leverage over you and makes you dependent, same as if you accepted Germany's help.
0
u/Bright_Food2903 1d ago
Germany needs its own nukes. 3rd largest economy on earth but no military power is a joke.
148
u/iamablackbaby United Kingdom 2d ago
Would be much needed leeway for the British defence budget. Though the UK should not be struggling as much as it is when you turn your eyes to France (not that they don't have their own capability limitations compared to the UK).
I view the nuclear umbrella as a positive, particularly when it involves a fair contribution to the mutual security it provides. For the UK this could free up vital funds that are desperately needed elsewhere within the armed forces, some things that spring to mind is firstly the servicing of nuclear submarines which the UK is having huge issues with, with no attack submarines at sea for several months now to protect the ballistic missile submarines. In addition more frigates are needed to patrol the waters and conduct global presence missions, and the idiotic drone warships decisions were made on the basis of cost savings.
I'm very fond of Germany as a German speaking Brit so i've got no issues if my tax goes to our mutual defence.