4 ms·

What I meant by "ish" is that having a few submarines isn't a particularly strong way of creating a nuclear deterrence against a large and capable adversary (th

What I meant by "ish" is that having a few submarines isn't a particularly strong way of creating a nuclear deterrence against a large and capable adversary (there is a reason triads evolved) - not that the individual launch capability might not be there.

arethuza 3y ago
Well, in the case of the UK its going to be submarines or nothing.... Now you could question whether it is worth it - but that's a completely separate question.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  That is what the UK has now. If you mean by "worth it" is it sufficiently effective and robust, yes, that is indeed a question to ask.
lupusreal 3y ago
The "Nuclear Triad" is more of a historic artifact; the result of several years of organizational rivalries that eventually ossified in this form, rather than something which was deliberately engineered to be this way from the start. The necessity of strategic nuclear bombers is particularly suspect, but for a time they were the only option to get the job done and for that reason SAC was very politically powerful. Furthermore, the deterence factor from land-based ICBMs is relatively weak (although this can be improved by making the missiles mobile, overbuilding silos, then playing a shell game with them.) If what you need is a credible "we'll ruin you from beyond the grave" threat, then the UK's four SSBNs get that job done well enough (presuming the chance of the missiles working is high enough to not take the risk.)
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  The problem with only having a few SSBNs is that they need to be around for the "beyond the grave". The canonical example here is an adversary picking them up one by one (perhaps just rendering them inoperable) in a low level conflict, and at every stage, you get to a "use them or lose them" situation that would mean total destruction when there is a limited conflict. Large, dispersed forces are much tougher to sabotage that way and leave you with more options (if there are a lot of submarines that changes it a bit, too, but having a small fleet is not a great position to be in).
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Simply not possible to fit a large, dispersed force on a small island. Hence the submarine approach.
  - arethuza 3y ago
    Personally, I think that if we get into a war where SSBNs are being sunk then they have already failed. Of course, we have to behave like they work and that we'd actually use them - which is why this test result is so damning for the UK.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    A small SSBN fleet is less of a concern for the UK because their submarines are very good, and the only navy that might have better is one of their strategic allies. You've got to remember each nuclear power is playing a different game; the strategies they choose are informed by their national strengths and weaknesses and who their allies and adversaries are.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      The quality of the submarines might not matter at all.

arethuza 3y ago

Well, in the case of the UK its going to be submarines or nothing.... Now you could question whether it is worth it - but that's a completely separate question.

RandomLensman 3y ago
That is what the UK has now. If you mean by "worth it" is it sufficiently effective and robust, yes, that is indeed a question to ask.

lupusreal 3y ago

The "Nuclear Triad" is more of a historic artifact; the result of several years of organizational rivalries that eventually ossified in this form, rather than something which was deliberately engineered to be this way from the start. The necessity of strategic nuclear bombers is particularly suspect, but for a time they were the only option to get the job done and for that reason SAC was very politically powerful. Furthermore, the deterence factor from land-based ICBMs is relatively weak (although this can be improved by making the missiles mobile, overbuilding silos, then playing a shell game with them.) If what you need is a credible "we'll ruin you from beyond the grave" threat, then the UK's four SSBNs get that job done well enough (presuming the chance of the missiles working is high enough to not take the risk.)

RandomLensman 3y ago
The problem with only having a few SSBNs is that they need to be around for the "beyond the grave". The canonical example here is an adversary picking them up one by one (perhaps just rendering them inoperable) in a low level conflict, and at every stage, you get to a "use them or lose them" situation that would mean total destruction when there is a limited conflict. Large, dispersed forces are much tougher to sabotage that way and leave you with more options (if there are a lot of submarines that changes it a bit, too, but having a small fleet is not a great position to be in).
- pjc50 3y ago
  Simply not possible to fit a large, dispersed force on a small island. Hence the submarine approach.
- arethuza 3y ago
  Personally, I think that if we get into a war where SSBNs are being sunk then they have already failed. Of course, we have to behave like they work and that we'd actually use them - which is why this test result is so damning for the UK.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  A small SSBN fleet is less of a concern for the UK because their submarines are very good, and the only navy that might have better is one of their strategic allies. You've got to remember each nuclear power is playing a different game; the strategies they choose are informed by their national strengths and weaknesses and who their allies and adversaries are.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The quality of the submarines might not matter at all.