3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoSimply not possible to fit a large, dispersed force on a small island. Hence the submarine approach.
- arethuza 3y agoPersonally, 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 agoA 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 agoThe quality of the submarines might not matter at all.