Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

[Repulse]

Do they?
Won’t we?
Someone drops an atomic weapon on one of our cities and we would not retaliate?

Why have armed forces at all, in that instance?

Doesn’t have to be a city, but I’d they did fire a tactical nuke at say Portsmouth and wiped out half the fleet with collateral damage, are you telling me we would push the big red button and invoke MAD?

The world has changed since the 50s where these weapons came from. There is every need for armed forces, but little need for a suicide belt.

[Scimitar54]

Someone (A foreign government) will not use Nuclear Weapon (or Weapons) against us while we have:-

1) A viable independent retaliatory Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (in the case of attack by a potential enemy using multiple
nuclear weapons).
AND
2) Sufficient Conventional Forces to deter an attack by a potential enemy using either conventional weapons or
Tactical Nuclear weapons.

It is in our failure to provide sufficient of the Conventional Forces (and Tactical Nuclear Weapons) to resist Conventional and or Tactical Nuclear attack, that makes us over (and inappropriately) reliant on our “Strategic Deterrent”, considerably lowering the threshold at which we would have to decide on it’s use (or what in this instance would be more likely it’s non-use).

[whitelancer]

The difference between a Tactical nuke and a Strategic nuke is neither the means of delivery or the size of the yield. The difference is the choice of target. If someone did attack Portsmouth with a nuclear weapon however it was delivered, SRBM, MRBM, ICBM cruise missile or a straight forward bomb and whatever they called it, Tactical, Strategic or even Sub Strategic makes absolutely no difference what so ever. It will have been a nuclear attack on the UK and I would expect an appropriate response to be made.
Incidentally I believe some of the Trident missiles on our SSBN's have a reduced warhead load specifically to allow for a graduated response if that is required.

[mr.fred]

Doesn’t have to be a city, but I’d they did fire a tactical nuke at say Portsmouth and wiped out half the fleet with collateral damage, are you telling me we would push the big red button and invoke MAD?

Wait.
We wouldn’t destroy an enemy city adjacent to a military target for fear of retaliation? Sounds like a really good argument for a strategic deterrent.

The world has changed since the 50s where these weapons came from. There is every need for armed forces, but little need for a suicide belt.

Yet there is quite clearly a deterrent effect from having it. Hopefully one that reduces the likelihood of needing a large conventional deterrent.
Even if you try to go turtle with BMD etc., if you’ve got no means of striking back, you’ve got nothing to stop your opponent sitting back and lobbing stuff at you until something gets through.

[Caribbean]

The difference between a Tactical nuke and a Strategic nuke is neither the means of delivery or the size of the yield. The difference is the choice of target. If someone did attack Portsmouth with a nuclear weapon however it was delivered, SRBM, MRBM, ICBM cruise missile or a straight forward bomb and whatever they called it, Tactical, Strategic or even Sub Strategic makes absolutely no difference what so ever. It will have been a nuclear attack on the UK and I would expect an appropriate response to be made.

Agreed - there is no real difference between a tactical and strategic nuclear weapon, both represent escalation to an unacceptable level. The only logical position is "If you use a nuclear weapon, however small, on us, we will respond with everything we have". That is the inevitable logic of deterrence.

Incidentally I believe some of the Trident missiles on our SSBN's have a reduced warhead load specifically to allow for a graduated response if that is required.

Yes, indeed - they are said to have three settings, sub yield atomic, full yield atomic and "full physics" hydrogen. That is public domain. It wouldn't surprise me if we have made some changes to weapons yield and other characteristics over the years (Chevaline being an old example).

[abc123]

When France, US, Russia and China give up their SSBNs and SLBMs, then MAYBE should Britain too. Considering that will happen just after the hell freezes over...

[Scimitar54]

Or Armageddon has occurred already, in which case the point is rather moot!

[downsizer]

Cancelled.

[Lord Jim]

What happens if a non state actor uses a Nuke on a UK related target?

[Scimitar54]

A lot of people die!

[Repulse]

The whole UK position is that CASD is there to stop others from using their “Strategic Deterrent” first. It is also based on the belief that the UK has sufficient conventional forces to defend the nation from conventional invasion. Given the drop in the defence budget in real terms, the cost of the former is killing the second.

I can see it now - invading tanks in Whitehall, with Boris holding the red button shouting “move any closer and I’ll take us all out...”. What a strategy

[whitelancer]

I can see it now - invading tanks in Whitehall, with Boris holding the red button shouting “move any closer and I’ll take us all out...”. What a strategy

Somehow I don't see Boris as a Churchillian figure. Besides he would probably drop the button anyway.
But to be serious. Their is only one country in the world which could realistically invade the UK and even Trump is not stupid enough to try.
In my view nuclear weapons have ensured their has been no hot war between major powers since 1945. The risk of any war going nuclear is too great. With costs far outweighing any conceivable gains you could make. So I believe having CASD all but guarantees no state will use Nuclear weapons against the UK. The question is do we need that guarantee, I believe we do, (its an uncertain world out there), others may not.
Having ruled out an invasion a more limited conventional attack would be possible, however any state would still have to take CASD into account and conclude we wouldn't use it.
Then of course their is always Article 5.

[Repulse]

Then of course their is always Article 5.

True, but is it reliable? If the US decided not to respond (possible given Trump’s moods and focus on China), then everything wound unravel quickly.

To make Article 5 more reliable the U.K. & France will have to step up, primarily in conventional forces and enablers. That costs money.

[Lord Jim]

NATO really needs to look again at Article 5 given how things have changed, especially over the past decade. Many nations know what the threshold is and have developed strategies that could cause NATO major problems as whilst action could be underway against NATO members it wouldn't actually cross the Article 5 threshold, at least not in a way that the many NATO member may agree on and it takes a unanimous vote to actual trigger Article 5 I believe. How NATO could go about this I have no idea because to amend Article 5 would probably also require a unanimous vote from NATO members.

[ArmChairCivvy]

To make Article 5 more reliable the U.K. & France will have to step up

Is that the logical starting point when Germany has a GDP of $3.693 trillion vs. our $2.638 trillion and France's $2.583 trillion?

[Repulse]

To make Article 5 more reliable the U.K. & France will have to step up

Is that the logical starting point when Germany has a GDP of $3.693 trillion vs. our $2.638 trillion and France's $2.583 trillion?

Logical no, but realistic in the next few years at least, yes in my view.

Edit: Longer term I see the EU forming a unified armed forces (of sorts), at which point god knows what happens to NATO.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Longer term I see the EU forming a unified armed forces (of sorts), at which point god knows what happens to NATO

If anything at all is going to happen, it will work in reverse order - just my view, of course

[Jake1992]

Longer term I see the EU forming a unified armed forces (of sorts), at which point god knows what happens to NATO

If anything at all is going to happen, it will work in reverse order - just my view, of course

I agree here the EU is now really starting to crack under this latest problem.
In the last week we’ve had the head of the CDU in Germany insulating the Italian people saying they’re just moaning.
we’ve had the first poll ever that has shown more than 50% of Italians now want to leave the club.
A couple of weeks ago we had the portages finance minister calling for Denmark to be kicked out the club.
And while this pandemic is going on what has the EU done, they’ve fined Italy for miss reported PPE aid and put sanctions on Hungry for its parliament giving new powers to its PM.

All this is going on while at the same time Boris has said they’ll be no extension at all and even now considering not to pay the £39bn. So the idea of a joint EU military force is getting more distant now.

[SW1]

For those still doubt

[Scimitar54]

Change of Culture = Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country?

[Jake1992]

Does he mean a change of culture in the general public or the finally much needed change in the MOD along with MPs ?

[Repulse]

Distasteful Medicine can only mean cuts - probably in the order of the black hole plus 10%.

Let’s stop talking about new kit and work out how we can better use what we have and make it last.

[Jake1992]

Distasteful Medicine can only mean cuts - probably in the order of the black hole plus 10%.

Let’s stop talking about new kit and work out how we can better use what we have and make it last.

That’s the problem most of what we have is out dated on its last legs and no longer suitable for peer to peer. Come on we’re still using equipment from the 70s, we’ve put on replacing it using this exact statement over and over to the point it’s become a joke.
We often take the piss out of Russia still using some soviet era equipment but how are we any better ?

We really need to consolidate around Ajax and boxer so we no longer run 10 families of medium vehicles and in doing so reduce our logistic footprint at home and on ops.

[Repulse]

Jake1992, fair point on equipment for the Army, even though I think a lot of damage has been done by itself through differ and delay, I agree kit does need replacement. The question with the Army is at what scale and to achieve what - like the rest the Army will need to limit its ambition to UK based but globally (brigade level) deployable forces with (limited) forward basing.

My focus is on the RN and RAF, where vessels and a/c have been cut or mothballed before their useful end of life - and the endless talk of new shiny kit.

[Lord Jim]

Rather then doing more with what we have got, it maybe a case of simply trying to hold onto what we have. As for new kit, probably only the RAF has avoided the often talked about "Bow wave" of essential new kit, though it may have to accept that 48 F-35s is the limit and there could be a larger capability gap regarding AEW&C with the E-7 being pushed back and the E-3 retiring sooner.

The Royal Navy could come unstuck here , with the Bean Counters deciding it maybe cheaper to slow down the retirement of the T-23 (ASW) and push back the order for the remaining five T-26, or the total of the latter could be reduced to only six with a number of Batch 2 T-31 (ASW) being purchase down the line. The future of the T-23(GP) could also be bleak and these could go sooner rather than later. Regarding SSS, we could see only one being purchased as a stop gap and Fort Victoria having to soldier on for even longer. The MCV force could be reduce with one class being retired in its entirety and with no replacement currently funded the future could be bleak unless unmanned platforms become far cheaper and capable at the same time.

It is the Army that could really suffer in all this. It urgently needs to recapitalise its entire AFV combat fleet, yet only the Ajax currently has a production contract in place and is probably the least suitable platform for the Army moving forward. the WCSP could be cancelled if the money went into the Boxer programme but the priority will be to fill the "Black hole", followed by meeting further savings that are going to be demanded by the Treasury. Unless the other two services are willing to take a greater burden of the cuts the Army is going to be in a very poor state and totally unable to conduct peer on peer operations without being severely overmatched. This will lead to the decline of its mass in all areas and any new capabilities introduced will be on much too small a scale to be anything but PR tools. Chances are the FV432s introduced in the 1960 are still going to be in service well into the 2030s summing up things nicely.