Why does the UK want more nuclear missiles?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week launched a plan to make the islands a “Global Britain”. A ten-year plan from your government to stimulate international trade and deploy “soft power” around the world. But as he had revealed a day before The Guardian, the ad had a not-so-sweet second part. He said he would also increase the arsenal of nuclear warheads, “not only to deter traditional threats, but also to address biological, chemical and possibly even cyber attacks“. In this way ends 30 years of progressive disarmament since the fall of the Soviet Union. A barrage of criticism has fallen on 10 Downing Street, the seat of government. They came from other nuclear powers, Iran, minority parties led by the Greens and the anti-nuclear movement which was so powerful in the 1990s that it forced the then executive to close several military bases.

Everything was sealed in a 110-page document titled “A Global Britain in the Age of Competition” in which it is assured that the UK would increase the number of nuclear warheads aboard the Royal Navy’s Trident submarines, from 180 to 260, an increase of over 40%. It is also specified that the navy will maintain a fleet of four nuclear submarines on permanent alert, to always have one at sea, ready to respond to any aggression. It is estimated that in order to build this arsenal, London will need around £ 10 billion, something like $ 13.9 billion.

British Chancellor Dominic Raab clarified that the country was not looking for a new arms race, but “just wanted to maintain credible minimal deterrence“. Because? “Because this is the last guarantee, the latest insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile statesRaab replied.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas described the measure as “Provocative, illegal and morally obscene use of resources”. The Scottish National Party tweeted: “A shameful amount of money that could be used instead to fight child poverty.” Labor Party leader Keir Starmer said his party remained committed to the Trident submarine program and maintaining credible deterrence, but stressed in the House of Commons that Johnson’s plan to increase the arsenal “shatters the goal of successive prime ministers and the efforts of all parties to reduce our nuclear arsenal. It does not explain when, why or for what strategic purpose“. And Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, wrote in a statement: “Now is not the time to start a new arms race. As the world battles the pandemic and climate chaos, it is incredible that our government chooses to increase the nuclear arsenal“.

For decades Britain boasted of having “a minimal nuclear arsenal for deterrence.” Of the five nuclear powers recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (United States, Russia, China, France and Great Britain), the British arsenal is the smallest and the only one with a single means of launch: submarines. Successive UK governments cut nuclear forces by more than half between the 1980s and 2000s.

At the height of the cold war, Britain had over 500 warheads, which could be launched by bombers and submarines. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Britain got rid of nuclear bombers and drastically reduced its arsenal. A defense review in 1998 ordered Britain to reduce the number of available operational warheads to less than 200. Another review in 2006 reduced that number to less than 160. And in 2010, the government announced as the global arsenal – which includes operationally available warheads and reserve warheads would be reduced from 225 to less than 180 in the mid-2020s, a decision reiterated by the Conservative-led government in 2015. The Royal Navy felt that was enough to inflict considerable damage on Russia, the main adversary.

This week’s announcement indicates that it is no longer seen as a sufficient arsenal in the face of new threats. “Some states are now dramatically increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals,” Johnson’s document said, referring to Russia, China and “maybe” North Korea. “They invest in new nuclear technologies and develop new nuclear combat systems”, that is to say “Weapons designed for military advantage on the battlefield, not for deterrence.” In response, Britain “will raise the limit of its world arsenal to 260 warheads”. It will also stop publishing the figures for the number of missiles and warheads carried by each submarine, with the aim of “complicating the calculations of possible aggressors”.

According to the weapons experts of the trade magazine Jane’s “in theory, more Chinese warheads or better Russian warheads shouldn’t change Britain’s nuclear needs one way or another“. Britain maintains a submarine in operation at all times, in a practice known as continuous deterrence at sea, or CASD. The advantage of having your own nukes hidden in the ocean, rather than on land, is that run little risk of being wiped out by enemy weapons, however numerous or sophisticated they may be. In this way, British submarine missiles could easily hit cities like Moscow or Beijing.

So why does Britain really need more nuclear warheads? One possibility is that Britain is worried about future improvements to Russian or Chinese missile defenses., which would require a higher attack volume to deal the same level of damage. Another reason is that would need more than one submarine at sea loaded with nuclear missiles to guard against the risk of a technological advance for anti-submarine warfare.

Heather Williams, del the college king London, explained in a magazine article The Economist that “Russia is developing dual-capacity weapons – missiles that can carry conventional or nuclear warheads – and lowering its nuclear threshold, which means that in the event of conflict, could use nuclear weapons before any enemy. If Russia were to use low yield weapons in this way, it would be disproportionate to retaliate by destroying Moscow. But if Britain wanted to respond in kind – the performance of its own W76 warheads could be reduced, to some extent – I would need to be sure that I have enough warheads left for a later and greater nuclear exchange ”.

There is also a very “Borista” component, that of show yourself stronger than you really are. And the document that Johnson’s announcement was based on contains a lot of it. He also says the armed forces will “deter and defy incursions into British territorial waters off Gibraltar” and “They will maintain a permanent presence in the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island and British Indian Ocean Territory ”. A government source said The telegraph: “The United Kingdom is far from abandoning its transatlantic commitments. They are reinforced and held in high esteem. “A provocation without much sense which had an immediate response from Argentina. For the Minister of Defense Agustín Rossi, the ratification of the maintenance of its” permanent military presence “in the Falklands represents the “reaffirmation of the colonialist claim” that London has on the islands. Meanwhile, Falklands, Antarctic and South Atlantic Islands Secretary Daniel Filmus felt that “the look Johnson raised is clearly colonial” and felt that “The increase in weapons is serious” proclaimed by the European country.

The departure of the European Union led Boris Johnson to have to ratify in various ways that Britain continues not only to be a power, but also is ready to “compete” on an equal footing with other major world powers. But defense analysts believe it is all rhetoric for now. There will surely be aftershocks under the table in Washington, Moscow and Beijing. Also from Brussels. And, of course, UK taxpayers who are unwilling to accept such an expense without a long struggle.

KEEP READING: