I would say it makes no difference. Nukes are only useful as a deterrent against nukes, which are only useful as a deterrent against nukes (which are... etc.). Which means that in a non-nuclear conflict, nukes are useless. It didn't help us much in Korea, Vietnam, Argentina (the Falklands), Iraq, Afghanistan and a range of other conflicts in the world. In many of those we got our asses kicked by forces with vastly inferior weapons. The last time we could take a non-nuclear conflict to the nuclear level was when the US bombed Japan, and that was only because nobody else in the world had nukes. Now it's a different playing field; even if you drop a nuke on one country that doesn't have any to retaliate, it's bound to have severe political repercussions with countries that do. It turns you into a global threat for crossing a line that all nuclear powers tacitly agreed never to cross.
I disagree, all the examples you give have been small scale in nature, bBy that i mean preventing or removing armed forces that have invaded another countries territory, or guerrilla style conflict. It's given the name nuclear deterrent for a reason, not only because it deters a nuclear attack for fear of retaliation, but also because it deters large scale wars for the fear that the loosing side may use them when it has nothing left to loose. If Japan had nuclear capability in 1945 do you think they would have surrendered ? If Germany had nuclear capability don't you think Hitler would have pushed the button ? Hypothetically: If the UK didn't have a nuclear deterrent and relationships with Russia broke down to the point that they declared war, without a nuclear deterrent what is to stop them from taking the war to it's final conclusion.
If Japan had nukes, would the US have used theirs in the first place? Hitler might have pushed the button once he was in his bunker, but his generals would also have known that the US would have replied in kind, so I'm not sure they would have let him. What final conclusion?
Whether the US would or wouldn't have used them in the first place doesn't matter. The conclusion would have been the same, it would have just come at the expense of more US soldiers loosing their lives, Japans intention was to take as many of the enemy with them before they died. If a nation like Japan see Kamikazes as an honorable way to die what leads you to believe they would be reticent in using nukes, even if it meant a retaliatory strike ? What leads you to believe his generals would have a say in the matter ? The same conclusion that most wars reach, occupation and/or unconditional surrender.
They certainly would have used them in retaliation, which is why the US would probably not have used theirs (the whole point of using them in that war being foreshortening it by demonstrating devastating military superiority). It would just have become more messy, not less so. Someone would have had to obey the command to launch. If there was a very real threat of seeing the cities where their families lived being turned into a bowl of radioactive glass by US retaliatory strikes, I think most officers would have taken their chances with occupation. Unlike the Japanese they didn't feel like fighting to an honourable death. This is borne out by anecdotal (previously classified) evidence of several close shaves during the Cold War. The reason why this planet is not a radioactive lump of coal is basically because repeatedly, officers in key positions with their finger on the button decided to just double check things or just wait and see for a moment. According to Vitalii Tsygichko, an analyst for the Soviet General Staff: “I know many military people who look like normal people, but it was difficult to explain to them that waging nuclear war was not feasible. We had a lot of arguments in this respect. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there are a lot of stupid people both in NATO and our country.” His American counterparts felt the same way. There was a lot of unofficial communication between diplomats on both sides to try and de-escalate matters. Do you think that the US would let Russia occupy Britain? But again, say Russia invades. The UK launches nukes, Russia launches nukes. Game over. So the UK wouldn't launch either way; we'd play the long game of guerrilla warfare (don't laugh --Afghanistan managed it). Russia meanwhile would find that not just invading, but keeping occupied the whole of Europe turns out to be an expensive hobby. This is why it isn't just waltzing into the Crimea but working through the backing of local pro-Russia factions. It's trying to win over the locals rather than subjugating them.
Reminds me of Fallout: New Vegas One of the ways you can talk down Lanius and the Legion [Putin/Russia in this analogy] is explaining that it'd take all of the East's resources to capture and keep control of the West. The argument being the Legion could control one or the other, but trying to control both would eventually ruin them.
That's exactly why estonia, latvia and lithium lithuania are threatened. The still have a Russian minority.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/19-01-2015/129554-latvia_russian_language-0/ looks like Russia is starting again with its `games`.
Throw it away. We're never going to push the button (Global agreements, cowardice, etc etc etc). I can think of three better things to spend 3bn on. Spend 1bn of the savings on giving existing kit an overhaul/providing the right kit to the boots on the ground. Spend another 1bn on the NHS. Put the last 1bn into the 'getting us out of debt' ship.
So that brings us back to your original point that nukes are useless at the negotiating table, and the mistaken assumption that both side have nukes. When only one side have's them as i proposed, they can be used as a deterrent, to prevent the loss of life, or to prevent full scale wars. Even when both sides have them they can be used to prevent wars (IMHO), would we have invaded Iraq if Saddam had nukes ? The only down side that i can see is when you don't have them you become vulnerable to those that do. Again you are making assumptions that there would be other person in the chain of command, i think it's safe to say Hitler probably wouldn't have entrusted anyone but himself with the ability to carry out such an attack. The whole point of a deterrent is that it doesn't come to that. Deter 1. To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt 2. To prevent or discourage (an action or behavior) 3. To make less likely or prevent from happening
Nukes are useless at the negotiating table in getting things your way because you know that you are never going to use them first --even if you threaten you might. The other person may just call your bluff or retaliate in kind. Probably not, because he'd have used them when he personally had nothing left to lose (assuming that his generals would follow his command --they might feel that they did have something left to lose). But the UK government does not have the luxury of acting from such an egocentric point of view. Nope: the downside is that you become vulnerable, period, because you cannot raise the stakes to Too High. But that means that you have to be prepared to do so. This is 1940's technology: there would be no way that Hitler could have a big red button in his bunker that would wire to all launch mechanisms for all the nukes. He would need intermediaries to carry out his command. "True power is to have the will to do what others won't" --Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze A deterrence is only as good as your determination to carry out the threat.
It's not about if you are going to use them or not, it's that the other guy knows it's a possibility, it's to prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt. If i have a gun and you don't are you more or less likely to act on something that you think may cause me to get angry ? Ipso facto they are a deterrent and not having them isn't. A deterrent isn't about what you're willing to do, it's about what the other guy knows is a possibility. No one said he would have, or want more than one nuke. Somehow i think regime that came up with the V2 could manage to run a few miles of cabling. A deterrence has nothing to do with what you're willing to do.
Will a nation ever fire nukes at another nation if they believe the target nation has no nukes? Possibly. It's happened, and the world hasn't ended. Will a nation ever fire nukes at another nation if they believe the target nation does have nukes? Probably not. Only really foreseeable in mad-man territory. Ergo, if I was in charge of a nation I would see it as good risk management to retain nuke capability.
No, it's about what the other guy thinks you'll do. People are not rational but emotional risk takers. If I think that you'll have a real inhibition around shooting someone or seem not very confident with that gun, I might be more willing to take the risk of upsetting you than if I think you are a confident marksman or hair-trigger sociopath. You'd be surprised. And this wouldn't be about just closing a circuit --there is a lot of process involved in getting a missile ready and launching it. It has everything to do with what the other guy thinks you're willing to do. Now Russian generals may well think the UK would retaliate with nukes because that's what (they think) they'd do, and that would be good. But they might also believe the UK could strike pre-emptively, in which case owning those nukes becomes a liability. Or they might think that the UK would chicken out in the end anyway, in which case the nukes are an empty threat. Either way, if you actually launch them they have failed in their purpose; if you don't they have failed in their purpose. It's quite a high stakes gamble, and the UK's overall behaviour on the world stage may prove to be more important in terms of deterrence than owning the nukes. "Strange game. The only way to win is not to play" --WOPR, in War Games In any case, the UK doesn't need to keep nukes while the US has them.
Being part of NATO, any attack on UK will be regarded as an attack on all NATO members which involves the US. So technically speaking, the UK does not need Trident as they are already covered by the US. However I am not sure whether the Americans would be happy to be the only ones maintaining (and paying for) a nuclear deterrent. I bet there are deals in place. Nuclear deterrents make everyone more "polite", and as such, may have prevented a few wars. I don't thing there has ever been a public armed conflict between two nuclear powers (correct me if I am wrong). For example, every few years, Israel sends bombers to Iran (and previously Iraq) to destroy nuclear research facilities, chemical plants, etc. Do you think they would ever do that if Iran had a nuclear arsenal?
