Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkFunction | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting that the UK uses solely submarine-launched missiles and the rest of the world isn't represented by nuclear submarines at all. I would imagine there are a few advantages to submarines, such as stealth, range, ability to lie dormant or operate far from home for long periods, etc. Why only the UK? Are plane-delivered warheads 'better' in some tactical capacity? Or does the delivery essentially not really matter and each country is using their most economical technology?

Also, it's a really sad infographic. I visited Hiroshima last year and it was heartbreaking (also a very beautiful city).

View on HN

The UK had plane-launched warheads in the 50s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_bomber

The rationale for the Trident fleet was for "second strike purposes": in the event of nuclear war, the UK is small enough to be completely obliterated. The sub fleet provides a single submarine at all times capable of retaliating in this event.

This leads to the letters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort . In the event of surfacing to the horrible silence of not being able to contact HQ and the BBC having ceased transmission, open the letters and follow orders.

An interesting case of "the bomber always gets through" were the mock attacks the RAF did against major US cities as part of an exercise with the US - the Vulcans managed to beat US air defences fairly easily - something that was kept quiet for a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Skyshield

[Fantastic planes the Vulcans - saw one doing aerobatics as a kid above the wee village I lived in - what an absolutely incredible noise]

I really love how the british decides to _write a letter_ as a final set of instructions, unlike the US with it's 24/7 flying command centers that cost an arm and a leg to maintain. And i would guess both is just as effective as each other!

Well, the difference is that Britain would be completely dead, while the US probably won't with the size of its land mass and the amount of personnel around the world it has.

We wouldn't have any one left to command, you would.

I think the really interesting thing about the "letters of last resort", is that the captain can decide what he wants to do when he opens the letter in that horrible event.

I'm looking for the source, but I read an article with a few former captains and they pretty much unanimously said that they wouldn't launch and would seek sanctuary in the nearest friendly harbour instead. Because what would be the point, the UK would essentially be gone, and all they would be doing would be adding to the misery. Can you imagine what that knowledge would have done if it had been known in Soviet circles, for instance?

We may as well launch, because the captains won't retaliate. Scary stuff.

Edit: this is an excellent discussion about these letters on Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0210spf

i think they only admit to thinking this because it's peace time atm. In the height of the cold war, i don't think they'd be stupid enough to really admit that!

Yeah, absolutely. Get that question wrong on the interview process, and you're never going to get that job.

"So Mr submarine captain candidate, will you really launch missiles should the worst happen?"

The Soviet Union was for the majority of the cold war and before on the receiving end of the aggression. For the most part it reacted to existential threats, like in the case of the Cuba missile crisis, which was preceded by the US placing mid-range missiles in Italy and Turkey. In most of the proxy conflicts each side behaved in approximately equally despicable ways, in most cases the US backed dictatorships, like Suharto in Indonesia murdered hundreds of thousands.

There also is no evidence that the Soviet Union ever intended to use nuclear weapons as an offensive measure, whereas the US toyed with the thought on multiple occasions (Cuba crisis, Korean war).

Right, because on the soviet side of iron curtain they weren't extensively training for an attack at all Also, soviets were never heavily investing into first strike capability, both nuclear and conventional So much sarcasm. Please don't revision history

They did train for fighting back in case of an "imperial aggression". Their strategy was to push back any offensive with overwhelming conventional force (massive amounts of tanks). See for example here: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=...

Pretty much all their nuclear arsenal was deployed in a way that ensured excellent retaliation potential (mobile ICBM launchers etc.), their nuclear subs etc.

I highly recommend "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute, as an exploration of exactly this scenario. The movie was decent too, but the book should not be missed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

From that Wiki article:

"[...]the process by which a Trident submarine commander would determine if the British government continues to function includes, amongst other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continues broadcasting.[4]

Submarines on patrol were reported to have briefly gone on nuclear alert in 2004 when Radio 4 mysteriously went off the air for 15 minutes.[5]"

Wow.

Many other countries have SLBMs. They're possibly the most reliable "second-strike" weapon. This was a particular concern for the UK as it's very close (relatively) to the USSR; in the event of a nuclear war the US would have had enough warning to scramble bombers / evacuate the president / etc. in a way that the UK wouldn't.

That's one part of the reason the UK doesn't have air-launched nuclear weapons. But really they fell out of favour ever since Gary Powers was shot down; ballistic missiles are inherently a lot harder to intercept than planes. I suspect the reason other countries still have them is mostly residual, and a reflection of the fact that those are the countries that still fly heavy strategic bombers. If you already have your B-52 (or Russian equivalent) fleet carrying heavy bombs and air-launched cruise missiles, it costs relatively little to maintain the capability to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. AFAIK the UK simply doesn't fly a heavy bomber any more - only the Tornado.

Land-based silos make sense for countries with large areas of empty, relatively unpopulated land, which the UK isn't. France doesn't have any either. I suspect India only uses land-based weapons because it can't maintain a sufficiently reliable submarine fleet.

Non-ballistic nuclear missiles still a purpose beyond the intertia of keeping them in service, they're the "stealth strike" option. A cruise missile is designed to hug the terrain, avoiding radar detection through proximity to ground clutter and its small radar profile which can be mistaken for an aircraft.

ICBMs are impossible to intercept once they're past the initial launch stage but they are very easy to detect which kicks off a retaliation. A cruise missile with "modern" stealth design would be an incredibly threatening weapon as you'd only need ~100 or so to cripple the retaliation capability of another nuclear power.

> A cruise missile with "modern" stealth design would be an incredibly threatening weapon as you'd only need ~100 or so to cripple the retaliation capability of another nuclear power.

You would? Such a thing wouldn't work against nations that maintain a constant submarine patrol, and perhaps not against land-based silos either (which were designed to withstand such attacks, no?) Heck, ISTR some of the Russian weapons were rail-mounted and designed to be hidden in mountain tunnels most of the time.

Aircraft delivery of nukes is cheaper and better for tactical application (easier to disguise the nuclear capability of the strike). But they are far more vulnerable to interdiction and counter-force strikes.

I suspect the UK's reliance on SLBM's is due to the size of the UK which makes finding sites for launch facilities difficult, and would expose their civilian population to too much risk from counter-force strikes (they were going to get nuked a lot already to knock out their airfields and harbors).

Well, what you are saying isn't really true, since about half of France's nukes are also nuclear submarine-launched missiles, as well as a large part of the US nukes and a sizable part of the Russian nukes (and China also has a few of those).

The other countries just don't have suitable nuclear submarines.

Also, I assume the UK have no plane-delivered warheads simply because they lack an aircraft carrier, making those quite useless.

Well Germany sold Israel 6 submarines that can be retrofitted as launch platforms for nuclear warheads.

When the V-bomber fleet was in service they took off from land and had entirely adequate range to deliver a bomb to Moscow or Leningrad.

It's all about strategy.

There are two main paths that any nuclear war could take: The first is all-out war, we're all screwed regardless of strategy. The second is a more limited tactical war where the aim is to try and take out the oppositions nuclear capability first and then focus on their military.

Unlike the USA, the UK has only a very small landmass to hide big ICBM sites and they will always be near some sort of major population centre. In a limited war scenario, it therefore makes sense to not have any fixed silos but to keep it all at sea and hidden. They may be able to nuke our submarine bases and catch the subs at rest, but we have a standing policy to always have at least one of the subs at sea at all times.

I guess you could argue in favour of air launched missiles from the back of a carrier, but then you go to all the expense of maintaining multiple launch systems, etc. Even the current Trident system is frequently criticised for its cost, so that's another reason to keep it limited and simple.

Missile silos on land were invented to hold the Blue Streak missile [1] and the problems you describe with hiding them were a large part of the reason to cancel the programme.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_%28missile%29

Am I missing something? Don't the US, Russia and France also have SLBMs?

> Why only the UK?

Retirement of UK air-delivered Sunshine was based entirely on cost grounds, regardless of loss of flexibility.

Nuclear handling processes, storage, maintenance are all very expensive. The decision was made to concentrate these costs in the Trident force where they are partially shared with the USA. All the associated knowledge and skills have been lost from the Royal Air Force and will not return.

Every now and again the Ministry of Defence issues a 'report' on how SLBMs are the most cost-effective solution for the UK, willfully ignoring their complete non-usability.

What non-usability? The missile has demonstrated reliability (the warhead perhaps less so, but not at the point you'd want to bet your country on it fizzling). It can hit anywhere on the planet's surface, and there's no credible countermeasure short of burying yourself deep underground. The submarines are very difficult to track and we always have at least one at sea.

I guess the missiles are expensive and single-use whereas a bomber might carry enough bombs to make them affordable for tactical "battlefield" use, but that's a terrible idea strategically; a scenario where two sides were both sufficiently committed to a war to drop hundreds of nuclear warheads and restrained enough to not escalate to attacking each other's cities is immensely implausible.

The SLBMs do the job of providing a UK nuclear deterrent, which if you're talking about having nuclear weapons at all is presumably something you consider valuable. We have full second-strike capability. And we have it cheaper than any other nation with the same. What is it you think we're missing?

Other than the US, Russia, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, and India, yes, there aren't many nuclear powers which use submarine launched missiles.

Trident II are submarine launched. Trident II missile is listed for the US also. Pretty sure Russia has submarine launched nuclear missiles too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com