Has the UK Resigned as a World Power?

[Flying Pig]

I see that argument, but it's an argument for conventional defence spending, not an independent nuclear deterrent - unless I'm missing something. At any rate, stepping out of NATO - while I see your point about Asian trade - would make us even less likely to be attacked with nuclear weapons. It's also an argument for specialised rather than general military capabilities: if we can do everything that the Americans can do, but smaller, why would they bother with us at all?

 

[Mise]

France is the one who is hung up on having a completely self-reliant military. Ours is much more pragmatic; we don't really have a generalised military. Most of our military -- including our nuclear deterrent -- is either designed to work in conjunction with whatever the US is doing, or is explicitly dependent on America. Our military is designed to complement the US, to work alongside the US. It's not really designed to do stuff on our own, which is why we still needed America's help when we bombed Libya.

It's also why our military is so cost-effective. If we were to slash defence spending, and as a consequence, the US was no longer willing to work with us, we would be forced into creating a more generalised military -- which would necessarily be more expensive. Right now, we benefit from economies of scale and the efficiency savings of specialisation, simultaneously. If the US decided we were no longer worth working with, we'd lose both of those things, simultaneously.

Finally, the nuclear deterrent is important, because it's again one of the things that Britain can offer the US that few other nations in the world can. Other countries can ramp up their power projection and diplomatic tools, but with NPT, no-one can simultaneously develop nuclear weapons and be trustworthy enough for the US to regard it as a serious military partner.

Furthermore, the existence of second strike capabilities is far, far more of a deterrent than simply being "non aligned". Being "neutral" is hardly a guarantee that you won't get invaded. OTOH, second strike capabilities means that, no matter how much of the UK's military capacity, infrastructure or command gets destroyed, the aggressor won't be able to escape nuclear retaliation. That's a huge deterrent, much bigger than, err, not having any allies!

 

[Flying Pig]

Why does the US need to be offered a nuclear deterrent, though? And my point is that we won't use nuclear weapons unless somebody else fires them at us first, and nobody is going to fire them at us. Hence the 'what if' becomes quite meaningless.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While this argument makes sense, Mise, it presupposes that having freedom of trade in Asia be dependent on US projection of power is somehow inherently superior to having it be dependent on China. Your example of "without the US if China says Taiwan can't trade with Germany then Taiwan can't trade with Germany" skips cleanly over the fact that as of today if the US says Taiwan can't trade with Germany then Taiwan can't trade with Germany.

So, what is it that makes the US trustworthy in this regard and China not? I think there are more than a handful of countries in the world who might be more interested in putting their faith in China.

 

[Mise]

Why does the US need to be offered a nuclear deterrent, though? And my point is that we won't use nuclear weapons unless somebody else fires them at us first, and nobody is going to fire them at us. Hence the 'what if' becomes quite meaningless.

We would use nuclear weapons in the event that our conventional military was inadequate to deal with an existential threat to us or our allies. It's not just in retaliation for a nuclear first strike. As I said in my edit, even if our entire conventional military was destroyed, the aggressor would still not escape nuclear retaliation. There is simply no way for an aggressor to eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation. Any aggressor knows that the likelihood that we will launch nuclear weapons at them increases the more successful their military campaign against us becomes.

This is what makes nuclear weapons "special" as military deterrents go. In a normal military campaign, the more successful you are, the more enemy military targets you destroy, the more likely it is that you will win the war, the less likely it is that the enemy will retaliate, and the less likely it is that you will have all of your cities wiped out. So the incentive is to increase the size of their conventional military, so that they increase the chance of victory against either an invading force, or against another nation that is perceived to be a threat. More military = more good, so the incentive is always to increase the size of your military when no nuclear weapons are involved.

But when the defender has nuclear second strike, the more successful the invading forces are, the more likely it is that the invading nation will have all their cities wiped out, and lose the war. The defender doesn't have an incentive to maintain such a large conventional armed force, because it knows that, even if all of its conventional military is wiped out, this only increases the likelihood that the other side will have its cities wiped out. And for potential aggressors, they have a much lower incentive to increase the size of their conventional forces, because they know it won't do any good: it will only increase the likelihood that all their cities will get wiped out. So the presence of nuclear weapons massively changes the calculus: there's no longer an incentive on either side to have a ridiculously large conventional military.

Nuclear weapons allows us to have a much smaller conventional army than would otherwise be necessary. Now, I don't know if it actually saves us money, because I don't have the statistics. But money aside, it is certainly a good thing, as people can spend their time doing productive things like going to university and becoming an engineer or something, rather than learning how to shoot a gun.

 

[Mise]

While this argument makes sense, Mise, it presupposes that having freedom of trade in Asia be dependent on US projection of power is somehow inherently superior to having it be dependent on China. Your example of "without the US if China says Taiwan can't trade with Germany then Taiwan can't trade with Germany" skips cleanly over the fact that as of today if the US says Taiwan can't trade with Germany then Taiwan can't trade with Germany.

So, what is it that makes the US trustworthy in this regard and China not? I think there are more than a handful of countries in the world who might be more interested in putting their faith in China.

Put simply, because the US's interests and the UK's interests are basically the same, while China's interests are not always the same.

If China's interests were aligned with our own, then there would be no problem. But it's clear that China's interests and Britain's interests, w.r.t. Taiwan for instance, are very different. OTOH, America's interests very closely align with Britain's interests, which is why we make such natural allies.

Incidentally, the US would be much more likely to say "Taiwan can't trade with Germany" if Germany weren't part of NATO. The less weight Germany pulls internationally, the more likely it is that the US will say something like that.

 

[Tahuti]

France is the one who is hung up on having a completely self-reliant military. Ours is much more pragmatic; we don't really have a generalised military. Most of our military -- including our nuclear deterrent -- is either designed to work in conjunction with whatever the US is doing, or is explicitly dependent on America. Our military is designed to complement the US, to work alongside the US. It's not really designed to do stuff on our own, which is why we still needed America's help when we bombed Libya.

It's also why our military is so cost-effective. If we were to slash defence spending, and as a consequence, the US was no longer willing to work with us, we would be forced into creating a more generalised military -- which would necessarily be more expensive. Right now, we benefit from economies of scale and the efficiency savings of specialisation, simultaneously. If the US decided we were no longer worth working with, we'd lose both of those things, simultaneously.

Finally, the nuclear deterrent is important, because it's again one of the things that Britain can offer the US that few other nations in the world can. Other countries can ramp up their power projection and diplomatic tools, but with NPT, no-one can simultaneously develop nuclear weapons and be trustworthy enough for the US to regard it as a serious military partner.

Furthermore, the existence of second strike capabilities is far, far more of a deterrent than simply being "non aligned". Being "neutral" is hardly a guarantee that you won't get invaded. OTOH, second strike capabilities means that, no matter how much of the UK's military capacity, infrastructure or command gets destroyed, the aggressor won't be able to escape nuclear retaliation. That's a huge deterrent, much bigger than, err, not having any allies!

It is always rather problematic to assume that becaues the US is there to help, it will continue in the future and it will be desirable to accept that help. Neither of which is guaranteed.

The Netherlands has a rather slavish attitude towards the US, possibly even more so than the UK. Snowden revealed the AIVD is nothing but a regional division of the NSA, which probably worse than what GCHQ has put up to until then. The entire strategy of the Dutch military and intelligence community is to follow the US everywhere and assume it is going to help in future disasters.

Being a small country is no excuse to not arm yourself. South Korea and even Israel (which is twice as small in terms of populace) have a better prepared military than the Netherlands. You then might say that we don't have any nearby countries that are dangerous, unlike the aforementioned countries, but then there is Canada as well, which is also better prepared than the Netherlands despite sharing only a border with the US. Not to mention, it is dangerous to assume countries in the direct vicinity will always be friendly 'due to NATO'. If France elects that quasi-fascist b#$ch or radicalism takes further root in the PIGS countries, the Netherlands will be at risk. Britain too in fact. Even if the US is willing to help us out, doesn't mean they are able to, despite being the number one military power.

 

[Flying Pig]

We would use nuclear weapons in the event that our conventional military was inadequate to deal with an existential threat to us or our allies. It's not just in retaliation for a nuclear first strike. As I said in my edit, even if our entire conventional military was destroyed, the aggressor would still not escape nuclear retaliation. There is simply no way for an aggressor to eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation. Any aggressor knows that the likelihood that we will launch nuclear weapons at them increases the more successful their military campaign against us becomes.

This is what makes nuclear weapons "special" as military deterrents go. In a normal military campaign, the more successful you are, the more enemy military targets you destroy, the more likely it is that you will win the war, the less likely it is that the enemy will retaliate, and the less likely it is that you will have all of your cities wiped out. So the incentive is to increase the size of their conventional military, so that they increase the chance of victory against either an invading force, or against another nation that is perceived to be a threat. More military = more good, so the incentive is always to increase the size of your military when no nuclear weapons are involved.

But when the defender has nuclear second strike, the more successful the invading forces are, the more likely it is that the invading nation will have all their cities wiped out, and lose the war. The defender doesn't have an incentive to maintain such a large conventional armed force, because it knows that, even if all of its conventional military is wiped out, this only increases the likelihood that the other side will have its cities wiped out. And for potential aggressors, they have a much lower incentive to increase the size of their conventional forces, because they know it won't do any good: it will only increase the likelihood that all their cities will get wiped out. So the presence of nuclear weapons massively changes the calculus: there's no longer an incentive on either side to have a ridiculously large conventional military.

Nuclear weapons allows us to have a much smaller conventional army than would otherwise be necessary. Now, I don't know if it actually saves us money, because I don't have the statistics. But money aside, it is certainly a good thing, as people can spend their time doing productive things like going to university and becoming an engineer or something, rather than learning how to shoot a gun.

Again valid, but still resting on the assumption that we are important enough to have anybody wanting to invade us - which isn't the case. We don't need to be talking about 'what if a foreign army invades the UK and destroys everything?', because that's not going to happen. However, admitting this means admitting that we are no longer influential enough to be a primary player in major conflicts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Put simply, because the US's interests and the UK's interests are basically the same, while China's interests are not always the same.

If China's interests were aligned with our own, then there would be no problem. But it's clear that China's interests and Britain's interests, w.r.t. Taiwan for instance, are very different. OTOH, America's interests very closely align with Britain's interests, which is why we make such natural allies.

Incidentally, the US would be much more likely to say "Taiwan can't trade with Germany" if Germany weren't part of NATO. The less weight Germany pulls internationally, the more likely it is that the US will say something like that.

So, put simply, the concern isn't that China wouldn't do the right thing. The concern is that if the right thing conflicts with the interests of the UK China might still do the right thing. While the UK can pretty much count on the US to do whatever is expedient for the interests of the US and UK, even if it is flatly evil.

I can understand that.

 

[Mise]

It is always rather problematic to assume that becaues the US is there to help, it will continue in the future and it will be desirable to accept that help. Neither of which is guaranteed.

The Netherlands has a rather slavish attitude towards the US, possibly even more so than the UK. Snowden revealed the AIVD is nothing but a regional division of the NSA, which probably worse than what GCHQ has put up to until then. The entire strategy of the Dutch military and intelligence community is to follow the US everywhere and assume it is going to help in future disasters.

Being a small country is no excuse to not arm yourself. South Korea and even Israel (which is twice as small in terms of populace) have a better prepared military than the Netherlands. You then might say that we don't have any nearby countries that are dangerous, unlike the aforementioned countries, but then there is Canada as well, which is also better prepared than the Netherlands despite sharing only a border with the US. Not to mention, it is dangerous to assume countries in the direct vicinity will always be friendly 'due to NATO'. If France elects that quasi-fascist b#$ch or radicalism takes further root in the PIGS countries, the Netherlands will be at risk. Britain too in fact. Even if the US is willing to help us out, doesn't mean they are able to, despite being the number one military power.

I don't disagree with this, frankly. We enjoy the benefits of an activist US foreign policy; selling our military and intelligence services to them is the price of that. If it were possible to do it ourselves, we would, but we've made the calculation that the current arrangement is preferable to one in which European nations protect their own interests independently. Personally I think we benefit from the present arrangement - the "special relationship" - on balance, but it's surely true that there are threats that the US just isn't going to help us defend against. I agree that there are dangers to this policy, but that's the risk/reward calculation we've made.

Again valid, but still resting on the assumption that we are important enough to have anybody wanting to invade us - which isn't the case. We don't need to be talking about 'what if a foreign army invades the UK and destroys everything?', because that's not going to happen. However, admitting this means admitting that we are no longer influential enough to be a primary player in major conflicts.

Really? I think there are a lot of threats to Britain that a nuclear deterrent is relevant to. Russia flew planes over our airspace, and invaded and occupied Ukraine, all in the past year or so. I think you're being rather complacent. Every country, no matter how unimportant or irrelevant, has an army. Do you think those countries shouldn't bother with armies, because they're too unimportant to be invaded? Do you think Britain should scrap its army entirely, because nobody wants to invade us? How large an army should we have? We have no obvious threats to our sovereignty, and even if there were, we could never have an army large enough to defend us against a conventional attack from the usual suspects. So why have an army at all?

In any case, the argument isn't just about Britain, but about NATO allies in general. Part of the reason other NATO members can have relatively small armies is because they're protected by American and British nuclear second strike capabilities. If we got rid of our nukes, and America got tired of supporting us militarily and left Europe to defend itself, all of Europe would be under increased threat from places like Russia, and we'd all have to increase military spending to counter that.

Unless you really are suggesting we leave NATO, in which case it would be easy for Russia to "salami slice" Europe over a period of 50 years. If we left American protection, we would be increasingly open to influence from Russia. Russia could do whatever it wants in the East and we'd be completely powerless to stop it. Do you think Russia would have stopped at Crimea, if it weren't for America and NATO? Russia would just step in every time there was some sort of crisis in Europe, and slowly expand its sphere of influence. Eventually, Russia would be the one calling the shots, and I don't know about you, but if I'm going to be part of another country's hegemony, I'd rather it be America's than Russia's.

But even if you don't accept that there is any sort of threat to the UK that nuclear weapons could possibly deter, the fact is the US wants us to have a nuclear deterrent. As I said before, France is committed to military self-reliance, and nowhere is this more apparent than in its nuclear deterrent. From an American perspective, France may as well not have nuclear weapons, because France will use them when France decides to use them. OTOH, British nuclear weapons are the key European pillar in an American-led NATO-wide nuclear deterrent. America sees the British nuclear deterrent as the European nuclear deterrent, because, frankly, it is. In fact, the way our deterrent works in practice is that the trigger for our missiles is pulled by the American Army's NATO Supreme Allied Commander, taking commands from the POTUS, while a British Naval officer in the NATO command structure has the authority to veto the order, taking orders from the PM. In other words, Britain's nuclear arsenal is NATO's nuclear arsenal, jointly controlled by America and Britain. At the moment, our relationship with the US on nuclear weapons is genuinely beneficial to both sides; the US benefits by having its finger on the trigger (i.e. it has access to a wider array of strategic nuclear options), and the UK benefits by having an ally willing to aggressively pursue British interests overseas.

So, to summarise:
1) There are existential threats to the UK (and there would be more if we had a smaller army and no nuclear deterrent)
2) We have to think about threats to Europe/NATO as a whole, because the UK's nuclear deterrent is, in reality, Europe/NATO's deterrent. If we don't care about protecting Europe/NATO, then this invites even more threats to our interests and our existence in the future.
3) America will protect our interests abroad only if we have nuclear weapons
4) America is more likely to protect more of our interests abroad if we have a nuclear deterrent


EDIT: You also have to consider that, even if we decommissioned all of our nuclear weapons, we would still have the technical capability to create nuclear weapons. Furthermore, other nations might not believe us: they might think that we have nuclear weapons, but are hiding them somewhere. Both of those things mean that there would still be good reasons for nuclear states to target us ahead of, say, Germany, even if we did not, in fact, have any nuclear weapons. So the assumption that quitting NATO and getting rid of our nuclear weapons will reduce and not increase the likelihood of attack is something that needs justifying. I mean, imagine if Israel told us it was decommissioning all of its nuclear weapons. Who would believe it?

So, put simply, the concern isn't that China wouldn't do the right thing. The concern is that if the right thing conflicts with the interests of the UK China might still do the right thing. While the UK can pretty much count on the US to do whatever is expedient for the interests of the US and UK, even if it is flatly evil.

I can understand that.

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, at the end of a day, a nation's government's primary duty is to act in the best interests of its people.

I also happen to believe that the UK and US are more likely to "do the right thing" than China, in general. But as you say, that's neither here nor there.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And then they say the Cold War is over. No, this is merely the prologue.

 

[Tahuti]

And then they say the Cold War is over. No, this is merely the prologue.

By the end of the century, people will still talk about the Bulgarian capture of Illinois in the War of Bulgarian agression!

I agree that there are dangers to this policy, but that's the risk/reward calculation we've made.

Basically, the leadership of our countries have chosen to save money by risking getting blown to pieces with impunity.

 

[gay_Aleks]

By the end of the century, people will still talk about the Bulgarian capture of Illinois in the War of Bulgarian agression!

That or the nuclear apocalypse of 2077.

War, war never changes.