Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    M373 - Nuclear Planes Motion, TSR Liberal Party
    This House recognises the need for the United Kingdom to maintain a nuclear deterrence.

    This House also recognises that the nuclear deterrence of the United Kingdom is exclusively submarine based. This is something that this house feels is a risk to the United Kingdom as should the trident system be compromised, we become defenceless.

    This House therefore suggests that United Kingdom invests in a minimum of 8 nuclear bombers to defend the nation against attack and further deter foreign aggression.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    this gunna be good
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Define bomber in this context.

    Are these to replicate the continuous at sea deterrence of the submarines by being in the air constantly? Or if they're to be conventionally based, have you acknowledged the fact that they are then less secure than the submarines and therefore more at risk?

    How do you reconcile the fact that the airborne nuclear deterrent was ended for precisely those reasons?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Petros, I explained this to you last time it came up, no it is a stupid and costly idea. Submarine launch platforms are near immune to counterforce attacks, consequently there is no need for silos or bombers for a small nuclear power with SSBN-SLBM capabilities. The V-bomber project was scrapped over 30 years ago exactly because of this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Is this a liberal party motion!!!!! ?
    Aye !!!
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Did Aph author/approve this? If so I must say I'm rather surprised at the rather non-pacifist stance he's taking here

    I have several reservations with this. There's no detailing as to why you consider trident to be compromised, and more importantly, why the stealth bombers are a reasonable alternative. Airbases can be taken out in a pre-emptive strike and planes can only stay in the air for hours. Subs can stay out at sea for days even if the sub-base is destroyed.

    Furthermore, radar systems are consistently improving, which can negate the detection advantage stealth bombers would have over conventional bombers, and arguably they're improving at a faster rate than sub detection systems. This means we'd need to use a significant amount of the bombers in a single run to increase the probability the target is reachable. SLBMs are much cheaper to expend than stealth bombers.

    Which brings me to the final point, what of the cost? The most expensive plane in history is a multi-billion dollar stealth bomber and an associated development program would cost even more. The advantages of an airborne deterrent are not as significant as the current sub-borne deterrent programme. If this is going to take money away from a trident replacement, then it's harming our deterrent more than it strengthens it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Petros, I explained this to you last time it came up, no it is a stupid and costly idea. Submarine launch platforms are near immune to counterforce attacks, consequently there is no need for silos or bombers for a small nuclear power with SSBN-SLBM capabilities. The V-bomber project was scrapped over 30 years ago exactly because of this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In his defense I don't think it is Petros who suggested this
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    To out so!e numbers behind the cost, the B-2 Spirit, perhaps the most advanced stealth strategic bomber we know of, had all the way back in 1997 a fly away cost of over $750m and when the R&D cost is included the figure is increase to $2.1bn, and that's with 22 aircraft entering service.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    why the stealth bombers are a reasonable alternative.
    In fairness, he didn't specify stealth.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    In his defense I don't think it is Petros who suggested this
    Surely he still had a say and should be well respected

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The Financier)
    Did Aph author/approve this? If so I must say I'm rather surprised at the rather non-pacifist stance he's taking here

    I have several reservations with this. There's no detailing as to why you consider trident to be compromised, and more importantly, why the stealth bombers are a reasonable alternative. Airbases can be taken out in a pre-emptive strike and planes can only stay in the air for hours. Subs can stay out at sea for days even if the sub-base is destroyed.

    Furthermore, radar systems are consistently improving, which can negate the detection advantage stealth bombers would have over conventional bombers, and arguably they're improving at a faster rate than sub detection systems. This means we'd need to use a significant amount of the bombers in a single run to increase the probability the target is reachable. SLBMs are much cheaper to expend than stealth bombers.

    Which brings me to the final point, what of the cost? The most expensive plane in history is a multi-billion dollar stealth bomber and an associated development program would cost even more. The advantages of an airborne deterrent are not as significant as the current sub-borne deterrent programme. If this is going to take money away from a trident replacement, then it's harming our deterrent more than it strengthens it.
    It should be noted that the motion doesn't details what kind of bombers. Indeed they will be strategic and not specifically stealth from internal discussions. Also the motion doesn't claim that trident is compromised but instead looks at the situation that should the trident syetem be compromised we become defenceless so this becomes our back up to trident.

    This would not take Money from the successor program and the cost would be outlined by the government at a later date should the motion pass.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In fairness, he didn't specify stealth.
    Non stealth would make it an even bigger waste because not only would it not be immune to counterforce attacks, but would definitely fail to reach the target.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Petros, I explained this to you last time it came up, no it is a stupid and costly idea. Submarine launch platforms are near immune to counterforce attacks, consequently there is no need for silos or bombers for a small nuclear power with SSBN-SLBM capabilities. The V-bomber project was scrapped over 30 years ago exactly because of this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Exactly this. The main strength of submarines is that they are very difficult to locate and even more difficult to destroy. Planes have slow response times, are more exposed to sabotage, more easily destroyed, etc. Moreover, in an era of orbital weapons, planes will be useless.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In fairness, he didn't specify stealth.
    If they're not stealth bombers, then it's an even worse proposal. Eight conventional bombers will be detected and shot down by a capable nuclear-armed adversary like Russia with ease. The inability of an adversary to know when or where a possible nuclear strike will occur from is likely to be key in deterrence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Non stealth would make it an even bigger waste because not only would it not be immune to counterforce attacks, but would definitely fail to reach the target.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by The Financier)
    If they're not stealth bombers, then it's an even worse proposal. Eight conventional bombers will be detected and shot down by a capable nuclear-armed adversary like Russia with ease. The inability of an adversary to know when or where a possible nuclear strike will occur from is likely to be key in deterrence.
    I don't disagree, I'm just stating fact.

    He's also not specified that he means nuclear armed aircraft. He could well mean nuclear powered...


    ...I know he doesn't, just pointing out his wording is rubbish.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    It should be noted that the motion doesn't details what kind of bombers. Indeed they will be strategic and not specifically stealth from internal discussions. Also the motion doesn't claim that trident is compromised but instead looks at the situation that should the trident syetem be compromised we become defenceless so this becomes our back up to trident.

    This would not take Money from the successor program and the cost would be outlined by the government at a later date should the motion pass.
    The problem is this isn't really a back-up. A back-up still has a reasonable chance of fulfilling it's role. Having eight conventional strategic bombers as a pillar of our nuclear deterrence is tantamount to sending pilots to commit suicide against the adversaries we'd have the greatest likelihood of facing in a nuclear war.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Petros, I explained this to you last time it came up, no it is a stupid and costly idea. Submarine launch platforms are near immune to counterforce attacks, consequently there is no need for silos or bombers for a small nuclear power with SSBN-SLBM capabilities. The V-bomber project was scrapped over 30 years ago exactly because of this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't author this motion, nor was it my idea. This motion also doesn't call for the end of Trident.

    We've put it to the house so get a general idea of the houses mood on it. If it hasn't got the support, it hasn't got it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The Financier)
    The problem is this isn't really a back-up. A back-up still has a reasonable chance of fulfilling it's role. Having eight conventional strategic bombers as a pillar of our nuclear deterrence is tantamount to sending pilots to commit suicide against the adversaries we'd have the greatest likelihood of facing in a nuclear war.
    Are you aware of airborne alert? I belive that this is the idea of the planes. Although that might have been done with nuclear Missiles as opposed to bombs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No, no, no, no, no. Firstly, we don't need nukes at all, never mind more nukes. Secondly, nuclear bombers are useless if they're not stealth bombers (and I'm assuming they're not, or it would have been specified in the motion) because firstly, it's easy to detect when a plane has taken off and prepare for the attack during the time it takes for the plane to get there and secondly, as others have said, they could be shot down. They would also have to be stored in a plane hangar, which could be bombed - assuming the jets were permanently armed this could set off a nuclear explosion in the UK which sort of defeats the object.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    As much as I'm a Vulcan to the Sky lover, it's use in that department is something I'd like to keep in the history books.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.