I have been mulling over Gordon Browns announcement that the UK may reduce the number of ballistic submarines (SSBN's) in the Royal Navy from 4 to 3 when the current “Vanguard” class boats are replaced.
Brown has received a generally positive press about this today but dare I suggest that this may be just about the worse possible policy he could adopt as it will fail to satisfy virtually every audience.
Allow me to explain my reasoning.
(1) The operation of 3 SSBN's will totally fail to satisfy the disarmament lobby once they realise the number of nuclear warheads in the UK inventory will remain the same (160). I don't think this particular penny had dropped when the CND types were making such favourable noises earlier today. It doesn't matter how many subs there are if they are carrying the same number of warheads.
(2) No money will be saved in the short or perhaps even the medium term. This “cut” relates to the replacement for the current SSBN's which is scheduled for about 2024. The current fleet of 4 Vanguard's will see out their normal operational life
(3) The navy will be seriously unhappy that their capacity to retain a continuous deployment of an SSBN will be at risk with a fleet of 3 boats.
Currently the 4 Vanguard boats allows for one boat on deployment, one in refit, one used for training and one essentially as a spare – available for use in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
As SSBN's age they are, like any machine, more liable to faults and breakdowns and accordingly will require more time in dry dock for maintenance etc. There is a real chance that with 3 boats the UK will be unable to keep one on patrol at all times. (This point was well made in the 2006 Defence Review.) So if the deterrent may not be available all the time, one may question the point of having it at all.
(4) The wider question of deploying strategic nuclear weapons isn't addressed at all – I have previously blogged on the possibility of deploying tactical nuclear weapons (via cruise missiles) in our other nuclear submarines. I appreciate there may be all sorts of technical reasons why this might be a none-runner but surely tactical “nukes” are more than adequate as a deterrent against the “rogue states”?
I fear that the real reason for Brown's announcement today was more about (1) Getting favourable media coverage whilst “grandstanding” at the United Nations (2) Sucking up to Obama and trying to get a free ride on the back of the far more significant American policy announcement (3) Pandering to the disarmament lobby within New Labour
My prediction is that within a few days the penny will collectively drop that like so many of his policy decisions this one is a crock………………….
