A British nuclear Triad.

Have the UK build up a nuclear triad which still exists today.
While the UK has had land, sea, and air-based weapons, all three haven't occurred at the same time.
It does not have to be a US/USSR-Russia style system but even a limited French/Chinese triad of a few hundred warheads will suffice.
We obviously need a continuation of British ballistic missile research and development and deployment of British for a British version of an S3. I think the need for an air arm of the triad might lead to continued UK bomber production, so the V bomber followup, which I am calling the "W" Bombers (because its my thread). The W bombers might see British interest in Stealth and or ECM going forward.
An extant RAF bomber force will have reprecussions for British contributions in Iraq/Balkans/Afghanistan.
 
Have the V or W-bombers remain in service just like the USAF's B-52s. Maybe come up with a new bomber in the 21st century.

I guess since the UK would use mobile launches for land-based missiles just like Russia and China. I have yet to research if there is anywhere in the UK ideal for building a silo.
 
Have the UK build up a nuclear triad which still exists today.
While the UK has had land, sea, and air-based weapons, all three haven't occurred at the same time.
It does not have to be a US/USSR-Russia style system but even a limited French/Chinese triad of a few hundred warheads will suffice.
We obviously need a continuation of British ballistic missile research and development and deployment of British for a British version of an S3. I think the need for an air arm of the triad might lead to continued UK bomber production, so the V bomber followup, which I am calling the "W" Bombers (because its my thread). The W bombers might see British interest in Stealth and or ECM going forward.
An extant RAF bomber force will have reprecussions for British contributions in Iraq/Balkans/Afghanistan.

Having the UK retain air launched strategic nuclear weapons seems realitively simple to me compared to the UK having a viable ground based strategic nuclear force.

Maybe in an alternate time line the U.S. invests in small mobile ICBM systems and post Cold War the UK decides to acquire a modest number of such systems from the U.S. ? The use case might be to provide a way of launching a very small scale nuclear strike without having to risk a bomber being shot down or risk a nuclear submarine giving away its postion by firing a single SLBM. Or maybe there is a particular reason why ICBM's are uniquely suited for a particular mission ? (Perhaps bombers are seen as not having a fast enough reaction time and they don't want SSBN's to give away their position by firing ?) Or maybe for political reasons the UK decides they need a Triad ?

It does seem very improbable to me.
 
Last edited:
Maybe in an alternate time line the U.S. invests in small mobile ICBM systems and post Cold War the UK decides to acquire a modest number of such systems from the U.S. ?
UK really likes the Navaho cruise missile and goes with that in 1957. OTL canceled for the Atlas.
ATL, British use this in place of Blue Streak, and later have the Vulcan to airlaunch smaller version, like how the Navaho was shrunk and simplified to the Hound Dog.
This gives the UK a leg up for a decent Rocket Engine, the Rocketdyne LR-79 family, plus inertial guidance, and satisfy the Land and Air part of the Triad
 
Have the UK build up a nuclear triad which still exists today.
While the UK has had land, sea, and air-based weapons, all three haven't occurred at the same time.
It does not have to be a US/USSR-Russia style system but even a limited French/Chinese triad of a few hundred warheads will suffice.
We obviously need a continuation of British ballistic missile research and development and deployment of British for a British version of an S3. I think the need for an air arm of the triad might lead to continued UK bomber production, so the V bomber followup, which I am calling the "W" Bombers (because its my thread). The W bombers might see British interest in Stealth and or ECM going forward.
An extant RAF bomber force will have reprecussions for British contributions in Iraq/Balkans/Afghanistan.

Land based missiles make no sense for Britain once SLBM’s become viable.
 
Greenham Common was subjected to massive protests for as long as Cruise Missiles were based there, that made normal operations very difficult. Also the missiles would have been scattered all over the UK during a war alert in theory lessening the incentive to target the base. (In fact it just means the Soviets would carpet bomb the island) The fact that the launchers leaving the base would be seen as the prelude to an attack by the Soviets triggering a counter strike seems to have been ignored.
 
Land based missiles make no sense for Britain once SLBM’s become viable.
Maybe pre Trident II the UK wants missiles with more accuracy than historical SLBM's had ? Perhaps after Trident II they want the want the ability to fire a small number of missiles without giving away the location of an SSBN or there is some other reason why the UK wants a land based deterrent ?

I agree this seems improbable.
 
Greenham Common was subjected to massive protests for as long as Cruise Missiles were based there, that made normal operations very difficult. Also the missiles would have been scattered all over the UK during a war alert in theory lessening the incentive to target the base. (In fact it just means the Soviets would carpet bomb the island) The fact that the launchers leaving the base would be seen as the prelude to an attack by the Soviets triggering a counter strike seems to have been ignored.
I don't really disagree but a land based nuclear force was deployed in the UK. In principle at least I can't see why a UK govt could not have deployed longer ranged weapons using a similar approach (and presumably with similar constraints.) For some notional missions dispersing the missiles might not have been necessary (perhaps missions involving targeting nations other than the USSR or perhaps China.)

I do agree it is highly improbable (in my view anyways) that the UK would have acquired a land based strategic nuclear force.
 
Last edited:
I could only see a full scale nuclear triad developing as the shared deterrent of a united Commonwealth armed forces scenario - so that EU/NATO analogue with a common defence/foreign policy oft fantasised about on these pages.

So ICBM silos in Australia and the Canadian prairies? Not sure about W bombers. Wellingtons? Warwicks? Willy-wavers?
 
Probably needs an uninhabited island just off the UK coast but still close enough to give the missiles the range required.......
 
What security issues did the French have with their IRBM silos, I assume they had at least a peace camp outside?
 
In 1959, as Britain was working on the Blue Streak MRBM and Violet Friend ABM, the Government put together the Powell Committee to investigate the vulnerability of the Blue Streak force and Britain itself to nuclear attack.

With the R5M forward deployed in East Germany and the R12 deployed in the Soviet Union it was expected that Britain could expect to be attacked by 300 rockets arriving within a single minute. This was soon backed up by the MoD Penley Report reaching much the same conclusions. It was these two reports that got Blue Streak and Violet Friend cancelled in favour of the far less vulnerable Skybolt ALBM which was as mobile and dispensable as the V Bomber force.

Perhaps if the British bought GLCM they could have been considered to have a Triad with the Polaris-Resolution and Tornado-WE177B, but GLCM and Tornado don't really hold Moscow etc at risk.

Personally I doubt Britain has any need of a triad, land based ballistic missiles are used for power and accuracy in a first strike, which Britain would never undertake.
 
Probably needs an uninhabited island just off the UK coast but still close enough to give the missiles the range required.......
How about that island with the Anthrax? That should keep the trespassing peaceniks from wanting to visit to protest
 
Personally I doubt Britain has any need of a triad, land based ballistic missiles are used for power and accuracy in a first strike, which Britain would never undertake.
What, UK do a Copenhagen? Unthinkable. Perfidious Albion would never, ever do such a thing,
Trust us.
 
What, UK do a Copenhagen? Unthinkable. Perfidious Albion would never, ever do such a thing,
Trust us.

Britain only ever had 400-600 nukes under its sovereign control. Conducting a unilateral first strike on the Soviets with such a trifling force is unthinkable, and they are the only credible target for a UK based, ground launched leg of a triad.

First strikes against non Soviet/Warsaw Pact targets is another thing entirely, but such strikes would not be undertaken by UK based MRBM/GLCMs or whatever but rather by deployed aircraft or maybe SLBM.
 
Have the UK build up a nuclear triad which still exists today.
Must the land-based missiles be on dry land?

Can they be in undersea silos around the the coast a la The Doombolt Chase?
What's the thing leaving the torpedo tube? I was going to say that it was a torpedo, but then I thought it could be a Subroc, Harpoon or Tomahawk.
But it changes into first a Polaris A2, then a Polaris A3 and finally a Tomahawk.
 
Top