Why does the UK want more nuclear missiles?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson launched a plan to create the islands this week “Global Britain”. Your government’s 10-year plan to boost international trade and use “soft power” around the world. But as he revealed a day ago Defender, There is no smooth second part in the ad. He also said that the increase in the number of nuclear weapons would not only prevent traditional threats but also combat them Biology, chemistry and even cyber attacks”. In this way The 30-year disarmament is coming to an end Since the fall of the Soviet Union. A critique arose at 10 Downing Street, the site of the government. They came from other nuclear powers, from Iran, from the Greens-led minority parties, and from the most powerful anti-nuclear movement in the 1990s, forcing the then executive to close several military bases.

Everything was sealed in a 110 page document “A Global Britain in a Competitive Era” In it, it is confirmed that the United Kingdom will increase the number of nuclear weapons on the Royal Navy’s trident submarines, 180 to 260, an increase of more than 40%. It has been stated that the Navy will keep four nuclear-armed submarines on permanent alert, always have one at sea and is ready to respond to any aggression. It is estimated that London will need to build this armory About 10 billion pounds sterling, Like $ 13.9 billion.

British President Dominic Robb made it clear that the country was not looking for a new arms race, but simply wanted to maintain it. Reliable minimum prevention”. Why? “Since this is the last guarantee, Recent insurance policy against the worst threat of hostile statesRob replied.

Caroline Lucas, vice president of the Green Party, described the move “Provocative, illegal and immoral use of resources”. The Scottish National Party tweeted: “A shameful money that can be used instead of tackling child poverty.” Labor leader Khair Stormer said his party was committed to the Trident submarine program and maintained a credible blockade, but that Johnson’s plan to increase the arsenal “breaks the intent of the next prime minister and the efforts of all parties to reduce our nuclear weapons.” This is not explained when, why, or for any strategic purpose”. Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, wrote in a statement: “This is not the time to start a new arms race. It is unbelievable that our government chooses to increase nuclear weapons as the world fights epidemics and climate change.”.

For decades, Britain boasted of having “minimal nuclear weapons for preventive use.” Of the five nuclear powers recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (US, Russia, China, France and Great Britain), the British arsenal is the smallest and has only one supply route: submarines. Subsequent British Governments Between the 1980s and 2000s, nuclear power was halved.

At the height of the Cold War, There were more than 500 warships in Britain, Which can be launched by bombers and submarines. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Britain withdrew from nuclear bombers and drastically reduced its weapons. A security review in 1998 ordered that Britain reduce the number of operational warships to less than 200. Another review in 2006 reduced that number to less than 160. Also in 2010, the government announced that it would include a global arsenal of warships available in operation. And assign warships- Will be reduced from 225 to less than 180 In the mid-2020s, a decision was reiterated in 2015 by the Conservative-led government. The Royal Navy believed that this was enough to inflict significant damage on its main adversary, Russia.

This week’s announcement indicates that it is not considered an adequate arsenal despite facing new threats. “Some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear weapons,” Johnson’s document said, referring to Russia, China and “probably” North Korea. “They are investing in new nuclear technologies and building new nuclear war systems,” he said. “Weapons designed for military benefit on the battlefield, not for prevention.” In response, Britain “will expand its global arsenal to 260 warships.” It will also stop releasing the number of missiles and warships by each submarine, with the intention of “complicating the calculations of potential invaders”.

According to armed experts of the special journal Janice “In theory, More Chinese warships or better Russian warships should not change Britain’s nuclear needs in one way or another.”. Britain has a submarine in operation at all times, known as the Continental Offshore Blockade (CASD). The advantage of keeping your own nuclear weapons hidden in the sea, rather than on land Run the risk of being eliminated by enemy weaponsHowever, they are plentiful or sophisticated. In this way, British submarine missiles can easily hit cities like Moscow or Beijing.

So why does Britain really need more nuclear weapons? One possibility is that Britain is concerned about future improvements to Russian or Chinese missile defense., Will require higher attack levels to deal with the same amount of damage. Another reason is that More than one submarine will be required at sea loaded with nuclear missiles to prevent the risk of advances in technology for anti-submarine warfare..

Heather Williams, tel King’s College London, explained in an article in the newspaper Economist “Russia is developing dual-capacity weapons – conventional or nuclear-capable missiles – and is reducing its nuclear threshold, i.e., in the event of a collision. Nuclear weapons can be used before any enemy. If Russia uses low-yield weapons in this way, retaliation by destroying Moscow will be unequal. But if Britain wants to respond please – the performance of its own W76 warships may be somewhat reduced – I need to make sure I have enough warships Then and for greater nuclear exchange ”.

There is a “Borista” component Show yourself stronger than you really are. There is a lot of documentation based on Johnson’s announcement. It also states that the Armed Forces “will prevent and violate incursions into British territorial waters outside Gibraltar.” “They will maintain a permanent presence on the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island and the British Indian Ocean Territory ”. A government source said Telegraph: “England is far from abandoning its Atlantic obligations. They are reinforced and held high. “A provocation without much emotion with an immediate response from Argentina. According to Defense Minister Augustin Rossi, approval refers to the maintenance of its” permanent military presence “in Malvinas. “Confirmation of Colonial Claim” Located in the London Islands. Meanwhile, Daniel Pilimus, secretary of state for affairs in Malvinas, Antarctica and the South Atlantic Islands, assessed Johnson’s view as “clearly colonial”. “Increase in weapons is serious” Announced by a European country.

The exit from the EU not only led Boris Johnson to continue to be a force to be reckoned with in Great Britain, but also in different ways. Is ready to “compete” on an equal footing with other major global powers. But security analysts now believe this is all rhetoric. There will definitely be earthquakes under the table from Washington, Moscow and Beijing. From Brussels. And, of course, from British taxpayers who do not want to accept such a cost without a long struggle.

Continue reading: