> RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
>
> We are committed to ensuring that our nuclear deterrent is correctly aligned and configured to deter the most serious threats to the UK now and in the future. We seek research which supports the UK in understanding the long-term context of its nuclear deterrent, including:
> 1. The origins and nature of strategic competition in the evolving security context, with emphasis on its implications for nuclear deterrence.
> 2. The changing dynamics of potential 21st century great power conflict and its implications for the theory and practice of UK nuclear deterrence.
> 3. The implications of the evolving security context for the theory and practice of UK nuclear deterrence and assurance.
> 4. The requirements of effective UK and Allied deterrence and escalation management against potential adversaries.
Areas of interest are listed as understanding Russian and Chinese ambitions and strategies and the role of nuclear weapons in them, understanding the ambitions and strategies of our allies and how deterrence features in them, and specifically “Identifying opportunities to adapt and strengthen regional deterrence architectures and exploring the UK’s potential role in those architectures”. It’s an interesting development. I’m firmly of the opinion that we’re probably under-doing our deterrence by relying solely on Trident launched from a single patrolling submarine. We do apparently load single warheads onto some missiles to fulfil a sub-strategic role, but that’s never felt very credible as a deterrent against use of nuclear weapons against our allies or forces by a major sophisticated adversary (which is one of its key roles, see the blurb and basically any government publication on the topic). I’d personally like to see an air-launched sub-strategic weapon in service, either a cruise missile like [ASMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e) or perhaps an updated version of [WE.177](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177) for deployment from F-35. The former is probably strictly better performing, the latter would be cheaper (the Trident Alternatives Review put developing a new warhead for a freefall bomb at £5billion, though part of that cost involved maintenance of the Trident warheads until retirement which wouldn’t be applicable) and offers the option of sharing with allies who operate F-35 in the event of the US program collapsing (a risk that looks less likely each day with US election polling, but I like to think we’ve learned our lesson about keeping all our eggs in the US basket).
iceixia on
upto £125,000 per project? I’m no nuclear scientist, but surely that kind of money will get you pretty much nothing? Whats the point?
Lost-Droids on
Sir Humphrey: “With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.”
Jim Hacker: “I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.”
Sir Humphrey: “It’s a deterrent.”
Jim Hacker: “It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.”
Jim Hacker: “They probably do.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.”
Jim Hacker: “They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would.”
AcademicIncrease8080 on
We spend £8.3 million per day on hotels for migrants lol, why is there even a press release for this 😝
Particular-Solid4069 on
Embarrassing, they need to fix trident immediately with the current global criss
7 Comments
3.3 million? That sounds like budget for some sandwiches, tea and a bit of a chat about nuclear deterrents.
That’s the cost to create the logo and decide on a name.
[Here is the PIN](https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/ddd815f8-fe5c-45d6-b0c9-2d005d7b534b), which has some interesting content (particularly in the downloadable Attachment A):
> RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
>
> We are committed to ensuring that our nuclear deterrent is correctly aligned and configured to deter the most serious threats to the UK now and in the future. We seek research which supports the UK in understanding the long-term context of its nuclear deterrent, including:
> 1. The origins and nature of strategic competition in the evolving security context, with emphasis on its implications for nuclear deterrence.
> 2. The changing dynamics of potential 21st century great power conflict and its implications for the theory and practice of UK nuclear deterrence.
> 3. The implications of the evolving security context for the theory and practice of UK nuclear deterrence and assurance.
> 4. The requirements of effective UK and Allied deterrence and escalation management against potential adversaries.
Areas of interest are listed as understanding Russian and Chinese ambitions and strategies and the role of nuclear weapons in them, understanding the ambitions and strategies of our allies and how deterrence features in them, and specifically “Identifying opportunities to adapt and strengthen regional deterrence architectures and exploring the UK’s potential role in those architectures”. It’s an interesting development. I’m firmly of the opinion that we’re probably under-doing our deterrence by relying solely on Trident launched from a single patrolling submarine. We do apparently load single warheads onto some missiles to fulfil a sub-strategic role, but that’s never felt very credible as a deterrent against use of nuclear weapons against our allies or forces by a major sophisticated adversary (which is one of its key roles, see the blurb and basically any government publication on the topic). I’d personally like to see an air-launched sub-strategic weapon in service, either a cruise missile like [ASMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e) or perhaps an updated version of [WE.177](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177) for deployment from F-35. The former is probably strictly better performing, the latter would be cheaper (the Trident Alternatives Review put developing a new warhead for a freefall bomb at £5billion, though part of that cost involved maintenance of the Trident warheads until retirement which wouldn’t be applicable) and offers the option of sharing with allies who operate F-35 in the event of the US program collapsing (a risk that looks less likely each day with US election polling, but I like to think we’ve learned our lesson about keeping all our eggs in the US basket).
upto £125,000 per project? I’m no nuclear scientist, but surely that kind of money will get you pretty much nothing? Whats the point?
Sir Humphrey: “With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.”
Jim Hacker: “I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.”
Sir Humphrey: “It’s a deterrent.”
Jim Hacker: “It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.”
Jim Hacker: “They probably do.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.”
Jim Hacker: “They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would.”
We spend £8.3 million per day on hotels for migrants lol, why is there even a press release for this 😝
Embarrassing, they need to fix trident immediately with the current global criss