Thread by @garius

Factual answer: We're changing nuclear warheads to a more modern one.

So it's a temporary increase in warheads during changeover. You can't decommission at the same time as you install.

Whether we should have ANY is a fair debate. But that's the reason.

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/1374261249693913091

Indeed I think the debate on whether we should have any nukes is an important one to constantly have.

Personally, I still land (just about) on 'necessary evil'. Mostly because once you LOSE the capacity, it's nigh-on impossible financially to get it back.

I hope that we can build a better world where the NEXT generation can, when faced with this same decision, confidently and definitely reject nuclear weapons and the horror they represent forever.

That has to be our goal, at home and how we assert British soft power abroad.

But, as the nuclear deterrent is apparently here to stay for now, it does need to be upgraded as safely as possible (while appreciating that safety is a relative term here!).

That means a temporary increase during the warhead shuffle.

So it's logistics here, not politics.

That's because the PR-machine pretending to be a British Government in Number 10 has clearly decided this is something they can get the Shire Boomers frothing happily over.

A sensible government, left or right, wouldn't be waving flags about logistics.

https://www.twitter.com/jjaron/status/1374266587184820224

As to why we have to maintain the same 'service level':

Existing deterrent policy, logistics (again) and treaties.

Shit's complex and linked basically.

E.g. Biden can't really cancel the US upgrade, because we've agreed to it already, and we can't because the US has!

Couple of final fun nuclear logistics facts:

Back in the Blue Steel days (our Vulcan-delivered air deterrent) it was discovered that HTP rockets and de-icer was a bad (and exploded) mix.

Bit of a problem when your deterrent is based in Scotland.

As a result, Britain's brave Vulcans were, at the time, generally allowed to fly with warheads OR rocket fuel for the delivery missiles. Never both.

Bit awkward if the Russians had started lobbing nukes at us without sufficient warning...

And a more modern one:

A good chunk of the nukes carried by our current submarine fleet aren't actually nukes. They're effectively dummies.

This is deliberate. It's a cheaper, safer way to increase swarm size and thus the chance of a genuine nuke getting through missile defence

Heh. I'd forgotten this one! 😆

https://twitter.com/SK_00001/status/1374275916654915584

Not really. It should be on the utter absurdity of us not having a choice BUT to upgrade.

Nuclear weapons aren't off-the-shelf purchases. You're better off thinking of them as things we rent, along with support and maintenance packages from the US.

https://twitter.com/adammpark/status/1374281844015923200

Basically, the moment we opted to move away from an independent deterrent we locked ourselves into having to build nuclear policy around military decisions made by others, and the associated costs.

To use a software metaphor, we're freelance artists and the US is Adobe.

My personal opinion is that we should have either continued to go all-in with an independent deterrent OR ditched them back in the 70s.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

And that's why the future debate needs to very much be:

"Have them or don't. There's no middle ground."

Nuclear weapons AS POLITICAL WILLY WAVING have no right to exist. There is no moral or financial justification for that as a policy.

The hard bit is working out whether that's ALL the value they have now, or how we engineer out any military or foreign policy value that remains.

I don't think the latter is impossible. It just requires serious people making serious, and ideally cross-party, long-term plans about Britain's foreign policy goals. And to do so with pragmatism based on expert opinion

Good fucking luck getting that from a Johnson government.

BTW, everything above is how I would be approaching this as a policy line, if I were the opposition.

Let the frothies boom and the boomers froth. Just keep hammering home that Nukes are serious business.

And IF we can't have the debate on having them or not right now, then we need to:

1) Start planning for a time when we can have it, by not being a MASSIVE DICK to every other country in the world
2) Treat nukes with respect, not play politics with announcements about logistics

Essentially, ramp it up as more "Boris the Clown" antics and point out that this time he's not insulting 'lefties', he's essentially playing with our international reputation and ability to stand proud on the world stage, AND our Naval and military tradition and ability.

So in doing so he's insulting the intelligence of proud brits everywhere - yes! that includes YOU, brave Shire Boomers! - etc. etc.

But then I'd probably get roasted by my own party for not dying on the altar of OMG outrage. This is why I stopped thinking about being an MP.

That's the next government's problem. If it's Johnson again (most likely) then they'll just pretend it isn't happening.

If it's Labour, the Tories will bang on about this drop in numbers being an OUTRAGE and/or communism.

https://twitter.com/ShaneMcC/status/1374299751936577536