Looking for those cruise missiles - a visit to Greenham Common

It's said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well, the road to nuclear annihilation is paved with the same stuff most British roads are paved with.

Had the Cold War (maybe the First Cold War now?) ever gone hot, then 24 vehicles, each armed with four nuclear cruise missiles, would have come down this road and made their way to pre-planned launch sites in the Berkshire countryside, ready for orders to launch weapons on targets in the Soviet bloc.

Greenham Common is of one of the most well-known sites to British students of the Cold War period. This one-time RAF base played host to American nuclear bombers like the B-47 Stratojet, but is best remembered from being one of the two locations that hosted BGM-109G Gryphon cruise missiles in the 1980s.

(The other, RAF Molesworth, is still an active facility)

Known simply as Cruise to many or the GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile or "glick-em"), the Gryphon was the Tomahawk's land-based cousin, developed and deployed as a response to the Soviet deployment of the RT-21M/SS-20 'Saber' intermediate-range ballistic missile, capable of nuking pretty much anywhere in Europe from well within the USSR in under 15 minutes.

While the Gryphon was by no means as fast as that, its ability to fly long distances at low altitudes using terrain matching systems to keep on course meant that the Soviet Union ended up seeing it as a potential first-strike weapon. They invested considerable amounts of time, money and energy looking for evidence of a planned US first strike.

The presence of the Gryphon at any rate was controversial to put it mildly. Anti-nuclear Peace Camps, eventually women-only were set up outside the entrances to Greenham Common to protest and disrupt operations on the site. 

This included breaking into the control tower and reading all the emergency situation documents and writing on the pages to confirm this. When base security didn't show up for five-and-a-half hours, the women started turning the lights on-and-off to get them to show up, because if they just left, the Ministry of Defence would deny it.

A "battle" between the USAF, the police and many locals on one side, with the protestors on the other ensued. Rocks were thrown, statements were cooked up, fences were cut and it became rather difficult for the missile unit to do any exercises outside the base because protestors kept turning up. In the event of an actual war, I suspect those women might have dealt with in a much more lethal way.

Eventually, the INF Treaty of 1987 saw the missiles removed in 1991 for destruction and the base closed shortly afterwards.

A limited nuclear attack on the UK - how much damage could it do?

Some of the detonations

 Out of curiosity, I have decided to model using NUKEMAP a 'limited' nuclear strike on my home country, aiming at key military facilities (air and naval) and avoiding cities just for the sake of it, but I will hit Central London for command and control purposes.

For ease of calculation, I will be limiting this to Topol/SS-25 ICBMs at 800kt each, going off 1000 metres above their targets - this does more damage, but produces less fallout. This will just cover the initial attack - not fallout, which is very much weather dependent.

The targets are: 

Aldermaston (nuclear bomb construction)

RAF Boulmer (Air Defence control)
RAF Brize Norton
RAF Coningsby

Faslane (Naval base)
RAF Fylingdales (Early warning radar)
RAF Lakenheath (USAF)

London (10 Downing Street to be precise)
RAF Lossiemouth
RAF Marham
RAF Menwith Hill (US/UK intelligence and communications facility) 
Plymouth (Naval base)
Porton Down (Chemical Weapons)
Portsmouth (Naval base)
RAF Waddington


That is 15 ICBMs... Unfortunately, the system keeps resetting itself, but I end up with well over a million dead, mostly those in London, Plymouth and Portsmouth, but other areas will produce thousands of dead. I did not cover army bases, but it is entirely possible that the Russians could eliminate the UK militarily with 30 or so ICBMs.

However, the UK would still have a missile boat out in the North Atlantic with 8 Trident missiles and those could do a lot of damage in return... not to mention all the US boats.

Iran, nuclear weapons and an Israeli strike

There is no direct evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but there is a lot of indirect evidence:

• The construction of ballistic missiles that are useless for anything bar attacking cities and employing WMDs
• Enriching uranium far beyond the levels needed for a civilian nuclear programme.
• Building underground nuclear facilities
• Generally unpleasant rhetoric towards a state that is in no position to attack it directly and has never done so.
• Support of terrorism against said state
• Refusal of a perfectly decent offer for enrichment outside the country.

There's generally no smoke without fire and the UN is right to order Iran to stop enrichment until safeguards are in place. None of us want a regime like that with nuclear weapons. If they were to use them against Israel (it would only take two or three nukes getting through Israeli missile defences to effectively destroy that country), the consequences would be devastating for Iran as well - but you bet the leadership won't be taking any of them.

That said, a unilateral Israeli strike could cause serious consequences of their own.

As you may or may not be aware, I am currently running an RP revolving around the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. While I have made some slight tweaks to the scenario for gaming purposes and allowing for the 2015 setting, the scenario is based on real and projected capabilities of both sides.

So here are some of my thoughts on what might happen:

• An Israeli strike might not destroy all the facilities, but hitting the right ones could slow the regime down considerably.
• There is extremely little Iran can do to stop an Israeli strike from succeeding with its air defences.
• A strike may well eliminate any support for the reform movement in Iran, but that movement seems, sadly, to have largely stalled. I may be wrong on this and I'm sure Jams can help here.
• Any attempt by Iran to mine the Straits of Hormuz not only gets the US involved, it gets Oman, the UAE and the GCC involved.
• Iran cannot close the Straits long-term - any attempt to do so will result in the loss of the bulk of its naval and air forces.
• The best Iran can hope for is a few symbolic losses of Western assets, say a destroyer or two.
• Iran's ballistic missiles at the moment will not do serious long-term damage to a nation used to rocket attack. Witness the lack of impact that the V2s had on Britain - and Iran has less missiles.
• In fact, Iran poses no threat to the continued existence of Israel without nukes.
• While a war may drive Iran to develop a nuclear weapon - it will never be allowed to actually develop one by the United States and other Western powers. A full-scale invasion might well follow.
• The economic damage of Iranian strikes against the GCC would be considerable, particularly in terms of oil prices.
• Israel will need to present very strong evidence of an Iranian nuclear programme to win over a global public opinion that is hostile to it.

I don't want a war with Iran, but I don't want an Iranian bomb. What is needed is for both sides to come to the table and talk. The US and Israel should make statements that an attack will not take place unless clear red-lines are crossed - such as actual moves towards constructing a nuclear device.

Otherwise, either way, a lot of people are going to die.

Revolution or war

The excellent Jams at The Poor Mouth (see my sidebar) continues with his commentary on the Iranian protests, which the regime is going to increasing lengths to try and suppress- but not succeeding.

It's clear that 2010 will be a significant year for Iran. If the regime is not overthrown and replaced by a less belligerent administration, Israel, the likely target for any nuclear weapons produced by Iran, will launch an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

If that happens, I don't know whether the regime will be strengthened or not. The populace might well rally around the government and democratic ambitions will be frustrated further.

I hope we don't have to find out.

"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"

I knew about this already, but still it's interesting reading.

There's actually a system of similar purpose in British service, known as the Last Resort letters. These letters from the PM are placed in a safe on each Vanguard missile submarine. In the event that the UK ceases to exist, the letters are opened and the crew follow his or her instructions, which are probably one of four options.

1. Take out Moscow (or whoever)
2. Contact the Americans or the Australians (if they're still around)
3. Do nothing
4. Use your own judgement.

I'm sure other nuclear powers have their own systems.

Obama and Missile Defence

Obama's announcement cancelling the "third site" in Central Europe today is not an end to missile defence by any means, contrary to how many right-wing sources are reporting this.

He's just moving to another method, namely AEGIS and the SM-3.

I'm actually a supporter of missile defence. I'd rather have protection than deterrence, with all that entails.

Hiroshima - 64 Years On

Today is the 64th anniversary of the single largest act of destruction of humans by their fellow humans.

As someone with a large knowledge of nuclear weapons and their effects, I have no desire to see any more nuclear weapons used in anger.

I hope that we can actually see some further reductions in global stockpiles in this coming year. Much of the US and Russian stockpile is storage and it is time to start destroying these weapons- along with all other nuclear weapons.

Basic ideas for a post-STARTarms treaty

You might have heard already, but the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is due to expire soon and so President Obama has proposed reducing stockpiles to 1,500- 2,000 nuclear warheads.

I have some basic ideas for this new treaty and would like your opinions.

Overall aims

I would aim for a reduction in deliverable nuclear warheads to a total of 800 for the United States of America and 1000 for the Russian Federation. Those precise numbers would be tweaked about, but reflect the differences in technological capabilities, as well as other things.

This number would allow for effective mass destruction of either country without ensuring complete "breakdown" of their countries.

No strategic weapon systems with increased capability from present would be permitted.

Nuclear long-range bombers

The US has the B-52 and B-2s as their sole aircraft tasked for strategic nuclear weapons, with 1,080 such warheads. Russia has the Tu-22M "Backfire", the Tu-95 "Bear" and the Tu-160 "Blackjack".

I propose that the B-52 fleet is reduced to a total of about 30 and completely denuclearised. The B-2 will become the sole US nuclear bomber, along with the "2018 bomber" and these two together limited to a total of about 40. These would only carry free-fall bombs.

Russia would de-nuclearify the "Backfire" and the "Bear", reducing their numbers to 100 of the former and 50 of the latter. The "Blackjack" could go up to 40 in numbers too, retaining the air-launched cruise missile capability..

Stealth would balance out stand-off capability.

Tactical nuclear weapons

Eliminate the lot of them- on both sides. They are not needed in any likely war scenario. This includes sub-launched cruise missiles.

ICBMs

Eliminate the R-39M/SS-18 and UR-100N/SS-19 from Russian service immediately. Allow Russia a total of 400 ICBM mounted warheads, on Topol, Topol-M and RS-24 missiles.

Reduce the US Minuteman III force to 150 missiles, with two warheads each.

SLBMs

The US would convert three more of the fourteen Ohio-SSBNs to SSGNs and eliminate a further four, leaving seven.

Russia would be allowed nine Borey SSBNs, with everything else going.

Anti-Ballistic Missiles

Now, this is where things will get a little more controversial.

Basically, the US will be allowed to continue development of NMD, if President Obama decides to do so. However, its deployment will be limited to a total capacity to intercept 150 warheads and limitations would be placed on BMD-capable ships (10 in total as a figure I'm throwing out there), which would be clearly marked (paint the launchers orange or something).

In return, Russia would be permitted to have intercept capability of 200 warheads, either expanding A-135 or converting S-400/SA-21 missiles for an ABM role.

Other thoughts

The inspection regime would continue as is with appropriate modificiations.

China and the other nuclear powers, as well as potential ones (like Iran and Saudi Arabia) should be brought into a global agreement on the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons

Personally, I'd like to see one each of the Ohio and "Typhoon" SSBNs as museum vessels.

So, your thoughts.