A US View on Future UK Defence Plans

I’ve got a new article up over at the Royal United Services Institute website examining what UK defense priorities should be from an American perspective. Here’s my setup:

Looking ahead, the new US Quadrennial Defense Review released in February placed new emphasis on the non-traditional threats posed by irregular warfare, potential WMD proliferation and terrorist attacks, hybrid warfare combining high- and low-tech tactics, climate change, and the loss of shared access to the 'global commons' in air, sea, space, and cyberspace. Dependable access to these commons forms the backbone of the global order from which the UK benefits politically, economically, and militarily. Yet access to the commons is being contested today by state and non-state actors using asymmetric strategies and capabilities. The UK Ministry of Defence's recent Adaptability and Partnership Green Paper and Future Character of Conflict report offered similar assessments of a future security environment that will be contested, congested, cluttered, connected, and constrained.

To overcome these nontraditional threats, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended rebalancing the US military to better support six key missions:

1. Defend the United States and support civil authorities at home;

2. Succeed in counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations;
   
3. Build the security capacity of partner states;
   
4. Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments;
   
5. Prevent proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; and
   
6. Operate effectively in cyberspace.
   

Because of its historical and political comparative advantages, the UK is well-suited to orient itself toward missions 2, 3, 5, and 6.

On Mission 5, I have the following to say about UK Trident:

It is also worth noting that despite his disarmament rhetoric, President Obama seems committed to keeping the US nuclear deterrent - and by extension the nuclear umbrella protecting US allies - viable for as long as these weapons exist. For example, the Obama administration has announced plans to spend billions of dollars on refurbishment of the B61 gravity bomb, a next-generation bomber, and a successor to the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. Such investments leave UK policymakers free to decide about Trident based on their own military and political calculations, not some misperception that the US plans to unilaterally disarm anytime soon.

Not the most inspiring analysis for arms controllers, I know, but still an important point to make in response to the “Folding our nuclear umbrella” meme.