WI/AHC: The NATO Multilateral Nuclear Force

In the late 50s and early 60s, in response to the UK and French nuclear programs, the US government floated a plan to build a joint NATO nuclear-armed navy, consisting of 25 ships carrying 8 Polaris ballistic missiles each. It would have been called the NATO Multilateral Force (MLF).

There were several versions of how this would work. The US' preferred version seems to have been merchant freighters with missile launchers concealed in the holds, although SSBNs and surface warships were also considered. The ships would be paid for primarily by the US (40%), Germany (40%), Italy (10% to 20%), and UK (10% if they participated); they would have multinational crews, and the missiles would be under dual-key control, requiring concurrence among all the partners for a launch. This wasn't the only scheme of this sort floating around - joint manning was also considered for ICEWORM, for example. MLF got to the point of a trial multinational crew on a USN destroyer, which apparently worked quite well, and modifying an Italian cruiser to carry four Polaris missiles.

Sources: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, wikipedia.

This obviously didn't happen. But what if it had? What would it take to see a NATO multilateral navy, and what would the consequences be if there was one?
 
Last edited:
God I love the idea of Merchant ships sneaking Nuclear platforms around. Brilliant and sneaky tactic.

A multinational NATO navy might lead to a NATO army and then who knows perhaps a NATO state?

Unusual. Perhaps leads to a powerful UN military?
 
Nuclear armed faux merchant ship sent from the Med to the Pacific. Passes Somalia. Gets taken by pirates.

Hilarity ensues.
 
Good one Karl.

And it's exactly for that reason that the missiles would have been put on large warships. The problem then becomes what big ships are available?
 
And it's exactly for that reason that the missiles would have been put on large warships. The problem then becomes what big ships are available?

As far as I can tell - and I haven't done much digging on this yet - the preference among the Europeans was for SSBNs, because they were concerned that surface ships of any type would be vulnerable to a first strike. The US opposed this, on the not unreasonable grounds that we would then have to build the subs and train the crews, and proposed the Q-ship idea instead.

I think which option they choose - SSBN, surface warship, or Q-ship - will be determined by why they're doing this ITTL when they didn't IOTL. If they're primarily concerned about Soviet first-striking Europe because of a Third Berlin Crisis, they'll go for SSBNs, which are far less vulnerable. If they're primarily concerned about preventing proliferation within Europe because Yugoslavia just got the bomb, they'll go for Q-ships or warships, which are cheaper.
 
Good one Karl.

And it's exactly for that reason that the missiles would have been put on large warships. The problem then becomes what big ships are available?

At least one Italian cruiser was built with Polaris Tubes. Also I think the USS Long Beach was built with Polaris tubes. I remember seeing pictures in Janes in the mid '60s
 
I'm not sure if converted freighters are going to be that much cheaper then putting them on warships instead.
It's likely that these freighters would need to be escorted by warships, negating the cost advantage a freighter would have over a warship.

At least one Italian cruiser was built with Polaris Tubes.

The Italians converted a clapped out light cruiser into a guided missile cruiser with a few Polaris tubes at great expenses. Unfortunately they didn't bother to replace or even overhaul the engines, which resulted in a very expensive ship without any workable propulsion. It's not clear if she ever carried real polaris missiles. She did at least fire a dummy missile once.

At least that's what I learned from another forum (Stuart).

See here too (although questionable):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(1936)
 
SSBNs are not a realisitc option for most of the world`s navies, which is why the tubes were considered for powerful surface ships, to give them another string to their bow. But AFAIK there are only a handful of cruisers sized ships built from the 1960s onward, and some of these are owned by Britain and France who had no need for polaris surface ships, which thins out the field even further.
 

abc123

Banned
The Italians converted a clapped out light cruiser into a guided missile cruiser with a few Polaris tubes at great expenses. Unfortunately they didn't bother to replace or even overhaul the engines, which resulted in a very expensive ship without any workable propulsion. It's not clear if she ever carried real polaris missiles. She did at least fire a dummy missile once.

Never the less, this is a pretty cool picture:

Italian_Cruisers_underway.jpg
 
This was one of those dumb ideas that occasionally floated to show how tightly allied everyone is (look we're willing to share nukes!) but will never come of anything beacuse of the political implications.

a. Germans with nukes.
b. When can they be fired, does everyone need to sign up or just one party.
c. Who owns the warheads.
d. In whose attack plan will they be integrated

etc.
 
This was one of those dumb ideas that occasionally floated to show how tightly allied everyone is (look we're willing to share nukes!) but will never come of anything beacuse of the political implications.

a. Germans with nukes.

About half the point of the scheme in the eyes of Washington was that the Germans would get nukes one way or another, and this way the US would be able to exercise at least some level of control. Of course, it turned out the Germans weren't actually all that keen on having a nuclear arsenal.

b. When can they be fired, does everyone need to sign up or just one party.

There has to be agreement among all four (three if UK doesn't join) major partners.

c. Who owns the warheads.

I believe it was the US, but I'm not positive.

d. In whose attack plan will they be integrated

A joint NATO attack plan. I believe this part of the scheme evolved into the OTL NATO joint nuclear planning arrangements, dual-key tactical weapons, and, IIRC, tasking a few US SSBNs with NATO missions.
 
Top