The Letter Of Last Resort - PMs letter to Nuke Sub Captains

[JimC]

4) Place the submarine, if possible, under the control of a friendly power, either the USA or Australia.

Well, which is it?

Us, of course, Yankee!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

4) Place the submarine, if possible, under the control of a friendly power, either the USA or Australia.

Well, which is it?

Us, of course, Yankee!

Wrong question. It said "friendly power". But then it listed "the USA or Australia."

[Clinton Huxley]

I think it means, anyone but the French.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it means, anyone but the French.

But that's no state secret...

[klr]

The problem about saying "don't retaliate" is that your deterrent loses credibility if this ever becomes known or even suspected. And that ultimately is a destabilising factor.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem about saying "don't retaliate" is that your deterrent loses credibility if this ever becomes known or even suspected. And that ultimately is a destabilising factor.

MAD saved the planet, I do believe.

[Audley Strange]

The problem about saying "don't retaliate" is that your deterrent loses credibility if this ever becomes known or even suspected. And that ultimately is a destabilising factor.

MAD saved the planet, I do believe.

Game is not over yet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem about saying "don't retaliate" is that your deterrent loses credibility if this ever becomes known or even suspected. And that ultimately is a destabilising factor.

MAD saved the planet, I do believe.

Game is not over yet.

True, but brinksmanship is, for the most part. We can still screw the pooch, but the finger isn't hovering. Thank Buddha we didn't have a crisis that might have required a nuclear response while Dubya was in office. (But then, he could have just gotten a latte. /obscure)

[Audley Strange]

Well yes, as far as the Soviets are concerned, I'd suggest our current dance though is with several other nations, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel and hope that their leaders are as level headed especially in the event of one of those old MAD missiles ending up in the hands of ideotic twats who use it to prove a point in one of the above countries. The problem is we can't uninvent them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well yes, as far as the Soviets are concerned, I'd suggest our current dance though is with several other nations, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel and hope that their leaders are as level headed especially in the event of one of those old MAD missiles ending up in the hands of ideotic twats who use it to prove a point in one of the above countries. The problem is we can't uninvent them.

Agreed, but we're not likely to get this either.

[Rum]

The point is that if this scenario takes place the weapon has failed. 'Deterrence' is there to deter a potential enemy from launching an attack. If they do the weapon has failed and retaliation is rather pointless, with most of the UK just a radioactive hole.

The danger arises with smaller nuclear weapons. Say Iran developed one that could just take out London or Brum and decided to threaten to use it. And say they had two but had only launched one so far. We would have the potential to destroy Iran utterly.

Difficult decisions.

[Animavore]

I believe it actually says, "Delete my browser history."

[pErvinalia]

One of the first acts of a new British Prime Minister is to write 4 copies of a letter called "The letter of last resort". One copy of this letter is then placed in each of the 4 Trident submarines that carry the UK's nuclear deterrent. One of these subs is always on patrol. No-one but the PM knows what is in the letters
and the previous PMs letters are destroyed unopened upon the election of a new PM. The letter is to be opened by the submarine captain if they believe that the UK has been destroyed by a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The letters are thought to contain ONE of the following 4 commands, the option being up to the PM:-

1) Retaliate against the enemy
2) Do NOT retaliate against the enemy
3) Captain to use own judgement
4) Place the submarine, if possible, under the control of a friendly power, either the USA or Australia.

The "letter of last resort", if opened and acted upon, would constitute the very last act of the British state.

What would you do? Personally, I'd opt for option 4. Seems no point in retaliating, deterrence has already failed and there's no point adding to the destruction.

Fascinating stuff!

And Australia could get nukes!!

[pErvinalia]

The problem about saying "don't retaliate" is that your deterrent loses credibility if this ever becomes known or even suspected. And that ultimately is a destabilising factor.

If your country is gone, it doesn't really matter. I'd suspect that if someone nuked the UK, the US would nuke whoever did it. No real need for the sub to do it.

[MrJonno]

I think the point is the enemy don't know what is in the letter, doesn't matter they have to assume the captain will launch his nukes