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

[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.

If your country is gone, it doesn't really matter.

All very well, but If it is known/suspected that you won't retaliate, then this might encourage someone to attack you in the first place. That's what deterrence is about - unfortunately.

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.

Then you would still be advocating retaliation, only on the basis of "let someone else do it". [/Homer Simpson]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Interesting game. The only way to win is to not play."

[MrJonno]

No way would the US launch nuclear weapons to revenge the UK if they hadn't already been nuked themselves and neither would the British government if the situation was reverse. Who wants to make themselves a target unless they can be absolutely sure of wiping out the target without threat of retaliation

[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.

All very well, but If it is known/suspected that you won't retaliate, then this might encourage someone to attack you in the first place. That's what deterrence is about - unfortunately.

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.

Then you would still be advocating retaliation, only on the basis of "let someone else do it". [/Homer Simpson]

But the retaliation is different in that case, as it is another country and it would be for different reasons. I have no problem with retaliation per se. If it can be avoided, then sure. But if it's necessary in some reasonably justifiable way, then do it. Although, I imagine these days that any nuclear war would be a tactical affair. I.e. smaller nukes targeting military and command and control infrastructure. So not really a case of turning a whole country into glass.

[HomerJay]

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.

But this is why the whole scenario may make little sense, unless there is another letter 'The One Just Before Last Resort'.

If we were attacked by the Reds the nukes would travel some distance and therefore we might hope someone was on the phone to the captain to inform him we were under attack, this used to be the scenario when the weapons were land based, as it assumed there were functioning parts of the UK infrastructure.

In that case a launch could result in the incoming missiles being stopped.

Really the last resort is after the Prime Minister has been killed, not after the UK has been destroyed.

Is the OP inspired by this play?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0210spc

only 2 days left to listen (38 minutes).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think any country that slagged the UK would get it back from the US, so the RN would just be making the rubble jump. On the gripping hand, if they kept theirs in reserve they might be THE nuclear power on Earth.

[pErvinalia]

No way would the US launch nuclear weapons to revenge the UK if they hadn't already been nuked themselves and neither would the British government if the situation was reverse. Who wants to make themselves a target unless they can be absolutely sure of wiping out the target without threat of retaliation

If the UK was a target then the US would be a target as they are each other's closest allies. If someone nuked the UK, then the US could reasonably assume that they were in line for nuking as well. I obviously have no real idea, but i'd suspect that if the UK was nuked, the US would retaliate extremely forcefully, and that would almost certainly include tactical nuclear attacks.

Whatever one thinks of the US and their foreign military misadventures, they are a VERY strong ally.

[mistermack]

I doubt if these options exist. I would have to see very good evidence. A prime minister can, of course, order any option that he wants. But I can't imagine any order being given, except retaliate. ( except maybe if Neil Kinnock had got elected, then sanity would have gone out the window. )

A deterrence is the promise that we WILL retaliate. Not that we might. If an enemy got the idea that the instruction might not be to retaliate, that would weaken the value of the deterrent.
They might just gamble on what's in the letter.

If I was the captain, I'd just fire them all at Israel. Both sides are assholes, so the nukes would be guaranteed to do some good.
Afterwards, if anyone wanted a highly radioactive "promised land" then they would probably deserve it.

[mistermack]

No way would the US launch nuclear weapons to revenge the UK if they hadn't already been nuked themselves and neither would the British government if the situation was reverse. Who wants to make themselves a target unless they can be absolutely sure of wiping out the target without threat of retaliation

If the UK was a target then the US would be a target as they are each other's closest allies. If someone nuked the UK, then the US could reasonably assume that they were in line for nuking as well. I obviously have no real idea, but i'd suspect that if the UK was nuked, the US would retaliate extremely forcefully, and that would almost certainly include tactical nuclear attacks.

Whatever one thinks of the US and their foreign military misadventures, they are a VERY strong ally.

Agree with that. As you said, if someone nuked the UK, they would HAVE to nuke the US.
For the reason you just laid out.

[Clinton Huxley]

From Wiki:-

"According to Peter Hennessy's book The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War, 1945 to 1970, the process by which a Trident submarine would determine if the British government continues to function includes, amongst other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continues broadcasting"

If the Archers and Woman's Hour have been burnt to a crisp, why carry on?!?

[Clinton Huxley]

It boils down to this question - is there any point exacting post-mortem revenge?

[Mysturji]

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.

Indeed.
And considering WHAT it allegedly [will} save[d] it from, it was aptly named.

I would go for option 3, with the addendum "... bearing in mind that your primary duty is now to the survival of Human civilisation and the Human species."

[mistermack]

It boils down to this question - is there any point exacting post-mortem revenge?

If you view it as revenge. I would view it as helping our allies, and anybody who was still alive on the UK.

I might just point a conventional missile at the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, just in case they were still standing.

[MrJonno]

No way would the US launch nuclear weapons to revenge the UK if they hadn't already been nuked themselves and neither would the British government if the situation was reverse. Who wants to make themselves a target unless they can be absolutely sure of wiping out the target without threat of retaliation

If the UK was a target then the US would be a target as they are each other's closest allies. If someone nuked the UK, then the US could reasonably assume that they were in line for nuking as well. I obviously have no real idea, but i'd suspect that if the UK was nuked, the US would retaliate extremely forcefully, and that would almost certainly include tactical nuclear attacks.

Whatever one thinks of the US and their foreign military misadventures, they are a VERY strong ally.

The US would assess the risks, nuking the UK would either be as a warning to the US or over a non-American issue. There is no way a US president is going to risk American cities to protect a far off country. It's one thing to risk your military its another to put your civilians at risk. They may consider they will consider they could be next but more likely they would be wary of escalating it to their shores

[Clinton Huxley]

It boils down to this question - is there any point exacting post-mortem revenge?

If you view it as revenge. I would view it as helping our allies, and anybody who was still alive on the UK.

I don't think it would help anyone....