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

[Jason]

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.

Australia? Why Australia? The Canadian forces already operate submarines, have a real army, and are just better positioned to put those subs to use.

I'd go for a fifth option.

5) Place the submarine, if possible, under the control of a Commonwealth power, preferably a militarily competent power like Canada. If not possible, retaliate against the enemy.

We'd kick your arses. And we've got subs. And sometimes they even work..

Your Kangaroo cavalry is unique, but no match for our Leopard tanks. Also we outnumber you more than 2:1. But really, the main problem is you're too close to places like North Korea and China. It would be much harder to launch a pacific offensive from Australia than Canada. For proof, look no further than the example of the British, starting from Australia, in the pacific in WWII. Didn't accomplish much compared to the Americans. Both were fighting multiple fronts.

[Jason]

The Yanks had "Plan Red" in the 30s, a scheme to wage war on and destroy the British Empire. As luck would have it, the Germans did it for them but I still don't trust the buggers.

You would have to mention this as I love 'what if' scenarios. Now am off to wiki to check how strong both countries were at that time.

"It's better to have a plan and not need than to need a plan and not have it."

The real reason the US didn't enter the war until after Pearl Harbour.

That made no sense.

Best to ignore it then.

[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.

Australia? Why Australia? The Canadian forces already operate submarines, have a real army, and are just better positioned to put those subs to use.

I'd go for a fifth option.

5) Place the submarine, if possible, under the control of a Commonwealth power, preferably a militarily competent power like Canada. If not possible, retaliate against the enemy.

We'd kick your arses. And we've got subs. And sometimes they even work..

Your Kangaroo cavalry is unique, but no match for our Leopard tanks. Also we outnumber you more than 2:1. But really, the main problem is you're too close to places like North Korea and China. It would be much harder to launch a pacific offensive from Australia than Canada. For proof, look no further than the example of the British, starting from Australia, in the pacific in WWII. Didn't accomplish much compared to the Americans. Both were fighting multiple fronts.

Yeah, but we're just better at everything. Just look at the Olympics per capita. And our special forces are amongst the top few in the world. In fact, that's all we are good at.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Best to ignore it then.

Done.

And it's Pearl HARBOR. The spelling isn't optional when it's a proper name.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, you beat us by 4 places in the world military olympics.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countrie ... +Countries

[Warren Dew]

What does the UK being "destroyed" mean in this context?

I can imagine France nuking London and all the major UK military bases. That would destroy the UK as a nation, but there would still be plenty of British population left.

The decision on retaliation could then make the difference between the remaining population of the UK trying to recover as best they could on their own, or living under French occupation.

[Jason]

Are all harbours proper names or just notable ones?

[MrJonno]

What does the UK being "destroyed" mean in this context?

I can imagine France nuking London and all the major UK military bases. That would destroy the UK as a nation, but there would still be plenty of British population left.

The decision on retaliation could then make the difference between the remaining population of the UK trying to recover as best they could on their own, or living under French occupation.

Err the population would start starving rapidly without someone sort of occupation, through to be honest why you would nuke a country, leave it radioactive and occupy it seems a bit strange. Considering the high density of UK targets for nukes there is unlikely to be much left anyway. We arent exactly that big a dozen nukes or so that's it population wise. Anyone with resources would leave anyone else would just die

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are all harbours proper names or just notable ones?

If you have, say, a place called "Brighton Harbour", then that's the name of the place, not "Brighton Harbor".

[Clinton Huxley]

Regarding the poll results - what a bloodthirsty lot!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Regarding the poll results - what a bloodthirsty lot!

"Revenge is a more powerful motivator than greed, my dear General."

[Trinity]

Why isn't there a PMS parody yet???

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why isn't there a PMS parody yet???

We don't want to get beat up.

[klr]

Regarding the poll results - what a bloodthirsty lot!

We say it so that we may never have to do it ...

[Tyrannical]

It's like no one ever played missile command before. An air burst nuke detonation could easily take out incoming missiles.