The Letter of Last Resort

[Onkel Neal]

The decision about nuclear apocalypse lying in a safe at the bottom of the sea.

During the Cold War, the origin of a nuclear attack would have been fairly easy to determine: The only nation likely to strike was the U.S.S.R. Now? A single wobbly missile from some Pakistani terror group from a freighter offshore? A series of terror bombs smuggled into the country whose detonation had—as they say in the nuclear terrorist trade—"no return address." Who would the sub captain target if the PM posthumously ordered a retaliatory launch? Would the Last Resort Letter provide any guidance except a Big Yes or a Big No?

Do it, I say. Do it, Tommy!

[SteamWake]

Makes your blood run cold.

[Letum]

If major cities in the UK where targeted, would there be any point in retaliation?
There would be next to nothing to defend and you can't get revenge on the enemy
leader by dropping nukes on cities near his bomb-proof bunker.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

If major cities in the UK where targeted, would there be any point in retaliation?
There would be next to nothing to defend and you can't get revenge on the enemy
leader by dropping nukes on cities near his bomb-proof bunker.

Yeah but you can make sure he'll spend the rest of his life in that bunker...

[SUBMAN1]

I'd say do it. At that point, we need to be nuked back to the dark ages so that life can get back on track, honor can get back on track, and freedom can get back on track.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'll bet anything that the "un-named second" is the President of the U.S. or a U.S. D.O.D. official. At the very least, it would have to be a foreign official that is closely aligned with Britain. Britain, and what remains of her empire, simply do not have the landmass available to survive a nuclear first-strike. Even if Britain's government were to survive a nuclear attack, they would not likely have communications capabilities to issue retalitory instructions.
Of the three large countries that would act in support of Britain's interests, only one is nuclear-capable, the U.S. The U.S also has dead-man trigger devices for their virtually untargetable SSBNs.
The U.S is also distant enough from the former Soviet states (and Russia itself) and the Middle East to allow enough time to decide whether a retalitory strike is warranted, or if the attack is a localized terrorist action.

In the event that both the un-named U.S. official, and the Prime Minister were both killed, before a launch decision could be made, the likely target is Russia and her former sattelite states. They are the ones most capable of launching such a comprehensive nuclear attack.

[Letum]

You think the UK would put it's nuclear weapons in the hands of the US?
I doubt it.
Who knows, it might be you we are launching against.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'll bet anything that the "un-named second" is the President of the U.S. or a U.S. D.O.D. official. At the very least, it would have to be a foreign official that is closely aligned with Britain. Britain, and what remains of her empire, simply do not have the landmass available to survive a nuclear first-strike. Even if Britain's government were to survive a nuclear attack, they would not likely have communications capabilities to issue retalitory instructions.
Of the three large countries that would act in support of Britain's interests, only one is nuclear-capable, the U.S. The U.S also has dead-man trigger devices for their virtually untargetable SSBNs.

No countries act in support of other the interests of other countries. They support allies when their interests happen to coincide and there is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

That said, I agree with Letum. I bet if not a post held by someone on the British Isles then it's in the hands of some governor on an overseas territory like the Virgin Islands which have no strategic value and are not worth expending a missile on. They're appointed by HM the Queen so I guess they're people.

[August]

You guys ought to remember that while a terrorist group or third world country might (someday) be able to deliver a nuke it'd hardly be strong enough to completely obliterate a country the size of GB to the point there isn't anyone senior enough to give their sub captains intel and instructions.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

You think the UK would put it's nuclear weapons in the hands of the US?
I doubt it.
Who knows, it might be you we are launching against.

Oh lord, I need a much bigger icon for that.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Oh lord, I need a much bigger icon for that.

LOL ... so true ...

[NealT]

My icon would be very, very small.

It would say...

Pull the trigger...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Letum

You think the UK would put it's nuclear weapons in the hands of the US?
I doubt it.
Who knows, it might be you we are launching against.

I think the U.K. is more likely to nuke Lesotho than it ever is to nuke the U.S.
And yes, I do think it is a possibility. There is an awful lot of cooperation and framework for joint operations shared between the militaries of the U.S. and the U.K.

Originally Posted by August

You guys ought to remember that while a terrorist group or third world country might (someday) be able to deliver a nuke it'd hardly be strong enough to completely obliterate a country the size of GB to the point there isn't anyone senior enough to give their sub captains intel and instructions.

Like I said, it's probably also, and moreso, designed to provide launch capability in the event of a large-scale nuclear exchange, not just a lucky strike by some terrorists or a rogue nation.

Originally Posted by Fatty

That said, I agree with Letum. I bet if not a post held by someone on the British Isles then it's in the hands of some governor on an overseas territory like the Virgin Islands which have no strategic value and are not worth expending a missile on. They're appointed by HM the Queen so I guess they're people.

Maybe, but there's also the possibility that the Russians already know about that post and it is a target.


All I'm trying to say is that the U.K. bothered to make a policy to govern the launch of nuclear weapons in the event that proper authorization isn't possible, they are probably considering a scenario where the nation's command structure and communications abilities are destroyed. There are only a few nations capable/remotely likely to do that to the U.K., and most of them are Russia.

So if your comms are shot, and you're in a nuclear war with Russia, and the Prime Minister and lots of other important people are dead, the best shot at launching an effective retalitory strike is letting the U.S. launch your missiles. For one thing, the U.S. will be launching its' missiles as well, and yours won't do a lot of good if they hit the same spots that ours do. You've only got like 200 of them, and that isn't nearly enough to neutralize Russia, even if she acts alone.
The U.S. has like 4,000 nukes, a comprehensive array of military communications sattellites, god knows how many nuclear command/control installations, and has much greater launch detection capability.

For my money, if you're Britain, and you're totally boned and the world is going to hell, you're going to rely on the U.S. And believe it or not, there is a historical precedent for that sort of thing.

[Jimbuna]

As far as I'm aware the second individual would be the British Foreign Secretary (currently David Miliband....my home town MP)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband

At times of high tension either the PM or the Foreign Secretary would leave the country in case of such an eventuality as described above in earlier posts.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

As far as I'm aware the second individual would be the British Foreign Secretary

I doubt that. The PM and the FS are together in London too often. They would likely
be killed together.

It will be someone who does not reside in a city. My money is on a high ranking member
of the armed forces.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

For my money, if you're Britain, and you're totally boned and the world is going to hell, you're going to rely on the U.S. And believe it or not, there is a historical precedent for that sort of thing.

Really?
When?