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.