Letters of last resort

[spacein_vader]

As we're about to get a new Prime Minister I thought this would be interesting.

One of the first acts of a new PM is a briefing with the Chief of Defence Staff who will explain to them exactly how much damage a submarines worth of Trident missiles would cause.

When they understand the enormity of this responsibility they are then asked to write 4 identical letters in their own hand, instructing the commanders of the Vanguard nuclear subs on what to do if an enemy nuclear strike has destroyed the UK government and infrastructure.

These letters are then sealed, and escorted to the 4 submarines (one of which is always at sea in case of nuclear attack,) where they are placed in a double safe which can only be opened using 2 keys held by the Captain and XO. When a new PM is instated the old letters are removed and burned, so the PMs decision is never known unless the worst has already happened.

According to a BBC documentary the Chief of Defence Staff lays out 4 options (of course as nobody ever reads them there is nothing stopping the PM choosing to do something else entirely,) they are:

1. Retaliate (this assumes the aggressor can be identified and hasn't already been destroyed by others)
2. Don't retaliate and stand down;
3. The captain may use his or her own judgement;
4. Place themselves under an allied countries command (usually the USA or Australia)

So you're the new PM, assuming Britain has been entirely destroyed, at the time of writing you obviously don't know who by, if its a nation state, a rogue terrorist or a crazed dictator, what would you want the last act of Her Majesties Government to be?

[Corky34]

How much damage does a submarines worth of Trident missiles actually do?

I'm asking as wouldn't how much damage and how many places you could target effect your decision somewhat.

[Hoonigan]

How much damage does a submarines worth of Trident missiles actually do?

I would also like this information before forming a decision.

[spacein_vader]

Trident warheads are capable of 100kt of damage. Each sub tends to carry around 40 warheads these days but on a ear footing could be carrying up to 96. Hiroshima was 16kt by comparison.

In short you could wipe out a smaller country and most of the major population centres of a larger one, killing millions.

[TeePee]

3. Is the only option for me. All other options require some prescience which isn't available.

[badass]

I would also like this information before forming a decision.

IIRC one of our Trident Submarines has enough warheads to destroy every major city in the northern Hemisphere.

So I would say (without thinking too hard)

1. Retaliate
If no option for 1 or 1 has been completed,
then 3. Commander use their judgement.
Then 4. Place themselves under an allied countries command. Order of preference: 1. New Zealand. 2. Canada. 3 Australia. 4. sod it. You have a Submarine full of armed Submariners. Start your own country as the world's screwed any way.


So why would I say retaliate? Not for revenge. Because it will help peace after nuclear annihilation of at least 2 countries. Simply because if no retliation occurs, other nuclear powers will judge that if they get their strike right, they will get away with it.

Plus there are too many people on this world screwing it up any way.

[PC-LAD]

Retaliate:

[Peter Parker]

4 - by process of elimination. Guaranteed retaliation is hard to justify, as is instant capitulation. It's unfair to ask the captain to choose. Still it just dumps a problem in the hands of the USA or Australia. NZ hates nukes so you wouldn't be welcome. Perhaps better to go to France as a nearby NATO member who already has nukes?

Ground launches can be detected and alerted to the fleet, so you'd know if North Korea was attacking. Some form of retaliation *might* be possible but even only targeting military bases would kill lots of people and drag in South Korea, thus USA, and thus China. Risky. In fact if NK launched first, it's possible both China and USA would try to intervene anyway and remove the current leader because he's become too much of a liability. India and Pakistan are tough, but they have enough corrupt money in London that I'm not sure they'd want to attack!

Our nearest neighbour with nukes is France, and I'd be loath to retaliate. It's hard to imagine a case right now where they'd launch a first strike, barring some Hollywood-style rogue military general. Retaliating against something like that wouldn't serve to discourage other aggressors and would just hinder whatever humanitarian help would be possible, plus pollute the rest of Europe.

I could grimly imagine (though it's again Hollywood level) the potential for some sneak attack by North Korea/Pakistan/India (getting very right-wing nationalist these days) from, say Libya, a bit like when the USSR had nukes in Cuba. It'd be hard to know the original aggressor, so nuking the country where they launched from helps nobody.

Other possible attacked could come from submarines, which pretty much means USA or Russia. At that point I think all is lost.

[AGTDenton]

assuming Britain has been entirely destroyed

At that point as PM I'd be shouting 'every man for himself!!' Therefore it would be option 3.

As a civilian I wouldn't be relying on government, police or army by that stage. Human rights, laws and morals go out the window, think Fallout

[Lanky123]

Any enemy leader prepared to use nukes on a sufficiently wide scale that all government/communication/civilisation is knocked out is likely enough of a nutjob that threat of retaliation wouldn't bother them anyway. Not sure how that affects my choice of options but it's how I see things.

Also, the obligatory Yes, Prime Minister scene on the subject:

https://youtu.be/XyJh3qKjSMk

[Ttaskmaster]

Dearest Leslie,

Well, if you're reading then then I suppose you're wondering what on Earth to do about it....

3 - We're all dead, mate. Sorry. Nothing left to come home to, so you do what you like, fella.
1 - Of course we're rather peeved at the above, so if you feel up to it and you've nothing else in the diary at the minute, we'd be delighted if you went and kicked their teeth in on our collective behalf.
4 - However, if the likelihood is that you'd benefit from a bit of extra punch, feel free ask the Aussies, the Canadians and anyone else if they'd like to join you for a spot of target practice. Anyone who'd come and have a go if they thought they're hard enough, essentially. Might even consider charging a fee - You'll need money at some point, as the Pay Corps and the Treasury likely aren't around anymore, and this is basically a coconut shy but on a global nuclear scale, so upscale the fees as appropriate - Say £50mil per shot, rather than 50p?
2 - But if you're feeling a bit peaky and would rather just head to a friendly port for a bit of a lie down, we fully understand.


Best of luck, toodle-pip, and left hand down a bit.


Love and kisses from all of us here,
Tasky.
UK PM

Retired.

Ex-.

Late.

Deceased.

No more.
Passed on.
Ceased to be.
Expired.
Bereft of life, resting in peace.
Pushing up the daisies.
Off the twig.
Kicked the bucket.
Mortal coil shuffled off.
Run down curtain and joined choir invisibule.
Lumberjack.
Is OK.

[Saracen999]

...

Say £50mil per shot, rather than 50p? ....

Don't mean to be picky (well, I kinda do ) but .... if the UK has been utterly destroyed by a nuclear attack, don't you think the resultant depressive effect on our currency might make those two options amount to pretty much the same thing? i.e. zero, bupkiss, naff-all, sweet F.A, not a hill of beans, nada, zip, zilch and beggar-all.

I mean, a certain referendum was supposed to cause a collapse in the pound and an immediate recession, so a country-destroying nuclear devastation might just be a smidge worse, eh?

[Saracen999]

What would I do with letters?

Well, first, I'd want to give it a LOT of thought, if I found PN-hood to be incipient. Second thing is wonder why I didn't find a better hiding place when they called for volunteers, because nobody in their right mind actually wants thecjob, surely?

Which, in fact, probably tells us all we really need to know about both recent incumbents and present hooefuls .... including those requuring a general election to get the job.

But back to my letters.

How about a letter of resignation? Let some other idiot have the hotseat.





But if I'm forced into the job at the point of a gun, and chained to the desk ..... okay


2 = Oh, hell no. No chance, no way, beggar that for a game.

3 = Well, I'm not sure how I'd stop that if they decided for themselves. But assuming they followed order .....

Provided we knew who done it ...

1. Yup. Without a doubt.

4. Only if 1) was either not possible, or too late becsuse we were beaten to it.

And if 4), only the US if Trump isn't Pres.

[Ttaskmaster]

Don't mean to be picky (well, I kinda do ) but .... if the UK has been utterly destroyed by a nuclear attack, don't you think the resultant depressive effect on our currency might make those two options amount to pretty much the same thing?

I did think, yes... but then remembered that most of the physical wealth underpinning our currency has likely already been sequestered in some overseas tax haven. But even if it hasn't, the countries paying to have a go will be paying our crews using their money, so the UK doesn't need to exist at that point... and most sub commanders will have the sense to do a quick conversion using the last known exchange rate!

This ain't my first rodeo, ya know!

[Zak33]

I'm a 4 man

Get your arse in contact with the friendly team and join them, double fast. Though I detest Trump with nearly every fibre of my being.. he aint gonna be in charge for long.. there are US military brains who will want our guns. If I fall on the battle field and my gun's good enough, pick it up mate!

You never know what the Allies might want to do if it all kicks off, and once you offer up the big guns to help, it might do the job better.

you never know what you don't know.

[SeriousSam]

5. Other... nuke the Arctic at strategic points to cause maximum disruption / breakup