Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Letters of Last Resort

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#41

Post by masterstatesman »

arethuza wrote: post #17
eponeponepon wrote: post #16

"There are no nukes. We've just been pretending all this time. They're just big metal tubes full of old laptops. Sorry. Find a nice island and settle down. Best, PM. PS: Sorry you've no women on board. One of the warheads is full of whisky and porn."

Yes, Prime Minister - Nuclear deterrent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

I love this part as well, when Sir Humphrey is arguing for Trident: https://www.youtube.com/v/XyJh3qKjSMk

"In the world of nuclear missiles, it is the Savile Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Chateau Lafite 1945. It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you."

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#42

Post by twic »

teh_klev wrote: post #23
arethuza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that the UK's nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, not England. To get some idea of the likely outcome of a nuclear war for the UK I can suggest watching Threads : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads One interesting thing about Threads is that it is based on a rather optimistic attack scenario based on an exercise called Square Leg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg

"Worth noting that the UK's nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, not England." As a "Yes" voter I'm hoping we'll be able to send them back to England, preferably somewhere on the south coast.

My understanding is that nuclear submarine bases need to be close to very deep water. Faslane is great from that point of view. A look at a hydrographic map of the UK suggests the only options south of the border are Barrow-in-Furness and the Isle of Man. The Vanguard-class missile submarines in question were actually built in Barrow, so there's a good chance the locals would be happy enough to see them come home.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#43

Post by masterstatesman »

Good thing they updated the procedures just in time for Able Archer 83!

26 May 1983 minutes on discussing the last resort procedures: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details/C1...

Able Archer on 8-9 November 1983: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#44

Post by dTal »

willvarfar wrote: post #26
arethuza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit embarrassing that a UK and French ballistic missiles submarines actually collided while on patrol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_... A US missile submarine also collided with a Russian attack submarine in 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Incident_off_Kildin_i...

That suggests they are hard to find, if they can't even see each other?

On the contrary. If they were just wandering randomly around the oceans, you would expect collisions between two subs to be impossibly rare. In fact it's known that, at least during the Cold War, nuclear subs often played cat and mouse games with each other, using passive sensor technologies to stalk each other to keep tabs on them. Every now and again though someone slams on the brakes or makes an unexpected turn and bam, collision. Obviously very embarrassing for all concerned, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens more often than we hear about, and only incidents with serious damage get reported.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#45

Post by caf »

arethuza wrote: post #14
caf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one armed nuclear sub could be wiped out fairly easily if we're talking about a power like this, right? No. The idea of ballistic missile submarines like this (and those also operated by the US, France and Russia) is that they should be impossible to find when on patrol.

It's a bit embarrassing that a UK and French ballistic missiles submarines actually collided while on patrol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_... A US missile submarine also collided with a Russian attack submarine in 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Incident_off_Kildin_i...

The USS Baton Rouge was an attack submarine (SSN) itself, not a ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#46

Post by tobylane »

gordonguthrie wrote: post #40
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To elaborate: each submarine carries 48 warheads (they can carry much more, but don't). I can't find much info on the warheads with a cursory search, but Wikipedia suggests a yield of 100kt, which is entirely plausible. The missile is able to put the warhead into a circle with a radius of about 100 meters. For a "last resort" use like this, counterforce (i.e. attacking the enemy's military) is probably pointless. I i…

The UK 'independent' nuclear deterrent isn't. Unlike the French one, it uses US missiles whose targets and strike pattern is set if North Carolina.

Can you reword that? I didn't understand it.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#47

Post by chrisbennet »

Udo wrote: post #22

Now that 's a great job interview question, because it's sort of a programming problem that also shows how a candidate thinks: formulate a letter of last resort. Knowing they'd have to work for a range of unexpected catastrophic situations, what are the priorities going to be and how will you make sure they're implemented if nobody's there to oversee them?

So.. if my country was wiped out by foreign government (not even really elected by its population) how would I kill as many of their people (except the government, they would be protected in bomb shelters of course)? Might be a good interview question - for screening out people with empathy.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#48

Post by Udo »

chrisbennet wrote: post #47
Udo wrote: post #22

Now that 's a great job interview question, because it's sort of a programming problem that also shows how a candidate thinks: formulate a letter of last resort. Knowing they'd have to work for a range of unexpected catastrophic situations, what are the priorities going to be and how will you make sure they're implemented if nobody's there to oversee them?

So.. if my country was wiped out by foreign government (not even really elected by its population) how would I kill as many of their people (except the government, they would be protected in bomb shelters of course)? Might be a good interview question - for screening out people with empathy.

Wow, this is not at all what I meant. The scenario could be vastly different, it doesn't even have to be about nuclear submarines. And even if it was about nuclear subs, it's not about killing as many people as possible (wtf?), it's about choosing a sensible course of action beforehand for a catastrophic and chaotic event.

...and I think that's pretty clear when you read my comment. Are you choosing to misunderstand?

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#49

Post by gordonguthrie »

tobylane wrote: post #46
gordonguthrie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK 'independent' nuclear deterrent isn't. Unlike the French one, it uses US missiles whose targets and strike pattern is set if North Carolina.

Can you reword that? I didn't understand it.

The US sets the targets for UK cruise missiles. The French set the targets for French cruise missiles. The Frogs could bomb NY, the Brits, not so much...

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#50

Post by mikeash »

gordonguthrie wrote: post #49
tobylane wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you reword that? I didn't understand it.

The US sets the targets for UK cruise missiles. The French set the targets for French cruise missiles. The Frogs could bomb NY, the Brits, not so much...

Nitpick: the British submarines carry ICBMs (technically, SLBMs, which is mostly just an ICBM launched from a submarine), not cruise missiles.

(In case anyone is wondering what the difference is, a cruise missile is basically a suicidal unmanned drone that flies like an airplane, while an ICBM is a rocket that goes into space and then falls back down on its target after burning its fuel.)

Post reply on HN