Letters of Last Resort • Hacker News Board

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#51

Post by chrisbennet » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 7:18 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #48

chrisbennet wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I just saw your response to my comment. No, sincerely, it wasn't clear to me. I wasn't being deliberately obtuse.

Letters of Last Resort are/were written in the context of the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) which was predicated on the premise that if you wiped me out, my retaliation would wipe you out. My comment was made with that in mind.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#52

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:12 AM UTC

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.

Without retaliation there is no consequence for a country to wipe out their enemies with a first strike. The Letters of Last Resort might say not to retaliate, but it's important that the enemy doesn't know that is your policy. It also likely includes instructions like whether to join an allied country, whether to surrender, whether to throw the nukes overboard so they can never be used, where to go, etc.

Re: Letters of Last Resort

#53

Post by gaius » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

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.

Only in the same way that Honda loads your GPS at the factory in Japan, but you can drive it wherever you like.