4 ms·

I think the really interesting thing about the "letters of last resort", is that the captain can decide what he wants to do when he opens the letter in that hor

I think the really interesting thing about the "letters of last resort", is that the captain can decide what he wants to do when he opens the letter in that horrible event. I'm looking for the source, but I read an article with a few former captains and they pretty much unanimously said that they wouldn't launch and would seek sanctuary in the nearest friendly harbour instead. Because what would be the point, the UK would essentially be gone, and all they would be doing would be adding to the misery. Can you imagine what that knowledge would have done if it had been known in Soviet circles, for instance? We may as well launch, because the captains won't retaliate. Scary stuff. Edit: this is an excellent discussion about these letters on Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0210spf http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0210spf

chii 12y ago
i think they only admit to thinking this because it's peace time atm. In the height of the cold war, i don't think they'd be stupid enough to really admit that!
- escapologybb 12y ago
  Yeah, absolutely. Get that question wrong on the interview process, and you're never going to get that job. "So Mr submarine captain candidate, will you really launch missiles should the worst happen?"
orbifold 12y ago
The Soviet Union was for the majority of the cold war and before on the receiving end of the aggression. For the most part it reacted to existential threats, like in the case of the Cuba missile crisis, which was preceded by the US placing mid-range missiles in Italy and Turkey. In most of the proxy conflicts each side behaved in approximately equally despicable ways, in most cases the US backed dictatorships, like Suharto in Indonesia murdered hundreds of thousands. There also is no evidence that the Soviet Union ever intended to use nuclear weapons as an offensive measure, whereas the US toyed with the thought on multiple occasions (Cuba crisis, Korean war).
- emp_zealoth 12y ago
  Right, because on the soviet side of iron curtain they weren't extensively training for an attack at all Also, soviets were never heavily investing into first strike capability, both nuclear and conventional So much sarcasm. Please don't revision history
  - orbifold 12y ago
    They did train for fighting back in case of an "imperial aggression". Their strategy was to push back any offensive with overwhelming conventional force (massive amounts of tanks). See for example here: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=107840 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=... Pretty much all their nuclear arsenal was deployed in a way that ensured excellent retaliation potential (mobile ICBM launchers etc.), their nuclear subs etc.
a3n 12y ago
I highly recommend "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute, as an exploration of exactly this scenario. The movie was decent too, but the book should not be missed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

chii 12y ago

i think they only admit to thinking this because it's peace time atm. In the height of the cold war, i don't think they'd be stupid enough to really admit that!

escapologybb 12y ago
Yeah, absolutely. Get that question wrong on the interview process, and you're never going to get that job. "So Mr submarine captain candidate, will you really launch missiles should the worst happen?"

orbifold 12y ago

The Soviet Union was for the majority of the cold war and before on the receiving end of the aggression. For the most part it reacted to existential threats, like in the case of the Cuba missile crisis, which was preceded by the US placing mid-range missiles in Italy and Turkey. In most of the proxy conflicts each side behaved in approximately equally despicable ways, in most cases the US backed dictatorships, like Suharto in Indonesia murdered hundreds of thousands. There also is no evidence that the Soviet Union ever intended to use nuclear weapons as an offensive measure, whereas the US toyed with the thought on multiple occasions (Cuba crisis, Korean war).

emp_zealoth 12y ago
Right, because on the soviet side of iron curtain they weren't extensively training for an attack at all Also, soviets were never heavily investing into first strike capability, both nuclear and conventional So much sarcasm. Please don't revision history
- orbifold 12y ago
  They did train for fighting back in case of an "imperial aggression". Their strategy was to push back any offensive with overwhelming conventional force (massive amounts of tanks). See for example here: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=107840 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=... Pretty much all their nuclear arsenal was deployed in a way that ensured excellent retaliation potential (mobile ICBM launchers etc.), their nuclear subs etc.

a3n 12y ago

I highly recommend "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute, as an exploration of exactly this scenario. The movie was decent too, but the book should not be missed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)