To launch, or not to launch.

If the threat of nuclear retaliation is ignored, and you are facing certain annihilation,, do you too launch a genocidal blow even though it will not save you?

An interesting article written Jan 9th by Ron Rosenbaum;

The Letter of Last Resort
The decision about nuclear apocalypse lying in a safe at the bottom of the sea.

At this very moment, miles beneath the surface of the ocean, there is a British nuclear submarine carrying powerful ICBMs (nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles). In the control room of the sub, the Daily Mail reports, "there is a safe attached to a control room floor. Inside that, there is an inner safe. And inside that sits a letter. It is addressed to the submarine commander and it is from the Prime Minister. In that letter, Gordon Brown conveys the most awesome decision of his political career ... and none of us is ever likely to know what he decided."

Personally I believe if nothing can be gained then nothing should be done.

The full article is here:

www.slate.com...

I found it a fascinating conundrum.

Looking forward to your comments and debate.

Cheers

Mungo

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Surely not everyone has me on ignore?

No-one wants to debate this?


sighs

Mungo

Well more than likely that little letter in the box in a box would say launch. I dont think that there would be any reason not to.

If it were my choice, I would just make sure the other side knows that MAD is alive and well. (Mutually Assured Destruction).


Cheers!!!!

Even if it says "Don't Launch", you want the whole world to think it says otherwise.

What do you think keeps greedy little fingers off all those buttons?






[edit on 11-1-2009 by lernmore]

I agree with you both, however what I am interested in is whether you would still push the button knowing all was already lost?

Still thanks for your interest.

Mungo

Very interesting article, though a bit naive since the author seems to think nuclear holocaust is an all encompassing phenomenon which will definitely obliterate every single British subject.

My opinion is that I would order a retaliatory strike on the aggressor. Even if my country were long gone, I would hope that at least other countries can live in peace once the agressor is also dead.

These were the nightmares and fantasies of the Cold War. We thought they were real then; perhaps they were. Now they're just little pieces of melodramatic tradition. I say let the thing be: it's a useful reminder to Prime Ministers of just how heavy is the responsibility of the office they've taken on.