Push the button? PM's nuclear options.

n111ck · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:40

Now that Trident is being renewed can we have a poll on what option people would choose if they were PM and the government was completely destroyed in a nuclear attack?

New PM's have to write letters to the four captains of the Trident subs with instructions on how to retaliate.

Options:

1. To retaliate.

2. To do nothing.

3. To place the submarine under the control of an ally - specifically the United States Navy or Royal Australian Navy.

4. To act according to how the Captain deems best.

http://news.sky.com/story/may-to-be-handed-keys-to-nuclear-red-button-10499943

Edinho · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:41

Going by recent events it would be no.2

Amnesia · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:44

option 5. Party

lafemmefatale · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:45

It's pure conjecture and hyperbole. At the stage where retaliation is an option, it's all over anyway.

Marky · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:46

Do we really need a poll on everything?

It's not like it would be up to us anyway, that's why we have a PM to make that decision for us

I literally just posted this link in the other thread, but in case this thread isn't closed...

http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/18/theresa-may-admits-shed-nuke-100000-people-if-she-needed-to-6014584/

PhysicsMan94 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:47

I see no point in retaliation. The whole purpose of Trident is to act as a deterrent, thus if Britain was wiped out by nuclear weapons then at that very moment it would've lost its mission - retaliating would just ensure further unnecessary annihilation.

rebel rebel · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:48

6. Preemptive strike

Xordium · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:49

1) Retaliation. There would be small pockets of citizens left in this country there is no point allowing the aggressor to project the full power of the conventional weapons on those people.

Newbfail · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:50

7. Ask Trump what to do

datalol-jack · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:51

PhysicsMan94 said:
I see no point in retaliation. The whole purpose of Trident is to act as a deterrent, thus if Britain was wiped out by nuclear weapons then at that very moment it would've lost its mission - retaliating would just ensure further unnecessary annihilation.

Which is why I suspect it's option 3 for most PMs, kicking the can down the road.

lafemmefatale · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:52

A politician passing the buck. Well I never.

beachBOYken · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:53

PhysicsMan94 said:
I see no point in retaliation. The whole purpose of Trident is to act as a deterrent, thus if Britain was wiped out by nuclear weapons then at that very moment it would've lost its mission - retaliating would just ensure further unnecessary annihilation.

Number 4 then.

datalol-jack · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:54

lafemmefatale said:
A politician passing the buck. Well I never.

Don't worry and throw another shrimp on the barbie.

lafemmefatale · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:56

Given Faslane isn't that far away from me, I'll be amongst the first to get insta-cooked. Which suits me fine, I'd much rather that than survive a full-scale nuclear exchange.

Quartz · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:57

The purpose of retaliation is not only as a deterrent against an initial strike but to prevent a future nuclear exchange as parties will 'know' that the target will retaliate. Humanity will take a short-term hit in return for a more peaceful future.

So, immediately (or ASAP) retaliate if possible.

Puzzled · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:59

Option 8: Letter reads "Lol we never really had any nukes, that would be crazy"

Captain takes the crew to the Bahamas for option 5 above.

n111ck · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:02

Option 9: have a referendum and let the public decide!!!

Schlong&Stable · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:02

Depends on the scenario I suppose.

If the attackers nuked just one city (London for example) then I'd retaliate with a single nuke. The UK would not be finished after a single nuclear strike, even if the government was destroyed. By retaliating we show our enemies the cost of attacking Britain and hopefully discourage further attacks. Having demonstrated we were still a capable military power would be critical to rebuilding our position in the world.

If they annihilated every major city, then it's a bit more complicated. I would consider it justice to destroy them, but I would not want to do so if it meant our allies were destroyed too, because naturally I wouldn't want the human species destroyed. But if we don't respond it may be our enemies do the same again to our friends or hold them to ransom. It may be nuking them does the rest of the world a favour.

In short: I am more likely to respond than not.

datalol-jack · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:03

lafemmefatale said:
Given Faslane isn't that far away from me, I'll be amongst the first to get insta-cooked. Which suits me fine, I'd much rather that than survive a full-scale nuclear exchange.

The mighty Clyde will shield you, dear. How long can stay underwater... freezing Clyde water?

N17 · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:03

Odd isn't it, out of 186 countries in the world, have NO nuclear weapons, yet the UK does not have enough money to invest in roads, in things for the vulnerable/disabled/elderly, transport, infrastructure..... Yet we can find money to renew Nuclear Weapons AKA Mass Murder tools at £200billion, yes makes more sense now, especially with a looney whom would press the button and kill millions if she had to