T'graph: Continuous Nuclear Submarine Patrols Not Guaranteed

Last straw. Either you have the deterrent, or you do not. Can you imagine having both of these non-CASD boats alongside during a crisis, then one puts to sea... how much is that going to escalate the conflict? As well as having both alongside makes it pretty f*cking easy to destroy them before they can put to sea - so why not have the nuclear deterrent given to the RAF, because thats exactly the same problem air-based weapons suffer from.

Re: T'graph: Continuous Nuclear Submarine Patrols Not Guaran

WhizzbangDai makes some good points. If, in the future, we need to worry about Asians with delicate sensibilities, overt signs of escalation would not be in our best interests.

Of course, this is probably just the process of what we used to call "alternative assumptions". These will range from the sensible to outright bone. I suggest that this will later be consigned to the large bone pile.


War Hero
Book Reviewer
Very bone, but unfortunately politicians and journalists do not understand much about anything to do with defence, even perhaps not understanding that half a deterrent, or a compromised eterrent, does not deter. Someone wrote recently that it wasn't needed because we hadn't used it yet. A bit like King Harold sending the fyrd home to get the harvest in.