XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com   
      
   On 16/09/2021 20:34, Steve Walker wrote:   
      
   > The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means   
   > that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory   
   > attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your   
   > country, knowing that there will be no response.   
   >   
   > While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some   
   > potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last   
   > resort.   
      
   I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.   
   They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a   
   few minutes.   
      
   ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can   
   be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer   
   from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an   
   attack.   
      
   But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just   
   giving them nuclear powered subs.   
      
   I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)