XPost: uk.d-i-y
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
Pancho wrote
> 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.
Nope, they are the best deterrent because no one knows where
they are so can't eliminate your nukes in their first strike so you
cant strike back. And there is no need for an early detection
capability with short range attacks either.
> They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a few
> minutes.
In fact it isn't feasible to hide just offshore with many enemys.
> ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation,
Nope, because everyone knows where they are and can
nuke them in their first strike, particularly if they do the
first strike quite close to them, so you cant retaliate.
> and much cheaper. They can be mobile and so hard to destroy.
But still much easier to find than a nuke missiled sub.
> The problem is they take much longer from launch to arrival and give the
> target nation time to react to an attack.
A nuke missiled sub does that in spades.
> But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just giving
> them nuclear powered subs.
They aren't being given, they are being sold to us.
> I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Problem with those is do you trust a philippino crew to never
fuck up and ram another ship with undesirable consequences.
With non nuke powered container vessels the worst you risk
is a bad oil spill or a blocked canal or seaway for a while.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
