XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 17/09/2021 01:11, Pancho wrote:   
   > 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.   
   That tooo.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to   
   prevent retaliation   
      
   >   
   > But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just   
   > giving them nuclear powered subs.   
   >   
   I believe so.   
   They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese dont   
   want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.   
      
   > I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   --   
   "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They   
   always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"   
      
   Margaret Thatcher   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)