XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Pancho  wrote   
   > Steve Walker wrote   
      
   >> But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a   
   >> retaliatory weapon though.   
      
   > Do they?   
      
   Yep.   
      
   > With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more vulnerable to   
   > being taken out in a pre-emptive strike.   
      
   You're wrong. There is no way to work out where a sub with   
   nukes is once its out in the open ocean submerged and they   
   can stay that way for very long times with nuke powered subs.   
      
   > I think the UK often has just one operational trident sub.   
      
   Yes, but that is still one hell of a deterrent because that one   
   sub is plenty to ensure that only the most stupid would try   
   nuking the UK.   
      
   > Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.   
      
   Doesn’t matter what they say, they aren't for a first strike.   
      
   > Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.   
      
   Which are much easier to work out where they are than nuke subs.   
      
   > Trains, lorries,   
      
   Much easier to find those than a nuke sub.   
      
   > multiple geographically distance launch sites.   
      
   Trivial to keep a list of those and take those out.   
      
   > More weapons for your money.   
      
   But far more likely to be useless.   
      
   > These are countries which are most likely to face a first strike.   
      
   That’s bullshit. Even Trump wouldn’t be that stupid and the US   
   military wouldn’t do it even if he was stupid enough to order one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)