XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com   
      
   On 20/09/2021 10:46, newshound wrote:   
   > On 17/09/2021 13:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.   
   >> "I think the UK  often has just one operational trident sub."   
   >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   >> Governments lie about the real facts to placate the public.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Not just the public. Having four (with two at sea much of the time, even   
   > if only one is notionally on service duty) gives an aggressor who has   
   > spotted one the Dirty Harry dilemma "Do you feel lucky, punk?"   
      
   Yeah right! Good point. An aggressor on the USA can be asked: "Can you   
   destroy only 2,800 of my possibly deployed nuclear weapons or can you   
   get all 2,821." 21 missed would be enough to devastate and nation.   
      
   There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no   
   discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike   
   against the US.   
      
   Subs do give the USA a better chance of launching a first strike against   
   somewhere like North Korea.   
      
   Why somewhere like the UK would want to put all its eggs in one basket   
   (or maybe two baskets) is also a puzzle.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)