Stephen Schwartz: This afternoon or evening, Keir Starmer, the United Kingdom’s newest prime minister, will be briefed on its nuclear war plans and then pen a new “Letter of Last Resort” to the commander of each of its four Vanguard-class SSBNs, to be opened and read only if a nuclear war destroys the country.

This afternoon or evening, Keir Starmer, the United Kingdom’s newest prime minister, will be briefed on its nuclear war plans and then pen a new “Letter of Last Resort” to the commander of each of its four Vanguard-class SSBNs, to be opened and read only if a nuclear war destroys the country.

A new prime minister reportedly has four basic choices (which may be combined) for instructing a ballistic missile submarine commander: 1. Retaliate 2. Do not retaliate 3. Put yourself under command of the US or Australian navy (if they still exist) 4. Use your own best judgment

The identical, handwritten letters are delivered to each of the four submarines and locked in a safe inside another safe, which only the commander and deputy commander can open. They are retained for the duration of a prime minister’s tenure. The previous PM’s letters are destroyed, unread.

Only one British prime minister has ever publicly commented on this unique decision-making process:

Callaghan’s statement is quite remarkable. He says he would have ordered a nuclear attack if deterrence failed because nuclear weapons are only useful as a deterrent. But if he truly believed that, what would be accomplished by using them as retaliatory weapons in an actual war?

For additional useful background information on this distinctively British approach to the end of the world should a nuclear war obliterate the country’s entire leadership and its means of communicating with the submarines, see below and this article from 2016: www.politico.eu/article/the-....

‘Letters of last resort’: deciding response to a nuclear attack among first of Starmer’s taskswww.theguardian.com The handwritten instructions new PMs write for Trident submarine commanders contain instructions for what to do if Britain’s leaders are killed

For more about the process by which the United Kingdom’s sea-based nuclear weapons would be launched in the event of a nuclear war, see: www.twz.com/7300/letters...

To me, his statement reads that he felt retaliation was necessary to maintain or restore deterrence (for another place or time). If one did not retaliate, any further deterrence would be completely implausible. Does that make sense?

Deterrence is a paradox. It's the state of being fully prepared to use nuclear weapons (and, crucially, making your adversary believe you always will in response to its unacceptable actions) in order to avoid ever having to use them. But if you have to use nuclear weapons, deterrence has failed.

The four fold way.

Early in a crisis, two advance Central Government Exec Units (originally PYTHON Groups) would covertly disperse to 'safe' areas of the UK. Each capable of authorising nuclear release directly to the Trident boats. PYTHON, Northwood & London would have to be destroyed for the Letter to be opened.

Bunker of last resort in THREADS...

I hate humans.

Post