Any serious shooting war with a sufficiently serious power to prompt the use of nuclear weapons will involve at least ten megadeath from battlefield casualties alone (the estimates of total casualties on the Eastern Front of WWII that I have seen run into at least twenty megadeath, at the low end of the bracket).
So if it does work as deterrence, then we're cool. If it doesn't work as deterrence, the death toll will be so atrociously incomprehensible anyway that a few hundred kiloton here and there will be only barely noticeable.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Having one or two around probably doesn't hurt.
One in port doing maintenance, one on station, one in transit to or from station and one in reserve. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I would think that a fifth or sixth submarine would be needed.
As for the debate, I actually thik that moral and international relations have to be dissociated. As a country, there is a need to force oneself to follow rules, but at the same time acting as if the others would not be following said rules. This ensures the general following of rules by everybody.
I rather regret that Britain and France are still unable to cooperate in missile subs matters, as this would cut costs tremendously and improve credibility. Arguments on the cost do not hold if costs were divided between Fr and Gb or better even, divided between all UE members.
The main problem for such a cooperation is the necessary unicity of command for these weapons. A free fox in a free henhouse!
Otherwise I agree completely with your post. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by building all six submarines one per year, you would earn a lot of money, say half a sub. A free fox in a free henhouse!
