<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Letter of Last Resort</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rc3.org/2009/01/13/the-letter-of-last-resort/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rc3.org/2009/01/13/the-letter-of-last-resort/</link>
	<description>Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 23:52:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rafe</title>
		<link>http://rc3.org/2009/01/13/the-letter-of-last-resort/comment-page-1/#comment-4264</link>
		<dc:creator>Rafe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rc3.org/?p=8890#comment-4264</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think MAD certainly remains the guiding principle when it comes to countries who aspire to have nuclear weapons. And clearly Russia and the US think it has some value or unilateral disarmament would be inevitable. A realistic nuclear deterrent is expensive to maintain.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think MAD certainly remains the guiding principle when it comes to countries who aspire to have nuclear weapons. And clearly Russia and the US think it has some value or unilateral disarmament would be inevitable. A realistic nuclear deterrent is expensive to maintain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Davies</title>
		<link>http://rc3.org/2009/01/13/the-letter-of-last-resort/comment-page-1/#comment-4260</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Davies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rc3.org/?p=8890#comment-4260</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Picky, picky.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The reference in the article to everyone but Britain having &quot;left MAD behind&quot; after the Cold War ended strikes me as delusional.  MAD still exists.  450 Minuteman III missiles sit in silos in the upper Midwest ready for launch. Tensions are much lower, but there is no question that the MAD doctrine is still in effect. The author seems to think it&#039;s a quaint Cold War idea now outdated.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The article suggests that the deterrent value of the British nuclear force is diminished by the letter because it introduces uncertainty about whether a retaliation attack would occur.  Hmm. Dunno about that - who is willing to risk a 50/50 chance of the total destruction of all their major cities? And anyway, the letter only comes into effect if the Prime Minister and his designated second are dead - which even in the event of a massive nuclear attack on London is nowhere near certain, since early-warning systems would pick up ICBMs or bombers, although SLBMs would give much less warning time. But Russia is the only threat wih SLBMs, and they&#039;re not suicidally deranged enough to launch an attack on Britain.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Picky, picky.</p>

<p>The reference in the article to everyone but Britain having &#8220;left MAD behind&#8221; after the Cold War ended strikes me as delusional.  MAD still exists.  450 Minuteman III missiles sit in silos in the upper Midwest ready for launch. Tensions are much lower, but there is no question that the MAD doctrine is still in effect. The author seems to think it&#8217;s a quaint Cold War idea now outdated.</p>

<p>The article suggests that the deterrent value of the British nuclear force is diminished by the letter because it introduces uncertainty about whether a retaliation attack would occur.  Hmm. Dunno about that &#8211; who is willing to risk a 50/50 chance of the total destruction of all their major cities? And anyway, the letter only comes into effect if the Prime Minister and his designated second are dead &#8211; which even in the event of a massive nuclear attack on London is nowhere near certain, since early-warning systems would pick up ICBMs or bombers, although SLBMs would give much less warning time. But Russia is the only threat wih SLBMs, and they&#8217;re not suicidally deranged enough to launch an attack on Britain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whump@mac.com</title>
		<link>http://rc3.org/2009/01/13/the-letter-of-last-resort/comment-page-1/#comment-4256</link>
		<dc:creator>whump@mac.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rc3.org/?p=8890#comment-4256</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Unless someone&#039;s made some amazing advances in submarine technology, that sub would not have a crew alive to read the letter if it were &#039;miles below the surface.&#039;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unless someone&#8217;s made some amazing advances in submarine technology, that sub would not have a crew alive to read the letter if it were &#8216;miles below the surface.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

