Originally Posted by
orca
I often heard folk quote the fact that losing a heavy would lead to strategic failure in Afghanistan but always considered this to be perceived wisdom perpetuated by word of mouth as opposed to policy.
It was identified as a strategic risk. That's different to saying that it would lead to a specific outcome as a matter of policy. But to calibrate: take the response to the Nimrod loss, multiply the number of deaths by 10 and introduce a 'helpless squaddie passengers' factor, and you can see that we would certainly have had a grieving PM addressing the nation from the steps of No10 with very serious questions to answer about the campaign and whether the national interests at stake justified such a price in blood and prestige. Losing a carrier would be much worse.