Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?

[Modern Elmo]

What has to be considered under this scenario is that if the UK were hit by Soviet tactical nuclear weapons, they would respond on Russia with a Polaris launch (Moscow Option). Not being able to distinguish this from a US launch and possible decapitation first strike, the Soviets would have to launch - triggering a full scale exchange.


True!

/////////////////////

And a Polaris launch against Moscow from mid-Atlantic would inevitably force the USSR to launch against the USA and the inevitable retaliation.


Double true!

You fellows seem to be congratulating your clever British selves for a stratagem that compelled the 'Mericans to do nuclear gamesmanship your way. But you only fool yourselves. Very obviously, the Reds would have been unable to distinguish a Polaris, etc. launch from a UK sub from a Polaris, etc. launch from a US sub.

The point is, when the USA shared Polaris/Poseidon/Trident with the UK, everybody except maybe some excessively clever Brits could see that the USA was giving Britain the means to start a maxi-size nuclear war/End of the World as We Know It general action between the USA and the USSR.


Some comments about the Wikipedia Chevaline link:

Chevaline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Soviets were confirmed as working on an ABM system in 1961 when they made their first successful exo-atmospheric interception of an ICBM.

I don't think that successful 1961 intercept actually happened. The ckaim was Red propaganda. Has anybody got any evidence for this intercept?

And the definition of "intecept" in this context: both the Soviet missile interceptors and the American Nike Zeus used atomic bomb warheads, which were supposed to disable incoming warheads with radiation.

...

However it was not until 1970 that serious efforts to explore the ABM problem started in earnest. By this point the US and USSR had agreed in the ABM Treaty to deploy up to 100 ABMs at only two sites. MIRVs had so seriously upset the balance between ABM and ICBM that both parties agreed to limit ABM deployment largely as a way of avoiding a massive buildup of new ICBMs.

I don't agree with the spin of that paragraph. There wasn't a balance between ABM and ICBM deployment in that era. Instead, both sides realized that the Anti-Ballistic missile systems of that era were more show than go. Both sides liked to emit arms limitation propaganda, so why not agree to a treaty limiting wepaons that weren't working well on either side?