Rudimentary game theory trumps nuclear deterrence

A nuclear deterrent based on agreement with the French? That's disarmament | Marina Hyde | Comment is free | The Guardian:

Trident sub: pic at www.greenpeace.org.uk

"Only last week, a Times editorial blathered on about the desirability of Nato maintaining a so-called second centre of nuclear decision-making, prompting a letter from (Air Commodore Alastair) Mackie, which crisply debunked the notion that this set-up would present a nuclear-armed evildoer with a strategic dilemma.

'Not so,' he countered. 'It would simply ensure that the opponent's opening gambit would be to obliterate the shortest side of the triangle – ourselves.'

By spelling out this rudimentary piece of game theory, Mackie's argument ought to silence even those who decline to see the fatuity of prioritising Trident over body armour, when today's typical conflict will have been started by us and fought against an enemy whose arsenal of AK-47s/simple explosive devices/£1.99 boxcutters you would hesitate to deem state of the art. As Field Marshal Lord Bramall put it last year, nuclear weapons have proved 'completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face – particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear.'"

Check the rest of Marina's article here at the Grauniad.:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/01/nuclear-deterrent-sarkozy-cameron 

She's quite disarming.