This article from Slate is quite thought-provoking. It reminds me of the "Doomsday Machine" from Dr. Strangelove, with one important difference: The Doomsday Machine doesn't exist while the "Letter of Last Resort" does.
The author raises a very interesting moral paradox: For a nuclear arsenal to be an effective deterrent, one's enemies need to believe that if struck first, the nuclear arsenal will be used in a devastating counter-attack against that enemy. But, once your country is destroyed, most would agree that a counter-attack against the enemy would be immoral. The paradox is that a moral actor would (presumably) refrain from using a nuclear arsenal in a counter-attack, but if one's enemy knows that, then the possession of the nuclear arsenal provides no deterrence and the enemy could stike with impunity.
Gawd, I hate the fact that an OP cannot be edited!! grrrrrrr!! I misspelled arsenal and cannot correct it.
The "new and improved" babble is so wonderful.
______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I fixed the spellos. All you had to do was ask nicely.
Thanks. Didn't know the mods could change OPs either. Still, it's a bit of a hassle. Is that (the ability of the OP poster to edit the OP) one of the proposed fixes for the software?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But why would your counter-attack be immoral?
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21652]Pentagon lost communication with 50 intercontinental nuclear warheads[/url] US Air Force officer tweeted the news