Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
So is that why they want to reduce the number of subs to three?
Errr, you're possibly assuming that "Military competence" and "Labour politicians" are synonymous?

They're clearly trying to reduce the deterrent to keep the Old Guard (CND-ers) in Labour happy, throwing them a "Look, it's a bit like disarmament" bone, to avoid the political embarassment of only getting the vote through with Tory support, at the time when Labour will be electing a new leader.

In other words, it's a political calculation, obviously, nothing to do with strategy.

Or possibly I'm just being too cynical...? Nope, that's it.

Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
I can't see why they can't manage with just two – one in, and one out.
As I recall, it was something like, at any given time:
- 1 sub in maintenance / refit
- 3 subs in rotation - one at sea, one in "warmup" and one in "cooldown".

They take a lot of time and care to maintain a nuclear sub properly. Which, I think we can all agree. is a Good Thing.

Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
As they are a deterrent and we're never going to use them, does it really matter where they are? Can't we just pretend to have 4, but really only have one and 3 cardboard cut-outs?
Worth a try, certainly.

Seriously, that's getting into the "is deterrence worthwhile / useful" area, which is a different discussion to "What's needed to provide effective deterrence". Which is 4 subs.