Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusilier
They'd have no less than six SSBNs at the start - depending on potential changes due to the alternate timeline. I think its reasonable to think that most French warships would escape being sunk up to that point.
|
Right, I got that. What I was trying to get at was this: An SSBN's ballistic missiles are usually launched from quite some distance away from their targets and, due to their ballistic trajectory, they can also be detected from quite some distance away. Folks in the States would probably see that missile coming and would likely assume that it's from a Soviet boomer. If France was trying to escalate the nuclear exchange to an all out strategic one, then launching a missile from one of its SSBNs would be the way to go. If it was trying to "frame" the U.S., this would be a poor way to do it. And why would the Americans waste ballistic missiles on Mexican refineries when a sub or ship or air launched nuclear Tomahawk would do the trick much more neatly?
A submarine launched nuclear cruise missile, on the other hand, is much harder to detect. It would therefore be much harder to pin on anyone. The confusion would be greater and it would be more difficult for American or Soviet diplomats to exonerate their mother countries or pin the blame on the other.
It just seems like the risk would outweigh the reward as far as the French were concerned. They have a decent relationship with Mexico and could reasonably hope to benefit from her oil deposits. Nuking them as some sort of grand strategic ruse makes for great theatre, but it doesn't quite ring true for me.