You know all these countries have Nuclear Subs and in UK that is where nearly all of them are?
Yes. And this is exactly why, in the case of the open war, our first counter-force strike (after which, may be, both France and England has one SSBN survived each, may be not) is much more safe than "uncontrollable escalation" during which France and England attack Russian cities first, without attempt to protect their own population and without giving the time to protect Russian population.
One SSBN's salvo won't be able to owerwhelm Moscow's ABD. Salvo of two SSBNs is a gambling, but if Moscow civilian defence is ready and population is partly evacuated - the losses and destructions will be definitely acceptable (may be even lesser than we already had in SMO). More of this, in the case of our surgical, almost without collateral damage, nuclear strike exclusive against few British and French military based, it will be much easier to coerce them into Russia-prefered, mutually acceptable peace.
But, from the other hand, if we ignore possible nuclear threat, and France and England are determined to commit mass-suicide, the coordinated salvo of six SSBNs, will be able to destroy not only Moscow, but even many other cities with terrible, but still acceptable losses (twenty million killed top).
So, if they start the war, we have the simple choice - if we attack them first, we might lose Smolensk and Voronezh (with thousands of victims), but not Moscow. If they attack first - we'll lost Moscow, Saint-Petersbourg and millions of victims.
They have monitoring stations that can see warheads coming at them, Nuclear war is mutual destruction
SSBN needs fifteen minutes for the preparation to launch and neither British, nor French submarines never launched all their missiles in one salvo, and they nether launched missiles from the piers.
And the Russian missiles are much faster than that, especially if we launch, say, Kinjal hypersonic missiles from Kaliningrad region or attack from the sea.
It won't be mutual destruction anyway. And it won't be necessarily destruction of England and France if they recall the stop-word "Unconditional surrender".
Between UK and France they have 400 Active Nukes... How is Russia going to find them under the sea?
Garmonia system, other ways.
UK and France have about ten times needed to destroy Russia....
No. First of all, even 400 nukes isn't enough to destroy Russia. Second - doesn't matter how many nukes they have in peace time. What is really matters is how many nukes will survive first Russian counter-force strike, how good is Russian ABD and civil-defence.
You really don't get Nuclear War...
Nuclear war (especially with English and French speaking adversaries) is kinda my military speciality.