BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
I have difficulty in imagining Putin launching a nuclear strike against NATO members or anyone else, for the simple reason that he has nothing to gain by doing so, and runs the risk of losing a great deal (despite what the BBC programme would suggest)
He would surely be much better served by utilising his vast conventional forces to seize whatever he likes/needs? What could/ would NATO do faced with an enemy on this scale, on the ground, and with a seeming tolerance for attrition well beyond our own? We stood back in WW2 until the Red Army hard worn the Wermacht down. Would we be willing to take them on with our dramatically reduced military capability?
Having been a lifelong supporter of our nuclear deterrent and our military, I do now find myself wondering whether Trident is a blind alley, and whether we should be spending the money on our conventional forces instead.
The nuclear threat I fear would come in a suitcase from some terrorist, not from Russia.
He would surely be much better served by utilising his vast conventional forces to seize whatever he likes/needs? What could/ would NATO do faced with an enemy on this scale, on the ground, and with a seeming tolerance for attrition well beyond our own? We stood back in WW2 until the Red Army hard worn the Wermacht down. Would we be willing to take them on with our dramatically reduced military capability?
Having been a lifelong supporter of our nuclear deterrent and our military, I do now find myself wondering whether Trident is a blind alley, and whether we should be spending the money on our conventional forces instead.
The nuclear threat I fear would come in a suitcase from some terrorist, not from Russia.
Falcon900: You fail to realise that, as history shows, plenty of ostensibly 'sane' individuals have pulled some pretty crazy sh*t in situations where there is no perceived gain or advantage. Also, Russia's 'vast' conventional forces are nowhere near as vast they once were. Plus, an entire generation have grown up with the idea of 'democracy'. Doubt they'd go so willingly to their doom for The Rodina as is true of their WWII comrades (would they ever have done, anyway??).
Trident, lest you choose the ICBM route (plenty pitfalls there & not practical for us anyway), remains the only credible option for strategic deterrence. Some lower - level tac options would be nice too, mind.
Nor do 'suitcase' bombs exist - at least not in the way you imagine them to, anyhow. What might be contained within a ships hold, however is another matter entirely.
Oh, and we didn't 'stand back' until the Wermacht had been bled dry, either. I think you'll find we were fighting in North Africa (and elsewhere) whilst building the necessary materiel for an invasion force. Or would you have us mount a 'reverse Sealion' in barges??
Best,
Frank
Trident, lest you choose the ICBM route (plenty pitfalls there & not practical for us anyway), remains the only credible option for strategic deterrence. Some lower - level tac options would be nice too, mind.
Nor do 'suitcase' bombs exist - at least not in the way you imagine them to, anyhow. What might be contained within a ships hold, however is another matter entirely.
Oh, and we didn't 'stand back' until the Wermacht had been bled dry, either. I think you'll find we were fighting in North Africa (and elsewhere) whilst building the necessary materiel for an invasion force. Or would you have us mount a 'reverse Sealion' in barges??
Best,
Frank
The Russian nuclear strike did seem more than a little disproportionate, given we'd only just retaken a town in Latvia. And anyway I doubt the Yanks would have waited around, let alone asked our opinion, before getting their counterstrike in.
For what its worth, my play would have been as follows: Deploy said multinational force, bosltered by elements from the 'coalition of the willing, to the contested Latvian-Russian border under the guise of securing NATO's border, thereby cutting off the rebel held town. Issue an ultimatum for all forces in the pocket to lay down their weapons, or face the consequences. Oh, issue orders for HMS Ocean not to sail anywhere near a US carrier (yes, yes - hindsight and all that)...
I too thought the LibDem peer was a total waste of space. Staggered that at some point she seemed to suggest cutting the Latvians loose. Evidently she didn't quite grasp the founding principles of NATO.
It was a shame the programme kind of petered out at the end just as it was getting more intereresting.
For what its worth, my play would have been as follows: Deploy said multinational force, bosltered by elements from the 'coalition of the willing, to the contested Latvian-Russian border under the guise of securing NATO's border, thereby cutting off the rebel held town. Issue an ultimatum for all forces in the pocket to lay down their weapons, or face the consequences. Oh, issue orders for HMS Ocean not to sail anywhere near a US carrier (yes, yes - hindsight and all that)...
I too thought the LibDem peer was a total waste of space. Staggered that at some point she seemed to suggest cutting the Latvians loose. Evidently she didn't quite grasp the founding principles of NATO.
It was a shame the programme kind of petered out at the end just as it was getting more intereresting.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor do 'suitcase' bombs exist - at least not in the way you imagine them to, anyhow.
*coincidentally the same as checked-in baggage allowance on most major carriers!
**reports have mentioned 6kt, which seems a little high.
The Russian RA-115 is a similar type but may be a little heavier.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 9th Feb 2016 at 17:14.
JG54,
Are you suggesting that launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Britain is less crazy than invading contiguous countries with conventional forces?
I of course accept that Russia's conventional forces are not what they once were, but then neither are ours. Do you really think we would prevail "toe to toe"?
As for standing off in WW2, I was not intending any criticism of judgement or our forces, but a read of Churchill's war diaries would show you the lengths we and the US went to to ensure the Red Army did the heavy lifting against the Wermacht. The casualty figures are a shorthand version of the story.
To put my argument another way, I think the only nuclear threats we should be worrying about come from people (terrorists) who we cant launch retaliatory strikes against. Putin's interests lie in retaking territory on his borders. He has the conventional means to do this, and we (NATO) have neither the means nor the inclination to do much about it. At best, we would impose sanctions. Oops, we've already done that.....
In any event, Trident and its successor don't seem to give us a lot of strategic options and cost a fortune. We would have a lot more options if we used the money on our conventional forces
Are you suggesting that launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Britain is less crazy than invading contiguous countries with conventional forces?
I of course accept that Russia's conventional forces are not what they once were, but then neither are ours. Do you really think we would prevail "toe to toe"?
As for standing off in WW2, I was not intending any criticism of judgement or our forces, but a read of Churchill's war diaries would show you the lengths we and the US went to to ensure the Red Army did the heavy lifting against the Wermacht. The casualty figures are a shorthand version of the story.
To put my argument another way, I think the only nuclear threats we should be worrying about come from people (terrorists) who we cant launch retaliatory strikes against. Putin's interests lie in retaking territory on his borders. He has the conventional means to do this, and we (NATO) have neither the means nor the inclination to do much about it. At best, we would impose sanctions. Oops, we've already done that.....
In any event, Trident and its successor don't seem to give us a lot of strategic options and cost a fortune. We would have a lot more options if we used the money on our conventional forces
I believe the dimensions and weights stated (in the case of the W54) are for the 'pits' only and not the other systems necessary for a full, working system as seen here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54#/m...iner_H-912.jpg
That's not particularly inconspicuous, is it? Don't fancy me chances of blagging one of them thru customs. And I see no Samsonite nor other garment carriage systems here, either
Best
Frank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54#/m...iner_H-912.jpg
That's not particularly inconspicuous, is it? Don't fancy me chances of blagging one of them thru customs. And I see no Samsonite nor other garment carriage systems here, either
Best
Frank
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armata T14
This baby must have given our military planners food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVLL_25gog
Thankfully not fully in service yet...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVLL_25gog
Thankfully not fully in service yet...
Falcon900: Having checked both my syntax and the crazy - o -meter (TM), no, I don't believe I'm suggesting that at all.
As for Churchill's (heavily selective / edited?) war diaries, well, I'm sure they make for an interesting and insightful read, an' all, but as to being 'policy' rather than consequence? Hmm. I'm pretty sure there wasn't much practical impetus for an invasion of Europe until 1./ US troops had some real, current combat experience, mano e mano mit Fritz (see North Africa) & 2/. Flat bottomed landing craft - a -plenty were on hand (see also Dieppe).
What was it he said about history being written by the victors, & him being one of the historians?
I'm also fairly sure that Putin's interests lie wherever the hell he decides they lie on any given day / mood / whim.
To me, it seems prudent to hedge one's bets against all possible threats, nuclear or otherwise and nation - state or otherwise. Trident (and the boats), over the lifetime of the system is not so expensive at all (proportionately) - it's a trap constructed by those who wish to manipulate your opinion just so. Personally, I'm a firm advocate of strength in all areas military - conventional and non - conventional.
Best,
Frank
As for Churchill's (heavily selective / edited?) war diaries, well, I'm sure they make for an interesting and insightful read, an' all, but as to being 'policy' rather than consequence? Hmm. I'm pretty sure there wasn't much practical impetus for an invasion of Europe until 1./ US troops had some real, current combat experience, mano e mano mit Fritz (see North Africa) & 2/. Flat bottomed landing craft - a -plenty were on hand (see also Dieppe).
What was it he said about history being written by the victors, & him being one of the historians?
I'm also fairly sure that Putin's interests lie wherever the hell he decides they lie on any given day / mood / whim.
To me, it seems prudent to hedge one's bets against all possible threats, nuclear or otherwise and nation - state or otherwise. Trident (and the boats), over the lifetime of the system is not so expensive at all (proportionately) - it's a trap constructed by those who wish to manipulate your opinion just so. Personally, I'm a firm advocate of strength in all areas military - conventional and non - conventional.
Best,
Frank
Last edited by JG54; 9th Feb 2016 at 18:03. Reason: Edity - bitz
BFB: I believe, in the current vernacular, 'Meh' would be a suitable response.
Nothing not already done or being done elsewhere. Personally, I like Merkava IV and variants.
Best,
Frank
Nothing not already done or being done elsewhere. Personally, I like Merkava IV and variants.
Best,
Frank
JG54,
There was a man-portable version of the W54 - the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). You could certainly get one into countries which had access from sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...ition_Munition
There was a man-portable version of the W54 - the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). You could certainly get one into countries which had access from sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...ition_Munition
Putin's interests lie in retaking territory on his borders. He has the conventional means to do this, and we (NATO) have neither the means nor the inclination to do much about it. At best, we would impose sanctions. Oops, we've already done that.....
Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?
Yes, RafEng - I posted a link to a pic in post #67 (couldn't upload the damn thing!) - let's hope that the bad guys don't have access to the Russian equivalent and a decent, sea worthy vessel. The problem I have is in seeing these things touted as 'suitcase bombs / nukes' rather than their existence. Mainly as it implies that they COULD be put in luggage & carried around freely.
I think we can take heart from the fact that, despite many rumours of such devices being unaccounted for, were any in 'the wild', surely the bad men would have used same already.
That Davy Crockett is an interesting, little anachronism, btw. I once nuked my local takeaway at its max useable range (via Nukemap) for stuffing up my order only to discover that I would've shattered all my windows (for pretend, clearly) and bathed myself in lovely, ionising radiation. Truly, a 'duck and cover' weapon!
Best,
Frank
I think we can take heart from the fact that, despite many rumours of such devices being unaccounted for, were any in 'the wild', surely the bad men would have used same already.
That Davy Crockett is an interesting, little anachronism, btw. I once nuked my local takeaway at its max useable range (via Nukemap) for stuffing up my order only to discover that I would've shattered all my windows (for pretend, clearly) and bathed myself in lovely, ionising radiation. Truly, a 'duck and cover' weapon!
Best,
Frank
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
However in the context of a UK war game the action has to involve UK and its nuclkeat option.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Not to be out done we had our own ADM Blue Peacock. Even the Royal Navy wanted to get involver laying a Red Beard in the Tuloma River.
UK Blue Peacock ADM
PN,
Indeed - complete with live chickens inside to stop the mechanism from freezing once deployed ! Not quite in the same league as SADM.
Cancelled as politically unacceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock
Indeed - complete with live chickens inside to stop the mechanism from freezing once deployed ! Not quite in the same league as SADM.
Cancelled as politically unacceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock
Russias conventional forces are vastly inferior to Nato in both number and quality. After the decades of decay of the Soviet period, Russian through years of further economic decay and only recently tried to modernise.
Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?
Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?
Now Russia you could say missed 2 decades of spending billions on equipment but has in last couple of years. BUT Russia is not modernising equipment to 1990's standards, its doing it to today's.
The idea of talking down ability or your opponent and talking up your own ability is as old as the hills, hell just over 100 years ago it will all be over by Christmas as we are superior to German / Austian Hungarian / Ottoman Empires was the refrain.
75 years ago Hitler thought the same.
Only a fool underestimates their opponent and you can have better equipment but that alone doesn't bring victory.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
RAFEng, indeed, Green lobby meets Animal Rights.
Was that picture taken when it was at Wittering or later in the factory museum where I saw it?
Was that picture taken when it was at Wittering or later in the factory museum where I saw it?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this film is very useful. Would be good if it were shown in Russia with a professional translation (like they do it with Hollywood movies) on some of open channels (BBC is always part of a paid package). Though it is not worth a dime/penny from a military standpoint, IMHO it is not the main message to take into account and give a careful thought.
IMHO, it shows how fragile and imperfect is the current world order we are living with. Indeed, a group of 7-8 wise and knowledgeable people are forced (by the situation) to make strategic decisions nearly in real time, sitting somewhere in an isolated room and being fed by the info/data from other people with their interpretation. Technically speaking, the chain is error prone at each step. No matter how wise are you, you cannot make a dozen of right decisions in a row. And any error could be fatal. The "other" (read Russian) side is not shown, but it is obvious that in a similar room somewhere in Moscow the situation would be even worse because all those present there would be from the same camp, just listening to the chief guy (in UK there are at least are 2 competing parties). US is somewhere in between, IMHO (at least as it was with JFK during the Cuban crisis).
With all that said, IMHO the film clearly shows (though it is hidden behind the scene) that diplomats and politicians in the modern world are not doing their jobs well enough, while "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".
Again referring to technical systems, there should be an "early detection" capability for any potential problem and effective mechanisms working 24/7 not to allow the situation to quickly advance to the critical line when some mad guys "on top of the hill" could either give an order to press the red (nuke) button or even let it be pressed without an order. E.g., we see it now how quickly the level of tension zoomed between Russia and Turkey (a UK "brother-in-NATO"). One more aircraft is down and hell knows where all this would go in one night.
Ideally, there should be calm, open and not time pressing/constrained discussions about real red lines giving certain respect to "holy cows" at each side, including informal ones. If the western leaders know (and they should know) that the issue of Russian-speaking minorities in the neighbouring countries is quite painful and very important to the Kremlin, why not to order their new vassals to behave accordingly? It costs nothing.... Instead, they close their eyes and allow ultra-nationalists do what they want.
IMHO, it shows how fragile and imperfect is the current world order we are living with. Indeed, a group of 7-8 wise and knowledgeable people are forced (by the situation) to make strategic decisions nearly in real time, sitting somewhere in an isolated room and being fed by the info/data from other people with their interpretation. Technically speaking, the chain is error prone at each step. No matter how wise are you, you cannot make a dozen of right decisions in a row. And any error could be fatal. The "other" (read Russian) side is not shown, but it is obvious that in a similar room somewhere in Moscow the situation would be even worse because all those present there would be from the same camp, just listening to the chief guy (in UK there are at least are 2 competing parties). US is somewhere in between, IMHO (at least as it was with JFK during the Cuban crisis).
With all that said, IMHO the film clearly shows (though it is hidden behind the scene) that diplomats and politicians in the modern world are not doing their jobs well enough, while "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".
Again referring to technical systems, there should be an "early detection" capability for any potential problem and effective mechanisms working 24/7 not to allow the situation to quickly advance to the critical line when some mad guys "on top of the hill" could either give an order to press the red (nuke) button or even let it be pressed without an order. E.g., we see it now how quickly the level of tension zoomed between Russia and Turkey (a UK "brother-in-NATO"). One more aircraft is down and hell knows where all this would go in one night.
Ideally, there should be calm, open and not time pressing/constrained discussions about real red lines giving certain respect to "holy cows" at each side, including informal ones. If the western leaders know (and they should know) that the issue of Russian-speaking minorities in the neighbouring countries is quite painful and very important to the Kremlin, why not to order their new vassals to behave accordingly? It costs nothing.... Instead, they close their eyes and allow ultra-nationalists do what they want.