BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
Thread Starter
BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
World War Three: Inside the War Room
Following the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's involvement in Syria, the world is closer to superpower confrontation than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Now, a war room of senior former British military and diplomatic figures comes together to war-game a hypothetical 'hot war' in eastern Europe, including the unthinkable - nuclear confrontation.
Following the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's involvement in Syria, the world is closer to superpower confrontation than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Now, a war room of senior former British military and diplomatic figures comes together to war-game a hypothetical 'hot war' in eastern Europe, including the unthinkable - nuclear confrontation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Thanks. Possible ... had spotted it, but unsure how well it will be done by Leftie-Beeb.
Still, bog-all else on
Still, bog-all else on
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I put it on halfway through, after the football. Don't know what to make of that programme, other than it confirms I remain with zero confidence in the British establishment to do a single thing that's useful for me.
Would have been more interesting if they had made up an authentic parallel cast of villainous free-thinking Russians in another room to see how they reacted to the situation, and tossed the whole thing around a bit more.
Nobody, at all, anywhere in the world thinks like the British establishment.
Would have been more interesting if they had made up an authentic parallel cast of villainous free-thinking Russians in another room to see how they reacted to the situation, and tossed the whole thing around a bit more.
Nobody, at all, anywhere in the world thinks like the British establishment.
It was well done and thought provoking. I'm not sure how closely the players represent those that would actually be filling those roles for real, but still very interesting. A reasonable argument for a strong military with a viable nuclear deterrent.
I think Putin & Corbyn would have loved it.
For me, it presented a case that we have become a shadow of our former self, militarily, politically and diplomatically. It seemed to show we only have a definitive capability against ill trained local militia type forces and lack the numbers to do any serious damage when faced with a numerically superior foe. It highlighted the likely divisions and political posturing within NATO that would undoubtedly undermine its capability as well as within our own ranks.
Quite thought provoking, but for all the wrong reasons from the perspective of a current serviceman. We mortgaged our entire military for 2 COIN campaigns, did neither particularly well, and are now stuck in a culdesac that also seems to be a one way street.
For me, it presented a case that we have become a shadow of our former self, militarily, politically and diplomatically. It seemed to show we only have a definitive capability against ill trained local militia type forces and lack the numbers to do any serious damage when faced with a numerically superior foe. It highlighted the likely divisions and political posturing within NATO that would undoubtedly undermine its capability as well as within our own ranks.
Quite thought provoking, but for all the wrong reasons from the perspective of a current serviceman. We mortgaged our entire military for 2 COIN campaigns, did neither particularly well, and are now stuck in a culdesac that also seems to be a one way street.
What worried me is:
1. How much does President Putin think BBC fiction represents British Government policy?
2. At the end of this fiction the War Cabinet voted against a retaliatory ICBM strike with ICBMs. CDS (if I understood who was who) was one of those against a retaliatory strike.
That is the wrong message. I would definitely vote to instruct commanders to launch as soon as a Russian launch was detected and I do hope that the reality is that our War Cabinet would also do so. If my children and grandchildren are going to die those people must be assured that so also will theirs.
1. How much does President Putin think BBC fiction represents British Government policy?
2. At the end of this fiction the War Cabinet voted against a retaliatory ICBM strike with ICBMs. CDS (if I understood who was who) was one of those against a retaliatory strike.
That is the wrong message. I would definitely vote to instruct commanders to launch as soon as a Russian launch was detected and I do hope that the reality is that our War Cabinet would also do so. If my children and grandchildren are going to die those people must be assured that so also will theirs.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
It was well done and thought provoking. I'm not sure how closely the players represent those that would actually be filling those roles for real, but still very interesting. A reasonable argument for a strong military with a viable nuclear deterrent.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
A very thought provoking programme. Left me wondering just how mad, greedy, etc. etc. is comrade Putin. Unlike the programme I do think we would do a MAD and launch if push came to shove.
Programme was notable for its lack of light blue expertise.
The Lib Dem lady showed why that party is rightly very far removed from power. They must sorely miss Tim Garden's wisdom.
The Lib Dem lady showed why that party is rightly very far removed from power. They must sorely miss Tim Garden's wisdom.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The problem with launch on warning is a presumption that a nuclear power will not use conventional weapons.
Iraq 1991 is a case in point. Scuds inbound, launch or not? As he was presumed to have WMD, but non-nuclear, then they were able to sit and wait.
Iraq 1991 is a case in point. Scuds inbound, launch or not? As he was presumed to have WMD, but non-nuclear, then they were able to sit and wait.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The program was thought provoking I agree, as I understood the end of the episode, there was a possibility that the Russians were about to launch a full scale nuclear strike on the UK, only a possibility.
The UK had at least two Vanguard class subs deployed at 15 minutes readiness to fire, each of those subs had the Prime Minister's letter of last resort in its safe.
The fact that at least two Vanguards were at sea would have been known to the Russians, taking that leap of faith that the Russian leadership under Putin is logical, Russia launching a nuclear strike would be a gamble on the the decision making processes of the UK's prime minister, that would become apparent if the UK is targeted when the letters of last resort are actioned.
So overall a logical decision.
The UK had at least two Vanguard class subs deployed at 15 minutes readiness to fire, each of those subs had the Prime Minister's letter of last resort in its safe.
The fact that at least two Vanguards were at sea would have been known to the Russians, taking that leap of faith that the Russian leadership under Putin is logical, Russia launching a nuclear strike would be a gamble on the the decision making processes of the UK's prime minister, that would become apparent if the UK is targeted when the letters of last resort are actioned.
So overall a logical decision.
This is entertainment... If the result was lets retaliate with full force there is no controversy or entertainment
Outcome drives news drives interest drives viewers
That said it did demonstrate be careful who you vote for or recommend for promotion
Outcome drives news drives interest drives viewers
That said it did demonstrate be careful who you vote for or recommend for promotion
I watched it; entertaining. My only thought was, at the end - we failed
If this was for real, would it really be so measured? If we knew London was about to disappear under a mushroom cloud, why would we not just "let 'em have it".
If we acted as per the programme (ie, no retaliatory strike) that would only serve to make the Russian regime stronger?
If we struck back, they may well not be around to have that opportunity?
Programme was quite well done, but the way it ended did leave me thinking that there was a subliminal message from the lefty-beeb that deterence doesn't work.
If we acted as per the programme (ie, no retaliatory strike) that would only serve to make the Russian regime stronger?
If we struck back, they may well not be around to have that opportunity?
If we struck back, they may well not be around to have that opportunity?
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: go west
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tactics used by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine, may work in few other places, such as Moldova, but it will not work in Baltics. Why? There's very little to no ethnic tension despite what the program tried to show and every Russian living in Baltics know no matter how they might disagree with the local governments or no matter how favorable Putin might look to them, they are in EU, nearly every family has a member who works/studies in EU, they have better opportunities and so on. It would be very difficult, even next to impossible to get these people turn against what they have, especially when we see that situation in Ukraine has left nothing but poverty and despair.
Also I don't think anyone in the Baltics seriously relies on Nato. When the stuff got messy in Ukraine, the only ones showing some sort of support and interest in the physical security of the Baltics where Americans. It's ridiculous that in time when you need to make a political gesture in favor of Europe's security and integrity, the much closer Nato heavyweights such as Germany or UK cannot be bothered to send a single soldier
I'm sure as the Russia's financial situation worsens we will see new provocations and attacks, as that's what desperate leaders do to distract people from their failure, but I'm also sure that we will see something completely new, something that we were not ready as usual, and something very confusing
Also I don't think anyone in the Baltics seriously relies on Nato. When the stuff got messy in Ukraine, the only ones showing some sort of support and interest in the physical security of the Baltics where Americans. It's ridiculous that in time when you need to make a political gesture in favor of Europe's security and integrity, the much closer Nato heavyweights such as Germany or UK cannot be bothered to send a single soldier
I'm sure as the Russia's financial situation worsens we will see new provocations and attacks, as that's what desperate leaders do to distract people from their failure, but I'm also sure that we will see something completely new, something that we were not ready as usual, and something very confusing
I watched and with interest last night and found the round table discussions extremely thought provoking.
I was very surprised to see the 'no retaliation' vote at the end. Surely the PM of the day would (in that scenario) be under incredible political pressure to retaliate? Although, there probably won't be many left to judge his actions of course.
I believe Denis Healy is the only person in political power within a 'firing chain' to have previously said at a similar point he would have not authorised retaliation 'as the deterrent would have failed'.
I know this was a dramatization, and the people 'making the decisions' were removed from power, but there were some incredibly experienced Military men/Diplomats in the room, and you wonder how different a real life scenario would be.
I was very surprised to see the 'no retaliation' vote at the end. Surely the PM of the day would (in that scenario) be under incredible political pressure to retaliate? Although, there probably won't be many left to judge his actions of course.
I believe Denis Healy is the only person in political power within a 'firing chain' to have previously said at a similar point he would have not authorised retaliation 'as the deterrent would have failed'.
I know this was a dramatization, and the people 'making the decisions' were removed from power, but there were some incredibly experienced Military men/Diplomats in the room, and you wonder how different a real life scenario would be.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there probably won't be many left to judge his actions of course."
well not in London anyway - the other 50 million people in the country would unlikely to want to be fried I'd guess
but look on the bright side - all those media people gone, most of the politicians, and plenty of promotion slots in the middel/higher ranks of the armed forces......................
well not in London anyway - the other 50 million people in the country would unlikely to want to be fried I'd guess
but look on the bright side - all those media people gone, most of the politicians, and plenty of promotion slots in the middel/higher ranks of the armed forces......................
Of course HH, a potential decapitation strike on London could mean that 'the special communication arrangements' apply to the subs, so unless there was someone left in the firing chain......