The RAF had no nukes until the Early '60s

[RIHoward]

Given that the first production run at Winscale lasted 35 days and produced 135 grams of fissile material and the fact that it takes 4.5 kilos to make a 'Fat Boy' Bomb, that means it would take 4 and a half years to make a single bomb. Given that the UK's fake 'H Bomb', 'Orange Herald' used virtually all the available fissile material in it's manufacture, i.e. a single device used up all the (edit) fissile material leaving none for any real bombs. Given that the treasury were trying to half the size of the V-Force because there were 'no bombs' to put in them. Given that one ex Air crew when asked if there were any bombs in the RAF pre '62 replied Only iron ones The UK's cold war effort was purely propaganda. There were no (or very few) bombs before the yanks stepped in in '62. Always courting controversy Yours etc...

[barnstormer1968]

When you say:
"The UK's cold war effort was purely propaganda."

You are aware the cold war ended a very long time after 1962 aren't you?

Plus, do I take it you mean the RAF 'V' force only, when you say UK?

[CNH]

One obvious error: Orange Herald didn't contain any plutonium. It was entirely U235.

Just because the first run produced 135g doesn't mean that all runs produced 135g.

Also the PIPPAs start coming on line -1957?

And why does getting American designs suddenly result in a plethora of plutonium?

[Tim McLelland]

Maybe the information came from the Ladybird Book of Slightly Confused RAF History, n'est ce-pas? Seem to recall it had a Violet cover and there was a special Club edition :p

[Blacksheep]

...and what were the Aldermaston marches all about?

Orange Herald was detonated during the Grapple series on 31 May 1957
Grapple X was our first Thermonuclear device, detonated five months later on 08 November 1957, giving a yield of 1.8 Megatons. Some bluff!

[RIHoward]

Yes I'm aware that the cold war went on longer than the '60s and that I'm referring to the RAF when I say UK. Humphrey Wynn's official account has 5 'kits' for nuclear devices being delivered to BCDU Wittering no fissile material for those kits is recorded. ORB Records for RAF Wittering 59-60 show one flight per month with a 10,000 lb DB device (the size of a nuke). The flights lasted about 5 hours. The information about the quantities of material being made comes from the horses mouth as it were i.e. the engineers that ran the reactor at Winscale. The facts about the treasury come from a book by George Pedden emeritus professor of History at Stirling University, ``how do I break this text up into paragraphs?

[Blacksheep]

Bomber Command never flew live nuclear weapons (except during the tests). We did regularly load and fly inert weapons for training - the regular Exercise Mickey Finns for example - and several weighted casings were dropped for aerodynamic testing.

[Tourist]

I believe the Navy flew real ones on occasion.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bomber Command never flew live nuclear weapons (except during the tests). We did regularly load and fly inert weapons for training - the regular Exercise Mickey Finns for example - and several weighted casings were dropped for aerodynamic testing.

And continue to foul fishermen's nets off Jurby Head. There is plenty on Google on that.

Jurby range was cleared for practice bombs up to 10,000 lbs in weight. :)

Later, about 1967, we used West Freugh for similar drops.

[Old-Duffer]

.............. Thor?

That was a nuclear weapon and we had 60 of those from about 1958

[RIHoward]

So inert weapons and dummy bombs, I'd suggest that all or most of the real bombs went for testing. As for the Aldermaston comment, I'm not suggesting that it was common knowledge that there were no real bombs in the RAF, the propaganda took care of that. All you had to do was explode a few real ones and the press do the rest. As for Thor did they have 'real' warheads? Wasn't Thor a defensive missile there were certainly no ICBM's until Polaris AFAIA. The Aldermaston record shows about 20 devices being made in total.

[ColinB]

The first test at Alamogordo was to test the more economical and complex plutonium device. The first bomb at Hiroshima was the crude and expensive uranium device and the one at Nagasaki was plutonium.
I think it may be possible that if you look at their shape all the subsequent aircraft A-bombs were plutonium devices. I would be happy to be corrected on this. in a rational way.
The device we first tested at Monte Bello had plutonium from the Canadian reactors in it.

[BEagle]

RIHoward, try researching Calder Hall without your absurd pre-conceived bias of nonsense....:bored:

[RIHoward]

Blue Danube (Mark 1)Essentially a lab-built, limited production weapon
Only about 20 were manufactured by early 1958 when production terminated. It remained in service until 1962
Red BeardWas in service from 1961 to 1971. A maximum of 80 bombs were in RAF inventory, and about 30 in the Fleet Air Arm stockpile
Violet ClubDeployed in early 1958, only five were planned for deployment.
Yellow Sun Mk 1Akin to the U.S. "emergency capability" thermonuclear weapons, that is, they were thermonuclear systems that would work, and could be delivered, but cut a lot of corners in engineering and military requirements areas like safety, reliability, cost, stockpile life, flexibility, efficiency, etc. Probably only a few were deployed. 1958 brought Yellow Sun Mk 1 manufacture and development to a halt.
Yellow Sun Mk 2/Red SnowEntered service in 1961. During their initial deployment, they displaced the similar sized Blue Danubes then in service. The Mk 2s remained in service until 1972, when they were phased out by the WE-177. A maximum of 150 were built. Blue SteelEntered service December 1962, full operational status being achieved during 1963 about 40 were deployed
WE 177Entered service with the RAF in 1966
Polaris WarheadDesign is said to be completed in the spring of 1966, with production beginning in 1966 or 1967

I make that 30 ish Bombs in the stockpile at the start of 1961, 20 of those were 'Lab Built', 5 Violet Clubs, and an unknown number of Yellow Sun Mk 1's also a Heath Robinson 'lab built' device.

The Nuclear Weapon Archive - A Guide to Nuclear Weapons (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html)

[ColinB]

Project E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_E)

If you link the above you will see a short article on the joint use of American bombs assigned to SACEUR under dual key and stored on RAF stations.
There was an apocryphal story that if things got sticky when the American opened his sealed orders he would see a code word but the British guy's orders said Shoot the Yank.
I believe there were about 60 of them and they were straight copies of the Nagasaki uranium devices and some were armed in flight by inserting "the pit"

[wiggy]

.... the Nagasaki uranium devices

Given your previous post I know you didn't mean that....;)

[RIHoward]

SACEUR bombs were American W28 designs 'Anglicised' as Red Snow deployed from 1962 to 1972 under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program and possibly as warheads for Blue Steel again in '62. This makes sense because you're not going to take a W28 and attach it to a Canberra a Valiant or Blue Steel and expect it to work. Looks like the lead in was 3-4 years from the 1958 agreement.

[stepwilk]

ColinB, you're quoting Wikipedia as a source??? In the U. S., high school teachers don't accept Wikipedia references in student term papers. Read the "discussion" part of that article (a tab at the top).

Wikipedia is an amateur encyclopedia. Free, and worth every penny.

[ColinB]

I have a wealth of information on this topic and considered the limited Wikipedia reference to be a good entry point which would introduce and open the topic up.
The idea was to communicate with everyone the idea that the USA provided atomic weapons in our fallow years and located them on RAF bases. Ours were not really service ready weapons in the 1950s.
It is a fascinating topic.

[Johnboyes]

There has, I know, been some speculation that the Thor warheads were dummies but this is largely based on the fact that the RAF launch crews never had proof positive that live warheads were loaded. The panic that happened after the major LOX spill on a Thor at Ludford Magna seems to more than confirm to the casual observer that warheads were in place. The evidence from the USAF Authentication Officers who held the keys to arm the wraheads in the event of a live launch and the activities of the 99MMS would were the custodians of the warheads puts beyond doubt that the warheads were live.

[Load Toad]

They only had to work once Colin. 1950 lab versions or not.

[tornadoken]

RIH: the joy of conspiracies is the problem of proving a negative. An element of bluff assists all formed force - in cricket it's "sledging". Let's concede bluff for UK's Violet Club. After Blue Danube's live drop, 11/10/56, 138 Sqdn. Valiant/Wittering was progressively brought to 8 rounds/Unit Establishment, followed from 21/5/57 by 83 Sqdn.Vulcan 1/Waddington, then 10 Sqdn. Victor 1/Cottesmore. Red Beard followed from 9/60, Yellow Sun Mk.1 from early-1960. Many thousands of professionals, some posting here, believed it was all for very real.

So if they were all deceived - say by AWRE shipping ballast, say by Barnham/Faldingworth MU personnel happily conniving at not knowing what was inside the (empty) physics packages - then some hundreds of cheats in the AW production industry - all those Risleys/Cardiffs/Burghfields - have since kept very stumm.

If your point is the lack of publicity to the fit of US stores to RAFG Canberra B.(I)6/8 from 5/58, from the Canberra B.6 Tactical Bomber Force from 2/7/59 and from much of the Medium Bomber Force from 1/10/58...well, yes, and...?? If your point is that indigenous UK stores were few and fraught, before rollover for US-data-infused Red Snow and later warheads, well, we know that. Wynn's Official History removes US weapons from MBF 17/3/62 and from the TBF, 7/65.

[RIHoward]

tornadoken

Thanks for your informative post.

I'm sure the vast majority of the populations of USSR UK USA and most of the rest of humanity thought it was for real.

But we now know what the CIA's assessment of the real Soviet threat was and we now know what Krushchev thought about actually starting a war, nuclear or conventional, it was never going to happen (well lets say it had a very low probability of occurring).

The Conspiracy comes from the very top of the hierarchy in this very authoritarian society, you might call them the 'investors in British interests' who use Intelligence services and the media to create reality. (See Edward Bernays), The Conspiracy is about using public money to develop new technologies that the very top of the hierarchy will benefit from when the technologies become viable and profitable and are 'privatised', So V-Bombers transform into Civil Airlines and mass tourism, Nuclear technologies transform into Power stations and the Nuclear Industry, and Ballistic missiles transform into commercial satellite launch vehicles for telecoms and SKY etc. While the UK population were undergoing the harsh austerity and fear of post war Britain, the weapons manufacturers were fighting over the 1/8th of GDP that was going into these not fit for purpose 'weapons' systems.

So there was no real threat and the threat was exaggerated in the media, the population are kept frightened and stump up the cash to pay for these largely useless and expensive weapons. So in order to maintain the 'big lie' as Dr Goebbels liked to call it, the population are fed a lot of scare-mongering 'information' about the potential threat from a perceived enemy. It's interesting to see that the Mig's in Korea had Russian versions of Rolls Royce Nenes in them and that the USSR was largely funded by credits from the Bank of England between the wars. The so called 'Iron Curtain' was somehow not impervious to western capital investment and trade. Fordson Tractors were featured on Soviet stamps in 1922, Standard Oil did very well out of the Communist revolution as did Rio Tinto, and many more.

Western monopolistic capitalists like John ('control everything') Rockerfeller could see a lot of efficiency advantages in the 'Socialist' means of production.

The main threat from the Soviets was ideological. The problem with Socialism was that the workers in the UK might actually believe in it and want to start a revolution of their own here!

[CNH]

Whereas what really happened is that the socialists realised what a load of bollocks socialism was, and decided to become capitalists.

[ColinB]

They only had to work once Colin. 1950 lab versions or not.
One or two probably would have been usable and deliverable to distant Soviet targets but the majority would not. The threat was that many were deliverable.
A great PR coup.
There was a reported problem in the bombs dropped from altitude breaking the sound barrier, i.e. faster than the aircraft carrying them

[Tim McLelland]

I'm sure the vast majority of the populations of USSR UK USA and most of the rest of humanity thought it was for real.

That's because it was! :p

I have to say, as politely as I can, that the paragraphs which follow your comment as shown above, are utter claptrap, old boy. If you seriously believe any of that nonsense, then perhaps you should be firing your questions at a more appropriate forum?! ;)

[RIHoward]

OK Tim thanks for your politeness you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

But I have to say that the CIA's assessment of the Soviet threat is in the public domain as is what Krushchev's assessment of the chances of the Soviet Union actually ruling the World by military means were (slim and none). Given that the GDP of the Soviet Union was 1/5th that of the USA and the USA hadn't been devastated in a World War. What would your assessment of their chances be?

And given this factual information i.e. according to CIA the USSR offered no real military threat to Western Europe. How do you explain why the UK was spending 1/8th of its GDP on 'defence'?

[Groundloop]

And given this factual information i.e. according to CIA the USSR offered no real military threat to Western Europe. How do you explain why the UK was spending 1/8th of its GDP on 'defence'?

For a start the CIA would probably not have passed that little gem on to the British Government, being the CIA... !

[Tim McLelland]

Point is, you keep making statements like "given this factual information" but of course it isn't "given" nor is it "factual" in any way. It is merely supposition and flawed supposition at that.

Simple truth of the matter is that the RAF most certainly did have nukes, after a shaky start and a slow introduction. If the history of the RAF's nuclear weaponry had been any different then the documentation outlining this period would say so. It isn't secret any longer and of course there's absolutely no reason to imagine that any "dark forces" have somehow re-written history, not least because there would be no reason to do it. You have to ask yourself why - fifty years later - the British Government would even care about such matters. If the truth had been in any way different, it would be clear for all to see in the records at Kew.

Like so many fascinating conspiracy theories, I think you ought to accept that there is no conspiracy, and any pundits or writers who try to suggest otherwise are simply wasting your time and intelligence, peddling half-baked theories to make a fast buck or feed their psychological disorders.

[tornadoken]

The dummy point. I think the first US device to be handled by aliens was BAOR/Corporal F SSM, 1957. Warheads were held on a US Army base at Dortmund. Thor warheads were held at USAF base, Lakenheath. US Army Jupiter IRBMs in Italy and Turkey were on the same dual-key scheme, warheads held in US custody, on nearby US bases. Genie AAMs on RCAF CF101, same; NATO Forces' M109/110 howitzers' nuclear shells, Atomic Demolition Munitions...same.

We see in Museums inert training rounds of, say, WE177. May I suggest that day-to-day exercise-use of all this ordnance employed ballast that was electrically+fit/form representative..but not in function. Might the real things, needing temp/moisture/vibration cosseting, seldom sally forth from their snugly-guarded vaults? Deliberate ambiguity. Doesn't mean they were not available at some hours' notice.

[RIHoward]

Tim as I've said you're entitled to your opinion.

The CIA report is in the public domain, I have read the report, now whether the CIA shared this information with UK intelligence is obviously up for conjecture. I would suggest that it was shared. The USA were spending equally ludicrous amounts of money on daft and useless weapons and spreading fear and propaganda through their population about a Soviet threat that simply did not exist.

[RIHoward]

tornadoken

What is the source of your information?

You have to say that Thor was a stop gap, statically sited on the surface with a LOX fuel system that meant you'd have to stand down after a short period of readiness (not sure how long that would be, do you know?). They were rapidly dumped when more advanced missiles came along (they apparently cost $750,000 each).

The main bulk of Soviet arms production was sited in the Urals and beyond the best you could hope for with a Thor retaliation, if you were lucky enough to have it ready to go within the 4 minute warning would be to knock out urban centres,

From the material that's available to me and other than Thor the only other possible US controlled (sorry shared control) RAF nukes pre '62 would be the W7 bomb fitted to Canberra P8s.

[Feathers McGraw]

It took a long time for Britain to realise that its place in the world had changed massively post-WWII, and the attempts to produce indigenous weapon systems continued for over 20 years while this realisation took root.

It's only natural for a world power to take time to adjust its thinking, and for those in power and those trying to provide them with military hardware to continue on what, with the benefit of hindsight, turns out not to have been the best way of doing things.

Given that some of this happened when we were trying to recover from the massive spending required during wartime and pay back the lend-lease loans I can quite believe that what was seen as necessary to protect the nation, no matter how misguided when viewed from the present, took up a significant amount of scarce government money. It's very hard to believe your suggestions about the attempt to turn the swords into ploughshares either, all of our indigenous civil aircraft projects ended up with relatively low sales and few economies of scale, and Black Arrow managed to launch one single satellite and cost about £9m to do it, which is a paltry sum for the late 1960s.

No, I just don't buy it, and the evidence, as others have pointed out, can be found at the PRO in Kew if you want to devote some time to research it.

[RIHoward]

Thanks for that feathers

I agree the UK failed to turn most of the swords to plough shears, there were any number of reasons for this some of which you've pointed out.

One fascinating one for me is the production of a swept wing which requires massive dynamic matrix calculations that involve infinite series at the tips and root, a huge calculation. It was only with the advent of digital computers and finite element modelling that this technology could be realised in the West.

The British approach was for a 'genius' designer to come up with a drawing and then a calculation would be done. Calculations were done by hand with pencil and paper, though some analogue computers were built, you can't use them for iterative calculations because the error just gets bigger and bigger. The Soviet approach was to use large numbers of human beings to do the calcs, the US could do the same to some extent, but mathematicians were more expensive in the West. This is why the Soviets stole a lead in some areas of aircraft development in the early period of the cold war particularly in wing designs. They could simply crunch more numbers. The Soviets had also kidnapped the best Nazi rocket Scientists and so their rockets and missiles were more advanced than the West.

There are sources other than KEW, like Hansard and the on line Airade Archive at Cranfield University. My point about swords to plough shares comes from reading Hansard.

You don't think it odd then that as soon as a new technology is proved and profitable it's always taken into private hands? The development cost are never recovered fully by the taxpayer who paid for it.

BOAC and BEA are prime examples of what I'm talking about. Paid for by the Taxpayer until profitable and then handed over to private hands at bargain prices.

[Load Toad]

a Soviet threat that simply did not exist

If that was the case why did the Soviets incarcerate and murder their own citizens, support communist governments (e.g. Cuba, N.Korea,Vietnam) around the world with arms, military support and su...


Oh yeah! They didn't - it was disinformation by OUR governments.


I think you've been doing a bit too much David Icke.

[RIHoward]

Lord Toad

David Icke is of course nuts.

All I'm saying is that according to the CIA the Soviets posed no military threat to Western Europe. at this time.

[CNH]

You say that according to the CIA, the Soviets posed no threat to Europe ... would you care to give us a reference for this interesting document?

And the UK did not spend one eight of its budget on defence. It peaked during the Korean War - hot war, not cold war - but one of the points of the Sandys White Paper of 1957 was to bring defence expenditure down to 7% of GDP. How? By deploying nuclear weapons and thus reducing conventional manpower.

[Johnboyes]

Just a couple of points of information. The Thor warheads were not stored at Lakenheath, other than if they were passing through there. The original US intention was indeed to store them centrally but it was calculated that it would take up to 52 hours to distribute them and mount them on the missiles. To have any credibility of launching within the prescribed 15 minutes they HAD to be actually mounted on the missiles and in that respect they were different from (and not part of) the Project E weapons. The Jupiters in Italy and Turkey were USAF not US Army weapons although they were developed by von Braun's US Army team. They were handed over to the USAF when the US Army was restricted to the development of missiles of range not exceeded 200 miles

[RIHoward]

First an apology I mis-read GDP figures from G.C. Pedden's book 'Arms, Economics and British Strategy'
which I read about a year ago it was US defence spending that was at 12.7 % GDP in '54. I guess the figure just stuck.

Here are the numbers from Pedden's Book

For the UK the average from '46 to '62 was 8.8% with the highest period of spend being '52-'58 with an average 9.2% of GDP. '52 being 10% and '58 8%

Macmillan to Eden, 23 Mar. 1956, PREM 11/1326, TNA.
‘it is defence expenditure which has broken our backs . . . [and] we get no
defence from the defence expenditure.'

Pedden concludes on the economic effects of defence expenditure in this period ('50-'69)

It was only from the late 1930s that the balance of payments and confidence in
sterling were significantly affected by the level of defence expenditure in
peace-time. Frequent sterling crises, and de-valuations in 1949 and
1967, showed that the proportion of national income being spent on
defence in the post-war period was clearly at the upper limit of what the
balance of payments would bear.


Some quotes from
From the Truman Doctrine to Detente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War - Michael Cox Feb 1990

(if you search for the title you'll find a download-able pdf)

In a Top Secret document drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Sub Committee of the British Joint Chiefs of staff in August 1947 it was concluded that for different reasons both economic and military the USSR would 'wish to avoid a protracted war at any rate before 1955-60.'

In the first analysis from Kennan's policy Planning Staff in May 1947 it was conceded that communist activities' were not at the 'root of the difficulties of Western Europe'. Hence the US goal was not 'to combat communism' as such but 'economic maladjustment'.

Even 5 years after the war, those justifying rearmament in the US still had to agree that the US possessed 'the greatest military potential of any single nation in the world'. The Bureau of the Budget, which opposed the new build up ....... pointed out that the US was militarily superior to the USSR in five crucial areas: at sea, in the air, in terms of the economic and military potential of its allies who were moreover situated close to the Soviet Union and the supply of fission bombs as well as thermonuclear potential.

From
FOREIGN SERVICE DISPATCH 116, of September 8, 1952
FROM AMERICAN EMBASSY, MOSCOW
TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON
SUBJECT: The Soviet Union and the Atlantic Pact

When World War II came to an end, the leaders of the Soviet Union had no desire to face another major foreign war for a long, long time to come. Within the Soviet Union, the war had left great exhaustion and physical damage in its train. In addition to this, it had meant a setback of approximately a decade in the effort of the Soviet leaders to make out of the traditional Russian territory a powerful military-industrial center. It was plain that even when recovery from the damages and fatigues of the war had been effected, Russia would still be a country with a crude and unbalanced industrial foundation, lacking an adequate energetic basis and a modern transportation system. Finally, in the newly won satellite area, the Kremlin faced a formidable problem in the task of consolidation of its power, involving the liquidation of the older influential classes and political groups, the training of a new administrative class, the formation of new police and military forces, etc. All of these things were bound to take time. The building of a modern transportation system in the Soviet Union, in the absence of major aid
from capitalist sources, would alone represent at least a ten- to fifteen year operation. Another major military involvement, striking into the heart of the programs for the completion of these tasks, would obviously have most disruptive and undesirable effects, in part even dangerous to the security of Soviet power. For all of these specific domestic reasons the Kremlin leaders had no desire, at the close of World War II, to become involved in another major foreign war for the foreseeable future, and this—in terms of Soviet policy determination meant anything up to fifteen or twenty years..........

GEORGE F. KENNAN
Ambassador

The opinion of a Daily Mail Journalist.
Comment: The Soviet threat was a myth | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/19/russia.comment)

Excerpts from CIA Documents from 1950 during the Korean War

Weekly Summary Excerpt, 28 April 1950, The Soviet Offensive (CIA)
Although the USSR has improved its power position by announcing its possession of atomic secrets ...... there is no indication that the USSR is yet willing to initiate armed conflict with the West

Daily Summary Excerpt, 26 June 1950, Embassy Moscow’s Views on Korean Conflict
(CIA Comment)
... In sponsoring the aggression in Korea, the Kremlin probably calculated that no firm or effective countermeasures would be taken by the West. However the Kremlin is not willing to undertake a global war at this time.

Intelligence Memorandum 301, 30 June 1950, Estimate of Soviet Intentions and
Capabilities for Military Aggression

Although the USSR is considered to be unwilling to undertake a global conflict with the West at this time...

And so on and so forth

[Hipper]

Hello Richard.

I would be interested in more information on these statements please.

1. Given that the treasury were trying to half the size of the V-Force because there were 'no bombs' to put in them.

1. Given that one ex Air crew when asked if there were any bombs in the RAF pre '62 replied Only iron ones.

[Noyade]

GEORGE F. KENNAN
AmbassadorThat's an interesting dispatch by Kennan but I suspect by 1952 his thoughts mattered little, the damage was already done by his famous telegram of 1946?

Howard Evans described him as "a victim of Murphy's law of diplomacy: that ambiguous passages will always be read upside down". Kennan spent years trying to undo the misinterpretations.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/672/kennan.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/kennan.jpg/)

[John Farley]

RIHoward

Knowing nothing about the topic I much enjoyed following this thread and the chat between yourself and others.

THEN I got to your post that said

One fascinating one for me is the production of a swept wing which requires massive dynamic matrix calculations that involve infinite series at the tips and root, a huge calculation. It was only with the advent of digital computers and finite element modelling that this technology could be realised in the West.

Because I happen to know a little about the history and practice of swept wing deign in the 1950s I just burst out laughing. Somebody has been pulling your leg I am afraid.

[CNH]

There is nothing new in what you say about the Soviets not wanting to fight another war in 1945. Still, that didn't stop them blockading Berlin in 1948 - and that came perilously to a shooting match at times.

Quoting from Keenan and the like is pointless. Most wars start from two causes: a pre-existing tension [such as France Germany in the 1900s] and an accidental trigger - in that case, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

Thus in the Cold War: the pre-existing tension, and some one doing something stupid at Checkpoint Charlie.

As for defence costs which you go on about - most of that was spent garrisoning Germany and the Empire, very little on the Cold War. Macmillan was aware of the costs - which is why he used nuclear weapons as an excuse to abolish National Service.

Now let's have some concrete, primary, evidence for the RAF not having nukes before the 1960s - not airy speculation.

[ValiantXD818]

Richard I really cannot make up my mind up about you, whether you are a wind up merchant or what! I am not too sure where you get your mis-information from, but I think that you ought to revise your sources!

UK's Nuclear Warhead Arsenal 1953 to 1970

Weapon/warhead.....Qty..Operational dates

Blue Danube................20........ '53 to '62
Red Beard...................80 [RAF] '61 to '71
Red Beard...................30 [RN] '61 to '71
*Violet Club..................5.........'58 to '59
Yellow Sun Mk1............10.........'58 to '61
**Yellow Sun Mk2........150........'61 to '72
Blue Steel....................50.........'62 to '70
***Thor IRBM...............60........'58 to '63

*VC. These 5 warheads were dismantled to provide materials for the YS Mk1's.

**YS Mk2. This was a British re-engineered version of an American design.

***Thor. This was NOT an ICBM, it was an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile, and an all American weapon. Deployed as a stop gap device untill the completion of the Blue Streak missile. It was armed with a W49 warhead, carried in a Mk2 re-entry vehicle. The warhead had a yield of approx: 1.72 to 2 Mt. Though in use by the RAF and deployed to specialy prepared RAF Stations, the two man principal was maintained at all times by a dual nationality two key launch control sysytem. NO LAUNCH could be executed solely on US or RAF commands, it had to be a joint decision and execution, as both launch keys had to be operated simaltaneously!

[ValiantXD818]

Richard, once again you show your ignorance of security matters and the fact that at THAT time, all servicemen involved in the handling or coming into contact with such weapons, were subject to the Official Secrets Act. They were reminded of this regularly during their monthly security briefings. The following would have been the stock reply to ANY query regarding nuclear weapons!

1. Given that one ex Air crew when asked if there were any bombs in the RAF pre '62 replied Only iron ones.

Had this individual replied any differently, doubtless he would have been taken to task and been interviewed and reprimanded by his CO had the matter been made public. I have on many occasions in my time replied in a similar vein.

[Exnomad]

Being employed by a contractor developing carriage equipment for "special" weapons in the 60s, I was obviously interested that they might be used.
I do not think the USSR seriously considered an all out attack, but I would not have ruled out expansion into western Europe. Would the USA have authorised a nuclear strike on Moscow if the Soviets had walked into Vienna or Helsinki or even Munich, and threatened full scale retaliation if attacked ?

[Jig Peter]

Surely the whole purpose of NATO was then summed up in: "An attack on one is an attack on all".
That phrase might in fact have been "pour décourager les autres" across the Iron Curtain rather than a definitive statement for all time of US policy, but the important thing was that at critical times "les autres" were discouraged enough not to go further.

[Tim McLelland]

I guess the basic point here is that the whole story is based on stuff casually written in a book! Surely, even if one chooses to ignore the very obvious facts of history and pursue some bizarre "conspiracy theory" we all know that just because someone writes something in a book, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true! Book shops are packed full of books revealing dark conspiracies and they're all complete claptrap - they make good reading though.

[ColinB]

Depends on the book. I don't think anyone who has read US Nuclear Weapons by Chuck Hansen or visited Amarillo could ever believe that the US did not build tens of thousands of nuclear devices or had no intention to use them if provoked.

[RIHoward]

@brai

In my last post which you either have not read or failed to understand. there were at least 5 quotes from 'original sources' 3 CIA documents a dispatch from the US Ambassador in Moscow and a memo from Macmillan to Eden from your beloved TNA.

I'd suggest you read Professor Margret Gowing's (an eminent Historian) 2 Volume official history of the British nuclear arms effort. She spent a lot of hours going through the records so we don't have to.

+++++++++++++++++++++
@Hipper
Hi Michael

Just to say we've found Simon Wickham he came to the 50 year Memorial Service as did Lynda F/l Lt Ireson's daughter, so we had representatives from four of the families there, which was nice!.

The first statement comes from an e-mail exchange with Stirling University's emeritus professor of History, George Peden. Here is what he said about this in full.

Treasury officials are always looking for arguments to curb expenditure. For example, in 1953 the head of the Treasury's division dealing with defence expenditure drew attention to the fact that there was no prospect of enough atomic bombs being produced by 1958 for the 240 V-bombers that the Air Ministry planned to have in service by that date 'even on the assumption that no atom bomber ever returns'.My interpretation was that there would be 'no bombs' for the aircraft that the Treasury wanted scrapping.

The second statement comes from a chap I met who was in the RAF at this time.
+++++++++++++++++++++

@Noyade

George F Kennan's assessment of the Soviet threat was accurate and that's the point really. It was the Lobby power of the Industrial Military Complex made sure he wasn't heard by policy makers. His assessment is confirmed in many other sources including brai's favourite 'primary sources' from the CIA.

+++++++++++++++++++++

@John Farley

Hi John then you might know this paper by Hemp 1950?

"On the Application of Oblique Co-Ordinates to Problems of Plane Elasticity and Swept-back Wing Structures" (ARC R&M 2754) - Hemp (1950)

I've also had some e-mail exchanges with Albert Kitchenside who studied under Argyris the inventor of finite element modelling techniques.

So maybe Hemp and Kitchenside were 'pulling my leg'. Have you got a better explanation of why Russian wing designs were more advanced than the UK's 'delta' and 'crescent' compromises?

+++++++++++++++++++++
CNH

The point I'm trying to establish is that the Soviet Threat was exaggerated in the media of the time. The public were being told that there was a real and prescient threat of a global nuclear conflict and that the Soviets would be the ones to start it. This was a total deceit.

Keenans view was the realists view, and this is confirmed in other sources such as the CIA (primrary sources) documents I have quoted, you're paying too much attention to the messenger and not the message.

The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand was an Intel Op funded by the UK and Russia! (Ha! more 'conspiracy' for you, BTW this is not a WW1 thread)

My point about no nukes pre the Yanks coming in is more or less confirmed by Valiant XD818's post and my previous posts and in Margret Gowings work, the nukes the RAF had numbered less that 25 and they were all lab built and the Yellow Sun 1's were not very safe (Heath Robinson is too kind!), at that time (pre '61-'62) then the reality of the UK's 'deterrent' was that it was more propaganda than substance.

+++++++++++++++++++++
ValiantXD818

An armorer at Wittering in the '60's also present at the meeting said with a sheepish grin "Oh that's a secret"

+++++++++++++++++++++

Exnomad
IMO the Cold war was about stopping the spread of Socialism. It's about stopping an Ideology and not material take over of territory. If you look through the history the USA set up more foreign bases and intervened in more countries that the Soviets in this time. The USA have killed by a conservative estimate 20 million people in the years since WW2.

++++++++++++

Jig Peter

The point is the historical record tends to suggest that 'les autres' had no intention of 'going further'

++++++++++++
Tiny Dr Tim

The 'casually written book' are actually BOOKS and original source material, These books were written by Professors of History at least one of whom is an 'Emeritus Professor' and another is the definitive official history of the UK nuclear efforts.

Tim you're showing a lot of ignorance some of it seemingly wilful, this smacks of what Bob Altemeyer describes as 'The Authoritarian Personality Type' first described by Adorno in the 1940's when he studied the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. No Offence!

++++++++++++
ColinB

The thread is about the British effort pre the Yanks intervening around '58

[goudie]

Given that one ex Air crew when asked if there were any bombs in the RAF pre '62 replied Only iron ones.

The statement comes from a chap I met who was in the RAF at this time.

Can't argue with that!

[RIHoward]

Taken together with ALL the other evidence this chaps statement rather confirms that the UK's 'deterrent' was propaganda not substance.

It's anecdotal evidence and should be seen as such.

[ColinB]

ColinB
The thread is about the British effort pre the Yanks intervening around '58
I think it is about credibility and the use of suspect sources leading to irrational and bizarre conclusions.

[RIHoward]

Suspect Sources?

Irrational? Bizarre?

like for instance?

[CNH]

Quote:
Treasury officials are always looking for arguments to curb expenditure. For example, in 1953 the head of the Treasury's division dealing with defence expenditure drew attention to the fact that there was no prospect of enough atomic bombs being produced by 1958 for the 240 V-bombers that the Air Ministry planned to have in service by that date 'even on the assumption that no atom bomber ever returns'.
My interpretation was that there would be 'no bombs' for the aircraft that the Treasury wanted scrapping.That would seem a very odd interpretation indeed. What the Treasury are saying is that there is no point having 240 V bombers unless you have 240 bombs - and no one is trying to claim that the UK had 240 bombs by 1958.

The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand was an Intel Op funded by the UK and Russia! (Ha! more 'conspiracy' for you, BTW this is not a WW1 thread)Please tell us this is a joke.

It was the Lobby power of the Industrial Military Complex made sure he wasn't heard by policy makers.Ah, more paranoia. Your evidence for this? Or is it just another assertion?

The public were being told that there was a real and prescient threat of a global nuclear conflict and that the Soviets would be the ones to start it.You mean - as in Cuba in 1961?
Oh, and 'prescient' means 'knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight'.

[RIHoward]

That would seem a very odd interpretation indeed. What the Treasury are saying is that there is no point having 240 V bombers unless you have 240 bombs - and no one is trying to claim that the UK had 240 bombs by 1958.Yes but the Treasury managed to virtually halve the numbers of V-bombers, this reflects the difficulty in producing bombs seen as they were hand made, luxury devices that eventually numbered around 25-30 by 1958, built by very expensive skilled engineers . I would expect that the MoD would object to having their bomber fleet reduced by such an extent, apart from the V-Bomber's conventional capability 25-30 Bombers wouldn't look like a credible deterrent, certainly not as a propaganda deterrent.

Joke?

The operation was paid for by a Serbian royal prince related to Victoria and the Tsar, make of that what you will, but the strategy of the Allies in WW1 was to utilise the nationalistic Slavs in order to destabilise the Balkans which made the Axis plans of building a railway from Berlin to Baghdad problematic. This is not a WW1 thread though!


More Paranoia?
No this was reported by various US Presidents and overtly referred to in Eisenhower's farewell Address on January 17th 1961.

Cuba 1961
Who actually had nuclear missiles stationed on foreign soil pointing at the 'home' territory of either of the protagonists?. Which of the two protagonists climbed down? Which of the protagonists actually used the threat of nuclear annihilation in that crisis?

Yes 'real' because that's how the media span the American intelligence assessments that the Soviets might be able to start a global war by 1967.

[CNH]

this reflects the difficulty in producing bombs seen as they were hand made, luxury devices that eventually numbered around 25-30 by 1958
But ... surely you were saying the RAF had no nukes until the early 1960s, and now you're saying they had 25-30 in 1958. I'll agree that they were virtually handmade; why you describe them as 'luxury devices' I'm not quite sure.

Right - so the strategy in WWI was shaped by the desire to prevent the Berlin Baghdad railway ... ah well, by now you have so little credibility that it's difficult to lose any more.

overtly referred to in Eisenhower's farewell Address
As is well known. That doesn't mean that you can attribute anything and everything to the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

And as to the public being told the Soviets would start a nuclear war - the Russians were busy telling their people that the Americans would start a nuclear war. Both sides were equally paranoid. It was a very paranoid period.

But you do across as one of those people who think that the press/media/military can hoodwink and spin things to the general population, whereas you, who are more discerning, more intelligent, can see through the spin and the deception to the truth behind ...

[FlightlessParrot]

I only know what I picked up from the (good) newspapers at the time, but I always thought that the purpose of the independent deterrent was that if the USSR sent the tanks westward (unlikely by the 1960s, but profoundly believable from a Western European perspective in the 1940s and earlier 1950s), the UK would ensure US involvement by using nuclear weapons, thus escalating a conventional conflict in Western Europe into a global nuclear exchange. The USSR were, of course, supposed to know this, so they would be deterred from launching an attack. For these purposes, a few handmade, clumsy, luxury, unreliable nuclear weapons would be perfectly satisfactory. There is all the difference in the world between saying that the UK weapons were not enough by themselves to deter the USSR, and from the claim that "the RAF had no nukes until the Early '60s".

[Tim McLelland]

You could go round in circles on this story forever. We know the realities of Britain's struggle to build a bomb, the over-estimation of Soviet capability, and so on. But so what? To suggest that there was some dark conspiracy to fool the British or US public is nonsense. If somebody wants to write a book suggesting otherwise then good look to them, but let's not confuse sensationalism and money-making with factual accounts.

[John Farley]

RIHoward

So maybe Hemp and Kitchenside were 'pulling my leg'.

Of course not.

What made me post was you saying:

One fascinating one for me is the production of a swept wing which requires massive dynamic matrix calculations that involve infinite series at the tips and root, a huge calculation. It was only with the advent of digital computers and finite element modelling that this technology could be realised in the West.

This (to me) implied that because of this (you felt) we could not make and fly successful swept wings in the 1950s. That is what made me laugh. Until the advanced mathematical tools became available the industry used a mixture of wind tunnel and flight experiments to measure (not calculate) what was going on with the aerodynamics and ground test rigs to measure (not calculate) the loads involved.

As to my reference to somebody pulling your leg I should clearly have added a few extra words:

‘Somebody has been pulling your leg I am afraid if you really believe that successful swept wings had to wait until comprehensive aerodynamic and structural mathematical approaches were available’

[Noyade]

Hi John.

Based on what you're saying could the Germans have made the Me 1102 a successful 'swinger?'

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/362/arsetalking.jpg (http://img225.imageshack.us/i/arsetalking.jpg/)

[RIHoward]

The point I was trying to make is that its much easier and cheaper to test wing forms mathematically, there's no need to build expensive ground rigs for measuring until the designs are more finalised if at all (these days). You can test mathematically a wider variety of forms and tweek the best forms to improve stability, drag, lift etc.

These are the well understood advantages of calculation over a real model. Therefore , before the advent of the digital computer running FEM software the Soviets had an advantage in that they could crunch more numbers than certainly the UK could and so their swept wings were in advance of those in the West, as is plain if you look at Soviet wings of this period they resemble more closely wings we see on commercial A/c today than do the UK's crescent or delta.

Maybe I should have said that the development of swept wing technology was hindered in the West because of these limitations in the numbers of 'calculators' available particularly in the UK.

[John Farley]

Noyade

That question is a bit outside my salary grade.

The Germans were amazingly well advanced re swept wing aircraft towards the end of WWII - so I suppose it could have been possible.

The trouble with the experimental route to design is that it does tend to be a bit heavier than is possible later with a fully optimised maths based solution. The weight of the hinge assembly and the poor range of materials available to the Germans at that stage would also not have helped produce an efficient and reliable combat aircraft.

PS

RIH popped up as I posted this. Seems to be some agreement there!

[RIHoward]

bral (http://www.pprune.org/members/13567-bral)

"Primary sources are original, uninterpreted information."

"Secondary sources interpret, analyze or summarize."

Other peoples books are the later.I don't think it's quite as unambiguous as you describe,

Wikipedia has this.
Primary source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source)

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.So in the case of Margret Gowing's 2 Volume work

The primary sources are described here

The National Archives | The Catalogue | Full Details | ES (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/DisplayCatalogueDetails.asp?CATID=111&CATLN=1&FullDetails=True&accessmethod=7&j=1)

And Gowing's work is listed there under "Finding Aids", which means her work acts as a catalogue of the Primary Sources.

Here's an interesting case in point and relevant to this discussion I feel.

Wikipedia (free and worth every penny!) includes this description of a Primary Source. A thing is a Primary Source....

If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described .. serves as an original source of information about the topic.So how would you describe this 1957 Sunday Graphic Article? Primary or Secondary? (Hipper sent me this, his dad is in the picture, thanks again Hipper :O)

http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/XD864/images/Graphic_small.jpg


Larger Image here for an easier read
http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/XD864/images/Graphic.jpg

It's a description of events created by a human source with direct personal knowledge of those events. So a Primary Source. Now is it accurate?

"I have just touched down after flying with the RAF's ever-ready H-Bomb Force" Really Gavin? in 1957 how many H-Bombs did the UK actually possess? Even Lyle's opening line implies with the phrase: 'H-Bomb Force' that the entire fleet had H-bombs enough. The reality was there was no viable weaponised H-Bomb available to the RAF at that time.

Lyle goes on

'When I asked where the H-Bombs were. I was told: "You've already seen an aircraft with one aboard. Standing there tuned up, ready to go" Well Gavin you were being lied to we know that now.

So here a Primary Source that's not an accurate description of the things it purports to be about. In fact it's down right misleading a lie, propaganda.

[CNH]

It's a description of events created by a human source with direct personal knowledge of those events.

It's a description of events - true, he's been on the flight he describes. He then comments on matters 'beyond his expertise'. He is reporting - for, after all, he is a reporter - what he is told about the capabilities of the V forces. That may or may not be true.

Any competent historian would have no difficulty in distinguishing between the two.

Not quite the same as reading VCAS's files in the PRO. But then, if you don't know the difference, you end up saying silly things like the UK assassinated Franz Ferdinand ...

[RIHoward]

Hmmnnn CNH

"you end up saying silly things like the UK assassinated Franz Ferdinand ..."Is that what I actually said CNH? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, I find your approach dishonest CNH. You just come on here with slurs and ne ne ne ne ners and aren't actually contributing anything of value to the thread. It begs the question what are you actually here for?

He [Lyle] then comments on matters 'beyond his expertise'.No he asks a question and is deliberately lied to, don't you know the difference?

The Sunday Graphic article is PURE PROPAGANDA designed not only to mislead the 'enemy', but also the British people. Three of the guys in that picture gave their lives so that you and I can come on here and express our dumb opinions CNH.

And in answer to CNH's WW1 diversionary side thread...
The Allies strategy was to prevent the Axis forces (Germany, Ottoman Turks) linking up and then beginning the 'March East' into the Caspian area - Baku etc, and dominating rumoured Mesopotamian (Iraqi) oil riches. This is not a WW1 thread.

Yes both sides (East and West) were being lied to in fact the entire planet was being lied to, honesty is something you don't seem to value CNH?

Not quite the same as reading VCAS's files in the PRO.Have you done that CNH? If so then give us the benefit of your knowledge. Or at least contribute something.

[RIHoward]

bral

If you are going to start quoting Wikipedia at us then you will get the respect you deserve.I agree you have to be careful about Wikipedia, but the article I pointed to just gives a definition of what is meant by 'Primary Sources' a definition I agree with on the whole.
Especially this bit which is pertinent to the Lyle article above

Primary source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_primary_sources)

I'm not interested in gaining 'respect' bral I'm interested in widening my understanding and gaining knowledge.

If you're so unhappy about that article why don't you change it?

[Dick Whittingham]

Go back to RIH’s first post. This is a statement of unsupported allegations, not only the general statements that “the RAF had no nukes until the early 1960s” and “The UK's cold war effort was purely propaganda” but some details about the production of fissile material.

Now the statement about “nukes” imprecise though it is, has been comprehensively trashed on this forum. The statement about “propaganda” is so inclusive that it has to be untrue. Refer to Prof Carl Popper, “Der Logik der Forschung”. (Did you like that – it is one of RIH’s favourite gambits, to throw in an impressive reference that may or may not be true

So why did RIH start the thread in the first place? Clearly he is no universal expert. He thought the Thor was a defensive missile, and his statement that you had to have supercomputing power to develop swept wings was politely dismissed by John Farley (and RIH’s retreat into Finite Element Analysis and FEM software simply shows he was wrong in the first place) And didn’t you like the way he tried to put down JF with “On the Application of Oblique Co-Ordinates to Problems of Plane Elasticity and Swept-back Wing Structures" (ARC R&M 2745) - Hemp (1950)” He got the title straight from the net.

So why? The tone of RIH’s posts is sort of vaguely student left wing, anti-capitalist, anti the “military/industrial complex. I think, and as RIH has said, I am entitled to my opinion, that he is a student wind-up merchant with a 21inch screen using the internet to show he knows all that we plebs don’t know.

Dick

[RIHoward]

Dick is trying to psychologically profile me! how weird, why not just present the facts as he sees them? who knows what motivates these bluff merchants! He ain't very good because my age is under my name! Me a student eh Dick? mature student then?

Anyway just to waste more of ones valuable time Dick comes up with a series of demonstrable bluffs and here they are.

DickGo back to RIH’s first post. This is a statement of unsupported allegations,Dick that's an unsupported allegation!

Hoist with your own petard (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist%20by%20your%20own%20petard.html)

Well lets re-examine those alleged allegations shall we?
RIH
The first production run at Winscale lasted 35 days and produced 135 grams of fissile materialActually it was 132 grams oops 3 grams out. Memory's obviously going!

See The BBC documentary "Winscale, Britain's Biggest Nuclear Disaster" 2007

The description is given by Tom Tuohy the Deputy General Manager of Winscale.

Thomas Tuohy: Windscale manager who doused the flames of the 1957 fire - Obituaries, News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/thomas-tuohy-windscale-manager-who-doused-the-flames-of-the-1957-fire-800546.html)

A Bloody Hero!

@ 28' 54'' into the film
Narrator ... and in August 1952 the first Plutonium left Winscale to become part of Britains Atom BombTom Tuohy
"I broke down the reaction vessel myself, personally opened it up, scrambled around amongst the Calcium Fluorides to see if I could find anything, and there I found a piece of Plutonium ... about the size of a 50 pence piece, 132 grams and that was our first piece. So all this vast industrial complex and 6 years of activity came down to 132 grams of Plutonium"The 35 days comes from here
Britain's Nuclear Weapons - From MAUD to Hurricane (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKOrigin.html)

They had enough for the first Hurricane Test by 15th of September, as a previous poster pointed out it used some material from Canadian reactors. Any one know anything about these Canadian reactors?

The point here is that it's not a straight forward thing producing any of these materials it takes time and a lot of energy. Los Alamos used more energy than the 5 biggest US corporations combined.

For the other alleged unsupported allegations in Post 1
http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post1.html (http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html)
See
http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post12.html (http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html)
http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post40.html (http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html)
http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post52.html (http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html)

See below for the Orange Herald 'allegation'

Dick
not only the general statements that “the RAF had no nukes until the early 1960s” I've now changed the title of the thread to

New Title"The RAF had no nukes until the Early '60s ?"As this is a "rumour network" I thought I'd start the thread off as a 'rumour' sorry, if that upsets you so much, anyway I've changed it so now it's a query any objections?

Dick
and “The UK's cold war effort was purely propaganda” Well it was largely a propaganda effort like some crusty old war horse demanding attention from the world by just making some loud bangs, and the spin machine does the rest.

See the Gavin Lyle Sunday Graphic Article, it's typical.
http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html

Dickbut some details about the production of fissile material.You mean this?

RIHGiven that the UK's fake 'H Bomb', 'Orange Herald' used virtually all the available fissile material in it's manufacture,This comes from the same BBC Winscale documentary
@ 49' 00''

Narrator ... but Penny had a back up plan, another bomb, it was called 'Orange Herald'Dr Bryan Taylor, Theoretical Physicist, Aldermaston 1955-62

"I thought Orange Herald was a stupid device, it wasn't elegant, it couldn't be developed any further, a dead end design and it consumed an enormous amount of very expensive fissile material, It's not what I would have recommended, but I wasn't in charge".Narrator It wasn't an H-Bomb at all, just a massive atom bomb they were convinced would produce a megaton, it needed huge quantities of Plutonium and the magic ingredient, Tritium.
DickNow the statement about “nukes” imprecise though it is, has been comprehensively trashed on this forum.Has it? I think your bluffing flat foot! though of course you are entitled to your opinion!

Let's see ...

20 Obsolecent Fat Boy style weapons? Sir Norman Brook's, (Cabinet Secretary and chair of the Home Defence Committee) assessment not mine.

and some dangerous (to the RAF I mean) Yellow Sun Mk 1's

DickThe statement about “propaganda” is so inclusive that it has to be untrue.So if some thing is 'so inclusive' it can't be true? Is that logic? Dick?

Refer to the Gavin Lyle article above, PURE PROPAGANDA and deliberate lies! And obviously Lyle's article isn't unique.

http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html

See also Chapman Pincher's "Inside Story"

DickRefer to Prof Carl Popper, “Der Logik der Forschung”. (Did you like that – it is one of RIH’s favourite gambits, to throw in an impressive reference that may or may not be trueGambits? what's this a game of chess? WTF?

DickSo why did RIH start the thread in the first place? Rather than let Dick answer his own question, I'll answer it for him

I'm interested in widening my understanding and gaining knowledge.

DickClearly he is no universal expert. Who is Dick?

DickHe thought the Thor was a defensive missile, We all make mistakes.

Dickand his statement that you had to have supercomputing power to develop swept wings This is a misrepresentation of what I actually said, I just said digital computers you know a von Neumann machine, the need for these came from the West's need to crunch more numbers than the Soviets.

Dickwas politely dismissed by John Farley (and RIH’s retreat into Finite Element Analysis and FEM software simply shows he was wrong in the first place) Again a misrepresentation of the facts

Here the facts of the matter

http://www.pprune.org/5875295-post65.html
and
http://www.pprune.org/5875300-post66.html

Here's what Albert Kitchenside said about the use of computers in an e-mail exchange

In the early 50s papers were published on 'energy methods' of structural analysis, in this country it was largely the works of Argyris, who was Professor of Aircraft Structures at Imperial College when I graduated in 1951. These together with improved calculators, matrix algebra and eventually digital computers enabled the more complex 'redundant' structures required for the design of efficient fail safe designs to be analysed. Albert KitchensideDickAnd didn’t you like the way he tried to put down JF with “On the Application of Oblique Co-Ordinates to Problems of Plane Elasticity and Swept-back Wing Structures" (ARC R&M 2745) - Hemp (1950)” He got the title straight from the net.I downloaded and read the paper from the very useful on-line Aerade Archive at Cranfield University

AERADE (http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/reports.html)

The paper is here (there's a typo in the original post [which is now fixed] and in the quote above I have slight dyslexia hte documnet refeernce is 2754 not 2745, to err is Human!)

AERADE (http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/results.php?Simplequery=2754&sf=RN&st=AND&rs=ARC)

I was discussing with Albert Kitchenside, the transfer of fatigue data from a Vickers design with 'straight wings' to the Valiant with lets say, more swept wings.

DickSo why? Well some one has to do it! Why the stress this was going on 50-60 years ago. Its History!

Dick
The tone of RIH’s posts is sort of vaguely student left wing, anti-capitalist, anti the “military/industrial complex. Oh Dick that's just soooo cold war! Hmmn start with Human Being, the rest is trivial IMO.

DickI think, and as RIH has said, I am entitled to my opinion,Indeed you are!

Dick
that he is a student wind-up merchant with a 21inch screen using the internet to show he knows all that we plebs don’t know.Basically you're wrong Dick please don't have another stab at it it's trivial and life is too short after all!

[CNH]

I find your approach dishonest CNH. You just come on here with slurs and ne ne ne ne ners and aren't actually contributing anything of value to the thread. It begs the question what are you actually here for?

Oh, you mean like pointing out that Orange Herald used U235 and not Pu? I notice you've edited your original post on that. I can also tell you that the U235 cost £2 1/2 million. My source? Not Wikipedia but AVIA 65 1193.

I also said:
He is reporting - for, after all, he is a reporter - what he is told about the capabilities of the V forces. That may or may not be true.

And it wasn't true, and it's not a primary source.

Further, you haven't given a date for your cutting other than saying 1957. I think the fault lies with the newspaper rather than the RAF, since it was well known - even to the British public! - that we didn't start testing H bombs - let alone put them into service - until mid 57. Operation Grapple, as it happens.

And Orange Herald was not intended for the V bombers - it was the Blue Streak warhead. A reduced version went into service in 1958 as Violet Club. Yes, we did have nukes in the 1950s. And that was one of them. It did give the RAF some trouble, and I can point you to the relevant PRO files if you're interested.

[ColinB]

I must say that I think the originator of this thread is probably taking the p*** out of all of you.

[Sultan Ismail]

I do believe the mojority of posters to this thread have lost their reading glasses and are just imagining what is appearing in print on their pc screen.

Let me elaborate.

In post 67 there is an extract from the Sunday Graphic with an article by Gavin Lyall. In all subsequent threads he is referred to as Lyle with many derogatory remarks about his article.

Any student of modern literature will know that Gavin Lyall was well educated i.e. Cambridge University, and an ex RAF Pilot. He has authored many books with an aviation theme and achieved recognition for same. He would have known what was happening around him however he had a story to write for the Sunday Graphic and a family to feed so he wrote what the public wanted to read.

By the way, was there a fall back plan if the bomb doors didn't open? Thank you Stanley Kubrick.

[RIHoward]

I do believe the mojority [sic] of posters to this thread have lost their reading glasses and are just imagining what is appearing in print on their pc screen.Not averse to the odd derogatory remark yourself then Sultan? Only it's "the mojority [sic] of posters to this thread" that get it from you. Smack of Hypocrisy ?

I did post a link to a large print version of the document for those who'd lost their reading glasses.
http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/XD864/images/Graphic.jpg

Yes Gavin Liar

I had given him the benefit of the doubt, thinking he didn't know any better, but your post Sultan puts things in a different light, your're saying that he was a wilful and professional liar.


Not really my kind of 'journalist' one who peddles lies and I don't care where he was educated or how you spell this liars name from now on I'll be calling him Gavin Liar O.K. Cambridge University taught him how to lie then? Cambridge University taught him how to know "what the public wanted to read"? Gavin Liar 'Journalist' and Mass Mind Reader! Cambridge University is quite some place if it teaches Mind Reading has Randi been informed? maybe it's a case for 'Sceptics in the Pub?'

he had a story to write for the Sunday Graphic and a family to feedSultan is now an apologist for Gavin Liar you know the Cambridge University educated mind reading professional liar. As illustrated in this piece of PURE PROPAGANDA

http://www.pprune.org/5875430-post67.html

student of modern literature.Ha! don't make me laugh!

Generally 'Modern Literature' means literature from the Enlightenment to about the late Victorian period, as any student of modern literature should know!

Gavin Liar isn't included.

Literature in the sense Sultan means it here I think refers to written works especially those with superior or lasting merit.

Here's one that made me laugh, it's PG Wodehouse's backhanded 'compliment' of G. Liar's famous work.

The Wrong Side Of The Sky

PG Wodehouse, no less, proclaimed it "Terrific: when better novels of suspense are written, lead me to them." In other words there will be better novels of suspense written.

Lyall's niche in the thriller marketplace had all but disappeared by the time he returned with Spy's Honour, the first in a series of novels which were set against the background of the nascent British Secret Service in the years immediately before the first world war. These were a splendidly entertaining mix of early Ambler with a dash of Bulldog Drummond escapism.Still it's bad to speak ill of the dead

Gavin Lyall | Books | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/jan/21/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries)

[tornadoken]

rih: the purpose of your posts here, I think, is: a) to note that RAF deployed (no, now modified to) few nukes before 1960s; b) to note that from Valiant, even from Canberra introduction to Service, it was bruited about that UK was now nuclear-armed, but that was not so, hence lie/propaganda.

Drums and alarums accompany all Formed Force; deception is fair dos...but can have unintended consequences. USSR at the Tushino Air Show, 1953 flew some formations of Badger nuclear jet bombers. That triggered Ike to buy many hundreds of such things to plug the "Bomber Gap": we now know but did not then it was one near-experimental unit, circling. During our Suez foray, 1956, Khrushchev rattled a rocket threat at us: we now know but did not then that he had none. Sputnik, 10/57 was launched by an evidently ginormous ICBM: we now know but did not then that it would prove militarily useless, but Ike responded to the "Missile Gap" with vast spend on the Triad.

To write in 1957 that Vulcan was UK's H-Bomber had been correct after Churchill's 1954 decision that UK should develop such a thing: we now know that RAF was, ah, previous in implying an H- operational capability in 1957. So, if you wish, a lie. Or, if I wish, a legitimate ploy to give pause to a potential aggressor. London's airports are patrolled by police officers, some, ah, mature, some female, toting Uzis: they're inert, yes? and those ancients/totties would not/could not shoot anyway, no?

Your point ("few") was public in the Official History of RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces, H.Wynn, HMSO,1994:Deployed and armed bomber V-Craft: 31/12/58: p.251: 82; 8/59: p.266: 96; 13/7/60: p.327: 96. By dredging around the entire text it can be deduced these totals included upto 67 US weapons.

So, has this thread now run its course?

[Dick Whittingham]

Yes, RIH will post "On mature reflection I now see my original two assertions were wrong. Sorry."

Or not

Dick

[bobward]

"The truth should be protected by a bodyguard of lies...."

[Tim McLelland]

Have to say I'm with ColinB on this one!

[SpringHeeledJack]

If i may interject.....

A very interesting thread has been sullied by pedantic urges of the third kind, by people who are old enough and hopefully wise enough to know better :hmm: This isn't a school classroom and we do ourselves no favours with such poppycock. Leave the put downs to other internet participants and let's argue the (known) facts. Is there sufficient evidence to suggest the RAF had little or no useable atomic weaponry before the early 1960's ?



SHJ

[RIHoward]

Thanks for the interjection SHJ

It depends what you mean by usable I guess.

Blue Danube bombs weren't that safe though not as scary as Yellow Sun Mk1's. The dates when more stable military grade weapons started to come on stream vary and this is due in large part to the secrecy surrounding this subject, but pre about '61 the RAF's 'independent' 'serviceable' A-bombs can't have been more than 25 Blue Danubes.

I don't think Thor was ever credible and was a US system.

At this time 61-62 it seems Red Beard tactical bombs were coming on stream as well as Yellow Sun Mk2s.

All the other atomic weapons available to the RAF were in effect US controlled. though officially designated as 'shared'.

My initial thoughts as to why there were so few British (if you like) bombs was because the rate of production of weapons grade material was so low.

But I now think what the record shows is that because of the '54 decision to embark on developing the H-Bomb brought on by the US Ivy Mike '52 and the Soviet Joe 4 '53 detonations, production of weapons slowed or stopped.

It is clear to me at least that the status of the UK as a Nuclear power was more spin than substance, of course the detonations of test devices were real enough, but I see them as largely symbolic ground thumping affairs.

My assessment is that it was the Sputnik launches that finally allowed the UK to get its hands on 'real' (military grade) weapons through co-operation with the US (though the Grapple tests may have played a role)

This is at odds with what the public were being told at the time and to a large extent what is commonly thought today, both about the real threat posed by the Soviets and the real capability of the UK of having its own independent deterrent.

Some free downloads that might be of interest.

Donald Mcintyre The Development of Britain's Megaton Warheads (http://www.mcintyre.plus.com/grapple/MegatonWeaponsMA.pdf)
Roy Dommett Blue Streak Weapon (http://www.pprune.org/www.brohp.org.uk/downloads/prospero2_article.pdf)

1950 CIA Docs (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/assessing-the-soviet-threat-the-early-cold-war-years/docs.html)

[CNH]

I would think the situation with regard to deployable devices in the UK in the mid 50s was similar to that in the US in the late 40s or the USSR in the early 50s.

On the other hand, 25 Blue Danubes in Valiants or Vulcans could have made a very considerable mess of Russia.

Another factor is the way we view nuclear weapons today is different from the way they were viewed in the mid 50s. 25 Blue Danubes would have been regarded as a very considerable deterrent then, if not now.

There's no real evidence that nuclear weapon deployment diminished as a result of Grapple. The Violet Clubs/Yellow Sun Mk I devices were of an order of magnitude greater than Blue Danube, whatever might be said about their safety.

On the other hand, the USAF deployed some very similar devices in the early 50s, although I think the safety device was chain rather than ball bearings.

To single out the UK for an inadequate deterrent is unfair. Perhaps a few years later than the USSR, but not by many.

[RIHoward]

The bomber and other so called gaps were known to be unfounded at the time.

From Baiting the Bear BBC Timewatch 1996

Dino Brugioni CIA photo analyst 1948-82

"...supposedly the Soviets had more bombers than the United states and not only had more bombers, but were going to produce more bombers. Keep in mind what we did, we saw a bomber, we counted that bomber as being operational, when we knew that there was no bomber force in the World which you could look down on and say , all bombers are operational"Narrator

"The President doubted Airforce claims (about the bomber gap), but in 1956 intelligence chiefs persuaded him to authorise a series of spy-plane over flights (of the USSR). Eisenhower insisted the CIA not the Airforce be in charge ....."The first mission of the U2 spy-plane over the Soviet Union was on the 4th of July 1956 .....Dino Brugioni CIA photo analyst 1948-82
"That particular mission we flew over the long range bomber bases in the Ukraine and Leningrad we flew deeper into the Soviet Union over Moscow and coveraged [sic] more bomber bases. The missions that we flew that essentially went up to the Urals, proved fairly conclusively that there was no bomber gap. Two months after the National Photographic Interpretation Centre came into being we had solved one major problem, and that was the bomber gap didn't exist.Narrator
Despite photographic evidence that Lemay had greatly over estimated the Soviet bomber threat, in June 1957 with the help of powerful friends in Congress he (Lemay) was promoted to vice chief of the Airforce.
Dino Brugioni
...well when we flew the satellites in '60, that proved conclusively that not only was there was no bomber gap, no missile gap and no megatonnage gap, and that's when Eisenhower in one of his last ventures as a President got up and denounced the danger of an unbridled Military Industrial Complex.

[RIHoward]

I would think the situation with regard to deployable devices in the UK in the mid 50s was similar to that in the US in the late 40s or the USSR in the early 50s.Well there was a step change in '53 with Joe 4 which was a Russian 400Kt H-Bomb.

On the other hand, 25 Blue Danubes in Valiants or Vulcans could have made a very considerable mess of Russia.Yes but...
You're assuming they'd all reach their targets, would not blow up accidentally and that they would actually detonate when they reached their targets.

One Blue Danube would make a considerable mess wherever it blew up either partially or fully.

There's no real evidence that nuclear weapon deployment diminished as a result of Grapple. Yes that's true I'm trying to understand why so few were produced when the projection for production had been for around 200 by '58 they'd made around 20.

To single out the UK for an inadequate deterrent is unfair.There is no way on Earth that the UK could ever single handedly match the nuclear production capabilities of either the US or the USSR. The UK needed the US and that was the reason for perusing the nuclear option in the first place. The goal was never to compete independently, the goal was always to seek co-operation from the US that was the whole strategy. Macmillan's 'great prize'

[CNH]

Well there was a step change in '53 with Joe 4 which was a Russian 400Kt H-Bomb.And there was a step change four years later in 1957 with Grapple.

You're assuming they'd all reach their targets, would not blow up accidentally and that they would actually detonate when they reached their targets.
Which might equally apply to the Soviet nuclear weapons.

There is no way on Earth that the UK could ever single handedly match the nuclear production capabilities of either the US or the USSRTrue - but we didn't have to. All we had to do was to make enough bombs to deter the Soviets from attacking.

We didn't need to compete. After all, the UK could be taken out with a few dozen bombs. Anything else would be just re-arranging the rubble.

As for Macmillan's 'great prize' - in the end, it turned out to be overrated. We didn't need the US designs - we had working ones of our own. The major difference was that ours were not 'weaponised', and to do that we would needed to have done more tests at a time when atmospheric testing was very unpopular.

[RIHoward]

I think the terms we're using are confusing things somewhat so to clear things up a little.

This is what I mean by 'nukes'

nukes= military grade nuclear weapons.


And there was a step change four years later in 1957 with Grapple.Well I'd say Grapple Z in September '58 with some US technical input, was the closest to a 'weapon', but I want to avoid pedantry. Joe 4 was successfully 'weaponised', none of the UK's H-Bomb efforts were or indeed actually needed to be after Sputnik.

The US /Soviet nuclear gap was 4 years in 1949 and 9 months by '53. Ivy Mike weighed 50 tons was 2 stories high and needed a cryogenic system to keep the HEU or whatever it was, compressed, hardly a usable 'weapon'.

RIH You're assuming they'd all reach their targets, would not blow up accidentally and that they would actually detonate when they reached their targets.
Which might equally apply to the Soviet nuclear weapons......

After all, the UK could be taken out with a few dozen bombs. Anything else would be just re-arranging the rubble.So the Soviets needed a 'dozen' H-Bombs and possessed hundreds?, and the UK needed a hundred? and a dozen A-Bombs might get through? I mean, who was deterring who here?

There were more Soviet nukes and they did actually deserve the epithet 'nuclear weapon' and would, in all likelihood lead to a massive re-arranging of UK rubble. Unlike those of the UK which were more akin to 'nuclear devices' that would or would not lead to rubble re-arrangement and there was some uncertainty whether the rubble would be UK rubble and worse still RAF air-base rubble, or the desired Soviet rubble.

There is a common misconception (though I doubt it is widely held on this forum) that once a 'H-Bomb' test is successful then its a simple case of mass producing that 'H-bomb' Henry Ford style, until you have thousands of 'H-bombs'. And it is this misconception which the average British taxpayer (sorry to be so Daily Mail) was never disabused of, We tested a 'bomb' today now we have Bombs, errr? no you tested a device today that may or may not, some time in the future, form the core of a military grade Bomb or nuke.

I think the problem for the Soviets was more to do with their bomber fleet's performance, their solution was to use ICBMs as their rocket engines were better than those of the West, (didn't they have some sort of after burner device that one of the kidnapped Germans invented? you'd know CNH?).


True - but we didn't have to. All we had to do was to make enough bombs to deter the Soviets from attacking.Well that would be none, because the Soviets had no intention of attacking and the US had been successfully deterring since 1945.

We didn't need to compete. Begs the question so why did the UK compete?. This is after all what was being presented to a frightened public who were being asked to foot the bill, it was an 'Arms Race' we were competing with the Soviets (and the US) in a race.

Nice pics
Soviet Nuclear Weapons | Energy Dimension (http://www.energy-dimension.com/soviet-nuclear-weapons/)

CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article01.html)

The Soviet Effort (http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/nuc_01019501a_138.pdf)

[Tim McLelland]

sullied by pedantic urges

Rescued by pedantry more like! ;)

[RIHoward]

;)Nice one TIm!

One has to draw the line somewhere.

[CNH]

There is a common misconception (though I doubt it is widely held on this forum) that once a 'H-Bomb' test is successful then its a simple case of mass producing that 'H-bomb' Henry Ford style, until you have thousands of 'H-bombs'. ... We tested a 'bomb' today now we have Bombs, errr? no you tested a device today that may or may not, some time in the future, form the core of a military grade Bomb or nuke.

So although the Soviets tested Joe 4 in 1953, they didn't have an H bomb in 1953 ...

... the Soviets had no intention of attacking ...

That is so simplistic and begs so many questions that it's difficult to know where to begin. Yes, the Soviets were not suddenly going to launch their bombers against the UK. That is not to say that a conventional war may not have broken out - over Berlin, for example - which then escalates. Krushchev did threaten the UK with nuclear weapons at the time of Suez.

We never thought there would be a 'bolt from the blue' - but we thought there may be 'period of tension', and 'periods of tension' have a habit of getting out of control. Another Berlin blockade, a British transport gets buzzed and crashes, British escorting fighters shoot back ... It's never the big things that start wars, it's the little ones (even Jenkin's ear).

So to say the Soviets had no intention of attacking misses the point spectacularly.

why did the UK compete?
We weren't competing - that's a Daily Mail level assertion. We built nuclear weapons so that we had some degree of parity - not parity in size of arsenal, but parity in terms of being able to inflict 'unacceptable damage' on the opposition. And we did not want to rely entirely on the American umbrella. True, we did shelter underneath it quite a lot, but we still had an option to go it alone if the Americans withdrew their support - as they did at Suez.

And no, their rocket engines weren't better than those of the West, they didn't kidnap German scientists, and you don't have afterburners on rockets. And they didn't have effective ICBMs until the early sixties. And would you believe that some people think that when you have a Sputnik that you have an ICBM?

[Jig Peter]

At the risk of thread drift (or the start of a parallel flow), a similar look at France's atomic weapon development would be interesting. After all, General de Gaulle's attitude would have been similar to Ernest Bevin's, but with the "chose" bearing a tricolor. His political aim must have been similar too - all a question of influence at "Top Table" level, particularly in view of the "perfide albion" syndromeand his innate mistrust of the USA.
Is there any kind of (near?) authoritative record of the development of "dissuasion" like the excellent paper above?

[Noyade]

Some scans of American opinions on other countries possessing nuclear bombs from "Danger and Survival"..

Albert Wohlstretter...

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5329/threee.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/threee.jpg/)

Robert McNamara...

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/4774/twok.jpg (http://img810.imageshack.us/i/twok.jpg/)

McGeorge Bundy...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2412/onea.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/i/onea.jpg/)

[RIHoward]

@CNH

Again I find your approach not only disruptive to the thread, but you are now wilfully ignoring supplied sources, as is clear from your first response in your last post above (http://www.pprune.org/5880846-post91.html). If you were at all interested in furthering other peoples' (Deo Dante Dedi ) or your own knowledge and understanding of this murky period in history, you would have at least read the first chapter of that document, (The Russian Effort) (http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/nuc_01019501a_138.pdf)which shows clearly that the Soviets had cracked thermonuclear weapons manufacture by the close of 1955.

As this quote from Sakharov's Memoires reprinted in the document explains.

Sakharov said it "crowned years of effort [and] opened the way for a whole range of devices with remarkable capabilities ... it had essentially solved the problem of creating high performance thermonuclear weapons".http://oz.deichman.net/uploaded_images/tsar_06-705804.jpghttp://alephtav.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Tsar-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg

50 Mt Tsar Drop




Further, apart from your ludicrous, boys own, 'butterfly effect' (http://crossgroup.caltech.edu/chaos_new/Lorenz.html) theory of how wars start, you are now supplying us with down right wrongful information. viz.

they didn't kidnap German scientistsFrom (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/a4_team_moscow.html)
On April 17, 1946, the Soviet of Ministers USSR issued a decree No. 874-366ss ordering Ministry of Aviation Industry, MAP, to deport 1,400 German engineers and workers to the USSR. Including family members, the number of deported was expected to reach 3,500 people at that point.

Listed below by Number, Specialization, Assigned ministry and the Official overseeing the deportation.
1,250 aircraft, cruise missile experts, Ministry of Aviation Industry, Major General S. I. Filatov, MVD chief in Brandenburg
500 rocket specialists, Ministry of Armaments, Major General S. A. Klepov, MVD chief in Saxonia
350 radar and radio experts, Ministry of Communications Colonel Svirin.
30 specialists in solid rocket propulsion, Ministry of Agricultural Machine building -N/A
25 gyroscope, navigation system experts, Ministry of Ship Building -N/ANow if deporting people against their will and putting them in closed cities with no freedom to leave until they paid a ransom by 'being productive', isn't kidnapping.......

and

their rocket engines weren't better than those of the WestYou have written a book about rockets and you edit a pamphlet about rocketry and yet you do not acknowledge that some of the best first stage launchers still in use are Russian designs from the Soviet era



http://en.rian.ru/images/15837/61/158376132.jpg


NK-33 engine was originally designed and produced in Russia in late 1960s
The NK-33 engine has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any first-stage rocket engine, and is considered by most characteristics the highest performance rocket engine ever created.
Russia may supply Soviet-era engines for U.S. space rockets | Russia | RIA Novosti (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100331/158375997.html)

Kosmos 3M? based on the R- 14: 1967 to present (phased out soon) ~420 launches.Check Your 'Facts'

Your aim seems to be to conserve as if in aspic the memes of Propaganda disseminated by both sides of the iron curtain during the cold war period.


Given the definition

nukes= military grade nuclear weapons.

Then the statement "the RAF had no nukes until the early sixties" is (so far), factually correct.

You should start a thread of your own where you can wallow in nostalgia to your hearts content. Leave on the rose tinted glasses and watch those images of pointless grandeur, mushroom clouds in the sunset. This thread however is not the place to do that.

I am not prepared to engage in a petty to and fro with you any more.

Epilogue Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint: now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,
Let your indulgence set me free .

Prospero.
The Tempest, William Shakespeare

Over and Out.

Miscellaneous Sub Threads

Jenkins what? From (http://www.newgeorgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-807&sug=y)
Causes of the war centred on disputed land claims, but the conflict was not limited to land. Shipping on the high seas also suffered frequent interruption from acts of piracy by both sides.Berlin Blockade
There was an obstacle in the approach to the Tegel airfield, however. A Soviet-controlled radio tower caused problems by its proximity to the airfield. Pleas to remove it went unheard, so on November 20, 1948, the French General Jean Ganeval (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=59352)made the decision simply to blow it up. The mission was carried out on December 16, much to the delight of Berliners, and provoking complaints from the Soviets. When his Soviet counterpart, General Alexej Kotikow, asked him angrily on the phone how he could have done this, Ganeval is said to have answered him laconically, "With dynamite, my dear colleague."Tales from the Cold War Rumour Mill (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-253760.html)

Neubiberg_air_base encyclopedia topics | Reference.com (http://www.reference.com/browse/Neubiberg_Air_Base)

Blockade Fighters (No RAF Fighter Squadrons Involved)

The 86th Composite Group was activated at Bad Kissingen on 20 August (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/20_August) 1946 (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/1946) and assigned to the United States Air Forces in Europe (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe). The group was equipped inititally with low-hour P/F-47D "Thunderbolts" (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt)
removed from storage at various depots in Germany.

Initially, the group performed mostly occupation duty, however escort missions were flown with Consolidated RB-24 Liberator (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/B-24) reconnance aircraft along the borders of Czechoslovakia (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Czechoslovakia) and the Soviet Zone of Germany (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/East_Germany), occasionally engaging with Soviet aircraft as they harassed the recon flights.

The mission of the 86th CG changed with the advent of the Berlin Airlift (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Berlin_Blockade), to escort the cargo flights within the narrow air corridors between the American Zone and Tempelhof Air Base (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Tempelhof_International_Airport) in West Berlin (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/West_Berlin). When the airlift began, the 86th CG was the only tactical air group in USAFE.
RussianSpaceWeb.com (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html)

The CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article01.html)

...1957, when all residents were issued passes permitting them to leave for one day any time they wanted. By that time, the Soviet Union already possessed a credible nuclear deterrent (including nuclear-armed medium-range ballistic missiles) against the West.@Jig Peter

I would suspect that nothing like that document for the French effort would be available in the English Language maybe in French or if the French have a FOIA you might try that.

France's Nuclear Weapons (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/index.html)


:cool:See you all in a week, I'm off on me hols' keep the contributions coming. Thanks for the input to all and keep it sweet.......
Best Regards
RIH

[ColinB]

I will repeat the originator of this thread is taking the p*** out of you all.
There is a basic lack of knowledge on the development of the Soviet nuclear weapons. The Germans had less knowledge of nuclear weapons than the Russians and they did not need their help except in general industrial practices.
The first Russian A Bomb in 1949 was a plutonium device i.e. the product of a reactor. The idea that Geiger and other German scientists were coerced into helping them with industrial enrichment techniques is just coo-coo.

[FlightlessParrot]

As we may have a little quiet for a while, could I suggest that if we're thinking about the '40s and '50s, we need to unthink the '60s situation of mutual assured destruction. What actually was the doctrine for the use of the UK's admittedly few and inefficient nukes? Were they intended for war fighting? I imagine one of the nuclear land mines would have disrupted a major tank offensive, and it should have been possible to arrange the delivery of one or two bombs (or devices, if it fits stipulative definitions better) by air.

Clearly the UK did not have the resources to deter the USSR--given the astonishing destruction suffered in WW II, the USSR government (especially under Stalin) would be unlikely to have been deterred by the loss of Kiev, say, or Leningrad. So were the early nukes thought of as a way of slowing down a conventional attack, or were they, as I have seen suggested, a way of upping the ante and ensuring the USA would get involved?

Oh, and could someone please and pretty please tell me how to do paragraph breaks? I've looked through the list of vB codes more times than I can remember, and I'm beggared if I can see it.

[CNH]

I too am away on my hols, so this thread will have to manage without my disruption.

I must say Mr Howard has a remarkable ability to shift the debate to another topic when his previous assertions have been derided.

[RIHoward]

Colin

No one is suggesting the Germans were involved in the Soviet Nuclear program. The point is the Germans 'helped' with the first Russian missiles based on the Nazi A-4 rocket, they were repatriated when the Soviets had enough know-how of their own.

Happy Holidays. (Mr Hill)

[CNH]

Sapwood R7:
'Contrary to statements that the R-7 was based largely on experience and assistance of German scientists, the missile is noteworthy for looking beyond past achievements that had used German ideas'

From that font of all knowledge, R-7 Semyorka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka)

[Jig Peter]

Mr. Howard ('Happy holidays, sir) mentions the "butterfly effect" of how wars start being a "Boys' Own" assertion.
Working in Berlin during the early 60s, I certainly felt that there was enough tinder around to set off a major conflagration, once the "Wall" was up, and even before that the tension could be felt as the "DDR" was leaking refugees to the West at a rapid pace - to the extent that the reception station(s?) in West Berlin were stretched to, or beyond, capacity. When young Peter Fechter was shot by Vopos and left to drown in his own blood as he hung on the wire and Russian and Allied tanks faced each other, there was a strong feeling that an "accident" was very close indeed, until first one side and then the other put their tanks into reverse, but stayed in sight of each other.
Later, as the "Cuba business" worked its way through, again, tension was high - in British HQ Berlin it was said that the easiest way to judge West Berliners' morale was to ring up a removals firm and check for the earliest date an outbound removal could be arranged: the later the date, the worse Berliners' morale.
It was quite remarkable how the tension dropped after Cuba, as Khrushchev said that West Berlin could be left on the vine to shrivel.
The "Cold War" for me, both as an early member of the V-Force and in Berlin was a very serious affair, whatever academics may now think.
I wonder if Mr. Howard plays poker?

[Lightning Mate]

The "Cold War" for me, both as an early member of the V-Force and in Berlin was a very serious affair

As indeed it was for all of us who were ready............

Sleeping 25 yards from "your" nuke at night was not exactly fun.

[Jig Peter]

LM
Agreed - that's what commentators like RIH seem to forget. Thank goodness things are different now !
Regards,
JP

[Yellow Sun]

As indeed it was for all of us who were ready............

Sleeping 25 yards from "your" nuke at night was not exactly fun.

Yes, it became somewhat less than academic when you first found out where you were expected to take it.

Later in my career I became a "link" in the release chain. That to was a sobering experience. The inoccuous phrase "six for carriage six for use" that foretold approaching armageddon. Thank goodness the signals were always headed "exercise".

YS

[Lightning Mate]

Yes, it became somewhat less than academic when you first found out where you were expected to take it.

Could not agree more.