BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room

[WE Branch Fanatic]

World War Three: Inside the War Room (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zw32h)

Following the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's involvement in Syria, the world is closer to superpower confrontation than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Now, a war room of senior former British military and diplomatic figures comes together to war-game a hypothetical 'hot war' in eastern Europe, including the unthinkable - nuclear confrontation.

[MPN11]

Thanks. Possible ... had spotted it, but unsure how well it will be done by Leftie-Beeb.

Still, bog-all else on :)

[Hangarshuffle]

I put it on halfway through, after the football. Don't know what to make of that programme, other than it confirms I remain with zero confidence in the British establishment to do a single thing that's useful for me.
Would have been more interesting if they had made up an authentic parallel cast of villainous free-thinking Russians in another room to see how they reacted to the situation, and tossed the whole thing around a bit more.
Nobody, at all, anywhere in the world thinks like the British establishment.

[Courtney Mil]

It was well done and thought provoking. I'm not sure how closely the players represent those that would actually be filling those roles for real, but still very interesting. A reasonable argument for a strong military with a viable nuclear deterrent.

[Melchett01]

I think Putin & Corbyn would have loved it.

For me, it presented a case that we have become a shadow of our former self, militarily, politically and diplomatically. It seemed to show we only have a definitive capability against ill trained local militia type forces and lack the numbers to do any serious damage when faced with a numerically superior foe. It highlighted the likely divisions and political posturing within NATO that would undoubtedly undermine its capability as well as within our own ranks.

Quite thought provoking, but for all the wrong reasons from the perspective of a current serviceman. We mortgaged our entire military for 2 COIN campaigns, did neither particularly well, and are now stuck in a culdesac that also seems to be a one way street.

[Basil]

What worried me is:
1. How much does President Putin think BBC fiction represents British Government policy?
2. At the end of this fiction the War Cabinet voted against a retaliatory ICBM strike with ICBMs. CDS (if I understood who was who) was one of those against a retaliatory strike.

That is the wrong message. I would definitely vote to instruct commanders to launch as soon as a Russian launch was detected and I do hope that the reality is that our War Cabinet would also do so. If my children and grandchildren are going to die those people must be assured that so also will theirs.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It was well done and thought provoking. I'm not sure how closely the players represent those that would actually be filling those roles for real, but still very interesting. A reasonable argument for a strong military with a viable nuclear deterrent.

...and Ballistic Missile Defence!

[DODGYOLDFART]

A very thought provoking programme. Left me wondering just how mad, greedy, etc. etc. is comrade Putin. Unlike the programme I do think we would do a MAD and launch if push came to shove.

[skua]

Programme was notable for its lack of light blue expertise.

The Lib Dem lady showed why that party is rightly very far removed from power. They must sorely miss Tim Garden's wisdom.

[Pontius Navigator]

The problem with launch on warning is a presumption that a nuclear power will not use conventional weapons.

Iraq 1991 is a case in point. Scuds inbound, launch or not? As he was presumed to have WMD, but non-nuclear, then they were able to sit and wait.

[Army Mover]

I watched it; entertaining. My only thought was, at the end - we failed.

[PhilipG]

The program was thought provoking I agree, as I understood the end of the episode, there was a possibility that the Russians were about to launch a full scale nuclear strike on the UK, only a possibility.

The UK had at least two Vanguard class subs deployed at 15 minutes readiness to fire, each of those subs had the Prime Minister's letter of last resort in its safe.

The fact that at least two Vanguards were at sea would have been known to the Russians, taking that leap of faith that the Russian leadership under Putin is logical, Russia launching a nuclear strike would be a gamble on the the decision making processes of the UK's prime minister, that would become apparent if the UK is targeted when the letters of last resort are actioned.

So overall a logical decision.

[dagenham]

This is entertainment... If the result was lets retaliate with full force there is no controversy or entertainment

Outcome drives news drives interest drives viewers

That said it did demonstrate be careful who you vote for or recommend for promotion

[Wycombe]

I watched it; entertaining. My only thought was, at the end - we failed

...or rather, deterence did...and as such there was no point in launching (as said by one of the senior Mil figures in the room).

If this was for real, would it really be so measured? If we knew London was about to disappear under a mushroom cloud, why would we not just "let 'em have it".

If we acted as per the programme (ie, no retaliatory strike) that would only serve to make the Russian regime stronger?

If we struck back, they may well not be around to have that opportunity?

Programme was quite well done, but the way it ended did leave me thinking that there was a subliminal message from the lefty-beeb that deterence doesn't work.

[melmothtw]

If we acted as per the programme (ie, no retaliatory strike) that would only serve to make the Russian regime stronger?

If we struck back, they may well not be around to have that opportunity?

Interesting questions Wycombe, but in the event of a Russian nuclear first strike would anyone be around to care any longer?

[Courtney Mil]

...and Ballistic Missile Defence!

Good point!

[Martin_123]

tactics used by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine, may work in few other places, such as Moldova, but it will not work in Baltics. Why? There's very little to no ethnic tension despite what the program tried to show and every Russian living in Baltics know no matter how they might disagree with the local governments or no matter how favorable Putin might look to them, they are in EU, nearly every family has a member who works/studies in EU, they have better opportunities and so on. It would be very difficult, even next to impossible to get these people turn against what they have, especially when we see that situation in Ukraine has left nothing but poverty and despair.

Also I don't think anyone in the Baltics seriously relies on Nato. When the stuff got messy in Ukraine, the only ones showing some sort of support and interest in the physical security of the Baltics where Americans. It's ridiculous that in time when you need to make a political gesture in favor of Europe's security and integrity, the much closer Nato heavyweights such as Germany or UK cannot be bothered to send a single soldier

I'm sure as the Russia's financial situation worsens we will see new provocations and attacks, as that's what desperate leaders do to distract people from their failure, but I'm also sure that we will see something completely new, something that we were not ready as usual, and something very confusing

[Treble one]

I watched and with interest last night and found the round table discussions extremely thought provoking.

I was very surprised to see the 'no retaliation' vote at the end. Surely the PM of the day would (in that scenario) be under incredible political pressure to retaliate? Although, there probably won't be many left to judge his actions of course.

I believe Denis Healy is the only person in political power within a 'firing chain' to have previously said at a similar point he would have not authorised retaliation 'as the deterrent would have failed'.

I know this was a dramatization, and the people 'making the decisions' were removed from power, but there were some incredibly experienced Military men/Diplomats in the room, and you wonder how different a real life scenario would be.

[Heathrow Harry]

"there probably won't be many left to judge his actions of course."

well not in London anyway - the other 50 million people in the country would unlikely to want to be fried I'd guess

but look on the bright side - all those media people gone, most of the politicians, and plenty of promotion slots in the middel/higher ranks of the armed forces......................

[Treble one]

Of course HH, a potential decapitation strike on London could mean that 'the special communication arrangements' apply to the subs, so unless there was someone left in the firing chain......

[Willard Whyte]

Hmm, better put my house in London on the market PDQ.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Of course HH, a potential decapitation strike on London could mean that 'the special communication arrangements' apply to the subs, so unless there was someone left in the firing chain......"


and that depends on what is the letter I guess............. TBH since Mrs T I doubt that any PM was written "fire the lot"

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

, but the way it ended did leave me thinking that there was a subliminal message from the lefty-beeb that deterence doesn't work.

There it is - right there! :suspect:

I also wondered if the debates were genuine 'free-flow' (and edited of course - see above!!!) or scripted to ensure that the 'correct conclusion' resulted.

[BATCO]

I am separated from my papers at the moment, but I do recall a marginal note, by a senior civil servant of the day, on a released document which effectively said "with many of our cities in smoking ruins and so many people dead and dying, it seems pointless to add to the world's ills by adding any more misery".

Deterrence is just that, and one can read into the (official/unofficial?) motto of our CASD: "if we fire we fail".

Glad such a decision would never be mine.

Batco

[Pontius Navigator]

In 1968 AOC 1Gp wrote an eyes only Secret letter to his station commanders. I was briefed on the content but not permitted to read it. The letter was later upgraded to TS at which point it was given to me to safeguard. It was upgraded as it contained the word 'retaliatory' which would have shown HMG's policy ruled out preemption. Later of course I believe preemption was publicly ruled out.

[Finningley Boy]

I saw the programme it seemed to judge respective Governments' response to such circumstances as I would certainly expect, i.e; all of Western Europe failing to meet their obligations under NATO (I'm certainly not saying they necessarily would, but would be difficult to see then reacting otherwise) the American reaction seemed all to likely as well when a response to the nuclear accident would be better to seek an opportunity to step back from the brink, obviously no more accidents could be understood thereafter.

FB:)

[27mm]

The script referred to Trident Mx being targeted at military installations; they are also city destroyers.

[Treble one]

I think he was one of the 'Nuclear Deputies' for a period in the Wilson Government (as SoS for Defence). I think that may have been described by Hennessey?

He would then have been in the firing chain if Wilson was killed.

Apologies if I'm wrong, its been a while since I read the book.

[Pontius Navigator]

111, certainly Hennessey interviewed Healey. On p205 of the 1st Edn he was indeed an authorised deputy and said he would not have pressed the button. Thatcher gave identical grounds for a similar reticence though considering Carol and Mark subsequently one wonders.

[Treble one]

That's where I got that from then-thanks PN.

Interesting letter you got there....

TO

[JG54]

Hmm. Really one for the game theorists, this.

But assuming our tiny, little island is on the receiving end of even a limited, 'Square Leg' - esque exchange, it's safe to conclude we'd be pretty much 'clucked', son.

So, what do you retaliate against - empty / irrelevant silos & facilities? There may indeed be some utility in 'keeping your powder dry' for the post - exchange environment. Or, if truly you seek vengeance 'Gotterdammerung stylee', sod the cities - swathe the enemy's agricultural lands with groundbursts.

All perfectly logical, all perfectly insane.

Best,

Frank

[ImageGear]

Well....

If we are talking Putin's preemptive strike on any nuclear armed country of whatever persuasion, then nothing less than a full response including the kitchen sink, is required. Otherwise, the next target nation will be another domino on the way to total domination.

You say "should we care if we are cinders", well does humanity matter? It's all or nothing.

As Kelsey Grammer said in "Down Periscope", "Although we are dead - we still win" Haargh, Haargh, Haargh.


Imagegear

[XV490]

I did my English 0-level at Kelsey Grammer.

[Chris Kebab]

Why did the Admiral disappear half way through - pretty sure he wasn't there for the final vote either?

[Heathrow Harry]

he was doing 90 mph up the M40 away from London.....................

[racedo]

It highlighted the likely divisions and political posturing within NATO that would undoubtedly undermine its capability as well as within our own ranks.


Question to ask is would UK Govt and voters be willing to engage in a Nuclear exchange if a NATO member say Turkey attacked a Russian Naval vessel and in retaliation Istanbul got very hot.

No Govt is going to write its own suicide note if it can avoid it.

I note that Western Media mantra is all about Russian aggression where as anything NATO members do seems to be seen as being ok.

[XV490]

If anything, the programme set out to emphasise UK subservience to US policy in the scenario, particularly in the way the British committee's hopes of seeking a de-escalation after the two nations' ships were nuked were dashed by the American retaliatory strike on the Russian mainland -- which led to talk of London's destruction... but not Washington's.

In that respect, the story smacked of political bias in being implicitly critical of the US. And as for the "would we retaliate?" cliffhanger, isn't that a question brought to the fore conveniently recently by Mr Corbyn, the darling no doubt of many at the BBC?

[melmothtw]

I note that Western Media mantra is all about Russian aggression where as anything NATO members do seems to be seen as being ok

What NATO 'aggression' has there been racedo?

The Russian Fencer was shot down for entering Turkish airspace (the Russians have gone very quiet on the subject after the initial furore), and if you're referring to the NATO 'expansion' East, that has only occurred because these nations have asked to join NATO because they fear Russia.

You'll also note that it wasn't NATO that used force of arms to change European borders, and it's not NATO that continues to fatally undermine a sovereign European state for the opaque reasons of its autocratic leader. It wasn't NATO either that shot down a civilian airliner killing nearly 300 innocent people (despite what RT has to say on the subject).

If the Western media mantra is all about Russian aggression, then they're just calling it as it is.

[Thomas coupling]

Does any of this really matter?

The Americans will do all the decision making for us, I suspect - if it gets to this stage.
Britains contribution at this stage - you're having a laugh aren't you?

A very weak BBC propaganda drama/documentary with a preset ending.

More interesting - much more interesting would be a drama on the day after:

America high command wakes up to their eggs and orange juice and patches into High Wycombe and below No10. for a morning brief to determine which countries are still left standing. The UK is decimated, most of Europe is gone.

2 Brit subs surface just off the russian coast to film the disaster ongoing there. Reporting high levels of radiation worldwide. The crews devestated to learn that all their families have been eradicated.

Putin gets debriefed by his submarine commanders patrolling western oceans and decides his next move.

[Landroger]

I have been out every night this week, being a Locum Scout Leader and thus didn't see the programme, but by reading the thread I think I can see the way it played out. And confronted by the fact, then it is possible and even understandable that a Cabinet may conclude that deterrence has failed and thus further destruction is pointless. I am not sure that is entirely true, but I think that point can rest.

My problem is; deterrence will fail and thus lay ones country open to exactly that sort of destruction, if a vital part of that weapon fails. I refer, of course, to the writer of the letters locked away in the special safes of HM RN 'Bombers'.

I have long thought that we, as 'owners' or at least 'payers for' a more or less fool proof nuclear deterrent, would be far safer if any potential enemies could be persuaded to think of us in a particular way. Obviously 'we' are represented by the character of our Prime Minister. Thus is is important for our safety that a potential enemy should not think of him or her as a calm, rational, even kindly person unwilling to cause death on the grand scale, but rather; a blood crazed, homicidal maniac only just restrained from murdering Ambassadors, who could be guaranteed to press the button on merely the threat of Nuclear use.

A potential enemy would only contemplate using such weapons or even conventional arms very likely to overwhelm our defenses, if they thought they could get away with it. If they thought they were dealing with such a touchy b@stard that the wrong look might set him or her off, they would naturally have to review their policy, even if that too was as mad as a box of frogs.

There is another consideration. If anyone here has cast even a curious glance over the majority of Republican Presidential Candidates, I challenge them to say they would feel safer under any one of them, than under Obama or Mrs Clinton or Mr Sanders. I wouldn't trust President Trump further than I could throw him and I would be prepared to pay higher taxes to keep two of our Trident boats at sea. One for East and one, very definitely for West.

Landroger (A normally peace loving Scout Leader)

[Pontius Navigator]

Regarding the war cabinet decision not to retaliate that is indeed their prerogative.

Now consider two situations, first the V-Force. In the face of a BMEWs warning the CinC issues a scramble order. He immediately contacts the PM, gives an immediate sitrep and requests authority to issue a go command.

The PM decides to order no retaliation. The CinC does not issue a Positive Release, the force automatically aborts its mission.

OTOH, failing to contract the PM CinC Bomber, on his own authority issues the positive release, and in the absence of any NATO/US involvement goes Plan B.

The second case, the war cabinet and PM decide not to retaliate. No launch command is given to the SSBN. In the ensuing conflagration the war cabinet is dissolved.

OTOH, failing to receive a specific contact with the CoC the Commander opens his letter of last resort and . . .

If we are to assume the PM may not wish to retaliate then:

He may have said so in the LoLR but this preempts the war cabinet.

Or there may be a method of issuing a mission abort, who knows or rather who cxan say.

[Hangarshuffle]

A better show would have been to have the abortion of British establishment has-been's pitted against a hard faced team of current Russian ex-pats. Compare and contrast the thought process, decision making of both teams. Put it in real time, don't have a pre-determined outcome.
Translators in.
As it was I thought it a terrible programme, a terrible portrayal of our decision making people.
And while we are on it - what the troublesome lady said,.... staking the entire world for 2 million Latvians......who gives an utter **** about them?
Quite how we have allowed NATO to expand to put them into the fold and actually think Britain would really give an utter toss about such people is beyond not just me, but many.

[skippedonce]

And while we are on it - what the troublesome lady said,.... staking the entire world for 2 million Latvians......who gives an utter **** about them?
Quite how we have allowed NATO to expand to put them into the fold and actually think Britain would really give an utter toss about such people is beyond not just me, but many.

But the point for me is that it wasn't NATO that got involved in what ended as a nuclear exchange with Russia, but a coalition of the willing. A non-reaction at 28 to consider that Russia's action in Latvia required a unified response by the members of the Alliance meant that NATO became irrelevant.

[racedo]

What NATO 'aggression' has there been racedo?

The Russian Fencer was shot down for entering Turkish airspace (the Russians have gone very quiet on the subject after the initial furore), and if you're referring to the NATO 'expansion' East, that has only occurred because these nations have asked to join NATO because they fear Russia.

It hasn't gone quiet. Russian aircraft within Syria border and Turkish attempts at a war have backfired, even from within NATO who told them they on their own.

When you have Israel pretty much stating as fact the riches Turkey is getting from smuggling oil from ISIS then tells you what is occurring.


You'll also note that it wasn't NATO that used force of arms to change European borders, and it's not NATO that continues to fatally undermine a sovereign European state for the opaque reasons of its autocratic leader. It wasn't NATO either that shot down a civilian airliner killing nearly 300 innocent people (despite what RT has to say on the subject).

If the Western media mantra is all about Russian aggression, then they're just calling it as it is.

Really so bombing of Serbs in Kosovo was a dream ?
How has NATO's Afghanistan adventure, Libyan adventure turned out again ?
NATO members supporting Islamic terrorism in Syria is there for all to see.

Idea of UK PM ordering nukes to save Turkey is laughable, never mind any of the new NATO countrys.

[melmothtw]

Turkish attempts at a war A war with whom? Russia? I know that is very much the party line being spouted by RT, Sputnik, and the rest of Putin's media machince, but please engage your brain first.

Really so bombing of Serbs in Kosovo was a dream ?


That wasn't 'aggression' - that was a UN-sanctioned response to Serbian genocide (the UN's term, not mine) in the former Yugoslavia. You can no more describe this as NATO aggression than you can describe the allies going to war against the Nazis as 'aggression' against Germany!

How has NATO's Afghanistan adventure, Libyan adventure turned out again ?

Neither has turned out well, but that has nothing to do with the motives for getting involved in the first place. Neither was NATO aggression - the involvement in Afghanistan was in response to the attacks on 9/11, and that in Libya was to prevent a massacre by Gadaffi in Benghazi.

NATO members supporting Islamic terrorism in Syria is there for all to see.

Clearly it isn't. I am sure that you also believe ISIS to be a US/Israeli creation, and that the moon landings were faked.

You can't reason with crazy (or Kremlin trolls).

[Heathrow Harry]

of course the Law of Unintended Consequences may kick in

As no such program could or would ever be made for Russian TV I'm sure there are a load of "threat analysts" around Moscow gibbering:-

"See! See!! They're running programs to prepare their population for N War! A significant number of their ruling classes would be willing to fire the lot at us..... British War Mongers - AGAIN!!!"

[racedo]

A war with whom? Russia? I know that is very much the party line being spouted by RT, Sputnik, and the rest of Putin's media machince, but please engage your brain first.



Lets see Turkey has been funding Al Qaeda and ISIS since 2011 while getting paid via smuggled oil.
That pretty much an open secret in Western media and has been for years. Its why Western Intelligence services have been stationing people in Turkish airports and taking photos. Turkish Govt is jailing anybody who has highlighted or questioned MIT smuggling weapons across the border. So if that is not supporting a war then what is ?



That wasn't 'aggression' - that was a UN-sanctioned response to Serbian genocide (the UN's term, not mine) in the former Yugoslavia. You can no more describe this as NATO aggression than you can describe the allies going to war against the Nazis as 'aggression' against Germany!


How many people were dying again ? And was it Serbia or KLA that started the attacks ?


Neither has turned out well, but that has nothing to do with the motives for getting involved in the first place. Neither was NATO aggression - the involvement in Afghanistan was in response to the attacks on 9/11, and that in Libya was to prevent a massacre by Gadaffi in Benghazi.

Really ?

Majority of 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi citizens so why not go after where they are being spnsored from ?

As for Libya................ again Benghazi and Eastern Libya were main joiners against western forces in Iraq and known Islamic fundamentalist area. Gadaffi had dealt with them before but Western claims of a Benghazi massacre anabled Nato to just bomb what they wanted. End result was known but arms manufacturers have done well out of it.



Clearly it isn't. I am sure that you also believe ISIS to be a US/Israeli creation, and that the moon landings were faked.

You can't reason with crazy (or Kremlin trolls).

Ah so resorting to personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with your interpreatation.

[melmothtw]

Lets see Turkey has been funding Al Qaeda and ISIS since 2011 while getting paid via smuggled oil.
That pretty much an open secret in Western media and has been for years. Its why Western Intelligence services have been stationing people in Turkish airports and taking photos. Turkish Govt is jailing anybody who has highlighted or questioned MIT smuggling weapons across the border. So if that is not supporting a war then what is

I don't doubt that Turkey has some pretty dubious connections with Islamists in the region, and has at times played a duplicitous and dangerous game, but how does does translate into "NATO aggression"?

As for "Its why Western Intelligence services have been stationing people in Turkish airports and taking photos", are you saying that Western (ie NATO) intelligence services are in league with the Turks in this, or operating against them? Your argument for NATO aggression appears to have become muddled.

How many people were dying again ? And was it Serbia or KLA that started the attacks ?

Neither 'question' is relevant to your claim of NATO aggression. The fact is the UN had run out of patience with Milosovic after close to a decade of him causing carnage in the Balkans, and mandated NATO to intervene. You'll remember that Russia too had troops on the ground in that particular operation.

[QUOTE]Really ?

Majority of 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi citizens so why not go after where they are being spnsored from ?

Because they went after where they were operating from, and from where they were likely to operate from again if left to their own devices.

As for Libya................ again Benghazi and Eastern Libya were main joiners against western forces in Iraq and known Islamic fundamentalist area. Gadaffi had dealt with them before but Western claims of a Benghazi massacre anabled Nato to just bomb what they wanted. End result was known but arms manufacturers have done well out of it.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that you can't disprove them - they're like Chinese finger-traps, where the harder you try the deeper you get sucked in. As I said before, you can't reason with crazy (or Kremlin trolls).

Ah so resorting to personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with your interpreatation.

See my comment above.

[AreOut]

"That wasn't 'aggression' - that was a UN-sanctioned response to Serbian genocide (the UN's term, not mine) in the former Yugoslavia. You can no more describe this as NATO aggression than you can describe the allies going to war against the Nazis as 'aggression' against Germany!"

it's because Russia was weak at the moment, it had nothing to do with "genocide" or other made up bs, there are hundreds of thousands Albanians living in other parts of Serbia, if you really believe Serbs were inclined to do those things to Albanians but only on Kosovo then you really are brainwashed

If it happened some 5-10 years later Putin would step in and protect Serbia the same way he protected Syria(actually Assad) from announced american&NATO bombing campaign.

It's called geopolitics and very rarely has anything to do with minor nations like Serbs&Albanians(although these would argue about their "significance").

[melmothtw]

Says the man from (Serbia and) Montenegro. Welcome to NATO, by the way...

[Courtney Mil]

I did my 0-levels at Kelsey Grammer.

Clearly, English wasn't one of them.

So, what do you retaliate against - empty / irrelevant silos & facilities? There may indeed be some utility in 'keeping your powder dry' for the post - exchange environment. Or, if truly you seek vengeance 'Gotterdammerung stylee', sod the cities - swathe the enemy's agricultural lands with groundbursts.

Without the threat of retaliation, there is no deference. It isn't about "vengeance".

[Courtney Mil]

A better show would have been to have the abortion of British establishment has-been's pitted against a hard faced team of current Russian ex-pats. Compare and contrast the thought process, decision making of both teams. Put it in real time, don't have a pre-determined outcome.
Translators in.

Good to see you back to your usual bitter, irrational self.

[Pontius Navigator]

Without the threat of retaliation, there is no deference. It isn't about "vengeance".

Indeed if you threaten retaliation then you reserve the ability to change your mind and show true deference.

But you didn't mean that did you? 😁

[JG54]

Originally posted by Courtney Mil
Without the threat of retaliation, there is no deference. It isn't about "vengeance".

It most assuredly is when you're launching safe in the knowledge that you'll imminently be on the receiving end of ballistic - borne armageddon. But that's all just semantics, really. It's not going to be a 'zero sum' game, whatever the outcome*. The question really, as I see it, is in such circumstances, would it be wiser to keep our tiny force intact as everybody else's birds fly in the hope of being 'the guy with the biggest dick' in whatever remains (which won't be much - and, in itself, that may be reason enough) - or do you launch and add to the overkill? If so, what are you targetting? I have no problem - philosophically or otherwise, with 'retaliation' - or whatever you wish to call it. The question is more which strategic hand to play.

Best,

Frank

*If London is now a smoking, radiological wasteland, it's delusional & naive to believe this remains a 'limited' exchange, regardless of our own actions.

[Pontius Navigator]

JG, interesting point. I entered play right at the end of the re-attack phase of nuclear war. Defence was incomplete, Russian capability was not overwhelming, and we might have had a rearming capability.

A second strike on targets still surviving was considered a possibility. Holding back however was probably not an option as the enemy could still attack you.

Is it different, Could you rely on your SSBNs remaining secure? A hunter killer group using active sonars and brute force might get lucky.

[AreOut]

"Says the man from (Serbia and) Montenegro. Welcome to NATO, by the way..."

yupp we are about to join NATO, Serbia too..should've been so from 1990, Kosovo would stay in Serbia and Serbs would somehow never be genocidal..as if by magic

[JG54]

'Tis but a mire of bad choices, PN, to be sure.

Can you keep the SSBNs (at sea) safe? Probably. Shore establishments / harbours / rearming facilities? Not so much...

However you wrap it up, it seems to me that the only utility of a 'second strike' ability is counter - value. There's no 'counter - force' left (or, likely, none that you have much in the way of resources left to locate). For that matter, the 'counter - value' element is probably moot too. Even if I choose not to target their cities or salt their lands (considerably and deliberately adding to the fallout quota in the process), most everyone left will soon succumb to radiation or (more likely for the larger number) hunger.

Decisions, decisions, eh?

With that in mind, and assuming much / some of the Southern hemisphere remains intact (relatively speaking) in this scenario, might one not wish to retain leverage in the negotiation which begins: 'Dear Argentina*, you will make sure we have the beef / grain that we need, won't you?'

Supremely distasteful, but dire exigencies demand dire provision.

Best,

Frank
*Other hostages may be available.

[TURIN]

What NATO 'aggression' has there been racedo?


...It wasn't NATO either that shot down a civilian airliner killing nearly 300 innocent people (despite what RT has to say on the subject)....



If the Western media mantra is all about Russian aggression, then they're just calling it as it is.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder eh?

USS Vincennes anyone?


I didn't watch all of the program, just the first ten minutes or so, did the discussion go anywhere near the subject of what is a survivable nuclear exchange? IE. what is the least number of nuclear explosions to effectively end civilisation as we know it? Would a limited exchange effect the atmosphere, (nuclear winter) enough to make everyone else who is not involved suffer just as badly.

[pasta]

Was thinking about this particular scenario last night...

A lot of the escalation on the Russian side is driven by the desire of one individual (the leader) to protect his status and save his skin. So what if the letter of last resort says something like:

"Sit tight, listen to what's going on, and wait for news that the leader is in a specific location/city. Once you receive this news, launch a limited strike against that location. Make all efforts to clear the launch area undetected, continue to listen for news, and repeat as required."

You could even send a copy of the letter to the targetted individual.

Assumes a certain level of SIGINT capability on the part of the SSBN, but that might be plausible.

So where's the hole in my argument?

[Pontius Navigator]

The flaw lies in the collection and transmission of the 'news' and its reliability. You say 'repeat as required' which admits the reliability will be less than 100%.

In your sack a mole scenario there is can chance that the leader can scurry to a different mole hill. Wack 16 at once then you might get him.

[falcon900]

I have difficulty in imagining Putin launching a nuclear strike against NATO members or anyone else, for the simple reason that he has nothing to gain by doing so, and runs the risk of losing a great deal (despite what the BBC programme would suggest)
He would surely be much better served by utilising his vast conventional forces to seize whatever he likes/needs? What could/ would NATO do faced with an enemy on this scale, on the ground, and with a seeming tolerance for attrition well beyond our own? We stood back in WW2 until the Red Army hard worn the Wermacht down. Would we be willing to take them on with our dramatically reduced military capability?
Having been a lifelong supporter of our nuclear deterrent and our military, I do now find myself wondering whether Trident is a blind alley, and whether we should be spending the money on our conventional forces instead.
The nuclear threat I fear would come in a suitcase from some terrorist, not from Russia.

[JG54]

Falcon900: You fail to realise that, as history shows, plenty of ostensibly 'sane' individuals have pulled some pretty crazy sh*t in situations where there is no perceived gain or advantage. Also, Russia's 'vast' conventional forces are nowhere near as vast they once were. Plus, an entire generation have grown up with the idea of 'democracy'. Doubt they'd go so willingly to their doom for The Rodina as is true of their WWII comrades (would they ever have done, anyway??).

Trident, lest you choose the ICBM route (plenty pitfalls there & not practical for us anyway), remains the only credible option for strategic deterrence. Some lower - level tac options would be nice too, mind.

Nor do 'suitcase' bombs exist - at least not in the way you imagine them to, anyhow. What might be contained within a ships hold, however is another matter entirely.

Oh, and we didn't 'stand back' until the Wermacht had been bled dry, either. I think you'll find we were fighting in North Africa (and elsewhere) whilst building the necessary materiel for an invasion force. Or would you have us mount a 'reverse Sealion' in barges??

Best,
Frank

[dead_pan]

The Russian nuclear strike did seem more than a little disproportionate, given we'd only just retaken a town in Latvia. And anyway I doubt the Yanks would have waited around, let alone asked our opinion, before getting their counterstrike in.

For what its worth, my play would have been as follows: Deploy said multinational force, bosltered by elements from the 'coalition of the willing, to the contested Latvian-Russian border under the guise of securing NATO's border, thereby cutting off the rebel held town. Issue an ultimatum for all forces in the pocket to lay down their weapons, or face the consequences. Oh, issue orders for HMS Ocean not to sail anywhere near a US carrier (yes, yes - hindsight and all that)...

I too thought the LibDem peer was a total waste of space. Staggered that at some point she seemed to suggest cutting the Latvians loose. Evidently she didn't quite grasp the founding principles of NATO.

It was a shame the programme kind of petered out at the end just as it was getting more intereresting.

[Willard Whyte]

Nor do 'suitcase' bombs exist - at least not in the way you imagine them to, anyhow.

Well, in what way do you think he might imagine them? A nuclear bomb can certainly be made small enough to fit in a suitcase. The (American) W54's nuclear system had a diameter of 10 3/4", a length of 15 3/4" and weighed ~50lbs*. The yield could vary from 10 to 250 tons**. It was built in the early 1960s.

*coincidentally the same as checked-in baggage allowance on most major carriers!
**reports have mentioned 6kt, which seems a little high.

The Russian RA-115 is a similar type but may be a little heavier.

[falcon900]

JG54,
Are you suggesting that launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Britain is less crazy than invading contiguous countries with conventional forces?
I of course accept that Russia's conventional forces are not what they once were, but then neither are ours. Do you really think we would prevail "toe to toe"?
As for standing off in WW2, I was not intending any criticism of judgement or our forces, but a read of Churchill's war diaries would show you the lengths we and the US went to to ensure the Red Army did the heavy lifting against the Wermacht. The casualty figures are a shorthand version of the story.
To put my argument another way, I think the only nuclear threats we should be worrying about come from people (terrorists) who we cant launch retaliatory strikes against. Putin's interests lie in retaking territory on his borders. He has the conventional means to do this, and we (NATO) have neither the means nor the inclination to do much about it. At best, we would impose sanctions. Oops, we've already done that.....
In any event, Trident and its successor don't seem to give us a lot of strategic options and cost a fortune. We would have a lot more options if we used the money on our conventional forces

[JG54]

I believe the dimensions and weights stated (in the case of the W54) are for the 'pits' only and not the other systems necessary for a full, working system as seen here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54#/media/File:SADM_container_H-912.jpg

That's not particularly inconspicuous, is it? Don't fancy me chances of blagging one of them thru customs. And I see no Samsonite nor other garment carriage systems here, either :)

Best
Frank

[Boy_From_Brazil]

This baby must have given our military planners food for thought.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVLL_25gog

Thankfully not fully in service yet...

[JG54]

Falcon900: Having checked both my syntax and the crazy - o -meter (TM), no, I don't believe I'm suggesting that at all. :)

As for Churchill's (heavily selective / edited?) war diaries, well, I'm sure they make for an interesting and insightful read, an' all, but as to being 'policy' rather than consequence? Hmm. I'm pretty sure there wasn't much practical impetus for an invasion of Europe until 1./ US troops had some real, current combat experience, mano e mano mit Fritz (see North Africa) & 2/. Flat bottomed landing craft - a -plenty were on hand (see also Dieppe).

What was it he said about history being written by the victors, & him being one of the historians?

I'm also fairly sure that Putin's interests lie wherever the hell he decides they lie on any given day / mood / whim.

To me, it seems prudent to hedge one's bets against all possible threats, nuclear or otherwise and nation - state or otherwise. Trident (and the boats), over the lifetime of the system is not so expensive at all (proportionately) - it's a trap constructed by those who wish to manipulate your opinion just so. Personally, I'm a firm advocate of strength in all areas military - conventional and non - conventional.

Best,

Frank

[JG54]

BFB: I believe, in the current vernacular, 'Meh' would be a suitable response.

Nothing not already done or being done elsewhere. Personally, I like Merkava IV and variants.

Best,

Frank

[RAFEngO74to09]

JG54,

There was a man-portable version of the W54 - the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). You could certainly get one into countries which had access from sea.

https://miepvonsydow.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/h.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

[peter we]

Putin's interests lie in retaking territory on his borders. He has the conventional means to do this, and we (NATO) have neither the means nor the inclination to do much about it. At best, we would impose sanctions. Oops, we've already done that.....

Russias conventional forces are vastly inferior to Nato in both number and quality. After the decades of decay of the Soviet period, Russian through years of further economic decay and only recently tried to modernise.

Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?

[JG54]

Yes, RafEng - I posted a link to a pic in post #67 (couldn't upload the damn thing!) - let's hope that the bad guys don't have access to the Russian equivalent and a decent, sea worthy vessel. The problem I have is in seeing these things touted as 'suitcase bombs / nukes' rather than their existence. Mainly as it implies that they COULD be put in luggage & carried around freely.

I think we can take heart from the fact that, despite many rumours of such devices being unaccounted for, were any in 'the wild', surely the bad men would have used same already.

That Davy Crockett is an interesting, little anachronism, btw. I once nuked my local takeaway at its max useable range (via Nukemap) for stuffing up my order only to discover that I would've shattered all my windows (for pretend, clearly) and bathed myself in lovely, ionising radiation. Truly, a 'duck and cover' weapon!

Best,

Frank

[RAFEngO74to09]

An interesting account here:

The Littlest Boy | Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/30/the-littlest-boy/)

[Pontius Navigator]

JG54,
Are you suggesting that launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Britain is less crazy than invading contiguous countries with conventional forces?

Not sure where this came from but in the context there is now no purpose or advantage in a nuclear strike on UK as we have no significant intervention capability in a European context. Attacking Germany and Poland would be better.

However in the context of a UK war game the action has to involve UK and its nuclkeat option.

[Pontius Navigator]

Not to be out done we had our own ADM Blue Peacock. Even the Royal Navy wanted to get involver laying a Red Beard in the Tuloma River.

[RAFEngO74to09]

PN,

Indeed - complete with live chickens inside to stop the mechanism from freezing once deployed ! Not quite in the same league as SADM.

Cancelled as politically unacceptable.

http://cdn.damninteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/282961.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock

[racedo]

Russias conventional forces are vastly inferior to Nato in both number and quality. After the decades of decay of the Soviet period, Russian through years of further economic decay and only recently tried to modernise.

Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?

So lets see Western Military kept modernising in that period of time and in Afghanistan and Iraq were shown to be sending people out in poor armoured vehicles with the result many did not return home, so yet another round of modernisation has occurred since, Only impact is to make Military Industrial Complex richer.

Now Russia you could say missed 2 decades of spending billions on equipment but has in last couple of years. BUT Russia is not modernising equipment to 1990's standards, its doing it to today's.

The idea of talking down ability or your opponent and talking up your own ability is as old as the hills, hell just over 100 years ago it will all be over by Christmas as we are superior to German / Austian Hungarian / Ottoman Empires was the refrain.

75 years ago Hitler thought the same.

Only a fool underestimates their opponent and you can have better equipment but that alone doesn't bring victory.

[Pontius Navigator]

RAFEng, indeed, Green lobby meets Animal Rights.

Was that picture taken when it was at Wittering or later in the factory museum where I saw it?

[ExRAFRadar]

This baby must have given our military planners food for thought.....

Tank moves and turns turret at same time.

It will never catch on. Oh wait......

;)

[A_Van]

I think this film is very useful. Would be good if it were shown in Russia with a professional translation (like they do it with Hollywood movies) on some of open channels (BBC is always part of a paid package). Though it is not worth a dime/penny from a military standpoint, IMHO it is not the main message to take into account and give a careful thought.

IMHO, it shows how fragile and imperfect is the current world order we are living with. Indeed, a group of 7-8 wise and knowledgeable people are forced (by the situation) to make strategic decisions nearly in real time, sitting somewhere in an isolated room and being fed by the info/data from other people with their interpretation. Technically speaking, the chain is error prone at each step. No matter how wise are you, you cannot make a dozen of right decisions in a row. And any error could be fatal. The "other" (read Russian) side is not shown, but it is obvious that in a similar room somewhere in Moscow the situation would be even worse because all those present there would be from the same camp, just listening to the chief guy (in UK there are at least are 2 competing parties). US is somewhere in between, IMHO (at least as it was with JFK during the Cuban crisis).

With all that said, IMHO the film clearly shows (though it is hidden behind the scene) that diplomats and politicians in the modern world are not doing their jobs well enough, while "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".

Again referring to technical systems, there should be an "early detection" capability for any potential problem and effective mechanisms working 24/7 not to allow the situation to quickly advance to the critical line when some mad guys "on top of the hill" could either give an order to press the red (nuke) button or even let it be pressed without an order. E.g., we see it now how quickly the level of tension zoomed between Russia and Turkey (a UK "brother-in-NATO"). One more aircraft is down and hell knows where all this would go in one night.

Ideally, there should be calm, open and not time pressing/constrained discussions about real red lines giving certain respect to "holy cows" at each side, including informal ones. If the western leaders know (and they should know) that the issue of Russian-speaking minorities in the neighbouring countries is quite painful and very important to the Kremlin, why not to order their new vassals to behave accordingly? It costs nothing.... Instead, they close their eyes and allow ultra-nationalists do what they want.

[AreOut]

"Why would you think Russia's military is capaable of anything?"

because in Syria they did significantly more in 4 months than western coalition in a year?

[Pontius Navigator]

A Van :D