BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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"
and that depends on what is the letter I guess............. TBH since Mrs T I doubt that any PM was written "fire the lot"
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 4th Feb 2016 at 18:39.
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
FB
PN-Healey
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
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.
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?
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?
I note that Western Media mantra is all about Russian aggression where as anything NATO members do seems to be seen as being ok
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)