BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the Western media mantra is all about Russian aggression, then they're just calling it as it is.
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.
Turkish attempts at a war
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.
You can't reason with crazy (or Kremlin trolls).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!"
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!!!"
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!
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.
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).
You can't reason with crazy (or Kremlin trolls).
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 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
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 ?
[quote]
Really ?
Majority of 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi citizens so why not go after where they are being spnsored from ?
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.
Ah so resorting to personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with your interpreatation.
"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").
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").
Originally Posted by XV480
I did my 0-levels at Kelsey Grammer.
Originally Posted by JG54
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
Translators in.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally posted by Courtney Mil
Without the threat of retaliation, there is no deference. It isn't about "vengeance".
Without the threat of retaliation, there is no deference. It isn't about "vengeance".
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
"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
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
'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.
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.
Last edited by JG54; 6th Feb 2016 at 00:17. Reason: Addendum.
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.
...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.
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.
Retaliation
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?
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?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.