BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
 

World War Three: Inside the War Room

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

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

Still, bog-all else on :)

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.

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

I think Putin & Corbyn would have loved it.

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

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

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.

...and Ballistic Missile Defence!

BBC2 2100 3 Feb 16 - WWIII Inside the War Room
 

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

Programme was notable for its lack of light blue expertise.

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

The 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.

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

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.

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

...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.

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

Good point!

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

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.

"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......................

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......

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

"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"

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.

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

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.

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:)

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

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.

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.

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

Interesting letter you got there....

TO

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

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

I did my English 0-level at Kelsey Grammer.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)