Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Military United Kingdom

Queen's WWIII Speech Revealed 147

EzInKy writes "This BBC article provides details of the script the United Kingdom's Queen was to deliver in the event of a nuclear holocaust. The document, released by the government under the 30-year rule, was drawn up as part of a war-gaming exercise in the spring of 1983, working through potential scenarios. In it, the Queen was expected to urge the people of the United Kingdom to 'pray' in the event of a nuclear war. Although it was only a simulation, the text of the Queen's address — written as if broadcast at midday on Friday 4 March 1983 — seeks to prepare the country for the ordeal of World War III. The script reads: 'Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds. I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me. But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.'" I prefer Tom Lehrer's approach.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Queen's WWIII Speech Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • by SJester ( 1676058 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @04:51PM (#44451017) Journal
    This was a waste of time, OP. RTFA - the speech was not written for the Queen, it was never intended to be read by the Queen under any circumstances. It was scripted for a wargame scenario, a fictional engagement. You might as well post the inspiring speech written for the US President in the film "Independence Day."
  • Reagan's sound check (Score:4, Informative)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @04:59PM (#44451103) Homepage Journal

    Just over a year later, on August 11, 1984, President Reagan's sound-check could have given her a chance to use the speech if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

  • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @05:26PM (#44451361) Journal

    Apparently someone who was not alive or mature yet during the Cold War.

    It sounds laughable today, but back then the threat was very scary and real. WWWIII almost happened several times from the Cuban Missile Crises, to faulty radars for NORAD, to this being misinterpreted, to several instances of American fighters from Alaskan accidentally flying into Siberian airspace.

    If nuclear war would have happened it would have consisted of several hundred nuclear bombs, radiation, a nuclear winter, and perhaps a new ice age if big enough with dust.

    The USSR and its satellite republics owned 1/3 of the world and the influence of communism was growing and spreading which is why Americans got involved in both Korea and Vietnam.

    It sounds laughable to the millenial generation probably smirking at this, but as a child we had drills in our schools and TV shows demonstrating what would have happened once the first nuclear launch happened.

  • by ledow ( 319597 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @05:41PM (#44451469) Homepage

    Perhaps you missed that most of the British Royal Family have served and fought in wars at one time or another. Possible exception of the Queen Mother, I suppose.

    One of the current princes was out flying Apache gunships and has spoken of gunning down terrorist camps in Afghanistan from it. His brother also served. And his father.

    I'm about as far from a royalist as you can get, but you can't claim they don't serve - in fact they have more military time than anyone else I know - and not just as back-end colonels pushing about figures on a wargaming board like it used to be.

  • by Zedrick ( 764028 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @05:44PM (#44451505)
    There's a very good documentary about it:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/1983-the-brink-of-apocalypse [channel4.com]

    Well worth watching (and available on TPB)
  • Re:Seriously? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Antipater ( 2053064 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @06:00PM (#44451641)
    How is that not quite the same thing? As soon as the kids were old enough to realize what nuclear war actually entailed, they were smart enough to know that duck-and-cover wouldn't save them. So it just served to make them more afraid. Fear of nuclear war was a very real and potent force in the back of people's minds. That's GP's entire point. Something like this speech is meaningless to a Millennial, who has never known that fear. But to someone who lived through it it's a very stirring reminder of an age gone by.
  • by Empiric ( 675968 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @06:43PM (#44452069)
    Or, more overtly on the topic, the lesser-known "Hammer to Fall"...

    For we who grew up tall and proud
    In the shadow of the mushroom cloud
    Convinced our voices can't be heard
    We just wanna scream it louder and louder

    What the hell we fighting for?
    Just surrender and it won't hurt at all
    You just got time to say your prayers
    While you're waiting for the hammer to fall
  • by Colin Douglas Howell ( 670559 ) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @07:14PM (#44452321)

    Yeah they serve all right.. I'm guessing it's not too terribly dangerous to fly about in an armored helicopter shooting at a bunch of asiatic hillbillies with AK-47s.

    With AK-47s, and heavy machine guns, and RPG launchers, and portable surface-to-air missiles and such. Oh, and there's always the risks of bad weather and mechanical failure inherent to helicopter flight. Helicopters are dangerous, period, and the Apaches are far from invulnerable. A number have been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some crews have died.

    In general, when a piece of military hardware is heavily protected, it also faces powerful threats that make that protection necessary. Otherwise it'd just be carrying extra dead weight that would better be replaced with useful equipment. The military isn't in the business of building invulnerable weapons or letting soldiers fight in "god mode".

    And don't you think their opponents wouldn't love to have the coup of bringing down a royal? Just by being in the combat zone, they put themselves at risk.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02, 2013 @03:12AM (#44454219)

    Prince Andrew.
    Prince William was in the planning stages back then. :)

  • Re:Also (Score:5, Informative)

    by allcoolnameswheretak ( 1102727 ) on Friday August 02, 2013 @05:04AM (#44454569)

    Not sure about a zombie apocalypse speech, but if you want apocalyptic speeches for zombies, tune in to Fox News commentators.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...