


UK Cold War Era Nuclear War Plans Revealed 200
NicerGuy writes "The BBC reports that documents from 1975, recently released by the National Archives, detail in part the UK's plan in the event of nuclear strikes during the Cold War. An audio download of the prepared radio broadcast is available. Several other topics are covered." From the article: "Further documents released this week reveal that two pandas in London Zoo sparked fears a diplomatic rift could flare up between Britain and China in the 1970s."
A transcript (Score:4, Funny)
Linux users need not apply (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair to them as well, they do give you a choice, if that counts for anything.
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:5, Funny)
Easy, they call The DOCTOR.
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/dload.ht
and download the essential codecs package.
Un-bunzip it and copy the contents of the resulting folder into
If you put mozilla and mozplugger on you can then play embedded media (make sure that konqueror is set for the plugins dirs).
Sadly, the BBC is still using closed formats but they do have a fully open audio/video codec in development that they will hopefully use in future.
BTW No, I don't work for the BBC but they are one of the few organisations in Britain worth caring about.
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2)
As far as I know 32 bit mplayer runs on 64 bit systems and you need that (I think) for the Win32 codecs which are only available in 32 bits as many are legacy all the way back to win 3.1 era. There is a 64 bit version of mplayer but then you have to abandon the win32 codecs and use the OSS equivalents which are rather limited. I am not sure about Win64 codecs compatibility with mplayer 64 bit.
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2)
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2, Informative)
https://player.helixcommunity.org/ [helixcommunity.org]
Not only does it work perfectly, standalone and as a plugin, it's better than the Windows Real* players.
And, if you don't want to use the plugin, you could just view the html of the page and get the link to it, then open it in a standalone player... mplayer, realplayer, vlc.. etc.
Works with mplayer without any binary-only dlls (Score:2, Informative)
mplayer rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/media/avdb/news_web/a
without the need for any evil binary-only dlls.
Re:Linux users need not apply (Score:2)
There is a free
They don't need to worry now (Score:3, Funny)
They all moved on to Slashdot.
For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads"... (Score:2, Informative)
It's an awesome move, too!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ [imdb.com]
Re:For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads" (Score:2)
It terrified me.
Re:For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads" (Score:2)
Do you have
Re:For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads" (Score:2)
Re:For Another Take, Check Out The Movie "Threads" (Score:2)
Threads follows two families who live in Sheffield. One family is a well-to-do middle class family, as far as you can gather, the man of the house is a manager or en
Poland did that too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
A link to that content would be nice?
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
Re:Poland did that too (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Re:Poland did that too (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like NATO was going to shoot it's nukes harmlessly off into some empty desert.
It was going to be a real nasty fooking war if it happened and very likely the West would have started tossing nukes first because the Warsaw Pact had greatly superior quantities of ground forces.
During the cold war one of the catchy phrases in the military industrial complex was that NATO forces were going to have a "Target rich environment". That means their asses were going to get run over.
Re:Poland did that too (Score:3, Funny)
Well, it was going to attack Russia. Close enough, IMHO.
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
The final deployed
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
It was expected to be about 3 to 1, but the equipment and training of the west was not so bad and in many areas superior and remember too that most of the Western forces were and still are volunteers.
There are quite a few wars or battles where a numerically superior foe has been decimated by one that is inferior in numbers...
However, a Third World War would have certainly been different from any other, indeed even if conventional I am certai
Re:Poland did that too (Score:2)
Somone else mentioned the Davy Crocket, which is a tube launched very short ranged rocket, not a mortar. One is on display in the Ft. Benning, GA museum mounted on a jeep.
Wouldn't that be... (Score:5, Funny)
Furthermore, my friends and I play a lot of pen-and-paper role-playing games set in Europe (Call of Cthulhu mainly) and they always accuse me of a "lack of realism" in the manner in which my characters behave. My response to said friends? "They're British. They boil their meat. They drink warm beer. I don't have to explain their unusual behavior; just play the damn game."
I can now add: "They'd let their entire population be atomized in order to wipe out the 'hippie menace.'"
Probably economic liquidation (Score:4, Informative)
In addition to facing a nuclear threat (vaporization) there was a serious possibility that the country might collapse economically (liquidation).
Eventually the government got support from the IMF.
Of course the Soviet Union might have taken advantage of the situation if an economic collapse did happen in which case you might have had both sequentially.
Lots of different government papers got released at the same time, so it tends to get reported together.
It would have been nice ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a UK resident it would be nice to know the kind of broadcast I'd be hearing the moment all other mediums went down. I have no idea if we even have an emergency broadcast channel or radio station.
Aside from always watching the big 4.7 (Channel five only counts as
I won't get in to the whole "We have plans to make sure we can run the country, even if the rest of the country is dead, injured or suffering from radiation poisoning" thing, that's for another rant.
Re:It would have been nice ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It would have been nice ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think if a similar plan existed today, they would keep TV channels running. More people have working/decent TVs now than radios. Many that do have radios they use often are either mains powered, or DAB anyway. The internet would have to play some role too in telling people what w
Re:It would have been nice ... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the early 1980s, the government also issued Protect and Survive: the leaflets and some of the public information broadcasts are here: http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/atomic/ [demon.co.uk]
Seattle Cold War Civil Defense Manual (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seattle Cold War Civil Defense Manual (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a fascinating era, wildly optomistic in some ways (paint your home with reflective white paint to ward off radiation...) and terrifying in others (stay in your city after the atomic explosion and fight the invaders). There's a great collection of public interest films here; It includes the original "Duck and Cover" movie, as well as the "Operation Cue" experiment. A fantastic resource.
Re:Seattle Cold War Civil Defense Manual (Score:2)
Hit with a nuclear weapon? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hit with a nuclear weapon? (Score:2)
Bend Over, Kiss Ass Goodbye! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bend Over, Kiss Ass Goodbye! (Score:2)
Besides, I'd want hard liquor at that point.
Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:4, Informative)
Britain gave us "Threads [imdb.com]" which scared you shitless.
Also "When the Wind Blows [toonhound.com]" should be mentioned.
Re:Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:2)
Re:Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:2)
The War Game http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059894/ [imdb.com] is another stunning mid sixties british docu
Re:Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:2)
Re:Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:2)
Re:Britain had the best post-nuke TV specials (Score:2)
Two (or more) separate topics here. (Score:2, Informative)
The article is about some of the interesting tidbits from this archival release which are by and large unrelated to eachother.
The part about Saddam is very interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Nostalgia (Score:2)
Raise your hand if you still have pinto beans and 2L coke bottles filled with tap water and 1 tsp bleach in your basement from 1999.
I thought so...
Actual documents on National Archives Web Site? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Actual documents on National Archives Web Site? (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that the national archives puts together a list of highlights of what is going to be available and this is what the BBC is reporting on.
Mark
from the End of the World flash (Score:2, Redundant)
Russia's like, "AAAAHHHH, MOTHERLAND!"
Then, England's like... "'bout that time, ey chaps?"
"... Righto."
Link Re:from the End of the World flash (Score:2)
"Alaska can come too"
Oh and happy new year!
Pandas eat shoots and leaves (Score:5, Funny)
"Why? Why are you behaving in this strange, un-panda-like fashion?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda walks towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
From Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss
antique war plans (Score:5, Interesting)
Raiding The Icebox [washingtonpost.com]
I figure the Canadians will never forgive US for neglecting to conquer them.
Years back, I went to Tijuana and looked around and thought, "this place needs adult supervision." And a few years after that, I went to Sault Ste. Marie and saw the perfectly manicured lawns, clean streets, and perfect order. And I thought, "this place has a bit too much adult supervision."
Details revealed (Score:3, Funny)
It won't help, but nor will anything else.
Re:Details revealed (Score:2)
BBC's The War Game movie (Score:2, Informative)
More War Plans (Score:3, Funny)
"In the event of a nuclear strike on the City of London transport links will almost certainly be disrupted and many commuters will be unable to get home. Tea and biscuits will therefore be served on tressle tables in Hyde Park to those requiring refreshment"
Now I know why my Grandfather dug a bunker in the back yard.
Ed Almos
Re:Black-and-white nukes... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Black-and-white nukes... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Black-and-white nukes... (Score:2)
Re:Black-and-white nukes... (Score:2)
Re:A nuclear war for two pandas! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A nuclear war for two pandas! (Score:3, Funny)
That was the sound of a joke. You might have not been able to hear it, as it seems to have passed miles above your head.
Nuke the Pandas! (Score:2)
Re:Nuke the Pandas! (Score:2)
- Lisa Simpson
Re:BEER! (Score:2)
Re:BEER! (Score:2)
They weren't kidding when they said 'Guiness is good for you', were they? That was the actual Guiness slogan in the UK not too long ago, maybe it still is. Pub lifeforms will thrive in a post-apocalyptic world, with Guiness and a nice hot kidney pie, yum.
I, for one, welcome our new Dublin-based stoutmeister overlords. Salud!
Re:BEER! (Score:2)
Are you trying to be funny, or what? The amount of fallout generated by a nuclear explosion [atomicarchive.com] is small only when compared to a continent, but perhaps not [atomicarchive.com]. As for the "ingested/inhaled" part - so you think people can just go round choosing not to
Re:BEER! (Score:2)
The intensity can vary depending on the kind of strike and the altitude of the detonation. Ground bursts are extremely radioactively dirty - the neutron flux makes the ground that was evaporated highly radioactive. This is sucked up as the mushroom cloud goes up, and is deposited downwind. It is extremely lethal for the first couple of days, and the danger decreases. It generally isn't safe for a couple of weeks.
Air bursts tend to cause less fall out, esp
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm...yes and no. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and her 'satellite states', the threat for MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has virtually disappeared. I mean, twenty years ago the image of thousands of ICBMs crossing each other in opposite directions was palpable, while now it almost sounds like the hysterical folly of Cold War doomsayers. The missiles are still there, but the Politburo has gone the way of the dodo, along with the itchy-trigger-finger military an
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that if any of those scenarios happen, it's not unlikely that events will spiral out of control afterwards, leading to the eventual launch of all those still-existing ICBMs.
Just look at all the crazy stuff that's happened in response to 9/11, then imagine multiplyin
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:4, Interesting)
If the US ever traced a detonated nuclear weapon back to another nation, and it was clear that that nation handed over the nuclear weapon intentionally, they would be fux00red. The US would invade at the bare minimum, and probably glass them over if they thought such an invasion would fail. North Korea in particular would be a candidate for glassing, while Iran would be a candidate for a limited nuking and a full scale invasion. Whatever the case, the nation in question probably would stand no chance to fire back. Playing nuclear war with Washington is a horrible idea. Unless you own a few thousand nukes, the US is not only going to win, but probably win without taking a scratch because they can drop a nuke on any spot even so much as suspected as housing nukes. If Washington has to guess where your remaining nukes are, they will leave no stone unglassed.
Now, to make the situation even uglier, consider if Israel was nuked. The US would likely try and show some restraint if they thought they could achieve their ends and avoid further attacks without glassing a nation over. Glassing a nation is a way to make the prospect of nuclear war too horrible to ever be considered again, but obviously involves mass whole sale genocide. The US might balk at genocide if other options existed. Israel on the other hand would show absolutely no such restraint. Israel would have no compulsions about making a lesson out of the offending nation. Israel would almost certainly glass the entire nation. While Israel doesn't have enough weapons to glass the world, they do have more then enough to glass over any Middle Eastern nation.
All that said, the real loss in life might not be in the actual nukes themselves. The real loss of life would come in the complete collapse of financial markets. People would flee the cities. Societies would spread out very quickly. This sudden change would have disastrous effects on economics. Developed nations would likely find themselves in a deep depression. The effects on the developed would be sever, but the resulting collapse of the world economy would be even worse on developing nations. Such a depression would ravage the economies of developing nations, resulting in mass starvation.
Moral of the story? Nukes = teh sux
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:2)
Amen.
I don't want to be alive to see any of the situations you describe. What particularly worries me is the "Glassing over a nation to act as a deterrent".
My boss at work is ex-Army. His solution to all the trouble in the world? Turn Mecca to glass. I guess I just don't buy the idea that you can seriously scare people into submission, once and for all. If we glassed Mecca, for example, we'd stand a very good chance that every single peaceful Islamic community in ev
Finally - MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally, someone on
If a nuke was set off in any part of the US, no current politician would be able to resist the public outcry...no make that demands, to glass an entire country or region. The rise of public opinion would be stronger than WWI, WWII, KW, and Vietnam combined! If the person in power here in the US didn't retaliate with nukes I would be willing to bet they would be ousted and replaced with someone who would. An event like that as
Re:Finally - MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally - MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fear that they would sell to a terrorist organization is very well founded. Further, the fear that Israel would respond to a nuke being used in its territory by glassing over a piece of the Middle East is very well founded. The scenario is not hard to imagine.
Pick your favorite Palestinian resistance group that has state or pseudo state backing. Both Iran and Syria either actively support some of these groups, or blatantly turn a blind eye to them. Imagine if such a group bought a nuke from North Korea. They throw it in a boat, park it off Tel-Aviv, then detonate. They then make their usual claim of responsibility. Now Iran or Syria is sitting there with their pants down. I don't doubt for a single instance that Israel would nuke the capital of any nation that looked even a little guilty of harboring that group. Further, you need to realize that it wouldn't matter if the nation harboring the terrorist rounded up all of them and shot them the next day. Israel [i]would[/i] make an example of them regardless of what they did. There isn't a doubt in my mind that at least one Middle Eastern city would be nuked, if not more.
Now you are sitting there with a very pissed off Iran or Syria. Hell, it isn't like these nations ever liked Israel to begin with, but could you imagine how they would feel after getting nuked? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where this mess would lead.
Nukes are bad, m'kay? Any nation that gets nuked will nuke someone else back if they can find a target. Nukes are horrible weapons of mass destruction, and most nations would make a lesson out of any nation that would dare to use them. If Britain, the US, or (and especially) Israel had a nuke used on them, these nations would respond in overwhelmingly violent manner for the singular purpose of leaving in the history of the world a genocidal incident showing just how horrible these weapons can be.
I sure as hell hope no nukes go off in my life time, because you can rest assure that if one nuke goes off, another one is going to follow somewhere else.
My Bad (Score:2)
I am glad to see someone else on here finally gets it.
Re:Finally - MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
As for the risk of depleted uranium being fired in combat zones, the WHO
Critical thinking... (Score:2)
First off I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself for your dislogic, listening to FUD, and inability to think critically.
Secondly, if we were after oil then we simply would've occupied/plundered from Kuwait and called it a "protection royalty". Why invade Iraq when we have a country that only exists because at our pleasure - Kuwait?
Third, no oil has really been removed from Iraq; at least not to the US. If there was a greater supply on t
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:2)
No.
SAC is likewise gone, absorbed into Air Combat Command. They quit flying round the clock alert long, long ago. After Desert Storm (1991) there were no longer B-52's on 15 minute ground alert.
A little history [afa.org] on the BUFF.
Can't agree (Score:4, Insightful)
The first reason for a nuclear war would be desperation. The reason the US and the USSR never had a ground war and kept their proxy wars limited was that neither wanted to push the other to the edge.
The other reason to start a nuclear war is that you might think you could actually win. This was one if the reasons anyone with a brain was so against star wars (No not the prequels the space defence program of the reagan era) as it could make the US think it could win a nuclear war or even worse make the USSR think it had no choice but to strike before the US became invulnerable.
Now lets look at the world today. US still working on Star Wars. A reaganite in the white house. USSR collapsed and in huge uncertainty of what is going to happen next with the US doing everything it can to upset the russian goverment and people.
China is still there with the old goverment possibly feeling attacked by the capatalist west.
The rogue nations don't matter. none of them are capable of triggering the lethal mutual exchange of weapons. Even as you suggest a dirty bomb in NY would cause the US to whipe muslims from the face of the earth, so what? No rogue nation has the capability to retaliate in force.
Only the former USSR and china and of course the US got the arsenal to create this end of the world scenario. Right at this moment it seems unlikely to happen BUT then again the same could have been said at the hight of the cold war.
The greatest threat I can see if russia/USSR continues on its slide to a 3rd world nation. Their is already a lot of sentement in russia to go back to a communist goverment. The whole collapse of the USSR rested on the believe that it would bring better times. So far this has not happened in fact the majority of the citizens have never had it so bad. A reforming of the USSR itself would be no threath (why should they reform just to commit suicide) but the reaction of the US might bring us right back to the days of the cold war with one tiny difference. This time the russians would have a lot of resentment. Think germany pre-ww2.
No, I don't think world war 3 The nuclear edition is going to happen but it is not impossible either. If anything the collapse of the cold war has made a World War 3 more likely. The world has lost a lot of stability while the US has gained a lot of perceived invulnerability. During the cold war the US more or less behaved because it did not want to push the russians to far. Will the US be so restrained? The war on terror would suggest not (perhaps this is World War 3? Remember WW2 had a longer pre-history then the invasion of poland.). The US can't even be bothered to be nice to its NATO allies anymore.
Strangely enough I do not think the risk comes from N. Korea or similar directly. To strike would be suicide. You do not commit suicide unless you think there is no other choice. The real threath is the rest of the world mostly the US pushing these nations into a corner.
Re:Can't agree (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because a Star Wars program could let the US win a nuclear war. You win a nuclear war by hitting their nukes while still on the ground or otherwise preventing their nukes from hitting you. If Soviet missiles could be removed mid-flight, that gives the US the opportunity to win.
The other way to "win" is to nuke the other guy's silos before their launch. The problem with that is that is exactly what the other guy is planning on doing as well, and you end up with the vast majority of nukes pointed at The Other Guy's nukes, with only a slim minority left over targeted at something other than a missile silo. This is why the USA and the USSR each had thousand of nukes, to hit the other side's thousands of nukes.
"China is still there with the old goverment possibly feeling attacked by the capatalist west."
China doesn't have the missiles or the warheads. They never did. The US has around 2000 if I remember correctly, while PRC has maybe over 100, and not all of them are capable of crossing the Pacific (Hawaii and Alaska may be SOL, but...). If PRC tried to play catch-up with the US arsenal, the US could likely build 2 nuclear-tipped ICBMs for every 1 the Chinese could, and that's on top of the current disparity.
China has zero prosects for a successful nuclear war with the United States. The US could hit each and every one of China's launch sites and still have 3/4 of their missiles left over to do whatever. China's missiles are more intended for India or Japan than the US.
Re:Can't agree (Score:2)
Re:Can't agree (Score:2)
The whole idea of SDI, I've begun to think, was a smokescreen. Reagan knew it wasn't feasible technically, but it forced the Russians into excessive military spending, hastening their downfall. Only one possibility, but a fair amount of evidence points that way.
Ev
Re:Can't agree (Score:2)
Re:Whew...Glad that's over! (Score:2)
B-52s haven't flown airborne alert missions since 1968, when a nuclear-armed B-52 on such a mission crashed near Thule AFB in Greenland. After that, the only constant in-air SAC presence was the "Looking Glass" airborne command post aircraft, and that presence ceased in July of 1990. SAC hasn't even existed as a separate Defense Department entity si
decimated ? (Score:2, Informative)
i would settle for a technical education system which is 90% as good as the old soviet system.
ok with a bit more money for equipment.
perhaps you meant 'almost completely destroyed' rather than decimated.
Re:decimated ? (Score:3, Informative)
As a native speaker of English (who makes his living by writing in it), I have to tell you that I grimaced when I read this.
Is English actually your first language, or did you just pick one possible usage of this word out of the dictionary because you didn't know what it meant?
While there is another accepted definition of decimate - "to kill off one in ten", or "to redu
Re:decimated ? (Score:2)
In fact, I'd venture to say that perhaps one native English speaker in a hundred is even aware of the other definition, and that your post just sounds really weird to the other 99.
Are you really attempting to argue that the word decimate's meaning is anything other than painfully obvious? If so, your grasp of the language isn'
Re:decimated ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:decimated ? (Score:2)
The fact that both of my posts got modded up should lead those of you still in 2005 to suspect that, in 2006, the mods are still on crack.
Cheers.