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.
Blatant Lies (Score:5, Funny)
"Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me"
It's fun to see those words in a prepared speech. :)
Re:Blatant Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in fairness, it was prepared for the Queen, not necessarily by the Queen. It was her advisers who imagined the solemn and awful duty falling to her.
Also (Score:3)
You prepare for things you don't imagine could actually happen, particularly when you are talking the government of a country. You want to have contingency plans in place, even for disasters you say "There's no way that is going to happen."
Re: (Score:2)
"There's no way that is going to happen."
We should ask for their zombie apocaliplse speech :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there was a zombie apocalypse alert in the US last year. (I think it was last year.) And it was official.
OTOH, nobody is prepared for and invasion by Dr. Doom. Or for the Hulk to lose his temper. Or Godzilla.
Re:Also (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure about a zombie apocalypse speech, but if you want apocalyptic speeches for zombies, tune in to Fox News commentators.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
He never said the Queen ruled, and if you think the Queen writes all her own speeches you're an idiot. Sorry, but honestly. Yes, she "could" have easily "wrote" those words, but let's be honest -- she didn't. Was made aware of them, yes, sure, I can believe that -- I'd be surprised if she wasn't. Suggested changes? Maybe. Wrote them? Not a chance.
He also never said the Queen was a "fucking president". He never even said she was a "president". He never actually even said she was a "head of state", though actually she is that.
(Your use of "wrote" suggests you're American. That in turn suggests perhaps leaving discussions over the famously unwritten British constitution either to the British or to people better educated in it than yourself. Deal? Thanks. It will hurt my head a hell of a fucking lot less.)
Re: (Score:1)
she "could" have easily "wrote" those words
she "could" have easily "written" those words.
FTFY.
The queen is British after all!
Re:Blatant Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
She meant when she was a child in 1939 listening to her father's address. Come on, people, reading comprehension!
Re:Blatant Lies (Score:5, Funny)
Reading comprehension is fine. Attention span is... ooh! Shiny!
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely funny, but not exactly ... you could have a Zombie Preparedness Plan or Alien Invasion Plan or Ant Uprising Plan ... you might even write it yourself, but that doesn't mean you actually believe it's going to happen. It's just what you'd do if it did happen, quite probably involving a speech where you utter your surprise that it actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
But the script didn't say "BELIEVE" it said imagine. If you are preparing for somehing, you must shurely be imagining it. Otherwise you aren't really doing that good of a job of prepairing for it.
Casual Observer: Hey you! What are you doing with that angel food cake. lincon logs and "Tin Cup" DVD?
Me: Oh this? I'm just prepairing for Team USA ski try outs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Context is everything. This sentence comes immediately after describing herself and her sister listening to their father's 1939 speech. I have no doubt that at not a moment during that speech did she imagine that duty falling to her.
Reading comprehension: some people don't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
They have long tradition of lies.
It's now 70 years since Sikorski [wikipedia.org] died in "accident"; yet many believe he was killed by Soviets with British approval. (Poland as an ally was "an obstacle" to cooperate with Soviets, as Soviets done mass killings two years earlier).
Somehow British archives on the subject are still classified. Not a sign of clear conscience on their side.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course I want us to do so. It may just help convince people that government is not all ice cream and puppy dogs, but should be severely restricted in its authority and watched closely.
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that you've set aside an emergency fund for the things you've imagined could go wrong, even if you can't imagine any of them happening anytime soon.
The irony definitely is strong in the sentence you've cited, but it's not dishonest. "Imagine" doesn't merely mean forming a mental image of something. It's also commonly used in a sense that refers more to expectations, assumptions, or beliefs [reference.com]. We routinely make plans for contingencies that we don't imagine will actually take place, even though we're
Re: (Score:2)
And when I saw the headline, I was like "OMG, now there's a damn Elton John article on Slashdot"...
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the speech:
"We are the champions, my friends.
And we'll keep on fighting, 'till the end!
We are the Champions,
We are the Champions!
No room for losers, cause we are the Champions,
Of the World."
Oh... wait.. you meant THAT Queen?
Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
it's a rockin' tune
That deserves a redundant mod right there. ;)
Geez, did Queen do any songs that weren't "rockin'?" Even campy goofery like "Flash Gordon" or the too-saccharine-for-my-taste "You're my best friend" rocked.
Re: (Score:2)
"Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ"
Apparently, whoever coined that didn't pay much attention to politics...
Pray (Score:5, Insightful)
In it, the Queen was expected to urge the people of the United Kingdom to 'pray' in the event of a nuclear war.
What's with the scare quotes? Does the submitter think there's something weird about the Supreme Governor of the Church of England [wikipedia.org] urging the membership of her church to pray?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the event of an all out nuclear war, praying will be about as effective against an atomic blast as against an oncoming tidal wave, and everybody knows this.
What would you prefer? I've always liked "smoke 'em if you got 'em"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know - how about seeking cover? People can survive and have survived nuclear blasts. I'm not particularly sure I'd want to, though.
You go ahead and pray. I'll fap. I'm sure my efforts will be just as effective.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd agree that bombs have improved since the end of ww2, right? What would your strategies be exactly? "seek shelter 20 miles below the surface?" Or are you thinking the old "duck and cover" will work?
Re: (Score:3)
If you're sufficiently distant from ground zero, where the primary hazard is from falling debris then yes, it can be effective. Certainly, under those circumstances, you've got a better chance for survival than if you continue to stand there like a dumbass.
Obviously, if you're in the primary blast zone, there's not much you can do at all. Of course, if you're in the primary blast zone, you're not going to have much time to react once you see a flash.
"seek shelter 20 miles below surface"? Hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're sufficiently distant from ground zero, where the primary hazard is from falling debris then yes, it can be effective.
In the UK, at least, there would have been few places 'sufficiently distant from ground zero'. Realistic predictions of a Soviet attack put most of the country in a blast zone powerful enough to damage a house badly enough that you'd die from fallout.
Re: (Score:3)
You go ahead and pray. I'll fap. I'm sure my efforts will be just as effective.
But if you survive you'll want a nap, and others will get a head start on the looting.
Re:Pray (Score:4, Insightful)
What's with the scare quotes?
Because its a euphemism for "put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye".
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's more that while her "subjects" would be praying, she'd be hot-tailing it into a nuclear bunker
Hmmm. I don't believe HRH has a hot tail, but each to his own, I suppose...
Seriously? (Score:1, Troll)
Some ridiculous, flag waving drivel written by some speech writer somewhere for a monarch in the event of a war that didn't actually happen?
Come on editors, this is stretching News For Nerds a bit, don't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
That isn't anywhere near what any war plan of the USSR would have entailed, and the USA and UK governments knew that quite well, so what the hell was the point of the war-gaming exercise?
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't anywhere near what any war plan of the USSR would have entailed, and the USA and UK governments knew that quite well, so what the hell was the point of the war-gaming exercise?
Read 'War Plan UK', if you can find a copy.
Much of it seems to have been PR. Much of the rest seems to have been self-delusion. The remainder seems to have been 'What do you mean, why do we have war games? You've got to have war games,' and planning for everyone to die within two days wasn't much fun.
Re: (Score:3)
You need training exercises essentially. So that people don't stand around saying "what am I supposed to be doing now?" Sometimes it's just making sure that the lines of communication are known and used, that procedures are followed, and so forth. Essentially fire drills.
Then someone with a stop watch in the background is saying "Good work everyone, it took us only 7 minutes and 28 seconds to destroy the world. This is a new record. Tomorrow we'll see if we can do even better!"
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't tell them they destoryed the world, you tell them they saved everyone in their own country. Of course that wouldn't be true, in a real war, but you have to have them strick back otherwise the whole mad thing just fizzles out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be more interesting would be the text of the sealed letters the Prime Ministers gave to nuclear submarine crews to open if all communication was lost with London...
I'm guessing Thatcher's would be 'Nuke the Bastards!', and some Labour PM's would be 'Better Red Than Dead,' but I'm not so sure about the rest.
Re: (Score:1)
The real speech would be very short.. it would be something like... "What the fuck"?
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Drills are normal. Even without WWIII drills, the military drills all the time to ensure that everyone can respond quickly and orderly in a crisis. Different groups that don't normally interact will drill with each other to make sure that they can do so smoothly. At the larger scale you will even have coordination between different military departments (army, navy, air force, space cadets). Logistics need to run smoothly, supplies moved and coordinated, deployments done on time, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The purpose of duck-and-cover was to escape falling debris - in the event that you weren't within the blast radius, but were within the survivable zone of the shock wave.
Re: (Score:2)
There were a lot of FUD in the 80s that the US alone had enough bombs to eliminate all life on earth 7x over!
I am curious how much that is true vs things just to scare us according to the millenial generation? Maybe the blast wave but with weapons being 100x more lethal than the ones dropped in Japan I wonder if this could contaminate all the crops for example?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the answer to that - but it is certainly true that we did, and still do have enough nuclear weapons to directly kill a very great many people, and indirectly cause the deaths of many, many more.
If there were an unrestricted exchange of nuclear weapons, life would likely be very different (and hard) for the survivors.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No, Even at the biggest nuclear inventory and assuming 100% nuke reliability there were never enough bombs to cover entire military and urban area of the USA and the USSR, including suburbs, with 'thermonuclear fireball'.
Duck and cover is still the right thing to do if there is a flash. Doesn't matter if it's a nuke, a regular bomb, a BLEVY, a fertilizer plant or the Chelyabinsk meteor. If you see a flash get away from the windows and behind something solid.
Obviously I'm not saying hide from lightening
Re: (Score:2)
MIRVs in their current form didn't exist back then, and you can't really spread MIRVs that broadly anyway - they all have to target within a certain radius.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most interesting things to come out of the current round of declassification is that the Soviets were absolutely terrified of the Americans. They saw the US as extremely aggressve and paranoid, as well as unpredictable and believed totally that domestic political pressures could lead as far as a nuclear first strike.
I'd like my two minutes back (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Go check out the Tom Lehrer link at the bottom, that should make up for it.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as I heard him say, "WW3 is almostï upon us..." I decided I had a better use for my 3 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as I heard him say, "WW3 is almostï upon us..." I decided I had a better use for my 3 minutes.
Developing a sense of humor, perhaps?
bu-dum psht!
Re: (Score:3)
If you've never experienced Tom Lehrer before, go see/hear some of his stuff, it's generally very funny and thought provoking.
I'm guessing the track linked to is "So Long Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" (at work so no youtube for me), which is one of a number of songs he did about nuclear proliferation. His songs cover science practice, popular culture, mathematics and the general absurdities of 'modern' life. He was sued by the Boy Scouts of America for bringing them into disrepute for his song "Be Prepared
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have probably thought it was biting wit, too, if I was hip 30 years ago. Reagan's 1984 (yes, I know it was only 29 years ago...) open mike "gaffe" would have made it that much more ironic. (The leftist outrage was truly stunning to behold. "He's a cowboy, he'll get us all killed!" Europe almost had a simultaneous 300M person apoplectic fit. The heads of all the editors of /Le Monde/ certainly exploded...)
But I had classes to attend and projects to complete.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well post the inspiring speech written for the US President in the film "Independence Day."
Or better still, check out the superbly bleak BBC drama 'Threads' (1984), which showed in documentary style the build-up to a nuclear attack and its aftermath. Scarier than any horror movie at the time, when it felt like all of this might actually happen, possibly next week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg [youtube.com]
The 'Protect and Survive' public information films, made for broadcast if an attack seemed imminent, also became well known in the early 80s for their creepy jingle, amateurish DIY fallout shelte
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat more exciting recordings are the airchecks from the EBS Scare of 1971 [blogspot.com], when a NORAD telegrapher accidentally sent the "Duck and Cover" signal to every radio station in America, and the stations all read their pre-prepared "stand by for an Emergency Action Message from the President of the United States" script.
And here [radiotapes.com] are recordings of the original, pre-recorded nuclear attack messages that would be played, one for if there was several hours warning, and one if there were only minutes warning.
Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (Score:3)
Sometimes you had better be careful when you rattle your saber [wikipedia.org].
Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/1983-the-brink-of-apocalypse [channel4.com]
Well worth watching (and available on TPB)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks - excellent viewing. Haircut 100 and Men Without Hats add to the horror! It's helpfully up on YouTube [youtube.com]. TPB is 3 seeders and 700 mb so that could take a while to say the least.
Re: (Score:1)
Reagan's sound check (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Reagan... really seems like a fool.
Why? That's a cheap way to play crazy person. The ploy is to appear crazy and erratic so that any foe in a MAD game doesn't know how far they can push before you escalate irrationally.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they might think that a crazy adversary makes the war inevitable so it's better to strike first.
Re: (Score:2)
If you start world war 3 acting crazy you just lost the game.
Well, hasn't happened yet. Point is that whether or not the joke was staged, it probably ended up helping Reagan's negotiating position with the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Taken in that light, that explains much of the crazy stunts government pulls today.
For recent presidential examples, there's G. W. Bush's "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after 9/11 and Obama's pointed insults against various post-colonial powers and their representatives (particularly, the UK).
I don't think the NSA stuff counts. I bet that was a usual case of unintended consequence. They weren't expecting the program to become public knowledge and thus, did things that are now causing them some inconvenience. That sort of craziness breeds best in the shadows.
Re: (Score:1)
In the sense of "fool" as a term that means "jester", I'll agree. But to claim that a joke in a sound check qualifies him as any other form of fool is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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."
It's not like it was broadcast.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that it is out in the open (Score:1)
Lets go for it. Let the best man win.
Since we are already stealing, cheating, spying on each other like never before in human history.
WWIII should be, every man for himself. There is no need to ruin all the fun with nukes. Btw. There is practically no where to drop nuki without directly destroying own interests in form of own properties, factories, resources or other investments.
Just grab a hoe (tool) and get going.
Keep Calm... (Score:2)
Keep Calm and Die A Slow Painful Death
Re: (Score:1)
Jon Stewart British queen voice? (Score:4, Funny)
OK, who read that while hearing Jon Stewart's British queen voice?
God and country (Score:1)
From the transcript of an actual audio recording of The Queen practicing The Queen's Speech:
"Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great fuck fuck shit fuckin' shit odds. I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister. fuck shit (singsong) Mary had a little jug-eared baaaaaaaaaaaby and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 193
One line (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This only works with Daleks, not nuclear weapons
Keep it short and sweet. (Score:1)
"Send wire, main office, tell them I said 'ow!' - gotcha!'
Comment removed (Score:3)
All my mod points... (Score:2)
...go to timothy for mentioning Tom Lehrer, my childhood hero.
A phenomenal intellect paired with incredible song-writing skills and a real awareness of all socio-political issues of the time.
Thank you, timothy.
As long as the speech doesn't start with Ph'nglui (Score:1)
Re:You pray if you like (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, she did serve. I caught a bit of coverage of the new baby and it talked about how all the royals are expected to serve. From Wikipedia:
In February 1945, she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as an honorary Second Subaltern with the service number of 230873. She trained as a driver and mechanic.
She was born in April 1926, so she was not yet 19 in February of '45. V-E day came along a few months later. (May 1945)
Re: (Score:3)
THE NEW BABY ALREADY TALKS??? Holy crap! Royalty does have its perks!
Re: (Score:2)
Possible exception of the Queen Mother, I suppose.
And still, Adolf Hitler described her as "the most dangerous woman in Europe [youtube.com]"...
Re:You pray if you like (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, in that case perhaps you're unaware that the whole of the royal family stayed in London - despite having plenty of other places to go to - when it was being bombed nightly during the Blitz. They were in residence when Buckingham Palace itself was hit.
Seriously, give it up. There are plenty of valid complaints you can make about them, but this line of attack is just laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Not exactly the same thing as 'going down with the ship' in the face of a nuclear missile strike, is it?
Hey man I have a buddy who was a DART member (Downed Aircraft Rescue Team). His group would go out in Blackhawks to either salvage or destroy downed Apaches. Twice the aircraft he traveled in was shot down by hostiles as they attempted to land to execute their mission. I don't know how many aircraft he went in to recover, but they usually bring in other aircraft to provide support when they go into land, so obviously those hillbillies can still be dangerous.
Not to mention the Falklands, but ... (Score:2)
Wasn`t it Prince William who flew decoy missions (get the Exocet to lock onto your helicopter, then jink at the last moment) to try to protect the fleet?
Re: (Score:1)
Wasn`t it Prince William who flew decoy missions (get the Exocet to lock onto your helicopter, then jink at the last moment) to try to protect the fleet?
Yes, you're correct, but you left out how he accomplished this before he was even born. Amazing chaps, these royals...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Prince Andrew. :)
Prince William was in the planning stages back then.
Re:You pray if you like (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you know if there's ever an imminent threat the members of the Royal Family aren't going to be sat at Buck House with a cuppa tea counting down the seconds...they'll be on their merry way to the other three corners of the globe.
Any member of the Royal Family who did that would rightly be disowned by the rest of the family and the British public, and would probably be looked down upon by much of the rest of the world as well. If the monarch herself did it (and I can't imagine Elizabeth II doing it in a thousand years--she may look like a little granny, but she has far too much backbone for that), she would effectively have abdicated. In the face of such a selfish, craven act, Britain would either find itself a new monarch with more spine, or get rid of the monarchy entirely.
The Royal Family enjoys a lot of privileges, but in the end they exist to serve the British state, as its personification. Their lives are far more controlled and circumscribed than ordinary people.
Just look at the case of Edward VIII [wikipedia.org] to see how Britain might treat a monarch who doesn't take his duty seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
There are scenarios where exile is the best decision.
One example from these parts: When Norway was invaded by the Nazis, the King of Norway fled to London to help lead the Resistance in cooperation with the rest of the legal government in exile in London.
The King refused to stay in a country where he might be exploited or forced to legitimize the Nazi administration.
His actions have to my knowledge never been criticized in Norway, in what remains an uncommonly popular royal family.
Re: (Score:2)
The administration at the time consisted almost wholly of Norwegian Nazis; an "administrative council" led by Vidkun Quisling.
It was, of course, a puppet regime - but I still believe that my formulation was more precise.