Classic British Flight Sim

Just browsing BBC iPlayer to see what I've missed and found this radio 4 programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... an_Button/

Historian Prof Peter Hennessy speaks to the people who have operated Britain's nuclear deterrent over the years and today, including military commanders, politicians and former Vulcan bomber crew members. He visits Northwood, the headquarters from which the order to fire would come today, and Corsham, the secret nuclear bunker which, in the 1960s, would have been the location for an alternative government in the event of all-out war.

I haven't listened to it yet, but it sounds rather interesting.

Ian

Whilst not the most exciting piece of radio I've listened to, there were some fascinating bits. I expect all you military types already know that a Trident submarine packs the same destructive power as all the ordnance exploded throughout the second world war by all combatants. I didn't.

What I found most interesting was the philosophical question of deterrence and retaliation. I always thought it was pretty clear cut and that an imminent strike would invariably trigger a retaliation, but it seems not. Interviews with people who have held that responsibility shows that some of them would not have retaliated. The point being that nuclear weapons are only useful as a deterrent and if they've failed to deter an attack then they are of no further use. If we are destroyed what is the purpose of killing millions more innocents in revenge? Dennis Healey, who was an alternate decision maker (if Harold Wilson had gone first) categorically states that he would NOT have retaliated. If Khruschev had known about all this wimpiness during the Cuban Missile Crisis I may not have been sitting here typing these words. (Who said that? Who said 'bloody good job!'?)

Apparently submarine commanders, who may have the final decision after a pre-emptive strike, have in their safe a handwritten letter by the prime minister explaining his/her thoughts on what to do (if Government has been destroyed) and four possible options. We're the only nation to do that.

There are also brief interviews with Vulcan crew members and if you're quick you get to hear the Vulcan taking off!

Ian

Fascinating. Interestingly, I read somewhere that the PMs 'Posthumous' instructions were only carried on HMS Vengeance (A bit of forward thinking there?)..

It's a subject that most of us have an interest in as it's not that long ago we lived with the thought (allbeit relatively remote) that it could happen.

It's an interesting point: if a barrage of these things are on the way over, what do you gain from hitting back? On the other hand, the concept of MAD is a big 'chill pill' and possibly enough to make anyone think twice.

I'm glad it's a decision I do not have to take. I always (and still do) find the Vulcan's engines on takeoff rather haunting, and quite 'fitting' in respect of what they were designed to do, and had the greatest admiration for the crews who, if they lifted off, may not have had anywhere to land on return. I suppose in some ways the Subs have it easier, in that they are relatively secure (for a time) - but it's still, even in this post cold-war era, a sobering thought to take in the responsibility these guys have.

I always knew Healey was about as much use as a one-legged man at an arse kicking competition, and here is proof positive!

Well, if Wilson knew Healey's views, there is every likelihood the Kremlin did, too.
Like 'forthbridge', I can only admire the courage of the aircrews who, if they survived the initial strike and got off the ground, or were already in the air, could only return to a lingering death from radiation poisoning.
That's the trouble with nuclear weapons - much of their effect depends on radioactive particles being spread through the atmosphere, and since you can't control the weather, you can't control the spread. Both sides learned that in WWI, with poison gas. The prevailing winds at our latitudes are west to east. If London nukes Moscow, the fallout will reach westcoast USA in a matter of days and be back at London in a few more. The whole thing is an exercise in futility.
Not that this matters to the politicians - they demonstrated their regard for the electorate by spending tens of millions of pounds on a system to let me know that I was going to be instantly vapourised in four minutes' time - then spent tens of millions more, developing the system to give eight minutes warning. What a great comfort that was to anyone living within 30 miles of a prime target ! At the time, I went to school in Dundee from my home in Perth, and RAF Leuchars was not far away at all, about 5 air miles from school and less than thirty from home.
It's nearly Christmas. Instead of ranting about things that only amuse politicians, go to your local music shop and buy a copy of Tom Paxton's "Politics Live" CD. The track "The Mail will go through" says it all. It's about how the US Postal service, at great public expense, developed procedures for maintaining mail deliveries after a nuclear holocaust. To go with that, get the DVD of "On the Beach" . If you are short on pocketmoney, just read the blurb on the cover.
Peace on Earth, and goodwill to all humankind - except the politicians.
MikeW

I read this in the paper this last weekend IIFC, good artical and boardcast!

Fallout depends on a lot of things, if they were air-bursts there would be a massive wave of radiation initially but not much in the way of radioactive dust to blow around and contaminate.

emfrat wrote:Well, if Wilson knew Healey's views, there is every likelihood the Kremlin did, too.

We've been discussing this at work today and it's got me thinking more deeply. Whilst I initially appreciated the humanitarian reasons for not retaliating, I've come to the conclusion that they're selfish. Jim Callaghan said that he would have ordered retaliation but could not have lived with himself afterwards, whilst Dennis Healey said that he would not have done it, presumably to avoid those feelings.

Whilst initially it looks as though Healey is the more caring, in fact he, and like-minded others, seriously weakened the deterrent. If the Russians were aware that some of the decision makers would waver, it dramatically reduced the overall likelihood that Britain would retaliate. So when weighing up any situation, that percentage weakness would have influenced the decision to launch a pre-emptive strike against us.

So by giving the decision to civilian politicians you wasted the power of the actual tool. There seems to be a very good case for leaving it in the hands of the military and making retaliation in the face of a strike an unquestioned standing order. Surely that would make the world a safer place as there would be no question of what response would be triggered by an attack.

'Speak softly but carry a big stick'. (Theodore Roosevelt)

Ian

Interesting little debate to be had there Ian. General Thomas Power of the USAF's Strategic Air Command in the late 50s/ early 1960s certainly had strong views on this subject (when the idea of not retaliating was proposed):

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

I am personally quite surprised as I always assumed the protocol was that on first detection of an airborne Soviet missile inbound to a NATO pact country, we would counter attack by Vulcan/Blue Steel, Thor, Polaris, Trident or whatever the weapon of the day happened to be. In reality there would be very little time for a debate, perhaps hardly enough to relay an instruction from London should it have been hit.

However, I think whenever the world came close, those at the top had the sense to realise the futility of it all, as in reality, no one would win, we'd all have been equally dead!

TobyV wrote:However, I think whenever the world came close, those at the top had the sense to realise the futility of it all, as in reality, no one would win, we'd all have been equally dead!

Spot on, Toby!
It was only when they realised that deploying a weapon guaranteed to kill all your own troops (and yourself) as well as all the enemy, was perhaps not the brightest idea, that things changed.
Instead of "We must have bigger bangs than everyone else, or our boy bits will shrivel up and we'll turn into fairies" it became "How can I get out of that stupid decision, and still look like a great leader?"
As for standing orders as a solution, that was the whole point of "Dr Strangelove..." .
The world would be a better place, if it wasn't for all these human beings - so it is best not to let them have the dangerous toys in the first place. It's a pity we can't just bundle them up and fire the lot into the Sun ( the warheads, I mean.....but hey, I just had a great idea about the politicians, too!)

MikeW