[Closed] Inside the War Room

I thought it was fascinating.

Shows that NATO doctrine pretty much draws us into nuclear war if Russia get belligerent.

The trouble is we’re in a situation where we have a Russia that is, at best, unpredictable and a USA which is basically up for a fight, all the time.

We rely on the good sense of Putin to keep the USA from getting their wish. :-/

Rachel

It felt that they were creating false decisions for the necessity of creating 'TV drama'

for example, the 'do we deploy NATO forces into Estonia immediately even if this risks conflict or do nothing at all" precluded the obvious options of moving them to neighbouring NATO members

the final question summed it up - 'Russia has launched ICBM's, do we launch ours immediately?' to which the obvious answer (as alluded to by several at the table) was "why? theres no need to launch now, thats the point of a second strike CASD"

for example, the 'do we deploy NATO forces into Estonia immediately even if this risks conflict or do nothing at all" precluded the obvious options of moving them to neighbouring NATO members

Good point, there was a fair bit of that.

I wonder if it was all scripted or if there was a genuine discussion and we just got the juicy bits?

Questions felt awfully scripted rather than organic decisions coming out of the discussion.

I think the programme needed to be about three hours long, and more of a 'closed room' type play.

We should never have let the Baltic States into NATO. It was a stupid and dangerous decision. Poland and the central European countries yes, but not ex Soviet territory. There is a significant risk of conflict between Russia and those countries and although I feel very sorry for the people there I don't think we should start WW III over it.

There is a significant risk of conflict between Russia and those countries and although I feel very sorry for the people there I don't think we should start WW III over it.

Call me a cynic, but I don't for a second believe the US or Western European countries would risk all out nuclear exchange for the likes of Latvia. They'd abandon them in a second. The North Atlantic Treaty is not worth the paper it's written on and is instead an exercise in political chest-beating.

As for that programme last night, obviously it proved nothing but it was still interesting that they took the ultimate view that 'we're f***** so what's the point in killing millions of innocent civilians in Russia'. Deterrence works right up to the point it doesn't.

Haven't you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
I have, scary.

Not seen that no, sounds fascinating. [url= http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html ]I have read this though[/url], which is pretty damn scary.

Cletus - Member
If you did which way would you have voted at the end?

I would softly softly encourage everyone to start an all out nuclear war by adding more fuel to fire.

Escalate the problem to the point of no return by the encouraging nuking everyone to kingdom come.

To double up the effort biological warfare will also be used to ensure total wipe out.

The aim is to reduce human population to 1/4 or as little as possible from where we are now.

Free Earth!
Think of Earth!
Freedoooom! 😈

Then there will be period of peace ... then the cycle starts again until next massive culling ... bloody ZM world.

For Dazh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34472739

The point of an early deployment is to deter the enemy. The other option explored was appeasement. And we know where that got us. We would deploy troops. Artic all 5 NATO.

Yes it was scripted, it's a drama to explore what might happen. How decisions and options are discussed. I thought it was interesting was how the personalities of the players came through and influenced their decisions.

Remember we were toe to toe with the Soviet 3rd shock army along the inner German border not that long ago. Equipped with tactical nuclear weapons. Practiced defeating an attack on West Germany.

Like Deutschland 83?

The point of an early deployment is to deter the enemy. The other option explored was appeasement. And we know where that got us. We would deploy troops. Artic all 5 NATO.

I do love it when this stuff comes up and all the armchair generals emerge with their war fantasies. Just watched that war game film. You should too, then come back with your military speak 🙂

[url= http://www.disclose.tv/embed/118597 ]http://www.disclose.tv/embed/118597[/url]

Well dazh. Some of us were actually there 😉 In West Germany.

I watched it I got the impression from a couple of the comments that there had been some stages in the "game" that were not shown in the final cut. I thought the us tit for tat strike was a really bad and there for hopefully incredible move. On reflection on the final question I would have launched , it would be futile from a UK centric point of view but may have upped the pain for the Russians and deterred further strikes against our NATO allies.

upped the pain for the Russians

What is it about nuclear war discussions that turns otherwise normal people into genocidal maniacs? I'll never understand it.

And PB, if you were there, and have some form of special knowledge about the reality of war, especially nuclear, then I'm quite surprised you talk of it with such a casual acceptance. Maybe the biggest effect of the nuclear weapons issue is that the sheer horror and enormity of it all causes a mass delusion of denial in society. It's bloody odd. I obviously think about it too much 🙂

I wasn't being casual. Was just describing what we have done in the very recent past. The attack by an ICBM on the navy was war gamed last Oct with a missile launched from Scotland. Check BBC. I was just pointing out that the scenarios were realistic. Yes they are contrived because it's a 60 min docudrama.

I at no point suggested launching Armageddon. It does not follow that doing nothing or becoming isolationist will make the world safer.

Fair enough, but my point on the Baltic is that if it escalated to the point where a nuclear launch was possible, do you think they'd continue or pull back and leave Latvia to it's fate? I'd like to think the latter, but then I'm a cowardly peacenik. I find the whole thing pretty preposterous really, and I'm of the opinion that the avoidance of nuclear war to date has been largely down to good fortune, rather than some failsafe masterplan.

I think that there are very strong arguments that the eastward expansion of NATO, particuarly beyond Poland and Hungary etc. was a breach of the understandings that we had with Russia, removed a very useful buffer zone and has had the effect of wounding a bears pride.

At the same time, you can understand 100% why those countries wanted to be part of NATO, and that had they not been let in, then both Russia and the EU (and I am blaming them rather than NATO itself for the behind the scenes games in Ukraine) would undoubtebly have been meddling .

News night pretending to discuss the issue now (pretending as really there are 5 entrenched positions shouting at each other).

The point made in the program about Russia's tactical nuclear doctrine was frankly worrying.

I reckon their approach to the tactical use of Chemical Weapons through the Cold War (which was pretty much integrated into the plan) was far more worrying, and I think would have almost certianly led to escalation. I can't imagine that it has changed that much.

you make a good point about chemical weapons. The threshold for their use seems quite low. Iran Iraq for example. But in all honesty I think the experience has been that they are a double edges sword. Could be useful to disrupt or delay or deny enemy forces strategic facilities ports, airfields etc

On the battlefield they would be of limited use against a prepared military. The west would have no way of responding in kind though.

Less said about biological weapons the better .....

Like Deutschland 83

I was thinking more of BAOR.

Thanks for the replies. I think that, given the British missiles were targeted at Russian military facilities, I would have launched as I would hope that some parts of the UK would survive in some fashion and I would not want them to be dominated by an intact Russian military (although I guess the UK's contribution would not really be needed as the US would have responded and no doubt targeted the same installations as the UK).

The conclusion that I drew was that the opinions of the UK (as the rest of Europe) are irrelevant as it is the USA that is the only player whose opinions matter - could the UK even launch missiles without US consent?

It makes the US presidential election race seem scary rather laughable. People like Trump should not be allowed near sharp knives let alone nukes.

I would hope that some parts of the UK would survive in some fashion

After [url= http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html ]reading this[/url] I rapidly came to the conclusion that there'd be nothing left worth defending following a nuclear war. 😯

could the UK even launch missiles without US consent?

Complexly in our hands. No need to for permission from anyone NATO or US. It's complexly independent with at least one boat, fully armed on station 365 days a year. PM and his nominated deputy give the code. In extremist the boats Captain has a personal letter written by the PM which sails with all boats outlining the options in the event that contact is lost in a nuclear exchange.

Thought the programme was good however it is very similar to the film below which I found more thought provoking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065ylyy

Take a look at this one from 1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game

Was banned for some 20 years in the UK its horrifying. All the more gritty with its black and white 60's filming

another classic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads

Both Threads and The War Game are brilliant (and both available on the web if you look). I remember watching Threads at high school when I was about 13 and we weren't allowed to watch the second half of it. On the subject of films, apart from that American 80s film The Day After, nuclear war seems to be mostly avoided by Hollywood. Strange seeing as it's such a massive and topical issue. Maybe it's just all a bit too real and terrifying.

Other ones worth watching with nuclear weapons related content...

[url= http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/countdown-to-zero/ ]Countdown to Zero[/url]

[url= http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/ ]The Fog of War: 11 Lessons from the life of Robert Mcnamara[/url]