British Nuclear Warning System
ringbell.co.uk
ringbell.co.uk
Cities mandated that housing needed basements which could be turned into nuclear bunkers/shelters. Where my parents live now there is basically a tiny town in the basements. Much of it is now things like fitness centers, tennis courts, a library and a few stores (not groceries or other things you eat/drink). Back in the 80ies it was solely meant for people storage, but after the wall fell it was slowly turned into more useable stuff.
Similarly most of our bunkers are now either discontinued or used for something practical.
I wonder if we’re going to see an increase in “civil defense” again now that we’re in another Cold War.
Kulturministeriet (The Danish agency for Culture and Palaces) has a great section on the Cold War ("Kold Krig" in Danish) at https://slks.dk/omraader/kulturarv/bevaringsvaerdige-bygning.... (Google Translate: https://slks-dk.translate.goog/omraader/kulturarv/bevaringsv...).
There'a also a book, Kold Krig, which is available as a PDF at https://slks.dk/fileadmin/publikationer/Kulturarv/Kold_Krig_... (but I can't make Google translate ... translate)
And I still have to visit www.reganvest.dk some day :)
The Autosan bus that was built in dozens of thousands for regular public transport was designed with a serious weakness in the front to allow quick conversion into a military evacuation vehicle. Basically there's space for loading/unloading a stretcher through the front of the bus. Which means if you collide with a tree - it goes through that hole and splits the bus in half :/
And these concerns were everywhere. Roads were built with very wide lanes and very straight routes in some forests so they can be used as emergency military airports.
Almost all of these concerns were abandoned in 90s. Schools were renovated with more focus on usability than military adaptability. New safer buses were built. Even the education changed.
My parents had "throwing a grenade" exams at shool :) There was also first aid, shooting, etc. I was at school in 90s-00s and only first aid and some shooting for kids that wanted to do it.
[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/us-greenlights-1-2-billi...
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/war-russia-ukraine-latvia-mo...
I was concerned that Russia had its eye on the Suwalki Gap around the time but since then I haven't seen any real movement towards the Gap to the Baltic states.
What is your point exactly?
There was a concerning level of global instability starting to bubble even before COVID hit. The US military didn't suddenly lose the ability to deter Russia in 2022. And China's growing military budget is also related because the US can't realistically manage a whole bunch of theatres simultaneously - so the Europeans are re-arming.
Of course the realignment caused by the Europeans having significant militaries can only be positive for EU-US relations. I can really only see the Europeans using their military to defend against the sort of aggressors who would go in and blow up things like the Nord Stream pipeline so there wouldn't be any cause for tension with the Americas.
I have some great deals on oceanfront property in Magnitogorsk that I'm willing to cut you in on.
Russia has invested heavily in its military and if the Ukraine war ended today there is a question of whether the military would be disbanded or refocused.
There is also an increase in turmoil in NATO countries. The UK still hasn't really figured out how to not be part of the EU and many countries, from the US to France and Belgium, are seeing an increase in support for populist parties. If Russia was interested in regaining former Soviet territory, NATO may currently look weak to them.
If it started a war against actual NATO it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army. Even without significant USA support - European NATO countries have enough airpower to manage.
This is all PR to slow down help to Ukraine. They did the same in 2008 and in 2014.
More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.
There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU.
Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it.
It really is that simple.
BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :)
They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
Russia judtifies the Ukraine exactly the same way. And honestly it's really impossible to dispute, if Russia believed that Ukraine and/or NATO was posing a fundamental risk to Russian sovereignty or the Russian people, was their invasion offensive or defensive?
I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it.
> I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
You seem way more certain than me that NATO countries have the means and will to destroy Russia in short order. Maybe you're right, but I expect that would be a much more difficult and deadly war than Russia simply ceasin to exist.
> This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
Even a bar fight isn't so black and white that you can easily say who started and when. Sure, if you want to consider recognizing that the events leading to a war are complex as relitivism then I'd argue that claiming it's easy to see Russia started this war and there are no mitigating factors muddying that water is absolutism.
Boiling complex situations down to simple, binary facts is a great way to justify doing whatever it is you want to do.
The balance is in the middle. I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the agressor here, and I'm not arguing that they weren't the aggressor in 2008 or 2014 either. I am arguing, though, that one side can see unwarranted agression while the other side honestly believes they are responding to a threat that already existed.
And it's very clear. Both NATO and Russia estimate that NATO won't invade Russia. If you disagree - notice that Russia moved its army from Finnish border to Ukraine after Finland joined NATO. And it moved its army from Kaliningrad (border with Poland and Lithuania) to Ukraine. Russian least militarized borders are those with NATO countries.
If Russia actually thought NATO is going to invade - they would be scared shitless to start anything (because it makes them vulnurable and provides an excuse for intervention). Instead they leave their NATO borders naked because they estimate (correctly) that the last thing NATO wants is a war.
"The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5.
I only raised the consideration of who starts it because you mentioned it in an earlier comment mentioning why Russia wouldn't start it. I agree with you that it doesn't matter who starts it and was only trying to point out that with war it's often so complicated that you can't really ever pin it on one side starting it out of the blue.
I also agree that NATO isn't planning on invading Russia, if I implied that somewhere along the way I just misspoke.
I don't actually think an invasion is how the next world war would start anyway, well likely end up launching tons of drones at each other before the war is reduced to soldiers on the battlefield.
> "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5.
I'm not sure the connection there. Are you proposing that we should strice to view complex situations as a binary rather than a spectrum?
As for 2+2 - my point is that some things are simple, and making them seem complex is an excuse not to do anything about them.
This is what happened in 2014. It was simple imperial land grab. It was preventable. But Russia and useful idiots muddled the water long enough that the help never arrived.
This is what I think should be prevented. Because every time the west appeases Russia it makes ww3 more likely.
Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use.
NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then.
The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.
You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria?
>The problem with appeasement
Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
[0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
For one thing, Russia almost certainly wouldn't be as restrained with what targets its going after or the tactics they use. The Kremlin has to be aware that they can win a war of attrition here, especially if they can lean in to erode western support for Ukraine.
With both the wars in Ukraine and Gaza it seems like many observers have forgotten just how bad wars can get. We're counting deaths in Gaza by the thousands, and though military deaths in Ukraine have been estimated into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, civilian casualties are almost nonexistent.
Instead we let them think they will win easily. The easiest way to avoid further wars in Europe is to help Ukraine win quickly.
When the Russians made clear it wasn't them entering Ukraine, we should have gotten them on the phone to confirm and make them aware that we have bombers in the air scrambled to hit all invading forces that have crossed the border.
We also would have to follow through with that threat, Obama's red line with Syria was a pointless mess that just made us weaker. If Russia really wouldn't claim the invading force, who would say we were out of line for helping Ukraine defend their soverign borders from an invading paramilitary force?
This also suffers from presentism - situation today is not the same situation as in a year, two or 10, but we need to start preparing now for eventualities anyway. In a year, with Trump at the helm, there might not even be any NATO anymore ...
He's none of those things, and NATO's not going anywhere, even if the US leaves it. (And odds are good it won't.)
The war will end with Ukrainian capitulation in a couple of months if NATO were to stop all intelligence, communications and material support for the Ukraine.
One example from 2008: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/15/russia.poland....
It must be Monday.
(Frankly, we are all rather board of it.)
Most WW2 structures were similarly crude. The bare minimum of effort to make something which sustained life, in the event of anything bar a direct hit. In the context of nuclear weapons "direct" was just a larger circular-error-probable. Many of the civil-defence facilities were simple upgrades to Ministry of Defence assets held over since 39-45. Sometimes I suspect they were mostly unchanged. They had a network of concrete outposts for aircraft detection to hand, and just .. added on to them (or not: if you were a civil defence volunteer you were mostly expendable)
They did have a certain robust charm. Doors like some kind of Septic Tank lid. Hand crank air supply, with a wooden handle. Giant clips around the doors the same as on battleships. Bakelite handsets, valves, green metal, thick earth lines, robust antenna. You could imagine a Noel Coward Hero clenching a pipe in his (always his) teeth, as he watched the skyline with binoculars, wearing a camel hair duffelcoat: "it's quiet, too damn quiet"
Filey looked awesome as you drove past on the motorway. And there is nothing in the world quite like watching a Vulcan Bomber practice take-off and landing, as you drive by in Vauxhall Victor two-tone Saloon. The future is now!
I hated the practice runs of the sirens as a child. It was nightmare stuff. During the 73 fuel crisis, all households were issued ration books for petrol: They were suez era paper. hoarded by the government "just in case" -I learned subsequently in the 80s there were huge national stockpiles of dried milk, chocolate, all of it being circulated through the sales channels close to end-of-life, but held "just in case"
When they issued "protect and survive" I felt a very strong "oh god.." emotion. When Reagan mis-spoke at the microphone doing a sound check, even worse. I think we all had nightmares around that time, Loud noises and bright lights at night did not help anyone.
(a friend worked checking the ones in Yorkshire. Official Secrets signing stuff, pencil and paper provided, along with official gumboots)
They were crude because they were built in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when Blighty wasn't exactly brimming over with spare cash.
They were not really updated because, after the hydrogen bomb came on the scene in the 1950's (with Mt rather than kt warheads) they became utterly pointless; nothing can survive an H-bomb (thermonuclear) attack.
Trivia: The army 'green goddess' fire engines were commissioned at the start of the cold war to help extinguish the many fires caused by a nuclear attack. These were kept in storage for a very long time, though would also have been pointless in the event of an H-bomb attack.
It's on YouTube, but I won't link it here because it's probably the most horrifying film ever.
Threads is much worse.
Threads just seems like torture porn being shown to you to make you afraid of nuclear war, which had its uses in pushing for nuclear disarmament, so I can't hate it...
but The Day After does a lot more to personalize and humanize the story, each subplot makes you very intimately attached to these characters and their families by presenting their day-to-day life and aspirations, how normal their lives are when war is looming echoes our own. So when everything is blown to shit it hurts so much more.
NOPE. Nightmares. Horrible film. Important film, but horrible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvFu7Z5cc88
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
Even the trailer is harrowing with audio alone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA
The part where the audio seamlessly transitions from screams into screeching wind, wails, and explosions was chillingly well done in the most dramatic way.
If you like Threads, check out Children of Men, which is also disturbingly realistic and also set in UK.
If you want a somewhat toned down version, the first episode of James Burke’s Connections describes some of the same concepts and themes in the context of the NYC blackout of 1965, and is only somewhat less disturbing, but is easily the most upsetting episode of the otherwise charming educational program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetplHcM7aQ
https://archive.org/details/ConnectionsByJamesBurke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_series...
Other apocalypses and dystopias are available. The UK is not the sole source of them. 451F, Brave New World ...
A take on survival in the final days of WW2 Japan.
A guaranteed tearjerker such that I'm not I could stand to watch it again.
If anything it downplays the medium/long term aftermath.
It is messed up to think this level of destruction happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in their case it was even more horrifying because nobody knew what was going on or what to do.
"The War Game is a 1966 British pseudo-documentary film that depicts a nuclear war and its aftermath.Written, directed and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC, it caused dismay within the BBC and also within government, and was subsequently withdrawn before the provisional screening date of 6 October 1965. The corporation said that "the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..."
A similar subject is:
The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States by Jeffrey Lewis
Note this explicitly features President Trump and various real-life politicians and portrays Trump negatively. So if you are a fan of his probably avoid.
The wireless system has been extended to include alerts for strong weather (tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) but also to include missing child alerts.
Growing up in the Cold War era, I'm used to these being used as an alert system (warning: loud)
I remember a few years ago pre-pandemic, I was in my office working when one of those emergency alerts was activated and EVERYONE'S phone went off virtually at the same time. Surreal, kinda frightening
For a moment I considered whether I should check the news in case it was somehow a real siren, but I figured it almost certainly wasn't. Plus if it was a bomb I'd have no where to hide anyway, so went back to sleep.
It's a shame that the information is so badly presented.