If the UK had ever been nuked...
Discussion
MiseryStreak said:
Interesting, when I had to do some searches for a site in Brighton, this was part of the package.
How interesting, I work in Brighton not far from the centre of the circle. I guess that's the property you were searching on rather than when the bomb was going to drop? Edited by Caruso on Wednesday 1st August 21:12
I currently live in Corsham Wiltshire. It's a well known fact that the Burlington Bunker exists under Corsham and was designed for the Government to head to and run the country from there in the event of a nuke strike. It can house 5000 people and is apparently laid out as a replica of the inside of downing street in certain areas. It has it's own lake under there and also a secret train entrance inside Box Tunnel for the Government to head to in the event of a strike. They even have a huge 350ft long station down there and a platform for turning trains around on!
Now a days it's decommissioned as it's full of asbestos but above ground the MOD have built a huge new complex which is where they control the communications for the various conflicts we are involved in around the world. Apparently in the event of a war, GCHQ would be first, Corsham second as thats pretty much all the communications for the MOD taken out!
It amazing to walk around the area as you'll find things like staircases leading deep underground in the middle of woods and various vents in fields etc. There is also a place called 'corsham computer centre' which is far from a 'computer centre'! Police patrol around the site every 15 minutes without fail!
Now a days it's decommissioned as it's full of asbestos but above ground the MOD have built a huge new complex which is where they control the communications for the various conflicts we are involved in around the world. Apparently in the event of a war, GCHQ would be first, Corsham second as thats pretty much all the communications for the MOD taken out!
It amazing to walk around the area as you'll find things like staircases leading deep underground in the middle of woods and various vents in fields etc. There is also a place called 'corsham computer centre' which is far from a 'computer centre'! Police patrol around the site every 15 minutes without fail!
Why were neutron bombs regarded as such an unethical method of killing people?
As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
I watched an episode of 'Ricks Restorations' recently.
They restore an old cold-war Nuclear attack siren back to fully working order, to be put up as an exhibit outside the Clark County Museum.
When they turn the thing on, and it starts to rotate and wail louder and louder, it sent chills down my spine - brrrrr! I sat there imagining what it would be like to hear it for real. Doesn't bear thinking about.
According to the curator, a lot of these sirens were mounted on top of schools!
Clip here (switch-on is at about 12 minutes in)
I defy you to listen to this, and not be scared too!
I live in a small Austrian village. The local volunteer fire service use this to alert all the (usually drunk) firemen! Its left over form the war and is it good working order, so they made use of it! They restore an old cold-war Nuclear attack siren back to fully working order, to be put up as an exhibit outside the Clark County Museum.
When they turn the thing on, and it starts to rotate and wail louder and louder, it sent chills down my spine - brrrrr! I sat there imagining what it would be like to hear it for real. Doesn't bear thinking about.
According to the curator, a lot of these sirens were mounted on top of schools!
Clip here (switch-on is at about 12 minutes in)
I defy you to listen to this, and not be scared too!
I still remember the first time I heard the wailing, I looked at my Fiancee and she said my face had turned white (impressive as I have brown skin!), I asked her "if we should run for cover", she looked at me like I had gone crazy then explained about the drunk firemen!
Dr Jekyll said:
Why were neutron bombs regarded as such an unethical method of killing people?
As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
To be honest the 'leave the infrastructure standing' line was always a bit dubious. You still get a big thermal pulse and the corresponding fire storm. Obviously nobody ever set one off in a populated area so it was never really tested though. There's also a lot of fallout - probably more than from a 'conventional' nuke of the same size. A lot of the negativity comes from the fact that radiation poisoning is a nasty way to die and the general public are scared of it anyway. A 'radiation bomb' was never going to be popular.As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
hairykrishna said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Why were neutron bombs regarded as such an unethical method of killing people?
As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
To be honest the 'leave the infrastructure standing' line was always a bit dubious. You still get a big thermal pulse and the corresponding fire storm. Obviously nobody ever set one off in a populated area so it was never really tested though. There's also a lot of fallout - probably more than from a 'conventional' nuke of the same size. A lot of the negativity comes from the fact that radiation poisoning is a nasty way to die and the general public are scared of it anyway. A 'radiation bomb' was never going to be popular.As I understand it being attacked by neutron bombs instead of conventional high explosive or normal nukes means:
If the initial attack kills you it'll be from radiation not blast. So the difference is academic.
If you're injured it'll be radiation sickness rather than burns or bits blown off. Again, not much to choose in the short term.
But if you survive your injuries for a couple of weeks then you should recover more or less to normal except for a somewhat increased risk of cancer in later life. So no fallout or physical disabilities to worry about.
Also, while all this is going on, your house still stands, the hospital still stands, gas and water (maybe even electricity) still works.
Yet the deployment of neutron weapons caused outrage. As if they were somehow worse than ordinary nukes. Was it simply that the Soviets objected because they would be so effective against tanks so their apologists objected as well?
"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away.
It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981.
Neutron Bomb Timeline
Summer 1958- While conducting researching on developing a large thermonuclear weapon, Sam Cohen introduces the idea of removing the uranium casing from a hydrogen bomb to allow neutrons to travel great distances and penetrate even heavily shielded armor and structures.
1961-The Kennedy administration decides against the idea of developing a neutron bomb and introducing it into the US nuclear arsenal because it may jeopardize the moratorium on nuclear testing being observed by the US and Soviet Union.
1961-The Soviet Union breaks the moratorium on nuclear testing allowing the US to proceed with developing the neutron bomb.
1962-The first neutron device is successfully tested.
1970s-The Carter administration proposes modernizing the US nuclear arsenal by installing neutron warheads on the Lance missiles and artillery shells planned for deployment in Europe.
1977-West Germans realize their country will likely be the battleground for use of the neutron bomb and begin hotly debating whether or not the weapon should be allowed on their soil. [99 luftBalons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQYQTFudrqc ]
1978-Succumbing to international and domestic pressure, President Carter decides to defer deployment of the neutron bomb, conditional to Soviet restraint in military production and force deployments.
1980-France announces that it has tested a neutron device.
1981-President Reagan re-authorizes the production of neutron warheads for the Lance missile and an 8-inch artillery shell, but because of strong opposition in Europe, he orders that all neutron weapons be stored in the US with the option to deploy overseas in the event of war. The USSR announces that it too has tested neutron weapons, but has no plans of deploying them.
1982-France begins production of the neutron warhead.
1986-France announces it will abandon the production of neutron warheads because of internal and external political pressure.
Ref.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclea...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/395689.stm
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/...
tank slapper said:
I think "minimal blast and heat" in the context of a nuclear weapon is still going to make a considerable mess.
Apparently the US military objected to the early neutron bombs because if detonated at 3000ft as planned, the damage would be so light it would be difficult to figure out whether the target had actually been hit.They designed two models of bomb, both to be used at ground level and one so big it would casue Hiroshima type damage. Exactly what the designer wanted to avoid.
Always more of a tactical weapon than a strategic one. I think what particularly upset the anti-nuclear movement was the perceived callousness of a device designed to kill humans with minimal collateral damage to infrastructure - but the device was not meant to be used against civilian populations. Morally, less offensive than something targeted at wiping out cities?
The pragmatic opposition was more that a battlefield nuke was more likely to be used than something which would precipitate armageddon.
The pragmatic opposition was more that a battlefield nuke was more likely to be used than something which would precipitate armageddon.
Tango13 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: How does our system work if the PM or someone very senior in the military loses the plot?
The PM cannot order a nuclear strike, only authorise one. So if the PM were to lose the plot and order a pre-emptive strike the Top Brass would I'd imagine simply refuse.
Just about anything to do with nuclear has whats known as "The two man principle". i.e. there must always be two people present at all times to work on or around nuclear weapons. I think the Jaguar was the one aircrew nuclear bomber,the rest have pilot and navigator that must make switch selections in a certain order for the weapon to arm and be dropped.
AJS- said:
Probably been mentioned already, but The War Game by Peter Watkins is another one worth watching. It has a few hints as to the government's plans for people, and if there was any ever doubt that we are tax-cattle to them then this should dispel it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyaDSlhMKyoGassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff