If the UK had ever been nuked...

[Guvernator]

Very thought provoking and scary topic. I remember seeing a map quite a few years ago now which mapped out UK targets but can't seem to find it on Google. What I do remember clearly though is that the Russians have an over abundance of nuclear weapons, enough to pretty much destroy every major city in the world several times over so I think those stating I live near this or that high value target are making a redundant point.

The UK is a small island but if I recall correctly it would be targeted by about 20 MIRV's which can launch anywhere between 20 to 80 warheads EACH so pretty much the whole of the UK would be toast. I think London alone would be targeted by about 20 nukes. Personally I think I'd prefer to be near an epicentre and be vaporised instantly rather then face the horror of trying to struggle on in a nuclear wasteland.

[tobinen]

There's a very good film on BBC red button at the moment along a similar vein called War Book. It's a bit overacted in parts but worth a watch

[Dr Jekyll]

Guvernator said:

The UK is a small island but if I recall correctly it would be targeted by about 20 MIRV's which can launch anywhere between 20 to 80 warheads EACH

Are you sure? 20 sounds a lot never mind 80.

[bitchstewie]

I think I may have mentioned on this thread (haven't recapped all 15 pages) but I remember some documentary with some old Russian general who basically laughed and said something like 8 missiles or warheads (forget which) would have taken care of the UK - they didn't really give us too much thought as a land mass apparently.

[Guvernator]

Dr Jekyll said:

Are you sure? 20 sounds a lot never mind 80.

Yep definitely remember thinking bloody hell that's serious overkill. Perhaps they work under the assumption that some may fail or get intercepted, however when you have thousands of nukes sitting around, what are you going to do with them if it all kicks off, save some for a rainy day?

[AshVX220]

You just need to destroy our ability to fight, so yeah, 8 could do it I reckon, 3 for London, one for Pompey, one for Plymouth, one for Faslane, one for GCHQ, and 3 for the key RAF bases that could do them any damage.

As for the number of warheads, each missle can carry a number of MIRVs, each MIRV is a single warhead (I think).

So, a Typhoon class SSBN, can carry 20 missiles (IIRC) and each of those can carry 6 or 8 MIRVs. So one Sub has the ability to drop 120-160 warheads. One Typhoon could probably incapacitate most of Europe.

Cheerful thought eh?

[eldar]

AshVX220 said:

You just need to destroy our ability to fight, so yeah, 8 could do it I reckon, 3 for London, one for Pompey, one for Plymouth, one for Faslane, one for GCHQ, and 3 for the key RAF bases that could do them any damage.

As for the number of warheads, each missle can carry a number of MIRVs, each MIRV is a single warhead (I think).

So, a Typhoon class SSBN, can carry 20 missiles (IIRC) and each of those can carry 6 or 8 MIRVs. So one Sub has the ability to drop 120-160 warheads. One Typhoon could probably incapacitate most of Europe.

Cheerful thought eh?

You could achieve the same result by crippling the national grid for a week.

[ninja-lewis]

Not actual soviet target lists but these are lists of probable targets put together by Whitehall in the 1960s-70s:

said:

The following list of 81 probable targets for nuclear attack was prepared by the Joint Intelligence Committee for the Machinery of Government in War Sub-Committee of the Home Defence Committee in 1967.

Most targets were expected to be attacked by both missiles and aircraft, usually with 4 x 500-kiloton airburst weapons. London was expected to be targeted with 10 weapons totalling 9 megatons.

Control centres

Government (central) - London, Cheltenham.

Government (regional) - The 12 former RSG sites were considered as possible targets.

Military - Northwood, Plymouth, Pitreavie, Fort Southwick, High Wycombe, Ruislip, Bawtry.

Bomber bases

Scampton, Wittering, Waddington, Honiton, Cottesmore, Marham, Coningsby, St Mawgan, Lossiemouth, Macrihanish, Leeming, Gaydon, Finningley, Valley, Bedford, Brawdy, Yeovilton, Lynham, Wyton, Pershore, Boscombe Down, Kinloss, Manston, Ballykelly, Filton, Leconfield, Alconbury, Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Wethersfield, Lakenheath, Upper Heyford.

Seaborne Nuclear Strike Bases

Bases - Garelock(Clyde), Holy Loch, Rosyth, Portsmouth, Devonport.

Communications – Rigby, Criggion, Anthorn, Inskip, New Waltham, Londonderry, Thurso.

Major Cities

Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Manchester, Southampton, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Sheffield, Swansea, Hull, Middlesborough, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Belfast, Edinburgh, Nottingham

Air Defence

Control centres – Bentley Priory, West Drayton.

Fighter bases - Coltishall, Leuchars, Wattisham, Binbrook.

Surface-to-air missile sites – Woodhall Spa, North Coates, West Raynham.

Radar sites – Fylingdales, Boulmer, Patrington, Bawdsey, Neatishead, Buchan, Saxa Vord, Staxton Wold, Feltwell.

There were further locations expected to be the subject of conventional air attacks. Bear in mind that the RAF had plans to disperse V bombers across the country and there were also extensive NATO facilities across the UK (radar, sonar for GUIK, C&C centres)

The Soviets had a peak stockpile of 45,000 nuclear warheads in 1988. Even if some were destroyed first by NATO, there wouldn't have been a shortage of warheads to go around.

A slightly later list mapped:



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/uk-go...

On the continent, NATO effectively relied on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to counter the numbers the Soviets would commit to any fight. One way trips for Jaguars, Tornadoes, F-111s etc had to be carefully planned to avoid other nuclear strikes (including those clearing Surface to Air Missile concentrations along the route). Significant targets would have multiple strikes planned to ensure they were destroyed.

[dudleybloke]

If things had of got hot we would have been on the receiving end of a 3000mt exchange.

[AshVX220]

eldar said:

You could achieve the same result by crippling the national grid for a week.

Yep, I think if any kind of exchange were to happen today, it wouldn't take much at all to screw our ability to respond. However, if it were to happen, it would very quickly escalate and get to such a level that pretty much nothing would matter anymore.

[eldar]

AshVX220 said:

Yep, I think if any kind of exchange were to happen today, it wouldn't take much at all to screw our ability to respond. However, if it were to happen, it would very quickly escalate and get to such a level that pretty much nothing would matter anymore.

Scary, really. Forget megatons, 5 tons of thermite to take out key gas, water and electric transmission routes. Chaos starts in 48 hours.

[Dr Jekyll]

Apologies if already posted

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[rxtx]

Talking of MOULD (3.5 years ago), I sometimes do the monthly radio checks at the local county hall offices, that re-uses some MOULD antenna cabling which I thought was quite interesting.

[tapkaJohnD]

I remember a briefing for hospital staff by our local Chief Medical Officer (in charge of community health).
We were told that the hospital would be almost stood down, all staff would be expected to work in casualty clearing stations, triaging the sick.
If you don't know triage, in those circumstances it meant those who can walk go home, those who can't might get to hospital but then go home, those who are going to die, go home.
When asked what if staff wanted to stay at home to care for their families his answer was simple.
"No work, no food."

Has anyone mentioned "Hiroshima Story" by John Hersey? See: http://io9.com/read-the-full-text-of-john-herseys-...

John

[Halb]

Grave of the Fireflies is another disheartening film.

[Toaster]

eldar said:

You could achieve the same result by crippling the national grid for a week.

Given that we are so dependant on computers and their networks it would probably take no more than 3 days to run out of most things

However this is an interesting link if we ever need to have a clean up.. http://buddhismnow.com/2011/08/20/invisible-snow/

Edited by Toaster on Sunday 6th September 22:00

[superlightr]

ninja-lewis said:

There were further locations expected to be the subject of conventional air attacks. Bear in mind that the RAF had plans to disperse V bombers across the country and there were also extensive NATO facilities across the UK (radar, sonar for GUIK, C&C centres)

The Soviets had a peak stockpile of 45,000 nuclear warheads in 1988. Even if some were destroyed first by NATO, there wouldn't have been a shortage of warheads to go around.

A slightly later list mapped:



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/uk-go...

On the continent, NATO effectively relied on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to counter the numbers the Soviets would commit to any fight. One way trips for Jaguars, Tornadoes, F-111s etc had to be carefully planned to avoid other nuclear strikes (including those clearing Surface to Air Missile concentrations along the route). Significant targets would have multiple strikes planned to ensure they were destroyed.

I think each target in the UK would have had multiple warheads aimed at it. The limiting factor would have been how many that could have been launched before a retaliation strike. I recall that you are talking about a few of hundred (below 500) that could actually be launched in time by the USSR although that would have been more then enough to have done the job.

I saw a chart with the comparable 'effect strength' of a modern weapon with the ww2 and each one was something like 50x stronger. so even 1x hitting the uk would bring most things to an end as we know it.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 21st September 16:34