I would question if that letter is even genuine. Nikolai Ogarkov is Chief of the Soviet General Staff, not in any way, shape or form a member of the Soviet political leadership, and he has no business whatever sending communications to foreign heads of government or state as if he were himself head of the Soviet government.
Not with a roar, but a whimper... the end of Britain? (Protect and Survive related)
- Thread starter Star Chamber
- Start date
Step 1: Tell Mr Popov that the UK will announce neutrality immediately. Ask him to wait outside for a moment
Step 2: Contact the Americans and tell them that a nuclear strike on USA is imminient. Tell the Americans the UK will retaliate on the USSR but with a 12-24hr delay
Step 3: Wait 12-24hrs for the Soviet retaliatory capability to reduce to very low capability.
Step 4: Figure out which bits of the USSR remain standing (if any).
Step 5: Kill those remaining bits.
Step 6: Extend all help possible to the remnant USA.
There y'go. The best time to kick someone is when they're down
I've met Maggie when she was most decisive...
...Lockerbie 1988...
...The Ambassador would be told that MAD rules are in place and that Russia will be toast unless it backs down and aborts all launches on NATO members.
...Maggie would reckon that it's a Duchy of Grand Fenwick situation - the UK is in a nuclear sandwich. If she's worth this weird offer, then it's because the UK deterrent can tip the scales and ensure a Soviet collapse.
...And the USSR would back down and reply that Ogarkov and Popov were latter-day candidates for Spandau Prison alongside Hess.
...A Pearl Harbor scenario with a letter doesn't work with the Hot Lines in place.
...Lockerbie 1988...
...The Ambassador would be told that MAD rules are in place and that Russia will be toast unless it backs down and aborts all launches on NATO members.
...Maggie would reckon that it's a Duchy of Grand Fenwick situation - the UK is in a nuclear sandwich. If she's worth this weird offer, then it's because the UK deterrent can tip the scales and ensure a Soviet collapse.
...And the USSR would back down and reply that Ogarkov and Popov were latter-day candidates for Spandau Prison alongside Hess.
...A Pearl Harbor scenario with a letter doesn't work with the Hot Lines in place.
In the Protect and Survive universe, Ogarkov is head of the political leadership.
Once missiles are in the air it's too late. Maggie has to hope that the Ambassador can convey the message quickly enough to prevent keys being turned.
A few thoughts:
* First of all, it's highly implausible that the USSR would allow Britain (and presumably France) to keep their nuclear deterrent intact. If the Soviets are going all out, all the nuclear powers get targeted. There's nothing to gain from allowing anyone to hold significant nukes, particularly countries that have been on the opposite side of the Cold War of them since Jump Street. They'd be more likely to attempt to go after Europe in a nuclear/conventional war in an attempt to turn the whole continent red (proverbially or literally), making the offer to the U.S. to stay out of it in exchange for no exchange. But Reagan would tell whoever it was making the offer to cram it with 10MT walnuts and we'd have our global thermonuclear war anyway.
* But taking what's been proposed at face value: Cynical as it may sound, Britain is of more use to the U.S. by playing neutral right now than it would be if she launched her missiles. News of Britain's "neutrality" won't get to the U.S. for some time because the Emergency Action Notification will lock down the media and be broadcasting news and instruction on the impending holocaust. An intact Britain (and France) can help the U.S. recover, and the USSR will likely be done as a nation. Of course, there's nothing keeping the Soviets from breaking their word and launching at Europe anyway. After the fact, Britain will still have their deterrent on hair-trigger alert because nobody will know how many nukes the now-former Soviets have, or who's controlling them, or what they might do with them. Still, the only way Britain can help the U.S. is after the exchange -- even if they launched the moment Thatcher had Popov escorted off the grounds, they won't be saving any lives at that point. It'll look callous to the point of traitorous, but in the final equation, it's the, ahem, best-case scenario for the Allies.
* If Popov is any relation to the makers of the most reprehensible vodka ever created, he should be shot on sight for war crimes against the world's livers and taste buds. There's a reason you can get that shit for 8 bucks a half-gallon.
* First of all, it's highly implausible that the USSR would allow Britain (and presumably France) to keep their nuclear deterrent intact. If the Soviets are going all out, all the nuclear powers get targeted. There's nothing to gain from allowing anyone to hold significant nukes, particularly countries that have been on the opposite side of the Cold War of them since Jump Street. They'd be more likely to attempt to go after Europe in a nuclear/conventional war in an attempt to turn the whole continent red (proverbially or literally), making the offer to the U.S. to stay out of it in exchange for no exchange. But Reagan would tell whoever it was making the offer to cram it with 10MT walnuts and we'd have our global thermonuclear war anyway.
* But taking what's been proposed at face value: Cynical as it may sound, Britain is of more use to the U.S. by playing neutral right now than it would be if she launched her missiles. News of Britain's "neutrality" won't get to the U.S. for some time because the Emergency Action Notification will lock down the media and be broadcasting news and instruction on the impending holocaust. An intact Britain (and France) can help the U.S. recover, and the USSR will likely be done as a nation. Of course, there's nothing keeping the Soviets from breaking their word and launching at Europe anyway. After the fact, Britain will still have their deterrent on hair-trigger alert because nobody will know how many nukes the now-former Soviets have, or who's controlling them, or what they might do with them. Still, the only way Britain can help the U.S. is after the exchange -- even if they launched the moment Thatcher had Popov escorted off the grounds, they won't be saving any lives at that point. It'll look callous to the point of traitorous, but in the final equation, it's the, ahem, best-case scenario for the Allies.
* If Popov is any relation to the makers of the most reprehensible vodka ever created, he should be shot on sight for war crimes against the world's livers and taste buds. There's a reason you can get that shit for 8 bucks a half-gallon.
Sorry for the delay in this, real life intruded... 
.
I'm going to continue it--I'll have a next post up tomorrow.
By the way, there was a literary inspiration for this. Anyone ever read the book When War Comes, by Martin Caidin?
.I'm going to continue it--I'll have a next post up tomorrow.
By the way, there was a literary inspiration for this. Anyone ever read the book When War Comes, by Martin Caidin?
I think if that is the case, we may as well be bringing up Mr. McCormick and Mr. Skol, along with the MacGregor Clan on criminal charges also.
Maybe. BUT it gives the UK time to hunker down and disperse as much as possible.
If one of the bombers is in Faslane for example, get it out within as few hours as possible.
Get air-dropped nukes out of storage and loaded onto strike aircraft pronto.
Fylingdales is working so the Brits will get warning of a launch against them, allowing the counterstrike to go immediately.
In the end it might not make much of a difference if it is a trap but it will ensure the Soviets are hurt even more.
NorthernFiend
Banned
1. Thatcher declares neutrality
2. Waits 12 hours, orders British deterrent to launch aimed at Paris, Berlin and Brussels
3. Blames USSR
2. Waits 12 hours, orders British deterrent to launch aimed at Paris, Berlin and Brussels
3. Blames USSR
Derek Pullem
Donor
1. Thatcher declares neutrality
2. Waits 12 hours, orders British deterrent to launch aimed at Paris, Berlin and Brussels
3. Blames USSR
More likely Liverpool Sheffield and Glasgow
But being serious......
Not launching is going to give a chance of avoiding the direct consequences of nuclear war. At the worst it will give them a simultaneous first strike against the USSR. It will also maintain NATO radar assets for a vital few minutes more. And allow more aircraft to be dispersed in the event of a strike.
Whilst it's an interesting thought experiment, I agree that the Soviets would never do this, they simply have nothing to gain. Despite how insane the Soviet leadership might have gotten, they'll realise that they want be able to completely knock putrid United States with this first strike. At best hundreds, more likely thousands, of American bombs will rain down on the Soviet Union. Their only hope at this point is that they've hit the west harder than they've been hit and can recover more effectively. If they leave Western Europe, or even just Britain largely intact, this strategy is rendered hopeless.
Implausible scenario as once a ICBM/SLBM is fired you can't stop it.
But in regards to the USA/USSR war and the UK being left alone you could look up on the net at a Red World War III scenario called Severn Days To The Rhine which details on how the USSR determined the consequences of war breaking out in Europe.
Due to the fact that France and the UK are nuclear states, no nukes are launched or used against these countries for fear of retaliation.
Instead the rest of Europe is put to the torch, and Poland is wiped off the face of the Earth with over 20 or so million casualties.
But in regards to the USA/USSR war and the UK being left alone you could look up on the net at a Red World War III scenario called Severn Days To The Rhine which details on how the USSR determined the consequences of war breaking out in Europe.
Due to the fact that France and the UK are nuclear states, no nukes are launched or used against these countries for fear of retaliation.
Instead the rest of Europe is put to the torch, and Poland is wiped off the face of the Earth with over 20 or so million casualties.
I would suspect that as well.
Well, that is, if there were many still operating to begin with. Do remember that this attack occurred at around 8:30 GMT.....it would have been 3:30 a.m. in Washington & New York, 2:30 in Chicago, St. Louis, and Houston, 1:30 in Albuquerque, Phoenix, and Denver, 12:30 in L.A., San Francisco, and Portland, 11:30 in Anchorage, and 10:30 in Honolulu.
So, unfortunately, due to the time of day, most TV & many radio stations in the ConUS would be off the air; most people who were still up might get very little warning the moment the attacks begin. Some might not know anything was up until the sirens sounded.....and in many of *those* cases, sadly, it'd be too late to seek adequate shelter.
Maybe not, especially if the PM can't get through to the U.S. squadrons in various bases across the country.
And unfortunately, this could indeed lead to problems down the line, and not just with former Soviet states still holding on to the past, but maybe even terrorists as well.
Maybe so. Although to be honest, it's not all that likely with Thatcher anyhow.....you'd have an easier time with Tony Benn, or someone like him, I'd suspect.