The Wargame - Sky
Discussion
t any longer?" Or words to that effect.It was all about making public aware of something that many have been warning. Namely that in the event of an attack, be it a conventional shooting attack, one on infrastructure, or even a false flag incident claimed as UK responsible, then we have very limited of our own conventional resources to retaliate, or control and deal with hostile forces positioning within range of UK. Also questioning state of UK civilian resilience in terms of keeping on.
This would be made worse if in the event of a clear attack which possibly warranted a Nato article 5 declaration was thwarted by reluctance of even just one NATO member not agreeing to to the conference to declare article 5. The example was used that the USA expressly refused to get involved even in the NAC about Art5.
In addition considering UK limited conventional resources, that would then mean that time was very limited to get agreement from other European and Scandinavian nations, for example, to form a supportive coalition of the willing to support.UK vs whoever.
Rapidly running out of conventional means to ramp up any tit for tat exchange, as opposed to one side saying enough and thus effectively surrendering would mean that the government would very rapidly have to be considering use of our strategic nuclear deterrent.
The question which was left open was that legally the use of the weapon of last resort is only in the situation where the nation is facing an existential extinction threat. So in the case of an inbound ballistic missile landing in 22 minutes where you do not know whether it carries a conventional or nuclear warhead and will only find out which when it goes bang do you, the PM, give the order for a pre-emptive nuclear launch.
Fade to black.
This would be made worse if in the event of a clear attack which possibly warranted a Nato article 5 declaration was thwarted by reluctance of even just one NATO member not agreeing to to the conference to declare article 5. The example was used that the USA expressly refused to get involved even in the NAC about Art5.
In addition considering UK limited conventional resources, that would then mean that time was very limited to get agreement from other European and Scandinavian nations, for example, to form a supportive coalition of the willing to support.UK vs whoever.
Rapidly running out of conventional means to ramp up any tit for tat exchange, as opposed to one side saying enough and thus effectively surrendering would mean that the government would very rapidly have to be considering use of our strategic nuclear deterrent.
The question which was left open was that legally the use of the weapon of last resort is only in the situation where the nation is facing an existential extinction threat. So in the case of an inbound ballistic missile landing in 22 minutes where you do not know whether it carries a conventional or nuclear warhead and will only find out which when it goes bang do you, the PM, give the order for a pre-emptive nuclear launch.
Fade to black.
Hmm, well *technically* it’s based on a well known UK university’s annual “Wargame” for that yrs International Politics class. That is based on being members of both the Russian leadership and UK leadership.
The various dept profs and lecturers have been long standing advisors to the UK govt and other govts over the yrs.
The various dept profs and lecturers have been long standing advisors to the UK govt and other govts over the yrs.
FiF said:
It was all about making public aware of something that many have been warning. Namely that in the event of an attack, be it a conventional shooting attack, one on infrastructure, or even a false flag incident claimed as UK responsible, then we have very limited of our own conventional resources to retaliate, or control and deal with hostile forces positioning within range of UK. Also questioning state of UK civilian resilience in terms of keeping on.
This would be made worse if in the event of a clear attack which possibly warranted a Nato article 5 declaration was thwarted by reluctance of even just one NATO member not agreeing to to the conference to declare article 5. The example was used that the USA expressly refused to get involved even in the NAC about Art5.
In addition considering UK limited conventional resources, that would then mean that time was very limited to get agreement from other European and Scandinavian nations, for example, to form a supportive coalition of the willing to support.UK vs whoever.
Rapidly running out of conventional means to ramp up any tit for tat exchange, as opposed to one side saying enough and thus effectively surrendering would mean that the government would very rapidly have to be considering use of our strategic nuclear deterrent.
The question which was left open was that legally the use of the weapon of last resort is only in the situation where the nation is facing an existential extinction threat. So in the case of an inbound ballistic missile landing in 22 minutes where you do not know whether it carries a conventional or nuclear warhead and will only find out which when it goes bang do you, the PM, give the order for a pre-emptive nuclear launch.
Fade to black.
Thanks for that. I can see that here is an issue about how you move from one stage to the next in a conflict and both decision making and resources (weapons and people) are part of that.This would be made worse if in the event of a clear attack which possibly warranted a Nato article 5 declaration was thwarted by reluctance of even just one NATO member not agreeing to to the conference to declare article 5. The example was used that the USA expressly refused to get involved even in the NAC about Art5.
In addition considering UK limited conventional resources, that would then mean that time was very limited to get agreement from other European and Scandinavian nations, for example, to form a supportive coalition of the willing to support.UK vs whoever.
Rapidly running out of conventional means to ramp up any tit for tat exchange, as opposed to one side saying enough and thus effectively surrendering would mean that the government would very rapidly have to be considering use of our strategic nuclear deterrent.
The question which was left open was that legally the use of the weapon of last resort is only in the situation where the nation is facing an existential extinction threat. So in the case of an inbound ballistic missile landing in 22 minutes where you do not know whether it carries a conventional or nuclear warhead and will only find out which when it goes bang do you, the PM, give the order for a pre-emptive nuclear launch.
Fade to black.
But I have sympathy with Yertis's comment. I can see there's a trap in thinking "They have done X so we will do y and teach them a lesson and they will stop." It's just as likely they will do z and it just continues from there. Which what you are saying refers to I guess.
Randy Winkman said:
Thanks for that. I can see that here is an issue about how you move from one stage to the next in a conflict and both decision making and resources (weapons and people) are part of that.
But I have sympathy with Yertis's comment. I can see there's a trap in thinking "They have done X so we will do y and teach them a lesson and they will stop." It's just as likely they will do z and it just continues from there. Which what you are saying refers to I guess.
The core of FiF's point (which is what I also took away as my main 'learning point' from the podcast) is that the UK is in a precariously unusual position among UNSC members and other NATO members in that we have both a strategic nuclear capability and extremely limited and 'shallow', albeit quite capable, conventional forces. But I have sympathy with Yertis's comment. I can see there's a trap in thinking "They have done X so we will do y and teach them a lesson and they will stop." It's just as likely they will do z and it just continues from there. Which what you are saying refers to I guess.
The likes of America and China have a whole spectrum of responses, from "park a carrier strike group off the coast/roll a tank division near to the border", through a large range of conventional responses (missile/air strikes, trade interdiction, special forces raids, commando raids, amphibious expeditions to remove key capabilities or capture key strategic points, an infantry brigade (with mechanized and motorised support), an army brigade, an army division etc. etc. up to "full strategic commitment of conventional forces" and that's before nuclear weapons even enter the picture.
The UK can't do that. So if we're on the receiving end of a series of small but deadly missile strikes by, say, Russia, which knocks out some key military targets and infrastructure and causes civilian damage and deaths in the heart of British cities, the moral, political and military desire to "do something", both in retaliation and to prevent another strike of a similar scale, is extremely limited. The risk/danger is that the conclusion becomes that the only option which meets the military and political goals with a reasonable chance of success is a nuclear strike - or that this option becomes a pressure felt by our leaders. Because when they're required to 'do something' the options available to them between 'nothing' and 'launch the nukes' is extremely thin, which is not the case for most other powers.
Also watched the roundup show, very unconvinced by Streeting to put it bluntly.
'CDS' Sir Richard Barrons very impressive and good to see Tom Sharpe taking part in both podcast and TV versions.
The roundup show for the podcast did include a statement from the real life Russian ambassador stated categorically that they had no intention whatsoever to attack UK. Large pinch of salt required imho as they're probing and of course such as Salisbury etc and other activities across Europe. Accidents happen unfortunately.
Also despite danger of linking fiction with fact rather apt on the podcast where Americans were asked directly if they believed Russia were telling the truth received the response "Russia has never said anything that Potus did not believe was true." Cue snorts of laughter from Cobra.
Also interesting to see determined anti nuclear Sturgeon wavering.
'CDS' Sir Richard Barrons very impressive and good to see Tom Sharpe taking part in both podcast and TV versions.
The roundup show for the podcast did include a statement from the real life Russian ambassador stated categorically that they had no intention whatsoever to attack UK. Large pinch of salt required imho as they're probing and of course such as Salisbury etc and other activities across Europe. Accidents happen unfortunately.
Also despite danger of linking fiction with fact rather apt on the podcast where Americans were asked directly if they believed Russia were telling the truth received the response "Russia has never said anything that Potus did not believe was true." Cue snorts of laughter from Cobra.
Also interesting to see determined anti nuclear Sturgeon wavering.
I thought it was good. Certainly makes you think.
Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
paulw123 said:
I thought it was good. Certainly makes you think.
Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
In the absence of US support I'd say you'd have to leave it. In the Wargame scenario you would hope that would clearly be a red line which if stepped beyond by Russia then the US would support NATO?Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
Pitre said:
paulw123 said:
I thought it was good. Certainly makes you think.
Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
In the absence of US support I'd say you'd have to leave it. In the Wargame scenario you would hope that would clearly be a red line which if stepped beyond by Russia then the US would support NATO?Still think it's a shame Penny Mordant lost her seat in the last GE.
Surely the whole point of Nukes is there has to be an agreement that if one gets used on a nato country. Even if it's a 'tactical nuke' then the country that fires it disappears, either via the country being attacked or if that's no possible by a pre arranged NATO member.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent but deterrents only work if the aggressor believes they will be used back.
The cliff hanger they left was interesting. Do you wait for the attack to happen or is any incoming nuclear capable ballistic missile to be treated as a incoming nuclear attack?
One thing that was said somewhere, forget exactly when and maybe as commentary rather than in the 'action', was the observation that if you don't spend sufficiently on defence in times of peace then the spend and destruction when things turn sour makes the previous savings totally insignificant.
Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
FiF said:
One thing that was said somewhere, forget exactly when and maybe as commentary rather than in the 'action', was the observation that if you don't spend sufficiently on defence in times of peace then the spend and destruction when things turn sour makes the previous savings totally insignificant.
Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
Not a great example, as Germany wouldn’t have been deterred even if we had spent 5%+ from 1935 on. The change might have been that no Munich agreement (ie the war starts in 1938 not 39 if Chamberlain doesn’t think he needs more time to rearm)Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
FiF said:
One thing that was said somewhere, forget exactly when and maybe as commentary rather than in the 'action', was the observation that if you don't spend sufficiently on defence in times of peace then the spend and destruction when things turn sour makes the previous savings totally insignificant.
Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
Yes. If you think COVID was expensive, how much to rebuild one of our major cities from Hiroshima-like destruction? 3.5% of GDP is peanuts in comparison.Which points towards UK spend measured as a % relative to GDP in the 1930's of interest in a learning from history moment.
Early 30's low 2%
Mid 30's ~2.5%
36/37 As Nazi threat became clear rose to 3.8%
38/39 Last full fiscal prewar year 7.7%
1940 now to 44% and rising.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff