The Wargame - a mobile alert has come through that missiles are headed your way...

[noblegiraffe]

I've just finished listening to The Wargame podcast - a scenario where Russia attacks the UK and a cabinet of politicians and experts react and make decisions in response. Ben Wallace is the Prime Minister, Amber Rudd is Home Secretary, Jack Straw is Foreign Secretary along with various others.

It was both interesting and terrifying to hear how screwed Britain is militarily, particularly with the US now promoting an America First policy. We appear to have barely any resources, and those that we do have seem to be largely out of service. The podcast is a long advert for increasing military spending.

There is a section where missiles are headed for London, there's nothing that can be done about it, and the government decide to use the new emergency alert system to send a message to everyone's mobiles that missiles are incoming. Which is great, but then what? The is a question about whether people should get under the kitchen table.

What would you do? Should we know what to do? The podcast seems to suggest that this is something that needs addressing.

Anyway, I think it's a really good listen (although slow to get going) and some of the fake news segments are really quite chilling.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-wargame-podcast-what-if-russia-attacked-the-uk-13381047

Yes, it was like 'the missiles are going to hit in 20 minutes'

right...that's ages, plenty of time to do something about them

'there's nothing that can be done to stop them'

I think in my head you could just scramble a jet and shoot it down.

If it's any consolation, this has been the same state of affairs since ICBM's first became a reliable method of delivery in the middle of last century, and nobody has been turned into a moonscape yet.

The inevitability of it is an important part of MAD doctrine, and a lot of people were seriously pissed off and angry when Reagan started banging on about "Star Wars" defence, including a lot of people Star Wars was intended to protect.

We had duck and cover drills at primary school and were told to hide under desks. I'm sure adopting that method would keep me perfectly safe. ☢️

Yes 😂

Some of the Public Information stuff around in the 70s and 80s was wild as well. Completely inadequate and futile instructions on how to "survive". I think the belief was that a certain minimum civilian population was required to survive in order to provide labour for the "rebuild", but at the same time there was also an understanding that it would have been practically impossible to actually feed more than a few thousand people at best, so there was always a suspicion the guidance was deliberately inadequate because deep down the "state" actually wanted you dead!

Completely inadequate and futile instructions on how to "survive".

Probably because giving duff instructions on how to survive by hiding under a table was better for the national psyche than the information that they were totally doomed and there was nothing they could do about it, however they could rest assured that Downing Street would be safely in a bunker within minutes.

I have not only listened to it but I am old enough to have seen the "original" when it came out. That does not change my answer, and it is arrogance to assume that only people who haven't an awareness of militarisation would want to spend more on arms. I would prefer to spend less and be neutral. We are a small and insignificant island, regardless of what people think, when it comes to such matters now. We would have no power or influence when it comes to actual superpowers playing their game, so I equally have no interest in spening money to support their sabre rattling. In the end they will either wipe each other out (and all the rest of us in the process) or they will come to a realisation that spending money on killing people is not the best way forward for the human race. Which of those it comes down to is something the jury is still out on, but I do not think for one second this country plays any role in tipping the balance one way or another.

BTW, if Russia wanted to create cracks in NATO they would attack a country that has military or other advantage to them. We have neither. They could attack the UK, but we have no resources they want and little strategic benefit - missile attacks on an island doesn't allow them to occupy the land, and if they are able to occupy us they have already crushed Europe. If they have already crushed Europe, then it is over for us anyway so we may as well surrender.

The problem with this podcast - and with all these doomsday scenarios - is a continued assumption that modern warfare is no different from what it was 80 years ago. It is vastly different. Russia is far more likely to attack with hackers and a few drones rather than missiles.

@PhilippaGeorgiou

Russia is far more likely to attack with hackers and a few drones rather than missiles.

I take it you are aware that Russia continues to use short/medium range ballistic missiles in it's conflict with Ukraine and they've been horribly effective, the reason Russia hasn't used more of them is probably a combination of cost and (low) production rate.

Drones, hackers and missiles all have their uses, missiles haven't gone away.

@PhilippaGeorgiou your original post said "Leaving aside the fact that, albeit Putin appears to lack any sanity, he would attack one NATO country when there is nothing at all to gain from such an attack?"

and I explained that in the podcast the advantage that Russia gained was that it attacked a NATO country and that the UK attempted to call on the support of other NATO members and that this attempt was denied. If NATO falls apart then goodbye Poland.

As I said, the scenario in the podcast is deliberately contrived to have UK have to stand on its own resources so that we, the listeners, can see how poor they are. It's set out as a 'low likelihood high impact' scenario.

I can't listen to the pod cast. Previously I'd have enjoyed its thought provoking content, but not anymore

i can't put anything more like this into my head right now, so I'm being an ostrich.

if no warning I'm just doing whatever, 98% chance at the moment that's distracting myself from throwing up (illness not pregnancy unfortunately!!)

if it's the 20 minutes posted up thread I'm finding out where it's expected to be at its hardest hitting that I can get to & going there.

I no longer have any dependents (young children or pets) if I can I'll phone my mum/best friends to say goodbye.

I have no fear of being dead, just the actual act of dying, so I'd just hope it's a quick ending.

EDIT to add. I'm all for increased security spending

I didn't say they had. I was talking about the UK, not the Ukraine. They are entirely different scenarios.

I realised that. But I disagree. I have already explained why I think that, so repeating your explanation does not change my own view.

Tbh. I'd rather be dead than in a bunker with a load of politicians with nothing but radioactive wasteland to greet me if I ever left. Crack open the bottle and I'll sing my way into oblivion

Depends what you are trying to do.

There are certain tasks/missions that hackers can't hack and drones, initially, at least may not be able to achieve.

I'm well aware Generals often end up fighting the last war but certainly there's been a fashion in recent years, especially it seems by some on the academic side of war studies, to write off any materiel or equipment that is pre-internet as being old fashioned, no longer relevant...no longer needed...it's very blinkered and dangerous thinking TBH.

The reality is drones and cyber in various forms offer new options for doing certain tasks but they don't automatically render more traditional means of warfare redundant or ineffective.

Fundamentally Short/medium range ballistic missiles could still be very relevant and certainly have their uses in a hypothetical Russia v Uk only conflict.

The whole concept of keeping the peace is so precarious it seems.
There are mistakes that have brought us extremely close to all out war.
Flaws in missile detection systems.
And the fact that one unhinged nation could decide not to play the game of deterrence keeping us all safe.
It's all quite terrifying and we truly are teetering on the brink.
I do believe that the general population needs to understand a lot more about how to react to numerous scenarios.

It's not my explanation, it is, as I said, the scenario presented in the podcast. No one has claimed that it is likely.

If nothing can be done then I see little point in warning the nation. Those final minutes will be sheer horror and panic.

With the scenario you’ve outlined, I am just thrilled that Starmer is not PM, and Labour is not in government.

Secure in that knowledge, I can go to meet my maker, entirely content.

@noblegiraffe read when the wind blows by Raymond Briggs. It was published in the 80's but the levels of confusion about government/ official advice are still the same......

But that’s partly because we have no plans and no idea what to do.

I imagine that in Ukraine when the sirens go off they don’t just sit and panic waiting for the missiles to hit. They know where to go and what to do.

Like if you were in London should you be headed for the Underground?

And imagine the missile hit London and people had been given no warning but if they had they conceivably could have headed for an Underground station, that would be awful too.

Double post

Like what? Most of the uk doesn't have an underground and certainly isn't provisioned for a post nuclear world. Why would I want to survive, especially when the people who are going to be in the bunkers are the least equipped to rebuild.

Well, I wouldn’t bother getting the washing in.

It will depend if it is a missile to target a particular place... or a nuke.
I won't want to live in the fallout after a nuclear bomb.

Well, if we're talking nuclear I guess it would depend on the size of the strike and whether its ground burst or air burst.
If one small bomb was airburst in one location, for example, then there would be action people could take.
An understanding of emp effects, how to tell wind direction, what would be the safer sources of water or food etc etc would be useful in such circumstances.
In all out nuclear war? Kiss your ass goodbye.
But, the op is, I believe, primarily talking about a conventional strike. In which case, where are the possible targets near you? Have you got a plan to contact family? Bug out bags? What's the safest part of a structure? etc etc