To wonder if the government have started any planning on what if a nuclear weapon hit britain

[Gotajobthrunepotism]

Even in the current climate, I don’t actually believe that a nuclear bomb will be hitting the UK.

But I wondered if the government have prepared for the eventuality.

I heard that in the 70s/80s there were loads of leaflets and adverts of what we should do if we were attacked.

In other countries they have bomb shelters and sirens.

I wouldn’t have a clue what to do. The only thing I do know is that I would want to be with my family when it happened.

Anyone one else wonder about this?

But I wondered if the government have prepared for the eventuality.

Yes they do, but their plans won't involve you. Or me.

Would anyone want to be survivors with the 'elite' anyway..🤔 can you imagine the company you would be keeping .. you will be throwing yourself off a cliff in a week with frustration.

@Xpologog

The government have got a bomb shelter for themselves. I don’t think they give a flying fig what happens to anyone else. But I could be wrong.

^ Exactly this - all those leaflets were just to make people feel better and make the clearup easier.

I can't bear (bare?) the thought of not being able to go to my children if this happens.

We will all just have to die separately

No, I am saying that we were provided with all of these things by a good PM

You do realise that other countries had similar things provided - your PM didn't do anything that special. Some of those other countries also had a much lower death rate.

@olaamigo

I can't bear (bare?) the thought of not being able to go to my children if this happens.

We will all just have to die separately

I know this is very insensitive of me as your post is about something pretty awful and I completely know what you mean.

But OMG thank you so much for at least acknowledging you are not sure of the spelling for bear/bare. I have seen ' I can't bare it when...' so often I am really beginning to wonder if schools have started teaching different spellings in the last 20-30 years

Bare uncovered, as in ' I want to bare my soul' or 'he went outside with bare feet'

Bear means to carry or hold something as in ' I can't bear this' or
pall bearers at a funeral (it also a big furry mammal with claws and so maybe that is when people see 'I can't bear it " written down and think it is wrong )

Right digression over. I'm off to pedant's corner. Hopefully I'll get there before a nuclear bomb drops as I'd hate to die before I can moan some more about grammar or spelling errors.

@bumblingbovine49 I Google it so often but still never remember!! Your explanation is so helpful

[quote Flapjacker48]@notimagain Certainly anything involved in military or civil nuclear would have (and probably are still) been key targets both to prevent any chance at more nuclear weapons being produced and for "economic warfare" reasons, i.e if a country was devastated then a electricity supply that needed no fossil fuels would be a key asset.

Certainly in the past sellafield was involved in much more than nuclear power station fuel processing too.[/quote]
Yep I’m aware of the latter.

It’s fair guess Sellafield would be a desired target, I suppose I’m querying the assumption would be a “key” target, even perhaps above, say, some of the military, command/control installations etc. scattered across the UK.

I guess a handful of people in Moscow will know.

Tell the truth, Milford Haven already looks like it's post nuclear apocalypse...

Things won't be great, but we certainly won't be as fucked as the rest of you!

Yes you will, sorry.

So you know more than people who have actually studied this sort of stuff? Okay then.

If you read Nevil Shute's On the Beach, the radiation gets everyone in the end - it is set in Australia but mentions people getting radiation sickness in New Zealand. I don't know if that would actually happen in real life - I guess it depends if each side send a couple of warheads and then stop, so areas of the world are still habitable, or whether they really do go mad and go for annihilation.

On the Beach is a novel, written several decades ago. I really don't think what it says can be taken as gospel truth!

Sorry wrong post !!

Right digression over. I'm off to pedant's corner. Hopefully I'll get there before a nuclear bomb drops as I'd hate to die before I can moan some more about grammar or spelling errors.

That reminds me of at least two BBC commentators who've said nucular rather than nuclear !! Grrrr!

@SquirrelG

If you read Nevil Shute's On the Beach, the radiation gets everyone in the end - it is set in Australia but mentions people getting radiation sickness in New Zealand. I don't know if that would actually happen in real life - I guess it depends if each side send a couple of warheads and then stop, so areas of the world are still habitable, or whether they really do go mad and go for annihilation.

On the Beach is a novel, written several decades ago. I really don't think what it says can be taken as gospel truth!

Unlike the bible 😁

Things is, there would have to be a strategy, even in a nuclear war. Countries won't just go lobbing nukes at each other hell for leather. People think 'nuclear' and immediate cut to the part where there's no sunlight, nothing has grown on land, anywhere, for many years, and people are cooking rats on sticks. That's an extremely unlikely scenario. I think it's entirely possible to survive and rebuild after a small scale nuclear attack - such as they did in Hiroshima.

As for shelters, It'll be every man or woman for themselves. The nuclear bunkers of the cold war era are long since decommissioned. If you're 30-40 miles from a likely target though, you'd still stand a good chance of surviving providing it's not all out nuclear war. The country would be in a shit state for a good while though, so your new blue passport might not open many doors for you.

Everyone thinks nuclear but bio or chemical weapons can be equally devastating but after a few days/weeks they are no longer dangerous. Salisbury proved that a small amount of nerve agent can paralyse an area

I think it's entirely possible to survive and rebuild after a small scale nuclear attack - such as they did in Hiroshima.

Yes but why would it be a small scale attack?

"The bomb in Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. nuclear warheads today can be more than 1,000 kilotons"

@fungh because as I said, even in nuclear warfare there would be a strategy. Who wants to rule over a wasteland, just for the hell of it? As you rightly say, nuclear weapons have come a long way since Hiroshima. More deadly in many ways, yes, and certainly more numerous and 'modern'. But with that comes the possibility of precision targeting from 2k miles away, meaning it's entirely possible to use them more tactically rather than wiping out hundreds of thousands of people in one hit.

But how do you know the strategy of any other country?

The deterrent is retaliation, why would Putin bother with a small precise attack?

@fungh

I think it's entirely possible to survive and rebuild after a small scale nuclear attack - such as they did in Hiroshima.

Yes but why would it be a small scale attack?

"The bomb in Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. nuclear warheads today can be more than 1,000 kilotons"

There is some truth in Whataclusterfucks comment about strategy.

I mentioned the following in an earlier thread and got a few “don’t think so”, because with reason people are conditioned to think MAD, and MAD only, but the following is in some of the doctrines ( and before anybody panics this info is open source) and is one way you could end up with a small scale nuclear attack:

One side in a conflict feels it is under severe threat and duress, so much so decides it is going to basically fire one shot as a demonstration of intent to the opposition. Single delivery .maybe not high yield….the target would not be a capital city because you want to keep opposition leadership intact, and a warning is probably given on the hot line or whatever is used these days that more will follow unless the fighting stops etc….

Yes It’s a pretty dreadful idea but it’s been considered as an option.

Of course there will be plans. Incredibly complicated confidential ones. You know nothing about it because you aren't included in terms of being expected to report to a bunker or whatever.

The government will have known what was coming in Ukraine for months. Probably at least 6. It takes serious amounts of activity to do what Putin has, you can't do it with foreign intelligence agencies noticing.

I remember reading the plans made during WW2 in case the Germans occupied the UK. They were going to shoot local dignitaries and people who could be of use to the Germans in terms of running local authorities. The plans are now public if anyone wants to read them. I think it’s a good job we don’t know everything. It’s enough to drive you mental thinking about it.

The deterrent is retaliation, why would Putin bother with a small precise attack?

To poke the bear, just as he's been doing for years. Push, see what you can get away with.

The vast majority of the world is either against the Ukraine invasion or staying neutral, even China. Putin puts one foot out of line he's got the whole of NATO aimed at him.

In truth though, my belief is that if he gave a serious nuclear order, he'd be killed by someone in his own administration. Skepticism is building, even in Russia.

We would all die. What's to plan for?