Post-Nuclear war UK


Watched it, and I think like War games (BBC film about the same thing just in 1965) it shows off a rosey view of Nuclear war, both plan a lot of faith in the local Government/civil defense, like when the mayor goes to that fall out base or whatever, as bleak as it got it seems to me more likely that no civil government in main-land government would make it through, and Police/Military would take and hoard food for themselves (think 28 days latter) also the general fear of more attacks or a Russian invasion would make things worse, I think small hunter gatherer bands is a more likely out look than anything else.
 

Macragge1

Banned
so I keep having this recurring idea of a Nuclear war in 1982 or 83 where the UK is flattened but Northern Ireland is more or less untouched, how likely is this? what are your thoughts on a Nuclear war in the 1980s and what it'd do to the UK and/or Ireland?

Watched it, and I think like War games (BBC film about the same thing just in 1965) it shows off a rosey view of Nuclear war, both plan a lot of faith in the local Government/civil defense, like when the mayor goes to that fall out base or whatever, as bleak as it got it seems to me more likely that no civil government in main-land government would make it through, and Police/Military would take and hoard food for themselves (think 28 days latter) also the general fear of more attacks or a Russian invasion would make things worse, I think small hunter gatherer bands is a more likely out look than anything else.

I've done a lot of research on the subject for my Protect and Survive Timeline, which describes in detail the possible effects of nuclear war on Britain in 1984. Naturally (thankfully) it's all speculation, but all the details are based on actual UK Civil Defence plans that existed at the time.

Northern Ireland, based on data collected from the former Soviet Union, would be targeted heavily. Belfast, as a major population centre as well as a control base for the whole of Ulster, would be targeted by two warheads; another one may have been allocated to the dock facilities. Londonderry too would be hit by one bomb due to the Comms and Radar there. Several airbases (including Belfast Int'l) which either hosted Britain's nuclear V-Bomber force or were capable of hosting them, would also be hit within Northern Ireland.

In 1984, Northern Ireland will receive several megatons during a nuclear exchange.

The Republic too, based on research done for P&S would take at least a few hits - although a nominally neutral nation, it is pro-West and pro-NATO; in the Soviet targetter's eyes, it is too dangerous to let a nation like this exist unscathed in the post-war world; the threat must be pre-empted. Dublin will be hit, and other Irish Defence Force bases may be targetted with smaller devices.

It is worth noting that, by the early 80s, both sides had so many nuclear weapons that it was a case of finding targets for warheads rather than warheads for targets.

With regards to the government maintaining control, I believe that it would be maintained - barely, and at a regionally divided level. It would not be pretty by any means. In P&S, the regional governments are forced to deny food to the wounded and dying and the young in order to starve them to death, to contend with attempts by small groups to hoard their own supplies.

They are brutal and they are desperate and this keeps things together.

There would be very little fear of a Russian invasion - the vast majority of Russian land forces would be annihilated during the conventional and tactical nuclear escalation in Europe, and the British would be sure that their nuclear weapons, let alone those of their NATO allies, have turned every single city in the European Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc into burning dust.

If you are interested, I do recommend you have a look at the thread; it's rather long now (like, 70 odd pages); there's a lot of research by me, but more by other people, that tries to piece together what the exact scenario you described would entail.

Please feel free to ask any more questions about this area - the TL's been going since August so nuclear war in Britain in the '80s has become something of a morbid specialist subject.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Watched it, and I think like War games (BBC film about the same thing just in 1965) it shows off a rosey view of Nuclear war, both plan a lot of faith in the local Government/civil defense, like when the mayor goes to that fall out base or whatever, as bleak as it got it seems to me more likely that no civil government in main-land government would make it through, and Police/Military would take and hoard food for themselves (think 28 days latter) also the general fear of more attacks or a Russian invasion would make things worse, I think small hunter gatherer bands is a more likely out look than anything else.

I love how you feel a movie which depicts the UK turning into a totalitarian dictatorship and then eventually a no man's land of immense proportions is showing a rosey view of things.
 

Cook

Banned
I love how you feel a movie which depicts the UK turning into a totalitarian dictatorship and then eventually a no man's land of immense proportions is showing a rosey view of things.

Yes, I was wondering if we’d all watched the same thing, I even opened up the link to confirm that it was the right one!

I’m not sure I’d call a scenario with the UK population of only a few million in a matter of a few months is rosie.
 
so we've gotten that the UK will be flattened, Northern Ireland may or may not take a few hits, what of the Republic of Ireland?

They wouldn't have been targeted but they would have received a massive dose of fallout from the warheads that hit Britain. This reminds me of a Simpsons episode in which the nuclear plant is about to meltdown, Kent Brockman is presenting a news special and is interviewing an expert in front of a map. "Everyone in this zone will die instantly, everyone in this zone which I'm afraid to say we're in, will experience a considerably longer more painful death!" In the event of a nuclear war Ireland's fate would have been similar!
 
I love how you feel a movie which depicts the UK turning into a totalitarian dictatorship and then eventually a no man's land of immense proportions is showing a rosey view of things.

when it comes to Nuclear war, that is the best case. Its rosey in that all government figures do their duty and act selflessly to try and rebuilt, so that after the war there's things like electricity and society.
 

Macragge1

Banned
when it comes to Nuclear war, that is the best case. Its rosey in that all government figures do their duty and act selflessly to try and rebuilt, so that after the war there's things like electricity and society.


I suppose the thing to remember above all else when it comes to this scenario (and it's certainly how I see Protect and Survive) is that a nuclear war, however major, is not the end of the world. Yes, millions will die and life will never be the same. It is my view, though, having had to read through an awful lot of this stuff for the timeline, that order would be maintained, often brutally. Life would not be comfortable, but it would go on.

Threads is extremely bleak. One must note that the nuclear winter scenario it postulates is based on falsified, disproven information. Whilst a major exchange would cause nasty weather effects, it would be nowhere near as bad as the 'freezing twilight world' of Threads.

When we look at the closest analogs to a nuclear war scenario, namely Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden, we see that, although the damage was apocalyptic, life eventually went on. Naturally, if the whole country or the whole world suffers the same fate, this will be harder and take longer, but it will happen. The plans are put in place, and humans are a hugely resilient species - I think it was during the last Ice Age that the human population shrank to c.2000 souls; if we can live through that with rock tools and primitive fire, a society with aeroplanes, electricity and developed agriculture will be able to pull through.


With regards to Ireland; most of the fallout hitting Eire would not come from Ulster, but rather across the Irish Sea from targets hit on the West Coast of Great Britain, carried by the prevailing winds. The fallout would be bad, yes - it would cause radiation sickness and stillbirths - but we mustn't overestimate it. The vast majority of Irish citizens would survive it. It is when they realise that they are not food-independent, and that the world economy no longer exists, that they start to really have problems.
 
Threads is extremely bleak. One must note that the nuclear winter scenario it postulates is based on falsified, disproven information. Whilst a major exchange would cause nasty weather effects, it would be nowhere near as bad as the 'freezing twilight world' of Threads.

When we look at the closest analogs to a nuclear war scenario, namely Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden, we see that, although the damage was apocalyptic, life eventually went on. Naturally, if the whole country or the whole world suffers the same fate, this will be harder and take longer, but it will happen.

uhm might i interject with the thought that.. hiroshima and nagasaki bounced back so quickly was becuase the first several feet of radioactive topsoil was removed and dumped into the ocean. Dresden was not nuclear.. even Chernobyl while a decent example not the best example..

Might i also add that NOONE knows exactly what would have been the climatic outcome of a full on Nuclear Exchange in 1982-83.. lets just say that 80% of all the war heads launch and reach target. thats what? 20 -30 thousand warheads? accounting for almost every major city in the Norhtern Hemisphere and many in the southern.

Thats allot of soot.. and allot of ash being tossed around with strontium 90 and other fine and dandy good for you radioactive material.

Threads was ment to be bleak.. but not so bleak as the good government officials wouldnt keep a stiff upper lip and do ones duty for god queen and country. that would be too bleak at least for TV at the time. But to this day that is probably the most accurate portrayal of what would happen at least after the bombs start to fall.

I partially agree that if it was getting that close to full on war, civil breakdown would be immanent. I lived through that era .. I knew where every fallout shelter was in town. and we kept food and water in the basement to last for at least several weeks for the longest time. there was a REAL FEAR.
 
uhm might i interject with the thought that.. hiroshima and nagasaki bounced back so quickly was becuase the first several feet of radioactive topsoil was removed and dumped into the ocean. Dresden was not nuclear.. even Chernobyl while a decent example not the best example..

Do you have a source for that? Because I've never heard that before, and I have a hard time believing it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were airbursts; my understanding, as a non-expert, is that airbursts result in little fallout or residual radioactivity.
 
Do you have a source for that?


There isn't one because it didn't happen.

"Several feet of topsoil" were not removed. In fact across most of the planet's land surface, the term "several feet of topsoil" is an oxymoron. Topsoil in that amount simply doesn't exist.

Rubble was removed however and some of it was dumped at sea.
 
Threads was ment to be bleak.. but not so bleak as the good government officials wouldnt keep a stiff upper lip and do ones duty for god queen and country. that would be too bleak at least for TV at the time. But to this day that is probably the most accurate portrayal of what would happen at least after the bombs start to fall.

see thats the part I don't believe.
 
Do you have a source for that? Because I've never heard that before, and I have a hard time believing it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were airbursts; my understanding, as a non-expert, is that airbursts result in little fallout or residual radioactivity.


I wish i could dig out the source.. its in one of my books.. nuclear warehouse in the modern age... the first several feet where dug up and dumped off the continental shelf off the cost of south carolina.. i will endeavor to dig the source for that one.. but i had verified it several times back in the 80's doing a paper for high school cause even my teacher was like what?! it was also in a USA Today article which was where i got the info to start then dug around the library of congress for into .. i will go through my stuff and get a some isbn numbers.

and yes air bursts may cause less contamination then ground busts.. air bursts do tend to ignite more fires causing more soot.. causing more spread of radioactive material
 
There isn't one because it didn't happen.

"Several feet of topsoil" were not removed. In fact across most of the planet's land surface, the term "several feet of topsoil" is an oxymoron. Topsoil in that amount simply doesn't exist.

Rubble was removed however and some of it was dumped at sea.

Quite a bit was removed and dumped at sea... and well da.. tovarisch .. thats what i ment.. let me rephrase and such.. the stuff was taken along with DIRT from the EARTH to help clean the site so that our new glow in the dark friends could move back in after we so kindly vaporized their city.. like after a nuclear detonation you are going to find things that look like soil in a city..

my point being that 2 nuclear detonations .. vs. a full on board onslaught of nuclear devastation by the world gone mad is 2 completely different things.

1 Who is gonna clean up after wards?
2. if crap goes all out nuclear.. i would wager the dogs of war would be unleashed and biological and chemical agents would also be let loose. this includes but not limited to Small Pox, Anthrax, Plauge and other more devious man altered engineered stuff that the whacked out military complexes have devised that are rated beyond most mortals pay grade to know about are more then likely worse then the bombs themselves
 
...the first several feet where dug up and dumped off the continental shelf off the cost of south carolina..


They dug up several feet of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then shipped it all halfway around the world to dump it in the Atlantic off South Carolina?

I guess the Pacific isn't big enough...

I can't wait for you to find that reference either.
 
I wish i could dig out the source.. its in one of my books.. nuclear warehouse in the modern age... the first several feet where dug up and dumped off the continental shelf off the cost of south carolina.. i will endeavor to dig the source for that one.. but i had verified it several times back in the 80's doing a paper for high school cause even my teacher was like what?! it was also in a USA Today article which was where i got the info to start then dug around the library of congress for into .. i will go through my stuff and get a some isbn numbers.

I think you may be thinking of the Palomores incident in 1966, when a B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs broke up over Spain. Two of the weapons' explosives detonated and the plutonium caught fire, spreading contamination over about 200 hectares area. The worst of the contaminated soil and rock was removed and taken to a nuclear dump in South Carolina.

As I've said, I'm not an expert. But everything I've read says that an airburst A-bomb, like what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, produces an intense flash of radiation when it goes off... But leaves little long-term radioactivity, because the only thing that gets radio-activated is the bomb casing. Which is not to minimize the effects of Hiroshima or Nagasaki; blast, incineration, and radiation sickness from exposure to the flash are horrifying enough by themselves.
 
Top