This line makes sense to me from the opposite direction. I was born in '86, so don't remember anything about the cold war (my first "news" memory is the Iraqi army burning the oil wells after Desert Storm, and apparently my mum was never that worried about the Russians anyway lol), but I do occaisionally when in a slightly melancholy mood wonder whether something major will happen in the ~7 hours I'm sleeping. Not so much nukes these days, but you never know.
Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
This line makes sense to me from the opposite direction. I was born in '86, so don't remember anything about the cold war (my first "news" memory is the Iraqi army burning the oil wells after Desert Storm, and apparently my mum was never that worried about the Russians anyway lol), but I do occaisionally when in a slightly melancholy mood wonder whether something major will happen in the ~7 hours I'm sleeping. Not so much nukes these days, but you never know.
Macragge1
Banned
This is pretty true I guess. I suppose the difference is that, during the Cold War, the sides were clearer and it was more stable but also the stakes were much, much higher - if something went wrong then it was WHAM thankyou, goodnight. Now, there's a much higher chance of various terrible things happening, but they're going to be local.
I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was alive during the Cold War, but I imagine that I'd be the sort who'd get pretty worried from time to time once the sabres started rattling.
At least in the CW both sides were more interested in preserving the status quo than blowing each other up which made the situation stable. Deterrence worked with NATO and the WP, it doesn't work with Al Qaeda, or any other fanatical nuts.
Today I'd worry more about a cell, or a single nut releasing a BW agent that could kill millions. The USSR would never have done that.
Today I'd worry more about a cell, or a single nut releasing a BW agent that could kill millions. The USSR would never have done that.
Macragge1
Banned
Part of my problem with that, as horrible as it is, would be the way that we couldn't strike back against a lone suicidal terrorist(s), however hard they hit us; after all, they're dead. At that point, any attempt we make to strike back in kind is just going to hurt lots of innocent people.
The real fear is that they've only got to get lucky once; we've got to get lucky every time.
In a lot of ways terrorists are scarier. There are no "flashpoints" with terrorists. The attacks just happens, you can't reason with them. It's like the difference between the threat to your life posed by an armed robber and the one posed by a wild animal.
Once again I was not alive during the Cold War but my parents have maintained that it is a lot scarier now then it was then. I think that knowing the face of your enemy actually comforts you a lot more than just an unseen threat.
Amazing timeline; keep up the good work. I voted for you in the Turtledove poll, and am happy to see this become one of the most-read TLs in the After 1900 section of AH.com.
Sad to see Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky on the nuked list...perhaps I should have spoken up for them like another poster did on behalf of Cleveland many posts ago
I keep wondering when everyone will get wise to the loose cannon amongst the British contingent in the States and find a way to permanently dispose of him.
Undoubtedly the war has affected everyone's mental state to one degree or another; this guy seems too far over the edge, now, to be saved and anything but a long-term threat to the rest of the crew.
Sad to see Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky on the nuked list...perhaps I should have spoken up for them like another poster did on behalf of Cleveland many posts ago
I keep wondering when everyone will get wise to the loose cannon amongst the British contingent in the States and find a way to permanently dispose of him.
Undoubtedly the war has affected everyone's mental state to one degree or another; this guy seems too far over the edge, now, to be saved and anything but a long-term threat to the rest of the crew.
Back in the CW most of us didn't walk about terrified that someone would drop an H-bomb on us. However these days everytime one travels on a train, bus, or aeroplane at the back of one's mind that just maybe...
well I was in school in Garforth at the time-near Leeds (ROF Barnbow was where a good third of Garforths adult men worked). I can remember that one assembly one of our local CND peacenik nuts (and yes she did Greenham Common too) came and visited-she got very short thrift...
(one of my neighbours Dads worked at Barnbow in the designs department-on more than one occassion he brought models back that I guess were also shown to various generals and ministers-I can remember models of Vixen, various Fox derivatives including Fox Milan and Panga, also Chieftan 900 and others)
(one of my neighbours Dads worked at Barnbow in the designs department-on more than one occassion he brought models back that I guess were also shown to various generals and ministers-I can remember models of Vixen, various Fox derivatives including Fox Milan and Panga, also Chieftan 900 and others)
We didn't even really discuss it back then. I think we talked about it once at Uni and decided that we were probably all dead anyway. The main topic was who would you s*** during the four minute warning.
As a 30-40 flights a year bloke, I don't worry about that either. I just get annoyed by the fake security.
The last update was magnificent showing both humanity and inhumanity, although given that the Typhoon was down to below a third complement and way, way low on officers, I hope the RN send people on board to stabilize that reactor.
The Typhoon has two reactors, which might make things worse.
Statistically we're probably only slightly more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than a state's nuke, and that was true in the UK during the CW as much as today. IIRC I've read that you've more chance of getting cancer from the new body scanners than be killed by a terrorist.
Statistically we're probably only slightly more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than a state's nuke, and that was true in the UK during the CW as much as today. IIRC I've read that you've more chance of getting cancer from the new body scanners than be killed by a terrorist.
The Typhoon has two reactors, which might make things worse.
Statistically we're probably only slightly more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than a state's nuke, and that was true in the UK during the CW as much as today. IIRC I've read that you've more chance of getting cancer from the new body scanners than be killed by a terrorist.
I'd forgotten about the Typhoon having two reactors.
Luckily most of my flying is to Germany/Austria/Switzerland on business, so I don't have to go through the Nude-O-Scopes. Although I must say that the metal detectors at Frankfurt transit seemed to be turned up to 11 over the last two months as the only metal on me was the titanium half-rims on my specs and I was still pinging.
I can see why the Soviets would nuke Buenos Airies, but Tierra Del Fuego? Why would they care about Argentina's access to the Falklands or Antarctica? Seems like a waste of a good nuke.
If both cities are still intact then Tierra Del Fuego is a better option if the British want to send "a warning" to the Argentine government and still be able to negotiate trade deals with them. Nuking Buenos Aires would decapitate the central government and make things much harder. IIRC the British hadn't yet restored diplomatic relations with Argentina so there's no resident ambassador, but the Swiss do and could serve as an intermediary (just like they did for a bunch of countries in WWII). Also I think Australia has an embassy there as well.
Last edited:
As usual great update Macragge, you already had my vote for the Turtledove days earlier anyway .
It is good to see that's things are getting more organised in the UK bit by bit and more importantly that despite the destruction and the deaths we have not forgotten what makes us humans!
I join the voices which says that Argentina must have been nuked during the initial exchange anyway. Anyways I very much doubt a second attack while trhe country is in recovery stage would do much good anyway.
It would actually be rather interesting to see if any countries have used the war to settle some scores among each others. I could for example see Ecuador going at Peru or vice versa over their Amazon region border. Chile going at Argentina for the Beagle Channel, especially if the latter is nuked hard. In Asia I can also easily the Indian-Pakistani rivalry boiling out into an all out war possibly involving A bombs. Africa cut out from food aid and Western help must be a mess, the body count from famin, diseases and ethnic wars could easily be in the dozens of millions there.
.It is good to see that's things are getting more organised in the UK bit by bit and more importantly that despite the destruction and the deaths we have not forgotten what makes us humans!
I join the voices which says that Argentina must have been nuked during the initial exchange anyway. Anyways I very much doubt a second attack while trhe country is in recovery stage would do much good anyway.
It would actually be rather interesting to see if any countries have used the war to settle some scores among each others. I could for example see Ecuador going at Peru or vice versa over their Amazon region border. Chile going at Argentina for the Beagle Channel, especially if the latter is nuked hard. In Asia I can also easily the Indian-Pakistani rivalry boiling out into an all out war possibly involving A bombs. Africa cut out from food aid and Western help must be a mess, the body count from famin, diseases and ethnic wars could easily be in the dozens of millions there.
I too liked the description of the "Battle of Whitby". One of the things I like about "Protect and Survive" generally is that it does show that people retain their human qualities no matter how dark the circumstances - contrary to popular opinion, even a nuclear war wouldn't be the end of civilisation, just a setback. We'd bounce back eventually.
I also liked the dark humour of the inmates at the hospital cheering the arrival of the bulldozers to dig their graves.
Re the nuking of Argentina - a completely bonkers, over the top reaction to the incident at sea, which would be a bad idea for several reasons. Apart from the immorality of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in retaliation for a small scale attack by military personnel, it's going to make the UK a pariah nation - it'll probably put the kibosh on any prospect of Britain receiving any aid from undamaged countries. I could imagine it causing a potentially dangerous split in the surviving UK government - members of the cabinet decide that the PM's become unstable and needs replacing, or maybe the King tries to take control? Or both? When Argentina gets reorganised, could they retaliate? Not with nukes obviously, they don't have those, but Britannia no longer rules the waves, so in principal what's to stop the Argies loading up a few warships with troops and striking at Portsmouth? Our side probably wouldn't even know they were coming until they appeared on the horizon, so conceivably they could put the British government out of action. Or, more subtly, infiltrate a Special Forces team and assassinate the PM. Apart from anything else, the UK can't have many missiles left after the Exchange. Personally, I'd be wanting to hold what was left in reserve in case it turns out the war's not completely over after all (Soviet missile silos were designed to be reloaded) or in case some other serious trouble should arise in the future. It's not like there's any serious prospect of acquiring more nukes for decades to come.
I also liked the dark humour of the inmates at the hospital cheering the arrival of the bulldozers to dig their graves.
Re the nuking of Argentina - a completely bonkers, over the top reaction to the incident at sea, which would be a bad idea for several reasons. Apart from the immorality of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in retaliation for a small scale attack by military personnel, it's going to make the UK a pariah nation - it'll probably put the kibosh on any prospect of Britain receiving any aid from undamaged countries. I could imagine it causing a potentially dangerous split in the surviving UK government - members of the cabinet decide that the PM's become unstable and needs replacing, or maybe the King tries to take control? Or both? When Argentina gets reorganised, could they retaliate? Not with nukes obviously, they don't have those, but Britannia no longer rules the waves, so in principal what's to stop the Argies loading up a few warships with troops and striking at Portsmouth? Our side probably wouldn't even know they were coming until they appeared on the horizon, so conceivably they could put the British government out of action. Or, more subtly, infiltrate a Special Forces team and assassinate the PM. Apart from anything else, the UK can't have many missiles left after the Exchange. Personally, I'd be wanting to hold what was left in reserve in case it turns out the war's not completely over after all (Soviet missile silos were designed to be reloaded) or in case some other serious trouble should arise in the future. It's not like there's any serious prospect of acquiring more nukes for decades to come.
Macragge1
Banned
As usual great update Macragge, you already had my vote for the Turtledove days earlier anyway
It is good to see that's things are getting more organised in the UK bit by bit and more importantly that despite the destruction and the deaths we have not forgotten what makes us humans!
I join the voices which says that Argentina must have been nuked during the initial exchange anyway. Anyways I very much doubt a second attack while trhe country is in recovery stage would do much good anyway.
It would actually be rather interesting to see if any countries have used the war to settle some scores among each others. I could for example see Ecuador going at Peru or vice versa over their Amazon region border. Chile going at Argentina for the Beagle Channel, especially if the latter is nuked hard. In Asia I can also easily the Indian-Pakistani rivalry boiling out into an all out war possibly involving A bombs. Africa cut out from food aid and Western help must be a mess, the body count from famin, diseases and ethnic wars could easily be in the dozens of millions there.
Gosh, I daren't even think about Africa - we can only imagine how bad things have got there given how bad they were anyway in OTL. Even in the bits not nuked or starving, there's still the horrors of corrupt leaders with their own agendas to deal with; and no international community to intervene.
Thanks - it really does mean a lot; I'm very happy that you're enjoying it.
The reaction to the Argentinian issue stems partly from the fact, as Jan's mentioned, that the nuclear taboo has been completely lifted. Secondly, Whitelaw feels that Britain must assert its continued sovereignty and capabilities - the weaker it is, the more it must project.
The attack on the RFA vessel, as well as being near enough an act of war in and of itself, is seen to signify that the Falklands have been occupied by Argentina (there was intelligence suggesting a build up in T del F during the TTW period but it was near-about ignored amongst the other chaos) There is no chance of sending a strike force so Britain has struck back, unfortunately, in the only way it can.
Couple of comments:
1. I understand that the Typhoons can stay submerged for a minimum of 180 days, with supplies for more than that. How long after the Exchange is the Whiby event? Seems strange for the crew to be reduced to that condition.
2. I would have thought that at the date of the Exchange the Falkland Islands were more than capable of looking after themselves, and surely Argentina would have had other priorities than occupying those islands? Especially if they had copped a couple of strikes.
1. I understand that the Typhoons can stay submerged for a minimum of 180 days, with supplies for more than that. How long after the Exchange is the Whiby event? Seems strange for the crew to be reduced to that condition.
2. I would have thought that at the date of the Exchange the Falkland Islands were more than capable of looking after themselves, and surely Argentina would have had other priorities than occupying those islands? Especially if they had copped a couple of strikes.