Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Queen's WWIII Speech Revealed

timothy posted about a year ago | from the we-are-the-champions-of-the-world dept.

The Military 147

EzInKy writes "This BBC article provides details of the script the United Kingdom's Queen was to deliver in the event of a nuclear holocaust. The document, released by the government under the 30-year rule, was drawn up as part of a war-gaming exercise in the spring of 1983, working through potential scenarios. In it, the Queen was expected to urge the people of the United Kingdom to 'pray' in the event of a nuclear war. Although it was only a simulation, the text of the Queen's address — written as if broadcast at midday on Friday 4 March 1983 — seeks to prepare the country for the ordeal of World War III. The script reads: 'Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds. I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me. But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.'" I prefer Tom Lehrer's approach.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blatant Lies (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44450923)

"Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me"

It's fun to see those words in a prepared speech. :)

Re:Blatant Lies (5, Insightful)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about a year ago | (#44450967)

Well, in fairness, it was prepared for the Queen, not necessarily by the Queen. It was her advisers who imagined the solemn and awful duty falling to her.

So.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451843)

The queen doesn't actually rule, but is actually ruled by her "advisers".

The queen is NOT a fucking president. She could have easily wrote those words.

Re:So.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451889)

He never said the Queen ruled, and if you think the Queen writes all her own speeches you're an idiot. Sorry, but honestly. Yes, she "could" have easily "wrote" those words, but let's be honest -- she didn't. Was made aware of them, yes, sure, I can believe that -- I'd be surprised if she wasn't. Suggested changes? Maybe. Wrote them? Not a chance.

He also never said the Queen was a "fucking president". He never even said she was a "president". He never actually even said she was a "head of state", though actually she is that.

(Your use of "wrote" suggests you're American. That in turn suggests perhaps leaving discussions over the famously unwritten British constitution either to the British or to people better educated in it than yourself. Deal? Thanks. It will hurt my head a hell of a fucking lot less.)

Also (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#44452661)

You prepare for things you don't imagine could actually happen, particularly when you are talking the government of a country. You want to have contingency plans in place, even for disasters you say "There's no way that is going to happen."

Re:Blatant Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44450997)

I think she meant in 1939 [as a child] she couldn't imagine it. Obviously she could in 1983, otherwise, she wouldn't have had the speech prepared.

Re:Blatant Lies (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451109)

She meant when she was a child in 1939 listening to her father's address. Come on, people, reading comprehension!

Re:Blatant Lies (5, Funny)

jnork (1307843) | about a year ago | (#44451769)

Reading comprehension is fine. Attention span is... ooh! Shiny!

Not really (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about a year ago | (#44451237)

Definitely funny, but not exactly ... you could have a Zombie Preparedness Plan or Alien Invasion Plan or Ant Uprising Plan ... you might even write it yourself, but that doesn't mean you actually believe it's going to happen. It's just what you'd do if it did happen, quite probably involving a speech where you utter your surprise that it actually happened.

Re:Not really (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#44451815)

But the script didn't say "BELIEVE" it said imagine. If you are preparing for somehing, you must shurely be imagining it. Otherwise you aren't really doing that good of a job of prepairing for it.

Casual Observer: Hey you! What are you doing with that angel food cake. lincon logs and "Tin Cup" DVD?

Me: Oh this? I'm just prepairing for Team USA ski try outs.

Re:Blatant Lies (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451241)

Context is everything. This sentence comes immediately after describing herself and her sister listening to their father's 1939 speech. I have no doubt that at not a moment during that speech did she imagine that duty falling to her.

Reading comprehension: some people don't have it.

Re:Blatant Lies (1)

Kvasio (127200) | about a year ago | (#44451297)

They have long tradition of lies.

It's now 70 years since Sikorski [wikipedia.org] died in "accident"; yet many believe he was killed by Soviets with British approval. (Poland as an ally was "an obstacle" to cooperate with Soviets, as Soviets done mass killings two years earlier).

Somehow British archives on the subject are still classified. Not a sign of clear conscience on their side.

Re:Blatant Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451849)

Yeah? You really want us to start digging through the vast number of people that *every single country in the world* has wanted dead, killed, or covered up their desire to kill or to have killed? Because I'd fucking bet that the USA, with its long and murky history of meddling in dictatorships and "revolutions" in Central and South America would come out stinking about as badly as France, with its history of brutal suppression and genocide in Algeria and Britain with its history of assassination in Cyprus and suppression in India.

Oddly, if you dig back like that, while coming out looking like cunts Britain still comes out looking better than France, Spain, the Netherlands and even the USA, even given the hideous aftermath of the Indian Mutiny. But we can go digging if you like, there's plenty of shit in the past of any country you choose to pick to satisfy everyone -- and no government that will open all their files and shout to the world "Yes! We were scum back when none of us currently alive were out of short trousers!!!!"

Re:Blatant Lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452525)

Of course I want us to do so. It may just help convince people that government is not all ice cream and puppy dogs, but should be severely restricted in its authority and watched closely.

Re:Blatant Lies (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44451715)

I imagine that you've set aside an emergency fund for the things you've imagined could go wrong, even if you can't imagine any of them happening anytime soon.

The irony definitely is strong in the sentence you've cited, but it's not dishonest. "Imagine" doesn't merely mean forming a mental image of something. It's also commonly used in a sense that refers more to expectations, assumptions, or beliefs [reference.com] . We routinely make plans for contingencies that we don't imagine will actually take place, even though we're able to imagine the idea of that thing going wrong in our heads.

And I imagine this comment won't be too useful, since I imagine that you know all of this already.

WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (5, Funny)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44450949)

Here's the speech:

"We are the champions, my friends.
And we'll keep on fighting, 'till the end!
We are the Champions,
We are the Champions!
No room for losers, cause we are the Champions,
Of the World."

Oh... wait.. you meant THAT Queen?
Nevermind.

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (1)

akeeneye (1788292) | about a year ago | (#44450987)

I thought EXACTLY the same thing when I read the headline. Those lyrics would have made for an excellent speech along with those of "We Will Rock You".

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (4, Funny)

chinton (151403) | about a year ago | (#44451147)

I was thinking more along the lines of "Another One Bites the Dust". Great minds think similarly.

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (4, Informative)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#44452069)

Or, more overtly on the topic, the lesser-known "Hammer to Fall"...

For we who grew up tall and proud
In the shadow of the mushroom cloud
Convinced our voices can't be heard
We just wanna scream it louder and louder

What the hell we fighting for?
Just surrender and it won't hurt at all
You just got time to say your prayers
While you're waiting for the hammer to fall

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452933)

Or, more overtly on the topic, the lesser-known "Hammer to Fall"...

For we who grew up tall and proud

In the shadow of the mushroom cloud

Convinced our voices can't be heard

We just wanna scream it louder and louder

What the hell we fighting for?

Just surrender and it won't hurt at all

You just got time to say your prayers

While you're waiting for the hammer to fall

never understood why that song didn't get more attention, it's a rockin' tune

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451391)

My dear subjects, I have just one thing to say: Keep yourself alive, yeah, keep yourself alive...

Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451779)

and don't worry for your overlords, as we are safe in the nuclear bunker

Pray (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44450951)

In it, the Queen was expected to urge the people of the United Kingdom to 'pray' in the event of a nuclear war.

What's with the scare quotes? Does the submitter think there's something weird about the Supreme Governor of the Church of England [wikipedia.org] urging the membership of her church to pray?

Re:Pray (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#44451011)

Because in the event of an all out nuclear war, praying will be about as effective against an atomic blast as against an oncoming tidal wave, and everybody knows this.

Re:Pray (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#44451225)

Because in the event of an all out nuclear war, praying will be about as effective against an atomic blast as against an oncoming tidal wave, and everybody knows this.

What would you prefer? I've always liked "smoke 'em if you got 'em"

Re:Pray (1)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44451513)

Oh, I don't know - how about seeking cover? People can survive and have survived nuclear blasts. I'm not particularly sure I'd want to, though.

You go ahead and pray. I'll fap. I'm sure my efforts will be just as effective.

Re:Pray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451571)

Easy solution... make all churches bomb shelters.

Re:Pray (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#44451861)

You'd agree that bombs have improved since the end of ww2, right? What would your strategies be exactly? "seek shelter 20 miles below the surface?" Or are you thinking the old "duck and cover" will work?

Re:Pray (2)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44451943)

If you're sufficiently distant from ground zero, where the primary hazard is from falling debris then yes, it can be effective. Certainly, under those circumstances, you've got a better chance for survival than if you continue to stand there like a dumbass.

Obviously, if you're in the primary blast zone, there's not much you can do at all. Of course, if you're in the primary blast zone, you're not going to have much time to react once you see a flash.

"seek shelter 20 miles below surface"? Hyperbole much?

Re:Pray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452751)

It's nuclear war. Even if the blasts and radiation don't kill you, the thought of the next few centuries are going to make you want to die.

Re:Pray (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44452025)

You go ahead and pray. I'll fap. I'm sure my efforts will be just as effective.

But if you survive you'll want a nap, and others will get a head start on the looting.

Re:Pray (0)

Ian A. Shill (2791091) | about a year ago | (#44452781)

Or, similarly, as we say in Canada: "Smoke it if you got it".

Because in the event of an all out nuclear war, praying will be about as effective against an atomic blast as against an oncoming tidal wave, and everybody knows this.

What would you prefer? I've always liked "smoke 'em if you got 'em"

Re:Pray (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44451195)

What's with the scare quotes?

Because its a euphemism for "put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye".

Re:Pray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451869)

What's with the scare quotes?

It's so the reader doesn't get the impression the Queen was advocating that her Royal Subjects bite their spouses' heads off.

Re:Pray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451965)

I think it's more that while her "subjects" would be praying, she'd be hot-tailing it into a nuclear bunker - meaning in half an hour, they would have died an agonising death whereas she, by dint of being the daughter of some weak-chinned cunt who was the younger brother of a *philandering* weak-chinned cunt who was the son of some weak-chinned cunt, son of some philandering weak-chinned cunt (ad infinitum, bar the "son of some stupid and fat bitch who claimed to be 'empress of india' but didn't even bother emerging from twenty years' 'mourning' for love or money, although she had plenty of the latter flowing into her palaces every day"), would live.

Re:Pray (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44452649)

I think it's more that while her "subjects" would be praying, she'd be hot-tailing it into a nuclear bunker

Hmmm. I don't believe HRH has a hot tail, but each to his own, I suppose...

Re: Pray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452813)

"weak chinned c**t"

You mean like the current Prime Minister?

Seriously? (1, Troll)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year ago | (#44450975)

Some ridiculous, flag waving drivel written by some speech writer somewhere for a monarch in the event of a war that didn't actually happen?

Come on editors, this is stretching News For Nerds a bit, don't you think?

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451029)

In the war-gaming exercise, Orange bloc forces - representing the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies - launch a chemical weapon attack on the UK.

Blue forces - representing Nato - retaliate with a "limited-yield" nuclear strike, forcing Orange to initiate a peace process.

That isn't anywhere near what any war plan of the USSR would have entailed, and the USA and UK governments knew that quite well, so what the hell was the point of the war-gaming exercise?

Re:Seriously? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44451065)

That isn't anywhere near what any war plan of the USSR would have entailed, and the USA and UK governments knew that quite well, so what the hell was the point of the war-gaming exercise?

Read 'War Plan UK', if you can find a copy.

Much of it seems to have been PR. Much of the rest seems to have been self-delusion. The remainder seems to have been 'What do you mean, why do we have war games? You've got to have war games,' and planning for everyone to die within two days wasn't much fun.

Re:Seriously? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#44451529)

You need training exercises essentially. So that people don't stand around saying "what am I supposed to be doing now?" Sometimes it's just making sure that the lines of communication are known and used, that procedures are followed, and so forth. Essentially fire drills.

Then someone with a stop watch in the background is saying "Good work everyone, it took us only 7 minutes and 28 seconds to destroy the world. This is a new record. Tomorrow we'll see if we can do even better!"

Re:Seriously? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#44451883)

But you don't tell them they destoryed the world, you tell them they saved everyone in their own country. Of course that wouldn't be true, in a real war, but you have to have them strick back otherwise the whole mad thing just fizzles out.

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451041)

What would be more interesting would be the text of the sealed letters the Prime Ministers gave to nuclear submarine crews to open if all communication was lost with London...

I'm guessing Thatcher's would be 'Nuke the Bastards!', and some Labour PM's would be 'Better Red Than Dead,' but I'm not so sure about the rest.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452007)

Someone modded you up but I don't entirely know why (unless it was "Funny", I'd be happy with that). In either case it would be "Open fire on Moscow" and, if the situation was such -- post 1960 -- "Open fire on Beijing").

We've never had enough firepower to obliterate the entire countries, but capitals would be toast, and we can nominally rely on the French and Americans following suit. Whether Labour or Tory, any government Britain has had since WWII will approve nuclear force on a nation that uses nuclear weapons on Britain.

On the other hand, watch "Yes, Prime Minister" (the original, with Paul Eddington, not the horrific remake with the twat from the Thin Blue Line) to see the fallacy in this argument, which so far as I can tell is used by governments to this day...

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451063)

The real speech would be very short.. it would be something like... "What the fuck"?

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44451361)

Apparently someone who was not alive or mature yet during the Cold War.

It sounds laughable today, but back then the threat was very scary and real. WWWIII almost happened several times from the Cuban Missile Crises, to faulty radars for NORAD, to this being misinterpreted, to several instances of American fighters from Alaskan accidentally flying into Siberian airspace.

If nuclear war would have happened it would have consisted of several hundred nuclear bombs, radiation, a nuclear winter, and perhaps a new ice age if big enough with dust.

The USSR and its satellite republics owned 1/3 of the world and the influence of communism was growing and spreading which is why Americans got involved in both Korea and Vietnam.

It sounds laughable to the millenial generation probably smirking at this, but as a child we had drills in our schools and TV shows demonstrating what would have happened once the first nuclear launch happened.

Re:Seriously? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451525)

as a child we had drills in our schools and TV shows demonstrating what would have happened once the first nuclear launch happened.

No, you had patently self-delusional garbage that told you to duck and cover under your desks to escape a thermonuclear fireball. Not quite the same thing.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44451625)

No. The purpose of duck-and-cover was to escape falling debris - in the event that you weren't within the blast radius, but were within the survivable zone of the shock wave.

Re:Seriously? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44451957)

There were a lot of FUD in the 80s that the US alone had enough bombs to eliminate all life on earth 7x over!

I am curious how much that is true vs things just to scare us according to the millenial generation? Maybe the blast wave but with weapons being 100x more lethal than the ones dropped in Japan I wonder if this could contaminate all the crops for example?

Re:Seriously? (1)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44452057)

I don't know the answer to that - but it is certainly true that we did, and still do have enough nuclear weapons to directly kill a very great many people, and indirectly cause the deaths of many, many more.

If there were an unrestricted exchange of nuclear weapons, life would likely be very different (and hard) for the survivors.

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44451641)

How is that not quite the same thing? As soon as the kids were old enough to realize what nuclear war actually entailed, they were smart enough to know that duck-and-cover wouldn't save them. So it just served to make them more afraid. Fear of nuclear war was a very real and potent force in the back of people's minds. That's GP's entire point. Something like this speech is meaningless to a Millennial, who has never known that fear. But to someone who lived through it it's a very stirring reminder of an age gone by.

Re:Seriously? (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44451701)

No, Even at the biggest nuclear inventory and assuming 100% nuke reliability there were never enough bombs to cover entire military and urban area of the USA and the USSR, including suburbs, with 'thermonuclear fireball'.

Duck and cover is still the right thing to do if there is a flash. Doesn't matter if it's a nuke, a regular bomb, a BLEVY, a fertilizer plant or the Chelyabinsk meteor. If you see a flash get away from the windows and behind something solid.

Obviously I'm not saying hide from lightening.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452081)

No but what you are saying, wrongly, is that China and the USSR didn't have enough warheads to trash the entire military and urban area of the USA. Yes, they did. Did the USA have enough to cover the USSR? No, it's huge. The military and urban areas? Yes, the USSR was very sparsely populated out of the European fringe and we knew where the military sites were. Also, despite what you may think, the USA did not stand alone. France and Britain were independently nuclear powers early on, and locked in an alliance with the States. Later on, while the French (sensibly) kept an independent deterrent we bought in an American deterrent. In the event of nuclear holocaust the net result is the same: the USA, France and Britain basically turned into radioactive powder (or heavily radiated countryside dominated by fall-out) and the populous and the militarily-important areas of the USSR and China turned into the same. We all put together had more than enough warheads to do that.

Downplaying the risk of nuclear armageddon is utterly stupid. It was there, and to a lesser extent it still is, though in the present climate it won't directly come from any of the establish nuclear powers.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#44451607)

Drills are normal. Even without WWIII drills, the military drills all the time to ensure that everyone can respond quickly and orderly in a crisis. Different groups that don't normally interact will drill with each other to make sure that they can do so smoothly. At the larger scale you will even have coordination between different military departments (army, navy, air force, space cadets). Logistics need to run smoothly, supplies moved and coordinated, deployments done on time, etc.

Re:Seriously? (2)

bknack (947759) | about a year ago | (#44452105)

I wasn't old enough to go through any drills, but I can tell you that the threat of nuclear annihilation was certainly real. My gut reaction to some of these comments is similar to yours. These folks don't 'get it' and don't have the education to realize what they're joking about. To be honest, my thought was more along the lines of: I doubt she'd have time to deliver any speech.

Cuban Missile Crises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452863)

How many Cuban missile crises were there?

Would she even have time to read the speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451015)

Nowadays you'd probably have just enough time for the EAS to squawk, and the President to come on screen and say "A nuclear launch was detected, and is headed towards the United States. May god have mercy on our souls."

I'd like my two minutes back (5, Informative)

SJester (1676058) | about a year ago | (#44451017)

This was a waste of time, OP. RTFA - the speech was not written for the Queen, it was never intended to be read by the Queen under any circumstances. It was scripted for a wargame scenario, a fictional engagement. You might as well post the inspiring speech written for the US President in the film "Independence Day."

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44451081)

Go check out the Tom Lehrer link at the bottom, that should make up for it.

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44451375)

As soon as I heard him say, "WW3 is almostï upon us..." I decided I had a better use for my 3 minutes.

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44451413)

As soon as I heard him say, "WW3 is almostï upon us..." I decided I had a better use for my 3 minutes.

Developing a sense of humor, perhaps?

bu-dum psht!

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (2)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44451969)

If you've never experienced Tom Lehrer before, go see/hear some of his stuff, it's generally very funny and thought provoking.

I'm guessing the track linked to is "So Long Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" (at work so no youtube for me), which is one of a number of songs he did about nuclear proliferation. His songs cover science practice, popular culture, mathematics and the general absurdities of 'modern' life. He was sued by the Boy Scouts of America for bringing them into disrepute for his song "Be Prepared", and was one of Weird Al Yankovics inspirations.

His patter both before and during his songs (most of his recordings are form live theatre performances) are great, some of my favourite quotes include:

  • I do have a cause, though. It is obscenity. I'm for it.
  • But don't panic. Base eight is just like base ten really â" if you're missing two fingers. (I had that one written on my penil case in high school).
  • For there is surely nothing more beautiful in this world than the sight of a lone man facing single-handedly a half a ton of angry pot roast.

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year ago | (#44451775)

You might as well post the inspiring speech written for the US President in the film "Independence Day."

Or better still, check out the superbly bleak BBC drama 'Threads' (1984), which showed in documentary style the build-up to a nuclear attack and its aftermath. Scarier than any horror movie at the time, when it felt like all of this might actually happen, possibly next week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg [youtube.com]

The 'Protect and Survive' public information films, made for broadcast if an attack seemed imminent, also became well known in the early 80s for their creepy jingle, amateurish DIY fallout shelter instructions, and Patrick Allen's distinctive voicover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceVmnRlUEO8 [youtube.com]

This, apparently, is what we really would have watched just before the sirens went off (there's a handy guide to the different alarm sounds).

Re:I'd like my two minutes back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451913)

Babby Kom!

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451077)

I prefer this for a WWIII broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob60Y5PlaHQ [youtube.com]

Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44451089)

Sometimes you had better be careful when you rattle your saber [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (3, Informative)

Zedrick (764028) | about a year ago | (#44451505)

There's a very good documentary about it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/1983-the-brink-of-apocalypse [channel4.com]

Well worth watching (and available on TPB)

Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#44452709)

Thanks - excellent viewing. Haircut 100 and Men Without Hats add to the horror! It's helpfully up on YouTube [youtube.com] . TPB is 3 seeders and 700 mb so that could take a while to say the least.

Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about a year ago | (#44452997)

I finally got to see this late last year and it was worth the wait, excellent documentary.

Reagan's sound check (4, Informative)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44451103)

Just over a year later, on August 11, 1984, President Reagan's sound-check could have given her a chance to use the speech if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Re:Reagan's sound check (0)

WiiVault (1039946) | about a year ago | (#44452379)

Wow, did a quick Google and learned a lot about this infamous sound-check. Reagan... really seems like a fool. Was just a little tyke at the time but the more I hear the less I like the man.

Re:Reagan's sound check (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44452753)

Reagan... really seems like a fool.

Why? That's a cheap way to play crazy person. The ploy is to appear crazy and erratic so that any foe in a MAD game doesn't know how far they can push before you escalate irrationally.

Re:Reagan's sound check (0)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44452831)

Reagan was seriously fucking scary. That sound-check was not an isolated incident, and since the President, gaga as he was even then, quite literally had direct access to "the button" (I have no idea whether this has changed - I hope so), there was a very real prospect of a nuclear holocaust. I won't call it a war, because nobody would have been left to fight it.

It was very strange going back to university in 2001, as an oldie among all those kids who never knew the shadow of the Cold War. It was like it all had never happened, and I was just delusional.

Re:Reagan's sound check (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about a year ago | (#44452733)

Just over a year later, on August 11, 1984, President Reagan's sound-check could have given her a chance to use the speech if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

It's not like it was broadcast.

Who gives a fuck - (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451183)

it would have been read just before her and her whole parasite family pissed off to hide in a nuclear bunker so they could lord it over the any future surviors.

Any one comming out of those bunkers should have / should be executed as war criminals for crimes against humanity.

Now that it is out in the open (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about a year ago | (#44451191)

Lets go for it. Let the best man win.
Since we are already stealing, cheating, spying on each other like never before in human history.
WWIII should be, every man for himself. There is no need to ruin all the fun with nukes. Btw. There is practically no where to drop nuki without directly destroying own interests in form of own properties, factories, resources or other investments.
Just grab a hoe (tool) and get going.

Re:Now that it is out in the open (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451321)

Lets go for it. Let the best man win.
Since we are already stealing, cheating, spying on each other like never before in human history.
WWIII should be, every man for himself. There is no need to ruin all the fun with nukes. Btw. There is practically no where to drop nuki without directly destroying own interests in form of own properties, factories, resources or other investments.
Just grab a hoe (tool) and get going.

Use neutron bombs. Kill the fuckers, keep the infrastructure.

Keep Calm... (1)

KatchooNJ (173554) | about a year ago | (#44451205)

Keep Calm and Die A Slow Painful Death

Re:Keep Calm... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44452861)

It always seemed to me that the approach adopted by most of the characters of On The Beach [wikipedia.org] would be appropriate. In my case, I would like to wash down my suicide pill with Lagavulin...

You pray if you like (-1, Troll)

thewils (463314) | about a year ago | (#44451307)

"As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be"

Because you know if there's ever an imminent threat the members of the Royal Family aren't going to be sat at Buck House with a cuppa tea counting down the seconds...they'll be on their merry way to the other three corners of the globe.

Re:You pray if you like (5, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#44451469)

Perhaps you missed that most of the British Royal Family have served and fought in wars at one time or another. Possible exception of the Queen Mother, I suppose.

One of the current princes was out flying Apache gunships and has spoken of gunning down terrorist camps in Afghanistan from it. His brother also served. And his father.

I'm about as far from a royalist as you can get, but you can't claim they don't serve - in fact they have more military time than anyone else I know - and not just as back-end colonels pushing about figures on a wargaming board like it used to be.

Re:You pray if you like (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451767)

Yeah they serve all right.. I'm guessing it's not too terribly dangerous to fly about in an armored helicopter shooting at a bunch of asiatic hillbillies with AK-47s.

Not exactly the same thing as 'going down with the ship' in the face of a nuclear missile strike, is it?

Re:You pray if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44451811)

Actually, it is the same thing, you ignorant asiatic hillbilly.

Re:You pray if you like (4, Informative)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | about a year ago | (#44452321)

Yeah they serve all right.. I'm guessing it's not too terribly dangerous to fly about in an armored helicopter shooting at a bunch of asiatic hillbillies with AK-47s.

With AK-47s, and heavy machine guns, and RPG launchers, and portable surface-to-air missiles and such. Oh, and there's always the risks of bad weather and mechanical failure inherent to helicopter flight. Helicopters are dangerous, period, and the Apaches are far from invulnerable. A number have been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some crews have died.

In general, when a piece of military hardware is heavily protected, it also faces powerful threats that make that protection necessary. Otherwise it'd just be carrying extra dead weight that would better be replaced with useful equipment. The military isn't in the business of building invulnerable weapons or letting soldiers fight in "god mode".

And don't you think their opponents wouldn't love to have the coup of bringing down a royal? Just by being in the combat zone, they put themselves at risk.

Re:You pray if you like (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452783)

Well, in that case perhaps you're unaware that the whole of the royal family stayed in London - despite having plenty of other places to go to - when it was being bombed nightly during the Blitz. They were in residence when Buckingham Palace itself was hit.

Seriously, give it up. There are plenty of valid complaints you can make about them, but this line of attack is just laughable.

Re:You pray if you like (2)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#44452791)

Yeah they serve all right.. I'm guessing it's not too terribly dangerous to fly about in an armored helicopter shooting at a bunch of asiatic hillbillies with AK-47s.

Not exactly the same thing as 'going down with the ship' in the face of a nuclear missile strike, is it?

Hey man I have a buddy who was a DART member (Downed Aircraft Rescue Team). His group would go out in Blackhawks to either salvage or destroy downed Apaches. Twice the aircraft he traveled in was shot down by hostiles as they attempted to land to execute their mission. I don't know how many aircraft he went in to recover, but they usually bring in other aircraft to provide support when they go into land, so obviously those hillbillies can still be dangerous.

Not to mention the Falklands, but ... (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#44453123)

Wasn`t it Prince William who flew decoy missions (get the Exocet to lock onto your helicopter, then jink at the last moment) to try to protect the fleet?

Re:You pray if you like (2)

sootman (158191) | about a year ago | (#44452359)

Actually, she did serve. I caught a bit of coverage of the new baby and it talked about how all the royals are expected to serve. From Wikipedia:

In February 1945, she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as an honorary Second Subaltern with the service number of 230873. She trained as a driver and mechanic.

She was born in April 1926, so she was not yet 19 in February of '45. V-E day came along a few months later. (May 1945)

Re:You pray if you like (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | about a year ago | (#44452443)

Possible exception of the Queen Mother, I suppose.

And still, Adolf Hitler described her as "the most dangerous woman in Europe [youtube.com] "...

Re:You pray if you like (3, Insightful)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | about a year ago | (#44452219)

Because you know if there's ever an imminent threat the members of the Royal Family aren't going to be sat at Buck House with a cuppa tea counting down the seconds...they'll be on their merry way to the other three corners of the globe.

Any member of the Royal Family who did that would rightly be disowned by the rest of the family and the British public, and would probably be looked down upon by much of the rest of the world as well. If the monarch herself did it (and I can't imagine Elizabeth II doing it in a thousand years--she may look like a little granny, but she has far too much backbone for that), she would effectively have abdicated. In the face of such a selfish, craven act, Britain would either find itself a new monarch with more spine, or get rid of the monarchy entirely.

The Royal Family enjoys a lot of privileges, but in the end they exist to serve the British state, as its personification. Their lives are far more controlled and circumscribed than ordinary people.

Just look at the case of Edward VIII [wikipedia.org] to see how Britain might treat a monarch who doesn't take his duty seriously.

Re:You pray if you like (2)

Tore S B (711705) | about a year ago | (#44453103)

There are scenarios where exile is the best decision.

One example from these parts: When Norway was invaded by the Nazis, the King of Norway fled to London to help lead the Resistance in cooperation with the rest of the legal government in exile in London.

The King refused to stay in a country where he might be exploited or forced to legitimize the Nazi administration.

His actions have to my knowledge never been criticized in Norway, in what remains an uncommonly popular royal family.

Jon Stewart British queen voice? (3, Funny)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year ago | (#44451433)

OK, who read that while hearing Jon Stewart's British queen voice?

Re:Jon Stewart British queen voice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452845)

When I read it I envisioned you dressed up as a maid in the palace, smoking on Prince Charles' dick. But I didn't want to intrude into your little fantasy so I went back to thinking about real world shit and not Jon fucking Stewbitch.

God and country (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44452063)

From the transcript of an actual audio recording of The Queen practicing The Queen's Speech:

"Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great fuck fuck shit fuckin' shit odds. I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister. fuck shit (singsong) Mary had a little jug-eared baaaaaaaaaaaby and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939."

In return the possible farewell words I would have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452197)

In her native language which just happens to be German: Friss Scheisse und vereck daran Du miese Fotze, that's Eat shit and die from it you worthless cunt.

One line (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44452371)

"Take refuge behind the sofa!"

Revised speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452897)

"Bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye."

Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453031)

The Lyndon LaRouche cult is going to go ape-shit over this.

Keep it short and sweet. (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#44453081)

"Send wire, main office, tell them I said 'ow!' - gotcha!'

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?