Back in 1966 a film was made called 'The War Game' it was a docu-film about a nuclear attack on the UK. When it was initially show it was considered so horrific that it was banned for 20 years! While it maybe old, you can see some of the actions that the government would have done and what the outcome was. The UK is woefully under prepared for such an exchange, mainly due to limited foresight. The countries that will win WWIII, will be the countries that protect it's citizens, so they can rebuild civilisation afterwards. Informative video, non the less. 👍
Thanks for the comment, I hadn't heard of this but I'll try and give it a watch, sounds interesting. I think you raise a good point about protecting civilians, we'd be very vulnerable in the UK. I would only worry that food would be so sparse for a while causing a famine amongst survivors if a good proportion of a population were to survive. Probably those countries with low imports / high self sustainability would fare better, even better for them if they aren't involved in the conflict.
@@TheCassandraProject-nuclearwar Yep Threads is an horrific watch. Its so well made though. How the upcoming crisis slowly but surely becomes the main story is so well produced.
Nobody, but nobody, will 'win' WW3. Civilization is toast for several centuries - at least. While 'we' would be 'One with Nineveh and Tyre'. (Thank you, Rudyard Kipling: 'Recessional')
A really well done, interesting and fascinating as well as informative video. I lived on the front line of the cold war, I remember the tension very well. Look forward to more videos from you. Have hit the subscribe button
Apart from the likes of London it’s unlikely you would see warheads in the megaton range, more likely 100k tons or a bit larger. Used in conjunction with a MIRV ICBM, you would probably see a pattern dropped over a city. This guarantees a wider area of destruction, as well as minimising the effects of a failed weapon. The UK Trident deterrent has warheads at a max yield of 100kt. With a maximum of four warheads per missile. Whilst on their own not as devastating as four one megaton warheads, if detonated over say Moscow, with one got each quarter, it will still utterly destroy Moscow and devastate the surrounding area. Also you make no mention of a resulting ‘firestorm’ which would engulf much of the surrounding areas, reducing everything to rubble and ash. The most powerful ICBM is believed to be the Russian Satan 2 which can carry a mix of yields, with a nominal payload of ten 750kt warheads. A very interesting video though… One final point. The absolutely luckiest people, would be those within half to a mile of the detonation. This will ensure instant vaporisation, before you even knew what happened. The unlucky would be those who survived! A total exchange U.S and Russia with China and the smaller nuclear powers, would lead to at the bare minimum the end of civilisation and mankind being thrown back to the Stone Age, or at worst thanks to a nuclear winter a total extinction event. You May survive the initial war, but would still die just more slowly and painfully !!!! As has been said a nuclear war must never be fought and can never be won, and take comfort in the fact world leaders such as Biden and Putin are only to aware of this, despite Putins sabre rattling. Great efforts are taken to avoid direct confrontation between Russia and U.S forces for this reason.
Yes, this is because the damage does not scale linearly, rather by the inverse cube law, which means 10 x 100kt weapons will do more damage than one 1 megaton bomb. It's crazy to think that back in the cold war they fielded 25 megaton weapons and the Titan 2 had a single 9 megaton warhead, absolutely insane.
@@iitzfizz As I understand, weren't the higher yields a necessary requirement of the inaccuracy of targeting with early gen ICBM,s. If it detonated even a few miles from its Intended location, a multi megaton warhead, particularly if it were air burst gave a chance of hitting what it was supposed to hit. These days thanks to technology the accuracy can be all but certain, and as you say numerous smaller yield can produce greater results, and of course made all the more possible thanks to MIRV technology. For example Britain's nuclear deterrent- the Trident submarines I believe carry upto 4 warheads per missile each with a max yield of 100kt.
Good vid, but as others have said - survive to do what?? In a fairly moderate strike the the country would be chaos and wouldn’t be able to cope. Also Data Centres for things like Azure, Google and Amazon would be targeted as a priority as well as other critical infrastructure not covered by the Cold War map, thus the spread of targets would largely effect the entirety of the population. Medical facilities that might be left would be overwhelmed and supplies would either be contaminated or destroyed as would water and farming - why would you want to survive to have to face that??
I keep trying to figure out whether or not Lincolnshire would be hit. We have a lot of RAF bases... but they're training bases mostly. Our only "city" is Lincoln, and it only has about 100,000-110,000 people. I live in a town of 20,000-22,000. We have no major targets barring maybe one major airbase. We are pretty far from any other major targets. We have very arable land, and the weather patterns tend to go around us rather than through us. And with the amount of training bases, we're going to have a lot of forces ready to maintain order post-nuke. I suspect, or at least I hope, I would be fine.
Very interesting video but unfortunately the government doesn't care about people now let alone in a nuclear war 🤔 Protect & Survive is so out of date as the weapons now are 10 x more powerful. An air burst will knock out all communication before you even see the flash. Really I can't understand why you would want to survive in a MAD situation. Radiation sickness will mean a slow painful death 😞
Studies showed back in the 60's that the societal disruption caused by a nuclear attack would render governmental intervention useless. Hence "Protect and Survive". That is just as relevant today as it was then. A nuclear attack, even a "limited" exchange, would make the UK uninhabitable for decades at least. Support systems are so fragile even a couple of inches of snow cause massive disruption for heaven's sake!
the mobile phone alaet was terrible .. half the Phone providers did not get it to work ... and if we have an emp attack .. they are pointless anyway .... how many people got the alert late or not at all ...
Good video but there are a few things that are problematic about it : (1) It is very unlikely that the U.K. would be hit by the really large number of strategic nuclear weapons that you depict; (2) Probably Russia would devote around 90% of its deliverable arsenal against the United States and certain NATO targets (e.g. Brussels etc.), not the U.K.; (3) Russian nuclear attacks on the U.K. itself would probably be confined to a few "symbolic" targets (e.g. London) as well as military bases such as the Trident submarine facilities in Scotland and command & control facilities, airfields and so on; (4) Most of these attacks would be executed with "tactical" rather than "strategic" nukes (and therefore they might not be part of a single barrage, rather the bombs might hit the U.K. over a period of many hours or even days); (5) Those Russian warheads that would likely be used (both "tactical" and "strategic"), would have yields in the 100 to 300 kiloton range (not megaton-range as you depict); (6) Although the damage inflicted by this much more "limited" nuclear barrage would obviously still be horrific, the REAL catastrophe would occur later as starvation, radiation sickness and disease would ravage whatever part of the population was left, after the bombs went off. You had better have enough canned food to last 5+ years, in other words. Any way you look at it, the only practical way to "survive" a nuclear war, is "don't let such a war ever start in the first place". Once the bombs start to go off, my friend... the best solution is either to be right underneath one, or to suck on a .45.
I am at that stage of my life now when I dont have to worry about this too much. However, I have some knowledge of these matters and basically in UK if you are spared for long its just your good luck. I would do one thing however, when and if you get an attack alarm. Fill up the sink, bath and everything you have with water before the mains get broken or contaminated. You may need water. Always have a good supply of tins, something to cook on and plenty of bin bags Strong ones! Your can do a lot with bin bags. Bleach is also cheap and you should have a gallon or two in stock. Never know what you may face. Other than that a wind up radio may come in useful. The rest is Prepping and do stay off the roads if your trying to run.. It will be a nightmare 66 million people can get in a heck of a lather!
i dont have a bunker but i am about 60 miles from the nearest American airbase in Norfolk, i bought my family all the suits and masks and a military geiger counter from a local RAF base. I bought watches that alert you to higher levels of radiation and bought a distiller as that will clean the radiation out of the water apparently. I also checked and locally 5 mins in the car we have an old nuclear observation post whch we could use if we crowbar the lock off. Those things are all over the country so its worth being one of the people who know where they are just in case. Enjoyed the video and i have been prepping since 2011
i listened to an interesting podcast from the osbournes new series on spotify, i think it was one of the guests that lived in a big house in the middle of the country next to a mannor house or something but never saw the naibours for years. then one day they saw a random man in a suit around the house, they introduced themselves and the man said im actually in inspector and invited them to have a look and into the house was just a giant set of stairs leading down into a underground shelter. i have no idea which episode it was but im sure it was within their earlier episodes
It might seem like a good idea to shelter +50% of the population, but how do you feed and water them, how do you prevent against disease? How do you uphold law? The one thing i would do is grab my sunglasses and go outside, i would not want to see the aftermath, the would be no future.
Russia would not attack city centres. No, 500 rem is not instantly lethal. 11:50 Several targets would be subject to ground bursts. Mostly military airbases and civil airports. Most targets in the UK would be hit with 0.1Mt weapons.
I agree with a few of your points but why do you say with such certainty that most UK targets would be hit with 0.1Mt weapons? And why say Russia wouldn't attack city centres? I see city centres as unlikely targets but still targets. Targeting city centres would cause a humanitarian crisis which would ruin a war effort, and that's not to mention the manufacturing hubs in those city centres that contribute to the war effort. Such as during the blitz.
@Friddle Doesn't look like they replied, so let me. When looking at the warhead yield that Russia has, most non-ICBM weapons (understood to be aimed at the US exclusively) have yields of 100 KT to 450 KT. Most of Russia's SLBMs and ALBMs are closer to 100 KT. Most of these would target military sites, but if cities are targeted they would likely be airburst enhancing destruction but reducing fallout potential immensely.
@@GX_MantaAs a former CBRN guy you are exactly correct. In many cases of airburst there will be little to no fallout. We would start rescue operations right away in the case of an airburst.
Thoroughly enjoyed this! 1: What is the point of having government administration surviving if your population has been wiped out? 2: Israel recently received a practice air attack from Iran: I wonder what U.K. has in place? Maybe the nhs, which could close down as soon as there was an emergency 😂😂
The problem with shelters is that once the bombs go off, you might be nowhere near one! And are you seriously going to bunker down and leave the kids at school? Then there is food! At home you will have a store of tins for a week or two.. but if everyone crowds into a bunker with limited food, it wont be pretty! Then finally, prior to modern industrialised agriculture, britain produced enough food for onky 10 million, post nuclear strike, it would probably be 20% of that! That means even if everyone survives initially, 93% woukd die of starvation!
Who would be daft enough to want to? I will be sat on the hill across the road from me with a good boom box and a bottle of Jack Daniels. I live two miles away from a nuclear launch site so......
That UK scenario you presented is ultimately probably quite conservative. If a nuclear strike hits the UK, chances are NATO responds leading to further escalation, meaning that more nukes would drop on cities in retaliatory "countervalue" strikes. No city with more than 100k inhabitants, hospitals, universities, ports, major stations or railyards, etc, is safe at all in such a scenario.
I live in Norwich in SE England, being such a small country the real question is would you want to? The wind would carry fallout all across the UK even if it was souly London attacked And the UK simply wouldnt have either the military or humanitarian aid to support the millions effected If the UK is nuked, and you live here really youre just hoping to be vapourised, its not going to be Fallout game series fun, its going to be no food, clean air or water and slowly dying of a lack of any of these or disease with the total collapse of the system
l living near Sennybridge 'most squaddies know' I would offer we would not have to worry much after the big bang. I never bothered in the 60's and 70's so buggered if I am bothered now.
dude, the uk is so small even 1 hirosima sized bomb wou be effective at taking us out of a conflict with Russia. I totally get you , but we are fucked.
when the government takes emergency powers, any viable shelter you've built may well be seized. if you or a firm theoretically built one, wouldn't you need council planning? Putting your shelter into the public domain and rendering it potentially useless to you? genuine question.
Good video! Carlin's quote "If you're born with a gun pointed toward your head, do you even notice it?" makes you think. Although most certainly nuclear attack likelihood has increased since Putin's stupidity display on Ukraine matters, hopefully, a nuclear strike to a UK city is still not probable. Nice touch with the tea bags 19:32 😂
The UK is simply too geographically compact for any plausible survival areas. Northwest Scotland, most likely - but there's no support there for bulk storage for the surviving population And if there were, it wold become a target. Government among any survivors would quickly evolve into warlord-ruled enclaves. Nuclear winter would ensure no crops - for up to 10 years. The notion of any large-scale surviving population is laughable. As much chance as an ice cream in a vat of boiling water. Or me winning the lottery 10 weeks in succession. If nuclear war starts, and the UK is hit, there is no alternative - to death.
@@smucka1 Airburst is certainly more limited in fallout that groundburst. But there was quite a bit of fallout all the same in Japan. However, the bombs occurred in August, just before the September Typhoon season which was particularly bad in 1945. As both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are coastal cities, and the fireball flattened the environment, much of the fallout was washed out to sea. Then half-life did its magic and after a few years the worst of the radioisotopes burned themselves out. So the cities could get back to normal relatively quickly.
@@patrickdegenaar9495 Correct :) Craters of ground bursts can be lethally radioactive for up to 4 months though more likely 2 or 3 though an extremely "clean" design the crater would be safe to visit for short periods within a month, but it varies *hugely* on the bomb design, local conditions, elements in the ground or buildings etc the Hiroshima weapon was actually *very* dirty, a uranium "gun" design, though such are almost never used/made after that (to heavy, unsafe) But most large thermonukes, certainly multimegaton weapons were of the Cold War were also usually "dirty" as they used a uranium "tamper" and after a major nuclear war there'd be no one cleaning cities up afterwards, unlike Japan in 1945
@@patrickdegenaar9495 so Hiroshima wasn’t 1 kilo ton is was closer to 15 kt and it didn’t produce lots of fallout In 14 days 99.% of the radiation is gone.
@@deehaytch8442 Yes, no change there then, it has been like this since the 60's for us boomers. I've never let it bother me. What is written is written, nothing I can do will change anything and ultimately, we all die.
There is a video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FYWcgF4Wwog.html&t which describes how just 10 nuclear weapons could cripple the UK militarily, economically and strategically and result in a humanitarian crisis that would be impossible to manage. Megaton range thermonuclear weapons would not be necessary. 10 x 100 kiloton range weapons would be sufficient to completely bring the UK to its knees.
No!!! I grew up with the Cold War! The answer IS NO! That was the 60s-70s. Those nukes have moved on too!! I would hate to have to survive a full out nuke war!🙏🙏👍👍🇬🇧🇬🇧🥃🥃
codswallop - its going to be NATO who fires the first nuke - oh btw the Ukrainian civil war started in 2014 , cant get that right then you'll never get anything right . TTFN
Fear mongering at its best!! Remember all the test footage from years by? The camera always managed to stay in place and film it whilst everything else was decimated!! Just food for thought!!
Appreciate the comment on the work that has gone in :) Listened back and it sounds more like nu-cue-ler to me. I need to work on my pronunciation for next time :'D.
