Indeed, problem is, the man has got point... And by the time politicians have come to the inevitable conclusion that cutting back again and again on armed forces, all there will be left is indeed a button to push, except they've away with the wiring to cut cost there as well.
@@TheAngelOfDeath01 to be honest the modern solution was the reality, that nuclear missile are expensive and difficult to recycle without using them and the conventional army has to be used to make exterior pressure to unstable areas for idiotic economical reasons of international companies, who will not pay taxes for anything, explicit not these troops. so the EU has a new perspective on an actual nuclear war. a) we can build nukes and use them, before the enemy can actual completely crush us and retaliate effective enough to make it a apocalyptic draw. b) east European nations hate Russian and can hold the front long enough for us to switch our economy to war production or at least nuke production to get a draw o0r make c) sucessfull c) until the eastern european armies can actual hold the front and the western elite divisions can crush the enemy line in core areas to roll up the whole front by non-stop larger becoming operations of more actual useful western and US imported divisions. d) it is more likely that the enemy side (capitalistic oligarchic Russia) had more corrupt rearmament than the west. e) the normal war and the endless conflicts in the near east and these wars just need small economical and effective troops (s. c) )
@@apollomars1678 "it is more likely that the enemy side (capitalistic oligarchic Russia) had more corrupt rearmament than the west." I wonder how many people in the West actually believe that "their" capitalistic oligarchy is less corrupt than "our" capitalistic oligarchy in Russia. I mean, we can eventually rename "bribery" into "lobbying". Will be a good start, at least.
@@Mohnatchenko that's exactly my point. but i would like to point out, that there are some political changes in our party-goverment system, while in russia a single entity was able to centralize all political and economical progress on his own perspective for decades. even long term Merkel was less singular in german politics than Putin in russia. this hurts in a capitalistic oligarchy and the actual exchange of power between a strong left and right wing party secured a similar political and economical stability, like the coldwar on the world stage for decade sin europa and large areas of the rest of the world, at least it secured more peace than recent 2-3 decades with few singular oligarchic powers in government for decades.
@@apollomars1678 But these political changes have zero impact on status-quo in general, no? In USA, for example, it does not trully matter who took power - "democrat" or "republican" - key moments will remain the same. No UHC, even if certain polls show that at least half of pro-republican voters and majority of pro-democrat voters support the idea. MIC will recieve more and more resources, with "threat of China/Russia/e.t.c." card being played constantly, while money being spent on some projects that will fail in the end or never see the light of day. People that are called "left" are prancing around LGBT+/- and weed legalization, while providing no additional support to indepent trade unions (if there are any left standing in the first place), nor they are trying to raise minimal wage or , god forbid, give more control over means of production to the working collectives. Financial capital rules it all. EU, while playing it in a more ellegant way and is smart enough to keep certain social benefits in place, in many ways doing the same. "Left" and right are running in circles around each other, while, say, Yellow Wests (just as as their predecessors) are protesting - peacefully and not-so-peacefully - to get some gas grenades from the police and crumbs from the goverment's table. This fuss works great as a destraction while things are more or less stable, till some major crisis comes along - in our case, it was good old COVID-19. However, i am not going even to pretend, that things are in anyway different in the Motherland. But after the chaos of very late Gorbachev's and all of Yeltsin's years, with primitive accumulation of capital running wilde, under Putin a domestic capital was formed, with its representative taking their lawfull - just like in a any capitalist society - place. To me, the only difference between EU/USA oligarchy and Russian oligarchy is that "our" are yet to learn how to do PR better. It will, eventually.
In another episode of Yes Minister when Hacker was still just a Cabinet member and was arguing the Unilateralist position for scrapping the British nuclear deterrent, Sir Humphrey reminded him why Britain needed nuclear weapons: "To protect us from the French." "The French? But they're our allies." "Oh yes, now. But they've been our enemies for most of the last nine-hundred years."
Agreed. The West Wing is an (American) liberal fantasy, and a multi-year Hollywood-Liberal polemic against the right-wing/conservatives. It's group-think dressed up in designer suits. Whereas Yes Minister is a balanced, intelligent, shrewd bit of reality dressed as comedy.
It is, isn't it? That's why they invented the word "complacency". But never ever, the one speaking that word, is supposed to be seen as complicit in it, haha.
I find it interesting that in 'Yes Minister', Hacker got drunk a few times, but during 'Yes Prime Minister', while he imbibed regularly, he never got drunk on screen again. I suspect this scene might have something to do with that.
In the great Global Thermonuclear War classic "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)" the plot involves a drunk Soviet Prime Minister. Although he turns out to be extremely level headed once informed by the US President that one of their Generals went rogue and launched a full bomber wing of B-52s to nuke the Soviet Union.
@@michaeljames4904 The lines he said before that: "Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head." "You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. " (listens) "Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes... to attack your country."
Originally Hacker had no real wanting to become Prime Minister. In reality it was Sir Humphrey who "persuaded" Hacker to stand for leadership, as Humphrey felt Hacker would be a safer pair of hands at No.10 than any of the other contenders.
I love the reaction of the female officer glaring at hacker when he says “ what if I got drunk” at 1min 24. Simple things like this make great comedy even greater.
It's funny how this is a comedy, but is actually pretty detailed about the UKs nuclear capabilities in the 1970s, and that British armors like entire goal in life was to keep Hamburg open for 72 hours lol
@@vincentliu4906 Yup, how long can NATO hold the Fulda Gap was the first main decision point in wargaming. I had always understood that tactical nukes were NATO's main plan, as there just wouldn't be time to bring enough conventional divisions to bear.
@@corvus2512 With the larger Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies? Without large American reinforcement, they would not stem the tide for too long. Maybe more than 72 hours but who would’ve known. It could have lasted even less.
@@jacobtebbe4435 It's like in Skyfall (I think), where Judy Dench's character talks about how she misses the Cold War because it was easy to deal with.
The guy giving the "tour" gets the best lines of the scene. On American shows, guest characters exist to get beaten up, dumped on or otherwise used by the main characters.
The writers had access to British Government officials and politicians at the time they were writing. Many of the episodes are loosely based on actual events, such as the alcoholic communications room they set up in Dubai, or wherever it was.
So damn clever. Brilliantly acted by everyone . Sir Humphrey getting locked out and arriving at the outside window in despair probably my favourite scene. The day that the PM said I am the boss.
There's a gaffe here the presidency in the Soviet Union was a purely ceremonial title (it was so unimportant, Stalin didn't even bother having his president shot) he would need to get through to the Soviet General Secretary
Soviet leaders were called the 'Russian President/Premier' in the West because Soviet General Secretary is a rather big mouthful. It's just a colloquialism. Same way the President of the United States is called just the President or American President.
@@DomWeasel but you mustn't forget that there were 3 top positions, one may hold all, or make 2 others take them - Primer, General Secretary, and Head of the Party.
0:55 He got it slightly wrong. It's not HMS Northwood. It's HMS Warrior _in_ Northwood, Middlesex. I know cos I used to work there 😉 He hesitates slightly before saying HMS Northwood, so I've always wondered if the script got it right, and the director just let his mistake slide as it's not that important unless you know 😂
The thing about Nato only holding Russia for 72 hours was based on the Nato stationed forces in Europe being drunk and incompetent, but the Russian (Soviet) forces being in 1st-class fighting condition. But the reality is their forces were just as incompetent and drunk as Nato.
You aren't wrong, but that's not all you have to consider. Once one side takes the strategic initiative and goes on offensive, they will have the momentum on their side.
As I remember it, we (the troops stationed in germany) had to survive the first four hours. My base was in artillery range of East Germany...everything depended on advance warning.
@@cerbuscankerous3714 to actually invade they would have required mobilisation and the establishment of supply lines. A bit like the current build-up near the Ukraine. And their build-ups would have caused Nato build-ups...
@@darthkek1953 not entirely true im afraid, they had plans for a surprise attack using only local theatre forces which were viable with other formations only shipping in once that gotten underway (we thought they were trying this in 1988 so nato did crash mobilise in Germany, we were out with full loadouts watching them approach the border, a very nervous time). There were risks with this surprise approach that as they would be slower to come to strength in other theatres, but the main reason it was never really attempted was because they ultimately did not want to. Unlike many of the enemies the west faces today, the Russians understood the cost of total war and really want to avoid it. We took a long time to understand their mindset.
Luckily Jeltsin was in a good mood the day the got the nuclear football when someone thought a Norwegian sounding rocket looked like a nuclear missile on the radar... maybe he was drunk and that saved the world?
This series were broadcasted in the Netherlands as well. I really loved it. This typical British humor, wonderful. And I think the way they showed it, isn't much different from reality
@Olof Thorn Yes, doing a bit of war crimes will now be a lot easier. It has always been easier to commit atrocities from afar than directly doing them. It’s hard for a sane human being to put an innocent civilian against a wall and pull the trigger himself (Even the Nazis couldn’t make their extermination troops do that for too long without them breaking). It’s much easier though for a guy in an office chair to press a button making the robots/drones do it for him. (Hitler and Stalin also had it easier simply ordering everything from their office). Distance simply makes things more comfy and reduces the moral backlash you feel for your deeds. (I am of course presenting quite a pessimistic scenario here)
"What if I have to get drunk?" "Well, it would be safer if you didn't." I tell you Sir Humphrey is in the wrong profession. His delivery of his lines are just comedic gold! 😂😂😂
You mean that you can tell for sure that you have never seen this before after all this time? I recently rewatched the whole thing, and there still pops up details that I didn't remember. Anyway, this is from the first episode of "Yes, Prime Minister," after Hacker has become the PM. It sets up his "Grand Design," the nuclear disarmament program that is a major thread in the first season.
@@Tocsin-Bang As a Post Office Telephones engineer, I had a yearly job of testing the local WB400/WB1400 units. There were scattered throughout our area, one was in a village sub-Post Office. Usually in council buildings.
I like how this show educates the people in politics. West could stop the Soviets only using nuclear weapons. They were outnumbered and outgunned in Europe. As North Korea proves, the nuclear weapon is the cheapest option for defense. Also the nuclear threat makes you sober
Well actually the count matters alot, in nuclear war it's basically a blitz, the objective is to disable your opponents capacity to retaliate with your nukes, or if they do a nuclear strike against you that you retaliate in time, having 12,000 missiles all in different mostly secret locations makes it much harder to disable the ussrs military response, which is one of the main reasons why they had so many (along side showboating and internal politics). Britain lacks the land area and resources to match that which is why Britian focuses on mobile submarines that the Soviets dont know where they are at any time, which means the USSR cannot disable Britain's capacity to retaliate etc. Numbers do matter if you have the landmass to make them matter like the USA and ussr (Russia now) does
@@davianthule2035 That assumes probably wrongly that a country can survive even a limited nuclear war say 20-30 hits.Odds are the social and political chaos resulting from even a few strikes would still be nation ending. Or look at it this way the US only avoided major riots and a visible spike in murders for only a couple of months once the covid pandemic upended society. A nuclear war even with only a few strikes would cause internal unrest on a if we're being optimistic Germany 1919 level and pessimistic Russia 1919 level. Either way whats left of the Army following such a war will be too busy in domestic law enforcement to fight any war. In my view any war in which the enemy has hit at least 20 targets on your side with nukes is already lost functionally. The nation as it was known is dead in the best case scenario totalitarian dictatorship for decades to come worst case no point in thinking about that. Either way democracy is dead forever the moment the nukes go off.
Theres not really a button. More like president give order. Get handed the code. Read the code Someone down the line will pass on the order, with codes. Silo read the order, match the code Several folks turn the keys together. Then thats it. Kinda different for submarine tho. Oh, watch verisateum channel. He visited one such silo thats now operating as museum.
@@RoskinGreenrake During an ignorgaration watch the man with the briefcase who stands next to the outgoing president then when the oath is taken steps accross to the new one. The breif case contains the codes, or at least part of them, to the USA's nukes.
@@MrThorfan64 administrators can not be fired. They have their own health care system separate from us mortals. They receive preferential mortgages. Addressing an administrator by the informal 'you' can get you one year of prison. The German public broadcasting fee is mandatory and three times that of the BBC. Also the public broadcasting is de facto staffed with administrators. Plebiscites are considered acts of fascism. Courts don't have jurors and are generally considered farces as their outcomes are pre determined. A show like Yes, Prime Minister would be considered a far right attack on the sanctity of German politics.
and THIS, mein fuhrer, is the button. just like that? we'll invade poland? when i say so? won't anyone try to stop me? well... italy and japan won't kick up much of a fuss. i'm sure the rest of the world will do nothing either...
Yeeees, but Americans don't really do English irony, do they? They seem to have had their sarcasm surgically removed by over-exposure to plasticcy reality tv and the kind of humour response that requires endless explanations. Wouldn't work.
Perhaps. On the other hand there's the fact that Margaret Thatcher was PM for the entirety of this show, so perhaps the humour wasn't drawn from actual PMs.
Not sure it would work in an American context because it HAS to be drier than a gin martini for the jokes to land, and American audiences don't seem to repond to that sort of humour as much. I would personally love to see a modern interperetation of Yes Minister though.
I'm American and I can understand why we haven't had anything (or much) like this despite having "plenty of comedy material" available. YM and YPM excelled because they took their comedy very seriously, whereas here in the US, we tend to turn everything into an extended SNL skit, and not take it seriously at all. In the US, comedy is a rhetorical weapon to brandish against targets of opportunity - dimwitted, narcissistic and easily manipulated politicians - satisfying the viewer's emotional need to see fictitious villains vanquished. If YM is anything to go, the British are more canny about their leaders and their fictitious characters. They don't need to be pandered to, but would prefer to actually know why the system is tangled in knots.
Indeed. during the 1980s, there were a few United States TV shows that illustrated that the US President might have as little as 10 minutes to decide whether or not to launch missiles.
If television writers were allowed to say all they could say a show along these lines is equally, even more, applicable to the legal profession than to government and anyone else, the public is gullible Jim, no such show, no media reporting unless it is a legal professional whistle blowing, the public without any voice, indeed nothing really to laugh at, particularly when writers are not indeed permitted to address the type of exploitation and deceit within the educated class more generally. Jay and Lynn did superb work but some people can see the story is applicable to the public, and knowing that the public would stop laughing. We laugh, indeed, but this is for real how the public are conned.
The switchboard operator in the Kremlin didn't seem to speak much English - because it goes without saying that the language of communication with the Russians should be English.
Know this is a joke, but for as long as there's been tons of different societies speaking different languages there's been a "common tongue" used for diplomacy and trade. Throughout basically all of antiquity and the middle ages in Europe, it was latin. Then French took predominance as the language of diplomacy, until it shifted to English after WW1 (the treaty of Versailles was written and signed in both French and English, marking the shift in international diplomacy).
@@gregoryborton6598 I'm afraid you didn't get the original joke which was on British monolingualism. They did use translators for communication with Moscow.
What is sad is that some 40 plus years on, the bureaucrats have whittled the armed forces down so far, that it is impossible to stage any credible force in Europe or elsewhere on our own, much less defend the UK. The nuclear deterrent is also down in missiles and sea worthy boats or enough crews. All because politicians again and again have been too tight and indecisive with strategic policies, instead looking to rob the MOD for short term gains elsewhere. This is not a sitcom. It's a peek into the inner workings of government
The nuclear deterrent doesn't need to be too large. Even a few hits would cause the kind of devastation that would make any victory parade( authoritarian regimes love those) quite a sad affair. When it comes to nukes you just need enough to ensure that everyone will be dour afterwards. Only the americans and soviets wanted a nuke for every last farm on the other side.Everyone else was smart enough to have just enough that the body count exceeds WW2.
@@florinivan6907 I think perhaps you misunderstood or are blissfully ignorant. Every strategic asset between NATO and Warsaw Pact were targetted. These include command and control, radar, early warning sites, airbases, submarine bases, industrial centres and large population areas. The counter action will seek to locate and destroy missile in flight either from the air or the ground. This meant that if you only sent one warhead to a strategic target, there was a potential it would not get through. By maximising the number of targets (thus lots of warheads) you have are certain that a significant part of the control, radar or industrial complex will be crippled even if some warheads are knocked out. The aresenals were thus made larger to accommodate that but also, as the warheads iproved, older stock of older warheads remained, but they were still devestating if ever used. The greatest fear was not the long range intercontinental missiles. It was actually the short range missiles with flight times of 8-10 minutes. These could target early warning sites and will not reach altitudes that allow the predidiction of trajectory to be calculated. If any early warning were taken out - say on the borders od Warsaw Pact, then the reaction time is reduced. To compensate for NATO's missiles, the Soviet Union installed a 'dead man' switch which would automatically launch a retalitory strike. The problem was that their warning system was flawed and two incidents that could could have led to unintentionally launch were recorded but saved by the watch officers. The strategic arms reduction treaties aimed specifically to remove these missiles from the arsenals. However, these treaties have expired and the US and Russia have not entered into any new agreement. Since that time, several more states have aquired nuclear capability and will not unilaterally give up on assured deterence. Cruise missiles can be tipped with a nuclear warhead and these can fly at short range. The threat is there in the sub-continent, in the middle east, with US v Russia or China and now N Korea. The UK only carries a half complement of missiles aboard one boat that are intercontinental. Our deterent could be for whatever reason, rendered incapable to respond and a rogue player or hybrid asymetrical attack can come from a short range threat that is outside the NATO remit or may be politically sensitive to the US. Therefore, a large scale retalitation is off the cards or unknown but we suffered a devastating attack. It is wrong to assume that there is only one outcome and two players in such. There are multiple players in the world and even in parts of the world (look at Ukraine now) - the players are not State controlled even if they are financed by them. How can you target the country for an action not directly tied to the state? The risks are greater now. In many ways, it was far safer in the past as it was two major superpowers. Short range devices can be used as a last resort to finalise an already sour battle without global escalation. Therefore, each nation needs to stand upon their own resources and not simply rely upon US/Russia to sort it out.
@@SuperParatech In a nuclear war you don't need to hit everything. While soldiers like to wargame they tend to be horribly bad at understanding human nature. Anything that goes above 10 nuclear hits is nation crippling. Anything above 25 hits its nation ending. Nit because the military disintegrates but because society disintegrates. Trust me the average person might rally around the flag at first but once the bodycount goes way up its every man for himself. And in that situation the military will not fight any war since its too busy keeping the peace. And how exactly would the british deterrent be taken out? And even if there was a way to here's a minor issue no one would dare risk it once they were told the odds of success are not 100%. As for a rogue actor trust me when it comes to nukes politicians are simple minded 'who helped them and then nuke em'. The serbian government was not fully responsible for Sarajevo in 1914 serbian army officers were. It made no difference to the austro hungarians. Same thing today. So my suggestion is learn a bit about human nature. Soldiers especially professionals who started out at the Academy are genuinely bad at human nature. They tend to lack that ability of getting people possibly a case of professional autism. I've always prided myself on my superior ability to 'read' a person within seconds while being sad at how inept 99% are. You seem to be part of the 99%. And here's a thing you can't learn to read people. You can perfect it but not learn it no matter how many countries you visit and how many friends you got. You're eithet part of the group that does or you're not. I am part of that group I know how people act in the real world.
@@florinivan6907 I think perhaps, that you are basing your view upon the films that were aired in the 1980's. There were two-main players previously with aresenal in the west held predominately by the US, and the the former Soviet Union in the east, which has handed over that stockpile to Russia. A symmetry of warefare is not a theoretical proposition. It already exists. Turkish drones are used by Azerbaijan to defeat Armenian forces without the convention of a large air force. Cyber attacks by the west and by Russia and China have got to the point where digital currency is being mined on a state wide scale to provide resilience in the event of devaluation of conventional currency in time of crisis. Both sides have indicated that a cyber attack on critical infrastructure can result in a nuclear response. They are not talking global. It isn't about flag rallying - but about the economic security of a nation. Knowing that the other side has the means and the will to strike back will adjust what actions you will take against them. Do not believe that we exist globally in some commendable co-operation, fairly treating each other and being nice. We are consistently trying put ourselves (country interests) first and at the expense of others, if need be. Even neighbours struggle to get along. The UK can only deploy one boat with the two crews (navy too small now) and a half complement of missiles. There is no targetting or stored targets as part of the peace dividend after the cold war. These simply cannot be ramped up. Communications delays and interference means that the lack of redundancy puts that deterent is a precarious position. This is why the US deploys multiple subs and so does Russia. Other nations have chosen to use a multi-use platform employing cruise missiles, not from strategic means or winning a war, but for tactical short term gains to decide a battle and seek capitulation of hostilities by the other side. Anything can happen to a sub. One of our Astute Class hunters recieved hull damage in Gibraltar just last year following a collision. Losing the ability of our sub isn't beyond the realm of possibility. The home of subs are in Scotland and Devonport. During rest or efit, it would be easy to hit either site, crippling the ability to bring them in service ever again. We have two bases for interceptors of air threats. These are well known. Should they be damaged, would the UK alone launch 12 missiles unilaterally? The response could be greater. Think now about Ukraine. Non-Nato forces are engaged with a variety of irregular units drawn locally and from across the former Soviet States. There is sudden push supported by Russian forces at the border - and a hole is punched through the Ukraine lines speeding towards to Dnieper River with part of the forces turning south to blow the dam built by Ukraine to prevent water flowing into Crimea. Reservres are brought from the west and non-article 5 Nato support is brought in from Poland and Romania. These forces race westwards and engage in armour battle. The clash will occur at Dniepro and Zaporizhzia. To outflank the eastern forces, western forces move towards Kremenchuk and begin consolidating and organising their supply lines. Early one morning - two Искандер missiles are coming to the earth from an altitude of 40 kilometres at impressive speed. Kremenchuk is hit with a nuclear warhead - wiping out the unprotected buildup amassed there. Dniepro has an airburst detonation of an EMP by a similar missile, dissabling all radars, computers and other 'live' digital devices. Russia media says these were dissdents and not the Russian state. Do you now think this warrants a full scale global retaliation? US policy makers meet later that day, and despite an heightened security threat, agree to not pursue any furrther military objectives. NATO countries/EU shout that they do not want to be drawn into a globl conflict. A ceasefire is announced but the strategic forces of NATO is on high alert. Some in the US call for a military strike on Russia and others call for sanctions and embargos. Russia responds with the threat that any action taken against her will result in a nuclear exchange with the USA. Later that same day, the Peoples Republic of China storm ashore at Taiwan. After days of fighting, Taiwan capitulates and declares its loyalty to Beijing. A parade is arranged to celebrate the uniting of the country. In Europe, a cold period of relations forms but no further hostilities continue. Within a week, the territory lost by Ukraine is declared the independent state of Novorossiya, which is quickly recognised by Russia, China, Tanzania and South Africa. It isn't far-fetched. These things are possible. There are several publications about the risks and the nature of changing warfare. I am attaching the links. Enjoy the read. www.jstor.org/stable/26815046?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/02/new-russian-policy-allows-use-of-atomic-weapons-against-non-nuclear-strike/ www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/jglobfaul.5.1-2.0058#metadata_info_tab_contents www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/no-short-cuts-to-deterrence-in-a-world-of-hybrid-warfare/ www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-russia-commentary/commentary-putins-nuclear-tipped-hybrid-war-on-the-west-idUSKCN1GD6H2 www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/limited-nuclear-war-game-us-russia www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/february/neither-british-nor-independent-and-no-deterrent assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647776/dar_mcdc_hybrid_warfare.pdf assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf
@@SuperParatech Nice Tom Clancy crap scenario you got there. You know what your problem is. You see the world in a very paranoid way. Like Clancy to be honest. Paranoia defines you. No one is gonna go nuclear in a conventional operation. Wanna know why? Because no one is stupid enough to believe some dissident faction did it. Everyone would know the truth. Also the one who goes nuclear for whatever reason will forever be hated by everyone. You really and I mean really don't know human nature. These scenarios you talk about with willing nuke use for situations not justifying it are absurd. They only happen in the paranoid world of persons who never talk to normal people. In the real world this doesn't happen. Do you honestly think any country would believe the russian version?That some rogue group got nukes? Its actually worse if that is true. Since it means the russians are unable to secure their nukes. Trust me in the real world not the paranoid fantasy of boomers no one would ever believe that story. It wasn't attempted during the Cold War for a good reason.
Wow, is this filmed at the 'Secret' Nuclear Bunker at Kelvedon Hatch, Essex? I've been there many times. You can almost smell the residue of fear and boredom...
One of the first duties of a new Prime Minister is to write letters to the commanding officers of each of the four Trident submarines telling them what to do if Britain is suddenly destroyed without them receiving any orders. The letters are kept in the CO's safe and incinerated, unread, when the Prime Minister in question leaves office.
@@matthew8153 No. The Queen is only the ceremonial 'Head of the Armed Forces', she doesn't command them personally like for example the US President does. The last reigning British monarch to command troops personally was George II at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743.
The 'Defense' Minister: "The British armed forces are involved in HUNDREDS of overseas operations..." Foreigner: "Look at what you British did in our country!" British person: "What? I was just making a cup of tea, what happened?"
He pointed out something true though, how one person can make such a decision to launch bombs and nobody can question him about it. All that fire power and trust given to one person, and action taken on their one word without questioning it. It’s not loyalty, it’s stupidity.
Better ideas? Suggest organizing a meeting or a conference while the Russian or Chinese missiles are flying straight at you and will fall on your head in like 4 minutes?
Whilst the PM is required to authorise the firing command there are safeguards built in which are not obviously discussed in public. The UK has a more "personal" and different command chain as the weapons only exist on Submarines and there is more chance of a first strike taking out the PM and Military Heads than the US. The letters of last resort are a prime example of this - if the UK is gone the orders might be to retaliate and then sail to Australia
No, he would not ask if what would happen if he went off his rocker. People who are already off their rockers don't realise that that is a question, nor know to ask it.
He was vp for 8 years already im sure he knows all about the button. Much better than some orange maniac who would mix it up with his diet coke button 🤣
@@dorkmax7073 There wasn't a phoneline between Moscow and Washington but there was a teletype system established in 1963 and after 1986, a fax machine system in place. These days it's basically an email system. The red telephone though is just a Hollywood invention. It's just far more dramatic having the American and Soviet leaders on the phone with each other than exchanging text messages.
since the series had been all about challenging establishments (the NHS is all about bureacracy, etc), it's interesting that the military doesn't get any grief from the regulars - when Frederick Treves says '72 hours' shouldn't somebody have asked how the precise estimate would be affected if it rained? 70 hours or 74?
The Cold War most certainly ended. The weapons are still around, but there’s not the panic about certain nuclear annihilation being just five minutes away.
@@chrisholland1504 You think the US and other countries don't? The powers of the world keep each other in balance and in check. I don't think that balance will be broken with bio weapons.
@@XalphYT no it didn't. The Chinese government are anti west, Communist, anti capitalist and have the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons pointed at the United States and Europe. China have threatened to take Taiwan and if America intervened the Chinese won't hesitate to launch nuclear missiles. The Chinese stayed quiet in the 90s it was all a tactic so as I explained we are still in the original cold war. Just because you knocked over one chess piece doesn't mean the game is over
There are no innocent parties here even C.N.D. could not answer the same questions without saying they ultimately wish to be slaves in a dictatorship, knowing human nature no aggressive attacker would wish to replace a democracy with a democracy much more likely a dictatorship. The invention of nuclear weapons and M.A.D. gave us time and i fear it is running out.
much cheaper to press a button! indeed, invading - iraq, syria, libya, afghanistan & others has been an expensive endeavour. nuclear weapons work from the point of view that all in is going to be a bad day for anyone.
