Posted on 12/26/2010 7:45:34 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Secret files from 70s reveal Trident strike needed 'to kill 10m Russians'
Whitehall documents written in 1970s and marked 'personal and top secret' show logic of British Cold War deterrent
Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 26 December 2010 21.17 GMT
The British government opted for the Trident nuclear weapons system because it estimated it could kill up to 10 million Russians and inflict "unacceptable damage" on the former Soviet Union, according to secret Whitehall documents written in the 1970s.
The macabre calculations that underpinned the decision in 1980 to replace Polaris nuclear missiles with Trident have been revealed by a Ministry of Defence memo, marked "personal and top secret". In a nuclear war, Britain would have had to be prepared "to finish what we start", it said.
Other MoD documents set out in chilling detail exactly how an attack on Moscow and St Petersburg could cause enough death and destruction "to bring about the breakdown of the city as a functioning community".
The late 1970s and early 1980s saw an escalation of international tensions in the cold war between the Soviet bloc and the west. In 1979, Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, prompting a US trade embargo and a mass boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980.
At the same time, the west's political direction swung to the right, with the election of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister in 1979, and Ronald Reagan as US president in 1981. Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and predicted communism would be consigned to the "ash heap of history".
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Love how they say “in the 70’s” rather than 1978, which was BEFORE Thatcher was elected.
They seem to be bending over backward to somehow blame this on Thatcher and Reagan-neither of whom were in power at the time.
“Secret files from 70s reveal Trident strike needed ‘to kill 10m Russians’”
And? They were the enemy and still is. Oh wait, Obama-girl sold us out to the Russkies with START. Nevermind.
Right. Reagan was appalled at the whole concept of MAD and proposed SDI as the way out of it.
Nice missles once upon a time.
Those missles can’t do a darned thing today when under the hand of sharia law though.
Their enemy is within, just like ours here.
I don't honestly understand why this sort of thing is expected to be scandalous. They were making a weapons procurement decision. Nuclear weapons kill people. On precisely what basis were they supposed to be considering it, how pretty the nukes made the sky when they went off?
Here clearly the Brits were allowing for a confrontation in which they might or might not be backed up by the United States, a wise decision in view of the current occupant of the Oval Office. Would ten million Soviet casualties end the war? Probably not. Would the prospect of ten million casualties deter it? That's quite another question, and that is the question they were actually asking.
Oh, yes they can. The question is who will be the target? I am guessing that the UK Muslims already have quite a few targets in CONUS selected.
I’m sure the Soviets had a contingency plan that would have reduced Britain to ashes also.
Why is this news? It has been known for decades that US and NATO doctrine relied on MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as a deterrent to Nuke use.
These babies can carry up to eight W88/455 kilotons. Usually reserved for a second strike.
Blame what? Sounds like they were serious about national defense then. We wouldn’t still be in a war with Islam if we had killed about ten million of them a day or two after Sep. 11th 2001.
They are reporting this as if it were unexpected or noteworthy. Estimating damage to infrastructure, material, and casualties from any kind of strategic operation is SOP.
I'd be surprised if they didn't do these kind of calculations. How else would they know if N missiles on M subs were enough?
You just know the author is going for shock and an emotional response with flowery words such as "macabre" ... Means he's actually light on facts and the overall story is weak.
I agree with your “And?”
“The macabre calculations that underpinned the decision” seem calculations that need to be recalculated. ‘Course, calculations are not the strong suit of those currently running our economy into oblivion.
“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room.”
My reaction too.
Other MoD documents set out in chilling detail exactly how an attack on Moscow and St Petersburg could cause enough death and destruction "to bring about the breakdown of the city as a functioning community".
Isn't it pretty important "to bring about the breakdown of the city as a functioning community" when engaged in a war.
Perhaps the authors forgot what the “A” in “MAD” meant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.