Slashdot Mirror


Queen's WWIII Speech Revealed

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.

147 comments

  1. Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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. :)

    1. Re:Blatant Lies by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    2. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Blatant Lies by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      They have long tradition of lies.

      It's now 70 years since Sikorski 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.

    6. Re:Blatant Lies by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      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. 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.

    7. Re:Blatant Lies by jnork · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
    8. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!!!!"

    9. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . 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!!!!"

      Non-sequitur: this article and thread is about the UK... full stop. You seem oddly butt hurt about this.

      British much?

    11. Re:Blatant Lies by flyneye · · Score: 1

      And when I saw the headline, I was like "OMG, now there's a damn Elton John article on Slashdot"...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:Blatant Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for no real good reason at all, they dumped a bunch of time and money into making sure The Beatles didn't lose Paul McCartney in the public eye. Paul died in a car accident. They subbed someone else in as him. They even knighted the False Paul after the rest of the band had been killed off.

    13. Re:Blatant Lies by kbx911 · · Score: 0

      lul

  2. WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by akeeneye · · Score: 1

      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".

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    2. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by chinton · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by Empiric · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    7. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great minds think similarly.

      My father was a fan of this trite little saying,

      But he also pointed out the full saying to me

      "Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ"

    8. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      it's a rockin' tune

      That deserves a redundant mod right there. ;)

      Geez, did Queen do any songs that weren't "rockin'?" Even campy goofery like "Flash Gordon" or the too-saccharine-for-my-taste "You're my best friend" rocked.

    9. Re:WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      "Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ"

      Apparently, whoever coined that didn't pay much attention to politics...

  3. Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 urging the membership of her church to pray?

    1. Re:Pray by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Pray by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's with the scare quotes?

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

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Pray by Applekid · · Score: 1

      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"

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:Pray by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy solution... make all churches bomb shelters.

    6. Re:Pray by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    7. Re:Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re:Pray by bmk67 · · Score: 2

      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?

    9. Re:Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re:Pray by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:Pray by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      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...

    12. Re:Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    13. Re:Pray by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 0

      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"

      --
      For hire.
    14. Re: Pray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "weak chinned c**t"

      You mean like the current Prime Minister?

    15. Re:Pray by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      If you're sufficiently distant from ground zero, where the primary hazard is from falling debris then yes, it can be effective.

      In the UK, at least, there would have been few places 'sufficiently distant from ground zero'. Realistic predictions of a Soviet attack put most of the country in a blast zone powerful enough to damage a house badly enough that you'd die from fallout.

  4. Seriously? by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1, Troll

    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?

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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?

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Seriously? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Seriously? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Seriously? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      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!"

    8. Re:Seriously? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Seriously? by bmk67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Seriously? by Antipater · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    11. Re:Seriously? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Seriously? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    13. Re:Seriously? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      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?

    14. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    15. Re:Seriously? by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    17. Re:Seriously? by bknack · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Bruce A. Knack
      Silicon Surfers
    18. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often think the Saturn V would have frightened the Russians somewhat...think about it...a vehicle that could carry 130 tonnes to orbit could easily launch at least 20 1MT MIRVs aka 'city killers' and could easily have wiped out a large portion of the populated USSR with a single launch...maybe not as I am 'back of the envelop'-ing it to a degree, but IMO it is naive to think the Russian top brass wouldn't have realised something along those lines

    19. Re:Seriously? by _merlin · · Score: 1

      MIRVs in their current form didn't exist back then, and you can't really spread MIRVs that broadly anyway - they all have to target within a certain radius.

    20. Re:Seriously? by techybod · · Score: 1

      Watch Threads - its on youtube these days so you dont even need to rent or buy a copy. its dated , but worth watching to see the predictions of what would happen following a nuclear exchange with the USSR and the UK. The day after was ok, but didnt deal with the long term effects.

      --
      "Friends help you move, Real Friends help you move bodies"
    21. Re:Seriously? by DarenN · · Score: 1

      One of the most interesting things to come out of the current round of declassification is that the Soviets were absolutely terrified of the Americans. They saw the US as extremely aggressve and paranoid, as well as unpredictable and believed totally that domestic political pressures could lead as far as a nuclear first strike.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    22. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's so weird looking back and remembering that stuff. I remember our drills were unannounced, and we'd hear a siren that was located in the middle of the school. It had two different sounds -- one for tornados and one for "nuclear fallout". In the spring they'd do the tornado drill, and in the fall they'd do the nuclear war drill. I was in elementary school. For the tornado drill we'd all go into the girl's bathroom (which was very weird for all of us boys, but the girl's bathrooms were always closer to the inside of the building). For the nuclear drill, we were to open our desks, grab the largest book (or Trapper Keeper... lol) we could find, climb under our desks, and put the book behind our head, and put our head down toward our knees. It was kind of uncomfortable (arms behind your head holding a book and bent over in an unnatural position leaning forward toward your knees).

      After a few minutes, the principal would come on the speaker and say that it was just a drill, and tell us how long it took for the last classroom to be in the proper position (how they knew that I have no idea -- maybe the teachers were measuring it somehow). If the time was shorter than the current record, we got ice cream at lunch that day.

      It's hard to believe we lived like that. It retrospect it seems like we were a militarized population for 40+ years. It's no wonder we spend so much on the military today... we were conditioned like little soldiers during our youth. Maybe the millenials will collectively say WTF and start scaling back the nonsense...

    23. Re:Seriously? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I never had to do the duck and cover drills in elementary school but that was because my elementary school had a fallout shelter so once a year we had the drill where every one went into this large underground room that was under the the gym that was in the basement of the school. Granted this was in the early 80s and shortly there after the cold war ended

      --
      Time to offend someone
  5. Would she even have time to read the speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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."

  6. I'd like my two minutes back by SJester · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

    1. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

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

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by Nutria · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by RDW · · Score: 1

      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

      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

      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).

    5. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Babby Kom!

    6. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      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.
      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    7. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I'd have probably thought it was biting wit, too, if I was hip 30 years ago. Reagan's 1984 (yes, I know it was only 29 years ago...) open mike "gaffe" would have made it that much more ironic. (The leftist outrage was truly stunning to behold. "He's a cowboy, he'll get us all killed!" Europe almost had a simultaneous 300M person apoplectic fit. The heads of all the editors of /Le Monde/ certainly exploded...)

      But I had classes to attend and projects to complete.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:I'd like my two minutes back by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Somewhat more exciting recordings are the airchecks from the EBS Scare of 1971, when a NORAD telegrapher accidentally sent the "Duck and Cover" signal to every radio station in America, and the stations all read their pre-prepared "stand by for an Emergency Action Message from the President of the United States" script.

      And here are recordings of the original, pre-recorded nuclear attack messages that would be played, one for if there was several hours warning, and one if there were only minutes warning.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  7. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  8. Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

    Sometimes you had better be careful when you rattle your saber.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a very good documentary about it:

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

      Well worth watching (and available on TPB)

    2. Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Those 1983 wargames almost *STARTED* WWIII by Fishchip · · Score: 1

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

  9. Reagan's sound check by intermodal · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Reagan's sound check by WiiVault · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Reagan's sound check by qamerr · · Score: 2

      Interesting. For those that don't want to google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

    3. Re:Reagan's sound check by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    4. Re:Reagan's sound check by khallow · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Reagan's sound check by BrokenHalo · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Reagan's sound check by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      It's not like Reagan could have been 100 % sure it will not be accidentally broadcast.

    7. Re:Reagan's sound check by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it only got leaked and put the Soviet Far East Army on alert. No biggie.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:Reagan's sound check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      If you start world war 3 acting crazy you just lost the game.

    9. Re:Reagan's sound check by intermodal · · Score: 1

      In the sense of "fool" as a term that means "jester", I'll agree. But to claim that a joke in a sound check qualifies him as any other form of fool is just silly.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    10. Re:Reagan's sound check by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you start world war 3 acting crazy you just lost the game.

      Well, hasn't happened yet. Point is that whether or not the joke was staged, it probably ended up helping Reagan's negotiating position with the USSR.

    11. Re:Reagan's sound check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, hasn't happened yet. Point is that whether or not the joke was staged, it probably ended up helping Reagan's negotiating position with the USSR.

      Taken in that light, that explains much of the crazy stunts government pulls today.

      Reagan may not have been the first, but he was part of the escalation in madness in government. Pretend craziness became real craziness. Craziness applied only to foreigners became craziness applied broadly to all. Instead of joking the bombing will begin in 5 minutes (and only on the "Russians"), we just recently found out just how much the NSA has been listening in on us (and that means *everyone* not just Americans). Wonderful

    12. Re:Reagan's sound check by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Or they might think that a crazy adversary makes the war inevitable so it's better to strike first.

    13. Re:Reagan's sound check by khallow · · Score: 1

      Taken in that light, that explains much of the crazy stunts government pulls today.

      For recent presidential examples, there's G. W. Bush's "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after 9/11 and Obama's pointed insults against various post-colonial powers and their representatives (particularly, the UK).

      I don't think the NSA stuff counts. I bet that was a usual case of unintended consequence. They weren't expecting the program to become public knowledge and thus, did things that are now causing them some inconvenience. That sort of craziness breeds best in the shadows.

  10. Now that it is out in the open by Sla$hPot · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Now that it is out in the open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  11. Keep Calm... by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

    Keep Calm and Die A Slow Painful Death

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    1. Re:Keep Calm... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

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

  12. Not really by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Not really by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shurely

      Don't call me Shirley.

  13. Jon Stewart British queen voice? by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Jon Stewart British queen voice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  14. Re:You pray if you like by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:You pray if you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  16. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  17. God and country by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  18. In return the possible farewell words I would have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  19. Re:You pray if you like by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 to see how Britain might treat a monarch who doesn't take his duty seriously.

  20. Re:You pray if you like by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  21. Re:You pray if you like by sootman · · Score: 2

    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)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  22. One line by PPH · · Score: 1

    "Take refuge behind the sofa!"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:One line by Burb · · Score: 1

      This only works with Daleks, not nuclear weapons

      --

  23. Re:You pray if you like by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    Possible exception of the Queen Mother, I suppose.

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

  24. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    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."

    1. Re:Also by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      "There's no way that is going to happen."

      We should ask for their zombie apocaliplse speech :-)

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:Also by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, there was a zombie apocalypse alert in the US last year. (I think it was last year.) And it was official.

      OTOH, nobody is prepared for and invasion by Dr. Doom. Or for the Hulk to lose his temper. Or Godzilla.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Also by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure about a zombie apocalypse speech, but if you want apocalyptic speeches for zombies, tune in to Fox News commentators.

  25. Re:You pray if you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Re:You pray if you like by jittles · · Score: 2

    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.

  27. Cuban Missile Crises? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Cuban missile crises were there?

  28. Revised speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  29. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  30. Keep it short and sweet. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

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

  31. Re:You pray if you like by Tore+S+B · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    toresbe
  32. Not to mention the Falklands, but ... by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Not to mention the Falklands, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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?

      Yes, you're correct, but you left out how he accomplished this before he was even born. Amazing chaps, these royals...

    2. Re:Not to mention the Falklands, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Prince Andrew.
      Prince William was in the planning stages back then. :)

    3. Re:Not to mention the Falklands, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was his uncle Andrew.

  33. Radiation and Spinal Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Britain would either find itself a new monarch with more spine"

    Is enhanced Spinal growth/strength etc a common reaction to radiation?
    Must consult with Master Splinter and Bruce Banner to confirm.

  34. Tom Leher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm SO happy I'm not the only one who knows and loves Tom Leher. The guy is easily better than as good as all entertainers that came after him. Look and listen on Facebook :).

  35. New novel by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

    Someone's got to write the story of the Queen's WW3 speech during Thatcher's Britain, throw Ronald Regan in, and somehow include zombies in the plot.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:New novel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's got to write the story of the Queen's WW3 speech during Thatcher's Britain, throw Ronald Regan in, and somehow include zombies in the plot.

      None of the younger generation even know who you're talking about, so there'd be no money in it....of course if you changed it to Kim Kardashian, Obama and zombies, I'm sure you could pitch it.

  36. Re:You pray if you like by Zynder · · Score: 2

    a bit of coverage of the new baby and it talked about

    THE NEW BABY ALREADY TALKS??? Holy crap! Royalty does have its perks!

  37. Re:Pray (you don't survive) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your "sufficiently distant from ground zero" the best thing to do would be to get into a car and drive to ground zero...

  38. Re:You pray if you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correction:

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

  39. Re:You pray if you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good lord in the event of nuclear war do you think any of that would matter? How would the struggling survivors in London, Birmingham or Newcastle know what happened to the royal family? In a nuclear exchange the Uk is totally and utterly fucked... along with most of Western Europe.

  40. All my mod points... by emaname · · Score: 1

    ...go to timothy for mentioning Tom Lehrer, my childhood hero.

    A phenomenal intellect paired with incredible song-writing skills and a real awareness of all socio-political issues of the time.

    Thank you, timothy.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  41. As long as the speech doesn't start with Ph'nglui by Optali · · Score: 1

    ... It's OK

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  42. Re:You pray if you like by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

    The administration at the time consisted almost wholly of Norwegian Nazis; an "administrative council" led by Vidkun Quisling.

    It was, of course, a puppet regime - but I still believe that my formulation was more precise.

    --
    toresbe
  43. Britain = Brave Country? by kbx911 · · Score: 0

    MWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  44. Re:So.. by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    she "could" have easily "wrote" those words

    she "could" have easily "written" those words.

    FTFY.

    The queen is British after all!