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.
"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. :)
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.
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?
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."
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.
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."
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!
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
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.
http://saveie6.com/
OK, who read that while hearing Jon Stewart's British queen voice?
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.
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!"
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.
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'
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.)
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?
http://saveie6.com/
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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
THE NEW BABY ALREADY TALKS??? Holy crap! Royalty does have its perks!
Prince Andrew. :)
Prince William was in the planning stages back then.