Very good, except for one detail: Arrangements John won't be the one bringing up the Letter of Last Resort, he is just a civil servant bureaucrat who wouldn't even know about it. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Britain's highest ranking military officer, would be the one bringing this up with the PM.
Interesting but each Trident submarine has two crews and the identity of their captains change frequently. So four personalised letters from the PM would be infelicitous (although that may not be a prime consideration in the circumstances in which these letters were ever opened). BTW I live in New Zealand and served in a submarine many years ago so I quite like the idea of my country inheriting a fleet of them, although I'd prefer there not to have been a nuclear holocaust beforehand.
The Commonwealth brother! We're our OWN global bloc of powerful nations, with the power to blow up the world. The media don't like to talk about it. Also, we and the U.S. run NATO effectively. The Germans and French and their EU are finished without our £35 billion cheque each year. Good riddance! EU remaniacs: We're so isolated now! True Englishman who understands his country has been through some shit over the last millennia: You certainly are......!
The only one who ever revealed what he wrote was James Callaghan. He said in a interview long after have was PM. That he would have given the order to retaliate. And when would only destroy the OLD letters AFTER the new one had been written and put in the safe.
@@notreallydavid the decision could only have fallen to him in the v bomber times. In the Polaris/trident times, it would come down to the letter of last resort. And as he was never PM.
@@patdbean Thanks Pat. I heard archive clips of Callaghan and Healey talking about this in a great Peter Hennessey programme on R4 in which he looked at the process of activating the nuclear forces in decades gone by. Awful, compelling stuff. All best
This play illustrated well the tragedy of the age of nuclear weapons, except for this one thing: Even if she wrote "Don't retaliate," why can't they just let everyone think we will? The lie would get revealed if the letter ever was read, but if it came to that point, the devastation would already be so bad, would it even matter? The first strike would've made such damage that a lot of the world would already be screwed, it just would take a bit longer.
I suppose John is saying that a PM has to be willing to back up their irrational front with irrational actions. They are in charge, and they need to believe in their decisions.
Ironically the way things stand today it would be more likely that it would be an Australian PM instructing an Aussie captain to put his submarine at the disposal of the Royal Navy
Sabotage their nuclear weaponries, bribe their crews, spread propaganda and misinformation on their people, then the letter of last resort would be useless. By the way, good drama! Despite my cigarette not wanting to give off its smoke.
If the UK's nuclear weapons are only to be used in retaliation there aren't much of a deterrent are they? wonder if Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Kenya, Chile, Canada and 187 nations without nuclear weapons worry about an atomic first strike? Somehow I don't think they do,
The last resort is retaliation. The very act of retaliation IS the deterrent, it's based on the knowledge that even if you wipe us out with a sneak attack, our nuclear weapons will still be fired at you. Basically...don't attack us because we'll always be capable of hitting you back even if we're all dead. If the UK Government is still intact, our nuclear arsenal remains available as a viable military option in times of war, and not just a retaliatory last act of a non-existent people. The defence establishments of those countries you mentioned will of course worry about the risk of atomic destruction. However, they either don't have the means to defend themselves or are less worried because they are party to a pact (NATO) which will honour their defence in times of war. In theory, if North Korea launched a nuclear attack on Spain (as an example), then the US (and it's NATO allies) would be free to retaliate on Spain's behalf...hence, deterrent.
I am of the opinion that wherever there is a paradox, there is thinking that has become flawed by having followed on from a prior incorrect assumption having been made somewhere. The paradox detailed in this drama stems from a failure to recognize that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's Letters of Last Resort are not the deterrent, whatever orders they contain (although they might give a highly-strung British submarine commander a paper cut). The existence of fully armed and operational British Royal Navy nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) is the deterrent. The technology behind British SSBNs and those of other agencies is actually vitally important for planetary protection from natural hazards from deep space, and as such must be maintained from generation to generation lest the expertise become forgotten; but unfortunately at this time the technology can only be taken seriously enough to secure public funding for its ongoing maintenance, if it is first weaponized. But it does not necessarily follow that the technology must therefore inevitably be used in anger as a weapon. British Royal Navy SSBNs carrying strategic nuclear weapons have an ongoing mission to deter strategic nuclear attacks upon the United Kingdom. Indeed, the development of nuclear weapons was first initiated jointly in the United Kingdom and Canada in 1940 with the advent of atomic energy, after HM Government realized the potential for the complete destruction of the then Imperial capital London without any reply being possible, should such weapons first be developed by a hostile Continental power. But since the UK actually completed the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s and produced her own modest arsenal of them, the weapons should never have been intended to actually be launched in anger, even if the UK had first been entirely destroyed as a geopolitical agency. That is why they are called 'strategic' weapons; they are supposed to be like chess pieces, to be moved around or on or off the chessboard according to the rules of the game, but never actually hurled at the other player in a determined attempt to take out an eye. British nuclear retaliation in kind would not only be mass murder, a war crime, and a crime against humanity, but the resulting atmospheric fallout would also make life that much more impossible for survivors of nuclear holocaust all over the world. Therefore, in the event of the destruction of the United Kingdom in a strategic nuclear first strike, the order to British SSBNs contained within the Letters of Last Resort must be: 'Carry on,' i.e. _to continue their mission of deterrence_ - most likely in the service of some other of His Majesty's Realms that has yet to be destroyed, probably Canada - and to preserve Britain's deterrent in the hope that it will be more successful in deterring further attacks in future, with a view to eventually de-weaponizing the technology and putting it to more sensible uses some day. No other order can serve British purposes and the recovery of the UK. And of course, the option to launch in anger is still present just as it was before the UK was attacked, as if such a course might ever really become necessary. Such an order would leave any shattered post-nuclear holocaust world including the UK's remaining adversaries in no doubt as to the UK's good intentions and moral integrity. And in a world where the UK continues to remain unmauled by strategic nuclear attack it would also maintain the effectiveness of the Royal Navy's SSBNs as a deterrent, although that effectiveness would be for quite different reasons than the grim guarantee of their swift use in retaliation to a murderous attack. And then since the actual substance of the order is unknowable by any potential assailant, there is nothing to say that the order is not one of swift, merciless and iniquitous retaliation in kind after all, and so, again, the Royal Navy's SSBNs remain an effective deterrent, except this time for the same old dreary reasons that everyone who hasn't troubled themselves to think the issue all the way through to the end expects.
That was enjoyable but also, very well written . I was surprised by how good it was, for such a short and basic sounding drama.
A beautiful touch setting it at a few minutes to midnight in reference to the Doomsday Clock
Nukes do not exist.
Yes - it was clever! (And I like how it moved from the small - death of a 17-year-old - to the massive.)
This was great!! Very thought provoking! Thank you 🙏
What a wonderful two hander. Really made me think
Thanks for uploading this.
Absolutly brilliant.
carol woodhouse I totally agree! Doesn’t it seem like you’re in the room with them?
Thank-you to Atomic Hobo for putting me onto this. It is very disturbing to hear, yet very entertaining.
Brilliant absurd prevocative. Thanks Archie
Excellent
Very entertaining - lively and intelligent dialogue. And funny..
Thank you
Excellent; the only way is not to play at all.
"War Games"...?
So good
Listen to ''The light of a thousand suns' my dudes
Very good, except for one detail: Arrangements John won't be the one bringing up the Letter of Last Resort, he is just a civil servant bureaucrat who wouldn't even know about it. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Britain's highest ranking military officer, would be the one bringing this up with the PM.
shes writing the most unfortunate dear john letter in history
Excellent comment!
As the final "Alien" scene illustrates: the monster we must destroy - is Man!
Only missing Sir Humphrey Appleby!
Interesting but each Trident submarine has two crews and the identity of their captains change frequently. So four personalised letters from the PM would be infelicitous (although that may not be a prime consideration in the circumstances in which these letters were ever opened). BTW I live in New Zealand and served in a submarine many years ago so I quite like the idea of my country inheriting a fleet of them, although I'd prefer there not to have been a nuclear holocaust beforehand.
The Commonwealth brother! We're our OWN global bloc of powerful nations, with the power to blow up the world. The media don't like to talk about it. Also, we and the U.S. run NATO effectively. The Germans and French and their EU are finished without our £35 billion cheque each year. Good riddance!
EU remaniacs: We're so isolated now!
True Englishman who understands his country has been through some shit over the last millennia: You certainly are......!
You'll soon have Chinese ones docked in your ports.
@@patricka.crawley6572 - I don't think so. They may dock in Australian ports their government leased to the CCP however.
@@fishernz What 'don't you think so'?
@@Noodlehorn You're mad.
this is really good Belinda Lang is very good 10/10
“Is there a template?” 😂
HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT WAS GREAT!!!
Unsure of how such a substance could be sacred, or perform such an action...
But I agree that the drama was great.
The only one who ever revealed what he wrote was James Callaghan. He said in a interview long after have was PM. That he would have given the order to retaliate. And when would only destroy the OLD letters AFTER the new one had been written and put in the safe.
Interestingly, Denis Healey also said that if the decision had fallen to him as Secretary of State for Defence, he wouldn't have ordered retaliation.
@@notreallydavid the decision could only have fallen to him in the v bomber times. In the Polaris/trident times, it would come down to the letter of last resort. And as he was never PM.
@@patdbean Thanks Pat.
I heard archive clips of Callaghan and Healey talking about this in a great Peter Hennessey programme on R4 in which he looked at the process of activating the nuclear forces in decades gone by. Awful, compelling stuff.
All best
@@notreallydavid this is the radio 4 documentary "the human button" Callaghan speaks about 20 minutes in th-cam.com/video/aNV1q82OZ58/w-d-xo.html
Not so "Sunny" Jim...
This play illustrated well the tragedy of the age of nuclear weapons, except for this one thing: Even if she wrote "Don't retaliate," why can't they just let everyone think we will? The lie would get revealed if the letter ever was read, but if it came to that point, the devastation would already be so bad, would it even matter? The first strike would've made such damage that a lot of the world would already be screwed, it just would take a bit longer.
I suppose John is saying that a PM has to be willing to back up their irrational front with irrational actions. They are in charge, and they need to believe in their decisions.
No cricket !!
My God I never imagined things could get so bad.
Ironically the way things stand today it would be more likely that it would be an Australian PM instructing an Aussie captain to put his submarine at the disposal of the Royal Navy
Neither seems capable of finishing their
Ha!
What do you --?
hhmm, what makes you say
But that's the .....
And,
to make one th......
Sabotage their nuclear weaponries, bribe their crews, spread propaganda and misinformation on their people, then the letter of last resort would be useless.
By the way, good drama! Despite my cigarette not wanting to give off its smoke.
Fucking awesome play
Not sure how a play could perform such a basic function...
But it was a great production!
Tell everyone you've ordered retaliation but actually order non-retaliation.
By doing that you would be confessing to a war crime
No 'You and Yours' thank God.
Characterisations are ridiculous.
Why use Kraftwerk's Autobahn, when it's about submarines, would we all live in a yellow submarine be more apt?
Because "Autobahn" sounds cold, efficient, mechanical? (I'm only speculating, of course...)
If the UK's nuclear weapons are only to be used in retaliation there aren't much of a deterrent are they? wonder if Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Kenya, Chile, Canada and 187 nations without nuclear weapons worry about an atomic first strike? Somehow I don't think they do,
The last resort is retaliation. The very act of retaliation IS the deterrent, it's based on the knowledge that even if you wipe us out with a sneak attack, our nuclear weapons will still be fired at you. Basically...don't attack us because we'll always be capable of hitting you back even if we're all dead.
If the UK Government is still intact, our nuclear arsenal remains available as a viable military option in times of war, and not just a retaliatory last act of a non-existent people.
The defence establishments of those countries you mentioned will of course worry about the risk of atomic destruction. However, they either don't have the means to defend themselves or are less worried because they are party to a pact (NATO) which will honour their defence in times of war. In theory, if North Korea launched a nuclear attack on Spain (as an example), then the US (and it's NATO allies) would be free to retaliate on Spain's behalf...hence, deterrent.
except they do worry about it,
@@grahamkeithtodd that is why they join organizations like NATO in order to shelter under someone else's nuclear arsenal .
Every country on earth should worry about it, we would all suffer, fallout and nuclear winter will come for us all
Watch/read "On the Beach".
It may change your mind...
I am of the opinion that wherever there is a paradox, there is thinking that has become flawed by having followed on from a prior incorrect assumption having been made somewhere.
The paradox detailed in this drama stems from a failure to recognize that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's Letters of Last Resort are not the deterrent, whatever orders they contain (although they might give a highly-strung British submarine commander a paper cut). The existence of fully armed and operational British Royal Navy nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) is the deterrent.
The technology behind British SSBNs and those of other agencies is actually vitally important for planetary protection from natural hazards from deep space, and as such must be maintained from generation to generation lest the expertise become forgotten; but unfortunately at this time the technology can only be taken seriously enough to secure public funding for its ongoing maintenance, if it is first weaponized. But it does not necessarily follow that the technology must therefore inevitably be used in anger as a weapon.
British Royal Navy SSBNs carrying strategic nuclear weapons have an ongoing mission to deter strategic nuclear attacks upon the United Kingdom. Indeed, the development of nuclear weapons was first initiated jointly in the United Kingdom and Canada in 1940 with the advent of atomic energy, after HM Government realized the potential for the complete destruction of the then Imperial capital London without any reply being possible, should such weapons first be developed by a hostile Continental power. But since the UK actually completed the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s and produced her own modest arsenal of them, the weapons should never have been intended to actually be launched in anger, even if the UK had first been entirely destroyed as a geopolitical agency. That is why they are called 'strategic' weapons; they are supposed to be like chess pieces, to be moved around or on or off the chessboard according to the rules of the game, but never actually hurled at the other player in a determined attempt to take out an eye. British nuclear retaliation in kind would not only be mass murder, a war crime, and a crime against humanity, but the resulting atmospheric fallout would also make life that much more impossible for survivors of nuclear holocaust all over the world.
Therefore, in the event of the destruction of the United Kingdom in a strategic nuclear first strike, the order to British SSBNs contained within the Letters of Last Resort must be: 'Carry on,' i.e. _to continue their mission of deterrence_ - most likely in the service of some other of His Majesty's Realms that has yet to be destroyed, probably Canada - and to preserve Britain's deterrent in the hope that it will be more successful in deterring further attacks in future, with a view to eventually de-weaponizing the technology and putting it to more sensible uses some day. No other order can serve British purposes and the recovery of the UK. And of course, the option to launch in anger is still present just as it was before the UK was attacked, as if such a course might ever really become necessary.
Such an order would leave any shattered post-nuclear holocaust world including the UK's remaining adversaries in no doubt as to the UK's good intentions and moral integrity. And in a world where the UK continues to remain unmauled by strategic nuclear attack it would also maintain the effectiveness of the Royal Navy's SSBNs as a deterrent, although that effectiveness would be for quite different reasons than the grim guarantee of their swift use in retaliation to a murderous attack. And then since the actual substance of the order is unknowable by any potential assailant, there is nothing to say that the order is not one of swift, merciless and iniquitous retaliation in kind after all, and so, again, the Royal Navy's SSBNs remain an effective deterrent, except this time for the same old dreary reasons that everyone who hasn't troubled themselves to think the issue all the way through to the end expects.
*cringe*
"Vice Captain"???
Yeah, that would be the First Looey
Xx
WTF
What an unpleasant woman!
How very ........ Trumpist
The "crazy strategy" part sure is.
How Bidenesque. War-monger.
Propaganda.