It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear targets in Britain?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
You might find this site of interest fallout calculator.
All depends which way the wind blows.
I live far to close to Menwithhill for my comfort, but luckily theres a valley wall between us.




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Tinkleflower and spyke...

Cheers - perfect stuff


Can you believe people get so paranoid over such basic stuff...

Didnt realise we had so many nuke power stations... no wonder my milk glows in the dark


Thanks again

[edit on 14-7-2005 by undercoverchef]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Mate if you want to survive a nuclear blast then dont go anywhere near scotland.
Nukes to the left and a shipyard and oil plant to the right.
Air bases to the north.
Army camps all around the place...

In fact the best idea is find a lonely field and dig a nice hole....



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Just to suggest two possible targets:

Aldermaston -> Home of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. They make all our Nuclear weapons

RAF Boulmer -> it is home to the School of Fighter Control and is one of the Control and Reporting Centres in the UK ASACS.

RAF Neatishead -> Neatishead is the Control and Reporting Centre responsible for the Southern UK Air Defence Region.

Portsmouth -> RN home

That place up in scotland -> Home of the RN Nuclear Fleet

If you believe some other things on here:

RAF Rudloe Manor -> Heard that it could be used to house VVIPs (On another note even though it does not appear on the RAF website I have heard it mentioned by Defence Firemen)


Loads of other places I suppose. For some conventional bombs may do the trick



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Infidellic old son, RAF Rudlow Manor is the not on an Ordnance Survey map either and, although it is reputed to be near RAF Boscombe Down, I've never found it. (It's where all the UFO sighting reports are sent!)

RAF Neatishead should not even be in use, or are those nasty Labour defence chiefs lying to us again? Do you know something that we don't? (It was also the centre of an east coast UFO incident in 2003!)

As to the AW & RE establishment at Aldermaston - just down the road from Thatcham, been there and done that.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deep_Purple
I'm feeling fairly safe over here in Northern Ireland at the minute, don't think that any major nuclear superpower would consider us a major risk.


- Don't you know about the whole idea of the 'second tier' of targets DP?

Those initiating a nuclear 'exchange' have also set aside a significant proportion of their weapons to be used on those countries that "do not pose a risk" of any kind......even those one considers 'friends'.

The idea is that they will not tolerate a Brazil or an Ireland or an Australia etc etc becoming the next dominant 'superpower' after their demise.

Run to the hills all you like but if it were to come to it there would be little shelter from the plans of the war-perv maniacs.

That's the whole point of their insane little plans, everyone 'gets it' and no-one gets out of it.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Infidellic old son, RAF Rudlow Manor is the not on an Ordnance Survey map either and, although it is reputed to be near RAF Boscombe Down, I've never found it. (It's where all the UFO sighting reports are sent!)

RAF Neatishead should not even be in use, or are those nasty Labour defence chiefs lying to us again? Do you know something that we don't? (It was also the centre of an east coast UFO incident in 2003!)

As to the AW & RE establishment at Aldermaston - just down the road from Thatcham, been there and done that.


Points taken, these were just some I came up with in a few secs and put down, didn't put a lot of thought in, briefly flipped through some of the RAF website etc.

What do you reckon?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
If you get nuked, I'm #ed. The fall-out is going to blow right over the channel and right on top of me. You're in trouble too offcourse. I really don't see a place where you could be save from nuclear bombs. Maybe you should try moving to one of the old colonies. The Falk-Lands are still in UK-control right?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrazyOrange
The Falk-Lands are still in UK-control right?


LOL (sorry, I shouldn't laugh)...yes, the Falklands are still under UK control.

For strategic sheep purposes (thanks Eddie Izzard for that gem).

Seriously though - I lived on Teesside for most of my life; home to:

Hartlepool's nuclear power plant
ICI
Huntsman Chemicals (sulphuric acid, yo)
Phillips Petroleum
Several cadmium, chrome and nickel plating factories

Just to mention a few.

And people wonder why I left the area...


Because the ports are also very heavily utilised, the Tees area is considered a "potential hot spot" for enemy military action, much like Hartlepool was the scene of the first land-based bombardment during WWI.

Not a pleasant thought, by any means.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrazyOrange
Falk-Lands are still in UK-control right?


You know there was a little war we fought in the 80's to keep these. The one where America decided to stay out of it despite the fact that we are your closest allies (sorry if you are not actually American). The war was fought and we regained the islands in the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. (Long live the Queen!) *Cough* Sorry, if you would like to know more about the Falklands war, hit the underlined bit now

*Sorry for the rant -> Bad day*



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infidellic
[ The one where America decided to stay out of it despite the fact that we are your closest allies (sorry if you are not actually American).


en.wikipedia.org...


In spite of this, President Ronald Reagan and the U.S. administration remained (officially) neutral. (America is suspected of supporting Britain with intelligence, however.)

Shuttle diplomacy and US involvement
Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact"). In March, Secretary of State Alexander Haig directed the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina, Nicholas Henderson, to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Ronald Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as mediator, but was refused.

In fact, the Reagan Administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on 5 April, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger favored decisive backing of Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S. anti-communist efforts in Latin America. He received the firm backing of U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haig's nominal subordinate and political rival.

The White House continued its neutrality; Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "That little ice-cold bunch of land down there". But he assented to Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's position. Haig briefly (April 8–April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission between London and Buenos Aires, but at the end of the month Reagan blamed Argentina for the failure of the mediation, declared U.S. support for Britain, and announced the imposition of economic sanctions against Argentina.

In an infamous episode in June, Kirkpatrick cast a second veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, then announced minutes later that she had received instructions to abstain. The situation was blamed on a delay in communications, but perceived by many as part of an ongoing power struggle between Haig and Kirkpatrick.

Galtieri likely did not think that the UK would react; otherwise, it is doubtful that Argentina would have launched the attack. Of course, this would have been astounding to British people at the time, already familiar with Margaret Thatcher's controversial uncompromising style of government. In as many words, she declared that the Crown and the Empire had been assaulted, and would not surrender the Falkland Islands to the Argentine jackboot. This stance was aided, at least domestically, by the staunchly conservative British press, especially The Sun, which ran such headlines as 'GOTCHA' (following the sinking of the General Belgrano). The Daily Mirror, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the war, and went so far as to say that reading The Sun would "damage your mind".

A US preoccupation with the Soviet Union and communism and the thought Britain could handle the matter on her own may have factored into this view as well, although assessments of this theory vary. In the broader sense of the Cold War, with the performance of UK forces watched closely by the Soviet Union, it was worthwhile for the UK to handle without assistance a conflict minor in scale compared to an all-out NATO vs. Warsaw Pact war. Regardless, American non-interference was vital to the U.S.-British relationship. Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base. The main and decisive American contribution was AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of the latest L model (these missiles were much more deadly than older models of the Sidewinder), spy satellites and intelligence information.

There were also rumours, later expanded upon by Weinberger, which spoke of lending an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time. It is worth noting that both Weinberger and Reagan would go on to receive honorary knighthoods, the honour of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from Queen Elizabeth II. American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its own Monroe Doctrine (even though an American nation, Argentina, attacked the possession of an existing European power, Britain, that predated the Doctrine).

In September 2001, Mexican president Vicente Fox would cite the conflict as proof of the failure of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.


we did help u Brits, but there were some things that was preventing us from really helping.
but we did help in some ways.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I really meant in an active role, however I take your point. Maybe w2e ought to get back on topic though



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I obtained this last week via a Freedom of Information request.

Although its not an official Soviet list of UK nuclear targets, it is an official UK Government estimation of a nuclear attack on the UK in the very early sixties.

It is one of two maps included in a 1961 Home Office briefing document produced for those who were to staff the Regional Seats of Government in times of war.




The areas in Black (Red on the colour original) is the Z zone, extremely radioactive areas. Lingering there would have been fatal.


zero lift



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Sorry to take this long to get back to you.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
The areas in Black (Red on the colour original) is the Z zone, extremely radioactive areas. Lingering there would have been fatal.


Woohoo I live outside the darker area (ok I would still be in a radioactive zone! Interesting to see that London isn't that greatly affected.

Oh and Dallas, I am a little lost is there relevance to your post?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Zero Lift - Excellent stuff m8, Great map, Guess i'll be heading to wales


Unless someone proves that the targets have been changed


Dallas...




undercoverchef..

Sorry to take this long to get back to you.

Dallas



Sorry m8... im a bit confused by this???



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infidellic

That place up in scotland -> Home of the RN Nuclear Fleet



Faslane Naval Base. As you say, home of the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine fleet. It may interest some of you to know that all of Britain's nuclear arms are deployed in submarines. And those which are not in use are stored on a hollowed out mountain close to the naval base.

How peculiar that the entire British nuclear stockpile is kept in Scotland. Why not distribute them a little more widely? Not only does it mean that the entire stockpile could be taken out in one go, but also, in such an event a sizeable chunk of Scotland would be wiped off the map while England would remain unscathed...

I don't quite understand how Scotland benefits from this union.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
RAF Menwith Hill ( cndyorks.gn.apc.org... ) about 5 miles away from my home town of Harrogate is a prime target for a nuclear attack. The base is home to an American-run radar station that has the capability to intercept communications from anywhere in Europe (or so i've read).

They can capture phone calls, both landline and mobile phone, fax, e-mail and other forms of communication. This information is then sent to the US for examination. I imagine that in the case of a nuclear-based terrorist attack (or a nuclear war involving the US or UK with any country), this place would be pretty high up as a tactical target.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
i m really be very afraid if this LE RESISTANCED BOMBERS joint with the IRA or bunch of other leftwing europe terrorist.on the other second thought.
NUKE has no place to use be in British soil.but to some other europe nation ohhhss what a pity.my only last word `if only i can change the time`.
but who would realised about only too late is the last word that i can says



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimi
RAF Menwith Hill ( cndyorks.gn.apc.org... ) about 5 miles away from my home town of Harrogate is a prime target for a nuclear attack. The base is home to an American-run radar station that has the capability to intercept communications from anywhere in Europe (or so i've read).

They can capture phone calls, both landline and mobile phone, fax, e-mail and other forms of communication. This information is then sent to the US for examination. I imagine that in the case of a nuclear-based terrorist attack (or a nuclear war involving the US or UK with any country), this place would be pretty high up as a tactical target.


You know GCHQ does this kind of stuff at Cheltenham and would probably share the stuff with the US. I believe they gather data from sites all around Britain and abroad.

You can find more about GCHQ here:

GCHQ Main Website ->

Originally posted by jimi
RAF Menwith Hill ( cndyorks.gn.apc.org... ) about 5 miles away from my home town of Harrogate is a prime target for a nuclear attack. The base is home to an American-run radar station that has the capability to intercept communications from anywhere in Europe (or so i've read).

They can capture phone calls, both landline and mobile phone, fax, e-mail and other forms of communication. This information is then sent to the US for examination. I imagine that in the case of a nuclear-based terrorist attack (or a nuclear war involving the US or UK with any country), this place would be pretty high up as a tactical target.


You know GCHQ does this kind of stuff at Cheltenham and would probably share the stuff with the US. I believe they gather data from sites all around Britain and abroad.



You can find more about GCHQ here:

GCHQ Main Website -> www.gchq.gov.uk...
About GCHQ -> www.gchq.gov.uk...



EDIT: Add the links

[edit on 22/7/05 by Infidellic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join