In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:48:17 on
Fri, 23 Feb 2007, charles remarked:
hijacking a train and seizing exclusive use of part of the network for
the necessary time.

But if mass panic has hit London, the Tube network will not be running
anyway.

Indeed. It will have been closed for normal traffic for some time. Which
is why it's easily available for various (not just Royal Family) special
operations.

given that there was only supposed to be a "four minute warning", how long
is your 'some time'? Two minutes, maybe?

I don't know why you think my scenario involves a surprise nuclear
attack. Either a period of "increasing civil unrest" measured in days,
or a specific and concentrated non-nuclear attack several miles away
earlier that day.

The original cold war scenarios envisaged a two week period between the
Soviet Union forces crossing the East-West German border to the point where
consideration of a nuclear attack was contemplated. This was the time it was
believed it would take the Russsians to get through the NATO defences in
Germany and break out into France. If the American reinforcements flown in
via the UK didn't stem the advance then we would escalate to nuclear, if the
Soviets failed to break through before the Americans arrived it was
considered they would escalate to nuclear. The worry from the UK perspective
was that if the Soviets confined their nuclear attack to the UK, the
Americans might not retaliate but pull back into their isolationist mode.
Hence the perceived need for a British independant nuclear strike capability.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
Americans might not retaliate but pull back into their isolationist mode.
Hence the perceived need for a British independant nuclear strike capability.
That's why we've got Trident? We don't have any nuclear capability not
controlled by the Merkins, even Trident requires their permission before
it can be used. The excuse being that when it was sold to us, the cost
would have been double but Merka would share development costs with us
as long as they retained right of veto, which I understand is a twin key
approach, neither can fire it without the express permission of the
other. What good is that to us. Remember Suez, it was the Merkins that
buggered that up, so much for special relationships.
--
Clive.

In message , at 14:07:23 on Fri,
23 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall remarked:
All right I'll leave you with the fantasy that the Royal family use
public transport just like other people if it pleases you.

The significant development is they way they now sometimes use trains
and planes on scheduled services, rather than exclusively using their
own private planes and trains. If you want to categorise that as "not
using public transport", then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

It's a good PR exercise, and as you have demonstrated, does seem to have
fooled some people.

Are you suggesting that they aren't, in fact, using scheduled public
transport at all?

I'm not suggesting anything.

Agreement at last, then.
--
Roland Perry

In message
"Clive Coleman." wrote:

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
Americans might not retaliate but pull back into their isolationist mode.
Hence the perceived need for a British independant nuclear strike
capability.
That's why we've got Trident? We don't have any nuclear capability not
controlled by the Merkins, even Trident requires their permission before
it can be used. The excuse being that when it was sold to us, the cost
would have been double but Merka would share development costs with us
as long as they retained right of veto, which I understand is a twin key
approach, neither can fire it without the express permission of the
other. What good is that to us. Remember Suez, it was the Merkins that
buggered that up, so much for special relationships.

I should have put independent in inverted commas... and spelt it correctly
:-)

Actually we were more independent then, our nuclear deterrent was free-fall
bombs carried by the V-bomber force which the Americans had no practical
control over. As for the SLBMS I'm not sure the Americans can physically
prevent us launching them, we sure as hell can't stop them launching theirs.
The only way a genuine twin key approach can work is if RN boats carry USN
personnel on every deployment and I'm not aware that that is the case.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
As for the SLBMS I'm not sure the Americans can physically
prevent us launching them, we sure as hell can't stop them launching theirs.
The only way a genuine twin key approach can work is if RN boats carry USN
personnel on every deployment and I'm not aware that that is the case.
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman. wrote:

I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National
Geographical, and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio
wise) with the white house and unless they entered the right code
into the system, it won't work.

Let's hope no-one demolished the White House then. (I never thought I'd say
that.)

In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.

So if the USSR had done a depressed trajectory shot onto the White House
(or more probably Cheyenne Mountain) from just off the USA's coast as
their opening move then the entire western nuclear arsenel is unworkable?
Doesn't sound too sensible to me.

People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message
"Clive Coleman." wrote:

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
As for the SLBMS I'm not sure the Americans can physically
prevent us launching them, we sure as hell can't stop them launching
theirs. The only way a genuine twin key approach can work is if RN boats
carry USN personnel on every deployment and I'm not aware that that is
the case.
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.

Thay's for USN boats, RN boats have to be in contact with Northwood and
thence to Downing Street. Exactly how they get their launch codes is, for
obvious reasons, not widely advertised. However there is alldgedly a back-up
plan whereby a boat captain can launch on his own initiative if they fail to
get the shipping forecast. The twin key system here is that both he and his
first officer have to enter their own codes in order to arm the launch
system.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The message
from Graeme Wall contains these words:

Now that's service for you.

Yup! That's what we thought - especially when the driver raised the
blind between the cab and passenger part of the unit to give us a
panoramic view of the Cumbrian coastal area.

--
Dave,
Frodsham

David Jackson wrote:
Yup! That's what we thought - especially when the driver raised the
blind between the cab and passenger part of the unit to give us a
panoramic view of the Cumbrian coastal area.

Amusing juxtaposition of subject line and body text. :-)

Dave