Comments on: When two tribes go to war http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/ Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:32:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-69072 Brett Holman Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:48:46 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-69072 Well, it does sound like a good lark! All the more so since the balloon didn't go up and the Bomb wasn't dropped ... Well, it does sound like a good lark! All the more so since the balloon didn’t go up and the Bomb wasn’t dropped …

]]> By: Ian Evans http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-69002 Ian Evans Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:19:29 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-69002 A bit more on the ROC, it wasn't a "job" for most of us - we were part time. Two hours a week, plus weekend exercises and annual camp. I, and a couple of mates from school, joined for the chance to get very familiar with the RAF's flying machines. They used to put on an "airday"when the personnel from several ROC groups would gather on one of the local RAF airfields for a good day's flying display from as many RAF, RN and NATO aircraft as could be persuaded to turn up. Everyone got a free flight as well. There was more; our crew, crew 2 (of four shifts of plotters) had a female crew officer, who was happy to scrounge flights for "her lads". So, we spent many happy summer evenings trundling through the Yorkshire skies in Valettas, Varsities, Beverleys, Hastings, Ansons. Ah, the music of the prancing pistons! Eh? The nuclear reporting role started after I joined and built up slowly. We had some liasion with Civil Defence, but watching them spend an afternoon running 200 yards of telephone cable wasn't very inspiring. Visited their "proper" nuclear bunker, disguised as a farm, in country north of York, well below the surface, with accommodation for 200 or so. A few years later, during the Cuba crisis, all the stories, rumours, etc came pretty sharply to mind. I crossed London on the Friday, visiting friends south of the capital, and did wonder if I'd be coming back.. in any recognisable form. A bit more on the ROC, it wasn’t a “job” for most of us - we were part time. Two hours a week, plus weekend exercises and annual camp. I, and a couple of mates from school, joined for the chance to get very familiar with the RAF’s flying machines. They used to put on an “airday”when the personnel from several ROC groups would gather on one of the local RAF airfields for a good day’s flying display from as many RAF, RN and NATO aircraft as could be persuaded to turn up. Everyone got a free flight as well. There was more; our crew, crew 2 (of four shifts of plotters) had a female crew officer, who was happy to scrounge flights for “her lads”. So, we spent many happy summer evenings trundling through the Yorkshire skies in Valettas, Varsities, Beverleys, Hastings, Ansons. Ah, the music of the prancing pistons! Eh?
The nuclear reporting role started after I joined and built up slowly. We had some liasion with Civil Defence, but watching them spend an afternoon running 200 yards of telephone cable wasn’t very inspiring. Visited their “proper” nuclear bunker, disguised as a farm, in country north of York, well below the surface, with accommodation for 200 or so.
A few years later, during the Cuba crisis, all the stories, rumours, etc came pretty sharply to mind. I crossed London on the Friday, visiting friends south of the capital, and did wonder if I’d be coming back.. in any recognisable form.

]]> By: Roger Todd http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68661 Roger Todd Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:03:46 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68661 You don't want a dose of Ludovic's Revenge... I've just realised that CK was probably baffled by my correction of the name given in the article because I SHOULD have prefaced it by pointing out that it was directed at Brett - as it is, it looks like a direct reply to CK's post immediately preceding. Apologies to CK. Anyway, keep up the good work, Brett! You don’t want a dose of Ludovic’s Revenge…

I’ve just realised that CK was probably baffled by my correction of the name given in the article because I SHOULD have prefaced it by pointing out that it was directed at Brett - as it is, it looks like a direct reply to CK’s post immediately preceding. Apologies to CK.

Anyway, keep up the good work, Brett!

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68655 Brett Holman Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:42:10 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68655 Chris: A very good question! I'd answer both no and yes. No to first order, because it's fear of bombing/nuking/etc which is important, and that doesn't necessarily depend on whether the fear is justified or based on reality. Yes to second order, because the fact that the power of nukes had been very effectively demonstrated in 1945 had no rival for the KOB era, unless it was in the period 1937-8 (Guernica to Canton). That must surely intensify the fear somewhat, if there's just no denying it. Roger: Thanks, you're quite right, and I can even tell you how I conflated them: I was going to say '... and narrated by Ludovic Kennedy' but decided not to before typing it, but evidently the names got jumbled in my head. Ludovic's revenge. Chris:

A very good question! I’d answer both no and yes. No to first order, because it’s fear of bombing/nuking/etc which is important, and that doesn’t necessarily depend on whether the fear is justified or based on reality. Yes to second order, because the fact that the power of nukes had been very effectively demonstrated in 1945 had no rival for the KOB era, unless it was in the period 1937-8 (Guernica to Canton). That must surely intensify the fear somewhat, if there’s just no denying it.

Roger:

Thanks, you’re quite right, and I can even tell you how I conflated them: I was going to say ‘… and narrated by Ludovic Kennedy’ but decided not to before typing it, but evidently the names got jumbled in my head. Ludovic’s revenge.

]]> By: Roger Todd http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68636 Roger Todd Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:34:03 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68636 My point is that Mick Jackson is referred to as Mick KENNEDY. A small matter, but it's probably as well to be correct about these things. My point is that Mick Jackson is referred to as Mick KENNEDY. A small matter, but it’s probably as well to be correct about these things.

]]> By: CK http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68634 CK Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:00:08 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68634 Your point being, Rodger? Sorry, must have missed it. Not having a go at you.... Your point being, Rodger? Sorry, must have missed it. Not having a go at you….

]]> By: Roger Todd http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68626 Roger Todd Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:06:58 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68626 Hate to be anal, but you refer to '...a 1982 BBC documentary called “Nuclear War: A Guide to Armageddon” (written and produced by Mick Kennedy, director of Threads).' The producer of 'A Guide to Armageddon' and 'Threads' (and, earlier, the excellent James Burke documentary series 'Connections') was Mick Jackson. The narrator of 'A Guide to Armageddon' was Ludovic Kennedy. I suspect you may have conflated their names... Hate to be anal, but you refer to ‘…a 1982 BBC documentary called “Nuclear War: A Guide to Armageddon” (written and produced by Mick Kennedy, director of Threads).’

The producer of ‘A Guide to Armageddon’ and ‘Threads’ (and, earlier, the excellent James Burke documentary series ‘Connections’) was Mick Jackson. The narrator of ‘A Guide to Armageddon’ was Ludovic Kennedy. I suspect you may have conflated their names…

]]> By: CK http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68618 CK Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:17:10 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68618 The point being, I think Chris, that by then personned bombers had become irrelevant to the whole concept of mass destruction (Although I'm sure the good citizens of Vietnam would disagree. But you know, that was 'conventional warfare' so it doesn't count). Terror bombing had by the '70's passed well and truly to ICBM's and submarine launched ballistic missiles. The point being, I think Chris, that by then personned bombers had become irrelevant to the whole concept of mass destruction (Although I’m sure the good citizens of Vietnam would disagree. But you know, that was ‘conventional warfare’ so it doesn’t count).

Terror bombing had by the ’70’s passed well and truly to ICBM’s and submarine launched ballistic missiles.

]]> By: Chris Williams http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68445 Chris Williams Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:57:23 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68445 This brings up a central issue for the whole airminded concept, doesn't it? We know that the history of scares, from the Sacareships onwards, was one of scaremongering, and in practice, it wasn't going to be as bad as that. But there's a moment, some time between 1945 and 1970, when it becomes pretty clear that the ol 'We're all going to die 4 minutes* into the next war' meme is now actually true. At that moment, the question of 'why were they scared?' may still have a number of different, interesting answers, but there's also one big answer lurking there: 'Because they had every right to be.' Does it change the analysis? Need it? *A British thing, based on a perhaps erroneous estimate of what Fylingdales would be capable of. For Americans, '30 minutes' probably had equal cultural salience. This brings up a central issue for the whole airminded concept, doesn’t it? We know that the history of scares, from the Sacareships onwards, was one of scaremongering, and in practice, it wasn’t going to be as bad as that. But there’s a moment, some time between 1945 and 1970, when it becomes pretty clear that the ol ‘We’re all going to die 4 minutes* into the next war’ meme is now actually true. At that moment, the question of ‘why were they scared?’ may still have a number of different, interesting answers, but there’s also one big answer lurking there: ‘Because they had every right to be.’ Does it change the analysis? Need it?

*A British thing, based on a perhaps erroneous estimate of what Fylingdales would be capable of. For Americans, ‘30 minutes’ probably had equal cultural salience.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68444 Brett Holman Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:27:48 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/01/14/when-two-tribes-go-to-war/#comment-68444 Yes and no. Of course H-bombs were something else entirely. But my guess would be that if Britain was relatively well prepared for A-bombs, it was precisely because of the legacy of the Blitz, both in terms of experience and institutions. The US had neither: it would have been starting from scratch. So they effectively didn't bother. The USSR had much experience with civilian devastation, at least, which I guess may have been part of the motivation for their relatively greater civil defence efforts. The nuclear age wasn't uniform, I suppose. Also: even A-bombs meant that, if another war came, the devastation of cities -- at least big chunks of big cities -- was assured from the start, without the need to build up really huge bomber fleets first. One bomber gets through your air defences and boom, goodbye Whitehall and everything else within a couple of miles. You had to be ready to face the consequences of that. So, while I agree that 1 A-bomb = 1 really big conventional raid, that doesn't mean the fact that it was just one bomb didn't change the equations for a lot of things. Yes and no. Of course H-bombs were something else entirely. But my guess would be that if Britain was relatively well prepared for A-bombs, it was precisely because of the legacy of the Blitz, both in terms of experience and institutions. The US had neither: it would have been starting from scratch. So they effectively didn’t bother. The USSR had much experience with civilian devastation, at least, which I guess may have been part of the motivation for their relatively greater civil defence efforts. The nuclear age wasn’t uniform, I suppose.

Also: even A-bombs meant that, if another war came, the devastation of cities — at least big chunks of big cities — was assured from the start, without the need to build up really huge bomber fleets first. One bomber gets through your air defences and boom, goodbye Whitehall and everything else within a couple of miles. You had to be ready to face the consequences of that. So, while I agree that 1 A-bomb = 1 really big conventional raid, that doesn’t mean the fact that it was just one bomb didn’t change the equations for a lot of things.

]]>