|
|
Post by mumbles on May 6, 2014 12:27:25 GMT 12
Being interested in Cold War history as I am, I've become aware of the existence of previously secret Transition To War (TTW) plans and "War Books" in the UK and Australia. These detailed pre-determined actions to be taken when it was believed a crisis was going to escalate into a general war, likely nuclear.
While the 30 year rule (do we even have that here?) may not yet have elapsed, does anyone know if such plans exist/existed in NZ? Was nuclear war in NZ something the NZDF and government planned for in the 80's especially? Did the government think we would be targeted, what did they think would be hit etc.
Jokes about kissing your butt goodbye aside, does anyone have anything to add about this?
Dave if you feel this would go better in General, feel free to shift it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 15:30:41 GMT 12
I would say they did, because in Don's book there is a picture of Exercise Gunrunner 1996 and the personnel are all in their NBCR warfare kit. So they definitely trained to operate in those conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 6, 2014 16:09:05 GMT 12
I would say they did, because in Don's book there is a picture of Exercise Gunrunner 1996 and the personnel are all in their NBCR warfare kit. So they definitely trained to operate in those conditions. To be fair, we still train in NBC gear, having to do a refresher every year. I don't think anyone is still planning for nuclear war though. It would be interesting to know whether there were any contingency plans. I have a book about the RAF published in 1984 that has a chapter on the Royal Observer Corps and includes a diagram of an underground observation post that includes such things as ground zero indicator and bomb power indicator sensing head. I'm sure we didn't have anything quite as elaborate here, but I'm sure there must have been some planning. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 6, 2014 16:43:02 GMT 12
I think the question is aimed more at a strategic level rather than a Squadron or a Base. There would be a high level of secrecy concerned and although I am sure Defence HQ would have had various battle plans I never did hear them discussed on a Base. The confidential briefings were more limited to capability, and threat updates etc. I would have heard much more of the NATO situation and their strategic plans etc while attached to the RAF. This was during the cold war though and may have just been generic alternate strategies used for training purposes. I think it would be common to train to one particular strategy or scenario, - the real plans would be of the highest secrecy and probably involve several countries. While it was common in NZ to have NBC training we had very limited resources, I could have put my hand on a spade I guess.... even if it did involve taking one in from home. As for Nuclear training I do remember one particular officers' briefing, - we spent a few hours watching some particular training film, starring Jason Robards.. I doubt it was highly secret though, probably classified PG more likely.  |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 6, 2014 23:20:40 GMT 12
I think the question is aimed more at a strategic level rather than a Squadron or a Base. There would be a high level of secrecy concerned and although I am sure Defence HQ would have had various battle plans I never did hear them discussed on a Base. The confidential briefings were more limited to capability, and threat updates etc. I would have heard much more of the NATO situation and their strategic plans etc while attached to the RAF. This was during the cold war though and may have just been generic alternate strategies used for training purposes. I think it would be common to train to one particular strategy or scenario, - the real plans would be of the highest secrecy and probably involve several countries. While it was common in NZ to have NBC training we had very limited resources, I could have put my hand on a spade I guess.... even if it did involve taking one in from home. You're right, it is more the higher level aspect I'm curious about. I'm mostly interested in how serious the threat to NZ was perceived at the time, and if any preparations were made for the unlikely event. For the UK and Australia the threat was immediate and inescapable, but our situation I think was a bit less certain. The UK TTW and War Book details released make for very sobering reading at least in how they planned to maintain law and order and government post war (basically, whatever was left of the UK would become a collection of locally governed dictatorships with absolute power for the immediate future). If NZ had high level plans to deal with targets or cities getting attacked or if it was seen as so unlikely we would just wing it isn't something I recall ever hearing about, aside from a 1985 or so news story about whether or not the civil defence bunker under the Beehive was nuclear proof (not, apparently) As for Nuclear training I do remember one particular officers' briefing, - we spent a few hours watching some particular training film, starring Jason Robards.. I doubt it was highly secret though, probably classified PG more likely. It was the stuff of nightmares to a pre-teen like myself in the mid-80's  It didn't screen on NZ TV until 1987, a few years after it screened in the US, and I remember it being a big deal. School the next day was all about who was brave enough/allowed to watch it and who wasn't. Apparently it for-real influenced Reagan to back off a little in trying to intimidate the Soviets after he had a private screening(that and things like the Able Archer scare) and put more efforts into avoiding nuclear war. Then there is it's diabolically bleak cousins "Testament" and "Threads" (and if you haven't seen these, they are disturbingly honest). The latter traumatised a generation of UK children when it screened in 1985, and more than a few adults as well. I can't even see snippets of these movies these days without a distinct feeling of unease - the background fear of nuclear conflict is an abiding childhood memory. "The Day After" was shown to one class at my intermediate in 1988, and my class got "Threads" in fourth form social studies in 1990. I simply can't imagine films like that being shown in class to students that young now, although apparently they make for interesting discussions among those old enough to remember that part of the cold war and those who don't, and don't really get it. Different times. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 6, 2014 23:37:10 GMT 12
It would be interesting to know whether there were any contingency plans. I have a book about the RAF published in 1984 that has a chapter on the Royal Observer Corps and includes a diagram of an underground observation post that includes such things as ground zero indicator and bomb power indicator sensing head. I'm sure we didn't have anything quite as elaborate here, but I'm sure there must have been some planning. Those ROC posts were basically expendable, and required someone to go outside to reset the ground zero indicator among other things. They weren't really equipped for long term survival in a nuclear environment. The story I have heard (possibly apocryphal) is that a normal rotation of three crews was assigned to each, with the expectation that whichever crew was in the post at the time wasn't coming back, and the other two would secure any family or dependents. That's assuming they reported for duty in the first place. More than a few people designated for bunker roles openly admitted they would take their chances outside with their partners and families rather than abandon them. Post cold war a lot of information is emerging about this stuff. The UK for one had official bunkers big and small, military and civil all over the place, dozens of them, and even the odd police station rumoured to not only have been designed to withstand a nuclear attack, but also serve as a defendable redoubt afterward. I knew there were some bunkers, but was surprised to learn just how many there actually were. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 6, 2014 23:43:43 GMT 12
I would say they did, because in Don's book there is a picture of Exercise Gunrunner 1996 and the personnel are all in their NBCR warfare kit. So they definitely trained to operate in those conditions. True. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 6, 2014 23:54:22 GMT 12
I think that given the time since, and changed world order, I can probably allude to one particular training scenario we were involved in.
It may come as a surprise to many here but one of the 'V' bomber bases in England was 'finished' once the aircraft had been launched. The plans didn't consider aircraft return, refuel, re-arm etc. To the contrary, any surviving Base personnel were to be deployed to other bases with some making the immediate move to Denmark. This of course is assuming that some of the bombers or missile inbound from the other team are going to be partially successful with their mission. The UK is a very small target so the idea may have been to vacate and spread the forces to the new strategic positions asap.
I guess the equivalent situation in NZ would be to take cover and absorb as best we could any of the harm sent our way.
Maybe there were plans for large scale squadron deployments but I think we can all appreciate the logistical difficulties there. It would be a nightmare in peacetime let alone when you were under attack.
The UK plans called for the commandeering of ships and passenger aircraft. I could just imagine how we would fare here loading 3 Sqdn with the Sioux's onto the Awatere, and setting sail for ?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on May 7, 2014 3:20:04 GMT 12
Ah well, sweet nostalgia, Beeza has it about right as I recall, and my last Station in the RAF was Cottesmore [1962] along with two squadrons of Victors and one trial unit of four Victor 2's. It's common knowledge now, but had those aircraft gone into action they weren't expected to return. It was largely a one-way trip and the crews all knew that. Aircraft which didn't leave were dispersed to various airfields around the UK, and that was practiced occasionally with exercise with names such as "Mickey Finn". I recall one such exercise where we had allegedly been nuked before the aircraft took off, and as this was very inconvenient the umpires simply moved the missile strike. At Cottesmore, there were four aircraft permanently 'nuked-up' with direct access to the runway, and while some stages of some exercise required them to actually take-off, they never, as far as I'm aware, did so carrying nuclear weapons. The sight of four of these aircraft scrambling made the ground under your feet tremble and the air crackled. Mag-bloody-nificent spectacle, but somewhat chilling as the aircraft flew off in different directions once airborne. The unit had a "Special Storage Area" where the nukes were stored[always referred to as simply "weapons" by the way]. Loading them into a Victor was a complex procedure and required an especially low bomb trolley and a cherry picker crane! The procession of a weapon from the SSU to an aircraft was also a bit of a spectacle as it was escorted by a Fire Truck and various other police and armament guys. I once saw a weapon being transported and as it went past noticed a "Ban The Bomb" sticker attached. Funny buggers those cracker-stackers!
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 7, 2014 10:52:27 GMT 12
The cold war was a harsh reality for all in the RAF and for such a long period, some guys would have done their entire career living under that cloud.
I can't remember all the details now but I know there was provision for the welfare of families and staff on the Stations. These crews were not only expected to embark on a one-way trip but they were leaving family behind and naturally they were smack bang in the centre of a target area.
That part may have been a charade though, I have no idea of time-frames but the missiles could have conceivably been dropping on us within minutes of any alert.
Myself, and other RNZAF blokes about me, were conveniently off-Base whenever a Taceval was declared. While we were off gallivanting on our short notice 'vacation' the RAF guys were being put to the torch. The Station would have been closed off and a practice scenario put into action.
These were taken very seriously and inspectors from NATO would be very critical judges, it was no game.
During my time in the UK we had the joys of the continual IRA threats and attacks, these were very real and far more than an annoyance. While the Bases were cycling through various grades of 'Alerts' there was TV coverage showing the casualties. While the 'Cold War' was always in your thoughts as you were drilled and practised in that environment we always had personal safety in mind. Any Station was seen as a soft target and of course pubs located nearby and frequented by military personnel could be even easier to bomb.
Not enough to put you off your beer but perhaps a good excuse to have one more, - just in case it was going to be your last...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 7, 2014 12:13:54 GMT 12
I would find it hard to believe that the NZDF, and any armed force, would not have had plans drawn up for use as a guide in the event of war or a sudden attack on their soil - then or now. Surely it's a standard part of being a military force to prepare plans and strategies for such events? Or do you really think we'd just wing it on the day?
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 7, 2014 16:13:26 GMT 12
I would find it hard to believe that the NZDF, and any armed force, would not have had plans drawn up for use as a guide in the event of war or a sudden attack on their soil - then or now. Surely it's a standard part of being a military force to prepare plans and strategies for such events? Or do you really think we'd just wing it on the day? I'd be surprised too, but I've just never heard of anything comparable to what I've seen as far as other countries planning goes. What's secret is secret, but if any of this has ever been public domain as far as NZ goes I'm interested. Surely it was somebody's job in the NZDF or Government hierarchy to think about these things, unless the prospect of a nuclear attack on NZ itself was seen as too remote to waste time on. I know there were one or two studies done at the time with government involvement, but the assumption of those was that NZ would not be directly targeted and "only" have the effects of strikes elsewhere to deal with. From what I've seen in public at least the government position in the 80's seems to have been "it won't happen here". I'm curious to know if that was actually the case. The anti-nuclear campaigners on the other hand were convinced it would happen here, although their notion that going nuclear free and being isolated from ANZUS would drop us off Kremlin target lists (if we were ever on them) I find a tad optimistic, even if Soviet dignitaries at the time said that was the case. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 7, 2014 17:14:07 GMT 12
The Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Chief of Defence and others from the intelligence and defence spheres would meet regularly and ensure that resources were inline with threat analysis. Strategies and alliances would also be discussed and embodied.
That would be very secretive of course and I doubt we will ever get to hear, at least officially, of the outcome of such meetings.
Common-sense would tell us that there is no target in this country that would be worthy of special attention requiring a very expensive weapon.
The Cold War was based on fear and threats but of course so are other things in our daily lives. I can't recall any point in my life where I worried about a nuclear or chemical attack upon New Zealand.
'The Day After' was a wake-up call but made many sit back and think. A strategic nuclear war would be of no benefit to anyone.
Perhaps our biggest threat would be the rush of refugees bombarding our shores in the event of a likely tactical 'dirty' war elsewhere in the region.
I doubt much has changed there and I do wonder how we would cope with hoards of boats and aircraft steaming our way.
If for example we were about to see a major flare-up in the sub-continent region I could just imagine the personal commandeering of anything that flies or floats, Western Australia would be a likely destination for the boats but if you could fly for 10 hours then you may want somewhere a little further from the action.
Fleeing is a pretty natural human instinct. Many would flee even quicker if they thought they were about to get a nuke dropped on them.
I doubt this country would have many more than a few hundred NBC suits, probably for a very good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 7, 2014 21:22:15 GMT 12
Found an answer to at least one of my questions. This is a summary of one of the government funded studies I mentioned, which was published in 1987: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139157.1988.9928922From the link: "the central government has no planning mechanisms and strategies specifically designed for coping with nuclear war. . . The report recommends that the government implement a program of public education and of research and development strategies for contingency planning."So looks like a "nope" from that era at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 7, 2014 22:30:19 GMT 12
Not many kiwis realise that New Zealand's Army was in the very first act of the Cold War. The stand off versus Tito's Communists at Trieste in Italy in 1945.
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on May 8, 2014 9:33:36 GMT 12
Re: Nuclear Preparedness and New Zealand.
In respect of the matter of 'Nuclear explosions', unfortunately Green's statement in para 3. is incorrect, although, when writing his paper, he was no-doubt acting on the information made available to him. From memory, the Russians had 'let it be known' ('accidentally', as they always did) that, as NZ was a member of the 'Western Bloc', and therefore an enemy (if only by default), Wellington was considered to be a 'legitimate' target should things come to the crunch, a fact reinforced by the acknowledged presence of soviet submarines off the NZ coast (although they were always 'in transit' - of course). Although no 'official' plans to meet this contingency were prepared, various 'unofficial' ones were informally 'arranged', it being considered that the deterioration of the political climate in the Northern hemisphere would be able to give sufficient warning to enable various 'important people' to 'exit stage left'. The good citizens of Wellington were, of course, oblivious to such matters, especially as 'rumour had it' that the Beehive had been constructed with 'nuclear proof' 'underground bunkers' to protect the parliamentarians, and other 'important people'. Although years afterwards,it was stated that in fact the 'bunkers' had no nuclear-protective capability, it made a good story at the time. That the city itself was being left to fry, was a mere detail.....
BTW: Although 'The Day After' is now considered the definitive 'point of reference' for the aftermath of a nuclear attack, I would suggest that 'The War Game' (BBC, 1965) was actually more unnerving and realistic, especially as it was filmed in Black and White. Although made for TV, it was subsequently released as a movie; some here may remember it...
They were 'interesting' times...
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 8, 2014 12:48:30 GMT 12
I would say they did, because in Don's book there is a picture of Exercise Gunrunner 1996 and the personnel are all in their NBCR warfare kit. So they definitely trained to operate in those conditions. Gunrunner became an annual exercise in the 1990s as a cheap way (i.e. it was done at Ohakea!) of practicing deployed, dispersed operations, with limited facilities and needing to defend the airfield from insurgent attacks. The NBC aspect was added for additional training and realasim. It was all part of 75 Sqns increased operational focus after Gulf War I and was driven by the then Squadron WO, Bogga Wright. The level of professionalism and operational focus on 75 Sqn really stepped up a gear after Gulf War I. The RNZAF learnt a lot of lessons about preparedness. Being "fitted for but not with" wasn't much use unsurprisingly! In the mid 1990s we also started loading the daily NATO codes into the KY-58 secure voice and Mode 4 IFF systems on the Skyhawks. This became a normal part of the Avionics preflight and was all about ensuring we knew the systems worked and everyone knew how to use them. It is no good trying to figure it out after the balloon goes up! I can remember the 75 Sqn happy hour the day the Gulf War broke out and CO75 said we would likely be going and someone asked when we would be issued with our NBC gear (it was well known that the RNZAF didn't have any apart from a few very old demo kits at GSTS!). His response that it would be issued when we got there didn't give anyone much confidence! We learnt from that wee experience and started training as a real fighting unit after that. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on May 8, 2014 20:37:43 GMT 12
BTW: Although 'The Day After' is now considered the definitive 'point of reference' for the aftermath of a nuclear attack, I would suggest that 'The War Game' (BBC, 1965) was actually more unnerving and realistic, especially as it was filmed in Black and White. Although made for TV, it was subsequently released as a movie; some here may remember it... They were 'interesting' times... "The War Game" was forced to be released as a cinematic movie as on viewing it the BBC promptly embargoed the film as too distressing for general TV screening; it would not be screened on British Television until 1985. By then it had the contemporary "Threads" (1984) as a BBC stablemate to double down on the fear factor. Both out-grim "The Day After" (which actually got a few cinema screenings in NZ at least in 1984 or so) by a considerable margin. |
|
|
|
Post by komata on May 9, 2014 6:03:54 GMT 12
Mumbles
Thanks.
The 'War Game' did the NZ cinema 'circuit' of the time in around 1967-68 (via Kerridge Odeon from memory), with even the smaller towns being visited. By dealing with the 'collateral' damage of a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom,(effectively the 'damage' to the civi's) it certainly presented a 'different' perspective, especially as this was an aspect which no-one had been brave enough to consider in the 'non'political' (real?) world. Understandably it didn't go down well with the 'establishment'. It was very controversial....
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CND loved it .....
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 9, 2014 9:24:45 GMT 12
Others here may be able to add to my comments about the viewing of 'The Day After'.
I assume other bases had briefings and viewings in a similar pattern. At Wigram we had the screening accompanying a quick briefing in the theatrette at 2TTS.
The Base theatre was not used and I have no idea of numbers, how many can fit into that room at 2TTS?
I assume all Bases Officers were given the opportunity to attend the briefing and it may have even been held over a few sessions.... this must have been 1983 or 84.
I don't know if the other ranks had a similar opportunity but at least with the Officers it did form a part of the regular intelligence briefings.
My recollections are that NZ was much more concerned with a regional conflict and that at our level, at least, we just had a awareness of a strategic Nuclear attack and what that would have involved.
|
|
It didn't screen on NZ TV until 1987, a few years after it screened in the US, and I remember it being a big deal. School the next day was all about who was brave enough/allowed to watch it and who wasn't. Apparently it for-real influenced Reagan to back off a little in trying to intimidate the Soviets after he had a private screening(that and things like the Able Archer scare) and put more efforts into avoiding nuclear war.
