How many coats of paint
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Threads
ewaf58 — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 04:02 AM)
Advice tells you to paint your windows white to reflect the blast heat so I could just imagine going to B&Q
'Excuse me but in the light of recent tensions between Russia and the US could you recommend a good blast protection paint?'
'Yes we can - don't use our own brand but try say Dulux brilliant white Gloss - not cheap though and you'll have to apply at least three coats to give you 7 nanoseconds of protection''The cheaper brands only give you around 3 nanoseconds'
'Many thanks - I'll take 3 cans' -
greg-233 — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 05:56 PM)
It seems civil defence was pretty laughable. In the 1980s comedy
The Young Ones
there was an episode where an atomic bomb fell from a plane, and landed in the kitchen of a share house, blocking the fridge. It took several minutes before the housemates even noticed it. While the anarchist Rick wanted to blackmail the prime minister with the bomb, the hippie Neil chose to prepare for a coming holocaust. Following the advice in the Protect and Survive manual, he painted himself white to deflect the blast. "Racial discrimination even in death!", Rick said contemptuously. Neil also had some brown paper bags full of sand. (Sandbags.) -
CorpseCandle — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 11:17 AM)
That's a great episode. I always thought that when they build their shelter under the table that it was a great metaphor for how useless building a shelter would be in England taking into account the payload of the bombs and the small size of the country.
-
JamesConway — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 03:26 PM)
I always found the criticism of Protect and Survive unfair.
A. The government had a constitutional obligation to at least offer advice on protection no matter how trivial that advice may be.
B. Who is to say that a household, sufficiently far enough away from the blast and with adequately sturdy shelter wouldn't survive? Not even the authorities were under any illusion that even a single bomb would have been nothing short of catastrophic.
But for some, the instinct of survival is such that for a small percentage of households (and greater numbers in isolated and rural areas) taking heed of Protect and Survive really did mean the difference between life and death. -
CorpseCandle — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 12:11 PM)
For me it was the fact that during the 80's the UK would house cruise missiles thus incresing the amount the targets to be hit in the UK and all the public got back was a feeble placebo.
It wouldn't be so bad if the UK were not housing lot's of American nuclear weapons and allowing the USAF access to many of our bases but they did and in the end it made the UK and less survivable enviroment. -
JamesConway — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 02:32 PM)
One of the mis-understandings about nuclear weapons is the notion that the more you use the more the damage.
In fact nuclear weapons have a strange expression of energy in which a bomb twice the size would not neccesarily do twice the damage, and the superpowers were aware of this.
Imagine hitting a fly with a leather belt, now hit the same fly with a hammerdespite the overall increase in power the result is only a little more powerful.
So yes, cruise missiles were based in the UK but we were a target well before that so the overall damage done would be only slightly worse.
The Soviets were so lacking in confidence about the accuracy and dependability of their missile they apparantly would use two for the same target in case of a mis-fire.
But what hasn't been brought up is the notion that a hypothetical nuclear war might have involved only military targets. What if, in Threads, the war ceased after the strike on Finningley? Life would never be the same again obviously, there would still be hints of what the film showed us
but without the 'total annihilation' shown with a full exchange Protect and Survive would have been essential. -
CorpseCandle — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 07:36 AM)
Imagine hitting a fly with a leather belt, now hit the same fly with a hammerdespite the overall increase in power the result is only a little more powerful.
The issue I have with that metaphor is that hitting a fly either weapons, well one may be more powerfull but they more or less cover the same area.
Larger nuclear weapons cover larger areas, so from a leather belt to a cat-o-nine-tails.
So yes, cruise missiles were based in the UK but we were a target well before that so the overall damage done would be only slightly worse.
The Soviets were so lacking in confidence about the accuracy and dependability of their missile they apparantly would use two for the same target in case of a mis-fire.
I won't pretend that the Soviets didn't have us as a target already but I do dispute the term "slightly". I think the huge American presence in the UK in the forms of weapons and personal increased the number of targets in the UK greatly.
A number of military bases for instance had funding assitance by the US because they had interests in being here. I think that a number of these would have closed after WW2 if they they were just British run.
But what hasn't been brought up is the notion that a hypothetical nuclear war might have involved only military targets. What if, in Threads, the war ceased after the strike on Finningley? Life would never be the same again obviously, there would still be hints of what the film showed us
All I can say is from everything I have read from nuclear experts, even hawkish personal. It is nigh on impossible to draw back from a nuclear exchange once it has started.
It is nigh on impossible to stop at five or six nuclear weapon exchanges. The U.S indeed have this policy in the first stages of the cold war but it was deemed to make a nuclear exchange more likely and was abandoned.
I would say it would make for a facinating film but lines of communication would have to crystal clear in order for an effective cease of hostilities. Lets not forget a number of other nations have now developed their own nuclear weapons since 1984. This would make the situation even more unstable.
but without the 'total annihilation' shown with a full exchange Protect and Survive would have been essential.
I think we disagree on too many basic points in all honesty but I have read your past posts on here and you're always an interesting person to read
-
ewaf58 — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 12:32 AM)
You know I must have missed that episode. Back in the early 80s neighbours would start muttering that you must be a millionaire if you had one of the new fangled video recorders. A brilliantly written line about being racist. True creativity. Yes no amount of advice could really help you if there was a nuclear war. Your only chance would be a bunker with several years worth of supplies and a large hard drive containing unlimited films - series and reading material. To be honest without a bunker and fallout on the way I'd rather drink lager and tuck into my favourite dessert. Ice cream with single cream poured over the top. The company of a pretty blind would help too. Perhaps with all the conflict going on at the moment I'd better start advertising now.