Loading summary

Transcript10 lines

[00:00]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with progr between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
[00:36]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
Everyone treats summer like it owes you happiness. Long days, pool parties, your best life on a loop. So what does it mean when you feel worse? The summer blues are real. It's why summer is one of the busiest stretches of the year for people starting Therapy Grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. Grow connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. The therapist you want takes your insurance on Grow grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
[01:36]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken this is unreal value in the bromosphere the new Spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for a limited time at participating restaurants, taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.
[02:13]
Atomic Hobo (Podcast Host/Narrator)
Here we are with part two of Camden's clever questions. First, a quick recap on why Camden Borough Council was asking questions of the government back in 1984 about nuclear war. Central governments, that is the right wing Conservatives in London had compelled local governments across the country to prepare for nuclear war. But a lot of left wing Labour led councils objected saying of course. Well we all know the arguments. You can't plan for nuclear war. Doing so is dangerous because it implies that nuclear war is survivable we won't do it, or we will at least drag our heels and do the bare minimum. This rebellion caused the government a few headaches and some humiliation. So they introduced new rules in 1983 which meant you can't wriggle out of this duty any longer. So the message from the government was, it's 1983, the fun's over. Get your civil defence plans done. Naturally, a lot of the rebel councils bridled at these new rules and the legal obligations that it now placed upon them. And some of them actually hired lawyers to find loopholes, asking them, how can we get out of this? We don't want to prepare for nuclear war. Help us get out of it. The legal advice was refuse to do your civil defence planning until central government have told you exactly what you are planning for. In other words, until they have told you in gruesome, damaging detail exactly what a nuclear war would do to Britain, what it will be like, the numbers of dead which are the targets, until and unless they spill all that dreadful information. You rebellious councils can't possibly plan for nuclear war, because how can you plan if you don't know what you're planning for? Crafty. Of course, there was no way that central government was going to dish out the brutal truth about nuclear war as it would be. Horrific stuff. Look how they tried to silence the war game, look how nervous they were about threads and how they briefed their ministers on how to respond to it in the media. They don't want the public to dwell on the reality of a nuclear war. And so the London Borough of Camden, being one of the left wing rebel councils, they happily took this legal advice on and they wrote to the Home Office saying, we need various questions answered before we can comply with your demands that we prepare for nuclear war. And asking these uncomfortable questions allowed Camden Council to one, stall for time, two, aggravate their political opponents and three, burnish their own credentials as brave left wingers holding the government to account. I suppose there was a fourth reason. The government might, just might, be compelled to provide uncomfortable truths about nuclear war. All of which, as a left wing Labour led Nuclear Free Council, would make Camden politicians very happy. So today we will see what other questions Camden asked of the government in trying to poke and prod and irritate them and make a point about the impossibility planning for nuclear war. Camden asked about the form a nuclear attack would take. And their question had four parts. Firstly, they asked if the government agrees with the Soviet strategists who say that a war in Europe is likely to start as a conventional war and then escalate into nuclear. And they ask would their assessment be affected if NATO chose to adopt a policy of no first use? Okay, so let's look at no first use, which was all over the news at this time thanks to big bushy browed Brezhnev. He had announced in June 1982 that the Soviet Union was adopting a policy of no first use. That is they pledged never to use the nuclear weapons first in any conflict. They would only be used in retaliation. A statement was read at the UN on his behalf by the Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gamyko. And of course the Soviets then urged the USA to join them in this pledge. America refused. There were reasons for that refusal, which we'll look at in a second. But when it came to initial reactions and headlines across the globe, the refusal made the Soviets look noble and made America look to some like nuke happy warmongers. Which was unfair in America because there were several very prominent and thoughtful voices in America at that time arguing for no first use, arguing that yes, we should be doing what the Soviets are doing. Consider the so called Gang of Four, that is former Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union George Kennan, McGeorge Bundy who was National Security Advisor to both JFK and Johnson, and Gerard Smith, a key member of the SALT delegation. So this collection of four very prominent nuclear voices joined forces to press for America adopting a no first use stance. With McNamara arguing that on his watch back in the 60s, America followed a de facto no first use policy. Well, maybe so, but his opponents said times had changed. This might have made sense back in the 60s when America had such a massive nuclear advantage over the Soviet Union, but it just wouldn't fly in the 1980s. So no thanks, said the Reagan administration with the Secretary of State Alexander Haig saying it would be, quote, tantamount to making Europe safe for conventional aggression. It would be withdrawing the nuclear guarantee. America said the nuclear umbrella from Western Europe. It suited the Soviets to push for no first use, not because they were noble and peace loving and cared about humanity, but because they would have been happy to fight a war in Europe that was restricted to conventional weapons only and one which relied on manpower, boots on the ground, because in that aspect they could easily overwhelm NATO in Western Europe. So it suited them nicely not to go nuclear. And Lawrence Friedman reminds us in his book the Evolution of Nuclear Strategy that the Soviets in the mid-80s were also pushing for nuclear disarmament. So this Set off alarm bells with NATO. You want us to reduce the nukes, perhaps even ditch the nukes, pledge no first use of the nukes yet. This is the area where we are strongest. So this would push us to rely on conventional weaponry, which is where you are strongest. So tell me again how this benefits us. So the whole push for no first use was a bit of a propaganda thing for the Soviets. They got to look like the good guys because they knew that NATO would be forced to reject it. They could stand up at the UN and say, let's adopt no first use. And then they could shake their heads sadly at the rest of the world, spread their hands wide and say, oh well, we tried, we tried. But those Westerners, those capitalists, they wouldn't agree. So yes, the US government took a lot of criticism because Reagan and his Secretary of State said no, we will not adopt no first use. But it's unfair to pin it all in America because they were supported in this by major figures in Western Europe who were quite horrified at the prospect of America withdrawing the so called nuclear umbrella. Soviet tanks could quickly zip across West Germany. It was stressed they could seize it lightning fast using conventional weapons only. So if there was a no first use pledge from NATO, this would mean the Soviets could take Western Europe with relative ease. Unless, and here's where it gets scary, unless, NATO engaged in a massive military build up to make itself equal with the Soviets, equal in terms of conventional weaponry and manpower. But are we to imagine that forcing the west into a huge military buildup was going to be good for the Cold War, for the prospects of keeping the peace? Another problem if NATO did declare no first use, would be that Western Europe, if not immediately conquered by the Soviets, would be, whether justified or not, feeling vulnerable to any such conquest. They haven't rolled the tanks in yet, but they might and we have to assume that they will. We have to plan for the worst case scenario. And so this would mean there would be constant pressure on Western Europe. The Soviets are going to invade, the Soviets are going to take over. They can, they might, we can't stop them, not without that nuclear umbrella. And so the temptation might be to cut a deal with the Soviets and therefore split NATO apart. The American nuclear umbrella, its supporters argued, is what keeps the Komi tanks out of Western Europe and is therefore what keeps the peace. So those were the arguments in favor of the West's refusing to adopt no first use. Another argument was the simple fact of ambiguity. Why should you tell your enemy exactly what you plan to do or exactly what you will not do, keep them guessing. Keep the unspoken threat of nuclear attack. In other words, keep nuclear deterrence. Because doesn't the power of deterrence evaporate if everyone swears they'll never use nukes? First,
[13:21]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
[13:40]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
Everyone treats summer like it owes you happiness. Long days, pool parties, your best life on a loop. So what does it mean when you feel worse? The summer blues are real. It's why summer is one of the busiest stretches of the year for people starting therapy. Grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. GROW connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. The therapist you want takes your insurance on. Grow grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
[14:44]
Atomic Hobo (Podcast Host/Narrator)
So NATO refused to adopt a no first use policy in the 80s, but they stress that they are a defensive alliance and so they won't be launching attacks on anyone unless in response to an attack. And this was the line the government used in its response to Camden when they asked what is your assessment of a nuclear attack on Britain and if we adopted no first use, would that change your assessment? The government ignored the question about what form a nuclear attack would take. And I suppose we can't blame them for that. It's impossible to answer unless they were willing to wade into a whole lot of different scenarios. And that would simply be offering ammunition to your left wing, nuclear free ideological enemy. So they zoomed in on the question of no first use and they copied the NATO line that NATO is all about defence, not attack. And if we did adopt no first use, it would demolish the power of deterrence. And of course that is the government line that it's deterrence, nuclear deterrence, which keeps us safe. It follows then that adopting a policy of no first use would, quote, increase the risk of war. So they managed to turn the question around so that it bit back at Camden. The implication was, if you law had your way, it would heighten the chance of nuclear war. Whereas Camden are arguing, but we want rid of nukes, so that would lessen the chance of nuclear war. That kind of argument can go round and round in circles. Camden, then ask a very clever question. The government always say that there is likely to be a conventional attack. First. They say it's unlikely. We'll all just explode in an instant into a nuclear conflict. No, things will probably start off with conventional weapons used, then it will creep and expand and escalate into nuclear. Okay, say Camden. So let's run with that. A conventional war starts. Cities in Britain are bombed. It's like the Blitz again. In that case, you would of course send the fire brigade and ambulances to the stricken areas. But in planning for nuclear attack, it's always written that the emergency services would be dispersed and away from target areas. And we see this happen in threads. One of my favourite scenes where the fire engines quietly leave Sheffield at night. Well, says Camden, there is clearly a conflict here. You will send the emergency services into bombed cities, conventionally bombed cities, but at the same time you're planning to disperse them away from target cities. So a conventional war demands one response, a nuclear war another. And yet you tell us the nuclear war will likely start as a conventional one, so how can we possibly plan for both? Do you want the ambulances here or do you want them there? They can't be in two places at once. A conflict exists. Well, I can only assume the Home Office saw very clearly what the conflict was and so they avoid it. Telling Camden, I regret that the Home Office is not able to give generalised advice on the best way of dealing with these sort of conflicts. Well, by using that word, they're admitting that, yes, there is a conflict, but they skip an answer to it. We can't give you generalised advice on that. They waffle on that. A lot will depend on local circumstances at the time, blah, blah, blah. If you look at the papers I've posted on Patreon, someone from Camden has scribbled, unable to answer question beside this section. And they're quite right. There is no answer to that. It's one of the impossible but undeniable aspects of planning for nuclear war. So I can imagine the lads at Camden being quite pleased with themselves here. They've tripped the government up nicely with that one. Then with the next question, they throw yet another spanner in the works. They ask about biological warfare. This is another dreadful wartime scenario we need to consider. But a Lot of planning for a biological attack is in direct contradiction to planning for a nuclear attack. For example, in a biological attack, people are advised to avoid being in a crowd, avoid any concentration of people. But nuclear attack planning often calls for gatherings of people, such as the expectation that your local council will set up emergency feeding and rest centres. So here is yet another conflict. How can we plan for both now? There can be no simple answer to this. The Home Office knows it and Camden knows it. The honest answer would be, well, if they hit us with conventional and then nuclear and then biological weapons, then forget it, the game's up. But of course we know that can't be admitted. And Camdena writes, even if they are just trying here to be troublesome and difficult, they're right. A biological attack means don't be in a crowd, get yourself out of the area, strip off your clothing and bathe your skin. But planning for a nuclear attack assumes there will be no running water and any which has been stockpiled must be preserved for life saving drinking and the preparation of food. In short, you can hardly prepare for both types of attack at the same time. They pull emergency planners in different directions. So how does the Government reply? I will quote here from the archived letter. It is not thought likely that biological warfare in the sense of the use of agents to create a spread of infectious disease, is at all likely. It has no direct military purpose and its effects are unpredictable. They go on to say, yes, it's true, if it did happen, you could mitigate its effects by avoiding crowds. But it is very difficult to see how this could be achieved in practice, given the insuperable problems that would arise in housing, feeding and otherwise supporting the population. So the Home Office are being honest here, are they not? Whilst they don't answer the question because there can be no honest, suitable answer, they do at least admit, yeah, you've got us. This would be a tough one. Camden now turned to questions on the scale of attack we might expect. They say the Home Office has for many years now assumed an attack on Britain of about 200 to 220 megatons. And that's what we see in threads. And of course we know threads was heavily based on real life civil defence exercises and planning. So a Threads style scenario is what the Government was predicting. Looking at working with, however, Camden reminds the Home Office that they themselves presented evidence to the British Medical association which said the Soviet Union could indeed batter us with as much as 1,000, perhaps 2,000 megatons. And also in 1981, the defence secretary said more than 1,000 megatons would be needed to destroy the ground launched cruise missiles once they were dispersed. So again we see how the arrival of Cruz in Britain was used again and again against the government. As it should be. It's the job of the opposition to question and needle and protest. It makes us a target, said opponents of Cruz. We've always been a target, said those in favor. But here, Camden stretch the opposition to cruise a bit further than the usual. Oh, it makes us a target. They get down into the horrible detail, which is that if the Soviets decided to target those ground launched cruise missiles, it would require, according to the Defence Secretary himself, 1000 megatons. 1000 on Britain. Incredible to think about. That's Threads times four. Now we know that the cruise missiles, when they arrived in Britain, were placed at two sites, Greenham Common and the less famous Molesworth. That's two locations. Now why would the Soviets need 1,000 megatons to target two easily identifiable sites? Well, it's because of dispersal. If we had a long warning period, which the government was always fond of insisting we would have, then the authorities would have time not only to implement all their civil defence plans, but to disperse military hardware. It's the principle, of course, of not keeping all your eggs in one basket. If war had threatened, our V bombers would have been dispersed to airfields across the country. And the same would have been done with the ground launched cruise missiles. Dispersing them across the country means they can't all be destroyed in direct hits on Greenham and Molesworth. That's true. They're now scattered all over the place. But logic dictates that if the Soviets were determined to hunt down and hit every single dispersal site, then so numerous and scattered would they be that 1000 megatons would be required. And so yes, here I say the left wing opponents of Cruz were entirely correct. The right always said they don't make us more of a target. Get real, we're already a target. True, but the presence of crews on this island, if they'd been dispersed, would have given the Soviets more targets to seek and more megatonnage required for them. And so Camden asks, will the government revise its estimate? Are you sticking with 200 megatons when your very own Defence Secretary was out there talking of 1000? And then Camden say, please give the size of the maximum nuclear attack with which civil defence plans should be designed to cope. Now Camden, I admire your spirit and I get why you're asking this, but you must know there is no way on this Earth. The government will answer that. And yes, that's how it goes. The government duck that question and they just trot out the usual line about how deterrence keeps us safe. Here is that exact line. They say civil defence cannot, quote, offer complete protection against the effects of even a small scale nuclear attack. And this is why the government places so much importance on avoiding war through an effective deterrence strategy within NATO. So as before, they've tried to turn the question around, to bite back at Camden, saying, yes, you're right, nuclear war would be awful and that's why we must cling ever closer to our nukes, because it's deterrence that will keep us safe. So I thought it was quite clever of the Home Office to meet Camden halfway and say, yes, nuclear war would be dreadful. Yes, we know that you might say, get rid of it. Get rid of the threat by getting rid of the nukes. We say deter the threat by having those nukes, by possessing them. The next question asks what the government considers the likely targets to be in a nuclear war. Now, again, the government can't possibly answer that because we all know it depends on a lot of different factors. Is it a limited attack or an all out global holocaust? Is it a decapitation strike or is it one aimed at industrial targets or military or civilian? Is it a first strike or one being done in retaliation? Who is attacking? When are they attacking? Why are they attacking? So the question is maddeningly vague and very general. But then, of course, we need to remind ourselves Camden aren't really asking this question to extract valuable information. They're doing it to be difficult. They're doing it as a way of dragging their heels on civil defense planning, of making a nuisance of themselves and hopefully of trying to shove the Home Office's face into the various contradictions and absurdities which are inherent in nuclear war planning. So the reply, and you can almost sense the Home Office rolling their eyes as they type, is that we can't set out a fixed list of targets because that would be, quote, naive and inflexible. They say there are a wide range of potential targets across the uk and these may include our major cities, and obviously that includes London, which obviously includes Camden. In other words, stop asking daft questions. Camden. You know very well you're going to cop it if it happens. Well, the remainder of the back and forth between Camden and the Home Office is on my Patreon page, so please consider joining us at patreon.com Atomichobo you get access to all the archives. I'VE uploaded over the years plus all the bonus episodes and you get ad free access. I've had loads of people join up in the past week as free members but to read these archives and to get all the bonus episodes you do need to be a paying member. So if you are one of the newest free members, I hope you consider upgrading to the ivy Mike tier. £3amonth and it gets you all of those goodies. And before I go, let me thank my newest patrons, Colin Lennon, Ross C. Brown, Ian Maria Orvananos and Neil Robertson. Thank you all for listening.
[29:35]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah Maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal Valley you in the Bromosphere the new Spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for limited time at participating restaurants. Taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered
[30:05]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
discount Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, Dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24, 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or even just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at aura.com safety protect yourself now@aura.com safety
[31:20]
Acast Podcast Promoter
Acast powers the world's best podc. Here's a show that we recommend. After three years, the world of the award winning horror podcast the Magnus Archives is back with the Magnus Protocol. Immerse yourself in a brand new terror and uncover the secrets behind the mysterious work of the Office of Incident Assessment and Response. And try to find out what really happened to the Magnus Institute. The Remember too many questions can come at a cost. The Magnus Protocol is available now. Wherever you get your podcasts. Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast. Com.

Summary5 min read

Atomic Hobo – “Camden's Clever Questions, Part 2”

Host: Julie McDowall
Date: July 29, 2026

Overview

In this episode, Julie McDowall explores the sharp and subversive tactics used by Camden Borough Council in 1984, as it challenged the UK government over civil defence planning for nuclear war. By dissecting Camden’s pointed questions and the evasive (and at times revealing) government responses, Julie exposes the political theatre, contradictions, and logistical nightmares at the heart of Cold War-era nuclear preparations in Britain.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background: Camden’s Challenge to Civil Defence Mandates

Timestamp: 02:13–07:15

The Conservative central government had compelled local councils to prepare for nuclear war, but many Labour-led “nuclear free” councils (including Camden) opposed the concept itself.
These councils, often hiring lawyers, sought to stall or undermine the government’s mandates by demanding specific disclosures about what exactly to prepare for.
- “You can’t plan for nuclear war. Doing so is dangerous because it implies that nuclear war is survivable.” (Julie McDowall, 02:34)
Camden’s strategy:
1. Stall for time
2. Aggravate political opponents
3. Publicly position themselves as government critics
4. Potentially force government into admission of grim nuclear realities

2. No First Use Policy: The Propaganda Chessboard

Timestamp: 07:16–13:21

Camden questioned whether the government accepted Soviet claims of a European conflict starting as conventional and only escalating to nuclear and asked if NATO’s adoption of “no first use” would alter risk assessments.
Julie breaks down the global debate:
- The Soviets, led by Brezhnev, made a high-profile 1982 declaration at the UN, pledging no nuclear first use—a move with propaganda value.
- The US refused to reciprocate, facing international criticism, even as notable Americans (e.g., Robert McNamara, George Kennan) advocated for no first use.
- The UK and Western European governments largely supported the US stance, fearing that losing the “nuclear umbrella” would leave Europe vulnerable to Soviet conventional superiority.
- Alexander Haig: “It would be, quote, tantamount to making Europe safe for conventional aggression.” (Julie, quoting Haig, 09:55)
- Ambiguity in nuclear policy preserves deterrence—if you say you’ll never use nukes first, you risk neutering that deterrence.

Notable Quote:

“Why should you tell your enemy exactly what you plan to do or exactly what you will not do, keep them guessing. Keep the unspoken threat of nuclear attack.” (Julie McDowall, 12:25)

3. Rebuttal and Strategic Ambiguity in Government Responses

Timestamp: 14:44–17:12

The Home Office sidestepped Camden's specifics, stressing NATO's “defensive alliance” nature and that deterrence, not first use, keeps the peace.
The government line: adopting no first use would “increase the risk of war.” (Julie, paraphrasing the Home Office, 15:20)
Camden’s argument comes full-circle: having nukes supposedly makes us safer; not having them, per the anti-nuclear councils, would lessen the risk. Both sides remain locked in circular logic.

4. Logistical Contradictions: Emergency Services and Biological Attack

Timestamp: 17:13–22:15

Camden pointed out contradictions in planning:
- Conventional vs. Nuclear: For conventional bombing (like WWII), emergency services are sent in; for nuclear, they’re dispersed out for their own safety.
- Biological Warfare: Nuclear planning expects people to congregate in rest/feeding centres, but biological attack protocols call for avoiding crowds. Impossible to reconcile both plans.
The Home Office largely dodged these contradictions:
- “I regret that the Home Office is not able to give generalised advice on the best way of dealing with these sort of conflicts.” (quoted by Julie, 18:44)
- On biological warfare: Government claims it’s unlikely and hard to plan for, but admits that “it is very difficult to see how this could be achieved in practice.” (Julie quoting letter, 21:25)

Memorable Moment:

“If they hit us with conventional and then nuclear and then biological weapons, then forget it, the game's up. But of course we know that can't be admitted.” (Julie McDowall, 21:32)

5. Scale and Scope of Attack – The Megaton Fudge

Timestamp: 22:16–25:35

Camden highlighted government discrepancies in predicted attack scale:
- Historic planning based on 200–220 megatons (see Threads).
- Yet government officials had admitted it could be up to 1,000–2,000 megatons to counter dispersed cruise missiles.
- Camden pressed for a clear maximum figure for civil defence planning. The government refused, sticking to deterrence rhetoric.
The dispersal of cruise missiles meant vastly more targets, thus a higher required yield for an enemy to “cover all bases.”

Notable Quote:

“The presence of cruise on this island, if they'd been dispersed, would have given the Soviets more targets... 1,000 megatons. 1,000 on Britain. Incredible to think about. That's Threads times four.” (Julie McDowall, 24:07)

6. Target Lists: Evasion and Political Theatre

Timestamp: 25:36–27:45

Camden asked for a list of likely UK targets in government scenarios.
The Home Office called such lists “naive and inflexible” and again fell back on generalities: there are “a wide range of potential targets” including “our major cities ... which obviously includes Camden.” (Julie paraphrasing, 27:10)
Julie points out that these questions were less about genuine curiosity and more about exposing the contradictions and political discomfort in the government’s nuclear planning.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On the impossibility of sensible planning:

“How can we possibly plan for both? Do you want the ambulances here or do you want them there? They can't be in two places at once. A conflict exists.” (Julie McDowall, 17:53)
On government honesty—however reluctant:

“Whilst they don't answer the question because there can be no honest, suitable answer, they do at least admit, yeah, you've got us. This would be a tough one.” (Julie McDowall, 21:05)
On political performance:

“They're doing it to be difficult. They're doing it as a way of dragging their heels on civil defense planning, of making a nuisance of themselves and ... shov[ing] the Home Office's face into the various contradictions and absurdities which are inherent in nuclear war planning.” (Julie McDowall, 26:15)

Important Timestamps for Key Segments

Camden's Legal and Political Strategy: 02:13–07:15
The “No First Use” Debate: 07:16–13:21, 14:44–17:12
Civil Defence Contradictions (Emergency Services/Biological Attack): 17:13–22:15
Megaton Debates and Dispersal Dilemma: 22:16–25:35
Target List Absurdity: 25:36–27:45

Episode Tone and Style

Julie McDowall’s narration is wry, sharp, and accessible—balancing dark subject matter with dry British humour and clear-eyed historical analysis. She frequently inserts personal asides, amplifying the absurdity and tragedy of Cold War planning with phrases like “if they hit us with conventional and then nuclear and then biological weapons, then forget it, the game’s up.”

Conclusion

This episode uses Camden's pointed queries to peel back the layers of confusion, denial, and contradiction baked into Britain’s Cold War nuclear preparations—highlighting both the political gamesmanship of local councils and the government’s uneasy reliance on ambiguity and deterrence. Julie’s exploration of the dialogue between Camden and the Home Office offers a vivid, sometimes chilling glimpse into an era defined by impossible choices and unanswerable questions.

For further reading and archival material, Julie encourages listeners to join her Patreon.

Loading summary

Transcript10 lines

[00:00]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with progr between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
[00:36]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
Everyone treats summer like it owes you happiness. Long days, pool parties, your best life on a loop. So what does it mean when you feel worse? The summer blues are real. It's why summer is one of the busiest stretches of the year for people starting Therapy Grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. Grow connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. The therapist you want takes your insurance on Grow grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
[01:36]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken this is unreal value in the bromosphere the new Spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for a limited time at participating restaurants, taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.
[02:13]
Atomic Hobo (Podcast Host/Narrator)
Here we are with part two of Camden's clever questions. First, a quick recap on why Camden Borough Council was asking questions of the government back in 1984 about nuclear war. Central governments, that is the right wing Conservatives in London had compelled local governments across the country to prepare for nuclear war. But a lot of left wing Labour led councils objected saying of course. Well we all know the arguments. You can't plan for nuclear war. Doing so is dangerous because it implies that nuclear war is survivable we won't do it, or we will at least drag our heels and do the bare minimum. This rebellion caused the government a few headaches and some humiliation. So they introduced new rules in 1983 which meant you can't wriggle out of this duty any longer. So the message from the government was, it's 1983, the fun's over. Get your civil defence plans done. Naturally, a lot of the rebel councils bridled at these new rules and the legal obligations that it now placed upon them. And some of them actually hired lawyers to find loopholes, asking them, how can we get out of this? We don't want to prepare for nuclear war. Help us get out of it. The legal advice was refuse to do your civil defence planning until central government have told you exactly what you are planning for. In other words, until they have told you in gruesome, damaging detail exactly what a nuclear war would do to Britain, what it will be like, the numbers of dead which are the targets, until and unless they spill all that dreadful information. You rebellious councils can't possibly plan for nuclear war, because how can you plan if you don't know what you're planning for? Crafty. Of course, there was no way that central government was going to dish out the brutal truth about nuclear war as it would be. Horrific stuff. Look how they tried to silence the war game, look how nervous they were about threads and how they briefed their ministers on how to respond to it in the media. They don't want the public to dwell on the reality of a nuclear war. And so the London Borough of Camden, being one of the left wing rebel councils, they happily took this legal advice on and they wrote to the Home Office saying, we need various questions answered before we can comply with your demands that we prepare for nuclear war. And asking these uncomfortable questions allowed Camden Council to one, stall for time, two, aggravate their political opponents and three, burnish their own credentials as brave left wingers holding the government to account. I suppose there was a fourth reason. The government might, just might, be compelled to provide uncomfortable truths about nuclear war. All of which, as a left wing Labour led Nuclear Free Council, would make Camden politicians very happy. So today we will see what other questions Camden asked of the government in trying to poke and prod and irritate them and make a point about the impossibility planning for nuclear war. Camden asked about the form a nuclear attack would take. And their question had four parts. Firstly, they asked if the government agrees with the Soviet strategists who say that a war in Europe is likely to start as a conventional war and then escalate into nuclear. And they ask would their assessment be affected if NATO chose to adopt a policy of no first use? Okay, so let's look at no first use, which was all over the news at this time thanks to big bushy browed Brezhnev. He had announced in June 1982 that the Soviet Union was adopting a policy of no first use. That is they pledged never to use the nuclear weapons first in any conflict. They would only be used in retaliation. A statement was read at the UN on his behalf by the Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gamyko. And of course the Soviets then urged the USA to join them in this pledge. America refused. There were reasons for that refusal, which we'll look at in a second. But when it came to initial reactions and headlines across the globe, the refusal made the Soviets look noble and made America look to some like nuke happy warmongers. Which was unfair in America because there were several very prominent and thoughtful voices in America at that time arguing for no first use, arguing that yes, we should be doing what the Soviets are doing. Consider the so called Gang of Four, that is former Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union George Kennan, McGeorge Bundy who was National Security Advisor to both JFK and Johnson, and Gerard Smith, a key member of the SALT delegation. So this collection of four very prominent nuclear voices joined forces to press for America adopting a no first use stance. With McNamara arguing that on his watch back in the 60s, America followed a de facto no first use policy. Well, maybe so, but his opponents said times had changed. This might have made sense back in the 60s when America had such a massive nuclear advantage over the Soviet Union, but it just wouldn't fly in the 1980s. So no thanks, said the Reagan administration with the Secretary of State Alexander Haig saying it would be, quote, tantamount to making Europe safe for conventional aggression. It would be withdrawing the nuclear guarantee. America said the nuclear umbrella from Western Europe. It suited the Soviets to push for no first use, not because they were noble and peace loving and cared about humanity, but because they would have been happy to fight a war in Europe that was restricted to conventional weapons only and one which relied on manpower, boots on the ground, because in that aspect they could easily overwhelm NATO in Western Europe. So it suited them nicely not to go nuclear. And Lawrence Friedman reminds us in his book the Evolution of Nuclear Strategy that the Soviets in the mid-80s were also pushing for nuclear disarmament. So this Set off alarm bells with NATO. You want us to reduce the nukes, perhaps even ditch the nukes, pledge no first use of the nukes yet. This is the area where we are strongest. So this would push us to rely on conventional weaponry, which is where you are strongest. So tell me again how this benefits us. So the whole push for no first use was a bit of a propaganda thing for the Soviets. They got to look like the good guys because they knew that NATO would be forced to reject it. They could stand up at the UN and say, let's adopt no first use. And then they could shake their heads sadly at the rest of the world, spread their hands wide and say, oh well, we tried, we tried. But those Westerners, those capitalists, they wouldn't agree. So yes, the US government took a lot of criticism because Reagan and his Secretary of State said no, we will not adopt no first use. But it's unfair to pin it all in America because they were supported in this by major figures in Western Europe who were quite horrified at the prospect of America withdrawing the so called nuclear umbrella. Soviet tanks could quickly zip across West Germany. It was stressed they could seize it lightning fast using conventional weapons only. So if there was a no first use pledge from NATO, this would mean the Soviets could take Western Europe with relative ease. Unless, and here's where it gets scary, unless, NATO engaged in a massive military build up to make itself equal with the Soviets, equal in terms of conventional weaponry and manpower. But are we to imagine that forcing the west into a huge military buildup was going to be good for the Cold War, for the prospects of keeping the peace? Another problem if NATO did declare no first use, would be that Western Europe, if not immediately conquered by the Soviets, would be, whether justified or not, feeling vulnerable to any such conquest. They haven't rolled the tanks in yet, but they might and we have to assume that they will. We have to plan for the worst case scenario. And so this would mean there would be constant pressure on Western Europe. The Soviets are going to invade, the Soviets are going to take over. They can, they might, we can't stop them, not without that nuclear umbrella. And so the temptation might be to cut a deal with the Soviets and therefore split NATO apart. The American nuclear umbrella, its supporters argued, is what keeps the Komi tanks out of Western Europe and is therefore what keeps the peace. So those were the arguments in favor of the West's refusing to adopt no first use. Another argument was the simple fact of ambiguity. Why should you tell your enemy exactly what you plan to do or exactly what you will not do, keep them guessing. Keep the unspoken threat of nuclear attack. In other words, keep nuclear deterrence. Because doesn't the power of deterrence evaporate if everyone swears they'll never use nukes? First,
[13:21]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
[13:40]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
Everyone treats summer like it owes you happiness. Long days, pool parties, your best life on a loop. So what does it mean when you feel worse? The summer blues are real. It's why summer is one of the busiest stretches of the year for people starting therapy. Grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. GROW connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. The therapist you want takes your insurance on. Grow grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
[14:44]
Atomic Hobo (Podcast Host/Narrator)
So NATO refused to adopt a no first use policy in the 80s, but they stress that they are a defensive alliance and so they won't be launching attacks on anyone unless in response to an attack. And this was the line the government used in its response to Camden when they asked what is your assessment of a nuclear attack on Britain and if we adopted no first use, would that change your assessment? The government ignored the question about what form a nuclear attack would take. And I suppose we can't blame them for that. It's impossible to answer unless they were willing to wade into a whole lot of different scenarios. And that would simply be offering ammunition to your left wing, nuclear free ideological enemy. So they zoomed in on the question of no first use and they copied the NATO line that NATO is all about defence, not attack. And if we did adopt no first use, it would demolish the power of deterrence. And of course that is the government line that it's deterrence, nuclear deterrence, which keeps us safe. It follows then that adopting a policy of no first use would, quote, increase the risk of war. So they managed to turn the question around so that it bit back at Camden. The implication was, if you law had your way, it would heighten the chance of nuclear war. Whereas Camden are arguing, but we want rid of nukes, so that would lessen the chance of nuclear war. That kind of argument can go round and round in circles. Camden, then ask a very clever question. The government always say that there is likely to be a conventional attack. First. They say it's unlikely. We'll all just explode in an instant into a nuclear conflict. No, things will probably start off with conventional weapons used, then it will creep and expand and escalate into nuclear. Okay, say Camden. So let's run with that. A conventional war starts. Cities in Britain are bombed. It's like the Blitz again. In that case, you would of course send the fire brigade and ambulances to the stricken areas. But in planning for nuclear attack, it's always written that the emergency services would be dispersed and away from target areas. And we see this happen in threads. One of my favourite scenes where the fire engines quietly leave Sheffield at night. Well, says Camden, there is clearly a conflict here. You will send the emergency services into bombed cities, conventionally bombed cities, but at the same time you're planning to disperse them away from target cities. So a conventional war demands one response, a nuclear war another. And yet you tell us the nuclear war will likely start as a conventional one, so how can we possibly plan for both? Do you want the ambulances here or do you want them there? They can't be in two places at once. A conflict exists. Well, I can only assume the Home Office saw very clearly what the conflict was and so they avoid it. Telling Camden, I regret that the Home Office is not able to give generalised advice on the best way of dealing with these sort of conflicts. Well, by using that word, they're admitting that, yes, there is a conflict, but they skip an answer to it. We can't give you generalised advice on that. They waffle on that. A lot will depend on local circumstances at the time, blah, blah, blah. If you look at the papers I've posted on Patreon, someone from Camden has scribbled, unable to answer question beside this section. And they're quite right. There is no answer to that. It's one of the impossible but undeniable aspects of planning for nuclear war. So I can imagine the lads at Camden being quite pleased with themselves here. They've tripped the government up nicely with that one. Then with the next question, they throw yet another spanner in the works. They ask about biological warfare. This is another dreadful wartime scenario we need to consider. But a Lot of planning for a biological attack is in direct contradiction to planning for a nuclear attack. For example, in a biological attack, people are advised to avoid being in a crowd, avoid any concentration of people. But nuclear attack planning often calls for gatherings of people, such as the expectation that your local council will set up emergency feeding and rest centres. So here is yet another conflict. How can we plan for both now? There can be no simple answer to this. The Home Office knows it and Camden knows it. The honest answer would be, well, if they hit us with conventional and then nuclear and then biological weapons, then forget it, the game's up. But of course we know that can't be admitted. And Camdena writes, even if they are just trying here to be troublesome and difficult, they're right. A biological attack means don't be in a crowd, get yourself out of the area, strip off your clothing and bathe your skin. But planning for a nuclear attack assumes there will be no running water and any which has been stockpiled must be preserved for life saving drinking and the preparation of food. In short, you can hardly prepare for both types of attack at the same time. They pull emergency planners in different directions. So how does the Government reply? I will quote here from the archived letter. It is not thought likely that biological warfare in the sense of the use of agents to create a spread of infectious disease, is at all likely. It has no direct military purpose and its effects are unpredictable. They go on to say, yes, it's true, if it did happen, you could mitigate its effects by avoiding crowds. But it is very difficult to see how this could be achieved in practice, given the insuperable problems that would arise in housing, feeding and otherwise supporting the population. So the Home Office are being honest here, are they not? Whilst they don't answer the question because there can be no honest, suitable answer, they do at least admit, yeah, you've got us. This would be a tough one. Camden now turned to questions on the scale of attack we might expect. They say the Home Office has for many years now assumed an attack on Britain of about 200 to 220 megatons. And that's what we see in threads. And of course we know threads was heavily based on real life civil defence exercises and planning. So a Threads style scenario is what the Government was predicting. Looking at working with, however, Camden reminds the Home Office that they themselves presented evidence to the British Medical association which said the Soviet Union could indeed batter us with as much as 1,000, perhaps 2,000 megatons. And also in 1981, the defence secretary said more than 1,000 megatons would be needed to destroy the ground launched cruise missiles once they were dispersed. So again we see how the arrival of Cruz in Britain was used again and again against the government. As it should be. It's the job of the opposition to question and needle and protest. It makes us a target, said opponents of Cruz. We've always been a target, said those in favor. But here, Camden stretch the opposition to cruise a bit further than the usual. Oh, it makes us a target. They get down into the horrible detail, which is that if the Soviets decided to target those ground launched cruise missiles, it would require, according to the Defence Secretary himself, 1000 megatons. 1000 on Britain. Incredible to think about. That's Threads times four. Now we know that the cruise missiles, when they arrived in Britain, were placed at two sites, Greenham Common and the less famous Molesworth. That's two locations. Now why would the Soviets need 1,000 megatons to target two easily identifiable sites? Well, it's because of dispersal. If we had a long warning period, which the government was always fond of insisting we would have, then the authorities would have time not only to implement all their civil defence plans, but to disperse military hardware. It's the principle, of course, of not keeping all your eggs in one basket. If war had threatened, our V bombers would have been dispersed to airfields across the country. And the same would have been done with the ground launched cruise missiles. Dispersing them across the country means they can't all be destroyed in direct hits on Greenham and Molesworth. That's true. They're now scattered all over the place. But logic dictates that if the Soviets were determined to hunt down and hit every single dispersal site, then so numerous and scattered would they be that 1000 megatons would be required. And so yes, here I say the left wing opponents of Cruz were entirely correct. The right always said they don't make us more of a target. Get real, we're already a target. True, but the presence of crews on this island, if they'd been dispersed, would have given the Soviets more targets to seek and more megatonnage required for them. And so Camden asks, will the government revise its estimate? Are you sticking with 200 megatons when your very own Defence Secretary was out there talking of 1000? And then Camden say, please give the size of the maximum nuclear attack with which civil defence plans should be designed to cope. Now Camden, I admire your spirit and I get why you're asking this, but you must know there is no way on this Earth. The government will answer that. And yes, that's how it goes. The government duck that question and they just trot out the usual line about how deterrence keeps us safe. Here is that exact line. They say civil defence cannot, quote, offer complete protection against the effects of even a small scale nuclear attack. And this is why the government places so much importance on avoiding war through an effective deterrence strategy within NATO. So as before, they've tried to turn the question around, to bite back at Camden, saying, yes, you're right, nuclear war would be awful and that's why we must cling ever closer to our nukes, because it's deterrence that will keep us safe. So I thought it was quite clever of the Home Office to meet Camden halfway and say, yes, nuclear war would be dreadful. Yes, we know that you might say, get rid of it. Get rid of the threat by getting rid of the nukes. We say deter the threat by having those nukes, by possessing them. The next question asks what the government considers the likely targets to be in a nuclear war. Now, again, the government can't possibly answer that because we all know it depends on a lot of different factors. Is it a limited attack or an all out global holocaust? Is it a decapitation strike or is it one aimed at industrial targets or military or civilian? Is it a first strike or one being done in retaliation? Who is attacking? When are they attacking? Why are they attacking? So the question is maddeningly vague and very general. But then, of course, we need to remind ourselves Camden aren't really asking this question to extract valuable information. They're doing it to be difficult. They're doing it as a way of dragging their heels on civil defense planning, of making a nuisance of themselves and hopefully of trying to shove the Home Office's face into the various contradictions and absurdities which are inherent in nuclear war planning. So the reply, and you can almost sense the Home Office rolling their eyes as they type, is that we can't set out a fixed list of targets because that would be, quote, naive and inflexible. They say there are a wide range of potential targets across the uk and these may include our major cities, and obviously that includes London, which obviously includes Camden. In other words, stop asking daft questions. Camden. You know very well you're going to cop it if it happens. Well, the remainder of the back and forth between Camden and the Home Office is on my Patreon page, so please consider joining us at patreon.com Atomichobo you get access to all the archives. I'VE uploaded over the years plus all the bonus episodes and you get ad free access. I've had loads of people join up in the past week as free members but to read these archives and to get all the bonus episodes you do need to be a paying member. So if you are one of the newest free members, I hope you consider upgrading to the ivy Mike tier. £3amonth and it gets you all of those goodies. And before I go, let me thank my newest patrons, Colin Lennon, Ross C. Brown, Ian Maria Orvananos and Neil Robertson. Thank you all for listening.
[29:35]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah Maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal Valley you in the Bromosphere the new Spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for limited time at participating restaurants. Taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered
[30:05]
Grow Therapy and Aura Advertiser
discount Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, Dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24, 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or even just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at aura.com safety protect yourself now@aura.com safety
[31:20]
Acast Podcast Promoter
Acast powers the world's best podc. Here's a show that we recommend. After three years, the world of the award winning horror podcast the Magnus Archives is back with the Magnus Protocol. Immerse yourself in a brand new terror and uncover the secrets behind the mysterious work of the Office of Incident Assessment and Response. And try to find out what really happened to the Magnus Institute. The Remember too many questions can come at a cost. The Magnus Protocol is available now. Wherever you get your podcasts. Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast. Com.