Hubbry Logo
Square LegSquare LegMain
Open search
Square Leg
Community hub
Square Leg
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Square Leg
Square Leg
Square Leg
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
'Square Leg' target plot

Square Leg was a British government home defence Command Post and field exercise which was held from 11 to 25 September 1980[1] and which tested the Transition to War and Home Defence roles of the Ministry of Defence and British government. Part of the exercise involved a mock nuclear attack on Britain; the exercise scenario of 150[2] nuclear weapons striking Britain, with "almost all" of these weapons having a yield ranging from 500 kilotons to 3 megatons[3] and a resulting total yield of 280.5 megatons,[2] was felt to be reasonably realistic, but the post-exercise report stated that a total strike in excess of 1,000 megatons would be likely. An increased ratio of ground bursts to air bursts was depicted to provide all the regional NBC cells with radioactive fallout challenges,[4] with underwater bursts also being depicted.[5] Furthermore, the scenario was altered from official assessments as these were highly classified and many participants did not have the appropriate clearance to see them.[4]

Partial[6] bomb plots were released for England and Wales[3] and for Scotland,[7] but not for Northern Ireland.[8] While official casualty figures were not provided, Stan Openshaw and Philip Steadman produced an independent estimate of 29 million deaths (53 percent of the population) and 7 million seriously injured (12 percent), with short-term survivors numbering 19 million (35 percent).[nb 1][6]

Square Leg was criticised for a number of reasons: the weapons used were exclusively in the high-yield megaton range, with an average of 1.5 Mt per bomb, but a realistic attack based on known Soviet capabilities would have seen mixed weapons yields, including many missile-based warheads in the low-hundred-kiloton range. Also, no targets in Inner London were attacked (for example, Whitehall, the centre of British government), though collateral damage from strikes on Outer London targets and on Potters Bar and Ongar[nb 2] meant that much of the Inner London area was still destroyed;[3][9] towns such as Eastbourne were hit for no obvious reason.[nb 3][10] All government and military bunkers were assumed to have survived for exercise purposes, although Kelvedon Hatch Sub-Regional Headquarters had difficulty in establishing regional control.[4] The United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation was not a "live" participant, with the strike data it would have provided instead being pre-recorded and played into the exercise as it proceeded, an aspect that was criticised by participants after the exercise.[4]

The Lothian Regional Council refused to participate in Square Leg,[9] and the exercise came under journalistic scrutiny after its details were leaked to the press,[9][11] but otherwise, despite providing a "major boost" to the nuclear disarmament movement,[12] it was not met with significant opposition in the way that the later Hard Rock exercise would be.

Timeline of main events and civil and armed forces actions

[edit]

Transition to War

[edit]

The following table shows the hypothetical pre-strike event list drawn from the national Main Event List for Square Leg, testing the Transition to War stage.[13]

Date Event
January 1980 Warsaw Pact, which has recently come under new leadership, holds military exercises similar to those usually held in the summer. While Pact forces would normally return to base after end of exercise, on this occasion they remain close to NATO's frontier.[14]
April - August 1980 Soviet Union demands that Norway and Denmark withdraw from NATO, sparking diplomatic tension that continues into August. Public reaction is calm as the situation is believed to be just another deterioration in East-West relations.[14]
By early August 1980 NATO commanders declare a state of vigilance in anticipation of war. Reserve forces are mobilised and civil defence planning is initiated at a covert level.

"A very few senior key personnel" man SRHQs while County and District authorities begin attack preparations.

UKWMO is briefed and begins its own preparations.

Planning is not publicly admitted to at this stage in order to avoid public alarm and in order not to precipitate an attack (it is still hoped that a diplomatic solution can be reached).[14]

Prior to and including 15 August Planning becomes more overt in the continued absence of a diplomatic solution. Major urban centres clear their hospitals of patients and all but a few staff members in order to make way for anticipated casualties, prompting protests from patients and their families, and from local authorities who find themselves facing increased pressure on care home places.[14]

Cabinet instructs all departments and specified authorities to review their plans for Transition to War.[15] SRHQs and local authority emergency centres are fully prepared.[14]

16 August Fuel rationing imposed,[15] leading to queues at petrol stations and police needing to be drafted in to prevent hoarding.[14]
27 August Government requests preparations to be made to remove art treasures.[15][14]
31 August Industrial unrest and large-scale activity by extreme left- and right-wing parties.[15] Resentment is directed at the heavier than usual police presence and the police's role in controlling subversives and potential subversives. Multiple arrests made under emergency powers. Arson attacks on industrial sites, supermarkets, etc. Police require military assistance to quell some of the unrest; they manage to do so without shots being fired.[14]
1 September Considerable cross-Channel movement into the UK by expatriate families on a self-evacuation basis.[15][14]
7 September Prime Minister addresses nation via TV and radio.[15][14]
9 September Secretary of State authorises power of direction over British Airways[15] and national shipping.[14]
11 September Prime Minister again addresses nation.[15][14]
12 September Protect and Survive instructions, which were already available at libraries and HMSO in pamphlet form,[14] are issued through the media.[15] Those who intend to follow instructions begin doing so.[14]

Cabinet approves Queen's Order 2,[15] effectively dissolving Parliament and granting emergency powers to the government.[14]

Directed food buying (by government departments, police, and military services, etc.),[15] accompanied by panic buying breaking out in some areas and subsequent price rises.[14]

Noticeable rundown of industry.[15] Key points[nb 4] placed under guard. Essential Service Routes designated and closed off to the general public; few local authorities have dedicated plans, with others either repurposing existing plans or acting in a completely improvised manner. Between ten and thirty per cent of persons in perceived target areas ignore advice to stay at home and instead self-evacuate, causing further difficulties for local authorities who are under no obligation to assist such evacuees (though some do).[14]

Local authorities, MPs, police, and the services swamped with offers of help in forming some sort of civil defence/Home Guard organisation.[15] Local authority attitudes vary; many turn down offers of civilian help despite government encouragement to use such help, while some others take on civilians with relevant skills in order to make up for staff desertions.[14]

13 September Prime Minister speaks to nation for a third time.[15][14]

Panic food buying continues.[15]

15 September General Alert and war declared. Fighting breaks out on continent. Conventional bombing on defence related targets in UK. Public reaction to bombing is mixed - those living in high-rise flats and in areas generally thought to be obvious targets leave home quickly.

Industry seriously affected. Schools close in afternoon.[15][14]

17 September Fighting on continent escalates.[14]

Government authorises local authorities to staff their wartime headquarters.

Public passenger transport operating at fifty per cent of capacity.

Government orders manning of headquarters in the Regions.[15][14]

19 September Satellites and RAF Fylingdales detect incoming nuclear attack.[14] Attack Warning Red 11.55 am. Nuclear strike starts at 12.01 pm[15] and ends at 12.10 pm.[3] Strike mainly hits military and communications targets, though civilian areas are also targeted.[14]

Loss of RAF Fylingdales and other communication difficulties caused by the first strike mean that no warning can be provided when a second strike begins.[14] This strike starts at 13.00 and sporadically "drift[s] in" until 15.00,[3] and targets population centres and industrial sites along with some repeat strikes on first wave targets.[14]

Survival

[edit]

The following table of Square Leg's 'survival' period, detailing the events that occurred in the first two weeks following the attack, is extracted from the Warwickshire County War Diary.[17]

Date Event
20 September Daily food requirements - 680,700 rations. Eighteen thousand people (in refugee camps) suffering third-degree burns. Isolated reports of refugees leaving West Midlands area.
22 September Casualty aid points swamped. Hospitals and improvised hospitals full.

Decision taken to conserve police strength with a view to deployment of Police Support Units later.

23 September Commence mass advice to achieve public order.

Reappraise triage. Request medical aid from military.

24 September Establish additional casualty aid points close to existing where possible. Commit to home nursing casualties who will probably die. Commence grave-digging operations.

(Transport) Remove dead from casualty aid points; remove dead from damaged areas as radiation levels permit. Fire situation in county under control.

25 September Identify rationing levels of food and water. Identify additional rationing requirements of workers. Flow of refugees from the West Midlands is indicated; 31,000 to North Warwickshire, 12,000 to South Warwickshire.
27 September Casualty figures Rugby area is indicated 30,000 plus estimate, Nuneaton area 17,000 plus. Large numbers of persons suffering first stages of radiation sickness. Arrange for establishment of decontamination units. Consider variations to law - liaise with police.
28 September Estimate 100,000 plus refugees coming from West Midlands - most injured/shocked/irradiated. Consider disinfection in Rugby/Coventry area to avert disease. Liaise with military for aircraft for spraying. Control of refugees in the west of the county impossible at this date.

(Via Wartime Broadcasting System) advise public on measures being taken to alleviate rioting and looting. Produce advice to encourage 'Good Neighbourly' behaviour towards refugees. Advise public with regard to disposal of dead bodies. Advise populace not to leave their areas.

29 September Numbers increasing at casualty aid points, priority being given to savable under-thirties. Anticipate refugee figures to be 200,000 plus. Further requests to Sub-Regional HQ for additional food; SRHQ directive received - conserve food.
30 September Arrange collection of food from Buffer Depots. Liaise with police and military for convoy guards. Food to be held and guarded in district stores. Deaths becoming a serious problem, liaise with transport and works for speedier removal of bodies from casualty aid points. Advise public on action to be taken re looting - particularly theft of food. Call for volunteers to assist with transport and works tasks.
1 October Notification from SRHQ; twenty-five per cent of food requirements for refugees to come from local Buffer Depots. Police Support Units established and deployed to areas where refugees are known to be located. Consider establishment of interim police controls in known trouble areas.
2 October Feeding to commence at 1800 hrs. Calorific content of meals will be six hundred + one pint of water (non-workers), 800 + two pints of water (workers). Meals provided for infant feeding totally inadequate, request additional supplies.

Known casualty figures 37,000; seriously injured 67,000. Radiation sickness entering third stage. Disease control absolute priority. All Essential Service Routes cleared. Identify and prepare additional burial resources. Advise public on location and times Feeding Centres will be open, safe routes to them (and) emphasize subsistence level of feeding in operation.

Police and military tasks during this and the Recovery period were set out as follows:[18]

  • "Maintenance of law and order - greatest problem [in] urban areas"
  • "Control of selfish and disgruntled minorities"
  • "Support and protect special courts"
  • "Execution of sentences" (military only)
  • "Key points protection and reinforcement"
  • "Protection of convoys"
  • "Guards for controls"
  • "Personal protection for VIPs"
  • "Subjugation and elimination of hostile elements"
  • "Control of weapons"
  • "Bomb disposal" (military only)
  • "Supervision and control of operations involving the use of explosives, e.g. demolitions"
  • "Guards on internment areas"
  • "Assisting in control at communal feeding centres"
  • "Enforcement of controls to prevent the spread of disease"
  • "Manning any pre-planned pattern of military stations and posts"
  • "Maintenance and control of Essential Service Routes"
  • "Control of movement"
  • Tasks regarding the training of new personnel "to compensate for wastage"
  • Reconnaissance tasks
  • Advisory tasks

Recovery

[edit]

The 'recovery' period reports are drawn from the Gloucestershire County War Diary's log of requests for military support.[19]

Date Request to military staff Response
3 October Request for air reconnaissance at Little Rissington food depot. No response.
Provide armed troops to assist police at ten locations on M5 Motorway. Thirty men deployed.
Provide coils of barbed wire. Barbed wire requested.
Provide armed troops to assist troops at Gloucester to:

(a) quell disturbance involving eight thousand persons.

(b) guard a food warehouse at Hare Lane.

(a) Twenty-five troops sent.

(b) Twenty-five troops despatched.

Provide ambulances, trained first aid personnel and medical supplies. No ambulances, trained first aid personnel or medical supplies available. Some vehicles and drivers only.
Provide armed troops to assist police with law and order problems at Cirencester, Cinderford, Lydney and Newnham. Thirty armed men made available for Cirencester. Due to radiation hazard, (it is) not considered effective to send armed parties into other areas at this time.
Provide armed guards to secure [Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food] warehouse. County Military HQ requested [Armed Forces HQ] 7[nb 5] to provide assistance from east of county due to radiation levels.
4 October Provide assistance to police at Gloucester to deal with law and order problem. Fifteen men from Hare Lane detailed for this task.
Secure and guard a food warehouse at Cirencester. Twenty armed men despatched from Innsworth at 0930 hrs.
Provide guards at twelve food supply and cooking centres throughout the country (sic, most likely meant to be county instead). Provide escorts on ten food supply vehicles. Five armed guards provided at each location. Two armed guards provided for each vehicle.
Assist police to prevent hostile crowd gaining access to Gloucester District Wartime HQ. Twenty armed men made available.
Assist police at GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters in Cheltenham) which is under attack by looters and refugees. Two mechanized platoons despatched at 1400 hrs.
Accommodate five thousand homeless at RAF Innsworth. Cannot accommodate at RAF Innsworth but could take four thousand two hundred at RAF Quedgely (sic). Vehicles available at Aschurch (sic), but no drivers or fuel.
Provide hygiene and sanitation teams and equipment at Cheltenham. Provide rodenticides and disinfectants. Unable to assist.
Provide security patrols and barbed wire at Special Rest Centre at Stroud for suspected disease-carrying refugees. Two platoons despatched to Stroud. No stocks of barbed wire available.
Provide assistance to Ministry of Agriculture officers who have been prevented by hostile crowd from arranging the despatch of food from a market garden. 1630hrs. Wessex helicopter and twelve soldiers sent to scene.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Square Leg

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Square leg is a standard fielding position in , situated on the of the pitch, perpendicular to the line of the and roughly level with the batsman's stance. This placement allows the fielder to intercept shots directed towards the leg side, such as flicks, pulls, or hooks played off the batsman's pads or body. The position's proximity to the square leg umpire—often standing just behind or beside the fielder—facilitates quick consultations on leg-before-wicket decisions and other close calls, though the fielder must avoid obstructing the official's view. Variations include short square leg, a closer, more aggressive spot suited for catching deflections or mistimed shots at risk of injury from the ball or batsman's follow-through, and deep square leg or backward square leg, positioned nearer the boundary to prevent fours or sixes from powerful leg-side strokes. Under fielding restrictions, no more than two fielders (excluding the wicketkeeper) may occupy the leg-side quadrant behind during powerplays or non-striker's end overs, a rule designed to curb overly defensive setups and promote attacking play while preventing tactics like bodyline . Strategically, fielders are crucial in containing runs against right-handed batsmen, who often favor leg-side scoring, and their positioning influences plans, such as encouraging short-pitched deliveries to induce aerial shots.

Background and Context

Cold War Nuclear Threat Environment

The nuclear threat to the stemmed from the superpower rivalry between allies, led by the , and the , dominated by the , which maintained doctrines of and potential first use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional defeats or escalatory scenarios. By , the Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal included over 7,000 warheads deliverable by intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) such as the SS-18 Satan, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) on Delta-class submarines, and long-range bombers like the Tu-95 , with growing emphasis on theater systems threatening European members including the . These capabilities were assessed to enable strikes on UK targets, including airfields hosting US and RAF nuclear-capable aircraft, the Polaris submarine base at Faslane, major cities like and Birmingham, and industrial ports, potentially involving hundreds of warheads in a full exchange to decapitate command structures and infrastructure. The UK's independent deterrent, comprising four Polaris SLBM-armed submarines with about 64 warheads each, was intended to ensure retaliation but relied on US technology and targeting data, rendering Britain vulnerable as a forward base. Escalation risks were amplified by perceived Warsaw Pact conventional superiority in , with Soviet forces outnumbering 3:1 in tanks and artillery along the Central Front, raising fears that a conventional invasion could prompt tactical nuclear use by either side, spilling over to strategic levels. Soviet deployments of intermediate-range SS-20 Saber missiles from 1977 onward—mobile, MIRV-capable systems with 5,000 km range—created an imbalance in European theater forces, prompting 's 1979 dual-track decision to modernize with and ground-launched cruise missiles while pursuing . Tensions peaked in late 1979 with the Soviet invasion of on December 24, disrupting SALT II ratification and shifting perceptions from to confrontation, as evidenced by ministers' warnings of unabated Warsaw Pact military growth eroding the East-West balance. government assessments, informed by on Soviet plans, projected that a general could involve 100-200 warheads on British soil, causing immediate fatalities in the tens of millions from blast, heat, and fallout, with long-term from and loss. Civil defense planning grappled with the doctrine of (MAD), where both superpowers' arsenals guaranteed societal devastation, yet Soviet writings suggested willingness for "limited" nuclear wars to exploit hesitations, heightening urgency for simulations like Square Leg. Declassified analyses later confirmed Soviet targeting prioritized nuclear assets in the , such as RAF stations at Greenham Common and Upper Heyford, to neutralize retaliatory strikes early in conflict. While efforts like the unratified SALT II treaty of June 1979 capped some strategic systems, asymmetries in throw-weight (Soviet ICBMs carrying 3-4 times US equivalents) and submarine quieting favored Moscow's ability to threaten survival first. This environment underscored Britain's exposure, with no feasible evacuation or sheltering fully mitigating megaton-scale attacks, driving policy toward deterrence over survivability despite public skepticism from groups like the .

Prior Civil Defense Exercises

Prior to Exercise Square Leg in 1980, British civil defence preparations for nuclear war emphasized policy planning and limited training over large-scale simulations. The 1955 Strath Committee report, evaluating hydrogen bomb effects, projected up to 50% population casualties from fallout alone in a single city strike, recommending mass evacuation and deep shelters, but these measures were deemed economically unfeasible, resulting in minimal implementation and no associated national exercises. Instead, early Cold War efforts under the Civil Defence Act 1948 involved the formation of the Civil Defence Corps in 1949, which conducted routine local drills for air raid precautions adapted to nuclear risks, focusing on warden training and basic shelter exercises rather than full attack scenarios. During the , following crises like the 1962 , civil defence activity increased modestly, with exercises noted retrospectively as the most significant until the . These were predominantly command-post operations run from regional bunkers, such as those in the Regional Centres of , testing administrative coordination for wartime government survival and amid assumed strikes, but excluding widespread field maneuvers or public mobilization. Participation was confined to officials and select emergency services, reflecting a strategic prioritization of elite continuity over mass casualty response, with casualty estimates from theoretical models indicating limited survivability. The 1970s saw further contraction after the 1968 disbandment of the , shifting responsibility to underfunded local authorities amid détente-era complacency. Drills remained small-scale and regional, such as simulated evacuations and rescue operations documented in areas like Hull's Operation Exodus, emphasizing conventional hazards with nuclear elements grafted on theoretically. No comprehensive national exercise preceded Square Leg, underscoring the latter's novelty in incorporating field elements, saboteur defense, and post-attack recovery phases beyond bunker isolation. This historical restraint stemmed from official assessments of nuclear war's futility for civilian populations, prioritizing deterrence via alliances.

Objectives of the Exercise

Exercise Square Leg was designed to test the 's home defence plans and procedures in a simulated nuclear war , as part of the broader exercise Crusader 80 conducted from 11 to 25 1980. Its primary objectives focused on evaluating the effectiveness of civil defence arrangements, including coordination between , regional commissioners, local authorities, and military units during , immediate post-strike , and recovery phases. The exercise aimed to assess structures, such as the functionality of underground regional government headquarters and communication networks, to identify gaps in operational readiness under conditions of widespread nuclear devastation. A key aim was to simulate the impacts of a Soviet nuclear assault involving approximately 131 warheads totaling 205 megatons—comprising 69 ground bursts and 62 air bursts—to gauge the resilience of infrastructure, population centers, and emergency services. This included testing civil participation in managing mass casualties, refugee movements, fallout zones, and the maintenance of law and order in urban areas, where disruptions from radiation, resource shortages, and social unrest were anticipated to pose the greatest challenges. By incorporating field elements alongside command post simulations, the exercise sought to validate the integration of military home defence with civilian responses, ensuring devolved authority could sustain governance amid potential central command disruptions. Overall, Square Leg's objectives emphasized practical evaluation over theoretical modeling, prioritizing the rehearsal of wartime , provisioning, and post-attack stabilization to refine Britain's defensive posture without assuming exhaustive predictive accuracy for specific attack outcomes. This approach aligned with efforts to bolster civil defence following the home defence review, which had highlighted prior inadequacies in preparing for prolonged nuclear conflict.

Exercise Methodology

Scenario Parameters and Assumptions

The Square Leg exercise simulated a Soviet nuclear attack on the United Kingdom involving 131 warheads with a total explosive yield of 205 megatons, equivalent to approximately 14,000 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. This comprised 69 ground bursts, intended to maximize fallout and damage to hardened targets such as military bases and infrastructure, and 62 air bursts, optimized for blast effects over urban and softer targets. The average yield per warhead was set at 1.5 megatons, reflecting planners' estimates of Soviet strategic capabilities in a full-scale escalation. Targets were selected based on their strategic value, encompassing bases, facilities, installations, government command centers, and major population centers to disrupt command, control, communications, and civilian morale. No strikes were modeled on government sites like , though peripheral urban areas faced hypothetical hits; unexplained rural or secondary targets, such as , were included to simulate broader strikes. The scenario assumed a two-phase delivery: an initial rapid strike shortly after warning, followed by a secondary wave, occurring amid ongoing conventional NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict in . Key assumptions included limited success of British and allied air defenses, permitting near-total penetration of the attack; static distributions without full-scale pre-attack evacuation; and meteorological conditions favoring widespread fallout dispersion, particularly from ground bursts. Planners did not account for dynamics or potential U.S. intercepts, focusing instead on unilateral Soviet execution against territory. These parameters projected immediate casualties of 29 million dead (53% of the ) and 7 million seriously injured (12%), with 19 million short-term survivors (35%), underscoring the exercise's emphasis on post-attack civil resilience amid systemic overload. Reports from the exercise, drawn from briefs, highlighted that such yields exceeded prior simulations, reflecting updated intelligence on Soviet arsenal growth by 1980.

Participating Entities and Structure

Square Leg was coordinated primarily by the , which held overarching responsibility for civil defence planning and integration with military operations during the exercise period from 11 to 25 September 1980. The played a central role in simulating armed forces responses, including army units tested under the concurrent Autumn Forge series, particularly the large-scale Crusader 80 maneuver involving deployments across Europe. Civil defence elements drew in regional scientific advisers, local authority representatives, and personnel from the Warning and Monitoring Organisation (UKWMO), including observers tasked with fallout monitoring simulations. Participation extended to emergency planning officers and sub-regional control (SRC) staff, who activated mock command posts to assess post-strike coordination. The exercise structure followed a tiered designed to replicate the UK's statutory home defence framework under wartime emergency powers legislation, such as the Civil Defence Act 1948 and Defence Regulations. At the national level, central government entities operated from protected sites like the (CGWHQ) at Burlington Bunker, simulating Cabinet-level decision-making and resource allocation amid escalating conflict. Regional tiers involved commissioners and SRCs—typically 12-15 sub-regions—for delegating authority, managing survivor aid, and interfacing with military district commands. Local structures emphasized municipal emergency committees, volunteer auxiliaries (drawing on pre-1968 models), and sector wardens for immediate fallout sheltering, casualty , and basic services restoration, with over 1,000 personnel engaged in command post simulations nationwide. Integration with NATO's broader Autumn Forge framework allowed for cross-entity , but Square Leg remained UK-focused, emphasizing domestic survival over alliance-wide maneuvers; this included field elements for select military units but prioritized desk-based play for civil entities to evaluate command chain resilience against assumed Soviet strikes totaling 131 warheads. Observer teams from allied nations provided limited input, though primary execution rested with participants to test unilateral recovery assumptions. This organization revealed coordination gaps, such as inadequate local-miliary linkages, later critiqued in declassified reviews.

Simulation Techniques and Data Sources

The simulation techniques in Exercise Square Leg combined command post exercises at regional seats of and central with limited field components to replicate wartime command structures and local response actions. Participants received timed "injects"—pre-scripted messages detailing warnings, detonation reports, and emerging crises—via simulated communication networks, including teleprinters and radio, to test under disrupted conditions. These methods drew from NATO-aligned wargaming protocols, emphasizing phased progression from conventional escalation to nuclear exchange, with manual tracking of events on maps and logs rather than real-time digital systems prevalent in later exercises. Nuclear effects were modelled using established physics-based calculations for blast , thermal , prompt , and initial ignition, calibrated against data from atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the and in the . Ground and air bursts—totaling 131 warheads with an aggregate yield of approximately 200 megatons—were plotted against prioritized targets including airfields, ports, and urban-industrial nodes, derived from intelligence estimates of Soviet intercontinental ballistic and submarine-launched payloads. Casualty estimates integrated population-at-risk assessments, applying survival probabilities (e.g., 50% lethality at 5 psi overpressure for unsheltered individuals) adjusted for time of day and building types. Primary data sources included the 1971 Census of Population for demographic distributions at local authority levels, supplemented by military surveys of . Weapon performance parameters stemmed from declassified test yields and classified assessments of Soviet arsenals, while fallout simulations employed simplified dispersion models based on historical wind roses and assumed burst heights to delineate contamination contours. These inputs yielded projections of around 29 million casualties, though reliant on assumptions of partial sheltering and no secondary fires, which some analyses later deemed optimistic given empirical fire data from and .

Chronological Phases

Transition to War

The phase of Exercise Square Leg simulated the escalation from peacetime tensions to imminent nuclear conflict, emphasizing the activation of civil defense protocols under the Government framework. This phase, spanning the exercise's initial period from 11 1980, modeled a precautionary period of at least seven days triggered by Cabinet assessment of indicating an attack was probable, during which covert measures such as 24-hour staffing of key offices and initial wartime headquarters readiness were implemented without widespread public disruption. Central government leadership, including the , planned to remain in to sustain national morale and diplomatic efforts, deferring relocation to underground facilities like the Burlington bunker until the final hours before strike. The simulation progressed through defined stages: Stage 1 involved low-profile review and updating of contingency plans with minimal personnel; Stage 2 shifted to overt but restrained preparations, including armed forces mobilization, reassurance broadcasts via media, and selective civilian dispersal from high-risk urban areas; and Stage 3 enacted full activation, with regional (RGHQs) fully manned, rest centers and emergency feeding operations established, and invocation of wartime for control and . preference schemes prioritized essential lines, severing approximately 90% of civilian communications to reserve capacity for authorities, while United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation (UKWMO) units deployed radiac equipment for fallout prediction and siren testing—though evaluations noted siren effectiveness at only 3-10% due to desensitization and technical limitations. Integrated into NATO's expansive Autumn Forge maneuvers, which encompassed 25 sub-exercises including the large-scale Crusader 80, Square Leg's transition scenario posited conventional advances in prompting heightened alert states, such as reinforcements and emergency powers legislation. Local authorities coordinated with military elements under the Wartime Host Nation Support Plan, testing logistics for fuel rationing and community support centers, though findings highlighted in RGHQ readiness—often requiring weeks rather than days—and inadequate for sub-regional controllers in managing initial chaos. This phase underscored systemic vulnerabilities in communication and decision timelines, informed by prior crises like the 1962 , where rapid escalation compressed preparation windows beyond doctrinal assumptions.

Nuclear Attack and Immediate Survival

The simulated nuclear attack in Exercise Square Leg commenced at 12:01 p.m. on the designated "strike day," lasting approximately 10 minutes, and involved the detonation of 131 Soviet warheads—69 ground bursts and 62 air bursts—with a combined yield of 205 megatons and an average yield of 1.5 megatons per weapon. Targets prioritized military bases, airfields, radar installations, and communication nodes, such as RAF facilities and NATO command centers, but the strikes also encompassed urban centers including London, Manchester, and Birmingham, resulting in widespread collateral destruction from blast radii extending several miles and thermal effects igniting fires across affected regions. Projections from the exercise indicated immediate blast and prompt radiation effects killing millions outright, with firestorms contributing to additional fatalities and complicating escape efforts due to collapsed infrastructure and severed transport links. Immediate survival measures in the simulation relied on pre-distributed civil defense guidance, such as the Protect and Survive pamphlets, directing civilians to improvise inner refuge spaces within homes using doors, tables, and plastic sheeting to shield against initial blast waves and subsequent fallout. Post-strike, the exercise modeled a two-week period of fallout radiation peaking within hours, with wind patterns dispersing contaminated particles over rural and unprotected areas, rendering outdoor activity lethal and straining water supplies as mains ruptured from seismic effects equivalent to multiple earthquakes. Emergency responders, including Royal Observer Corps outposts and local authority teams, were tasked with monitoring radiation levels via rudimentary dosimeters and broadcasting via battery radios, but simulations revealed rapid depletion of medical resources, with untreated burns, fractures, and acute radiation syndrome overwhelming surviving hospitals and field stations. Overall casualty estimates from the attack and initial survival phase exceeded 28 million dead or seriously injured—roughly half the UK's 1980 population of 56 million—factoring in direct impacts, fires, and early fallout exposure, though these figures assumed no prior evacuation success and limited shelter efficacy against megaton-range yields. The exercise highlighted systemic challenges, including communication blackouts from electromagnetic pulses and high-altitude bursts disrupting electronics, which hindered coordinated rescue operations and left isolated communities reliant on stockpiled food and morale-sustaining broadcasts urging endurance amid psychological trauma from the event's scale. Participating entities noted that while hardened bunkers preserved some command continuity, civilian survival hinged on passive measures like staying indoors, with projections indicating 90% mortality in unsheltered urban zones within the first 48 hours due to combined thermal, blast, and ionizing radiation effects.

Post-Attack Recovery Efforts

The post-attack recovery phase of Exercise , initiated 48 hours following the simulated nuclear strikes on approximately 80 , emphasized sub-regional coordination through Regional Government Headquarters (RGHQs) and localized measures to manage fallout zones, distribute limited resources, and sustain surviving populations. These efforts simulated the activation of emergency feeding centers, rudimentary medical for and blast injuries, and provisional governance structures to address immediate threats like contaminated water supplies and disrupted utilities, assuming a total attack yield of 205 megatons from 132 warheads. Projections indicated 29 million casualties across the , comprising roughly 17 million immediate deaths and 12 million serious injuries, with regional variations such as 40% casualties in urban centers like Birmingham by day 14, excluding delayed fatalities from or untreated wounds. Recovery simulations incorporated phased responses: an immediate period (D+0 to D+14) prioritizing life-saving interventions and casualty clearance; short-term stabilization (D+14 to D+28) involving food rationing and law enforcement amid refugee movements of up to 10 million; and longer-term reconstruction (D+28 to D+84) aimed at partial utility restoration and economic salvage, though only about 50% of survivors were projected as sustainably supportable due to resource constraints. Civil defense evaluations revealed profound inadequacies, including communication blackouts delaying RGHQ operations by days, shortages of medical supplies insufficient for mass trauma and fallout decontamination, and erosion of social order from unburied dead and famine risks, with national food stocks projected to deplete rapidly without external aid. These findings, drawn from exercise debriefs, highlighted overreliance on pre-positioned bunkers surviving intact—despite real-world vulnerabilities like ventilation failures in sites such as Kelvedon Hatch—and minimal integration of military logistics for civilian relief, prompting internal critiques of the exercise's optimistic assumptions about post-strike functionality. Overall, the recovery simulations underscored that systemic overload would preclude organized national revival, confining viable efforts to isolated, self-reliant pockets amid widespread societal collapse.

Key Findings

Casualty and Damage Projections

The Square Leg exercise simulated a Soviet nuclear attack consisting of 131 warheads—69 ground bursts and 62 air bursts—with a total yield of approximately 205 megatons, targeting military installations, airfields, ports, and major urban centers across the . This scenario assumed strikes on over 100 sites, including cities like , , Birmingham, and , as well as key infrastructure such as RAF bases and facilities. Casualty projections derived from the exercise parameters, as analyzed by geographers Stan Openshaw and Philip Steadman, estimated 29 million immediate deaths, equivalent to 53% of the UK's population of about 56 million in 1980, primarily from blast, thermal radiation, and prompt radiation effects. An additional 6.4 to 7 million individuals were projected to suffer serious injuries requiring medical attention beyond available capacity, including severe burns, fractures, and radiation sickness. Short-term survivors numbered around 19 million, or 35% of the population, though subsequent fatalities from fallout, infection, and starvation were anticipated to reduce this figure substantially in the ensuing weeks. Damage assessments indicated near-total destruction within 1-2 km radii of ground-burst detonations, with severe structural collapse, fires, and cratering affecting up to 10 km in urban areas, rendering major population centers uninhabitable and obliterating transportation networks, power grids, and water supplies. Air bursts over cities were projected to maximize blast and fire damage across wider areas, igniting conflagrations equivalent to those in historical firestorms like in 1943, while ground bursts on and bunkers would generate significant localized fallout plumes contaminating agricultural land and rivers. Overall, the exercise highlighted systemic failure, with emergency services overwhelmed and civil authority breakdown expected nationwide within hours of the initial strikes.

Assessment of Response Capabilities

The Square Leg exercise assessed that post-nuclear response capabilities in the would be severely compromised by the scale of destruction from an assumed Soviet attack involving 131 warheads totaling approximately 205 megatons, resulting in an estimated 29 million casualties among a of about 56 million. Emergency services, including fire, police, and medical teams, were projected to be largely incapacitated, with key facilities targeted or rendered unusable by blast, fire, and fallout, overwhelming any surviving capacity for , , or . Command and control structures faced existential breakdowns, as local authorities and regional seats of government sustained heavy personnel losses—up to 80% in some simulations—leading to fragmented authority, delayed decision-making, and ineffective coordination between surviving central and devolved elements. Communications networks, reliant on vulnerable public and dedicated lines, were expected to fail comprehensively, with assumptions of 90% disruption hindering situational awareness and resource allocation. Recovery operations were deemed minimally viable in the immediate aftermath (D+0 to D+7), constrained by hazards confining responders to protected sites, collapsed impeding access, and insufficient equipment for large-scale amid fires and structural persisting for weeks. By D+28, simulations indicated a shift to subsistence-level efforts, with regional commissioners struggling to enforce law and order amid refugee influxes, outbreaks, and resource failures due to depleted strategic stockpiles (reduced to 200,000 tons of essentials by later assessments). Civil defence volunteers, numbering only about 19,000 by the early 1980s against a target of one per 2,000 , lacked adequate training and equipment, rendering organized relief efforts dependent on actions rather than structured intervention. Overall, the exercise underscored that national response would devolve into isolated survival struggles, with organized state capabilities insufficient to mitigate or sustain recovery beyond initial containment.

Identified Vulnerabilities and Systemic Weaknesses

The Square Leg exercise, conducted from 11 to 25 1980, exposed profound limitations in the UK's civil defence apparatus under a simulated full-scale nuclear exchange involving 131 detonations totaling approximately 205 megatons. Projections indicated around 29 million fatalities and 6.4 million serious injuries, representing over 50% of the , primarily due to the absence of comprehensive sheltering and the concentration of in unprotected urban centers, rendering evacuation and dispersal plans ineffective against the rapid onset of blast, , and initial effects. Command structures proved highly vulnerable, with numerous sub-regional headquarters either unbuilt or lacking essential equipment, hampering decentralized response and leading to anticipated breakdowns in coordination between bunkers and devastated local authorities. Emergency services, including medical facilities, fire brigades, and rescue teams, were modeled as overwhelmed by concurrent crises such as widespread firestorms, contaminated water supplies, and secondary radiation sickness, exacerbated by insufficient stockpiles and training since the 1968 disbandment of the volunteer . Longer-term systemic flaws included inadequate provisions for post-attack governance, with simulations revealing potential from , outbreaks, and erosion of amid survivor , as food distribution networks and infrastructure like power grids and links were presumed non-functional without redundant hardened backups. Annual civil defence funding, hovering around £100 million in the late , failed to address these gaps, prioritizing over civilian resilience and reflecting a doctrinal emphasis on deterrence rather than survivability.

Criticisms and Debates

Public Leaks and Media Coverage

Details of Exercise Square Leg's nuclear attack scenario, including projections of 131 warheads detonating across the United Kingdom with yields totaling around 200 megatons and resulting in approximately 29 million immediate fatalities, were leaked to the press and anti-nuclear groups shortly after the exercise concluded on 25 September 1980. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, writing in the New Statesman, disclosed these elements in early October 1980, emphasizing the exercise's revelation of inadequate civil defense infrastructure and unrealistic survival assumptions for urban populations. His reporting drew on insider accounts and exercise documentation, framing the simulation as evidence that government planning prioritized military continuity over civilian protection, with regional commands overwhelmed by the scale of destruction. The leaks sparked broader media scrutiny and public debate, particularly from outlets aligned with advocacy. Marxism Today published an analysis in December 1980 critiquing Square Leg as part of NATO's Autumn Forge series, arguing it exposed vulnerabilities in Britain's home defense while underscoring the futility of survivability claims amid projected societal collapse. Coverage highlighted refusals to participate by local authorities, such as Lothian Regional Council, which cited the exercise's grim implications as justification for non-cooperation. These reports amplified concerns from groups like the , who used the leaked casualty estimates to challenge official narratives of deterrence efficacy. In response, the UK government addressed parliamentary inquiries on 19 December 1980, confirming Square Leg's conduct as a routine home defense evaluation but denying it targeted specific sites or predicted real-world outcomes, while attributing media portrayals to selective interpretation of classified . The disclosures fueled ongoing skepticism toward policies, influencing subsequent exercises like in 1982, where attack scales were deliberately reduced to mitigate public backlash from Square Leg's unvarnished projections. Overall, the coverage, dominated by investigative and left-leaning publications, portrayed the exercise as a stark of gaps, though government sources maintained it validated core command structures despite logistical strains.

Methodological and Realism Critiques

The Square Leg exercise utilized linked computer models to simulate blast overpressure, thermal effects, initial radiation, and fallout dispersion, relying on predefined attack patterns and parameters such as those outlined in contemporary defense analyses. These models projected approximately 29 million from 131 warheads totaling 205 megatons, with 69 ground bursts and 62 air bursts, but independent evaluations contended that the yielded systematically optimistic outcomes by insufficiently incorporating variables like variable impacts on fallout or synergistic effects of firestorms and collapse. Such limitations were seen as fostering a misleading sense of efficacy, potentially amounting to a flawed basis for public reassurance amid underpredicted long-term societal disruption. Scenario assumptions further drew scrutiny for departing from plausible adversary capabilities. The exercise posited an attack confined to high-yield megaton-range weapons averaging 1.5 megatons each, excluding the diverse arsenal of lower-yield tactical and intermediate devices that Soviet planners would likely employ for counterforce and suppression roles, thereby inflating projected survival rates in peripheral areas. Moreover, the targeting schema omitted direct strikes on inner London and minimized hits on major urban centers, prioritizing military installations in a manner inconsistent with historical intelligence on Soviet doctrine, which balanced counter-military objectives with countervalue strikes on population and economic hubs to maximize paralysis. This selective emphasis was argued to test command structures rather than mirror escalation dynamics, understating total warhead numbers—potentially exceeding 350 based on assessed Soviet delivery systems—and resultant megatonnage. Government defenders maintained that the parameters served to evaluate response protocols under constrained conditions, not to depict maximal devastation, yet highlighted how this approach obscured vulnerabilities in densely populated regions, where survival probabilities plummet within 5-10 miles of ground zeros regardless of model tweaks. Overall, these elements contributed to perceptions of the exercise as methodologically rigid and realism-deficient, prioritizing operational testing over comprehensive modeling that aligned with empirical assessments from the era.

Political and Ideological Objections

Critics from anti-nuclear organizations, including the (CND), ideologically opposed Square Leg for simulating a survivable nuclear exchange, which they argued reinforced the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and undermined campaigns for unilateral disarmament. CND contended that such exercises distracted from the moral imperative to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely, portraying preparations as a false reassurance that perpetuated the rather than addressing root causes like NATO's forward defense strategy. This view aligned with CND's broader advocacy since the 1950s for Britain to renounce its nuclear arsenal independently of adversaries, a position that gained traction amid protests against exercises like Square Leg. The unauthorized leak of Square Leg's scenario details in late 1980 amplified these objections, with CND and allied groups publicizing projections of up to 29 million British casualties—over half the population—to demonstrate the exercise's underlying pessimism and the pointlessness of post-attack recovery plans. Investigative Duncan Campbell, writing in the New Statesman, highlighted how the leaked documents exposed severe shortcomings in civil preparedness, such as inadequate provisions and coordination failures, framing the exercise as of governmental incompetence rather than effective . CND leveraged this in campaigns, including local manuals decrying as propaganda that justified military spending over social welfare. Left-wing publications like Marxism Today critiqued Square Leg ideologically as emblematic of NATO's aggressive posture, suggesting the exercise's megatonnage assumptions (totaling 205 megatons across 131 warheads) reflected elite acceptance of mutual destruction to maintain Western hegemony. The article noted internal leaks as indicative of dissent within military and civil defense circles, attributing objections to the scenario's failure to account for political negotiation or de-escalation, instead prioritizing command structures that prioritized survival of authority over population welfare. These critiques, while rooted in Marxist analysis skeptical of bourgeois state preparations, underscored a broader ideological divide: proponents of deterrence saw exercises as pragmatic realism, whereas opponents viewed them as militaristic denial of diplomacy's viability.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on UK Defense Policy

The projections from Exercise Square Leg, simulating a Soviet nuclear offensive delivering approximately 200 megatons across 131 warheads targeting , industrial, and population sites, revealed that structures would be rapidly incapacitated, with emergency services overwhelmed and societal breakdown ensuing within hours. These internal assessments reinforced the Thatcher government's doctrinal emphasis on nuclear deterrence through integration and independent capabilities like and the forthcoming system, as post-attack recovery appeared viable only for limited command functions rather than broad population survival. Leaked details of the exercise's casualty estimates—ranging from 20 to 29 million dead or seriously injured, representing over half the —fueled parliamentary scrutiny and opposition claims that expenditures were illusory, yet the government maintained that such simulations validated the imperative of preventing war via credible second-strike capacity rather than diverting resources to futile . This perspective aligned with broader defense reviews, including the defense estimates, where Square Leg was invoked to counter advocacy by illustrating the asymmetry of conventional versus nuclear threats. The ensuing public skepticism and local authority reluctance to engage in follow-up drills, such as the 1982 Hard Rock exercise, indirectly prompted legislative reinforcement of home defense frameworks through the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Act 1983, which compelled regional participation in planning to address identified coordination gaps exposed by Square Leg's field components. Despite these adjustments, no fundamental reorientation occurred in strategic posture; defense policy continued prioritizing alliance-based deterrence and selective survivability for government continuity over comprehensive societal protection.

Role in Public Discourse and Culture

The leaked details of Operation Square Leg, which projected up to 29 million British casualties from a simulated nuclear exchange involving approximately 150 warheads, ignited widespread media scrutiny and public debate on the feasibility of in the event of nuclear war. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell's reporting in the on 3 October 1980 exposed the exercise's scenarios, including the near-total devastation of urban areas and the breakdown of within days, contradicting government assurances of survivability through measures like the campaign. This coverage, disseminated through outlets such as BBC Newsnight in August 1980, amplified skepticism toward official preparedness narratives, with local authorities like Lothian Regional Council boycotting participation to protest the perceived inadequacy of response plans. The revelations bolstered the (CND) and the broader , which peaked in the early 1980s amid NATO's deployment of cruise missiles and Thatcher's defense policies. CND leveraged Square Leg's casualty estimates—equating to over half the UK's population at the time—to argue that was illusory, framing it as a tool for psychological reassurance rather than practical mitigation, and contributing to mass protests that drew hundreds of thousands to London's Hyde Park in 1981 and 1982. Left-leaning publications like Marxism Today in December 1980 critiqued the exercise as exposing systemic vulnerabilities in home defense, further polarizing discourse between deterrence advocates and disarmament proponents. These debates underscored a growing public rift, with polls in the period showing rising opposition to nuclear weapons, though government responses emphasized strategic necessity over concession to activist critiques. In , Square Leg's grim projections informed the 1984 BBC drama Threads, directed by Mick Jackson and written by , which dramatized a on with fallout patterns and mirroring the exercise's models of blast radii, radiation sickness, and infrastructure failure. Broadcast on 23 September 1984 to an audience of over 15 million, the film—drawing on declassified elements of Square Leg via sources like Campbell's exposés—depicted long-term and famine, leaving a profound mark on British collective memory as a visceral to sanitized official messaging. Threads influenced subsequent cultural reflections on nuclear peril, including and documentaries, and its re-airings, such as the 2024 fortieth-anniversary broadcast, continue to evoke anxieties, reinforcing public wariness of escalation risks in .

Comparative Analysis with Later Exercises

Hard Rock, planned for September–October 1982 as a successor to Square Leg, aimed to test similar national civil defence procedures under a simulated nuclear attack but was ultimately cancelled due to widespread refusal by Labour-controlled local authorities to participate, reflecting heightened political opposition to such exercises amid . Unlike Square Leg's successful execution involving command post operations and field simulations across multiple phases from through recovery, Hard Rock's failure underscored systemic challenges in coordinating civilian responses, with over 200 councils opting out and citing impracticality and resource diversion from peacetime needs. Post-Cold War, exercises shifted away from large-scale nuclear simulations like Square Leg, which projected approximately 29 million casualties from a 205-megaton attack, toward hybrid threats and resilience training without equivalent emphasis on post-nuclear survival. NATO-led efforts, such as in November 1983, focused on command-and-control escalation to nuclear release rather than -specific civil defence logistics or casualty mitigation, involving fewer domestic field elements and prioritizing alliance-wide deterrence signaling over individual nation recovery plans. This evolution marked a departure from Square Leg's comprehensive testing of regional seats of government and public sheltering, as civil defence funding declined after 1990, reallocating to non-nuclear emergencies like flooding and . Methodologically, Square Leg incorporated detailed calculations for yields up to 1.5 megatons per weapon, informing vulnerability assessments that later exercises rarely replicated at scale due to technological advances in modeling software and reduced perceived Soviet threats. Modern resilience drills, such as those under the , emphasize multi-agency coordination for conventional crises but omit Square Leg's grim realism on fallout and infrastructure collapse, potentially underestimating long-term systemic failures evident in the projections of societal breakdown within weeks. Critics argue this post-Square Leg pivot reflects in post-Cold War policy, prioritizing cost savings over empirical rehearsal of worst-case nuclear scenarios.

References

  1. https://www.gray-nicolls.co.uk/blogs/the-game/gray-nicolls-guide-to-cricket-fielding-positions
  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/4180236.stm
  3. https://www.thissportlife.com/sports/cricket/positions.htm
  4. https://www.huck-net.co.uk/news/2023-10/cricket-fielding-positions/
  5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/rules/setting_a_field/newsid_3829000/3829513.stm
  6. https://sportspundit.com/cricket/terms/2749-square-leg
  7. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_138256.htm
  8. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_23037.htm?selectedLocale=en
  9. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-russia-nuclear-arms-control
  10. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm
  11. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29804446
  12. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2007/N2769.pdf
  13. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/aa83/2018-11-05/soviet-side-1983-war-scare
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0046760X.2014.979253
  15. https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1287/1/ArnoldJacquelyn%20-%20Final%20PhD%20thesis.pdf
  16. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-civil-defence/heag145-civil-defence-iha.pdf
  17. https://www.subbrit.org.uk/features/civil-defence-in-the-1980s/
  18. https://www.e-ir.info/2011/11/10/civil-defence-planning-in-the-1960s-1970s-no-more-than-a-propaganda-exercise/
  19. https://www.eastridingmuseums.co.uk/museums-online/hidden-cold-war-women/uncovering-cold-war-in-the-archives/
  20. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1980-12-01/debates/a2283ee4-37ab-4af7-ac34-d6ccf5fe0368/CrusaderExercise
  21. https://www.subbrit.org.uk/features/struggle-for-survival/
  22. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The_Civil_Defence_Campaign_Guide_Nuclear_Free_Zones_Committee_CND_1984.pdf
  23. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1980/dec/19/exercise-square-leg
  24. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Square_Leg_Marxism_Today_December_1980.pdf
  25. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Section_8_Effects_of_a_Nuclear_Attack_on_Britain_1983..pdf
  26. https://pastvergangenheit.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/operation-square-leg-blueprint-for-armageddon/
  27. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Square_Leg
  28. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/World_War_III_an_exclusive_preview_Duncan_Campbell_New_Statesman_03_October_1980.pdf
  29. https://calculating.wordpress.com/category/history-2/page/7/
  30. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1982/nov/23/exercise-square-leg
  31. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1981-05-19/debates/a336489a-2e25-44b9-a005-2babc0a6943c/DefenceEstimates1981
  32. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tridenting_it_handbook_An_open_guide_to_Trident_Ploughshares_January_2001.pdf
  33. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Lindop_Rotblat_Webber_Radiation_casualties_in_a_nuclear_war_31_January_1985..pdf
  34. https://calculating.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/uk-cold-war-evacuation-plans/
  35. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Civil_Defence_and_The_Superpowers_The_Threat_to_Scotland_nd..pdf
  36. https://www.roc-heritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/southyorksandnuclearwar1984_20161031_0001.pdf
  37. http://www.roc-heritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/southyorksandnuclearwar1984_20161031_0001.pdf
  38. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1983/oct/26/civil-defence
  39. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c010205
  40. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/165109/1/165109.pdf
  41. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1982-12-06/debates/dbfde77e-abf6-4291-bdac-32635771659d/NuclearAttackLondonSurvivalRate
  42. https://cnduk.org/who/the-history-of-cnd/
  43. https://www.duncancampbell.org/content/new-statesman-1980
  44. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1980-12-03/debates/afc53b73-b2b1-442f-8629-530d65cc8b66/Defence
  45. http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom18/statements/26April_UK.pdf
  46. https://m.facebook.com/BBCArchive/videos/447687612270941/
  47. https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2018/03/here-come-bombs-making-threads-nuclear-war-film-shocked-generation
  48. https://bylinetimes.com/2024/10/09/threads-bbc-nuclear-aftermath/
  49. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/jshs.2024.0381
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.