UK Phones to Receive Emergency Alert Test - Motive?

[nightowl]

On 19/03/2023 at 20:12, MinistryMan said:

It’s for electricity shortage shutdowns. We got briefed on it last week in the civil service. We’ve had to agree the approach with emergency planning, police and gov departments. 

In that case we can all save power by not charging our phones up on the test broadcast day.😆

On 19/03/2023 at 20:12, MinistryMan said:

It’s for electricity shortage shutdowns. We got briefed on it last week in the civil service. We’ve had to agree the approach with emergency planning, police and gov departments. 

So, NHS obviously a big one. We’ve had to give feedback last week on what parts of the economy have emergency back up power supplies. A lot of hosps haven’t had their UPS (Uninterupted Power Supply) systems renewed. A couple of ports don’t have UPS. And most of the highway networks don’t have UPS installed yet such as tunnels, traffic lights, railway crossings, gantry etc. if the tunnels shut we have to go to emergency plans as no fans to shift fumes and no fire suppression.

UPS don't have as much reserve as you might think anyway. Theyre useful for short outages but can't substitut for 1970s-esque three day week length outages.  

[scottbeard]

46 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

Unless they can make the “real” warning local then the only reason for a national warning is nuclear Armageddon. No point receiving a weather forecast about floods in Wales (and the borders) if you live in Essex or Fort William.

Watch “when the wind blows” or any of the mid 80s nuclear warnings and be afraid, very afraid. Or laugh. I plan to play Frankie Teardrop by Suicide. Go out on a high (or a low). 

They absolutely CAN make it local as they can instruct individual phone masts to push it to phones within their signal reach .  It's mainly FOR local warnings.

[Nick Cash]

Just now, scottbeard said:

They absolutely CAN make it local as they can instruct individual phone masts to push it to phones within their signal reach .  It's mainly FOR local warnings.

Yes, I read back through the thread and saw that claim. But why do we need a local warning system? For what? Amber weather warnings are ignored (hence the M62 chaos recently). 

I get emails daily about HS2 disruption, most of it supersedes a previous warning. It’s hopelessly out of date.
 

This can only be about serious national alarms. 
 

[Sackboii]

1 hour ago, Nick Cash said:

Unless they can make the “real” warning local then the only reason for a national warning is nuclear Armageddon. No point receiving a weather forecast about floods in Wales (and the borders) if you live in Essex or Fort William.

Watch “when the wind blows” or any of the mid 80s nuclear warnings and be afraid, very afraid. Or laugh. I plan to play Frankie Teardrop by Suicide. Go out on a high (or a low). 

Also, watch Threads, if anyone has not seen it..

https://archive.org/details/threads_201712

[scottbeard]

45 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

But why do we need a local warning system? For what?

This can only be about serious national alarms. 
 

Another poster mentioned localised power outages, which I can well believe - we are scenario planning for them at the moment.  Surely a risk if the Russian war continues.

And yes, national alarms for sure. But the fact a system is being put in place doesn’t mean it’s use is particularly imminent: maybe the technology to do it has only recently become available?

If I buy a smoke alarm that doesn’t mean I think they’ll be a fire in the next few weeks or months - just that I want to be prepared 

[Sackboii]

As I said in an earlier post - there have been previous tests pre Russian invasion of Ukraine, but post COVID. So this is not ‘new’.

[Nick Cash]

Maybe it’s just my age but this is very very reminiscent of the early 80s.

Don’t believe the official line. Think it through very very carefully. 
 

 

[scottbeard]

2 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

Maybe it’s just my age but this is very very reminiscent of the early 80s.

Don’t believe the official line. Think it through very very carefully. 
 

So what do you think this is actually for then?

If you're referring to the 1980s nuclear war threat alerts, there it was accompanied by education as to what to do if it happened so that people could plan....surely you don't think that this time the approach is "say absolutely nothing until a missile is in the air, then send a text alert so that people have 2 minutes to prepare?"

That makes no sense.

[Nick Cash]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

So what do you think this is actually for then?

If you're referring to the 1980s nuclear war threat alerts, there it was accompanied by education as to what to do if it happened so that people could plan....surely you don't think that this time the approach is "say absolutely nothing until a missile is in the air, then send a text alert so that people have 2 minutes to prepare?"

That makes no sense.

I think this is a small step towards the preparation for nuclear war. It’s exactly what happened in the early 80s ( different technology albeit the same playbook). The thought that we could prepare for nuclear war by hiding beneath door frames was and is ludicrous. However if enough gormless cretins believe that is OK then we’re “not in a good place”.

[scottbeard]

7 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

I think this is a small step towards the preparation for nuclear war. It’s exactly what happened in the early 80s ( different technology albeit the same playbook). The thought that we could prepare for nuclear war by hiding beneath door frames was and is ludicrous. However if enough gormless cretins believe that is OK then we’re “not in a good place”.

Absolutely!  The only meaninful preparation you can take is to be somewhere else, preferably a different country altogether, but at the very least nowhere near the target.

I think having a national warning system (as well as a local one) is actually an extremely good idea.  All sorts of things can happen - hopefully nuclear war is a very slim chance indeed, but it seems almost inevitable that some sort of Chinese cyber-terrorism attack will cripple the country at some point.  It alarms me how dependant on technology most people are; including (if i'm honest) myself.  How many people would cope without online banking, for example, not because the banks are bust but because China has put a spanner in the works?

[Nick Cash]

18 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Absolutely!  The only meaninful preparation you can take is to be somewhere else, preferably a different country altogether, but at the very least nowhere near the target.

I think having a national warning system (as well as a local one) is actually an extremely good idea.  All sorts of things can happen - hopefully nuclear war is a very slim chance indeed, but it seems almost inevitable that some sort of Chinese cyber-terrorism attack will cripple the country at some point.  It alarms me how dependant on technology most people are; including (if i'm honest) myself.  How many people would cope without online banking, for example, not because the banks are bust but because China has put a spanner in the works?

They’d probably hack the national alarm as well! What we don’t need is everyone assuming the government can provide some sort of safety net. We need resilience. Individual resilience, community resilience, and some other resilience (needed 3 resiliences but could only think of 2).

[scottbeard]

11 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

They’d probably hack the national alarm as well! What we don’t need is everyone assuming the government can provide some sort of safety net. We need resilience. Individual resilience, community resilience, and some other resilience (needed 3 resiliences but could only think of 2).

I was just brainstorming - for the cyber attack they could justvas well put radio and TV broadcasts out: it's not as time sensitive as a nuclear war.

I agree we need more resilience, and somehow we need to get away from this idea that no one must ever lose out from their own mistakes and the government must ensure everyone is fine all the time as well as promising every little girl a pony for Christmas.  I have no clue how to get there from here unless it's forced.

[micawber]

9 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Absolutely!  The only meaninful preparation you can take is to be somewhere else, preferably a different country altogether, but at the very least nowhere near the target.

To the contrary. Most ex-services folk I speak to talk about getting as close to the target as possible as none would wish to survive and live with the consequences.

[micawber]

11 hours ago, Sackboii said:

Also, watch Threads, if anyone has not seen it..

https://archive.org/details/threads_201712

Is that the one where the Sainsbury plastic bag survives? PMSL every time.

[scottbeard]

24 minutes ago, micawber said:

To the contrary. Most ex-services folk I speak to talk about getting as close to the target as possible as none would wish to survive and live with the consequences.

Doesn't that rather depend on what happens?

Flash back to WW2 and I think I'd rather have been anywhere in Japan than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Obviously if all hell breaks loose in a WW3 and every major city in the world is destroyed then maybe your forces friends are right.

But if it's just mad Putin decides to lob a couple of nuclear missiles at London in spite, then I think I just don't want to be in London.

[Sackboii]

1 hour ago, micawber said:

Is that the one where the Sainsbury plastic bag survives? PMSL every time.

No idea, never spotted that bit..

[micawber]

54 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Doesn't that rather depend on what happens?

Flash back to WW2 and I think I'd rather have been anywhere in Japan than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Obviously if all hell breaks loose in a WW3 and every major city in the world is destroyed then maybe your forces friends are right.

But if it's just mad Putin decides to lob a couple of nuclear missiles at London in spite, then I think I just don't want to be in London.

Well, yes. But London only? I think that I shall save this in the wishful thinking folder.

[scottbeard]

Just now, micawber said:

Well, yes. But London only? I think that I shall save this in the wishful thinking folder.

In a full on nuclear war, absolutely.

My point is - nuclear weapons would not necessarily be used ONLY in the event of a full-on nuclear war.   

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

In a full on nuclear war, absolutely.

My point is - nuclear weapons would not necessarily be used ONLY in the event of a full-on nuclear war.   

The use of tactical nukes is, in my opinion, likely to escalate into the use of "crowd pleasers". Once a line is crossed...

[scottbeard]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

The use of tactical nukes is, in my opinion, likely to escalate into the use of "crowd pleasers". Once a line is crossed...

I was actually thinking more of just a rogue mad leader setting a couple off.

Hitler, when cornered, but a bullet into his own head.  Who is to say what Putin would do from a surrounded bunker?

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

I was actually thinking more of just a rogue mad leader setting a couple off.

Hitler, when cornered, but a bullet into his own head.  Who is to say what Putin would do from a surrounded bunker?

I'm sort of expecting Putin to do something like that.

Kremlin to Whitehouse. "Sorry chaps, but Putin went mad and launched some nukes in your direction. We've blown his brains out so please don't retaliate".

[scottbeard]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

I'm sort of expecting Putin to do something like that.

Kremlin to Whitehouse. "Sorry chaps, but Putin went mad and launched some nukes in your direction. We've blown his brains out so please don't retaliate".

I'm glad I don't have to make the decision as to what to do there.

On the one hand, you can't let the Russians get away with launching even one missile, and destroying even one target.  No-one would believe the "mad Putin's last day in the office" story even if it were true.  On the other hand, you don't want a nuclear war, especially if the story IS true.  What do you do?

It reminds me of a WW2 incident where the Germans flattened Coventry.  We therefore flattened Dresden - not because it had any military significance but just tit-for-tat.  Do you have to have a policy that says "well you launched X missiles, so we have launched X back.  We don't care why."

Like I say, glad I just calculate pensions.

[BaldED]

I've turned them off.

I don't want any messages alert or not from these f**kers. I'll do my own risk assessment thanks.

[nightowl]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

 

Like I say, glad I just calculate pensions.

Do you factor in WW3 into pension investments? 😳

[micawber]

5 hours ago, Sackboii said:

No idea, never spotted that bit..

Yes. A pristine Sainsbury's bag after 13 years of absolute devastation. No better protection for your valuables in a nuclear war. 1 hour 47 minutes in.