Comments

1. 

   Simon

   February 4, 2016 at 10:56

   I'm not sure that the programme was intended purely as entertainment and it was examining, in a wider sense, the Nato commitment to article 5, when the chips are down. It was also a reflection on whether, at the end of the day, there is any point in having nuclear weapons as a deterrent when using them in a retaliatory sense is futile. The renewal of trident is of course a hot topic of discussion at the moment. I think that yes, these topics are controversial (as were films like threads and the day after) at the time but it was, I felt, dealt with in a serious way.
2. 

   Patriot

   February 4, 2016 at 12:13

   It is virtual and not real. I am from Latgale and many Latgalians are very peaceful and joyful people and we are not inviting Russia. There will be great fights on the border without any discussions. This time we will not surrender, we will fight till the end.
3. 

   Kiron Reid

   February 4, 2016 at 20:33

   I thought it was a good idea and a good programme, based on what has happended in Ukraine and what Putin's Russian state is doing there now still. The footage seemed realistic (except the assumption that a rescue of captured British personnel against Russian backed militias would be smooth). But I did think it might upset people in Latvia and Estonia, and wondered how long it would take before Putin's media and his army of online trolls would start citing it as if the discussions and programme were British policy. Annabelle Champan has shown these have already started.
4. 

   Tom

   February 4, 2016 at 22:56

   I enjoyed this documentary because it was thought provoking as well as dramatic. Surely that is the BBC's brief? Personally I couldn't care less if it offends the Russians, (China is doing exactly the same thing on its borders), or if its too close to the bone. Is it better that people consider such matters out of sight out of mind? Should celebrity baking become the zenith of my programming expectation now? Its 77 years since we went to war with Nazi Germany because they invaded a sovereign nation. I reckon Churchill might turn in his grave on beholding the general apathy of the British public of today.
5. 

   Lee Q

   February 5, 2016 at 08:18

   The Scenario played out almost like it came from the eighties cold war period, the american stance basically pushing along the agenda forcing the game progression regardless of the war rooms choices. Ultimately the goal came to the final round which boils down to do we fire trident in response to a launch, this part was genuinely interesting as the majority could not bring themselves to fire. It kinda proves the pointlessness of nukes but the truth is probably more chilling as technically trident is a second strike device designed to cause as much harm as possible and more likely would NOT target military targets or already empty silos. At this point the war room becomes little more than some curious TV and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
6. 

   Stephan A.

   February 6, 2016 at 10:08

   I agree wholeheartedly. The more we talk about war the more likely it becomes. The BBC is playing into the hands of those in the government who would make it simply the mouthpiece of the state. One could not think of a better way of promoting the Government's 'Fear Russia' agenda. This 'mockumentary' lacks balance, spreads fear, and ignores the many positive aspects of Europe's relationships with its eastern neighbours. There is a rich cultural understanding and exchange whose effect on international relationships is totally ignored. The ignorant and biased view which seems to inform this programme severely damages the BBC's reputation.
7. 

   Bob Quinn

   February 6, 2016 at 16:38

   why can't I read the mag. online?
8. 

   Bob Quinn

   February 6, 2016 at 16:40

   I still can't read the full online version
9. 

   Bob

   February 7, 2016 at 03:05

   'The BBC programme is not a documentary, but could be assumed to be so' Except, presumably viewers will realise these events haven't actually taken place.
10. 

    Arthur B.

    February 16, 2016 at 14:18

    Well … I watched it, and was not completely convinced. The participants all seemed to perform to type, with the military ones all square-jawed determination. But then I'm not convinced by any of our "defence" postures either, a lot of which have little to do with actual defence. The only thing that I'm convinced of is that any nuclear conflict will end up very badly for everyone, whether we start it or "they" start it, or whether we are "right' or otherwise.
11. 

    digiwongadude

    February 19, 2016 at 16:00

    This programme is a follow-up to BBC War Book (2014), no doubt (imo). It is NO more "real" than that was. It simply takes the same ideas and puts it to real people, rather than a script using actors. Indeed, after watching "War Book" you kinda ask yourself what real people (in positions of real power) would do. This was the BBC's attempt at that - and a very good one to boot. If you want to concern yourself with Russian TV perceiving the UK as weak, remember it's not real and go watch War Book (I won't spoil it). In reflection on both comes one question from me. These weapons exist as a deterrent. If we are not prepared to use them, what use are they as a deterrent and thus why do we have them at all? Both programmes bring this question to the forefront very well.