Nothing unusual in similar documents there. In the late 70's and early 80-ies of the last century, a new escalation of the conflict between the USSR and the West. In England, came to power, Margaret Thatcher, and the United States came to power, Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Placed the note is dated 1978 year and made up a prominent pro nuclear arms connected kingdom Michael Quinlan. The note was a response to the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs David Owen, who argued that England could reduce the scope of a possible nuclear strike.
In the end, the whole controversy was limited to how many Russian people rather kill to deter the Soviet Union from a possible strike. The British have always been famous pragmatism and here they are for themselves have not changed. David Owen argued that quite enough ability to kill 1 million Russian, Michael Quinlan was not agree with him and insisted on the order of a big hit with the probable death of 10 million people. In his view, "the threshold of intimidation" in the Soviet Union, who lost in the second World War, more than 20 million people, was obviously higher than that of Britain. In the opinion of a professional loss of less than 1% of its population, would not be an obstacle if USSR decided to make an attempt to capture the Western Europe.
Once housed journalists document contains information about the harm meant to put Britain St. Petersburg and Moscow. Document was prepared adviser to the Minister of Defense for Science Sir Ronald Mason.
The doctor thought that the collapse of the town, as a functioning society, rather applying a "heavy structural" damage to at least 40% of its area. Further considered the results of explosions in the air and on the ground. According to the views of the scientist explosion in the air at once would have killed about 40% of the population of the town, but with all this, about 30% of its inhabitants were able to take refuge in a network of underground escape. Ground explosions exposed to about 55-60% of the territory of the town to radiation in doses sufficient to cause the depletion and destruction of most people in this country, that poison the air, water, food, as a result, have suffered in the explosion, and have not suffered. On this basis, the government is not recommended to turn away from the ground explosions that would make Russian ineffective measures for civilian defense.
In general, read all these mathematical calculations are unpleasant, but less so. It is not clear why these documents are generally published. One gets the impression that for the western tradesman they are of particular interest. Surely, the people there very quickly forgets about the past and do not remember that two opposing political systems could tear at each other throats, if I turned up a significant occasion.
Both documents are considering nuclear weapon as a deterrent, the essence of the issue comes down to how many warheads it take to their presence made likely blow USSR less possible. At least some guns are always one purpose — to kill, the goal of nuclear weapons — kill a lot, it clearly showed the Americans in 1945. In the upcoming introduction of its doctrine has always meant more attacks against densely populated towns of the enemy. Factor containment factor containment, but personally I'm not sure that in a hypothetical nuclear war on Britain would remain something, our arsenal and was and still is incomparable, then how to kill "51 state" is more common task, and in the past, and the real one.