Peace through practical, proved civil defence for credible war deterrence
  • Credible nuclear deterrence of invasions and conventional wars reduce the risk of large nuclear wars occurring through escalation of conventional wars. Contrary to irrational, pseudo-scientific propaganda, the number of nuclear weapons is smaller than the millions of conventional weapons used in large wars and the correct scaling shows that the overall effects are similar, not massively different as often claimed for political propaganda by enemies of peace. Furthermore, the greater time delay of effects from nuclear weapons over the damaged area increases the efficiency of cheap civil defence countermeasures, as compared to conventional weapons. In conclusion, credible nuclear deterrence of conventional war offers a beautiful opportunity to create a peaceful world, free from fear peddling, ranting dictators. The only oppositions you will meet will come from authoritarian obsessed fear peddling myth makers. If they can't tell the truth and face the facts, why listen to them? Please see our post on the need to deter not only direct threats from nuclear attacks but also conventional wars and invasions that can escalate into nuclear wars (as proved by the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, for example, after they were developed during the war itself and did not trigger or provoke the war), linked here, here, here, and here, here, here, and the true scaling law equivalence between a few thousand nuclear weapons and the several million tons of small conventional weapons in a non-nuclear world war as proved by our post summarising key points in Herman Kahn's much-abused call for credible deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, linked here. Peace comes through tested, proved and practical declassified countermeasures against the effects of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and conventional weapons. Credible deterrence to end invasions and wars comes through simple, effective protection against invasions like low yield tactical weapons and walls, and civil defence against collateral damage. Peace comes through discussions of the facts as opposed to inaccurate, misleading lies of the "disarm or be annihilated" political dogma variety, which are designed to exploit fear to close down criticisms of errors in mainstream orthodoxy. In particular, please see the post linked here on EMP results from an actual Russian 300 kt test at 290 km altitude over unwarned civilian infrastructure in Kazakhstan on 22 October 1962, which caused no injuries or deaths whatsoever (contrary to all of Jeremy Corbyn and CND style lying propaganda that any use of nuclear weapons on civilians would automatically kill millions), but shut down the communications and power supply lines! This is not secret, but does not make newspaper headlines to debunk CND style dogmas on the alleged incredibility of nuclear deterrence.

  • Hiroshima's air raid shelters were unoccupied because Japanese Army officers were having breakfast when B29s were detected far away, says Yoshie Oka, the operator of the Hiroshima air raid sirens on 6 August 1945...

  • In a sample of 1,881 burns cases in Hiroshima, only 17 (or 0.9 percent) were due to ignited clothing and 15 (or 0.7%) were due to the firestorm flames...

  • Dr Harold L. Brode’s new book, Nuclear Weapons in ...

  • 800 war migrants drowned on 22 April by EU policy:...

  • Photographed fireball shielding by cloud cover in ...

  • Nuclear weapons effects "firestorm" and "nuclear w...

  • Proved 97.5% survival in completely demolished houses ...

  • Friday, February 28, 2014

    Can Britain and America prevail over an alliance of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea in WWIII? The anti-nuclear biased High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Catherine Ashton (salary £250,000), never-elected, is behind the WWIII risk today because she pushed the EU at Ukraine, threatening the Russian base in Crimea! American sanctions on Japan in 1940 led to Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, so we need civil defense now. All due to Cathy Ashton's megalomania, self-aggrandisement, conceit and vanity.

    Baroness Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Affairs supremo who tried to push the EU into the Ukraine to start WWIII between East and West (by intimidating Russia into violating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, signed by UK, US and Russia), is actually the former Vice-Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, who personally wrote falsehoods in CND propaganda book The neutron bomb.

    "CND, which Miss Ashton joined in 1977, had long been viewed with deep suspicion by the security services, which carried out surveillance of its members. At the time, MI5 designated CND as ‘subversive’ largely on the basis that John Cox, its chairman from 1971 to 1977, was a Communist Party member. It was suggested, too, that both Miss Ashton and Joan Ruddock – now a Labour MP and who appears in the Downing Street picture alongside Bruce Kent, who went on to become the CND chairman – were both communist sympathisers. ... In December 1983, she chaired a fringe meeting organised by the publication Marxism Today and three years earlier was part of a delegation that went to the Netherlands to meet a communist-controlled group called Stop The Neutron Bomb, which campaigned against American nuclear weapons. ... the minutes of a meeting of the CND Council attended by Miss Ashton on July 7, 1979, at a school in Camden, North London, state: ‘There was a request that CND should protest to the Government about the recent speech by the Queen at Aldermaston, in which she lent political support to the supporters of nuclear weapons. It was agreed that this should be done.’ ... By the time of the Downing Street delegation in 1982, Miss Ashton had risen to national treasurer, second only in importance to the chairman. ... As CND treasurer, Miss Ashton was embroiled in controversial claims that the organisation was funded by the Communist Party. In her report to CND’s annual conference in 1982, she argued for audited accounts to counter ‘smears’ against it – though she added that even that would not provide conclusive proof of where CND’s cash came from. ... the conference voted to keep the identities of its donors secret. -

    Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express (3 March 2014, page 12) shows that ex CND Vice-Chairman Baroness Catherine Ashton (now High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs), deliberately pushed into the Ukraine and provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine by trying to steal Ukrainian sovereignty for the European Union, using the same NO-REFERENDUM dangerous method which has been used to steal British liberty (no British party has given the British people a referendum on joining or remaining in the corrupt, warmongering European Union):
    "Baroness Catherine Ashton, who goes by the grand title of High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs ... does not have a shred of credibility. She might be paid over £250,000 a year and be head of a vast EU diplomatic operation costing an annual £442 million, but she is a lightweight socialist apparatchik who has never been elected to any public position. She ... was vice-chair of that posturing gang of noisy defeatists, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. ... Baroness Ashton ... helped to provoke the current crisis ...  The EU has been desperate to extend its sphere of influence. Ukraine ... was a prime target." 

    “Number of times word ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ mentioned in statement by Catherine Ashton on Holocaust Remembrance Day: 0,” said Joshua Davidovich, a news editor at the Times of Israel, on Twitter." -  [David: these EU quacks and BBC/Guardian newspaper political activists are mostly anti-Jewish racists, they are fascists, and they are warmongers in sheep's clothing.]

    Accused of racism against the Jews for failing to mention the Jewish victims of the holocaust, this Baroness Catherine Ashton is not trying to kill everyone on earth by starting World War III, while President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron lift not a finger to stop her.  (To help those who need the data for missile programming and want to retaliate against her after WWIII, the Brussels EU headquarters coordinates are: 50°50′N 4°23′E / 50.84°N 4.38°E.)  

    Private Eye, 7 March 2014.  No joking, this could turn out to be a real crisis.

    "The megalomaniacs of Brussels despise national independence and democracy. ... At the entrance to EU Parliament’s visitors’ centre there’s a slogan: “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times. The only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is the federal union of the peoples.” " - Leo McKinstry.

    Because the EU is not democratic, it is a threat to world peace, especially with unelected, censoring, dictatorial narcissists like Cathy Ashton trying to start WWIII by interfering in national democracy:

    From Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another, by Spencer R. Weart, Yale University Press, 1998:

    Chapter One: Investigating the Puzzle of Democratic Peace

    ... Free peoples, Kant explained, are inherently peaceful; they will make war only when driven to it by tyrants [like  the EU and its High Representative on Foreign Affairs Cathy Ashton]. ... In our own times, democracies have burned people to death by the tens of thousands in the fires of Hamburg and Hiroshima. Yet in all these wars, one side fell short of what most people would call democracy. The United States, as will be discussed later, never has fought a democratic government basically like its own. ... during the past century there have been no wars between well-established democracies. ... political scientists took up systematic study. Their findings remained almost unknown outside academic circles. ... What was the probability, they asked, that the absence of wars between well-established democracies is a mere accident? The answer: less than one chance in a thousand. That is a level of certainty not often achieved with laboratory rats, let alone in studies of international relations.

    ... the lack of wars between democracies is not an artifact caused by the limited number of such regimes - there have been more than enough to provide robust statistics ... When toleration of dissent has persisted for three years, but not until then, we can call a new republic "well established." ... In negotiations each regime did tend to behave according to its political culture. Time and again we observe authoritarian leaders undeniably extending their domestic style of behavior abroad by using coercion rather than seeking mutual accommodation, in ways that made war more likely. Republican behavior was plainly different - so much so that in quite a few cases the difference created an "appeasement trap." The republic tried to accommodate a tyrant as if he were a fellow republican; the tyrant concluded that he could safely make an aggressive response; eventually the republic replied furiously with war.

    Dangerous nuclear weapons fanatic, Baroness Catherine Ashton, head of European Union Foreign Affairs, who promoted Brezhnev's Russian lies about the neutron bomb in her 1977 contribution to chapter 1 of the CND propaganda anti-deterrence lies-filled book The neutron Bomb, of course has now been promoted by the fascists and has caused the Ukraine crisis in another pro-Russian lying "nuclear disarmament" plot to endanger British lives or to try to cause a Third World War.

    Anti-nuclear biased Russian-agenda lying "High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs" Baroness Catherine Ashton (salary £250,000), a never-elected European Union top-dog, is the ultimate cause of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

    Is this dangerous episode yet another deliberate plan between ex-CND Vice Chair Ashton and her CND colleagues in the Kremlim to provide an excuse for invasion or WWIII between East and West? Is Cathy Ashton being paid a secret back-hander by the Kremlin for providing Putin with his perfect excuse to invade Crimea and (soon) other countries which get scared nearby, and rearm, "escalating tensions" with Russia, or even WWIII? Remember, Adolf Hitler had effective support from "disarmament pacifists" in England like 1933 Oxford Union pacifist debate leader professor Cyril Joad, who was still exaggerating weapons effects in his August 1939 Penguin books disarmament best-seller "Why War?" (where he falsely stated that the consensus of publications on war was that everything would be wiped out by incendiary, high explosive and gas immediately a war began). Like today's "pacifists", this encourages thugs to start wars.
    Mr McKinstry needs to compare in quantitative detail the level of corruption and slaughter financed by corrupt, dictatorial, anti-democratic "European Union" projects (like funding third world tobacco farmers to cause lung cancer in addition to the "warmongering" politics behind the current Ukraine crisis), with the "eugenics for ethnic fitness" of dictatorships like the USSR.  He writes softly instead (Daily Express article of 6 March 2014, page 12):

    “Because the EU’s officials are not answerable to the peoples of the nation states ... Brussels overspent its budget last year by a shocking £20 billion. [This] far exceeds anything achieved by oil company Enron. ... we have to pay £14 billion every year in our annual contribution ... a protection racket that fails to provide any protection. ... its own auditors have not given its accounts a clean bill of health for the past 18 years.  Brussels has an annual budget of £133 billion ... the EU spends £2.4 billion a year on marketing and publicity ... European officials take an average of 14.6 days off sick every year ... When its Court of Auditors in 2013 found “serious failures” in the award of EU contracts for a £13 billion pipeline between Hungary and Romania the EU said with typical insouciance, “We interpret the rules differently.” [This was precisely Putin’s response to corruption claims over the Winter Olympics.] ... the EU’s foreign service ... has 37 staff in Papua New Guinea and 32 in Mozambique.”

    Paul Mercer gives the following 1983 flowchart in his excellent anti-propaganda book, 'Peace' of the Dead: The Truth Behind the Nuclear Disarmers (Policy Research Publications, London, 1986), page 91:

    Soviet Union Politburo, Candidate Member: Boris Ponomarev
    Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, Secretary: Boris Ponomarev
    International Department, Head: Boris Ponomarev; Oleg Kharkhardin (Vice-President of Soviet Peace Committee)
    World Peace Council, President: Romesh Chandra; Oleg Kharkhardin (Vice-President of Soviet Peace Committee)
    International Liaison Forum of Peace Forces, Chairman: Romesh Chandra; Executive Secretary: Oleg Kharkhardin; Vice-Chairmen: Arthur Booth and Sean MacBride
    (member body)
    International Peace Bureau, Chairman: Arthur Booth; President: Sean MacBride; Vice-President: Bruce Kent
    (member body)
    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), General Secretary: Bruce Kent; Irish CND Committee: Sean MacBride

    Mercer states that the delegation which CND sent to Moscow in May 1982 consisted of Lord Hugh Jenkins (1980-1 CND Chairman), Joan Ruddock (then the current CND Chairman), Roger Spiller (who was soon to be elected Vice-Chairman of CND), Sally Davison (full-time National Organiser of CND, 1979-81), and Gerard Holden. On 31 May 1982, Joan Ruddock, the Chairman of CND, was in session with Yuri Zhukov, the Chairman of the Soviet 'World Peace Council' anti-Western propaganda lobby. Soviet news agency TASS on 28 May 1982 reported that Lord Jenkins said CND 'had a high opinion of the Soviet peace initiative', neglecting all the Soviet funded invasions and wars on democracy throughout the world! CND's control by Soviet communism continued right up to the end of the Cold War. For example, see Dr Julian Lewis's article, 'CND's New Stalinist Leader' in the December 1990 issue of Freedom Today (available online):

    'CND has appointed the former National Organiser of the British branch of the World Peace Council (WPC) as its new General Secretary – the position held by Bruce Kent when leading CND in the early 1980s. Mr Gary Lefley, who takes up CND's top full-time salaried post in the new year, can accurately be described as an agent of President Brezhnev's propaganda machine at the height of the Soviet "peace offensive" against NATO's planned deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles. ... Before the 1983 General Election, CND published a list of 120 Labour MPs amongst its members. This total had risen to 133 by the time of the 1987 General Election. Currently, CND refuses to reveal either the total or the names of their supporters in the Parliamentary Labour Party. This is undoubtedly because it would run counter to Labour's attempts to conceal its continuing unilateralism. Now that the organisation is to be run by a propagandist for the Brezhnev regime, there is yet another reason for Labour's CND MPs to keep their membership a secret.'

    Above: EU lying propaganda.  Do you know what to believe?  Maybe the next plan for the European Union, after flooding England to “prove global warming”, and sparking World War III for “nuclear disarmament” (destruction of American capitalism), is probably to invade Israel (on the lying basis of protecting the Jews), rob Israel, enslave its people, then enforce eugenics.  Why take the risk? Brussels, EUSSR headquarters in Belgium, has no nuclear weapons to defend itself.  We still have Trident, so we could stop this insanity TODAY.

    Army personnel helps to put sand bags in the village of Wraysbury, Berkshire [EPA]

    Let charity begin at home with a civil defence corps

    POLITICS is all about priorities. In an ideal world we would all like to be able to spend unlimited funds helping everyone who is in need.  But in the real world you have to decide which causes are the most deserving. And when any government sees its own citizens suffering it is only common sense to say that they must come first. For all of us who truly believe in Britain it is obvious that our obligation to our compatriots when they are in need and in peril must constitute the highest claim on our collective talents and resources.

    Above: pages 322-323 of the PDF compilation linked here; Khrushchev blinked first after President Kennedy, on 22 October 1962, stated in his TV address to the American public and the world: "The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. ... To halt this offensive buildup a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948. ... I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities ... It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."  This response was based in part on Kennedy's own experience of appeasement in 1939 in the American Embassy in London while writing his thesis and book Why England Slept, and partly on the basis of strategists like Herman Kahn, who Kennedy observed at the June 1959 congressional hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War (Kahn's testimony there is more concise than his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War).  Strategists like Kahn addressed the problem of how to deal with dangerous provocations without encouraging further aggression by simply waving a white flag or appeasing the aggressor (as Grey did to the Kaiser in 1914, and as Chamberlain did to Hitler in 1939).  Being nice to thugs just makes things worse.  So you have to be tough yet undeniably reasonable to avoid tit-for-tat escalations:

    The real, once Top Secret classified "War Plan UK" for the event of a sneaky "Pearl Harbor"-style surprise attack by Russia, and some of the secret research it provoked ...
    Professor Peter Hennessy published some declassified potential Russian target lists in The Secret State (2002, revised 2003 and 2010). Crown Copyright Reserved.
    Above: arresting the culprit.  Nobody sane in London on 28 June 1914 believed that the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would spark WWI in early August.  As the author of On Thermonuclear War, Herman Kahn told Professor Freeman Dyson (quoted in Dyson's 1984 book Weapons and Hope):  "you had to be paranoid in 1941 to believe the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor", despite the fact that in 1940, President Roosevelt imposed sanctions against Japan to prevent it getting oil, when Japan invaded Vietnam/Indochina.

    Above: the British media was the stage for a war of terror between nuclear weapons effects exaggerating CND and Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher's pro-civil defence, pro-deterrence, anti-intimidation elected government. At the 1983 General Election, CND went so far as to try to get voters to elect Neil Kinnock's Labour Party due to its declared unilateral nuclear disarmament policy, which would have removed Britain from its 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' role for American nuclear weapons in the effort to deter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe! CND did this by exaggerating the effects of nuclear weapons as well as downplaying the horrendous suffering that living under communist dictatorship would entail and also downplaying the incredible effectiveness of simple civil defense countermeasures against thermal radiation, blast and fallout radiation! Despite all her widely-attacked and tragic failings on domestic policy, Thatcher stood up for freedom effectively in foreign policy: unlike most scientifically inept politicians, she was a former research chemist, who - despite her widely perceived domestic policy failings as a right-wing woman - backed the morality of civil defence and on foreign policy issues stood up to terrorist state dictator Leonid Brezhnev, echoing Clayton's pragmatic outlook on war in her address to the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament on 23 June 1982, when she pointed out that in the years since the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 10 million people were killed by 140 non-nuclear conflicts, so:

    ‘The fundamental risk to peace is not the existence of weapons of particular types. It is the disposition on the part of some states to impose change on others by resorting to force against other nations ... Aggressors do not start wars because an adversary has built up his own strength. They start wars because they believe they can gain more by going to war than by remaining at peace.’

    Charles J. Hitch and Roland B. McKean of the RAND Corporation in their 1960 book The Economics of Defence in the Nuclear Age, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, p. 310, stated:

    ‘With each side possessing only a small striking force, a small amount of cheating would give one side dominance over the other, and the incentive to cheat and prepare a preventative attack would be strong... With each side possessing, say, several thousand missiles, a vast amount of cheating would be necessary to give one side the ability to wipe out the other’s striking capability.’

    For example, America used two nuclear weapons against Japan in desperation to stop World War II fighting when it had no nuclear stockpile at all, but resisted from using nuclear weapons at all when it had a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, even when it had superiority over the Soviet Union until the 1960s. At the end of The Economics of Defence in the Nuclear Age, p. 357, the authors stress: ‘the more extensive a disarmament agreement is, the smaller the force that a violator would have to hide in order to achieve complete domination. Most obviously, “the abolition of the weapons necessary in a general or ‘unlimited’ war” would offer the most insuperable obstacles to an inspection plan, since the violator could gain an overwhelming advantage from the concealment of even a few weapons.’

    Thus, reducing the scale of nuclear deterrence may not result in increased security. This fact is not opinion, and it doesn't matter if it opposes 'consensus thinking' or 'groupthink'. Such a fact is not a pro-nuclear bias, or propaganda, but is countering lying propaganda. We have to work with natural facts in the real world, regardless of whether popular ideologies and utopias are contrary to them.

    Following the 1991 Soviet Union collapse, in 1994 the Ukraine was disarmed of its own nuclear deterrent in exchange for a guarantee called the "Budapest Memorandum", which was signed by Russia as well as the U.S. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major. Article 4 in this Memorandum promised to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine (which has included Crimea since 1954), in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Similarly, Britain had guaranteed the security of Poland on March 31, 1939, precipitating WWII after Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and likewise in 1839 Britain had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium by the Treaty of London, leading to WWI after Germany invaded Belgium in 1914. Now, the Ukraine is reminding us of our 1994 Budapest Memorandum (one day in the distant future, maybe politicians will grow up, stop appeasing disarmament lobbies, and allow countries to keep their own nuclear deterrent to deter aggression against themselves, instead of this system of maximizing the escalation potential, inviting aggressive conflicts and war in the name of "peacemaking").

    Britain's last hot war against Russia was the Crimean War, 1853-6. Russia was eventually defeated by an alliance of Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey (Ottoman Empire).  Britain's Crimean War against Russia broke out after gradual escalation stemming from Russian Tsar Nicholas I invasion of Moldavia on 2 July 1853, which initially seemed to be a trifling escalation of a clash between Russia and France's President Napoleon over the control of Palestine in the Middle East.  But then Turkey declared war on Russia on 5 October 1853, and on 4 November, Russian ships from its naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea annihilated Turkey's fleet at Sinope, its Black Sea base, the event that forced Britain and France to finally declare war on Russia in March 1854.  They were fighting to destroy Russia's Crimean naval base at Sevastopol, which proved harder than expected: Crimea was secured in February 1856, after two years of brutal fighting and a cholera epidemic, with the loss of 25,000 British, 100,000 French and 1,000,000 Russian lives.

    British Prime Minister Aberdeen had to resign from his coalition government, Russian Tsar Nicholas I died from pneumonia due to a chill during the conflict, and the Russian debt from the war was so great that his son, Tsar Alexander II, sold the Russian territory of Alaska to America.  The poverty of Russia due to war debt made it a target for Marxist-communist revolutionaries like Lenin, while the decline of Russian political influence permitted the Prussian German Empire to unite and arm itself to start WWI.

    Despite some changed map boundaries, country names, political ideology, oil and gas reserves, and technology, people don't evolve in 160 years.  Key underlying disputes between East and West remain, like the military and religious flashpoints, e.g. Crimea and Palestine in the Middle East, and the financial, human and political costs of invasions:

    Ukraine's interior minister accused Russian forces of an "armed invasion" at an airport in Crimea, as tensions escalate. It seems that most Ukrainians fear annexation of their country by Russia.

    The legitimately-elected yet "undemocratically" deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, now residing in Moscow, gives Russian President Vladimir Putin the perfect excuse for his military invasion of Ukraine. The problem here is really Iraq and Afghanistan, which have helped push the U.K. to well over £1 trillion in National Debt, not to mention personal and bank debt which is another housing bubble (the threat of negative equity on homes and assets once Britain defaults on interest payments due to rising interest rates, resulting in bank failures that the government must either bail out at public "expense"/debt, or else classic financial ruin, either a la Greece, or else a la Weimar Republic).

    We're currently only having to pay 2% interest (historically rock bottom rates), but we're still running a deficit (the debt is still growing bigger), not a surplus (see graphs below). This means we can't afford to even think about talking of another Crimean War (in the first one, Alfred Nobel made his prize-fortune by considerately supplying dynamite to both sides). In the first Crimean War (1853-6) Russia lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. But Russia won't lose this time: we simply can't afford to fight for the liberty of the Ukraine. If interest rates go up due to economic uncertainty caused by such a war, we'd go bankrupt as is proved by the Money Week magazine graphs below.

    The U.K. Government on both sides of Parliament falsely and sneakily conflates "deficit" with "debt", to make it appear that the horrendous cutbacks needed to reduce the deficit - the rate of increase of debt - are somehow cutting the debt itself. Wrong: the debt is still growing bigger - we're still headed out to sea into the storm, and we're not even turning around for a return to shore! Some estimates of the total U.K. debt (which is not an exact science, since you have to allow for depreciation of supposed "assets" into "negative equity" or "debt" when the economy goes completely bust and the gas hisses out of the inflated housing bubble) are that it is now worse than the 913% of GDP that the Weimar Republic had when it collapsed, sowing the seed of WWII.

    Cutting the deficit is like reducing the throttle a bit, while still going in the wrong direction. The only way to reduce the debt is to have a surplus. To get rid of the debt means having a surplus for many years into the future. We don't even have a surplus! We've still got a deficit, so the national debt bomb is still growing, but the opposition watermelon parties use smokescreens to cover it up instead of pressurising the government to start reducing the debt mountain. But the fact is, debt interest default will wipe out Britain's credit rating, causing further interest rate rises in a period of international tension, escalating the problems.

    The West half of the Ukraine (which borders Europe) is pro-European Union and wants Ukraine to join the European Union. However, the Eastern side of the Ukraine speaks Russian and tends to be Leninist and to feel some empathy with Putin's Russia. Will Russia's President Putin simply "put up" with the deposition of the pro-Putin elected Ukraine president, or will Putin instead decide to take a hand and "offer assistance" to Ukraine? Historically, all of Hitler's invasions in the mid to late 1930s were "excused" on the basis that Hitler was simply "protecting" the pro-Hitler, German-speaking, minorities. For example, when Hitler "invaded" the Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia in September 1938, Hitler's excuse was that he was "providing humanitarian assistance" to nearly four million Germans who were living in the Sudentenland region of Czechoslovakia.

    My point is that Hitler always had the "plausible lie"-type excuse that he was merely providing soldiers to act as "peacekeepers" or policemen, to "protect" German minorities in the countries he invaded. Because there are some Germans in a minority in every country, this excuse could be applied also to every country in the world. Propaganda it was, but it helped to "justify" the "peaceful" spread of the Third Reich. Hitler's glib excuse for the German annexation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, etc.: Jackboots were merely being used to "protect German Nationals in bigoted, anti-Nazi countries". (Those who were pacifist/fascist chose to believe Hitler because they wanted to; they had seen falsified pacifist 1930s claims that war would exterminate all the cities with gas, explosives, and incendiaries the moment war started.) This "peaceful invasion" situation, is mirrored by the Russian situation with regard to the Crimean region of the Ukraine today, "justified" by the fact Russia's Navy has a controversial base at Sevastopol (familiar from the 1853-6 war!) in the Crimea for its Black Sea Fleet (click here for details of the serious Ukrainian controversy over this base).

    IF Russian President Putin decides to authorize the Russian Army to "provide further assistance" to the pro-Putin, pro-Russian, Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Eastern part of the Ukraine, perhaps adding the extra excuse that the present corrupt Ukrainian President was "democratically elected" and has been "unlawfully dismissed" by the Ukrainian Parliament as a result of a few undemocratic protests in Kiev, while the European Union and America support the pro-European Union Ukrainians in the West of the Ukraine, then the civil war will be beyond Western intervention, because of the debt bomb for the West.

    First, an invasion by Russia will cause a really severe civil war in Ukraine. America's Obama and the European Union will then have to either climb down and lose face to Putin, or else we will end up with Ukraine becoming another Vietnam in which both sides (Russia and the West) provide war materiel, protracting and deepening the war. The end result could well be a complete degeneration of West-Russian relations and another very icy Cold War. But instead of Russian dictatorship being deterred effectively as in the past, the crippling national debts of the U.K. and U.S.A. will make them incredible, so their impotence will end up - like Chamberlain at Munich in September 1938 - encouraging aggression and further invasions. Second, with nuclear disarmament today proceeding like 1930s British disarmament, and for the exactly same financial and war-effects-exaggerating reasons as 1930s British disarmament, will we all be conscripted to fight WWIII, without any politically incorrect neutron bombs or other effective tank deterrents?

    Update: a few quotations from the bestselling author of The Fourth Protocol about clandestine nuclear attack, Frederick Forsyth, from his 28 February 2014 Daily Express (page 13) newspaper article on the Ukrainian crisis:

    Corruption is rampant all over the world

    AS we gaze out from our island there is precious little to bring us the comfort of optimism. ... every time a rioter was interviewed out came the same complaint: every holder of public office was massively corrupt. There were various complaints against the regime of now-toppled Mr Yanukovych but that was the most constant one.

    Above: Poor old ex-KGB officer President Putin's hard-line corruption may be due to the fact that, apart from sharing the same Christian name as Lenin, Wikipedia shows his brainwashing by the corrupt USSR:

    "Putin joined the KGB in 1975 upon graduation, and underwent a year's training at the 401st KGB school in Okhta, Leningrad. He then went on to work briefly in the Second Chief Directorate (counter-intelligence) before he was transferred to the First Chief Directorate, where among his duties was the monitoring of foreigners and consular officials in Leningrad.[28][29] From 1985 to 1990, the KGB stationed Putin in Dresden, East Germany.[30] Following the collapse of the communist East German government, Putin was recalled to the Soviet Union and returned to Leningrad, where in June 1991 he assumed a position with the International Affairs section of Leningrad State University, reporting to Vice-Rector Yuriy Molchanov.[29] In his new position, Putin maintained surveillance on the student body and kept an eye out for recruits. It was during his stint at the university that Putin grew reacquainted with his former professor Anatoly Sobchak, then mayor of Leningrad.[31Putin finally resigned from the active state security services with the rank of lieutenant colonel on 20 August 1991 (with some attempts to resign made earlier),[31] on the second day of the KGB-supported abortive putsch against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.[32] Putin later explained his decision: "As soon as the coup began, I immediately decided which side I was on", though he also noted that the choice was hard because he had spent the best part of his life with "the organs".[33]"  

    We really don't want to make personal comments about President Putin, just in case our names goes on a hit list, and he decides to invade the UK, then perform his great KGB magic trick of making all the people on his list suddenly disappear without fair trial into Siberian salt mines (or maybe mass graves if he decides to lower his salt intake to improve his fitness).  By the way, we do have some positive things to write about Putin the Great: he rides well, is great at judo, and swims the butterfly stroke nearly as well as me.

    Tribute video of President Putin the Great, engaged in one of the many fine things he does best (which include huge state spending sprees for prestige, giving contracts worth billions to dedicated friends):

    Update: James Delingpole points out the funny side of this crisis from our (UK) financially bad situation for a war, in a 3 March 2014 article:

    Why are some people so hot for war with Russia? I don't just mean the neo cons and the semi-retired cold warriors still half expecting the squadrons of T54s ...

    ... Should it merely involve the conscription of every man between 18 and 30 and the immediate doubling of our defence budget? Or are we to go on a proper, Germany-in-late-'44 Götterdämmerung footing and ready the granddads with their pitchforks and prepare the school kids to man the anti-aircraft batteries? ... does that mean I get to fly a Harrier Jump Jet. Because if I do, I must tell you, it will fulfil a long-standing childhood fantasy of mine. Growing up in the Eighties, when General Sir John Hackett had that enormous, bestselling success with his what-if future history The Third World War, a major conflagration with the Soviet Union - possibly ending with the destruction of the whole world - was something all of us British schoolkids half feared ... American schoolchildren of the era, we know, felt just the same way. The tagline of 1984's Red Dawn was: "In our time no foreign army has ever occupied American soil. Until now." ...
     On Breitbart Radio last night, the admirable Frank Gaffney - a former defence adviser to the man who did more than anyone to bring about the end of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan - was ramping up the rhetoric about global conflagration. ... In the US President Obama has been castigated - not unreasonably, it must be said - for making empty threats. (If you're going to make threats, be prepared to carry them through - or don't make them in the first place). ... It is a quarrel in a far-away country between people ...
    Here James Delingpole is parodying Prime Minister Chamberlain's September 27, 1938, radio speech to the nation of Britain, dismissing Hitler's aggression as a storm in a teacup:
    "... a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war. I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. ... However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.  For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night."
    Chamberlain's 1930s dogmatic policy of "speak softly and carry a big stick" was disproved by its failure in both 1914 (Britain's Foreign Secretary Edward Grey) and 1939 (Chamberlain):

    In 1914, Britain's Foreign Secretary Edward Grey made precisely the SAME "hesitancy" error with the Kaiser that Chamberlain - "acting as his own Foreign Secretary" (Chamberlain's own words) - made in the late 1930s!  Grey had the worst of all worlds by following the infamous 26 January 1900 "speak softly and carry a big stick" advice of President Ted Roosevelt.
    British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey, following Ted, refused to clearly threaten war against Germany if Germany invaded Belgium until it was too late for all the mobilization and preparation in Germany to be stopped!

    Grey, more interested in fly fishing than foreign affairs, was so obsessed until 1 August 1914 with trying to reach agreement with Germany for British neutrality in exchange for a German promise to avoid the invasion of France, that he failed to tell Germany clearly that Britain would go to war against Germany, if Germany invaded Belgium, until it was too late to prevent German mobilization.  The rest of the Cabinet failed to intervene with Grey's disastrously weak negotiations, since they were too busy preparing for war (churchill) or dealing with domestic affairs (literally "affairs" in the case of August 1914 Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith who had 7 kids but was spending Cabinet meetings writing up to 4 love letters to his mistress, Venetia Stanley, according to research by historian Bobbie Neate, the stepdaughter of Asquith's secret love child who has a blog linked here):

    In total Britain's August 1914 Prime Minister Herbert Asquith wrote 560 love letters to his mistress Venetia Stanley, while never writing to his three sons serving in France: "Often he would sit in Cabinet writing love letters while vital discussions raged around him. ... The public, of course, had no inkling. ... During the war, the press was strictly censored."

    Historian A. J. P. Taylor (a CND star founder) ignored all this, misrepresenting the origin of WWI as just an "arms race", to help achieve unilateral nuclear disarmament with his 1969 War by Timetable book, see also pages here and here (Taylor's arms race theory of WWI, basically just a repeat of Edward Grey's old 1914 lying excuse for blundering into disaster, was very popular with the Vietnam era anti-nuclear, pro-love CND peaceniks).
    Lord Grey in 1914 failed to make it clear to Germany in good time that Britain would go to war if Germany invaded Belgium, because Grey was too obsessed with "diplomacy" (even proposing to Germany on 1 August 1914 that Britain would stay neutral, if only Germany left France alone) :
    "When he [Lord Grey] finally did make such communication, German forces were already massed at the Belgian border, and Helmuth von Moltke convinced Kaiser Wilhelm II it was too late to change the plan of attack." -,_1st_Viscount_Grey_of_Fallodon#July_Crisis
    The Germany Navy during the Kaiser's War Cabinet on 8 December 1912 set a date for war 18 months in the future, as reported in the Diary of Admiral Muller:
    "General von Moltke [German army chief] said: I believe war is unavoidable; war the sooner the better. But we ought to do more to press to prepare the popularity of a war against Russia. The Kaiser supported this. Tirpitz [German Navy chief] said that the navy would prefer to see the postponement of the great fight for one and a half years."

    "IS STILL SLEEPING": Kennedy's inscription on the reprint of his book when President of the United States.
    Finally, as President John F. Kennedy himself proved while working at the American Embassy in London in 1939, Grey was actually responsible for the "arms race" scares in Britain which both encouraged Hitler's rearmament and motivated Britain's pacifist disarmament in the 1930s, thus contributing to WWII (not only to the outbreak of WWI)!

    Edward Grey's lying excuse after WWI devastation broke out in 1914 was that the "arms race" (not his own bungling) caused WWI!  Here are the words of President John F. Kennedy's 80,000 copy bestselling book Why England Slept, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1962 (first published 1940), page 16 (the original editor's book typescript is in the Kennedy Library archive, linked here):
    “The statement of Lord Grey, British Foreign Minister, made in 1914, that, “The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity, and fear caused by them; it was these that made war inevitable,’ had a tremendous effect on post-war British opinion. Armaments were looked upon as something horrible, as being the cause of war, not a means of defence. Again and again, through the ‘thirties, opponents of rearmament quoted Grey.”
    Of course, Grey wasn't the only one in the Cabinet solely responsible for Britain's declaration of WWI. Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in August 1914 (in charge of Britain's Navy) and David Lloyd George, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, should have had a better handle on what was going on, but they were too busy with military and domestic matters, and thus accepted Grey's reassurances until it was too late.  But the fact is that Grey, had he been more lucid, could have potentially deterred the Kaiser by making Britain's position clearer sooner, instead of getting "the worst of all worlds" by bungling into disaster.  By speaking softly and avoiding any threat, Grey minimized the possibility of directly escalating the confrontation himself (thus protecting his own neck and avoiding a row with Cabinet colleagues who were pacifist), but in this end it was not a good policy, because it had the dire, negative effect of conveying the impression of weakness, indecision and exploitable foolishness to the enemy.

    (This same situation recurred 25 years later, which again led to lies from the culprit: Chamberlain had the brass cheek to lie that after WWII broke out that he had been buying time for British rearmament at Munich in 1938, when he knew at the time that Germany was arming faster than Britain so every second of postponed war was causing a reduction in the probability of Britain winning the war.  Chamberlain knew this.  Churchill had warned the Government using a famous Daily Express article in 1934, but lying Prime Minister Baldwin ignored the truth, as did Chamberlain.  Afterwards, these dictatorship-supporting thugs got off scot-free by telling lies, just like Grey did in 1914.  Chamberlain knew in 1938 that Germany was in an all-out arms race and was arming faster than Britain.  If your opponent is arming faster than you are, every second of delay on your part allows the enemy to acquire more weapons than you can, so the imbalance increases!  The lying historians today still ignore these facts on rearmament rates - published by President John F. Kennedy in his 1940 thesis and best-selling 80,000 copy book "Why England Slept" - out of ignorance of economics and science, and out of anti-nuclear, anti-arms race bias.  In the same way, these lying historians screw up the true history of the biological effects of radiation and DNA repair mechanisms, in suit their political agendas.  It is sick.)

    Therefore, unlike the assassin of the Archduke and others players, Grey's role in the start of WWI was not merely a trivial convenient excuse for war, because Grey actually had the power to influence the Kaiser, yet failed to do so.   Therefore, Grey could have prevented WWI, by acting differently.   Likewise, Chamberlain wasn't the only cause of WWII, but he should have understood from Grey's 1914 failure, that the only language of diplomacy is force: action speaks louder than words.  Putin understands this.  

    Update: incorrect propaganda fear-mongering on radiation effects by right-wing (not merely left-wing) continues in recent articles.

    Jane Warren writes in a double-page feature in the Daily Express (1 March 2014, pages 36-37) that the genetic deformalities of Igor Pavlovets, who was born on 3 March 1987 nearly one year after the accident by which time iodine-131 had disappeared, were caused by radiation from Chernobyl in 1986:

    "Following the explosions at the Chernobyl reactor on April 26, 1986, in what was then the Soviet Union, a generation of children was born with disabilities caused by radiation. Igor was one of the first."

    Everyone humane is very glad that Jane Warren got Igor Pavlovets to England and a better life than he would have got in the USSR and the following corrupt regimes, but the good news she doesn't report is that there is extensive objective scientific evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that proves Igor Pavlovets with overwhelming probability did not get his deformalities from the sub-lethal levels of radiation his parents were exposed to.  Isn't that great news to report, Jane Warren?  (Or is there still a Jane Warren bias against truth when it comes to radiation, as Dr Sanders suggests in his conclusive 2010 book, Radiation Hormesis and the Linear No-Threshold Assumption, published by Springer?)

    For this evidence that sub-lethal nuclear radiation exposure doesn't produce any statistically significant rise in genetic deformalities, please see the studies made by the official Japanese-American "Radiation Effects Research Foundation",

    "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. During that period, 76,626 newborn infants were examined by ABCC physicians. When surveillance began, certain dietary staples were rationed in Japan, but ration regulations made special provision for women who were at least 20 weeks pregnant. This supplementary ration registration process enabled the identification of more than 90% of all pregnancies and the subsequent examination of birth outcomes."

    Genetic defects are not caused by radiation but are instead caused by occasional natural mistakes during the complex epigenetic differentiation of limbs and organs.  We don't need to subscribe to left-wing myths about radiation induced mutations, just because of communist propaganda from the Cold War which tried to scare the West into surrendering.  If we had surrendered, I fear Igor wouldn't have a life in England.  I submitted a brief and polite, factual comment on this to the Daily Express website, so we'll see if Jane Warren continues to use unjustified emotional propaganda and ignore objective evidence on the subject of Igor:

    It is great Jane Warren and supporters helped Igor Pavlovets come to England after Chernobyl to receive a far better life than he would have had in the USSR and its successor, but one new piece of good news which she doesn't report is available. 
    There is strong evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki arguing the case that Igor may not have been deformed by the survivable levels of radiation his parents were exposed to.  Instead, genetic defects are caused by occasional natural mistakes during the complex epigenetic differentiation of limbs.  For evidence from 76,626 children born after the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any statistically significant rise in normal rates of genetic deformalities, see the official Japanese-American "Radiation Effects Research Foundation", 
    "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among [76,626] children of survivors."

    If uncorrected, this type of scare mongering on radiation undermines everything from safe electric power to the deterrence of World War III.  The supposedly "right wing" newspapers might as well move to Moscow when it comes to believing emotional lies and ignoring the extensive data and reassuring facts on radiation safety from Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear warfare.  It's a mixture of the journalist's training in appealing to human emotions and superstitions, and bad scientific education.  (Say "prove it" to those guys and your request is not taken as a responsible demand for accuracy and precision and research on their part, but as somehow "unfeeling callous cold heartedness".  Well, if we disarm and all get wiped out by Siberian salt mines, "nice warm emotional lies" won't cut much ice, as Herman Kahn used to say.)  While on the subject of inaccurate, emotional watermelon-style "radiation news reporting", the people of Bikini Atoll are still being duped into staying away from paradise by the fascist thugs, despite the use of potassium fertilizer to prevent Cs-137 uptake being recommended first in 1959 to protect the people of Rongelap (this recommendation was published, but never acted upon by the incompetent groupthink secret committees of loonies).

    Setting all the Nazi style, originally secret-classified “Gestapo-like” groupthink crackpot conferences and the angry, bigoted, demented censorship “reports” of undemocratic, mean-spirited, KGB-style, 1930s-British-appeasement-like, CND-worshipping, “nuclear weapons effects expert opinion” aside, please see page 830 of the published June 1959 U.S. Congressional Hearings on “Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War”, linked here, for proof that it was scientifically well understood in 1959 that potassium is in the same group of the Periodic Table of chemistry as cesium, so that adding potassium to the potassium-deficient soil at Bikini, Eniwetok and Rongelap would prevent the uptake of cesium-137 by plants and food chains.  If the Guardian and BBC want to expose a "real conspiracy" by America to destroy the world using radiation cover-ups, here is it.  But this doesn't suit their political, warped, lying agenda, so these evil bullying, ignorant, propaganda-supporting, complacent, pseudo-liberal "green"-fascist thugs simply help to cover it up as usual.

    The facts were also globally published in the following 10 December 1988 New Scientist article, "Potassium could cover up Bikini's radioactivity" (if the American's don't improve their communication skills regarding decontamination successes, the Bikini islanders will forget all about the joys of Bikini and prefer to join the CND disarmers instead, funded to promote emotional hogwash for turning the world communist or "green"): "The largest contributor to radiation doses from exposure to residual fallout contamination in the Marshall Islands comes from cesium-137. ... coconut crabs (refer photo shown above) form an important and prized source of food in the Marshall Islands and, in certain locations, have been found to contain above average concentrations of cesium-137." "Twenty-three nuclear devices were detonated on Bikini Atoll between 1946 and 1958 with a combined fission yield of 42.2 Megaton (Mt) ... An additional forty-three atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted on Enewetak Atoll about 300 km to the west of Bikini Atoll. The most significant contaminating event in the Marshall Islands nuclear test campaign and the highest yield atmospheric nuclear test ever conducted by the United States involved the detonation of a high-energy thermonuclear on Bikini Atoll on 1 March of 1954. This ground-surface test was code named Bravo and had an estimated explosive yield of 15 Mt. ... Through the early 1980s, scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory developed an extensive database of environmental measurements for Bikini Atoll, especially for soils and vegetation growing on Bikini and Eneu Islands. ... During this period, predictive dose assessments for both Bikini and Enewetak Atolls clearly indicated that the most significant pathway for human exposure toresidual fallout contamination in the Marshall Islands was ingestion of cesium-137 contained in locally grown root crops such as coconut, breadfruit, and Pandanus (Robison et al., 1980; 1982). ... One key factor that helps explain why cesium-137 plays such a important role in contributing to radiation exposure in the Marshall Islands is that coral soils are known to contain little or no clay material and very low concentrations of naturally occurring potassium—an alkaline earth element that shares similar properties with cesium. These conditions result in increased uptake of cesium-137 from soil and incorporation into plants relative to the rate of cesium-137 uptake from continental soils. Consequently, the significance of dietary intakes of cesium-137 from eating locally grown foods was initially overlooked because early models in radioecology were based on continental type soils and exposure conditions. ... the most effective and practical method for reducing the uptake of cesium-137 into food crop products was to treat agricultural areas with potassium fertilizer (KCl). The addition of potassium had the added benefit of increasing the growth rate and productivity of some food crops with essentially no adverse environmental impacts. ... experiments show that a single application of 2000 kg per ha of potassium can be effective in reducing the cesium-137 uptake in coconut meat (and juice) to about 5% to 10% of the pretreatment level. ... we have recently demonstrated that the environmental half-life of cesium-137 is more important than radiological decay in controlling the fate and distribution of cesium-137 in coral soils (Robison et al., 2003). For example, the estimated effective half-life of cesium-137 on Bikini, Enewetak, and Rongelap Atolls is around 8 to 9.8 years (95% confidence) compared with its radiological half-life of 30 years. ... cesium-137 is slowly being incorporated into more resistant mineral phases within the soil and, through aging effects, may be becoming less available for soil-to-plant transfer. ... Applying a mean effective cesium-137 half-life of 8.5 years for the data developed for the 1999 Bikini dose assessment (Robison et al., 1997a), the predicted population average effective dose for resettlement of Bikini in 2010, where imported foods are available, is conservatively estimated to be about 0.17 mSv per year (17 mrem per year) or very close to the self-imposed cleanup standard of 0.15 mSv per year adopted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal. With this understanding and the fact that exposure conditions on Bikini are improving at an accelerated rate, early resettlement of Bikini Atoll may become much more plausible and cost effective."

    (Shame on LLNL for providing an unreadably poor-quality, badly uploaded PDF Bikini Atoll datasheet:  They might as well keep it locked in a safe marked "top secret" for all the use it is in making the facts lucid !) has the following (surprisingly high-definition) photo of the 360 kiloton Redwing-Mohawk nuclear explosion on a 300 ft tower at Eniwetok on 3 July 1956, passed off as the 15 megaton Bravo test at Bikini, followed by an account of Bikini Islander radiation fears (which we specifically debunked in the previous post on this blog!!):

    Above: 360 kt Redwing-Mohawk on Eberiru Island in Eniwetok Atoll (detonated on a 91 metre tower, on 3 July 1956), a UCRL thermonuclear device employing a compact fusion-boosted Swan-type (11.6" by 22.8", 105 lb) primary fission stage and a Flute-type secondary (thermonuclear) stage. The bomb was 15" in diameter, 46.2" long, with a mass of 1116 lb. The resulting crater was only 8 feet deep.  The Japanese article wrongly states that this was the 15 megaton Bravo test in 1954 at Bikini Atoll!  The article continues:

    "The Marshall Islands on Saturday marked 60 years since the devastating U.S. hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, with angry exiled residents saying they are too fearful to ever go home. ... “The government says ‘don’t worry’ (about radiation exposure), but recently we’ve seen many cases of thyroid problems be confirmed in the Fukushima area,” said Kai Sato, a Fukushima University student.  [Sato: the half-life of the longest lived thyroid radiation iodine isotope, iodine-131, is only 8 days, it is a myth that continuing long-delayed cancers from the actual radiation exposure back in 1954 are somehow due to continuing low-level radiation at Bikini and everywhere else on earth, which is now mainly natural potassium-40, uranium-238, radon, etc.]  “People don’t know what is the correct information to believe.” ... But a U.N. report in 2012 s ... called for the U.S. to provide extra compensation to settle claims by nuclear-affected Marshall islanders and end a “legacy of distrust.” The Nuclear Claims Tribunal awarded more than $2 billion in personal injury and land damage claims arising from the nuclear tests, but stopped paying after a U.S.-provided $150 million compensation fund was exhausted."

    I have submitted the following polite fact correcting comment for moderation:

    This is a fine article. But I think that the photograph of the nuclear test at the top of the article is  not Bravo at Bikini Atoll, but is Redwing-Mohawk on Eberiru Island in Eniwetok Atoll (360 kilotons thermonuclear explosion on a 91 metre tower, on 3 July 1956). For confirmation of this fact, please see [that site contains all the classic groupthink errors on nuclear effects, however] 
    [Update: the mis-captioned Redwing-Mohawk photo was removed and replaced by a correct photo after I submitted my comment.] 
    At Bikini Atoll (scene for 42 megatons of fission yield in 23 nuclear tests), cesium-137 is only important in food chains in soil deficient in potassium, and cesium-137 uptake by crops at Bikini was diluted by adding potassium chloride fertilizer to soil (potassium is chemically similar to cesium, and thus works by the same dilution mechanism as iodine tablets for thyroid protection). 

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( found that the "effective half-life of cesium-137 on Bikini, Eniwetak, and Rongelap Atolls is around 8 to 9.8 years", not the laboratory radioactive half life figure of 30 years! This is because cesium compounds are relatively water-soluble and cesium-137 (as with iodine-131 and strontium-90) is fractionated in fallout (coated on the outer surface of fallout dust, not fused inside the particles) so it dissolves in rain and is soon weathered out of the local environment, ending up in the ocean (where it's totally insignificant compared to the immense natural radioactivity of sea water from potassium-40). Similarly, if you eat cesium-137, it doesn't build up in your body with a 30 year half life, but is flushed out with water with an effective half life of only about 3 months! 

    "Large-scale field experiments on Bikini Island have been used to optimize the required amount and application rates of potassium (Figure 3). The results from these experiments show that a single application of 2000 kg per ha of potassium can be effective in reducing the cesium-137 uptake in coconut meat (and juice) to about 5% to 10% of the pretreatment level. Multiple applications (over several months) of the same total amount of potassium produce even better and more consistent results. Moreover, the concentration of cesium-137 in the coconuts following remediation remains low for an extended period of time, so the need for continuous effort and retention of scientific and technical expertise is minimized (Robison et al., 2004)." - 

    So there is hope for Bikini Atoll. If the American government would publish a revised edition of its book "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" (last revised in 1977), it would help these people to understand the recent progress in decontamination and safety measures against fallout.  Thank you for your excellent article.

    Bikini Atoll nuclear test: 60 years later and islands still unliveable

    Marshall Islanders unable or unwilling to return to traditional home, scene of huge US hydrogen bomb test in 1954 [Emphasis added!]
    My comment to the Guardian:
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
    "Large-scale field experiments on Bikini Island ... show that a single application of 2000 kg per ha of potassium can be effective in reducing the cesium-137 uptake in coconut meat (and juice) to about 5% to 10% of the pretreatment level. Multiple applications (over several months) of the same total amount of potassium produce even better and more consistent results. Moreover, the concentration of cesium-137 in the coconuts following remediation remains low for an extended period of time, so the need for continuous effort and retention of scientific and technical expertise is minimized (Robison et al., 2004)."  
    At Bikini Atoll (scene for 42 megatons of fission yield in 23 nuclear tests), cesium-137 is only important in food chains in soil deficient in potassium, and cesium-137 uptake by crops at Bikini was diluted by adding potassium chloride fertilizer to soil (potassium is chemically similar to cesium, and thus works by the same dilution mechanism as iodine tablets for thyroid protection).
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( found that the "effective half-life of cesium-137 on Bikini, Eniwetak, and Rongelap Atolls is around 8 to 9.8 years", not the laboratory radioactive half life figure of 30 years! This is because cesium compounds are relatively water-soluble and cesium-137 (as with iodine-131 and strontium-90) is fractionated in fallout (coated on the outer surface of fallout dust, not fused inside the particles) so it dissolves in rain and is soon weathered out of the local environment, ending up in the ocean (where it's totally insignificant compared to the immense natural radioactivity of sea water from potassium-40). Similarly, if you eat cesium-137, it doesn't build up in your body with a 30 year half life, but is flushed out with water with an effective half life of only about 3 months! 
    There are exaggerations of radiation effects, and a bias against truth when it comes to radiation, as Dr Sanders suggests in his conclusive 2010 book, Radiation Hormesis and the Linear No-Threshold Assumption, published by Springer:
    Hopefully, this will be taken kindly and not with the censorship dished out by people like Dr Alex  Wellerstein of "NukeMap" fame, who censors facts of relevance to the groupthink emotional delusion and nonsense on the subject, and relevant also to his "NukeMap" exaggeration of nuclear weapons effects in urban target areas, apparently as simply being "boring", in the true spirit of propaganda that helps in achieving his right-wing Daily Mail newspaper acclaim:

    For a debunking of the equations "NukeMap" uses, i.e. Glasstone-type unobstructed, unshadowed desert nuclear test effects - which are exaggerations when applied to modern concrete city targets that absorb the heat flash, nuclear radiation and blast wave energy - see the previous posts, linked here and here.

    Above: 13 year old Jamie Edwards achieved nuclear fusion at school in Lancashire, proved by radiation measured by a Geiger counter.  However, this is not proof that anybody can make a hydrogen bomb or fusion-powered time-travelling DeLorean, or that we need to "disarm" Britain of school kids who study physics in case they blow up the universe.  The fusion problem is quantitative, not qualitative, contrary to newspaper hype today:

    And yesterday, in a ‘radiation controlled area’ in a classroom, before an audience of experts, he flicked a switch and stared intently at his Geiger counter until it registered that fusion had indeed taken place – or created ‘a star in a jar’, as Jamie refers to it. Nuclear fusion, the reaction that powers the sun, is very different from nuclear fission, or the splitting of the atom, that occurs in nuclear power stations and is the stuff of atom bombs.  However, both release vast amounts of energy.  Scientists around the world are replicating Jamie’s experiment, but on a much bigger scale, in the hope of using it on a large scale to fuel cheap, environmentally-friendly power stations.  Jamie said: ‘I heard the Geiger counter rapidly go up and I was “What is that?”,’ he said in the afterglow of success.   ‘Then I looked over and the neutron counter was right up off the scale nearly, and I thought “We must have done it”.’

    The problem is the amount of  fusion is trivial.  The scaling up of a fusion reactor to a practical power creates problems that don't exist on the small scale, so the proof of principle is not proof of practicality!  The only way to get useful energy from fusion reactors is to use plasma (heated by lasers) that is confined using magnetic fields, so at a high enough power (gigawatts) to be economic, you have the problem that any instability or failure of the magnetic plasma confinement system will cause a devastating explosion.  The scaled-up system is inherently unstable, and the very high energy fusion neutrons penetrate deeply into the surrounding materials, inducing radioactivity.

    Nuclear fusion is really only practical when the fusion fuel is compressed by a fission explosion in a hydrogen bomb, or by intense gravitational pressure in the middle of a star like the sun.  Newspaper journalists and politicians and the mathematically sci-fi orientated "physicists" with little grasp of the practical experimental problems that arise from real world scaling laws when you scale up laboratory tests, are too easily taken in and duped by the guys who exaggerate the "potential" of fusion energy projects, in order to get comfy eternal funding grants to play with.

    Update (15 March 2014):

    Frederick Forsyth has yet another article out, called "EU was reason for the Biblical Floods" (yes, seriously), in the Daily Express, Friday 14 March 2014, page 13.  In the interests of freedom of the press and avoiding censorship, a relevant quotation from the article is called for:

    Officialdom still seeks to divert the blame away from the useless chieftaincy of the Environment Agency who years ago ordered that the centuries-old practice of dredging the channels should cease [the liars instead naturally lie and blame droughts due to global warming by CO2 for the floods, as expected].  But towering evidence proves it was indeed this insane order that was to blame and now there are more revelations. ... he instruction actually came from the EU in Brussels in a directive of 2007, slavishly adopted by the Brown government in 2008.  It was called “making space for water”, ie, flooding, and it was absolutely deliberate. Is it not amazing that British bureaucrats and politicians would prefer to be accused of mass murder rather than have it revealed how utterly servile they are to Brussels? ... a book called The United States Of Europe [the title may explain why Americans don't seem to understand what the fuss is about here, not realizing how many fascists and loons Britain has had to fight off in the nearly one thousand years of the British Empire since its last successful invasion in October 1066, how much blood has been spilled by so many written to preserve the very limited freedoms and very limited independence we enjoy today], strangely enough by a British theorist called Arthur Salter as far back as 1931 – even before Adolf Hitler tried to unify Europe his way.  With Frenchman Jean Monnet, Salter was one of the original proposers of the complete political, economic and legal unification of the continent into one single superstate.  Today’s successors of course are Mandelson, Blair, Clegg and the BBC, who still continue to deny their real Utopian dream.

    So here is what (in part) Salter had to say. “A common political authority ... would be for every country almost as important as, or even more important than, the national governments and would in effect reduce the latter to the status of municipal authorities.”  That is our country he was talking about and that is still the ultimate aim of the EU.  Those at the heart of what in Brussels is referred to as The Project know perfectly well the end must involve the abolition of the nation state and its reduction to an EU region, Britain included.  That is why the fanatics are desperate that you never get a referendum in which you might decide to keep Britain and dump Brussels.  As they work quietly for this country’s destruction a referendum is absolutely not what they want.

    Concise, brief 15-page fallout prediction model, covering both land surface and underwater nuclear explosions, radiation shielding by buildings, fallout solubility as function of particle size, retention on vegetation, gamma ray spectrum versus time, fractionation of fission products, salting by cobalt-60 etc., and effects of environmental neutron induced activities in fallout.  Includes literature summaries and data reductions to formulae based on many reports.  Written in brochure format for quick browsing, without boring bureaucratic organization. Please note that we have also revised and expanded the overview information included on the British nuclear weapon trial "Operation Hurricane" Internet Archive declassified civil defense documents page, linked here.

    Above: the most divisive, politically-incorrect, left-vilified British political leader, photographed behind the turret machine gun of a British Challenger tank, flying a Union Jack flag, in Germany on 17 September 1986.  Just thinking about how lucky it is for Putin the Great that he is not facing this hateful, divisive, iron lady.  Maggie, like her friend Ronald Reagan, knew the political language of Russia.  When she was elected in May 1979, Britain had been effectively bankrupt (but not as badly as by Gordon Brown thirty years later) by the Russians’ socialist infiltration of British communist trade unions, which used block votes and intimidation of members to run the Labour Party.  Every time the Labour Party tried to economise on pay, mass strikes resulted, culminating in the infamous 1978-9 “winter of discontent” when even the dead and the rubbish went unburied and uncollected.  Britain was the “sick man of Europe”, on a 3-day week to save fuel and electricity, had to ask for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and had TV transmission banned after 10:30 pm.  Regular power cuts forced us to do our school homework by candlelight in the cold, after walking home on streets unlit by lamps.  Maggie was rightly labelled the “iron lady” by the Russian propaganda machine; the woman divided Britain by her no-nonsense defeat of both Russia in civil defence and the arms race, and also its friends in the British trade unions.  These trade unions were self-defeating monolithic, short-sighted, fascist-groupthink dictatorships, manipulated like CND by the “World Peace Council” and related Moscow-based propagandarists.  The trade unions had destroyed the British economy in the 1960s by striking for pay rises much higher than Britain’s rivals overseas in Japan and China, who made better products at much lower prices.  We were forced to buy expensive, technologically obsolete British crap that broke down immediately, because of the “import duty” taxation the socialists slapped on cheap foreign goods.  Maggie reformed strike law to make decisions to strike democratic, instead of being due to dictatorial intimidation by a handful of hard-communist and underhand Orwellian “big brother” shop stewards and union officials.  She cut the 98% socialist tax rate on high earners to motivate and encourage big businesses to be started and run effectively in Britain.  She cut state spending to reduce the deficit and bring finances under control, despite the Cold War arms race.  She shut down state-owned unprofitable weapons industries that were simply milking the taxpayer to fund the Swiss bank accounts of a few corrupt army and ex-army weapon buyers and weapon consultants, and bought cheaper weapons instead from America.  She stopped appeasing Brezhnev’s Russia after he invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Day 1979 in a surprise attack, and she published the civil defence handbook Protect and Survive in May 1980, countering totalitarian ideology with a determination not to be intimidated by the threat of new Soviet SS-18 nuclear missile deployments.  She proved she had the courage to fight by defeating the fascist militants of Argentina when they invaded the Falkland Islands.  She reformed Labour’s policy of détente and shaking the hands of fascists, into a radical new military policy called victory.  She achieved victory from the European Union too, winning our rebate.  She also defeated in elections the nuclear disarmers Michael Foot in 1983 and Neil Kinnock in 1987.  But she also had gimmicky political statements, like: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."  Her wicked excuse for capitalism over socialism, in her final Commons debate as Prime Minister, was that the equalization of wealth using taxation makes everyone poor and demotivated, while capitalism makes everyone better off, including the poorest.  What a hateful, loathsome, divisive, warrior-like iron lady she was (but a great leader when facing terrible situations), just like Winston Churchill, who also posed with a machine gun when threatened by dictatorship:

    "We were flirting with national bankruptcy after years of socialist maladministration. But someone had discovered huge resources of oil and gas ... we had to oppose and overrule the usual Jeremiahs who said it could not be done and even if it could it would pollute the oceans. They chanted, they demonstrated, they plastered their smug, stupid, holier-than-thou faces all over our newspapers and TV screens. ... Once again, after years of socialism, we have flirted with bankruptcy over these past four years. Now I don't know whether there is some divinity or just benign fate watching over this old land of ours but it has happened again. ... And the Luddites are back, the same dim bigots who said not a word when forests of damaging, life-wrecking, landscape destroying windmills were plastered over every horizon to produce minuscule energy at unaffordable prices. Our screens are filled with the same smug, angry, self-righteous faces that I have been seeing for 60 years supporting one anti-British cause after another. ... Methane does not come out of your kitchen tap; that has been proved to be an invention. The water tables are not poisoned; the drills go down through the aquifers in sealed tubes and the released gas would come up the same way. As for the earth tremors, there are about 2,000 a year in this country. Humans can detect about 200; the rest only a sensitive seismometer can register." -  


    London SE1

    From Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another, by Spencer R. Weart, Yale University Press, 1998:

    Chapter One: Investigating the Puzzle of Democratic Peace

    ... This idea had been developed by 1785, when there were scarcely any democracies in existence, by the great philosopher Immanuel Kant. A world where every state was a democracy, he wrote, would be a world of perpetual peace. Free peoples, Kant explained, are inherently peaceful; they will make war only when driven to it by tyrants. ... In our own times, democracies have burned people to death by the tens of thousands in the fires of Hamburg and Hiroshima. Yet in all these wars, one side fell short of what most people would call democracy. The United States, as will be discussed later, never has fought a democratic government basically like its own.

    ... Beginning in the 1960s, scholars devoted thousands of hours to analyzing wars statistically. For a long time they failed to find any general rules. ... Yet several scholars (including me) did notice, independently, a peculiar regularity: during the past century there have been no wars between well-established democracies. The first articles on this were scarcely noticed, but gradually a few political scientists took up systematic study. Their findings remained almost unknown outside academic circles. ... What was the probability, they asked, that the absence of wars between well-established democracies is a mere accident? The answer: less than one chance in a thousand. That is a level of certainty not often achieved with laboratory rats, let alone in studies of international relations.

    These studies ruled out out the most obvious objections. They showed convincingly that the lack of wars between democracies is not an artifact caused by the limited number of such regimes - there have been more than enough to provide robust statistics (even if the democratic alliances of the Cold War are left out).

    ... When toleration of dissent has persisted for three years, but not until then, we can call a new republic "well established." For there have been no wars between democracies more than three years old (aside from a few doubtful ancient Greek cases), and wars between such oligarchic republics have been exceedingly rare (only two or three ambiguous cases exist). ...

    The most likely candidate for this factor is the political culture of the leadership. If there is to be a stable republican government, the new leaders must rapidly learn to make compromises, or give way to people who will. This has the right time scale of a few years: partly through changes in personnel, partly through personal changes, new beliefs and practices for managing conflicts take hold.

    ... In negotiations each regime did tend to behave according to its political culture. Time and again we observe authoritarian leaders undeniably extending their domestic style of behavior abroad by using coercion rather than seeking mutual accommodation, in ways that made war more likely. Republican behavior was plainly different--so much so that in quite a few cases the difference created an "appeasement trap." The republic tried to accommodate a tyrant as if he were a fellow republican; the tyrant concluded that he could safely make an aggressive response; eventually the republic replied furiously with war. The frequency of such errors on both sides is evidence that negotiating styles are not based strictly on sound reasoning.

    ... Any attempt to impose democratic regimes by force can also undermine a more immediate goal: fostering an international "republican" political culture of peaceful negotiation. ... The puzzle, that is, of exactly how well-established democracies like the Swiss Forest States could maintain centuries of peace, and precisely where there are defects in democracies that make the streets of their cities shudder with explosions.

    UPDATE: please see also the posts on NUCLEAR DETONATIONS IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN AREAS (updated 3 January 2014 with latest secret UK National Archives files from 1984), also The exaggerated urban effects of nuclear weapons: proof tested civil defence, and Britain's 1950 studies of nuclear 9/11 and the disappearance of civilian airliner MH370.


    At 10:55 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Source of JFK's "Why England Slept" book photo, inscribed in pencil with the words "is STILL sleeping" (by Kennedy on front cover) is: :

    "A signed copy of a book by assassinated US president John F Kennedy, said to be intended as a gift to the Queen, is to go under the hammer.

    "The copy of Why England Slept, by John F Kennedy, which bears the dedication: 'To Elizabeth (II) with affection John F Kennedy' and the quote 'we must not fear to negotiate', is being sold online on auction site

    "Kennedy was president of the United States from 1961 until he was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 - nearly exactly 50 years ago."

    At 10:58 pm, Blogger nige said...

    The source for the BBC radio broadcast speech by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, appeasing the Nazis, is . The full speech reads:

    First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

    If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

    I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .

    However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

    For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night.

    At 2:20 pm, Blogger nige said...

    For more information on Britain Foreign Secretary Edward Grey's 1914 hesitancy in dealing with the Kaiser's move on Belgium, see:

    “By 1914 Britain had shifted from isolation to continental engagement through a process of détente with her 19th century imperial rivals France and Russia. The naval arms race with Germany had been won by Britain and both countries knew it. Relations with Germany had improved, both countries had worked together to settle the 1912/13 Balkan crises … To many in Britain the July crisis when it came was just another Balkan crisis that should be handled like the previous ones.

    “By the 27 July 1914 Grey realized that his earlier strategy of working with Germany would fail. Germany, aware of Russia’s growing strength and knowing that she would not back down the way she had in 1908, had no intention of restraining Austro-Hungary. Grey had never properly outlined the reasons behind Britain’s switch to Continental engagement, or the possible cost, to the majority of his cabinet colleagues. At a cabinet meeting on 29 July 1914 this resulted in an overwhelming majority of members opposing Grey’s proposed promise of support for France, only the Liberal Imperialist trio and Churchill were convinced that Britain would have to intervene on the side of France. Grey believed that although no treaty had been signed support for France had become a matter of honor. In cabinet on the 2 August he stated; ‘We have led France to rely upon us and unless we support her in her agony I cannot continue at the Foreign Office.’ George, Lord Riddel, War diary, London, 1933, p. 6, 2 August 1914. Quoted in: Bentley B. Gilbert, ‘Pacifist to Interventionist: David Lloyd George in 1911 and 1914. Was Belgium an Issue?’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1985), p. 880

    “Between the 30 July and 4 August 1914 the Liberal Cabinet walked a tightrope of indecision, unwilling to face the final question, the question that would have split the cabinet and handed power to a pro-war Conservative party. Ultimately it was the violation of Belgium neutrality that provided the umbrella under which the cabinet dissenters could make their moral choice to ‘tow the line’ and retain the integrity of the government. On 4 August 1914 Britain stumbled into war with Germany. In August 1914 the Cabinet had been free to make the choice between peace and war. It was the perceived need to protect Britain’s Imperial position and interests against German European hegemony that had tipped the decision in favor of war.”


    At 2:40 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Just a quick comment on Churchill's limitations (5 March 2014):

    Winston Churchill's finger is firmly lodged in every major pie and pickle. While a fan of Churchill's writings, pithy quotes and speeches, it is strongly inadvisable to hero worship anyone, even someone like Winston Churchill. Partly because he wrote popular histories of his own significant role in WWI (The World Crisis, 1929) and WWII (The Second World War, published 1949) which are biased and - though fluent - exclude vital information. You find that Churchill's first volume on the Second World War simply copied - word for word - Sir Harold Nicolson's "Why Britain is at War" (1939) account of Mein Kampf (direct plagiarization).

    This is almost certainly due to Churchill employing a team of junior history lecturers to prepare the first drafts for the history, before editing them together into the six volumes of books, himself in his advancing years (writing a major book, with all the research entailed, is no easy work). But it throws up serious concerns. Did Churchill actually read Mein Kampf, and if so, when and which edition (Hitler ensured the English language edition omitted passages which would have caused alarm in England!).

    In addition, Churchill failed to prevent WWI by his backing of the costly Dreadnought battleships during the naval arms race with Germany which Britain won, but he neglected German submarines which caused a major crisis during the protracted war itself; the German subs sank cargo ships and munitions ships and could have cost the war.

    Churchill's admiralty term in WWI was a disaster for another reason; in 1919 he failed - despite trying - get money for a British effort to stop Lenin's Bolsheviks from founding the USSR (later leading to the cold war); and in the 1930s he tried and failed to get Hitler stopped before the Third Reich was powerful enough to defeat the British Army (it wasn't that powerful in 1935).

    So Churchill's oratory and writing skills were not as powerful and convincing as he himself wanted. He was usually only taken seriously in a "told you so" manner after his preventative warnings had been ignored, with full scale disaster. Still, better late than never.

    At 10:19 pm, Blogger nige said...

    I've had complaints that Dr Charles Sanders's book (published by Springer, 2010) "Radiation Hormesis and the Linear No-Threshold Assumption", has been removed from the link given in this blog to the Springer site.

    There is a briefer PDF of the introduction to the book (which has some data and gives a flavor at least) here:

    On page v, Sanders begins by stating factually:

    "Outrageous, unsubstantiated statements are made concerning the hazards of ionizing radiation,
    in spite of a vast published, peer-reviewed literature on molecular, cellular, animal, and
    epidemiological studies indicating not harm but benefi t from low-dose ionizing radiation.
    Claims that as many as a million children across Europe and Asia may have died in the
    womb as a result of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl or claims that the health impacts of
    low levels of internal radiation are underestimated by between 100 and 1,000 times are
    common among antinuclear arguments."

    At 10:26 pm, Blogger nige said...

    “... The result of this deception is not insignificant: literally millions of lives are less healthy because they have been convinced that living in radiation deficient environments is healthy; lives are lost in not implementing effective low-dose radiation therapy to treat cancer; lives are lost out of fear of diagnostic radiation that saves lives; painful lives of people suffering from chronic inflammatory diseases are not improved by low-dose radiation therapy, which is given without the cost and side-effects of drugs and pain killers. Then there are the annual billions of dollars spent needlessly to protect us from radiation that we need for optimal health. Radiophobia limits the political will of people and governments to promote clean and safe nuclear power in place of traditional highly polluting fossil fuel power sources. Radiophobia prevents the logical and safe burial of nuclear wastes. Radiophobia causes serious psychological effects leading to loss of life (>100,000 abortions and >1,000 suicides attributed to Chernobyl fallout).”

    - Sanders, page v,

    At 10:35 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Dr Charles Sanders’ 2010 book, Radiation Hormesis and the Linear No-Threshold Assumption, is an excellent compilation of valuable information, and is currently the best researched book on the subject of radiation threshold cancer doses. Hormesis is the benefit of reduced cancer and genetic defects from the radiation-induced stimulation of P53 by the removal of its MDM2 inhibitor. The author has done a good but incomplete literature survey, and the book is particularly useful as a summary of the author’s own research and related areas. It fails in not going far enough in the literature research for both the history of the deliberate radiation effects research, and the DNA repair enzyme system research. Namely, it fails to reformulate Health Physics on the basis of dose rate limits, rather than dose limits. For example, the effect of dose rate is responsible for the fact that the threshold dose recently proved for bone cancer after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions in Japan is much smaller than the very large threshold dose found by Rowlands for bone cancer in the radium dial painters.

    Therefore, a dose rate threshold exists for bone cancer. Therefore, dose limits must be abandoned and replaced by dose rate limits. In all cases, radiation cancer can be avoided if the dose rate is kept to 0.1 mSv/hour (10 mR/hour) or less, a threshold equal to 1,000 times the natural background radiation level in London. Only when this dose rate is exceeded, is there any net risk of cancer due to radiation, and even then the risk is not merely dependent upon the dose, but is sensitive to the dose rate. The history of the dose rate discovery is reviewed, the political reasons for fanatical pseudoscientific censorship of this fact are given, and suggestions are made towards improving public education of cancer prevention.

    My approach to educating the public is the freely available compilation of research paper extracts linked here:

    And no, I don't expect Dr Professor Smart Alex to recommend me for a prize for compiling this data. I expect instead sneers, personal abuse etc. That way, you don't feel disappointed and you can face the challenges of life without getting depressed by idiots.

    At 10:39 pm, Blogger nige said...

    My freely available on line PDF compilation of declassified UK War Plans:

    I just hope that nobody ever has a reason to find this information "useful" (in a survival context). But "better safe than sorry".

    At 11:22 pm, Blogger nige said...


    When Japan invaded Vietnam (then called "Indochina") in 1940, America's President Roosevelt applied sanctions to stop Japan buying American oil.

    Did this "peaceful pressure" force Japan to conform to peaceful intents and purposes? Did it hell. Instead, it provoked the opposite: the secret preparation for the surprise attack of December 7, 1941, on the American Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

    Lesson? Work it out yourself!

    Second, sanctions of food etc were tried and failed with people like Saddam; all they did was to make the poor people suffer, while the rich leadership's propaganda machine milked the sanctions and economic suffering of the poor as "evidence" of the "inhumanity of America or England". Sanctions are not very effective, and they are not - remember Pearl Harbor - a "guaranteed alternative to war." They helped start off war in the Pacific Theatre, WWII.

    Reagan's approach to diplomacy during the 1980s, namely civil defense and ABM or "Star Wars", is a better option to bring Russia to its senses, if we can afford the cost now.

    At 1:08 pm, Blogger nige said...

    I should add that Edward Grey, Britain's Foreign Secretary in 1914, had never even visited Germany in his life!

    His bungling secret deals with Germany were done without even the supervision or recording of his Civil Service Permanent Secretary!

    Grey did all this (failed) appeasement by meeting the German Ambassador to London subversively at cricket matches and in bungled, confused telephone calls made from an open telephone in the office hallway, not from his office.

    Part of the problem for Grey was that Britain had made a naval agreement with France to save money in the "arms race" by cutting back the expenditure on "Dreadnaught" type super British Naval destroyers.

    Instead of being allowed enough cash to buy enough Dreadnaughts to patrol both the Mediterranean and the English Channel, Winston Churchill had been forced into cheapskating on defense by the Treasury.

    Churchill therefore had to make a secret pact (which Germany knew nothing about!) with France to promise to keep French Naval territory safe, in exchange for France keeping British territory in the Mediterranean safe!

    Therefore, Grey was desperate to get Germany to agree to not invade France, because that would effectively force Britain to declare war on Germany, in order to stick to the secret treaty with France to protect France's ports!

    You really can't make this stuff up.

    At 5:35 pm, Blogger nige said...

    NUCLEAR DETONATIONS IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN AREAS (Overview/summary article on the Internet Archive)

    “At no time did Hitler threaten to initiate war against France and England. He simply threatened to ‘retaliate’ ... The technique he used is such an obvious prototype for a future aggressor armed with H-bombs that it is of extreme value to all who are concerned with the problem of maintaining a peaceful and secure world ...”

    – Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University press, 1960, p. 403.

    At 2:39 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 13 March 2014, page 12:

    “…Ed Miliband constantly trumpets his commitment to “nation” politics. Tragically that nation is not ours. It is the European Union’s federal superstate. … Miliband does not trust the British public. … Whenever he is about to release a torrent of verbiage Miliband always proclaims that he wants to make his position “perfectly clear”. His speech yesterday had all the clarity of a fog … he probably would not offer a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU but then again he might if circumstances changed, though such a vote was not a good idea … he has to disguise his real intentions with a deluge of circumlocutions. But all the hollow, contradictory words cannot hide the fact that Miliband has no intention of giving us a vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union. … Contrary to what Miliband says the transfer of influence is happening all the time … At the entrance to EU Parliament’s visitors’ centre there’s a slogan: “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times. The only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is the federal union of the peoples.” … He said that a referendum could undermine our prosperity by breeding uncertainty. Well, that is an argument for never holding any elections at all … a recent poll of 1,000 business leaders found that 66 per cent of them supported a referendum, while just 26 per cent were opposed. … The dole queues of Spain and riots in Athens are a graphic symbols of the terrible failure of Brussels’ economic policies … Miliband is a defeatist [no he is not simply a defeatist; he is a deliberate calculated liar like the communists in CND during the Cold War who attacked civil defence to ensure millions would die without reason if the Russia attacked]. He thinks Britain can only survive by surrendering to Brussels. This political cowardice is dressed up with fashionable talk … A truly self-confident nation, eager to engage with the rest of the world, would laugh at the idea of being governed by such creatures as the former Portuguese Maoist Jose Manuel Barroso and Belgian nonentity Herman Van Rompuy.” [If only that were true; in fact as we all know, the British military, Labour and Conservatives Parties all love the European Union because they want a life of hatred and war, and the European Union is a propaganda lobby for breeding racial hatred, dictatorship and war. Godwin’s Law is being used to protect the New Nazis of European Dictatorship, eugenics, pseudoscience, war, cancer and hatred.]


    At 2:04 pm, Blogger nige said...

    The possibility and hope of 1000 years of the British Empire was referred to by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons on 18 June 1940:

    "However matters may go in France or with the French Government or with another French Government, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.

    "What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

    "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."

    Just quoting history!

    At 11:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You bastards. Have you even considered the possibility that Britain will start off WWIII, not Russia? It could blow up the Russian base at Sevastopol using a nuclear weapon in a ship, like your example "Operation Hurricane". You think of civil defense against the peace loving President Putin, but what if bad guys in your country plant a bomb by computer-guided torpedo in the port of Sevastopol in the Crimea and blow up the Russian forces, then deny all knowledge of it?

    Your beloved "Daily Express" newspaper reports that the Royal Navy "accidentally" launched a nuclear torpedo on Friday 14 March 2014,

    "Oops! Royal Navy warship accidentally fires TORPEDO at NUCLEAR dockyard

    "A BLUNDERING Royal Navy warship has accidentally fired a TORPEDO at a nuclear dockyard."

    Or was the Royal Navy trying out the use of torpedoes to destroy the Russian Naval base dockyard at Sevastopol in the Crimea, then covering up the test as "accidental"?

    At 2:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You are a miserable little git. Civil defence by Britain is no help to us now because we must have a war.

    You just do not understand the political consequences of the violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, America and Britain, which offers security to Ukraine including its Crimean part, if invaded, in exchange for Ukraine signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    If America and Britain refuse to go to the military assistance of Ukraine, that immediately cancels all of the similar guarantees they have given to all other non-nuclear countries.

    Those treaties will now be worth less than the paper they are written on.

    All other non-nuclear countries in the world will know for sure that America and Britain lack the balls to honor their defense treaties.

    As a result, they will have to quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop their own deterrence, because they can expect no defense from the West.

    To repeat, this is not just a crisis about Crimea.

    This is a crisis affecting the security of every country which has ever been given a defense agreement by America and Britain in exchange for signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Her divine supreme highness Baroness Cathy Ashton has sown the seeds for the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons, because of the fear which will result from the failure of America and Britain to go to the defense of the Ukraine.

    At 4:05 pm, Blogger nige said...


    We should not have ANY agreements to start WWIII by going to the defence of Belgium (WWI, and now WWIII Brussels European Union EUSSR headquarters), Poland (WWII, the Cold War), or Ukraine. Little corrupt regimes that save money on defence at our expense should save up some money to buy ABM, civil defence, and military deterrents/defence, or lose their independence. Britain has been fending off attacks and surviving raids and air raids since last successfully invaded by the Normans in October 1066, so Britain has a bit more experience of the costs of independence, freedom and economic security, I feel, than America or Ukraine.

    I'm not a huge fan of this "British Imperialism" crap, where Britain had to defend worthless little countries at the cost of tens of millions of (mostly) innocent human lives.

    Grow up or get lost, if you please! If Ukraine had its own nuclear weapons, it could deter Russia or defend itself in war without sucking in the rest of the world, which is debt-ridden by socialist/Marxist/communist thugs and "do gooders" who believe - just like Hitler and Stalin and Saddam and Gaddafi and Milliband and brown and Clegg - that if you brainwash yourself that you have a moral objective, any evil you do is beyond reproach.

    We need civil defence in case a loon presses a button. Got it?

    As for nuclear disarmament, we need:

    1. ABM to take off the incentive and certainty of the success of an enemy surprise missile/aircraft attack.

    2. Nuclear attack warning "duck and cover" civil defence air raid sirens which Britain maintained until nutter Prime Minister John (not so) Major abolished then in 1992 to save tuppence or appease dictators. (Not even the loony left abolished those air raid warning sirens when the closed down the UK Civil Defence Corps in 1968 after lying "ridicule" by nuclear weapons effects get-rich-quick quacks in the BBC, particularly Sir David Frost's evil "megaton range" satire of civil defence.)

    3. Neutron bombs to deter local invasions by massed tanks (where hand-held anti-tank rockets are simply outnumbered by a vast factor, as in the days of the 1970s and 1980s Warsaw Pact).

    4. More nuclear weapons in the hands of stable democracies than in the hands of unstable corrupt nutters. (I.e., less "communist equality" of the numbers of nuclear weapons, regardless of the moral record of the regime.)

    5. Peacekeeping and global love no by unilateral nuclear disarmament or communism, but instead by economically stable, successful, capitalist democracies (which have the balls to keep socialists/Marxists/warmongers/fascists out of power), as PROVED (unlike the DISPROVED peace through disarmament 1920s/1930s pacifism liars) by history by the sensible nuclear historian Dr Spencer Weart in his sensible book "Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another" (Yale University Press, 1998):

    Have a nice day. Cheers.

    At 9:45 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Catherine Ashton: The political lightweight with zero recognition

    Igor Nikolayev,
    Especially for

    07 march 2014

    In the circles of experts and diplomats have long said that "when Europe has nothing to say, it sends Catherine Ashton that she expressed it instead." Not the most difficult task, for which the EU pays its Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and 360,000 euros per year, making the Baroness Ashton office Apholland highest paid politician in the world. As to whether such costs to the head "of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the EU", which is a purely virtual? … Catherine Ashton associated with … the so-called "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament" [CND]. This organization is primarily a left-wing politicians and lobbying for nuclear disarmament, according to some, receiving funding from the USSR. In 1982, when she worked in the positions of CND treasurer, on account of the organization received large sums of money, the sources of which have not been disclosed. And although she denied Ashton emotionally even hints at the presence of any ties with the Soviet Union, the conservative circles in the UK, in the U.S. and France have always treated her with suspicion.

    At 6:33 pm, Blogger nige said...

    103 deaths due to Catherine Ashton in the Crimea and Ukraine to present date (21 March 2014):

    “MOSCOW, March 20 (RIA Novosti) – The death toll from the unrest in Ukraine that led to the ouster of the country’s president last month has risen to 103, the country’s Ministry of Health said Thursday.
    Previous casualty figures stood at 102 dead and 1,419 injured. The ministry said on its website that 128 people injured in the conflict remain in treatment in city hospitals.

    “Demonstrations broke out in Kiev in November following a step back from closer ties with Europe by President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted by a vote of parliament following deadly clashes between demonstrators and police.

    “Crimea, along with several other regions in the country’s southeast, refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government.

    “A referendum held Sunday in the predominantly Russian peninsula saw an overwhelming majority of voters support reunification with Russia after 60 years as part of Ukraine.”







    At 6:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Hear, hear! Well said.

    Time these grandiose high earners who suppress all dissent and believe that "the murderous ends justify the lying means" get a taste of democratic dissent, for a change.

    They're too used to having it all their own way, because the Cons and neo-cons are pathetic, ignorant and incapable or unwilling to speak truth in a factually defensible manner. Too many so-called Conservatives are really in bed with the fascists.

    Cathy Ashton will probably get a Nobel peace prize and a knighthood, just like "arms race" liar and appeaser Sir Norman Angell, Lord Noel Baker, and the other warmongering "peacemakers" behind WWII.

    Thanks for your informative post!

    At 8:16 pm, Blogger nige said...

    No problem!

    What we really need is to form a protest lobby group to form "human chains" and screaming or chanting "peaceful" protests outside the homes of the deception hyping BBC propaganda "news" editors and "journalists" like the Guardian newspaper's political hucksters and editors, demanding honest coverage of the European Union's warmongering, incompetence and anti-freedom-anti-democratic fascist, which is precisely the thing Britain supposedly fought two world wars to prevent!

    Now it looks like the European Union is the biggest threat to world peace in collaboration to Putin, just as James Delingpole predicted years ago.

    The real reason why the European Union is a threat to world peace is very simple: if you force together people with diametrically opposite views, you get war There's no complexity involved here, just plain dumb sense. It's intuitively obvious that if you keep people who hate each other's guts apart, you get peace, and if you push them together you get clashes, arguments, fighting and war.

    All the crap from "pacifists" on forcing people together is lying and is evil. Anyone can see it's false. We can "live and let live" provided we burn the bridges between us. But we can't live with our enemies under our beds, especially when they're reds.

    Unfortunately, even if we do manage to get a big "pro-peace" demonstration organized against the democracy-hating, freedom-hating, liberty-hating, Orwellian-big brother, communist, money wasting, warmongering "European Union" of Soviet Socialist Republics, the newspapers and TV won't report it.

    This is how BBC/Guardian type media bias works:

    (1) If the protest or rally is a plot by communists, the "news" editor puts it at the front of the "news" in big headlines and contrives to make a big "splash" story about it, by sending out reporters to give scripted, contrived "discussions" about it, to interview every dumb protestor who is screaming emotionally with irrational, angry rage, etc.

    (2) If the protest is something the BBC/Guardian is not happy about, it is dropped and not covered or just given 1 femtosecond of coverage at the end before the sports news.

    If you complain about this bias, they refer to their commie "guidelines" or claim other news was more exciting or interesting.

    You can't make evil thugs listen to truth. So it's going to be a long hard slog to overturn prejudice, like the struggles of the IRA bombers to get shared power in Northern Ireland, or the struggles of American's in Britain's colonies to win their independence on July 4, 1776. God bless them.

    My point is, we need to adopt a "take no prisoners" mindset if we are going to have any hope in hell of getting a fair hearing.

    At 10:17 pm, Blogger nige said...

    A couple of quick updates (21 March 2014):

    1. Professor Brian Martin (who is quoted at the bottom right in the quotations list on this blog, below posts), has published a new "Controversy Manual", 465 pages available free as a PDF download or at small cost in print format from Lulu:

    Here's the quotation from him that I included on this blog years ago:

    ‘The expression of dissenting views may not seem like much of a threat to a powerful organization, yet sometimes it triggers an amazingly hostile response. The reason is that a single dissenter can puncture an illusion of unanimity. ... Among those suppressed have been the engineers who tried to point out problems with the Challenger space shuttle that caused it to blow up. More fundamentally, suppression is a denial of the open dialogue and debate that are the foundation of a free society. Even worse than the silencing of dissidents is the chilling effect such practices have on others. For every individual who speaks out, numerous others decide to play it safe and keep quiet. More serious than external censorship is the problem of self-censorship.’

    — Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, 'Stamping Out Dissent', Newsweek, 26 April 1993, pp. 49-50

    At 10:17 pm, Blogger nige said...

    2. There is a new book out in 2014 about the influence of 1930s appeasement policy failure on the politics of the Cold War and post-Cold War era. I won't mention the author's name (you can find it if you want as it's got "appeasement" in the title and is dated 2014) because it's the usual lefty academic ignorance that has the flavor of Ed Milliband's Marxist dad, but setting aside the prejudice, it is slightly useful as a source of quotations by various politicians on appeasement.


    Kennedy's lefty "adviser" Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (who evidently had never bothered to read Kennedy's own book "Why England Slept" and certainly didn't applaude US Secretary of State Dean Rusk's assessment of Kennedy's success in the October 1962 Cuban missiles crisis that Khrushchev "blinked first", but instead prefers a contrived version of history in which Khrushchev traded obsolete junk USA Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the brand new USSR IRBMs in Cuba, or in which WWIII in 1962 would have wiped out the USA, despite the American missile superiority and the American fallout shelter advice widely published in the April 1962 Glasstone "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and a 1961 "Life" magazine issue):

    "I trust that a graduate student some day will write a doctoral essay on the influence of the Munich analogy on the subsequent history of the 20th century . Perhaps in the end he will conclude that the multitude of errors committed in the name of 'Munich' may exceed the original error of 1938."

    This is crap for a James Newman-style drivel master who doesn't comprehend that appeasement wasn't merely an error in 1938, but in 1914, in 1935, in 1936, in 1937, and in 1939. Appeasement also helped to prolong the life of the USSR until Reagan and Thatcher had the balls to really challenge it. Kennedy only stood up when challenged by Khrushchev. Kennedy didn't stand up. His and Johnson's (fellow Democrat) adventure in Vietnam skirted around the real problem, disastrously as General LeMay explained in his book "America is in Danger" (which you'll find is reviewed in detail with extensive quotations on amazon).

    Appeasement isn't just a failure in international relations. It's causes failure in daily life too, when people with hard facts that are proved "speak softly" and simply get ignored by loud mouthed liars.

    This is precisely the problem with the effects of radiation and nuclear physics applications today. The mainstream is appeasing the ignorant and the liars, with disastrous results. Even military scientists have been duped into arguing with their mouths gagged, their hands tied behind their backs, and a gun held to their head. Call this liberty?

    At 10:19 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Hyperlink to Prof. Brian Martin's new 2014 "Controversy Manual":

    At 2:45 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Just a bit more on the secrets behind the role of lazy, crazy British Prime Ministers as the cause of terrible wars:

    (1) As stated in this post, on the eve of WWI in 1914, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith was too preoccupied having a love affair to prevent war. In addition, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill was too preoccupied with trying to foil gun running to Irish nationals seeking their independence from Britain, to bother enough with Germany. Churchill, who had personally met the German Kaiser, did advise Foreign Secretary Grey to treat the Kaiser like a naughty boy who only understands the threat of an angry raised hand, but pacifist Grey simply dismissed Churchill as a warmonger (just like nearly everyone in the 1934, when Churchill's Daily Express article was published warning of Hitler's rapid, secret and illegal rearmament of Germany). Churchill then tried to get Grey's personal Permanent Secretary (the unelected, apolitical Civil Servant, supposedly in charge of the Foreign Office) to convince Grey to be more decisive and assertive, but Grey simply threatened to have his Secretary changed, and then by-passed him by dealing with the German Ambassador to London in secret unofficial meetings and secret unofficial phone calls. So Churchill failed completely. Again, Churchill failed with getting Hitler stopped in 1934, and he was duped by Stalin's quiet manner at Yalta in WWII, into appeasing Stalin, with tragic consequences (the Cold War).

    (2) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 was suffering pain from progressive, drawn-out, incurable stomach cancer. This helped to reduce his concentration on the dire problems, and as a result he simply ignored Churchill and alternative options. Chapman Pincher makes this point in his book "Inside Story". Chamberlain's illness provably reduced his physical and mental ability to focus on the problems and to read and digest all of the important issues related to Nazi racism, eugenics and lies.

    (3) The Chamberlain illness saga was repeated with Prime Minister Anthony Eden in 1956, who suffered from a perforated bowel at the time of the Suez crisis, when he ordered British troops to fight Nasser in Egypt, after Nasser nationalized the Suez canal with American backing. Britain's alliance with Uncle Sam was not strong enough to overcome the difference of "opinion" over Egypt in 1956, so it was an embarrassment and a humiliating climbdown for the UK. (I don't understand why we ever gave independence to America in 1776. We should beg them to take us as their 51st capitalist state, instead of being part of the commie EUSSR.)

    At 6:32 pm, Blogger nige said...

    UPDATE 28 MARCH 1914:

    James Delingpole has exposed Cathy Ashton's EU web of deceit in his brilliant blog post:

    NIGEL FARAGE [UK Independence Party leader and EU debunker in his recent TV debate with pro-EU Deputy Prime Minister Mick Cleggy] IS RIGHT: IT WAS THE EU, NOT RUSSIA, WHICH PROVOKED THE UKRAINE CRISIS

    Nigel Farage has accused the European Union of having "blood on its hands" over the Ukraine. ... The Ukraine was to form the jewel in the crown of the EU's Eastern Partnership programme, which would see Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus brought closer to the bosom of the EU. ... The short-sightedness of the EU's plan to expand its empire right to Russia's borders calls to mind the great planning meeting held by the various commanders, British, American and Polish, prior to the disastrous [WWII] Operation Market Garden. (Arnhem; the Bridge Too Far; etc). Everyone present agreed the plan was a jolly splendid idea, until the Polish Major-General Sosabowski piped up that there was one vital element the planners had failed to take into account: "The Germans." ... Putin hinted as much to Baroness Ashton - the former Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament campaigner who in 2009 was promoted way above her pay grade to the position of the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - when he warned her in January not to make any more appearances on the barricades in Kiev with anti-Yanukovych protestors.
    "I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of a crisis in Greece or Cyprus, our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people to do something. This would not be good," he said.

    Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, has accused the European Union of having “blood on its hands” over it's handling of the crisis in Crimea. He also accused the government of allowing the EU to pursue an "imperialist, expansionist" agenda, provoking a response from Russian President Vladimir Putin. ... Breitbart London has previously reported on the European Union's overt expansionist aims, and the organisation's pouring of hundreds of millions of euros into Ukraine as a part of this agenda. Farage, it could be argued, is the only politician willing to discuss this openly.

    I commented to Delingpole's blog:

    For more about EU's unelected Foreign Affairs supremo Baroness Cathy Ashton's consistent support for Russian aggression since 1977 which began her authorship of lies in chapter 1 of CND's 1977-81 bestseller "The neutron bomb", see Cheers, Nigel

    At 6:37 pm, Blogger nige said...



    The European Union (EU) undertook a concerted, costly campaign to undermine Russia's influence in Ukraine, and help the EU's expansionism agenda, reports EU blogger Richard North.

    North has accused the EU of meddling in Ukrainian affairs on a "colossal" scale, illustrating by way of video (below) how the generously funded "Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum" destabilised the country, perhaps significantly contributing to the ongoing stand off with Russia.
    The Civil Society Forum website openly admits its aim to bring Ukraine "closer to the EU both politically and economically".
    North reports:
    "[The Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum] has provided an open site for a multiplicity of NGOs, specifically directed at "discussions, consultations, information activities in the implementation framework of the Eastern Partnership policy". Components of this Forum have been funded by the EU, and by other agencies, including funding from the Swedish government."
    The EU spent €389 million on Ukraine between 2011 and 2013, apportioning money to pressure groups such as 'the Agency for Legislative Initiatives Citizens Association', and 'the All-Ukrainian Non Governmental Organization Committee of Voters of Ukraine'. Some European taxpayer cash was also giving to the 'All-Crimean Association of Voters for Civil Peace and Interethnic Harmony'.
    North comments, "The EU was blundering into a situation with all the finesse of a ballet dancer in size 12 boots. It was unsurprising that Russia reacted. Regardless of the intentions – many of them entirely honourable – it would have seen direct assistance to non-state groups as subversive, and feared the worst.
    The Wall Street Journal pointed to Russian threats as early as August last year. Nevertheless EU leaders have seemed surprised at Russia's response to the Ukraine crisis, with talks between the U.S. and Russia continuing today, while EU appointees sit on the sidelines.

    EU propaganda video:


    Post a Comment

    << Home