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 ...

  • Wednesday, April 22, 2015

    800 war migrants drowned on 22 April by EU policy: why ignoring war victims outside the EU is inhumane


    Between 1 January and 21 April 2015, over 1,750 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean, 30 times higher than during the same period of 2014, according to the International Organisation for Migration.
      These migrants are fleeing the wars in Libya (South of Italy) and Syria (East of Greece).


    The EU keeps making apparent errors through "groupthink" by ignoring criticisms, like the heavily criticised decision last November by the EU to save money (both for rescue and for migrant welfare after rescue, in a mistaken attempt to reduce the problem by refusing to address it) by employing a ludicrously small rescue mission (one third of the Italian one it replaced) for migrants drowning, which is now in the news again.

    "LISTEN to EU officials ... and you could be forgiven for forming the impression that the EU is a great champion of downtrodden migrants. But that is not quite how it worked out for the 900 Libyans who drowned in the Mediterranean on Sunday. Last October the EU withdrew the search and rescue operation which could have saved their lives. ... European countries need to defend their borders, but that should never come at the cost of abandoning people in peril. ... We have a European Court of Human Rights overflowing with petty cases such as prisoners’ voting rights and yet European countries collectively are breaching one of the most fundamental moral principles of all: that if you are in a position to help people in great danger you must do so. ... The EU’s excuses for discontinuing the search and rescue operation were that it was too expensive and that it was encouraging more migrants to take to the water. 

    "Given that the EU has a foreign aid budget of £5.1billion it shows a pretty perverse sense of priorities ... rather than saving people from drowning in the Mediterranean. ... refugees from Libya are taking to the sea in ever greater numbers. That is hardly surprising given the chaos into which Libya has descended since President Gaddafi was deposed in 2011. Yesterday’s sickening pictures of Coptic Christians being executed by Islamic State on a Libyan beach show just what people are escaping from. ... Gaddafi’s huge stockpiles of weapons are now in the hands of warlords and despots far worse than him. Ancient Christian communities which survived his rule are now being driven out. ... David Cameron, indeed, initiated the action.So why are we doing so little now to help Libyan refugees? ... hardly a word has been spoken on foreign policy and how we should be helping Libyans and others caught up in Islamic fundamentalism. ...  

    "Those who speak out against migrant camps in Calais and the upmarket hotel accommodation given to asylum seekers are often accused of trampling on needy people who are escaping persecution. ... What we should be doing in the case of Libya is helping people before they are driven to board boats. ... It will cost a lot of money to run refugee camps in Libya but if there ever was a proper use of Britain’s aid budget this is surely it. ... There was nothing more ridiculous than the sight, at last Thursday’s BBC debate, of party leaders indulging in sanctimonious ...  generalities about how they were standing up for humanity – and then having absolutely nothing to say about the human tragedy in the Mediterranean. Most countries wracked by civil war eventually become peaceful again." 
    ROSS CLARK Daily Express, PUBLISHED: 00:01, Tue, Apr 21, 2015


    Mediterranean migrants: EU rescue policy criticised


    12 November 2014


    "UN officials have criticised Operation Triton, the EU's new policy towards migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. ... While the Italian mission, Mare Nostrum, conducted regular search-and-rescue operations, Triton will be focused on patrolling within 30 nautical miles of the Italian coast. ... This year has seen a surge of migrants risking their lives to reach Italy. About 150,000 migrants - mostly fleeing violence in the Horn of Africa and Middle East - have been rescued by Italian ships over the past 12 months. ... The UK has opted out of migrant rescues in the Mediterranean, saying such operations could encourage more people to risk dangerous voyages to Europe. ... But critics have warned that Triton's more limited resources may make it harder to rescue migrants in distress in international waters. ... Operation Triton's budget, at 2.9m euros (£2.3m; $3.7m), will be a third of Mare Nostrum's. Run by the EU border agency Frontex, it will have six ships, four planes and a helicopter at its disposal, and a staff of 65."

    “The [European] Commission is the Executive, it is the Government of Europe, and it has the sole rights to propose legislation; it does so in consultation with 3000 secret committees, staffed mainly by big business and big capital, and all the legislation is proposed in secret. 
    “And once something becomes a European law, it is the European Commission themselves who have the sole right to propose repeal or change of that legislation. 
    “The Community Method ... the means by which the European Commission makes law and holds law, is actually the very enemy of the concept of democracy itself. Because it means in any member state there is nothing the electorate can do to change a single piece of European law.” 
    - A European Parliament speech criticising EU dictatorship, Strasborg, 22 October 2014.

    It's the totally unelected European Commission (EC) bureaucracy, composed of people like unelected Lord Hill, "European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union", that proposes 100% of EU decisions in secret meetings, not the democratically elected MEPs of the 28 EU member states, and not the EU Parliament in Brussels. The EU Parliament is just circus act to rubber stamp laws all day long, since it merely votes on what the EC's 3,000 secret committees decide to propose behind closed doors in Strasbourg and Brussels. A very efficient system for quickly passing endless laws, and preventing their repeal. The EU is protected from reform by arrogant city capitalists and investment bankers who make a quicker profit in dealing within the EU due to its common standards for trade and the removal of import and export duties that apply to non-EU countries.  Anyone who raises objective criticisms is censored out. When a tragedy occurs as a result, a small change occurs in the policy after immense pressure, but the lesson is never learned, because the likes of Lord Hill and so-called "civil servants" are beyond responsibility.  They always counter that they acted for the best at the time. This of course is what the implementers of eugenics agenda pseudo-science claimed after silencing critics using censorship.  It's a disastrous attitude.

    Civil war by multiculturalism, where dictatorships end up replacing democracy, as in the EU

    Dictators arise in volatile multicultural countries to keep minority ethnic communities from turning to terrorist disruption, by use of spies and abductions by secret police, which is why Assad was using dirty methods in Syria, like Mubarak in Egypt, and why Saddam and Gadaffi ruled like thugs to keep their countries together despite opposition groups. The only real alternative to dictatorship to hold together a highly volatile, multicultural "democracy" is to split up the country, as happened for instance when Yugoslavia broke up into Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia in the 1990s. People with different cultures and financial ideas need to break up.

    This is why the EU is a disaster, leading to hell for the Greeks, Spanish, Portugese, and Irish, while Germany and France profit at everybody else's expense. Dictators are always the ones who try to unify people, doing so always by the use of scare mongering and fear mongering about a "common enemy" like Russia or America. The EU is a superstate headed up by France and Germany. Numerous superstates from the Roman Empire to Napoleon and more recent dictators in Germany and Russia tried to coerce small nations, imprisoning or starving millions who disagreed (Stalin starved 40 million or so in the 1930s, even more than Hitler). The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire were similarly dictatorial "imperialists" but they all eventually collapsed.

    "Democracy" doesn't really work in any country where politics is a matter of religion or ethnic culture, because it gives power to those majority cults which gets the votes of their supporters regardless of what they do, what policies they have, etc.

    The largest ethnic tribe or religious cult then ends up in power, and the smaller ones lose in the elections, turning disillusioned with "democracy" because they have no power, eventually turning to terrorism/civil war when some spark causes discontent to erupt.

    The problem is multiculturalism: the mapped out "boundaries of the country" overlap several tribes which traditionally don't admire each other, but can't be bothered to fight unless given some real motivation like money or ethnic cleansing, such as the discovery of oil somewhere, or religious intolerance (like ISIS) taking some tribes.

    People prefer celebrity leadership to common sense when  it comes to war prevention. To prevent war, economically stable democracy is required, and that will not be the case where multiculturalism makes effective slaves of minority cultures whose dissent is not tolerated by the majority:

    “Free peoples ... will make war only when driven to it by tyrants. ... there have been no wars between well-established democracies. ... the absence of wars between well-established democracies [has a probability of being coincidence] less than one chance in a thousand. ... robust statistics ... When toleration of dissent has persisted for three years ... a new republic [is] ‘well established.’

    - Dr Spencer Weart, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (Yale University Press, 1998, ch. 1).

    2 Comments:

    At 1:25 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Don't forget to mention that apart from Lord Hill, the European Union's unelected bureaucrat Baroness Cathy Ashton of the "pro-war by anti-deterrence" terrorism propaganda front CND contributed inaccurate statements from Fred Kaplan and also various of Brezhnev's croonies in the USA to a CND book on the "Neutron Bomb" in 1978.

    This inaccurate anti-deterrence of tank invasions propaganda contributed to President Carter's failure to deploy the neutron bomb in Europe in the 1970s (Reagan did that in the 1980s) and the lack of a credible battlefield nuclear deterrent also failed to deter and stop the tragic 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the rise of Islamic terrorism, the root of problems we face today.

    So that's a million deaths in the 1979-89 Soviet-Afghan war, plus numerous others due to Islamic jihad terrorism since them.

    Furthermore, Baroness Cathy Ashton was rewarded for this slaughter and CND's failures to bring peace by being made Foreign Affairs bureaucrat of the EU, where she pushed the EU dictatorship at Ukraine, causing the division that led to Russia invading Ukraine and ceasing Crimea, with countless further deaths, suffering, loss of homes, and world insecurity:

    http://glasstone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/opening-shots-of-wwiii-legitimately.html

    This is like the 1908 book by Normal Angell "The Great Illusion" that claimed modern war as too expensive to be fought, which helped lead to appeasement of Germany by Foreign Secretary Grey in 1914 and the 1930s. Grey refused to make it clear to the Kaiser that Britain would declare war against Germany if Belgium was invaded, until after Germany had mobilized and it was too late for Germany to change its course of action. The same thing occurred in the 1930s, where the plight of the Jews in Germany was ignored in a disastrous appeasement of Germany by Foreign Secretary Halifax in 1938-9, while Britain was rearming slower than Germany and thus decreasing its chances of winning a war with every day (inaccurate propaganda from CND historians claims the opposite, the anti-Jewish Chamberlain "buying time" deception). Britain on 30 March 1939 gave a peace guarantee to Poland to defend it against war (similar to the guarantee given to Belgium which started WWI in 1914). The idea was that peace diplomacy would prevent war.

    Norman Angell was rewarded for getting it all wrong. Instead of money making war too expensive, money was the key reason Germany went to war both times! First time, it wanted colonies to generate wealth. Second time, it wanted to fix its economy after paying immense war reparations to France, and sustain Hitler's massive socialism program of state spending on autobahn, arms, etc.

    Sir Normal Angell received his knighthood from the King in 1931 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933. He never admitted his error, just like CND's cold war anti-civil defence fanatic Lord Philip Noel-Baker, who falsely claimed in a much quoted BBC radio speech on "Foreign Affairs and How They Affect Us" in 1927 that "all experts agree" that gas masks are an impossibility (later he also claimed falsely that all the surviving concrete buildings throughout Hiroshima were vaporized, and nobody survived the firestorm in them using simple water buckets to extinguish curtains, etc). The government's civil defence refused to take issue with Noel-Baker then because it classified gas masks and the whole of civil defence as a secret matter, and it was too spineless, incompetent, and bureaucratic. Nobody takes on these Lie-Lords.

     
    At 1:47 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Thanks,

    I've already dealt with that EU bureaucrat in several previous posts here.

    Most of the left wing British media sneers at criticisms of the European Union, and laughs at news of the disasters it causes.

    The rest of the media is ignorant and incompetent, or is ignored as "rude" by the mass murderers: the false claim is often made after the deaths have occurred that "nobody could have forecast that" (when in fact critics did forecast it objectively, using historical analogies, but these were censored out by the "news" media) and that "you shouldn't confuse an error with a lie."

    Once you have repeatedly exposed an error and it is not only left uncorrected, but the person responsible for the error dismisses, censors, or shoots the messenger for being "rude" and continues to press the "error" to gain praise and fame, it starts to become clear that you are not dealing with an "error", but a calculated deliberate deception to pander to popular prejudice.

    The word "lie" is hardly "rude" when the person's deceptions are risking human lives by circulating inaccurate information. If you start by being polite and get ignored, then who is the one being "rude"? If you mince your words you're ignored and censored for years, yet if you speak plainly they don't like it! Whatever you do, if it's against misinformation you will be criticised or ignored by those who gain fame by circulating deliberate misinformation. It's clear why people who don't tell the truth want other people to behave like polite toadies in speaking with them!

    Sadly, fascist style socialist Nazism is alive and well today in the EU and is endangering lives.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home