Anti-nuclear prejudice in the BBC, and its negative effect on civil defence against nuclear attack, as assisted by undemocratic official secrecy
As explained in previous posts, U.K. Scientific Advisory Branch research on nuclear tests beginning with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and continuing at Operation Hurricane (primarily a civil defence research test) and Operation Buffalo (again, primarily concerned with nuclear weapons effects on military field defences, which are identical to cheap improvised civil defence countermeasures and thus are Top Secret from the military buffoon standpoint), was completely ignored by the BBC's Peter Watkins 1965 spoof The War Game. While George R. Stanbury had disproved firestorms in modern cities by skyline shielding, Watkins again repeated the fantasy in his fantasy horror film. Yet Watkins's film credits cites sources which state the opposite to the claims made by his film (he even cites using evidence coming Nevada nuclear tests in 1954, a year when there were conveniently for him no tests in Nevada).
The decision not to show the film, by ignorant half-wits at the BBC, was then masqueraded as a government cover up. Not so. Watkins ignored the facts on civil defence that had been published both in the 1956-1959 UK Manual of Civil Defence volume 1, pamphlet 1, Nuclear Weapons, and the 1957-1964 American book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Since he claimed in his film credits to have consulted such documents, but ignores all the facts, it is not fair to call the result an accidental mistake, rather more fair to state it as a deliberate misrepresentation, or lie. That may sound rude, but in fact it is not. What is rude, however, is to tell lies and then call people false names when you are exposed for lying. That's rude. It's also dangerous if you're in a position of influence, since misleading people is contrary to democratic freedom. Of course, those dear little minded ignorant liars are not interested in democracy, freedom, or deterrence. They are merely interested in self-promotion. The Strath report of 1955 is still claimed by lying "historians" to disprove cheap civil defence against the H-bomb, when in fact it recommends it, i.e. the very opposite:
The lying problem relevant to civil defence was the incredibly vast USSR Cold War civil defense program. The USSR trained all of its citizens in civil defense. It was compulsory. And it was the USSR which tested the biggest nuclear weapons, such as the 50 megaton air burst in 1961. They had their own information on the effects of nuclear weapons and the efficiency of civil defense from their own nuclear tests. Yet our data was secret, and the watered down versions in the official civil defence pamphlets, books and BBC films were misleadingly vague and poorly referenced. What the public needs to reduce nuclear terrorism risks is a handbook more like the Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, to overthrow the culture of enforced ignorance.
The BBC has too much power and influence to commission anti-civil defense propaganda, a tragedy which began in 1927 when it broadcast a lying talk from Philip Noel-Baker in which he claimed that gas masks and building protection from contamination had been disproved by a consensus of experts, just like critics of AGW who are dismissed for not being part of mainstream orthodoxy regardless of the scientific objectivity of their critical evidence. Baker's influential but entirely false claim stood, since the government was prevented from debunking by its own secrecy regulations, thus setting the scene for the appeasement of Hitler and WWII. Today, the BBC's political expert Norman Smith is able to simply use a four-letter word live on TV to refer to UKIP. That's not deemed rude, just an accidental slip. Unless dictatorships in Western science, politics, journalism and pseudo-news broadcasting can be overthrown, ignorance will grow as truth-hating activists gain power.