“... Freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution ... It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea ....” – Ronald Reagan, Moscow State University, May 31, 1988 (quoted at our physics site, www.quantumfieldtheory.orgh). Text in blue on this blog is hyperlinked directly to reference material (so can be opened in another tab by right-clicking on it):
This means that they can invade territory with relative impunity, since the West won't deter such provocations by flexible response - the aim of Russia is to push the West into a policy of massive retaliation of direct attacks only, and then use smaller provocations instead - and Russia can then use its tactical nuclear weapons to "defend" its newly invaded territories by declaring them to now be part of Mother Russia and under Moscow's nuclear umbrella. Russia has repeatedly made it clear - for decades - that it expects a direct war with NATO to rapidly escalate into nuclear WWIII and it has prepared civil defense shelters and evacuation tactics to enable it. Herman Kahn's public warnings of this date back to his testimony to the June 1959 Congressional Hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, but for decades were deliberately misrepresented by most media outlets. President Kennedy's book "Why England Slept" makes it crystal clear how exactly the same "pacifist" propaganda tactics in the 1930s (that time it was the "gas bomb knockout blow has no defense so disarm, disarm, disarm" lie) caused war, by using fear to slow credible rearmament in the face of state terrorism. By the time democracies finally decided to issue an ultimatum, Hitler had been converted - by pacifist appeasement - from a cautious tester of Western indecision, into an overconfident aggressor who simply ignored last-minute ultimatums.
Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons (US Government) is written in a highly ambiguous fashion (negating nearly every definite statement with a deliberately obfuscating contrary statement to leave a smokescreen legacy of needless confusion, obscurity and obfuscation), omits nearly all key nuclear test data and provides instead misleading generalizations of data from generally unspecified weapon designs tested over 60 years ago which apply to freefield measurements on unobstructed radial lines in deserts and oceans. It makes ZERO analysis of the overall shielding of radiation and blast by their energy attenuation in modern steel and concrete cities, and even falsely denies such factors in its discussion of blast in cities and in its naive chart for predicting the percentage of burns types as a function of freefield outdoor thermal radiation, totally ignoring skyline shielding geometry (similar effects apply to freefield nuclear radiation exposure, despite vague attempts to dismiss this by non-quantitative talk about some scattered radiation arriving from all angles). It omits the huge variations in effects due to weapon design e.g. cleaner warhead designs and the tactical neutron bomb. It omits quantitative data on EMP as a function of burst yield, height and weapon design.
It omits most of the detailed data collected from Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the casualty rates as a function of type of building or shelter and blast pressure. It fails to analyse overall standardized casualty rates for different kinds of burst (e.g. shallow underground earth penetrators convert radiation and blast energy into ground shock and cratering against hard targets like silos or enemy bunkers). It omits a detailed analysis of blast precursor effects. It omits a detailed analysis of fallout beta and gamma spectra, fractionation, specific activity (determining the visibility of the fallout as a function of radiation hazard, and the mass of material to be removed for effective decontamination), and data which does exist on the effect of crater soil size distribution upon the fused fallout particle size distribution (e.g. tests like Small Boy in 1962 on the very fine particles at Frenchman Flats gave mean fallout particle sizes far bigger than the pre-shot soil, proving that - as for Trinitite - melted small soil particles fuse together in the fireball to produce larger fallout particles, so the pre-shot soil size distribution is irrelevant for fallout analysis).
By generally (with few exceptions) lumping "effects" of all types of bursts together into chapters dedicated to specific effects, it falsely gives the impression that all types of nuclear explosions produce similar effects with merely "quantitative differences". This is untrue because air bursts eliminate fallout casualties entirely, while slight burial (e.g. earth penetrating warheads) eliminates thermal (including fires and dust "climatic nuclear winter" BS), the initial radiation and severe blast effects, while massively increasing ground shock, and the same applies to shallow underwater bursts. So a more objective treatment to credibly deter all aggression MUST emphasise the totally different collateral damage effects, by dedicating chapters to different kinds of burst (high altitude/space bursts, free air bursts, surface bursts, underground bursts, underwater bursts), and would include bomb design implications on these effects in detail. A great deal of previously secret and limited distributed nuclear effects data has been declassified since 1977, and new research has been done. Our objectives in this review are: (a) to ensure that an objective independent analysis of the relevant nuclear weapons effects facts is placed on the record in case the currently, increasingly vicious Cold War 2.0 escalates into some kind of limited "nuclear demonstration" by aggressors to try to end a conventional war by using coercive threats, (b) to ensure the lessons of tactical nuclear weapon design for deterring large scale provocations (like the invasions of Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939 which triggered world wars) are re-learned in contrast to Dulles "massive retaliation" (incredible deterrent) nonsense, and finally (c) to provide some push to Western governments to "get real" with our civil defense, to try to make credible our ageing "strategic nuclear deterrent". We have also provided a detailed analysis of recently declassified Russian nuclear warhead design data, shelter data, effects data, tactical nuclear weapons employment manuals, and some suggestions for improving Western thermonuclear warheads to improve deterrence.
‘The evidence from Hiroshima indicates that blast survivors, both injured and uninjured, in buildings later consumed by fire [caused by the blast overturning charcoal braziers used for breakfast in inflammable wooden houses filled with easily ignitable bamboo furnishings and paper screens] were generally able to move to safe areas following the explosion. Of 130 major buildings studied by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... 107 were ultimately burned out ... Of those suffering fire, about 20 percent were burning after the first half hour. The remainder were consumed by fire spread, some as late as 15 hours after the blast. This situation is not unlike the one our computer-based fire spread model described for Detroit.’
- Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, DCPA Attack Environment Manual, Chapter 3: What the Planner Needs to Know About Fire Ignition and Spread, report CPG 2-1A3, June 1973, Panel 27.
The Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Theatre, report 92, volume 2 (May 1947, secret):
Volume one, page 14:
“... the city lacked buildings with fire-protective features such as automatic fire doors and automatic sprinkler systems”, and pages 26-28 state the heat flash in Hiroshima was only:
“... capable of starting primary fires in exposed, easily combustible materials such as dark cloth, thin paper, or dry rotted wood exposed to direct radiation at distances usually within 4,000 feet of the point of detonation (AZ).”
Volume two examines the firestorm and the ignition of clothing by the thermal radiation flash in Hiroshima:
Page 24:
“Scores of persons throughout all sections of the city were questioned concerning the ignition of clothing by the flash from the bomb. ... Ten school boys were located during the study who had been in school yards about 6,200 feet east and 7,000 feet west, respectively, from AZ [air zero]. These boys had flash burns on the portions of their faces which had been directly exposed to rays of the bomb. The boys’ stories were consistent to the effect that their clothing, apparently of cotton materials, ‘smoked,’ but did not burst into flame. ... a boy’s coat ... started to smoulder from heat rays at 3,800 feet from AZ.” [Contrast this to the obfuscation and vagueness in Glasstone, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons!]
Page 88:
“Ignition of the City. ... Only directly exposed surfaces were flash burned. Measured from GZ, flash burns on wood poles were observed at 13,000 feet, granite was roughened or spalled by heat at 1,300 feet, and vitreous tiles on roofs were blistered at 4,000 feet. ... six persons who had been in reinforced-concrete buildings within 3,200 feet of air zero stated that black cotton blackout curtains were ignited by radiant heat ... dark clothing was scorched and, in some cases, reported to have burst into flame from flash heat [although as the 1946 unclassified USSBS report admits, most immediately beat the flames out with their hands without sustaining injury, because the clothing was not drenched in gasoline, unlike peacetime gasoline tanker road accident victims]
“... but a large proportion of over 1,000 persons questioned was in agreement that a great majority of the original fires was started by debris falling on kitchen charcoal fires, by industrial process fires, or by electric short circuits. Hundreds of fires were reported to have started in the centre of the city within 10 minutes after the explosion. Of the total number of buildings investigated [135 buildings are listed] 107 caught fire, and in 69 instances, the probable cause of initial ignition of the buildings or their contents was as follows: (1) 8 by direct radiated heat from the bomb (primary fire), (2) 8 by secondary sources, and (3) 53 by fire spread from exposed [wooden] buildings.”
There is now a relatively long introduction at the top of this blog, due to the present nuclear threat caused by disarmament and arms control propaganda, and the dire need to get the facts out past pro-Russian media influencers or loony mass media which has never cared about nuclear and radiation effects facts, so please scroll down to see blog posts. The text below in blue is hyperlinked (direct to reference source materials, rather than numbered and linked to reference at the end of the page) so you can right-click on it and open in a new tab to see the source. This page is not about opinions, it provides censored out facts that debunk propaganda, but for those who require background "authority" nonsense on censored physics facts, see stuff here or here. Regarding calling war-mongering, world war causing, terrorism-regime-supporting UK disarmers of the 20th century "thugs" instead of "kind language": I was put through the Christianity grinder as a kid so will quote Jesus (whom I'm instructed to follow), Matthew 23:33: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell?" The fake "pacifist" thugs will respond with some kindly suggestion that this is "paranoid" and that "Jesus was rightfully no-platformed for his inappropriate language"! Yeah, you guys would say that, wouldn't ya. Genuine pacifism requires credible deterrence! Decent people seem to be very confused about the facts of this. Jesus did not say "disarm to invite your annihilation by terrorists". You can't "forgive and forget" when the enemy is still on the warpath. They have to be stopped, either by deterrence, force, defense, or a combination of all these.
Russian project 49 dual-primary thermonuclear weaponeer Trutnev has an officially "proatom.ru"-published technical history of the design of the Russian nuclear weapons (which differ from UK-USA designs fundamentally) here (extracted from Russian "Atomic Strategy" No. 18, August 2005): "the problem of ensuring spherically symmetric compression of the secondary module was radically solved, since the time of “symmetrization” of the energy around the secondary module was much less than the time of compression of this module. ... The first two-stage thermonuclear charge, designated RDS-37, was developed in 1955 and successfully tested on November 22, 1955. The energy release of the charge in the experiment was 1.6 Mt, and since for safety reasons at the Semipalatinsk test site the charge was tested at partial power, the predicted full-scale energy release of the charge was ~ 3 Mt. The energy release amplification factor in RDS-37 was about two orders of magnitude, the charge did not use tritium, the thermonuclear fuel was lithium deuteride, and the main fissile material was U-238. ... Particular attention should be paid to the works of 1958. This year, a new type of thermonuclear charge, “product 49,” was tested [the double-primary H-bomb], which was the next step in the formation of a standard for thermonuclear charges (its development was completed in 1957, but testing on the SIP did not take place). The ideologists of this project and the developers of the physical charge circuit were Yu. N. Babaev and I. The peculiarity of the new charge was that, using the basic principles of the RDS-37, it was possible to: • significantly reduce overall parameters due to a new bold solution to the problem of transfer of X-ray radiation, which determines implosion; • simplify the layered structure of the secondary module, which turned out to be an extremely important practical decision. According to the conditions of adaptation to specific carriers, “product 49” was developed in a smaller overall weight category compared to the RDS-37 charge, but its specific volumetric energy release turned out to be 2.4 times greater. The physical design of the charge turned out to be extremely successful; the charge was transferred to service and subsequently underwent modernization associated with the replacement of primary energy sources. In 1958, together with Yu. N. Babaev, we managed to develop 4 thermonuclear charges, which were tested on the field in 7 full-scale tests, and all of them were successful. This work was practically implemented within 8 months of 1958. All of these charges used a new circuit, first introduced in Product 49. Their energy release ranged from 0.3 to 2.8 Mt. In addition, in 1958, under my leadership M. V. Fedulov also developed the lightest thermonuclear charge at that time according to the “product 49” design, which was also successfully tested. Work on the miniaturization of thermonuclear weapons was new at that time, and it was met with a certain misunderstanding and resistance. ... One of the well-known pages in the history of work on thermonuclear weapons of the USSR is the creation of a superbomb - the most powerful thermonuclear charge. I will dwell on some points of this development. ... Among the features of this charge, it should be noted that the large volume of the charge (due to its high energy release) required significant amounts of X-ray energy to carry out implosion. The developed nuclear charges did not satisfy this condition, and therefore, a previously developed two-stage thermonuclear charge with a relatively low energy release was used as the primary source of the “super-powerful charge”. This charge was developed by me and Yu. N. Babaev. ... In the next project (a return to the untested 1958 system) that I supervised, every effort was made to ensure near-perfect implosion symmetry. This brilliant work led to success, and in 1962, the problem of implementing thermonuclear ignition was solved in a special device. In other full-scale tests that followed, this success was consolidated, and as a result, thermonuclear ignition provided the calculated combustion of the secondary module with an energy release of 1 Mt. My co-authors in this development were V.B. Adamsky, Yu.N. Babaev, V.G. Zagrafov and V.N. Mokhov. ... This principle has found a variety of applications in the creation of fundamentally new types of thermonuclear charges, from special devices for the use of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes to significant military applications." (Note there is a 2017 filmed interview of Trutnev - in Russian - linked here.)
https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth/ (Peter Vanderwicken in the Harvard Business Review Magazine, May-June 1995): "The news media and the government are entwined in a vicious circle of mutual manipulation, mythmaking, and self-interest. Journalists need crises to dramatize news, and government officials need to appear to be responding to crises. Too often, the crises are not really crises but joint fabrications. The two institutions have become so ensnared in a symbiotic web of lies that the news media are unable to tell the public what is true and the government is unable to govern effectively. That is the thesis advanced by Paul H. Weaver, a former political scientist (at Harvard University), journalist (at Fortune magazine), and corporate communications executive (at Ford Motor Company), in his provocative analysis entitled News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works ... The news media and the government have created a charade that serves their own interests but misleads the public. Officials oblige the media’s need for drama by fabricating crises and stage-managing their responses, thereby enhancing their own prestige and power. Journalists dutifully report those fabrications. Both parties know the articles are self-aggrandizing manipulations and fail to inform the public about the more complex but boring issues of government policy and activity. What has emerged, Weaver argues, is a culture of lying. ... The architect of the transformation was not a political leader or a constitutional convention but Joseph Pulitzer, who in 1883 bought the sleepy New York World and in 20 years made it the country’s largest newspaper. Pulitzer accomplished that by bringing drama to news—by turning news articles into stories ... His journalism took events out of their dry, institutional contexts and made them emotional rather than rational, immediate rather than considered, and sensational rather than informative. The press became a stage on which the actions of government were a series of dramas. ... The press swarmed on the story, which had all the necessary dramatic elements: a foot-dragging bureaucracy, a study finding that the country’s favorite fruit was poisoning its children, and movie stars opposing the pesticide. Sales of apples collapsed. Within months, Alar’s manufacturer withdrew it from the market, although both the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration stated that they believed Alar levels on apples were safe. The outcry simply overwhelmed scientific evidence. That happens all too often, Cynthia Crossen argues in her book Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America. ... Crossen writes, “more and more of the information we use to buy, elect, advise, acquit and heal has been created not to expand our knowledge but to sell a product or advance a cause.” “Most members of the media are ill-equipped to judge a technical study,” Crossen correctly points out. “Even if the science hasn’t been explained or published in a U.S. journal, the media may jump on a study if it promises entertainment for readers or viewers. And if the media jump, that is good enough for many Americans.” ... A press driven by drama and crises creates a government driven by response to crises. Such an “emergency government can’t govern,” Weaver concludes. “Not only does public support for emergency policies evaporate the minute they’re in place and the crisis passes, but officials acting in the emergency mode can’t make meaningful public policies. According to the classic textbook definition, government is the authoritative allocation of values, and emergency government doesn’t authoritatively allocate values.” (Note that Richard Rhodes' Pulitzer prize winning books such as The making of the atomic bomb which uncritically quote Hiroshima firestorm lies and survivors nonsense about people running around without feet, play to this kind of emotional fantasy mythology of nuclear deterrence obfuscation so loved by the mass media.)
ABOVE: "missile gap" propaganda debunked by secret 1970s data; Kennedy relied on US nuclear superiority. Using a flawed analysis of nuclear weapons effects on Hiroshima - based on lying unclassified propaganda reports and ignorant dismissals of civil defense shelters in Russia (again based on Hiroshima propaganda by groves in 1945) - America allowed Russian nuclear superiority in the 1970s. Increasingly, the nuclear deterrent was used by Russia to stop the West from "interfering" with its aggressive invasions and wars, precisely Hitler's 1930s strategy with gas bombing knockout-blow threats used to engineer appeasement. BELOW: H-bomb effects and design secrecy led to tragic mass media delusions, such as the 18 February 1950 Picture Post claim that the H-bomb can devastate Australia (inspiring the Shute novel and movie "On the Beach" and also other radiation scams like "Dr Strangelove" to be used by Russia to stir up anti Western disarmament movement to help Russia win WWIII). Dad was a Civil Defense Corps Instructor in the UK when this was done (the civil defense effectiveness and weapon effects facts on shelters at UK and USA nuclear tests were kept secret and not used to debunk lying political appeasement propaganda tricks in the mass media by sensationalist "journalists" and Russian "sputniks"):
Message to mass-media journalists: please don't indulge in lying "no defence" propaganda as was done by most of the media in previous pre-war crises!
The basic fact is that nuclear weapons can deter/stop invasions unlike the conventional weapons that cause mass destruction, and nuclear collateral damage is eliminated easily for nuclear weapons by using them on military targets, since for high yields at collateral damage distances all the effects are sufficiently delayed in arrival to allow duck and cover to avoid radiation and blast wind/flying debris injuries (unlike the case for the smaller areas affected by smaller yield conventional weapons, where there is little time on seeing the flash to duck and cover to avoid injury), and as the original 1951 SECRET American Government "Handbook on Capabilities of Atomic Weapons" (limited report AD511880L, forerunner to today's still secret EM-1) stated in Section 10.32:
"PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM TO BE REMEMBERED WHEN ESTIMATING EFFECTS ON PERSONNEL IS THE AMOUNT OF COVER ACTUALLY INVOLVED. ... IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ONLY A FEW SECONDS WARNING IS NECESSARY UNDER MOST CONDITIONS TO TAKE FAIRLY EFFECTIVE COVER. THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASUALTIES IN JAPAN RESULTED FOR THE MOST PART FROM THE LACK OF WARNING."
As for Hitler's stockpile of 12,000 tons of tabun nerve gas, whose strategic and also tactical use was deterred by proper defences (gas masks for all civilians and soldiers, as well as UK stockpiles of fully trial-tested deliverable biological agent anthrax and mustard gas retaliation capacity), it is possible to deter strategic nuclear escalation to city bombing, even within a world war with a crazy terrorist, if all the people are protected by both defence and deterrence.
J. R. Oppenheimer (opposing Teller), February 1951: "It is clear that they can be used only as adjuncts in a military campaign which has some other components, and whose purpose is a military victory. They are not primarily weapons of totality or terror, but weapons used to give combat forces help they would otherwise lack. They are an integral part of military operations. Only when the atomic bomb is recognized as useful insofar as it is an integral part of military operations, will it really be of much help in the fighting of a war, rather than in warning all mankind to avert it." (Quotation: Samuel Cohen, Shame, 2nd ed., 2005, page 99.)
‘The Hungarian revolution of October and November 1956 demonstrated the difficulty faced even by a vastly superior army in attempting to dominate hostile territory. The [Soviet Union] Red Army finally had to concentrate twenty-two divisions in order to crush a practically unarmed population. ... With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears when we think of [World War II nuclear city bombing like Hiroshima]. The high casualty estimates for nuclear war are based on the assumption that the most suitable targets are those of conventional warfare: cities to interdict communications ... With cities no longer serving as key elements in the communications system of the military forces, the risks of initiating city bombing may outweigh the gains which can be achieved. ...
‘The elimination of area targets will place an upper limit on the size of weapons it will be profitable to use. Since fall-out becomes a serious problem [i.e. fallout contaminated areas which are so large that thousands of people would need to evacuate or shelter indoors for up to two weeks] only in the range of explosive power of 500 kilotons and above, it could be proposed that no weapon larger than 500 kilotons will be employed unless the enemy uses it first. Concurrently, the United States could take advantage of a new development which significantly reduces fall-out by eliminating the last stage of the fission-fusion-fission process.’
- Dr Henry Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, Harper, New York, 1957, pp. 180-3, 228-9. (Note that sometimes the "nuclear taboo" issue is raised against this analysis by Kissenger: if anti-nuclear lying propaganda on weapons effects makes it apparently taboo in the Western pro-Russian disarmament lobbies to escalate from conventional to tactical nuclear weapons to end war as on 6 and 9 August 1945, then this "nuclear taboo" can be relied upon to guarantee peace for our time. However, this was not only disproved by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but by the Russian tactical nuclear weapons reliance today, the Russian civil defense shelter system detailed on this blog which showed they believed a nuclear war survivable based on the results of their own nuclear tests, and the use of Russian nuclear weapons years after Kissinger's analysis was published and criticised, for example their 50 megaton test in 1961 and their supply of IRBM's capable of reaching East Coast mainland USA targets to the fanatical Cuban dictatorship in 1962. So much for the "nuclear taboo" as being any more reliable than Chamberlain's "peace for our time" document, co-signed by Hitler on 30 September 1938! We furthermore saw how Russia respected President Obama's "red line" for the "chemical weapons taboo": Russia didn't give a toss about Western disarmament thugs prattle about what they think is a "taboo", Russia used chlorine and sarin in Syria to keep Assad the dictator and they used Novichok to attack and kill in the UK in 2018, with only diplomatic expulsions in response. "Taboos" are no more valid to restrain madmen than peace treaties, disarmament agreements, Western CND books attacking civil defense or claiming that nuclear war is the new 1930s gas war bogyman, or "secret" stamps on scientific facts. In a word, they're crazy superstitions.)
All of this data should have been published to inform public debate on the basis for credible nuclear deterrence of war and civil defense, PREVENTING MILLIONS OF DEATHS SINCE WWII, instead of DELIBERATELY allowing enemy anti-nuclear and anti-civil defence lying propaganda from Russian supporting evil fascists to fill the public data vacuum, killing millions by allowing civil defence and war deterrence to be dismissed by ignorant "politicians" in the West, so that wars triggered by invasions with mass civilian casualties continue today for no purpose other than to promote terrorist agendas of hate and evil arrogance and lying for war, falsely labelled "arms control and disarmament for peace":
"Controlling escalation is really an exercise in deterrence, which means providing effective disincentives to unwanted enemy actions. Contrary to widely endorsed opinion, the use or threat of nuclear weapons in tactical operations seems at least as likely to check [as Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as to promote the expansion of hostilities [providing we're not in a situation of Russian biased arms control and disarmament whereby we've no tactical weapons while the enemy has over 2000 neutron bombs thanks to "peace" propaganda from Russian thugs]." - Bernard Brodie, pvi of Escalation and the nuclear option, RAND Corp memo RM-5444-PR, June 1965.
ABOVE: Example of a possible Russian 1985 1st Cold War SLBM first strike plan. The initial use of Russian SLBM launched nuclear missiles from off-coast against command and control centres (i.e. nuclear explosions to destroy warning satellite communications centres by radiation on satellites as well as EMP against ground targets, rather than missiles launched from Russia against cities, as assumed by 100% of the Cold War left-wing propaganda) is allegedly a Russian "fog of war" strategy. Such a "demonstration strike" is aimed essentially at causing confusion about what is going on, who is responsible - it is not quick or easy to finger-print high altitude bursts fired by SLBM's from submerged submarines to a particular country because you don't get fallout samples to identify isotopic plutonium composition. Russia could immediately deny the attack (implying, probably to the applause of the left-wingers that this was some kind of American training exercise or computer based nuclear weapons "accident", similar to those depicted in numerous anti-nuclear Cold War propaganda films). Thinly-veiled ultimatums and blackmail follow. America would not lose its population or even key cities in such a first strike (contrary to left-wing propaganda fiction), as with Pearl Harbor in 1941; it would lose its complacency and its sense of security through isolationism, and would either be forced into a humiliating defeat or a major war.
Before 1941, many warned of the risks but were dismissed on the basis that Japan was a smaller country with a smaller economy than the USA and war was therefore absurd (similar to the way Churchill's warnings about European dictators were dismissed by "arms-race opposing pacifists" not only in the 1930s, but even before WWI; for example Professor Cyril Joad documents in the 1939 book "Why War?" his first hand witnessing of Winston Churchill's pre-WWI warning and call for an arms-race to deter that war, as dismissed by the sneering Norman Angell who claimed an arms race would cause a war rather than avert one by bankrupting the terrorist state). It is vital to note that there is an immense pressure against warnings of Russian nuclear superiority even today, most of it contradictory. E.g. the left wing and Russian-biased "experts" whose voices are the only ones reported in the Western media (traditionally led by "Scientific American" and "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"), simultaneously claim Russia imposes such a terrible SLBM and ICBM nuclear threat that we must desperately disarm now, while also claiming that Russian tactical nuclear weapons probably won't work so aren't a threat that needs to be credibly deterred! This only makes sense as Russian siding propaganda. In similar vein, Teller-critic Hans Bethe also used to falsely "dismiss" Russian nuclear superiority by claiming (with quotes from Brezhnev about the peaceful intentions of Russia) that Russian delivery systems are "less accurate" than Western missiles (as if accuracy has anything to do with high altitude EMP strikes, where the effects cover huge areas, or large city targets. Such claims would then by repeatedly endlessly in the Western media by Russian biased "journalists" or agents of influence, and any attempt to point out the propaganda (i.e. he real world asymmetry: Russia uses cheap countervalue targetting on folk that don't have civil defense, whereas we need costly, accurate counterforce targetting because Russia has civil defense shelters that we don't have) became a "Reds under beds" argument, implying that the truth is dangerous to "peaceful coexistence"!
“Free peoples ... will make war only when driven to it by tyrants. ... there have been no wars between well-established democracies. ... the probability ... that the absence of wars between well-established democracies is a mere accident [is] less than one chance in a thousand. ... 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.’ ... Time and again we observe authoritarian leaders ... using coercion rather than seeking mutual accommodation ... Republican behaviour ... in quite a few cases ... 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.” - Spencer Weart, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (Yale University Press)
The Top Secret American intelligency report NIE 11-3/8-74 "Soviet Forces for Intercontinental Conflict" warned on page 6: "the USSR has largely eliminated previous US quantitative advantages in strategic offensive forces." page 9 of the report estimated that the Russian's ICBM and SLBM launchers exceed the USAs 1,700 during 1970, while Russia's on-line missile throw weight had exceeded the USA's one thousand tons back in 1967! Because the USA had more long-range bombers which can carry high-yield bombs than Russia (bombers are more vulnerable to air defences so were not Russia's priority), it took a little longer for Russia to exceed the USA in equivalent megatons, but the 1976 Top Secret American report NIE 11-3/8-76 at page 17 shows that in 1974 Russia exceeded the 4,000 equivalent-megatons payload of USA missiles and aircraft (with less vulnerability for Russia, since most of Russia's nuclear weapons were on missiles not in SAM-vulnerable aircraft), amd by 1976 Russia could deliver 7,000 tons of payload by missiles compared to just 4,000 tons on the USA side. These reports were kept secret for decades to protect the intelligence sources, but they were based on hard evidence. For example, in August 1974 the Hughes Aircraft Company used a specially designed ship (Glomar Explorer, 618 feet long, developed under a secret CIA contract) to recover nuclear weapons and their secret manuals from a Russian submarine which sank in 16,000 feet of water, while in 1976 America was able to take apart the electronics systems in a state-of-the-art Russian MIG-25 fighter which was flown to Japan by defector Viktor Belenko, discovering that it used exclusively EMP-hard miniature vacuum tubes with no EMP-vulnerable solid state components.
There are four ways of dealing with aggressors: conquest (fight them), intimidation (deter them), fortification (shelter against their attacks; historically used as castles, walled cities and even walled countries in the case of China's 1,100 mile long Great Wall and Hadrian's Wall, while the USA has used the Pacific and Atlantic as successful moats against invasion, at least since Britain invaded Washington D.C. back in 1812), and friendship (which if you are too weak to fight, means appeasing them, as Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler for worthless peace promises). These are not mutually exclusive: you can use combinations. If you are very strong in offensive capability and also have walls to protect you while your back is turned, you can - as Teddy Roosevelt put it (quoting a West African proverb): "Speak softly and carry a big stick." But if you are weak, speaking softly makes you a target, vulnerable to coercion. This is why we don't send troops directly to Ukraine. When elected in 1960, Kennedy introduced "flexible response" to replace Dulles' "massive retaliation", by addressing the need to deter large provocations without being forced to decide between the unwelcome options of "surrender or all-out nuclear war" (Herman Kahn called this flexible response "Type 2 Deterrence"). This was eroded by both Russian civil defense and their emerging superiority in the 1970s: a real missiles and bombers gap emerged in 1972 when the USSR reached and then exceeded the 2,200 of the USA, while in 1974 the USSR achieve parity at 3,500 equivalent megatons (then exceeded the USA), and finally today Russia has over 2,000 dedicated clean enhanced neutron tactical nuclear weapons and we have none (except low-neutron output B61 multipurpose bombs). (Robert Jastrow's 1985 book How to make nuclear Weapons obsolete was the first to have graphs showing the downward trend in nuclear weapon yields created by the development of miniaturized MIRV warheads for missiles and tactical weapons: he shows that the average size of US warheads fell from 3 megatons in 1960 to 200 kilotons in 1980, and from a total of 12,000 megatons in 1960 to 3,000 megatons in 1980.)
The term "equivalent megatons" roughly takes account of the fact that the areas of cratering, blast and radiation damage scale not linearly with energy but as something like the 2/3 power of energy release; but note that close-in cratering scales as a significantly smaller power of energy than 2/3, while blast wind drag displacement of jeeps in open desert scales as a larger power of energy than 2/3. Comparisons of equivalent megatonnage shows, for example, that WWII's 2 megatons of TNT in the form of about 20,000,000 separate conventional 100 kg (0.1 ton) explosives is equivalent to 20,000,000 x (10-7)2/3 = 431 separate 1 megaton explosions! The point is, nuclear weapons are not of a different order of magnitude to conventional warfare, because: (1) devastated areas don't scale in proportion to energy release, (2) the number of nuclear weapons is very much smaller than the number of conventional bombs dropped in conventional war, (3) because of radiation effects like neutrons and intense EMP, it is possible to eliminate physical destruction by nuclear weapons by a combination of weapon design (e.g. very clean bombs like 99.9% fusion Dominic-Housatonic, or 95% fusion Redwing-Navajo) and burst altitude or depth for hard targets, and create a weapon that deters invasions credibly (without lying local fallout radiation hazards), something none of the biased "pacifist disarmament" lobbies (which attract Russian support) tell you, and (4) people at collateral damage distances have time to take cover from radiation and flying glass, blast winds, etc from nuclear explosions (which they don't in Ukraine and Gaza where similar blast pressures arrive more rapidly from smaller conventional explosions). There's a big problem with propaganda here.
(These calculations, showing that even if strategic bombing had worked in WWII - and the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded it failed, thus the early Cold War effort to develop and test tactical nuclear weapons and train for tactical nuclear war in Nevada field exercises - you need over 400 megaton weapons to give the equivalent of WWII city destruction in Europe and Japan, are often inverted by anti-nuclear bigots to try to obfuscate the truth. What we're driving at is that nuclear weapons give you the ability to DETER the invasions that set off such wars, regardless of whether they escalate from poison gas - as feared in the 20s and 30s thus appeasement and WWII - or nuclear. Escalation was debunked in WWII where the only use of poison gases were in "peaceful" gas chambers, not dropped on cities. Rather than justifying appeasement, the "peaceful" massacre of millions in gas chambers justified war. But evil could and should have been deterred. The "anti-war" propagandarists like Lord Noel-Baker and pals who guaranteed immediate gas knockout blows in the 30s if we didn't appease evil dictators were never held to account and properly debunked by historians after the war, so they converted from gas liars to nuclear liars in the Cold War and went on winning "peace" prices for their lies, which multiplied up over the years, to keep getting news media headlines and Nobel Peace Prizes for starting and sustaining unnecessary wars and massacres by dictators. There's also a military side to this, with Field Marshall's Lord Mountbatten, lord Carver and lord Zuckerman in the 70s arguing for UK nuclear disarmament and a re-introduction of conscription instead. These guys were not pacifist CND thugs who wanted Moscow to rule the world, but they were quoted by them attacking the deterrent but not of course calling for conscription instead. The abolishment of UK conscription for national service in 1960 was due to the H-bomb, and was a political money-saving plot by Macmillan. If we disarmed our nuclear deterrent and spend the money on conscription plus underground shelters, we might well be able to resist Russia as Ukraine does, until we run out of ammunition etc. However, the cheapest and most credible deterrent is tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the concentration of aggressive force by terrorist states..)
Duncan Campbell's War Plan UK relies on the contradiction of claiming that the deliberately exaggerated UK Government worst-case civil defense "exercises" for training purposes are "realistic scenarios" (e.g. 1975 Inside Right, 1978 Scrum Half, 1980 Square Leg, 1982 Hard Rock planning), while simultaneously claiming the very opposite about reliable UK Government nuclear effects and sheltering effectiveness data, and hoping nobody would spot his contradictory tactics. He quotes extensively from these lurid worst-case scenario UK civil defense exercises ,as if they are factually defensible rather than imaginary fiction to put planners under the maximum possible stress (standard UK military policy of “Train hard to fight easy”), while ignoring the far more likely limited nuclear uses scenario of Sir John Hackett's Third World War. His real worry is the 1977 UK Government Training Manual for Scientific Advisers which War Plan UK quotes on p14: "a potential threat to the security of the United Kingdom arising from acts of sabotage by enemy agents, possibly assisted by dissident groups. ... Their aim would be to weaken the national will and ability to fight. ... Their significance should not be underestimated." On the next page, War Plan UK quotes J. B. S. Haldane's 1938 book Air Raid Precautions (ARP) on the terrible destruction Haldane witnessed on unprotected people in the Spanish civil war, without even mentioning that Haldane's point is pro-civil defense, pro-shelters, and anti-appeasement of dictatorship, the exact opposite of War Plan UK which wants Russia to run the world. On page 124 War Plan UK the false assertion is made that USA nuclear casualty data is "widely accepted" and true (declassified Hiroshima casaulty data for people in modern concrete buildings proves it to be lies) while the correct UK nuclear casualty data is "inaccurate", and on page 126, Duncan Campbell simply lies that the UK Government's Domestic Nuclear Shelters- Technical Guidance"ended up offering the public a selection of shelters half of which were invented in the Blitz ... None of the designs was ever tested." In fact, Frank Pavry (who studied similar shelters surviving near ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 with the British Mission to Japan_ and George R. Stanbury tested 15 Anderson shelters at the first UK nuclear explosion, Operation Hurricane in 1952, together with concrete structures, and many other improvised trench and earth-covered shelters were nuclear tested by USA and UK at trials in 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, and later at simulated nuclear explosions by Cresson Kearny of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA, having also earlier been exposed to early Russian nuclear tests (scroll down to see the evidence of this). Improved versions of war tested and nuclear weapons tested shelters! So war Plan UK makes no effort whatsoever to dig up the facts, and instead falsely claims the exact opposite of the plain unvarnished truth! War Plan UK shows its hypocrisy on page 383 in enthusiastically praising Russian civil defense:
"Training in elementary civil defence is given to everyone, at school, in industry or collective farms. A basic handbook of precautionary measures, Everybody must know this!, is the Russian Protect and Survive. The national civil defence corps is extensive, and is organized along military lines. Over 200,000 civil defence troops would be mobilized for rescue work in war. There are said to be extensive, dispersed and 'untouchable' food stockpiles; industrial workers are issued with kits of personal protection apparatus, said to include nerve gas counteragents such as atropine. Fallout and blast shelters are provided in the cities and in industrial complexes, and new buildings have been required to have shelters since the 1950s. ... They suggest that less than 10% - even as little as 5% - of the Soviet population would die in a major attack. [Less than Russia's loss of 12% of its population in WWII.]"
'LLNL achieved fusion ignition for the first time on Dec. 5, 2022. The second time came on July 30, 2023, when in a controlled fusion experiment, the NIF laser delivered 2.05 MJ of energy to the target, resulting in 3.88 MJ of fusion energy output, the highest yield achieved to date. On Oct. 8, 2023, the NIF laser achieved fusion ignition for the third time with 1.9 MJ of laser energy resulting in 2.4 MJ of fusion energy yield. “We’re on a steep performance curve,” said Jean-Michel Di Nicola, co-program director for the NIF and Photon Science’s Laser Science and Systems Engineering organization. “Increasing laser energy can give us more margin against issues like imperfections in the fuel capsule or asymmetry in the fuel hot spot. Higher laser energy can help achieve a more stable implosion, resulting in higher yields.” ... “The laser itself is capable of higher energy without fundamental changes to the laser,” said NIF operations manager Bruno Van Wonterghem. “It’s all about the control of the damage. Too much energy without proper protection, and your optics blow to pieces.” ' - https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/llnls-nif-delivers-record-laser-energy
NOTE: the "problem" very large lasers "required" to deliver ~2MJ (roughly 0.5 kg of TNT energy) to cause larger fusion explosions of 2mm diameter capsules of frozen D+T inside a 1 cm diameter energy reflecting hohlraum, and the "problem" of damage to the equipment caused by the explosions, is immaterial to clean nuclear deterrent development based on this technology, because in a clean nuclear weapon, whatever laser or other power ignition system is used only has to be fired once, so it needs to be less robust than the NIF lasers which are used repeatedly. Similarly, damage done to the system by the explosion is also immaterial for a clean nuclear weapon, in which the weapon is detonated once only! This is exactly the same point which finally occurred during a critical review of the first gun-type assembly nuclear weapon, in which the fact it would only ever be fired once (unlike a field artillery gun) enabled huge reductions in the size of the device, into a practical weapon, as described by General Leslie M. Groves on p163 of his 1962 book Now it can be told: the story of the Manhattan Project:
"Out of the Review Committee's work came one important technical contribution when Rose pointed out ... that the durability of the gun was quite immaterial to success, since it would be destroyed in the explosion anyway. Self-evident as this seemed once it was mentioned, it had not previously occurred to us. Now we could make drastic reductions in ... weight and size."
This principle also applies to weaponizing NIF clean fusion explosion technology. General Groves' book was reprinted in 1982 with a useful Introduction by Edward Teller on the nature of nuclear weapons history: "History in some ways resembles the relativity principle in science. What is observed depends on the observer. Only when the perspective of the observer is known, can proper corrections be made. ... The general ... very often managed to ignore complexity and arrive at a result which, if not ideal, at least worked. ... For Groves, the Manhattan project seemed a minor assignment, less significant than the construction of the Pentagon. He was deeply disappointed at being given the job of supervising the development of an atomic weapon, since it deprived him of combat duty. ... We must find ways to encourage mutual understanding and significant collaboration between those who defend their nation with their lives and those who can contribute the ideas to make that defense successful. Only by such cooperation can we hope that freedom will survive, that peace will be preserved."
General Groves similarly comments in Chapter 31, "A Final Word" of Now it can be told:
"No man can say what would have been the result if we had not taken the steps ... Yet, one thing seems certain - atomic energy would have been developed somewhere in the world ... I do not believe the United States ever would have undertaken it in time of peace. Most probably, the first developer would have been a power-hungry nation, which would then have dominated the world completely ... it is fortunate indeed for humanity that the initiative in this field was gained and kept by the United States. That we were successful was due entirely to the hard work and dedication of the more than 600,000 Americans who comprised and directly supported the Manhattan Project. ... we had the full backing of our government, combined with the nearly infinite potential of American science, engineering and industry, and an almost unlimited supply of people endowed with ingenuity and determination."
Additionally, the test was made in a hurry before an atmospheric teat ban treaty, and this rushed use of a standard air drop steel casing made the tested weapon much heavier than a properly weaponized Ripple II. The key point is that a 10 kt fission device set off a ~10 Mt fusion explosion, a very clean deterrent. Applying this Ripple II 1,000-factor multiplicative staging figure directly to this technology for clean nuclear warheads, a 0.5 kg TNT D+T fusion capsule would set off a 0.5 ton TNT 2nd stage of LiD, which would then set off a 0.5 kt 3rd stage "neutron bomb", which could then be used to set off a 500 kt 4th stage or "strategic nuclear weapon". In practice, this multiplication factor of 1,000 given by Ripple II in 1962 from 10 kt to 10 Mt may not be immediately achievable to get from ~1 kg TNT yield to 1 ton TNT, so a few more tiny stages may be needed for the lower yield. But there is every reason to forecast that with enough research, improvements will be possible and the device will become a reality. It is therefore now possible not just in "theory" or in principle, but with evidence obtained from practical experimentation, using suitable already-proved technical staging systems used in 1960s nuclear weapon tests successfully, to design 100% clean fusion nuclear warheads! Yes, the details have been worked out, yes the technology has been tested in piecemeal fashion. All that is now needed is a new, but quicker and cheaper, Star Wars program or Manhattan Project style effort to pull the components together. This will constitute a major leap forward in the credibility of the deterrence of aggressors.
ABOVE: as predicted, the higher the input laser pulse for the D+T initiator of a clean multiplicatively-staged nuclear deterrent, the lower the effect of plasma instabilities and asymmetries and the greater the fusion burn. To get ignition (where the x-ray energy injected into the fusion hohlraum by the laser is less than the energy released in the D+T fusion burn) they have had to use about 2 MJ delivered in 10 ns or so, equivalent to 0.5 kg of TNT equivalent. But for deterrent use, why use such expensive, delicate lasers? Why not just use one-shot miniaturised x-ray tubes with megavolt electron acceleration, powered a suitably ramped pulse from a chemical explosion for magnetic flux compression current generation? At 10% efficiency, you need 0.5 x 10 = 5 kg of TNT! Even at 1% efficiency, 50 kg of TNT will do. Once the D+T gas capsule's hohlraum is well over 1 cm in size, to minimise the risk of imperfections that cause asymmetries, you don't any longer need focussed laser beams to enter tiny apertures. You might even be able to integrate many miniature flash x-ray tubes (each designed to burn out when firing one pulse of a MJ or so) into a special hohlraum. Humanity urgently needs a technological arms race akin to Reagan's Star Wars project, to deter the dictators from invasions and WWIII. In the conference video above, a question was asked about the real efficiency of the enormous repeat-pulse capable laser system's efficiency (not required for a nuclear weapon whose components only require the capability to be used once, unlike lab equipment): the answer is that 300 MJ was required by the lab lasers to fire a 2 MJ pulse into the D+T capsule's x-ray hohlraum, i.e. their lasers are only 0.7% efficient! So why bother? We know - from the practical use of incoherent fission primary stage x-rays to compress and ignite fusion capsules in nuclear weapons - that you simply don't need coherent photons from a laser for this purpose. The sole reason they are approaching the problem with lasers is that they began their lab experiments decades ago with microscopic sized fusion capsules and for those you need a tightly focussed beam to insert energy through a tiny hohlraum aperture. But now they are finally achieving success with much larger fusion capsules (to minimise instabilities that caused the early failures), it may be time to change direction. A whole array of false "no-go theorems" can and will be raised by ignorant charlatan "authorities" against any innovation; this is the nature of the political world. There is some interesting discussion of why clean bombs aren't in existence today, basically the idealized theory (which works fine for big H-bombs but ignores small-scale asymmetry problems which are important only at low ignition energy) understimated the input energy required for fusion ignition by a factor of 2000:
In the final diagram above, we illustrate an example of what could very well occur in the near future, just to really poke a stick into the wheels of "orthodoxy" in nuclear weapons design: is it possible to just use a lot of (perhaps hardened for higher currents, perhaps no) pulsed current driven microwave tubes from kitchen microwave ovens, channelling their energy using waveguides (simply metal tubes, i.e. electrical Faraday cages, which reflect and thus contain microwaves) into the hohlraum, and make the pusher of dipole molecules (like common salt, NaCl) which is a good absorber of microwaves (as everybody knows from cooking in microwave ovens)? It would be extremely dangerous, not to mention embarrassing, if this worked, but nobody had done any detailed research into the possibility due to groupthink orthodoxy and conventional boxed in thinking! Remember, the D+T capsule just needs extreme compression and this can be done by any means that works. Microwave technology is now very well-established. It's no good trying to keep anything of this sort "secret" (either officially or unofficially) since as history shows, dictatorships are the places where "crackpot"-sounding ideas (such as douple-primary Project "49" Russian thermonuclear weapon designs, Russian Sputnik satellites, Russian Novichok nerve agent, Nazi V1 cruise missiles, Nazi V2 IRBM's, etc.) can be given priority by loony dictators. We have to avoid, as Edward Teller put it (in his secret commentary debunking Bethe's false history of the H-bomb, written AFTER the Teller-Ulam breakthrough), "too-narrow" thinking (which Teller said was still in force on H-bomb design even then). Fashionable hardened orthodoxy is the soft underbelly of "democracy" (a dictatorship by the majority, which is always too focussed on fashionable ideas and dismissive of alternative approaches in science and technology). Dictatorships (minorities against majorities) have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of concern for the fake "no-go theorems" used by Western anti-nuclear "authorities" to ban anything but fashionable groupthink science.
ABOVE: 1944-dated film of the Head of the British Mission to Los Alamos, neutron discoverer James Chadwick, explaining in detail to American how hard it was for him to discover the neutron, taking 10 years on a shoe-string budget, mostly due to having insufficiently strong sources of alpha particles to bombard nuclei in a cloud chamber! The idea of the neutron came from his colleague Rutherford. Chadwick reads his explanation while rapidly rotating a pencil in his right hand, perhaps indicating the stress he was under in 1944. In 1946, when British participation at Los Alamos ended, Chadwick wrote the first detailed secret British report on the design of a three-stage hydrogen bomb, another project that took over a decade. In the diagram below, it appears that the American Mk17 only had a single secondary stage like the similar yield 1952 Mike design. The point here is that popular misunderstanding of the simple mechanism of x-ray energy transfer for higher yield weapons may be creating a dogmatic attitude even in secret nuclear weaponeer design labs, where orthodoxy is followed too rigorously. The Russians (see quotes on the latest blog post here) state they used two entire two-stage thermonuclear weapons with a combined yield of 1 megaton to set off their 50 megaton test in 1961. If true, you can indeed use two-stage hydrogen bombs as an "effective primary" to set off another secondary stage, of much higher yield. Can this be reversed in the sense of scaling it down so you have several bombs-within-bombs, all triggered by a really tiny first stage? In other words, can it be applied to neutron bomb design?
The 1946 Report of the British Mission to Japan, The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compiled by a team of 16 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during November 1945, which included 10 UK Home Office civil defence experts (W. N. Thomas, J. Bronowski, D. C. Burn, J. B. Hawker, H. Elder, P. A. Badland, R. W. Bevan, F. H. Pavry, F. Walley, O. C. Young, S. Parthasarathy, A. D. Evans, O. M. Solandt, A. E. Dark, R. G. Whitehead and F. G. S. Mitchell) found: "Para. 26. Reinforced concrete buildings of very heavy construction in Hiroshima, even when within 200 yards of the centre of damage, remained structurally undamaged. ... Para 28. These observations make it plain that reinforced concrete framed buildings can resist a bomb of the same power detonated at these heights, without employing fantastic thicknesses of concrete. ... Para 40. The provision of air raid shelters throughout Japan was much below European standards. ... in Hiroshima ... they were semi-sunk, about 20 feet long, had wooden frames, and 1.5-2 feet of earth cover. ... Exploding so high above them, the bomb damaged none of these shelters. ... Para 42. These observations show that the standard British shelters would have performed well against a bomb of the same power exploded at such a height. Anderson shelters, properly erected and covered, would have given protection. Brick or concrete surfac shelters with adequate reinforcement would have remained safe from collapse. The Morrison shelter is designed only to protect its occupants from the refuge load of a house, and this it would have done. Deep shelters such as the refuge provided by the London Underground would have given complete protection. ... Para 60. Buildings and walls gave complete protection from flashburn."
Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons in Table 12.21 on p547 flunks making this point by giving data without citing its source to make it credible to readers: it correlated 14% mortality (106 killed out of 775 people in Hiroshima's Telegraph Office) to "moderate damage" at 500m in Hiroshima (the uncited "secret" source was NP-3041, Table 12, applying to unwarned people inside modern concrete buildings).
"A weapon whose basic design would seem to provide the essence of what Western morality has long sought for waging classical battlefield warfare - to keep the war to a struggle between the warriors and exclude the non-combatants and their physical assets - has been violently denounced, precisely because it achieves this objective." - Samuel T. Cohen (quoted in Chapman Pincher, The secret offensive, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1985, Chapter 15: The Neutron Bomb Offensive, p210).
The reality is, dedicated enhanced neutron tactical nuclear weapons were used to credibly deter the concentrations of force required for triggering of WWIII during the 1st Cold War, and the thugs who support Russian propaganda for Western disarmament got rid of them on our side, but not on the Russian side. Air burst neutron bombs or even as subsurface earth penetrators of relatively low fission yield (where the soil converts energy that would otherwise escape as blast and radiation into ground shock for destroying buried tunnels - new research on cratering shows that a 20 kt subsurface burst creates similar effects on buried hard targets as a 1 Mt surface burst), they cause none of the vast collateral damage to civilians that we see now in Ukraine and Gaza, or that we saw in WWII and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. This is 100% contrary to CND propaganda which is a mixture of lying on nuclear explosion collateral damage, escalation/knockout blow propaganda (of the type used to start WWII by appeasers) and lying on the designs of nuclear weapons in order to ensure the Western side (but not the thugs) gets only incredible "strategic deterrence" that can't deter the invasions that start world wars (e.g. Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939.) "Our country entered into an agreement in Budapest, Hungary when the Soviet Union was breaking up that we would guarantee the independence of Ukraine." - Tom Ramos. There really is phoney nuclear groupthink left agenda politics at work here: credible relatively clean tactical nuclear weapons are banned in the West but stocked by Russia, which has civil defense shelters to make its threats far more credible than ours! We need low-collateral damage enhanced-neutron and earth-penetrator options for the new Western W93 warhead, or we remain vulnerable to aggressive coercion by thugs, and invite invasions. Ambiguity, the current policy ("justifying" secrecy on just what we would do in any scenario) actually encourages experimental provocations by enemies to test what we are prepared to do (if anything), just as it did in 1914 and the 1930s.
ABOVE: 0.2 kt (tactical yield range) Ruth nuclear test debris, with lower 200 feet of the 300 ft steel tower surviving in Nevada, 1953. Note that the yield of the tactical invasion-deterrent Mk54 Davy Crockett was only 0.02 kt, 10 times less than than 0.2 kt Ruth.
It should be noted that cheap and naive "alternatives" to credible deterrence of war were tried in the 1930s and during the Cold War and afterwards, with disastrous consequences. Heavy "peaceful" oil sanctions and other embargoes against Japan for its invasion of China between 1931-7 resulted in the plan for the Pearl Harbor surprise attack of 7 December 1941, with subsequent escalation to incendiary city bombing followed nuclear warfare against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Attlee's pressure on Truman to guarantee no use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Korean War (leaked straight to Stalin by the Cambridge Spy Ring), led to an escalation of that war causing the total devastation of the cities of that country by conventional bombing (a sight witnessed by Sam Cohen, that motivated his neutron bomb deterrent of invasions), until Eisenhower was elected and reversed Truman's decision, leading not to the "escalatory Armageddon" assertions of Attlee, but to instead to a peaceful armistice! Similarly, as Tom Ramos argues in From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Kennedy's advisers who convinced him to go ahead with the moonlit 17 April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba without any USAF air support, which led to precisely what they claimed they would avoid: an escalation of aggression from Russia in Berlin, with the Berlin Wall going up on 17 August 1961 because any showing weakness to an enemy, as in the bungled invasion of Cuba, is always a green light to dictators to go ahead with revolutions, invasions and provocations everywhere else. Rather than the widely hyped autistic claims from disarmers and appeasers about "weakness bringing peace by demonstrating to the enemy that they have nothing to fear from you", the opposite result always occurs. The paranoid dictator seizes the opportunity to strike first. Similarly, withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021 was a clear green light to Russia to go ahead with a full scale invasion of Ukraine, reigniting the Cold War. von Neumann and Morgenstein's Minimax theorem for winning games - minimise the maximum possible loss - fails with offensive action in war because it sends a signal of weakness to the enemy, which does not treat war as a game with rules to be obeyed. Minimax is only valid for defense, such as civil defense shelters used by Russia to make their threats more credible than ours. The sad truth is that cheap fixes don't work, no matter how much propaganda is behind them. You either need to militarily defeat the enemy or at least economically defeat them using proven Cold War arms race techniques (not merely ineffective sanctions, which they can bypass by making alliances with Iran, North Korea, and China). Otherwise, you are negotiating peace from a position of weakness, which is called appeasement, or collaboration with terrorism.
"Following the war, the Navy Department was intent to see the effects of an atomic blast on naval warships ... the press was invited to witness this one [Crossroads-Able, 23.5 kt at 520 feet altitude, 1 July 1946, Bikini Atoll]. ... The buildup had been too extravagant. Goats that had been tethered on warship decks were still munching their feed, and the atoll's palm trees remained standing, unscathed. The Bikini test changed public attitudes. Before July 1, the world stood in awe of a weapon that had devastated two cities and forced the Japanese Empire to surrender. After that date, the bomb was still a terrible weapon, but a limited one." - Tom Ramos (LLNL nuclear weaponeer and nuclear pumped X-ray laser developer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Prevent Nuclear War, Naval Institute Press, 2022, pp43-4.
ILLUSTRATION: the threat of WWII and the need to deter it was massively derided by popular pacifism which tended to make "jokes" of the Nazi threat until too late (example of 1938 UK fiction on this above; Charlie Chaplin's film "The Great Dictator" is another example), so three years after the Nuremberg Laws and five years after illegal rearmament was begun by the Nazis, in the UK crowds of "pacifists" in Downing Street, London, support friendship with the top racist, dictatorial Nazis in the name of "world peace". The Prime Minister used underhand techniques to try to undermine appeasement critics like Churchill and also later to get W. E. Johns fired from both editorships of Flying (weekly) and Popular Flying (monthly) to make it appear everybody "in the know" agreed with his actions, hence the contrived "popular support" for collaborating with terrorists depicted in these photos. The same thing persists today; the 1920s and 1930s "pacifist" was also driven by "escalation" and "annihilation" claims explosions, fire and WMD poison gas will kill everybody in a "knockout blow", immediately any war breaks out.
"Fuchs reasoned that [the very low energy, 1-10 kev, approximately 10-100 lower energy than medical] x-rays from the [physically separated] uranium explosion would reach the tamper of beryllium oxide, heat it, ionize the constituents and cause them to implode - the 'ionization implosion' concept of von Neumann but now applied to deuterium and tritium contained within beryllium oxide. To keep the radiation inside the tamper, Fuchs proposed to enclose the device inside a casing impervious to radiation. The implosion induced by the radiation would amplify the compression ... and increase the chance of the fusion bomb igniting. The key here is 'separation of the atomic charge and thermonuclear fuel, and compression of the latter by radiation travelling from the former', which constitutes 'radiation implosion'." (This distinction between von Neumann's "ionization implosion" INSIDE the tamper, of denser tamper expanding and thus compressing lower density fusion fuel inside, and Fuchs' OUTSIDE capsule "radiation implosion", is key even today for isentropic H-bomb design; it seems Teller's key breakthroughs were not separate stages or implosion but rather radiation mirrors and ablative recoil shock compression, where radiation is used to ablate a dense pusher of Sausage designs like Mike in 1952 etc., a distinction not to be confused for the 1944 von Neumann and 1946 Fuchs implosion mechanisms!
It appears Russian H-bombs used von Neumann's "ionization implosion" and Fuchs's "radiation implosion" for RDS-37 on 22 November 1955 and also in their double-primary 23 February 1958 test and subsequently, where their fusion capsules reportedly contained a BeO or other low-density outer coating, which would lead to quasi-isentropic compression, more effective for low density secondary stages than purely ablative recoil shock compression. This accounts for the continuing classification of the April 1946 Superbomb Conference (the extract of 32 pages linked here is so severely redacted that it is less helpful than the brief but very lucid summary of its technical content, in the declassified FBI compilation of reports concerning data Klaus Fuchs sent to Stalin, linked here!). Teller had all the knowledge he needed in 1946, but didn't go ahead because he made the stupid error of killing progress off by his own "no-go theorem" against compression of fusion fuel. Teller did a "theoretical" calculation in which he claimed that compression has no effect on the amount of fusion burn because the compressed system is simply scaled down in size so that the same efficiency of fusion burn occurs, albeit faster, and then stops as the fuel thermally expands. This was wrong. Teller discusses the reason for his great error in technical detail during his tape-recorded interview by Chuck Hansen at Los Alamos on 7 June 1993 (C. Hansen, Swords of Armageddon, 2nd ed., pp. II-176-7):
"Now every one of these [fusion] processes varied with the square of density. If you compress the thing, then in one unit's volume, each of the 3 important processes increased by the same factor ... Therefore, compression (seemed to be) useless. Now when ... it seemed clear that we were in trouble, then I wanted very badly to find a way out. And it occurred to be than an unprecedentedly strong compression will just not allow much energy to go into radiation. Therefore, something had to be wrong with my argument and then, you know, within minutes, I knew what must be wrong ... [energy] emission occurs when an electron and a nucleus collide. Absorption does not occur when a light quantum and a nucleus ... or ... electron collide; it occurs when a light quantum finds an electron and a nucleus together ... it does not go with the square of the density, it goes with the cube of the density." (This very costly theoretical error, wasting five years 1946-51, could have been resolved by experimental nuclear testing. There is always a risk of this in theoretical physics, which is why experiments are done to check calculations before prizes are handed out. The ban on nuclear testing is a luddite opposition to technological progress in improving deterrence.)
(This 1946-51 theoretical "no-go theorem" anti-compression error of Teller's, which was contrary to the suggestion of compression at the April 1946 superbomb conference as Teller himself refers to on 14 August 1952, and which was corrected only by comparison of the facts about compression validity in pure fission cores in Feb '51 after Ulam's argument that month for fission core compression by lens focussed primary stage shock waves, did not merely lead to Teller's dismissal of vital compression ideas. It also led to his false equations - exaggerating the cooling effect of radiation emission - causing underestimates of fusion efficiency in all theoretical calculations done of fusion until 1951! For this reason, Teller later repudiated the calculations that allegedly showed his Superbomb would fizzle; he argued that if it had been tested in 1946, the detailed data obtained - regardless of whatever happened - would have at least tested the theory which would have led to rapid progress, because the theory was wrong. The entire basis of the cooling of fusion fuel by radiation leaking out was massively exaggerated until Lawrence Livermore weaponeer John Nuckolls showed that there is a very simple solution: use baffle re-radiated, softened x-rays for isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel, e.g. very cold 0.3 kev x-rays rather than the usual 1-10 kev cold-warm x-rays emitted directly from the fission primary. Since the radiation losses are proportional to the fourth-power of the x-ray energy or temperature, losses are virtually eliminated, allowing very efficient staging as for Nuckolls' 99.9% 10 Mt clean Ripple II, detonated on 30 October 1962 at Christmas Island. Teller's classical Superbomb was actually analyzed by John C. Solem in a 15 December 1978 report, A modern analysis of Classical Super, LA-07615, according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by mainstream historian Alex Wellerstein, FOIA 17-00131-H, 12 June 2017; according to a list of FOIA requests at https://www.governmentattic.org/46docs/NNSAfoiaLogs_2016-2020.pdf. However, a google search for the documents Dr Wellerstein requested shows only a few at the US Gov DOE Opennet OSTI database or otherwise online yet e.g. LA-643 by Teller, On the development of Thermonuclear Bombs dated 16 Feb. 1950. The page linked here stating that report was "never classified" is mistaken! One oddity about Teller's anti-compression "no-go theorem" is that the even if fusion rates were independent of density, you would still want compression of fissile material in a secondary stage such as a radiation imploded Alarm Clock, because the whole basis of implosion fission bombs is the benefit of compression; another issue is that even if fusion rates are unaffected by density, inward compression would still help to delay the expansion of the fusion system which leads to cooling and quenching of the fusion burn.)
In fact (see Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear warhead designer Nuckolls' explanation in report UCRL-74345): "The rates of burn, energy deposition by charged reaction products, and electron-ion heating are proportional to the density, and the inertial confinement time is proportional to the radius. ... The burn efficiency is proportional to the product of the burn rate and the inertial confinement time ...", i.e. the fusion burn rate is directly proportional to the fuel density, which in turn is of course inversely proportional to the cube of its radius. But the inertial confinement time for fusion to occur is proportional to the radius, so the fusion stage efficiency in a nuclear weapon is the product of the burn rate (i.e., 1/radius^3) and time (i.e., radius), so efficiency ~ radius/(radius^3) ~ 1/radius^2. Therefore, for a given fuel temperature, the total fusion burn, or the efficiency of the fusion stage, is inversely proportional to the square of the compressed radius of the fuel! (Those condemning Teller's theoretical errors or "arrogance" should be aware that he pushed hard all the time for experimental nuclear tests of his ideas, to check if they were correct, exactly the right thing to do scientifically and others who read his papers had the opportunity to point out any theoretical errors, but was rebuffed by those in power, who used a series of contrived arguments to deny progress, based upon what Harry would call "subconscious bias", if not arrogant, damning, overt bigotry against the kind of credible, overwhelming deterrence which had proved lacking a decade earlier, leading to WWII. This callousness towards human suffering in war and under dictatorship existed in some UK physicists too: Joseph Rotblat's hatred of anything to deter Russia be it civil defense or tactical neutron bombs of the West - he had no problem smiling and patting Russia's neutron bomb when visiting their labs during cosy groupthink deluded Pugwash campaigns for Russian-style "peaceful collaboration" - came from deep family communist convictions, since his brother was serving in the Red Army in 1944 when he alleged he heard General Groves declare that the bomb must deter Russia! Rotblat stated he left Los Alamos as a result. The actions of these groups are analogous to the "Cambridge Scientists Anti-War Group" in the 1930s. After Truman ordered a H-bomb, Bradbury at Los Alamos had to start a "Family Committee" because Teller had a whole "family" of H-bomb designs, ranging from the biggest, "Daddy", through various "Alarm Clocks", all the way down to small internally-boosted fission tactical weapons. From Teller's perspective, he wasn't putting all eggs in one basket.)
There is more to Fuchs' influence on the UK H-bomb than I go into that paper; Chapman Pincher alleged that Fuchs was treated with special leniency at his trial and later he was given early release in 1959 because of his contributions and help with the UK H-bomb as author of the key Fuchs-von Neumann x-ray compression mechanism patent. For example, Penney visited Fuchs in June 1952 in Stafford Prison; see pp309-310 of Frank Close's 2019 book "Trinity". Close argues that Fuchs gave Penney a vital tutorial on the H-bomb mechanism during that prison visit. That wasn't the last help, either, since the UK Controller for Atomic Energy Sir Freddie Morgan wrote Penney on 9 February 1953 that Fuchs was continuing to help. Another gem: Close gives, on p396, the story of how the FBI became suspicious of Edward Teller, after finding a man of his name teaching at the NY Communist Workers School in 1941 - the wrong Edward Teller, of course - yet Teller's wife was indeed a member of the Communist-front "League of women shoppers" in Washington, DC.
Chapman Pincher, who attended the Fuchs trial, writes about Fuchs hydrogen bomb lectures to prisoners in chapter 19 of his 2014 autobiography, Dangerous to know (Biteback, London, pp217-8): "... Donald Hume ... in prison had become a close friend of Fuchs ... Hume had repaid Fuchs' friendship by organising the smuggling in of new scientific books ... Hume had a mass of notes ... I secured Fuchs's copious notes for a course of 17 lectures ... including how the H-bomb works, which he had given to his fellow prisoners ... My editor agreed to buy Hume's story so long as we could keep the papers as proof of its authenticity ... Fuchs was soon due for release ..."
Chapman Pincher wrote about this as the front page exclusive of the 11 June 1952 Daily Express, "Fuchs: New Sensation", the very month Penney visited Fuchs in prison to receive his H-bomb tutorial! UK media insisted this was evidence that UK security still wasn't really serious about deterring further nuclear spies, and the revelations finally culminated in the allegations that the MI5 chief 1956-65 Roger Hollis was a Russian fellow-traveller (Hollis was descended from Peter the Great, according to his elder brother Chris Hollis' 1958 book Along the Road to Frome) and GRU agent of influence, codenamed "Elli". Pincher's 2014 book, written aged 100, explains that former MI5 agent Peter Wright suspected Hollis was Elli after evidence collected by MI6 agent Stephen de Mowbray was reported to the Cabinet Secretary. Hollis is alleged to have deliberately fiddled his report of interviewing GRU defector Igor Gouzenko on 21 November 1945 in Canada. Gouzenko had exposed the spy and Groucho Marx lookalike Dr Alan Nunn May (photo below), and also a GRU spy in MI5 codenamed Elli, who used only duboks (dead letter boxes), but Gouzenko told Pincher that when Hollis interviewed him in 1945 he wrote up a lengthy false report claiming to discredit many statements by Gouzenko: "I could not understand how Hollis had written so much when he had asked me so little. The report was full of nonsense and lies. As [MI5 agent Patrick] Stewart read the report to me [during the 1972 investigation of Hollis], it became clear that it had been faked to destroy my credibility so that my information about the spy in MI5 called Elli could be ignored. I suspect that Hollis was Elli." (Source: Pincher, 2014, p320.) Christopher Andrew claimed Hollis couldn't have been GRU spy Elli because KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky suggested it was the KGB spy Leo Long (sub-agent of KGB spy Anthony Blunt). However, Gouzenko was GRU, not KGB like Long and Gordievsky! Gordievsky's claim that "Elli" was on the cover of Long's KGB file was debunked by KGB officer Oleg Tsarev, who found that Long's codename was actually Ralph! Another declassified Russian document, from General V. Merkulov to Stalin dated 24 Nov 1945, confirmed Elli was a GRU agent inside british intelligence, whose existence was betrayed by Gouzenko. In Chapter 30 of Dangerous to Know, Pincher related how he was given a Russian suitcase sized microfilm enlarger by 1959 Hollis spying eyewitness Michael J. Butt, doorman for secret communist meetings in London. According to Butt, Hollis delivered documents to Brigitte Kuczynski, younger sister of Klaus Fuchs' original handler, the notorious Sonia aka Ursula. Hollis allegedly provided Minox films to Brigitte discretely when walking through Hyde Park at 8pm after work. Brigitte gave her Russian made Minox film enlarger to Butt to dispose of, but he kept it in his loft as evidence. (Pincher later donated it to King's College.) Other more circumstantial evidence is that Hollis recruited the spy Philby, Hollis secured spy Blunt immunity from prosecution, Hollis cleared Fuchs in 1943, and MI5 allegedly destroyed Hollis' 1945 interrogation report on Gouzenko, to prevent the airing of the scandal that it was fake after checking it with Gouzenko in 1972.
It should be noted that the very small number of Russian GRU illegal agents in the UK and the very small communist party membership had a relatively large influence on nuclear policy via infiltration of unions which had block votes in the Labour Party, as well the indirect CND and "peace movement" lobbies saturating the popular press with anti-civil defence propaganda to make the nuclear deterrent totally incredible for any provocation short of a direct all-out countervalue attack. Under such pressure, UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson's government abolished the UK Civil Defence Corps, making the UK nuclear deterrent totally incredible against major provocations, in March 1968. While there was some opposition to Wilson, it was focussed on his profligate nationalisation policies which were undermining the economy and thus destabilizing military expenditure for national security. Peter Wright’s 1987 book Spycatcher and various other sources, including Daily Mirror editor Hugh Cudlipp's book Walking on Water, documented that on 8 May 1968, the Bank of England's director Cecil King, who was also Chairman of Daily Mirror newspapers, Mirror editor Cudlipp and the UK Ministry of Defence's anti-nuclear Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Solly Zuckerman, met at Lord Mountbatten's house in Kinnerton Street, London, to discuss a coup e'tat to overthrow Wilson and make Mountbatten the UK President, a new position. King's position, according to Cudlipp - quite correctly as revealed by the UK economic crises of the 1970s when the UK was effectively bankrupt - was that Wilson was setting the UK on the road to financial ruin and thus military decay. Zuckerman and Mountbatten refused to take part in a revolution, however Wilson's government was attacked by the Daily Mirror in a front page editorial by Cecil King two days later, on 10 May 1968, headlined "Enough is enough ... Mr Wilson and his Government have lost all credibility, all authority." According to Wilson's secretary Lady Falkender, Wilson was only told of the coup discussions in March 1976.
CND and the UK communist party alternatively tried to claim, in a contradictory way, that they were (a) too small in numbers to have any influence on politics, and (b) they were leading the country towards utopia via unilateral nuclear disarmament saturation propaganda about nuclear weapons annihilation (totally ignoring essential data on different nuclear weapon designs, yields, heights of burst, the "use" of a weapon as a deterrent to PREVENT an invasion of concentrated force, etc.) via the infiltrated BBC and most other media. Critics pointed out that Nazi Party membership in Germany was only 5% when Hitler became dictator in 1933, while in Russia there were only 200,000 Bolsheviks in September 1917, out of 125 million, i.e. 0.16%. Therefore, the whole threat of such dictatorships is a minority seizing power beyond it justifiable numbers, and controlling a majority which has different views. Traditional democracy itself is a dictatorship of the majority (via the ballot box, a popularity contest); minority-dictatorship by contrast is a dictatorship by the fanatically motivated minority by force and fear (coercion) to control the majority. The coercion tactics used by foreign dictators to control the press in free countries are well documented, but never publicised widely. Hitler put pressure on Nazi-critics in the UK "free press" via UK Government appeasers Halifax, Chamberlain and particularly the loathsome UK ambassador to Nazi Germany, Sir Neville Henderson, for example trying to censor or ridicule appeasement critics David Low, to fire Captain W. E. Johns (editor of both Flying and Popular Flying, which had huge circulations and attacked appeasement as a threat to national security in order to reduce rearmament expenditure), and to try to get Winston Churchill deselected. These were all sneaky "back door" pressure-on-publishers tactics, dressed up as efforts to "ease international tensions"! The same occurred during the Cold War, with personal attacks in Scientific American and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and by fellow travellers on Herman Kahn, Eugene Wigner, and others who warned we need civil defence to make a deterrent of large provocations credible in the eyes of an aggressor.
Chapman Pincher summarises the vast hypocritical Russian expenditure on anti-Western propaganda against the neutron bomb in Chapter 15, "The Neutron Bomb Offensive" of his 1985 book The Secret Offensive: "Such a device ... carries three major advantages over Hiroshima-type weapons, particularly for civilians caught up in a battle ... against the massed tanks which the Soviet Union would undoubtedly use ... by exploding these warheads some 100 feet or so above the massed tanks, the blast and fire ... would be greatly reduced ... the neutron weapon produces little radioactive fall-out so the long-term danger to civilians would be very much lower ... the weapon was of no value for attacking cities and the avoidance of damage to property can hardly be rated as of interest only to 'capitalists' ... As so often happens, the constant repetition of the lie had its effects on the gullible ... In August 1977, the [Russian] World Peace Council ... declared an international 'Week of action' against the neutron bomb. ... Under this propaganda Carter delayed his decision, in September ... a Sunday service being attended by Carter and his family on 16 October 1977 was disrupted by American demonstrators shouting slogans against the neutron bomb [see the 17 October 1977 Washington Post] ... Lawrence Eagleburger, when US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, remarked, 'We consider it probably that the Soviet campaign against the 'neutron bomb cost some $100 million'. ... Even the Politburo must have been surprised at the size of what it could regard as a Fifth Column in almost every country." [Unfortunately, Pincher himself had contributed to the anti-nuclear nonsense in his 1965 novel "Not with a bang" in which small amounts of radioactivity from nuclear fallout combine with medicine to exterminate humanity! The allure of anti-nuclear propaganda extends to all who which to sell "doomsday fiction", not just Russian dictators but mainstream media story tellers in the West. By contrast, Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons doesn't even mention the neutron bomb, so there was no scientific and technical effort whatsoever by the West to make it a credible deterrent even in the minds of the public it had to protect from WWIII!]
So why on earth doesn't the West take the cheap efficient option of cutting expensive oralloy and maximising cheap natural (mostly lithium-7) LiD in the secondary? Even Glasstone's 1957 Effects of Nuclear Weapons on p17 (para 1.55) states that "Weight for weight ... fusion of deuterium nuclei would produce nearly 3 times as much energy as the fission of uranium or plutonium"! The sad answer is "density"! Natural LiD (containing 7.42% Li6 abundance) is a low density white/grey crystalline solid like salt that actually floats on water (lithium deuteroxide would be formed on exposure to water), since its density is just 820 kg/m^3. Since the ratio of mass of Li6D to Li7D is 8/9, it would be expected that the density of highly enriched 95% Li6D is 739 kg/m^3, while for 36% enriched Li6D it is 793 kg/m^3. Uranium metal has a density of 19,000 kg/m^3, i.e. 25.7 times greater than 95% enriched li6D or 24 times greater than 36% enriched Li6D. Compactness, i.e. volume is more important in a Western MIRV warhead than mass/weight! In the West, it's best to have a tiny-volume, very heavy, very expensive warhead. In Russia, cheapness outweights volume considerations. The Russians in some cases simply allowed their more bulky warheads to protrude from the missile bus (see photo below), or compensated for lower yields at the same volume using clean LiD by using the savings in costs to build more warheads. (The West doubles the fission yield/mass ratio of some warheads by using U235/oralloy pushers in place of U238, which suffers from the problem that about half the neutrons it interacts with result in non-fission capture, as explained below. Note that the 720 kiloton UK nuclear test Orange Herald device contained a hollow shell of 117 kg of U235 surrounded by a what Lorna Arnold's book quotes John Corner referring to a "very thin" layer of high explosive, and was compact, unboosted - the boosted failed to work - and gave 6.2 kt/kg of U235, whereas the first version of the 2-stage W47 Polaris warhead contained 60 kg of U235 which produced most of the secondary stage yield of about 400 kt, i.e. 6.7 kt/kg of U235. Little difference - but because perhaps 50% of the total yield of the W47 was fusion, its efficiency of use of U235 must have actually been less than the Orange Herald device, around 3 kt/kg of U235 which indicates design efficiency limits to "hydrogen bombs"! Yet anti-nuclear charlatans claimed that the Orange Herald bomb was a con!)
ABOVE: USA nuclear weapons data declassified by UK Government in 2010 (the information was originally acquired due to the 1958 UK-USA Act for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, in exchange for UK nuclear weapons data) as published at http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/tna-ab16-4675p63.jpg. This single table summarizes all key tactical and strategic nuclear weapons secret results from 1950s testing! (In order to analyze the warhead pusher thicknesses and very basic schematics from this table it is necessary to supplement it with the 1950s warhead design data declassified in other documents, particularly some of the data from Tom Ramos and Chuck Hansen, as quoted in some detail below.) The data on the mass of special nuclear materials in each of the different weapons argues strongly that the entire load of Pu239 and U235 in the 1.1 megaton B28 was in the primary stage, so that weapon could not have had a fissile spark plug in the centre let alone a fissile ablator (unlike Teller's Sausage design of 1951), and so the B28 it appears had no need whatsoever of a beryllium neutron radiation shield to prevent pre-initiation of the secondary stage prior to its compression (on the contrary, such neutron exposure of the lithium deuteride in the secondary stage would be VITAL to produce some tritium in it prior to compression, to spark fusion when it was compressed). Arnold's book indeed explains that UK AWE physicists found the B28 to be an excellent, highly optimised, cheap design, unlike the later W47 which was extremely costly. The masses of U235 and Li6 in the W47 shows the difficulties of trying to maintain efficiency while scaling down the mass of a two-stage warhead for SLBM delivery: much larger quantities of Li6 and U235 must be used to achieve a LOWER yield! To achieve thermonuclear warheads of low mass at sub-megaton yields, both the outer bomb casing and the pusher around the the fusion fuel must be reduced:
"York ... studied the Los Alamos tests in Castle and noted most of the weight in thermonuclear devices was in their massive cases. Get rid of the case .... On June 12, 1953, York had presented a novel concept ... It radically altered the way radiative transport was used to ignite a secondary - and his concept did not require a weighty case ... they had taken the Teller-Ulam concept and turned it on its head ... the collapse time for the new device - that is, the amount of time it took for an atomic blast to compress the secondary - was favorable compared to older ones tested in Castle. Brown ... gave a female name to the new device, calling it the Linda." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp137-8. (So if you reduce the outer casing thickness to reduce warhead weight, you must complete the pusher ablation/compression faster, before the thinner outer casing is blown off, and stops reflecting/channelling x-rays on the secondary stage. Making the radiation channel smaller and ablative pusher thinner helps to speed up the process. Because the ablative pusher is thinner, there is relatively less blown-off debris to block the narrower radiation channel before the burn ends.)
"Brown's third warhead, the Flute, brought the Linda concept down to a smaller size. The Linda had done away with a lot of material in a standard thermonuclear warhead. Now the Flute tested how well designers could take the Linda's conceptual design to substantially reduce not only the weight but also the size of a thermonuclear warhead. ... The Flute's small size - it was the smallest thermonuclear device yet tested - became an incentive to improve codes. Characteristics marginally important in a larger device were now crucially important. For instance, the reduced size of the Flute's radiation channel could cause it to close early [with ablation blow-off debris], which would prematurely shut off the radiation flow. The code had to accurately predict if such a disaster would occur before the device was even tested ... the calculations showed changes had to be made from the Linda's design for the Flute to perform correctly." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp153-4. Note that the piccolo (the W47 secondary) is a half-sized flute, so it appears that the W47's secondary stage design miniaturization history was: Linda -> Flute -> Piccolo:
"A Division's third challenge was a small thermonuclear warhead for Polaris [the nuclear SLBM submarine that preceeded today's Trident system]. The starting point was the Flute, that revolutionary secondary that had performed so well the previous year. Its successor was called the Piccolo. For Plumbbob [Nevada, 1957], the design team tested three variations of the Piccolo as a parameter test. One of the variants outperformed the others ... which set the stage for the Hardtack [Nevada and Pacific, 1958] tests. Three additional variations for the Piccolo ... were tested then, and again an optimum candidate was selected. ... Human intuition as well as computer calculations played crucial roles ... Finally, a revolutionary device was completed and tested ... the Navy now had a viable warhead for its Polaris missile. From the time Brown gave Haussmann the assignment to develop this secondary until the time they tested the device in the Pacific, only 90 days had passed. As a parallel to the Robin atomic device, this secondary for Polaris laid the foundation for modern thermonuclear weapons in the United States." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp177-8. (Ramos is very useful in explaining that many of the 1950s weapons with complex non-spherical, non-cylindrical shaped primaries and secondaries were simply far too complex to fully simulate on the really pathetic computers they had - Livermore got a 4,000 vacuum tubes-based IBM 701 with 2 kB memory in 1956, AWRE Aldermaston in the Uk had to wait another year for theirs - so they instead did huge numbers of experimental explosive tests. For instance, on p173, Ramos discloses that the Swan primary which developed into the 155mm tactical shell, "went through over 100 hydrotests", non-nuclear tests in which fissile material is replaced with U238 or other substitutes, and the implosion is filmed with flash x-ray camera systems.)
"An integral feature of the W47, from the very start of the program, was the use of an enriched uranium-235 pusher around the cylindrical secondary." - Chuck Hansen, Swords 2.0, p. VI-375 (Hansen's source is his own notes taken during a 19-21 February 1992 nuclear weapons history conference he attended; if you remember the context, "Nuclear Glasnost" became fashionable after the Cold War ended, enabling Hansen to acquire almost unredacted historical materials for a few years until nuclear proliferation became a concern in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea). The key test of the original (Robin primary and Piccolo secondary) Livermore W47 was 412 kt Hardtack-Redwood on 28 June 1958. Since Li6D utilized at 100% efficiency would yield 66 kt/kg, the W47 fusion efficiency was only about 6%; since 100% fission of u235 yields 17 kt/kg, the W47's Piccolo fission (the u235 pusher) efficiency was about 20%; the comparable figures for secondary stage fission and fusion fuel burn efficiencies in the heavy B28 are about 7% and 15%, respectively:
ABOVE: the heavy B28 gave a very "big bang for the buck": it was cheap in terms of expensive Pu, U235 and Li6, and this was the sort of deterrent which was wanted by General LeMay for the USAF, which wanted as many weapons as possible, within the context of Eisenhower's budgetary concerns. But its weight (not its physical size) made it unsuitable for SLBM Polaris warheads. The first SLBM warhead, the W47, was almost the same size as the B28 weapon package, but much lighter due to having a much thinner "pusher" on the secondary, and casing. But this came at a large financial cost in terms of the quantities of special nuclear materials required to get such a lightweight design to work, and also a large loss of total yield. The fusion fuel burn efficiency ranges from 6% for the 400 kt W47 to 15% for the 1.1 megaton B28 (note that for very heavy cased 11-15 megaton yield tests at Castle, up to 40% fusion fuel burn efficiency was achieved), whereas the secondary stage ablative pusher fission efficiency ranged from 7% for a 1.1 inch thick natural uranium (99.3% U238) ablator to 20% for a 0.15 inch thick highly enriched oralloy (U235) ablator. From the brief description of the design evolution given by Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), it appears that when the x-ray channelling outer case thickness of the weapon is reduced to save weight, the duration of the x-ray coupling is reduced, so the dense metal pusher thickness must be reduced if the same compression factor (approximately 20) for the secondary stage is to be accomplished (lithium deuteride, being of low density, is far more compressable by a given pressure, than dense metal). In both examples, the secondary stage is physically a boosted fission stage. (If you are wondering why the hell the designers don't simply use a hollow core U235 bomb like Orange Herald instead of bothering with such inefficient x-ray coupled two-stage designs as these, the answer is straightforward: the risk of large fissile core meltdown by neutrons Moscow ABM defensive nuclear warheads, neutron bombs.)
The overall weight of the W47 was minimized by replacing the usual thick layer of U238 pusher with a very thin layer of fissile U235 (supposedly Teller's suggestion), which is more efficient for fission, but is limited by critical mass issues. The W47 used a 95% enriched Li6D cylinder with a 3.8mm thick U235 pusher; the B28 secondary was 36% enriched Li6D, with a very heavy 3cm thick U238 pusher. As shown below, it appears the B28 was related to the Los Alamos clean design of the TX21C tested as 95% clean 4.5 megatons Redwing-Navajo in 1956 and did not have a central fissile spark plug. From the declassified fallout composition, it is known the Los Alamos designers replaced the outer U238 pusher of Castle secondaries with lead in Navajo. Livermore did the same for their 85% clean 3.53 megatons Redwing-Zuni test, but Livermore left the central fission spark plug, which contributed 10% of its 15% fission yield, instead of removing the neutron shield, using foam channel filler for slowing down the x-ray compression, and thereby using primary stage neutrons to split lithium-6 giving tritium prior to compression. Our point is that Los Alamos got it wrong in sticking too conservatively to ideology: for clean weapons they should have got rid of the dense lead pusher and gone for John H. Nuckolls idea (also used by Fuchs in 1946 and the Russians in 1955 and 1958) of a low-density pusher for isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel. This error is the reason why those early cleaner weapons were extremely heavy due to unnecessary 2" thick lead or tungsten pushers around the fusion fuel, which massively reduced their yield-to-weight ratios, so that LeMay rejected them!
This is justified by the data given for a total U238 capture-to-fission ratio of 1 in the 11 megaton Romeo test and also the cross-sections for U235 capture and fission on the AWE graph for relevant neutron energy range of about 1-14 Mev. If half the neutrons are captured in U238 without fission, then the maximum fission yield you can possibly get from "x" kg of U238 pusher is HALF the energy obtained from 100% fission of "x" kg of U238. Since with U238 only about half the atoms can undergo fission by thermonuclear neutrons (because the other half undergo non-fission capture), the energy density (i.e., the Joules/kg produced by the fission explosion of the pusher) reached by an exploding U238 pusher is only half that reached by U235 (in which there is less non-fission capture of neutrons, which doubles the pusher mass without doubling the fission energy release). So a U235 pusher will reach twice the temperature of a U238 pusher, doubling its material heating of fusion fuel within, prolonging the fusion burn and thus increasing fusion burn efficiency. 10 MeV neutron energy is important since it allows for likely average scattering of 14.1 MeV D+T fusion neutrons and it is also the energy at which the most important capture reaction, the (n,2n) cross-section peaks for both U235 (peak of 0.88 barn at 10 Mev) and U238 (peak of 1.4 barns at 10 Mev). For 10 Mev neutrons, U235 and U238 have fission cross-sections of 1.8 and 1 barn, respectively. For 14 Mev neutrons, U238 has a (n,2n) cross section of 0.97 barn for U237 production. So ignoring non-fission captures, you need 1.8/1 = 1.8 times greater thickness of pusher for U238 than for U235, to achieve the same amount of fission. But this simple consideration ignores the x-ray ablation requirement of the explosing pusher, so there are several factors requiring detailed computer calculations, and/or nuclear testing.
Note: there is an extensive collection of declassified documents released after Chuck Hansen's final edition, Swords 2.0, which are now available at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/foiareadingroom/*, being an internet-archive back-up of a now-removed US Government Freedom of Information Act Reading Room. Unfortunately they were only identified by number sequence, not by report title or content, in that reeding room, and so failed to achieve wide attention when originally released! (This includes extensive "Family Committee" H-bomb documentation and many long-delayed FOIA requests submitted originally by Hansen, but not released in time for inclusion in Swords 2.0.) As the extract below - from declassified document RR00132 - shows, some declassified documents contained very detailed information or typewriter spaces that could only be filled by a single specific secret word (in this example, details of the W48 linear implosion tactical nuclear warhead, including the fact that it used PBX9404 plastic bonded explosive glued to the brittle beryllium neutron reflector around the plutonium core using Adiprene L100 adhesive!).
ABOVE: Declassified data on the radiation flow analysis for the 10 megaton Mike sausage: http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/foiareadingroom/RR00198.pdf
Note that the simplistic "no-go theorem" given in this extract, against any effect from varying the temperature to help the radiation channelling, was later proved false by John H. Nuckolls (like Teller's anti-compression "no-go theorem" was later proved false), since lowered temperature delivers energy where it is needed while massively reducing radiation losses (which go as the fourth power of temperature/x-ray energy in kev).
Russian propagandists are discussing the best way to scare the West - testing a nuclear Tsar Bomb or checking bomb shelters.
pic.twitter.com/qWCaxjvfM8
ABOVE secret reports on Australian-British nuclear test operations at Maralinga in 1956 and 1957, Buffalo and Antler, proved that even at 10 psi peak overpressure for the 15 kt Buffalo-1 shot, the dummy lying prone facing the blast was hardly moved due to the low cross-sectional area exposed to the blast winds, relative to standing dummies which were severely displaced and damaged. The value of trenches in protecting personnel against blast winds and radiation was also proved in tests (gamma radiation shielding of trenches had been proved at an earlier nuclear test in Australia, Operation Hurricane in 1952). (Antler report linked here; Buffalo report linked here.) This debunks the US Department of Defense models claiming that people will automatically be blown out of the upper floors of modern city buildings at very low pressures, and killed by the gravitational impact with the pavement below! In reality, tall buildings mutually shield one another from the blast winds, not to mention the radiation (proven in the latest post on this blog), and on seeing the flash most people will have time to lie down on typical surfaces like carpet which give a frictional resistance to displacement, ignored in fiddled models which assume surfaces have less friction than a skating rink; all of this was omitted from the American 1977 Glasstone and Dolan book "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons". As Tuck's paper below on the gamma radiation dose rate measurements on ships at Operation Crossroads, July 1946 nuclear tests proved, contrary to Glasstone and Dolan, scattered radiation contributions are small, so buildings or ships gun turrets provided excellent radiation "shadows" to protect personnel. This effect was then calculated by UK civil defence weapons effects expert Edward Leader-Williams in his paper presented at the UK's secret London Royal Society Symposium on the Physical Effects of Atomic Weapons, but the nuclear test data as always was excluded from the American Glasstone book published the next year, The Effects of Atomic Weapons in deference to lies about the effects in Hiroshima, including an "average" casualty curve which deliberately obfuscated huge differences in survival rates in different types of buildings and shelters, or simply in shadows!
Note: the DELFIC, SIMFIC and other computer predicted fallout area comparisons for the 110 kt Bikini Atoll Castle-Koon land surface burst nuclear test are false since the distance scale of Bikini Atoll is massively exaggerated on many maps, e.g. in the Secret January 1955 AFSWP "Fall-out Symposium", the Castle fallout report WT-915, and the fallout patterns compendium DASA-1251! The Western side of the Bikini Atoll reef is at 165.2 degrees East, while the most eastern island in the Bikini Atoll, Enyu, is at 165.567 degrees East: since there are 60 nautical miles per degree by definition, the width of Bikini Atoll is therefore (165.567-165.2)(60) = 22 nautical miles, approximately half the distance shown in the Castle-Koon fallout patterns. Since area is proportional to the square of the distance scale, this constitutes a serious exaggeration in fallout casualty calculations, before you get into the issue of the low energy (0.1-0.2 MeV) gamma rays from neutron induced Np239 and U237 in the fallout enhancing the protection factor of shelters (usually calculated assuming hard 1.17 and 1.33 MeV gamma rads from Co60), during the sheltering period of approximately 1-14 days after detonation.
"Since the nuclear stalemate became apparent, the Governments of East and West have adopted the policy which Mr Dulles calls 'brinkmanship'. This is a policy adopted from a sport ... called 'Chicken!' ... If one side is unwilling to risk global war, while the other side is willing to risk it, the side which is willing to run the risk will be victorious in all negotiations and will ultimately reduce the other side to complete impotence. 'Perhaps' - so the practical politician will argue - 'it might be ideally wise for the sane party to yield to the insane party in view of the dreadful nature of the alternative, but, whether wise or not, no proud nation will long acquiesce in such an ignominious role. We are, therefore, faced, quite inevitably, with the choice between brinkmanship and surrender." - Bertrand Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1959, pp30-31.
Emphasis added. Note that Russell accepts lying about nuclear weapons just as gas weapons had been lied about in the 1920s-30s by "arms controllers" to start WWII, then he simply falls into the 1930s Cambridge Scientists Antiwar Group delusional propaganda fraud of assuming that any attempt to credibly deter fascism is immoral because it will automatically result in escalatory retaliation with Herman Goering's Luftwaffe drenching London with "overkill" by poison gas WMDs etc. In particular, he forgets that general disarmament pursued in the West until 1935 - when Baldwin suddenly announced that the Nazis had secretly produced a massive, unstoppable warmachine in two years - encouraged aggressors to first secretly rearm, then coerce and invade their neighbours while signing peace promises purely to buy more time for rearmament, until a world war resulted. Not exactly a great result for disarmament propaganda. So after obliterating what Reagan used to call (to the horror of commie "historians") the "true facts of history" from his mind, he advocates some compromise with the aggressors of the 30 September 1938 Munich Agreement peace-in-our-time sort, the historically proved sure fire way to really escalate a crisis into a major war by showing the green lamp to a loon to popular media acclaim and applause for a fairy tale utopian fantasy; just as the "principled" weak, rushed, imbecile withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2021 encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine in 2022, and also the green lamp for Hamas to invade Israel in 2023.
"... deterrence ... consists of threatening the enemy with thermonuclear retaliation should he act provocatively. ... If war is 'impossible', how can one threaten a possible aggressor with war? ... The danger, evoked by numerous critics, that such research will result in a sort of resigned expectation of the holocaust, seems a weak argument ... The classic theory of Clausewitz defines absolute victory in terms of disarmament of the enemy ... Today ... it will suffice to take away his means of retaliation to hold him at your mercy." - Raymond Aron, Introduction to Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 9-12. (This is the commie support for arms control and disarmament has achieved, precisely the weakening of the West to take away credible deterrence.)
"75 years ago, white slavery was rampant in England. ... it could not be talked about openly in Victorian England, moral standards as to the subjects of discussion made it difficult to arouse the community to necessary action. ... Victorian standards, besides perpetuating the white slave trade, intensified the damage ... Social inhibitions which reinforce natural tendencies to avoid thinking about unpleasant subjects are hardly uncommon. ... But when our reluctance to consider danger brings danger nearer, repression has gone too far. In 1960, I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war ... people are willing to argue that it is immoral to think and even more immoral to write in detail about having to fight ... like those ancient kings who punished messengers who brought them bad news. That did not change the news; it simply slowed up its delivery. On occasion it meant that the kings were ill informed and, lacking truth, made serious errors in judgement and strategy. ... We cannot wish them away. Nor should we overestimate and assume the worst is inevitable. This leads only to defeatism, inadequate preparations (because they seem useless), and pressures toward either preventative war or undue accommodation." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 17-19. (In the footnote on page 35, Kahn notes that original nuclear bullshitter, the 1950 creator of fake cobalt-60 doomsday bomb propaganda, Leo Szilard, was in the usual physics groupthink nutters club: "Szilard is probably being too respectful of his scientific colleagues who also seem to indulge in ad hominem arguments - especially when they are out of their technical specialty.")
"Ever since the catastropic and disillusioning experience of 1914-18, war has been unthinkable to most people in the West ... In December 1938, only 3 months after Munich, Lloyd's of London gave odds of 32 to 1 that there would be no war in 1939. On August 7, 1939, the London Daily Express reported the result of a poll of its European reporters. 10 out of 12 said, 'No war this year'. Hitler invaded Poland 3 weeks later." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, p. 39. (But as the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 proved, even the label "war" is now "controversial": the aggressor now simply declares they are on a special operation of unifying people under one flag to ensure peace! So the reason why there is war in Ukraine is that Ukraine is resisting. If it waved a white flag, as the entire arms control and disarmament lobby insists is the only sane response to a nuclear-armed aggressor, there would be "peace," albeit on Russia's terms: that's why they disarmed Ukraine in 1994. "Peace propaganda" of "disarmers"! Free decent people prefer to fight tyranny. But as Kahn states on pp. 7-9:
"Some, most notably [CND's pseudo-historian of arms race lying] A. J. P. Taylor, have even said that Hitler was not like Hitler, that further appeasement [not an all-out arms race as was needed but repeatedly rejected by Baldwin and Chamberlain until far too late; see discussion of this fact which is still deliberately ignored or onfuscated by "historians" of the A. J. P. Taylor biased anti-deterrence left wing type, in Slessor's The Central Blue, quoted on this blog] would have prevented World War II ... If someone says to you, 'One of us has to be reasonable and it is not going to be me, so it has to be you', he has a very effective bargaining advantage, particularly if he is armed with thermonuclear bombs [and you have damn all civil defense, ABM, or credible tactical deterrent]. If he can convince you he is stark, staring mad and if he has enough destructive power ... deterrence alone will not work. You must then give in or accept the possibility of being annihilated ... in the first instance if we fight and lose; in the second if we capitulate without fighting. ... We could still resist by other means ranging from passive resistance of the Gandhi type to the use of underground fighting and sabotage. All of these alternatives might be of doubtful effectiveness against [the Gulag system, KGB/FSB torture camps or Siberian salt mines of] a ruthless dictatorship."
Sometimes people complain that Hitler and the most destructive and costly war and only nuclear war of history, WWII, is given undue attention. But WWII is a good analogy to the danger precisely because of the lying WMD gas war propaganda-based disarmament of the West which allowed the war, because of the attacks by Hitler's fans on civil defense in the West to make even the token rearmament after 1935 ineffective as a credible deterrent, and because Hitler has mirrors in Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon and Stalin. Kahn explains on p. 173: "Because history has a way of being more imaginative and complex than even the most imaginative and intelligent analysts, historical examples often provide better scenarios than artificial ones, even though they may be no more directly applicable to current equipment, postures, and political situations than the fictional plot of the scenario. Recent history can be especially useful.")
"One type of war resulting at least partly from deliberate calculation could occur in the process of escalation. For example, suppose the Soviets attacked Europe, relying upon our fear of their reprisal to deter a strategic attack by us; we might be deterred enough to pause, but we might evacuate our cities during this pause in the hope we could thereby convince the Soviets we meant business. If the Soviets did not back down, but continued their attack upon Europe, we might decide that we would be less badly off if we proceeded ... The damage we would receive in return would then be considerably reduced, compared with what we would have suffered had we not evacuated. We might well decide at such a time that we would be better off to attack the Soviets and accept a retalitory blow at our dispersed population, rather than let Europe be occupied, and so be forced to accept the penalty of living in the hostile and dangerous world that would follow." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 51-2.
"We must recognise that the stability we want in a system is more than just stability against accidental war or even against an attack by the enemy. We also want stability against extreme provocation [e.g. invasion of allies, which then escalates as per invasion of Belgium 1914, or Poland 1939]." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, p. 53(footnote).
Note: this 1962 book should not be confused with Kahn's 1984 "updated" Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s, which omits the best material in the 1962 edition (in the same way that the 1977 edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons omits the entire civil defense chapter which was the one decent thing in the 1957 and 1962/4 editions!) and thus shows a reversion to the less readable and less helpful style of his 1960 On Thermonuclear War, which severely fragmented and jumbled up all the key arguments making it easy for critics to misquote or quote out of context. For example, Kahn's 1984 "updated" book starts on the first page of the first chapter with the correct assertion that Johnathan Schell's Fate of the Earth is nonsense, but doesn't say why it's nonsense, and you have to read through to the final chapter - pages 207-8 of chapter 10 - to find Kahn writing in the most vague way possible, without a single specific example, that Schell is wrong because of "substantive inadequacies and inaccuracies", without listing a single example such as Schell's lying that the 1954 Bravo nuclear test blinded everyone well beyond the range of Rongelap, and that it was impossible to easily shield the radiation from the fallout or evacuate the area until it decays, which Schell falsely attributed to Glasstone and Dolan's nonsense in the 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons! Kahn eventually in the footnote on page 208 refers readers to an out-of-print article for facts: "These criticisms are elaborated in my review of The Fate of the Earth, see 'Refusing to Think About the Unthinkable', Fortune, June 28, 1982, pp. 113-6. Kahn does the same for civil defense in the 1984 book, referring in such general, imprecise and vague terms to Russian civil defence, with no specific data, that it is a waste of time, apart possibly one half-baked sentence on page 177: "Variations in the total megatonnage, somewhat surprisingly, do not seem to affect the toll nearly as much as variations in the targetting or the type of weapon bursts." Kahn on page 71 quotes an exchange between himself and Senator Proxmire during the US Congressional Hearings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, Civil preparedness and limited nuclear war where on page 55 of the hearings, Senator Proxmire alleges America would escalate a limited conflict to an all-out war because: "The strategic value and military value of destroying cities in the Soviet Union would be very great." Kahn responded: "No American President is likely to do that, no matter what the provocation." Nuclear war will be limited, according to Herman Kahn's analysis, despite the bullshit fron nutters to the contrary.
Kahn on page 101 of Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s correctly and accurately condemns President Carter's 1979 State of the Union Address, which claimed falsely that just a single American nuclear submarine is required by America and has an "overwhelming" deterrent against "every large and medium-sized city in the Soviet Union". Carter ignored Russian retaliation on cities if you bomb theirs: America has avoided the intense Russian protection efforts that make the Russian nuclear threat credible, namely civil defense shelters and evacuation plans, and also the realpolitik of deterrence of world wars, which so far have only been triggered due to invasions of third parties (Belgium '14, Poland '39). Did America strategically nuke every city in Russia when it invaded Ukraine in 2022? No, debunking Proxmire and the entire Western pro-Russian "automatic escalation" propaganda lobby, and it didn't even have tactical neutron bombs to help deter the Russians like Reagan in the 1980s, because in the 1990s America had ignored Kahn's argument, and went in for MINIMAL deterrence of the least credible sort (abolishing the invasion-deterring dedicated neutron tactical nuclear stockpile entirely; the following quotation is from p101 of Kahn's Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s):
"Minimum deterrence, or any predicated on an escessive emphasis on the inevitably of mutual homocide, is both misleading and dangerous. ... MAD principles can promote provocation - e.g. Munich-type blackmail on an ally. Hitler, for example, did not threaten to attack France or England - only Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. It was the French and the British who finally had to threaten all-out war [they could only do this after rearmament and building shelters and gas masks to reduce the risk of reprisals in city bombing, which gave more time for Germany to prepare since it was rearming faster than France and Britain which still desperately counted on appeasement and peace treaties and feared provoking a war by an arms-race due to endless lying propaganda from Lord Grey that his failure to deter war in 1914 had been due to an arms-race rather than the incompetence of the procrastination of his anti-war Liberal Party colleagues in the Cabinet] - a move they would not and could not have made if the notion of a balance of terror between themselves and Germany had been completely accepted. As it was, the British and French were most reluctant to go to war; from 1933 to 1939 Hitler exploited that reluctance. Both nations [France and Britain] were terrified by the so-called 'knockout blow', a German maneuver that would blanket their capitals with poison gas ... The paralyzing effect of this fear prevented them from going to war ... and gave the Germans the freedom to march into the Ruhr, to form the Anschluss with Austria, to force the humiliating Munich appeasement (with the justification of 'peace in our time'), and to take other aggressive actions [e.g. against the Jews in the Nuremberg Laws, Kristallnacht, etc.] ... If the USSR were sufficiently prepared in the event a war did occur, only the capitalists would be destroyed. The Soviets would survive ... that would more than justify whatever sacrifice and destruction had taken place.
"This view seems to prevail in the Soviet military and the Politburo even to the present day. It is almost certain, despite several public denials, that Soviet military preparations are based on war-fighting, rather than on deterrence-only concepts and doctrines..." - Herman Kahn, Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s, 1984, pages 101-102.
Kahn adds, in his footnote on p111, that "Richard Betts has documented numerous historical cases in which attackers weakened their opponents defenses through the employment of unanticipated tactics. These include: rapid changes in tactics per se, false alarms and fluctuating preparations for war ... doctrinal innovations to gain surprise. ... This is exactly the kind of thing which is likely to surprise those who subscribe to MAD theories. Those who see a need for war-fighting capabilities expect the other side to try to be creative and use tactical innovations such as coercion and blackmail, technological surprises, or clever tactics on 'leverage' targets, such as command and control installations. If he is to adhere to a total reliance on MAD, the MADvocate has to ignore these possibilities." See Richard Betts, "Surprise Despite Warning: Why Sudden Attacks Succeed", Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1980-81, pp. 551-572.)
Compare two situations: (1) Putin explodes a 50 megaton nuclear "test" of the warhead for his new nuclear reactor powered torpedo, Poseidon, a revamped 1961 Tsar Bomba, or detonates a high-altitude nuclear EMP "test" over neutral waters but within the thousands of miles range of USA or UK territory; (2) Putin invades Poland using purely conventional weapons. Our point here is that both nuclear AND conventional weapons trigger nuclear threats and the risk of nuclear escalation, as indeed they have done (for Putin's nuclear threats scroll down to videos with translations below). So the fashionable CND style concept that only nuclear weapons can trigger nuclear escalation is bullshit, and is designed to help Russia start and win WWIII to produce a world government, by getting us to undertake further unilateral (not multilateral) disarmament, just as evolved in the 1930s, setting the scene for WWII. Japan for example did not have nuclear weapons in August 1945, yet triggered not just tactical nuclear war (both cities had some military bases and munitions factories, as well as enormous numbers of civilians), and the decision to attack cities rather than just "test" weapons obove Tokyo bay as Teller demanded but Oppenheimer rejected (for maximum impact with a very small supply of nuclear weapons) showed some strategic nuclear war thinking. Truman was escalating to try to shock Japan into rapid surrender emotionally (many cities in Japan had already been burned out in conventional incendiary air raids, and the two nuclear attacks while horrible for civilians in those cities contributed only a fraction of the millions killed in WWII, despite anti-nuclear propaganda lies to the contrary). Truman's approach escalating to win is the opposite of the "Minimax game theory" (von Neumann's maths and Thomas Schelling's propaganda) gradual escalation approach that's currently the basis of nuclear deterrence planning despite its failure wherever it has been tried (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc). Gradual escalation is supposed to minimise the maximum possible risk (hence "minimax" name), but it guarantees failure in the real world (unlike rule abided games) by maximising the build up of resentment. E.g. Schelling/Minimax say that if you gradually napalm civilians day after day (because they are the unprotected human shields used by terrorists/insurgents; the Vietcong are hiding in underground tunnels, exactly like Hamas today, and the Putin regime's metro 2 shelter tunnels under Russia) you somehow "punish the enemy" (although they don't give a toss about the lives of kids which is why you're fighting them!) and force them to negotiate for peace in good faith, then you can pose for photos with them sharing a glass of champagne and there is "world peace". That's a popular fairy tale, like Marxist mythology.
Once you grasp this fact, that nuclear weapons have been and will again be "used" explosively without automatic escalation, for example provocative testing as per the 1961 Russian 50 megaton bomb test, or the 1962 high altitude EMP bursts, you should be able to grasp the fact that the "escalation" deception used to dismiss civil defense and tactical nuclear deterrence against limited nuclear war, is fake news from Russian fellow-travellers like Corbyn. Once you assign a non-unity probability to "escalation", you're into conventional war territory: if you fight a conventional war, it can "escalate" to nuclear war as on 6 August 1945. Japan did not avoid nuclear attack by not having nuclear weapons on 6 August 1945. If it had nuclear weapons ready to be delivered, a very persuasive argument could be made that unless Truman wanted to invite retaliation, World War II would have remained strategically non-nuclear: no net strategic advantage would have been achieved by nuclear city bombing so only war-ending tactical nuclear threats could have prevailed in practice. But try explaining this to the groupthink pseudosocialist bigoted mass murderers who permeate fake physics with crap; it's no easier to explain to them the origins of particle masses or even dark energy/gravitation; in both cases groupthink lying hogwash persists because statements of proved facts are hated and rejected if them debunk religious style fairy tales the mass media loves. There were plenty of people warning that mass media gas war fear mongering was disguised Nazi supporting propaganda in the 1930s, but the public listened to that crap then just as it accepted the "eugenics" (anti-diversity evolution crap of Sir Galton, cousin of Darwin) basis for Hitler's Mein Kampf without question, just as they accepted the lying propaganda from the UK "Cambridge Scientists Anti-War Group" which like CND and all other arms control and disarmament lobbies supporting terrorist states today, did more than even Hitler to deliberately lay the foundations for the Holocaust and World War II, while never being criticised in the UK media! Thus, it's surely time for people to oppose evil lying on civil defence to save lives in all disasters from storms to conventional war, to collateral damage risks in nuclear terrorism by mad enemies. At some point, the majority has to decide to either defend itself honestly and decently against barbarism, or be consumed by it as a price for believing bullshit. It's time for decent people to oppose lying evil regarding the necessity to have credible tactical (not incredible strategic) nuclear weapons, as Oppenheimer called for in his 1951 speech, to deter invasions.
Democracy can't function when secrecy is used to deliberately cover-up vital data from viewing by Joe Public. Secrecy doesn't protect you from enemies who independently develop weapons in secret, or who spy from inside your laboratories:
"The United States and Great Britain resumed testing in 1962, and we spared no effort trying to find out what they were up to. I attended several meetings on that subject. An episode related to those meetings comes to mind ... Once we were shown photographs of some documents ... the photographer had been rushed. Mixed in with the photocopies was a single, terribly crumpled original. I innocently asked why, and was told that it had been concealed in panties. Another time ... questions were asked along the following lines: What data about American weapons would be most useful for your work and for planning military technology in general?"
- Andrei Sakharov, Memoirs, Hutchinson, London, 1990, pp225-6.
Nuclear saber-rattling from Russian propagandists. They think tactical nuclear weapons aren't enough, and strategic ones should be used.
Review of Peter Kuran's excellent "Neutron Bomb Movie".
Below is a brief clip for review purposes from a longer newsreel of President Eisenhower, enthusiastically promoting the 96% clean fusion Poplar nuclear test (detonated 12 July 1958). On 30 October 1962, Kennedy tested… pic.twitter.com/y4QpR5eCum
More news of Russian TV population preparation for nuclear escalations, which the Western media and politicians continue to ignore as propaganda, just as Novichok and the Ukraine invasion prep was ignored as propaganda bluff, until it took us by "surprise". We need to prepare now https://t.co/tiFmJw0Htq
ABOVE: The British government has now declassified detailed summary reports giving secret original nuclear test data on the EMP (electromagnetic pulse) damage due to numerous nuclear weapons, data which is still being kept under wraps in America since it hasn't been superseded because Western atmospheric nuclear tests were stopped late in 1962 and never resumed - even though the Russians have even more extensive data - completely debunking Glasstone and Dolan's disarmament propaganda nonsense in the 1962, 1964 and 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons which ignores EMP piped far away from low altitude nuclear tests by power and communications cables and falsely claims instead that such detonations don't produce EMP damage outside the 2psi blast radius! For a discussion of the new data and also a link to the full 200+ pages version (in addition to useful data, inevitably like all official reports it also contains a lot of "fluff" padding), please see the other (physics) site: https://nige.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/secret-emp-effects-of-american-nuclear-tests-finally-declassified-by-the-uk-and-at-uk-national-archives/ (by contrast, this "blogspot" uses old non-smartphone proof coding, no longer properly indexed any long longer by "google's smartphone bot"). As long ago as 1984, Herman Kahn argued on page 112 of his book Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s: "The effects of an EMP attack are simply not well understood [in the West, where long powerlines were never exposed on high altitude nuclear tests, unlike the Russian's 1962 Operation K, so MHD-EMP or E3 damage wasn't even mentioned in the 1977 Glasstone and Dolan Effects of Nuclear Weapons], but the Soviets seem to know - or think they know - more than we do."
ABOVE: Moscow Metro and Metro-2 (secret nuclear subway) horizonially swinging blast doors take only 70 seconds to shut, whereas their vertically rising blast doors take 160 seconds to shut; both times are however far shorter than the arrival time of Western ICBMs or even SLBMs which take 15-30 minutes by which time the Russian shelters are sealed from blast and radiation! In times of nuclear crisis, Russia planned to evacuate from cities those who could not be sheltered, and for the remainder to be based in shelters (similarly to the WWII British situation, when people slept in shelters of one kind or another when there was a large risk of being bombed without notice, particularly in supersonic V2 missile attacks where little warning time was available).
NUKEGATE - Western tactical neutron bombs were disarmed after Russian propaganda lie. Russia now has over 2000... "Disarmament and arms control" charlatans, quacks, cranks, liars, mass murdering Russian affiliates, and evil genocidal Marxist media exposed for what it is, what it was in the 1930s when it enabled Hitler to murder tens of millions in war. Glasstone's and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons deceptions totally disproved. Professor Brian Martin, TRUTH TACTICS, 2021 (pp45-50): "In trying to learn from scientific publications, trust remains crucial. The role of trust is epitomised by Glasstone’s book The Effects of Atomic Weapons. Glasstone was not the author; he was the editor. The book is a compilation of information based on the work of numerous contributors. For me, the question was, should I trust this information? Was there some reason why the editors or authors would present fraudulent information, be subject to conflicts of interest or otherwise be biased? ... if anything, the authors would presumably want to overestimate rather than underestimate the dangers ... Of special interest would be anyone who disagreed with the data, calculations or findings in Glasstone. But I couldn’t find any criticisms. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons was treated as the definitive source, and other treatments were compatible with it. ... One potent influence is called confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for information that supports current beliefs and dismiss or counter contrary information. The implication is that changing one’s views can be difficult due to mental commitments. To this can be added various forms of bias, interpersonal influences such as wanting to maintain relationships, overconfidence in one’s knowledge, desires to appear smart, not wanting to admit being mistaken, and career impacts of having particular beliefs. It is difficult to assess the role of these influences on yourself. "
Update (3 June 2017): Last night in a fake news BBC TV debate, the moderator allowed Jeremy Corbyn to pass off his terrorism support as being a contribution to the Good Friday Peace Agreement. This is fake news: Jeremy Corbyn wanted blackmail, surrender to the IRA's demands and an exit for the British Army in 1984. What really happened was that anti-terrorist "Peace Walls", the British Army, MI5, and the RUC defeated the thugs before signing a peace agreement, the exact opposite of Jeremy Corbyn's lie. Only last week Corbyn again made another lying speech urging a surrender to terrorism, a continuation of his anti-deterrence, anti-civil defence CND lie. The BBC has a proved, admitted history of using censorship as a device for enforcing one-sided propaganda and fake news in election "debates". They permit Corbyn to use "fake news" to dismiss criticisms with no further probing, while falsely presenting endless hate attacks on opponents of international climate communism like Trump (who opposes the fear-mongering based fascist hate attacks on anyone who questions the stupidity of spending billions on a half ass effort to halt capitalism for the alleged saving of a 0.2C increase in global temperature, when there are civil wars raging which need walls to stop, walls which are again opposed by the communists). Stephen Pollard explained in a Daily Express article on 26 April 2017 (page 12) that Corbyn is in effect acting as a communist terrorism stooge infiltrating the Labour Party with hatred and racism: "Take his endorsement yesterday by the Communist Party ... it's no joke. We sometimes need to remind ourselves that communists are not pie-in-the-sky idealists but proponents of an ideology that leads to mass slaughter and the destruction of freedom and democracy. Communism is merely another form of totalitarianism. For every Hitler there is a Stalin. For every Idi Amin there is a Hugo Chavez. ... [Jeremy Corbyn's] presence at a celebration in 2014 of the 35th anniversary of the ayatollahs seizing power in Iran. Mr Corbyn spoke on 'the case for Iran', alongside the British representative of the Mahdi Army militia, a group which between 2004 and 2008 killed at least 70 British soldiers in Iraq. ... He has described members of the terrorist group Hamas as 'friends'. He has praised British representatives of Hezbollah, the Iranian funded terror outfit. "And in November 2012 he hosted a meeting in Parliament with Mousa Abu Maria, a member of the banned terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He has attended events run by Paul Eisen, a notorious Holocaust denier. ... And he sponsored the visit to Britain of anti-Semitic hate preacher Sheikh Raed Salah. Salah says that 9/11 was a Jewish plot ... he calls Jewish people 'monkeys' and 'bacteria'. ... When the government tried to have Salah barred from Britain, Mr Corbyn described him as 'a very honoured citizen ...' ." With another violent terrorist related bomb attack yesterday, this time in Manchester rather than Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan (where similar attacks occur regularly), it's worth re-examining the prospects for openly pro-terrorism movement supporter (but allegedly anti-violence) Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
True screen shot taken from a video of Corbyn in the article in Business Insider linked here, which explains: "Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 (about $27,000) for appearances on the Iranian state broadcast network Press TV — a channel that was banned in the UK for its part in filming the detention and torture of an Iranian journalist." We're all aware that Jeremy Corbyn has employed the son of a former BBC Director General and communist Guardian newspaper journalist and Stalinist-holocaust denier, Seaumas Milne as his propaganda director. Milne began his career working for the Communist Party of Great Britain's Straight Left, and in his 16 February 2006 Guardian newspaper article, he denied Stalin's holocaust of 20,000,000-40,000,000 people due to 1930s collectivisation (3-6 times as many as Nazi 6,000,000 murders) by claiming that only the murders of political rebels recorded in the Soviet Archives should be remembered: "the real records of repression now available from the Soviet archives are horrific enough (799,455 people were recorded as executed between 1921 and 1953 and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its peak) without engaging in an ideologically-fuelled inflation game". This is similar to David Irving's Jewish holocaust denial stunt, relying on incomplete official records and ignoring the hard facts of the holocaust established from the other records of population decrease. The 1972 edition of The Guinness Book of Records on page 201 states that the 1936-8 purge (the Yezhovshchina) by the NKVD (later called the KGB) led to evidence in: "population statistics which show a deficiency of males from before the outbreak of the 1941-45 war" and explains that this source of data (which is so callously ignored altogether by Milne) gives 8,000,000-10,000,000 dead as a probable minimum, to which must be added the "forced labour" deaths (again omitted from all official records, but estimated from population data) of 19,000,000 murders. So Milne is just a nasty, callous holocaust denier, and on a far bigger scale than David Irving, because the true fascism of the 1939 joint invasion of Poland by the USSR and Nazis (which lasted until June 1941) is being abused for his own personal political prejudices, which Jeremy Corbyn buys into. Later editions of the Guinness Book of Records gave more detailed statistical estimate of Stalin's total murders of 40 million. Milne is not refuting the details of these estimates, just ignoring them altogether (holocaust denial). The 1990 book The great terror: a reassessment by the great Robert Conquest, who had originally exposed a glimpse of the scale of the Soviet holocaust in 1968, shows that in the early 1930s over 14 million innocent Soviet citizens were murdered and by early 1939, 5% of the entire population of the Soviet Union had been arrested, 8 million innocent people were in concentration camps and prisons, and 90% of those died (2 million had already died in Soviet camps and prisons in 1937-8, and 1 million had been shot). Milne ignores all of this evidence: Jeremy Corbyn thus employs a terrible holocaust denier.
I'm all for supporting minority groups achieve freedom of speech, but that's not the same thing as supporting groups that murder innocent people with bombs or any other means. Corbyn is also anti-nuclear deterrence and even, as we have shown, anti-civil defence: he is obsessed with using contrived weasel words to try to attack every practical, proof-tested course of peaceful action that can mitigate and deter dictatorial aggression and terrorism. Chamberlain thrice tried talks and handshakes with terrorists in Germany in 1938, and it just encouraged aggression which is down to actions, not words.
1. Jeremy Corbyn claims he is anti-violence yet he has friends as terrorists, e.g. IRA and other terrorists.
2. Jeremy Corbyn claims he is anti-violence yet he supports terrorists, e.g. he supports Hamas.
6. Jeremy Corbyn claims he is anti-violence yet he has been on the payroll of state-funded Iranian media.
17 May 1987 cutting from the Sunday Express's front page showing how Jeremy Corbyn supported terrorists (full transcript below; note that the article has been misquoted in fake news by terrorism -friends of Corbyn):
17 May 1987 Sunday Express, page 1:
“MP hails IRA dead
“A Labour MP stood in silence for a minute yesterday to honour the eight IRA gunmen shot dead in an SAS ambush nine days ago.
“Mr Jeremy Corbyn, 38, joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists shot as they bombed Loughall police station in County Armagh, Ulster.
“Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province.
"Then Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the Government's Ulster policy and said that troops should be pulled out of the province [thereby giving a free hand to the IRA terrorists and preventing the Good Friday peace agreement, which in 1999 occurred only after the terrorists had been disarmed].
“He told a meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those [terrorists] who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
20 May 2017 Daily Express page 19: Richard Madeley on Jeremy Corbyn terrorism support actions while a backbench MP.
FURTHER READING TO HELP YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND WHETHER JEREMY CORBYN'S MILITANT TERRORIST-APPEASING MARXIST MINDSET WILL END TERRORISM OR AID IT:
"Mr Corbyn first met with Gerry Adams in London in 1984, well before the IRA campaign ended in 1994 [IRA terrorism ended in 1994 due to the British Army's disarming actions against terrorists, precisely what Jeremy Corbyn had opposed to loudly during the 1980s, when he believed like Chamberlain in 1938 in dialogue with terrorists prior to disarming them and as an alternative to disarming them, rather than disarming them first and talking afterwards which was the policy that proved to be successful with the IRA in the 1990s!]"
Above: the 1984 Jeremy Corbyn politics in support of talks with terrorists before disarming the terrorists. The IRA's 1984 slogan, "Give Ireland Peace and there will be no war," is just a copy-cat of Adolf Hitler's infamous 1938 tactics, fully explained by Genevieve Tabouis in her February 1938 Penguin books special, Blackmail or War, where she writes on page 8: "Perhaps war does not pay, but blackmail, based on the threat of war, certainly does." This is Jeremy Corbyn's shameful legacy. Everytime politicians go face to face and "negotiate" with terrorists who are violent coercive thugs and are in effect pointing a loaded gun at peace, you simply appease them and encourage more terrorism, more war! Jeremy Corbyn also showed contempt to the Jewish Chronicle by refusing the answer vital questions concerning racism.
"Just weeks after the Brighton bombing, Corbyn invited Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, and two convicted IRA terrorists to the House of Commons. ... In a disgraceful speech last Friday he stated that Britain had not fought a single just war since 1945 ... Corbyn said on Friday that he is not a pacifist. He certainly isn't. He is an apologist for terror movements and thuggist dictatorships all over the world, once describing both Hamas and Hezbollah as his "friends". [Jeremy Corbyn tries to exhonerate himself by using gibberish, Chamberlain-style weasel words to try to distance himself from the scorn of the victims of terrorists by denouncing all of the bloody murders done by the "political comrades in revolution", but he is in fact expressing hatred for capitalist integration and a love for the division of multi-cultural civil wars] ... he nauseatingly described the death of Osama Bin Laden as "a tragedy". ... A member of CND [campaign of anti-nuclear deterrence], he prevaricates feebly ... thereby rendering the whole concept of deterrence useless." - Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 15 May 2017, page 12. Update (24 May 2017):
February 1938 Penguin book by Genevieve Tabouis, Blackmail or War.
In February 1938, a female French journalist, Genevieve Tabouis, the diplomatic editor of French newspaper l'Oeuvre, published the third Penguin special (S3), Blackmail or War, 246 page in length.The date page of my second printing shows that it was first printed in February 1938, and reprinted the same month. She warned clearly that the terrorist regime in Germany was using the threat of war to blackmail the appeasement-obsessed democracies into the defeatist policy of surrendering to racist terrorism: "Italy had already seen during her Ethiopian adventure how prone the democracies were to yielding to blackmail of this kind. A year later, on March 7th, 1935, Germany received confirmation of it when ... she decided upon the re-militarisation of the Rhine ... Japan had set them both an example of these methods in 1932. All these victories were gained without any risk [the terrorists could have changed tactics if opposed, which didn't happen], without any fighting ... Perhaps war does not pay, but blackmail, based on the threat of war, certainly did. ... In France ... Public Opinion takes the point of view that war, which may perhaps be inevitable, would involve the utter ruin of our civilisation." - Genevieve Tabouis, Blackmail or War, Penguin special S3, February 1938, pages 7-8. Fear of terrorism was used, just as Tabouis warned in February 1938, against Chamberlain later that year when he flew to Germany three times to plead with a bigoted, racist terrorist, shaking his hand and obtaining his autograph on worthless paper "peace-deals". Tabouis also explains how terrorists use the propaganda tactics of internationalism and "uniting people" to start civil wars, just as terrorists use the same tactics now in bombing Britain and other countries to advance their agenda: "In the name of 'racial science', which is simply imperialism in a new guise, he demanded that 100 million persons of German race and culture who are scattered throughout the world should be united ..." - Genevieve Tabouis, Blackmail or War, Penguin special S3, February 1938, page 33. This is precisely the tactic being copied today by the so-called "Islamic State" or "ISIS" terrorists when they claim to want to unite Sunni and Shia religions in a jihad against liberty and freedom. Commenting on the origins of Jeremy Corbyn's brand of extremism, Tabouis states on page 48 that support for communism, such as "the Commune of 1871 in France, can be traced to a nationalism which has been provoked beyond endurance." She notes on the same page (page 48) that fascist Mussolini turned from his communist firebrand origins into a nationalist dictator in October 1922, at roughly the same time that Hitler was trying to organise his early failed terrorist revolution. "In France, the English have often been reproached for having welcomed fascism with the simple and short-sighted remark that every dictatorship in Europe is useful if it contributes to the maintenance of order. Such was undoubtedly Sir Austen Chamberlain's [British Foreign Minister and the half-brother of the 1938 Nazi-appeasing ideologue Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain] idea when he proceeded to Rome in 1925, at a moment when Mussolini was in considerable difficulties. The British Foreign Minister took the view that the fall of Mussolini would involve Italy in a fresh bout of anarchy and internal disturbances which would form a pretext for further unrest in Europe and would, above all, be likely to harm British commercial interests. "Sir Austen took advantage of a summer cruise in the Mediterranean to meet the Duce [Mussolini] at Leghorn. ... The following year, Sir Austen tried to do Primo de Rivera [of Spain] the same favour by going on a cruise to Barcelona. He imagined that he was acting in the interests of order and peace, whereas both in Italy and Spain, these moves were interpreted as granting a free hand to the joint ambitions of the two Latin dictators." Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wasn't so "naive" in the way usually described, flying to Germany to visit Hitler three times in 1938, first shaking Hitler's hand at Berchtesgaden, when a week later going to Godesberg to do the same, and finally meeting Hitler for a third time in Munich at the end of September 1938. His half-brother, Sir Austen Chamberlain, had masterminded the "let's talk to terrorists and dictators"-appeasement strategy more than a decade earlier, leading to a secure dictatorship of fascism in Italy and a Civil War in Spain. This is fact. Chamberlain wanted fascism. The idea that Britain should have a blathering, fascist supporting Prime Minister who shakes hands with terrorists like Hitler in the name of reducing our defence budget is not a far-fetched fantasy but is a real threat, since it has happened previously. UPDATE (26 May 2017): Jeremy Corbyn will today exploit the Manchester terrorist attack to make a ranting speech against so-called British imperialism, which he blames for the suicide attacks of 9/11
Taking offense at anti British terrorism and anti British racism: Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express, 25 May 2017, page 12.
Jeremy Corbyn will today make a ranting speech attacking Britain for combatting the 9/11 terrorist network, blaming British "imperialist" military anti-terrorist actions, and effectively siding with the terrorist network which hates liberty and freedom, while trying to censor any disclosure of his own involvement in backing murders by terrorists!
The police will not arrest Jeremy Corbyn again, as they did in 1986 when he tried to prevent the prosecution of the terrorist Patrick Magee at the Old Bailey court in London. They will permit him to incite hatred and violence because he is politically powerful and has the backing of the Guardian and BBC.
Update (26 May 2017): Jeremy Corbyn's hate speech blaming terrorism on British opponents of terrorism
“I
have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an
end to conflict and devastating wars. [No, mate, you opposed the disarming of
the IRA which led to peace in Northern Ireland, and you sided with the
murderers, getting arrested outside the Old Bailey in 1986 when trying to stop
the just prosecution of the inhumane bomber Patrick Magee!] That will almost
always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. [No, mate, that was
what Sir Austen Chamberlain did with Mussolini in 1925, what Neville
Chamberlain did with Hitler three times in 1938, and what you did with the IRA
in 1984 leading them to intensify their murderous bombing spree until the brave
SAS disarmed them!] That’s what conflict
resolution is all about. [No, mate, the peace talks come after you win the
war to stop the thugs, not the other way around.] …Democracy will prevail. We must defend
our democratic process, win our arguments by discussion and debate, and stand
united against those who would seek to take our rights away, or who would
divide us. [No, you liar, you are not a
democrat and you don’t win the arguments by discussion because you REFUSED TO
EVEN TAKE A SINGLE QUESTION after you gave this very speech! Duh!
Your speech was a democratic as a Nuremberg Rally speech by Hitler, or
as democratic as a pontificating rant by Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin!]”
-
Jeremy Corbyn, hate speech favouring negotiations with terrorists, 26 May 2017.
Jeremy Corbyn blames terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
"Intelligence experts [Corbyn's CND liars presumably, and their fascist European Union friends] have linked ‘wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home’, Labour leader claims"
"Jeremy Corbyn has taken the hugely controversial step of blaming Britain’s foreign wars for terror attacks such as the Manchester suicide bombing....
" “It is also a dereliction of duty to allow jihadis to return to this country, including it seems, Monday night’s terrorist,” said Ukip leader Paul Nuttall."
Update (27 May 2017):
Extract from the article, "Now Corbyn uses human suffering for political ends" by Chris Roycroft Davis, Daily Express 27 May 2017, page 12. Jeremy Corbyn has consistently voted in the House of Commons against measures to halt terrorists, including the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 and the 2006 Terrorism Act, and in 2011 he voted against the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, and 18 months ago he abstained from voting for the Investigative Powers Bill, but he now blames everybody but himself for the results of his terrorism support in Manchester. One thing he has consistently supported is communism, addressing the 40th Annual Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1989 to attack the deterrence of terrorism as being an "obscenity" and pledging "unwavering commitment to unilateral disarmament" while standing in front of a hammer and sickle USSR flag, as reported and photographed in the communist paper, Morning Star. The 40th Annual Congress was hosted in his constituency of North Islington, a hotbed for anti-British racists and hate inciters. Corbyn supported race war, cultural war, class war and religious war as part of the USSR's "divide and rule" assault on Britain in the Cold War, and he maintains these principles.
Corbyn addressing the 40th Annual Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1989. The Communist Party has taken the unprecedented step of not fielding any Communist Party candidates against Corbyn in the 8 June 2017 general election, telling its communists to vote for Corbyn's new Marxist based Labour Party instead. All through the Cold War, communists were murdering innocent people by inciting terrorist thugs against democracy in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.
21 May 2017 Daily Express, page 15: Jeremy Corbyn's Former Communist Party aide's [Andrew Murray] children are trying to use a tax dodge to avoid paying society £500,000 in inheritance tax (giving the lie to Communist's claims to want to use taxation to equalise wealth): "The children of Jeremy Corbyn's ex-Communist Party aide had their mother's £1.7 million house transferred into their names [avoiding a £500,000 tax bill, if she dies more than 7 years after the transfer] ... [Andrew] Murray has spoken up in support of North Korea, Stalin and the Soviet Union."
Paul Mercer's brilliant 1986 book, "Peace of the Dead", exposed how the Marxists infiltrated "peace lobby" CND (which wanted to disarm Britain to allow the Russians to invade without a deterrent) with IRA supporters, Brezhnev era terrorists, and bombers. Sean MacBride was on the Irish CND Committee, and on the International Peace Bureau (which counted on CND as a member body), and so on up to Boris Ponomarev, Head of the International Department for the Kremlin's Politburo, which ran the World Peace Council (a front for war). What we see today from Jeremy Corbyn is just a repeat of the endless propaganda for Marxist revolution, dressed up in Orwellian Doublethink as "peace". In the 1980s, most people had some resilience to this propaganda due to reading Orwell's 1984, or Constantine Fitzgibbon's When the Kissing had to stop. To counter this, CND and fellow travelling "biased scientists" like Carl Sagan abused the data on thermal shadowing in cities by buildings (assuming falsely that cities are like unobstructed deserts) to exaggerate fires and "predict" firestorms that release enough soot to cause a "nuclear winter". This lie was debunked in 1951 by the UK Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch's George R. Stanbury in secret studies of thermal shadowing by modern city skylines in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, etc.
We have repeatedly exposed "nuclear winter" debunking evidence on this blog, but it is still being ignored by CND fear mongering terrorism supporters. The truth is, nuclear deterrence using tactical nuclear weapons helped avoid aggression in the Cold War, but it was ended in 1991 due to propaganda from the Corbyn-Chamberlain breed of "peace monger", and has led to more terrorism. Invasions of massed terrorist groups in trucks or in tanks can be stopped or deterred, or at least forced to disperse into a less concentrated force, by this method. By the nuclear deterrent effect of forcing enemy tanks and vehicles to disperse, their ability to invade is diminished, and conventional weapons are then more effective in combating the dispersed invasion force. For example, if invading enemy tanks are dispersed to reduce their vulnerability to a tactical nuclear explosion, then it is easier to pick them off one by one using hand-held anti-tank rockets. You can't do that so effectively against the barrage of fire from a large, concentrated, invading tank force. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, sparking off the first Gulf War, because Reagan's W79 tactical nuclear deterrence against concentrated invasion forces had not been deployed against Middle East dictatorships, after the Cold War ended.
Update, 31 May 2017
29 May 2017 Daily Express page 12: newspaper editorial about Diane Abbott's claim that "every defeat of the British state is a victory for us all." She also deliberately incited hate and tried to start a race war by saying in the 15 November 1985 issue of Socialist Challenge: "all white people are racist". The same page contains Leo McKinstry's article on the problem of Corbyn's Marxist shadow chancellor John McDonnell who rants in front of communist banners: in the 1970s Britain's Marxist unions controlled Labour prime minister James Callaghan, forcing endless strikes, particularly after Britain's IMF bailout when nationalised industries simply went on strike for higher pay (believing that the money should be spent on them, not used as Callaghan wanted to pay interest on Britain's debt mountain). I remember having to repeatedly walk home from school as a young child in the dark, to a cold house - the electric heaters were off for the same reason as the street lamps - and try to do homework by candle light (when the shops hadn't sold out of candles), because of the coal strives which cut the power generators. There was one factory with lights on the the town, and they had their own small generator. That was the "joy" of Britain's flirtation with 1970s Marxism. In the 1980s, Thatcher turned to nuclear power to keep the lights on, and to prevent the coal miners holding the heavily debt ridden country to ransom. The danger is like this: nationalising everything the way Corbyn wants costs money (the government sells bonds to investors to get the cash - but the government has to promise to buy the bonds back paying extra i.e. interest, to get people to buy them). We already have a colossal £1.7 trillion national debt, more per head than even bankrupt states like Greece. The only reason we aren't bankrupt like Greece, despite our greater debt, is that we attract lots of job-creating businesses in the competitive world by offering relatively attractive corporation tax rates, etc. Corbyn wants to raise corporation tax to get money, but we have already tried that in the 1970s and it failed: companies went away taking their money, their jobs, etc. People moved away to tax havens. Like the USSR or Greece, you end up with a reduced productive private sector, and a massively bloated state sector which is funded essentially by tax from the reduced private sector. The state sector becomes filled with union controlled workers whose main role ends up as militancy and strikes. A recipe for bankrupcy. When the debt reaches the point where investors become scared of your country's impending bankrupcy, they demand more interest or they invest elsewhere. So you pay higher interest rates on the debt mountain, which means that your main expenditure becomes debt interest. Eventually, you begin borrowing just to pay interest on existing debt. Then, even the dumbest investor runs. At that point, the country is insolvent, inflation kicks in, and the country is ruined for decades, as it was by 1979. In a good case, the country then comes to its senses and backs a return to private industry, but that leads to riots, hatred and division state jobs are lost to save money. McKinstry ignores the 1970s episode in Britain, and gives a more recent example where Corbyn backed the 1999 Marxist revolution in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez which nationalised and taxed the country into bankrupcy: "Inflation is running at 1660 percent. Shops are empty. Riots are endemic." Corbyn welcomed this destruction of Venezuela with the Marxist blather: "Success for radical policies in Venezuela is being achieved by providing for the poorest." The problem is that democracy got Hitler elected in 1933 on false promises: Hitler's massive "national socialist" state spending for full employment was done on the back of a debt bubble that mortgaged Germany's future, and the borrowed money had ran out by 1939. War ensued. Jeremy Corbyn has recently been trying to promote a friendly image of himself by claiming he campaigned for the release of South African terrorist movement supporters, e.g. Nelson Mandela. However, at the time Corbyn was supporting all the terrorist groups like the IRA and ANC, they were killing people. It wasn't terrorism or violence that solved the problems, it was reconciliation, and that didn't result from appeasement, but from de-radicalising terrorism supporters and turning them into peaceful, reasonable people. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev, negotiating from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness. "... it is surprising that many of our politicians ... eulogised about a mass murderer [Martin McGuinness's IRA murdered 1,778 British nationals and 162 Irish "informers"] ... Cheerleader-in-Chief - naturally - was the BBC. ... In reality, it was the death of a man who authorised murder on a staggering scale and condoned executions, torture, knee-cappings, beatings and intimidation of supposed informers ... McGuinness [by age 22] was second in command. That coincided with the Bloody Sunday protest, which was the sibject of the £200 million inquiry that concluded, amongst other findings, that McGuinness had definitely 'engaged in paramilitary activity' on the day. ... As one of the group's seven man Army Council, McGuinness would have authorised horrific terror attacks ... Yet for so many last week, he was a hero ... For Tony Blair he was 'a thoughtful, reflective and committed individual.' Blair's right-hand man Alistair Campbell called him 'a very, very warm human being and very likeable', and 'a great guy'. Even former US president Bill Clinton waxed lyrical. 'Martin was calm, courageous and direct,' he said. ... "The unpalatable truth is this: when this killer decided to be a peacemaker, the game was up for his beloved IRA. The British Army, MI5 and the Royal Ulster Constabulary had defeated the thuggish terrorists [using raids, detentions, disarmament of the terrorists by force, anti-terrorist ambushes to deter raids, and the anti-blast "peace walls" to provide security to communities and make serious terrorist attacks harder to accomplish; all vital tactics to use against so-called "Islamic State", unlike making friends with terrorists as Jeremy Corbyn wants to do, and falsely claims was what was done in Northern Ireland]. All that was left for him was to flee to safety and secure a deal that would guarantee him immunity from any prosecutions. That so many were taken in [by BBC pro terrorist propaganda "fake news"] with his new stance simply shows their naivety. The BBC breathlessly informed us that, when he died, he was surrounded by his loved ones. How many of his victims could say the same?" - Nick Ferrari, Sunday Express, 26 March 2017, page 31. Update (3 June 2017): The last Revolutionary Communist infiltration of Britain's Labour Party "Even for the 1980s, when Labour was in the wilderness, his [Jeremy Corbyn's] views were extreme, as reflected in his demand for 'the overthrow of capitalism' or his support for violent Irish Republicanism. ... Corbyn is often praised for strong, unchanging convictions, but there is nothing laudable in this [honest people admit when they are wrong]. Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao all had strong convictions ... Corbyn's far-left radicalism is the antithesis of liberal democracy ... like an old Soviet relic from the Cold War era. This is a man who wants us to abandon our nuclear deterrent and hand the Falkland Islands to Argentina. ... His approach is a recipe for a return to the dark, chaotic days of the 1970s when the country was wrecked by bullying unions and expensive state socialism ... Corbyn's defenders call him 'a breath of fresh air.' In truth, he represents the fetid, dying gasp of rotten Labour." - Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 14 September 2015, page 12. WOODROW WYATT'S 1977 "WHAT'S LEFT OF THE LABOUR PARTY?" (MARXISM!) Woodrow Wyatt's 1977 book, What's Left of the Labour Party? (Marxism!), reviews the infiltration tactics used by Communists to get into the Labour Party and in Trade Unions to turn them into Marxist puppets of the Soviet Union, causing Britain's descent into economic bankrupcy (requiring an IMF bailout) in the 1970's. Wyatt was a Labour MP who served as Under Secretary for War in Attlee's second government. Attlee took extreme measures to proscribe communists from taking over the Labour Party, but subsequent leaders, propped up with Marxist trade union cash, succumbed. In 1956, Wyatt warned about Communists falsifying ballots to gain control of the Electricians' Union, which funded the Labour Party. The book's jacket blurb explains the Orwellian doublethink involved clearly: "The capturing of important official posts in the Labour Party and the trade unions by tiny, unrepresentative and malevolent minorities is called expressing the people's will. The prevention of secret postal ballots in union affairs is called protecting union members from undemocratic outside interference. Block votes wielded at Labour Party Conferences by a handful of trade union leaders who have not consulted their members, or ascertained their wishes [Corbyn wants to repeal laws forcing democracy upon trade union strike decisions, etc.], are described as the epitome of representative democracy. The selection of ultra-Left Wing Labour candidates by tiny local caucuses who have views alien to 90% of Labour voters is called acting in the people's name." This book was published two years before the 1978-9 winter of discontent when the strikers refused to bury the dead, collect rubbish, provide coal for electric power stations, and disrupted life for millions of people. Wyatt explains on page 137 what the basic problem is: Russians were in 1977 allowed ownership of 1/3 acre, amounting to 1% of the total arable acre, the other 99% being collective state farms. The 1% of the farmland owned privately generated 33% of all Russian foodstuffs. In other words, private farming in Russia was over 30 times more efficient than collective state farms: communism was a disaster compared to private enterprise! On page 164, Wyatt recommended that the communist ridden Labour Party be sent into the wilderness for a long time to cleanse itself of toxic ideologues (something which occurred on 4 May 1979 and lasted until 1997): "The Labour Party must have the shock of going into the wilderness for a long time - at least for two Parliaments. The Social Democrats in it would then apprehend that the tactic of appeasing the Marxists and the extreme Left Wing in order to present itself an apparently united Party to win elections has exhausted itself. ... Social Democrats do not believe that the power of the State is more powerful than the liberty of the individual. The Marxists, Trotskyists, and other extremes in the Labour Party, on the contrary, believe that the people are not competent to choose what is best for them, but must have a Socialist system imposed upon them. Hence, they are little different from outright members of the Communist Party." Wyatt starts his book by a review of what really happened when Karl Marx, writing his evil doctrine of communist in British Library of London, turned anarchist gibberish into a religion. In 1870, five years before Marx's infamous rant, 47 anarchists issued a declaration after being arrested for an attempted uprising at Lyon: "From each according to his faculties, to each according to his needs." All that Karl Marx did in 1875 was to change the anarchist's word "facilities" to "abilities". The roots of Britain's Marxism had been laid by Chamberlain's government when it nationalised coal royalties in 1938, the idea being to safeguard the price of coal (a basic necessity) from profiteering. (Attlee later nationalised the actual coal mines.) Conservatives also first nationalised electricity distribution in 1926 by creating the Central Electricity Board which owned the National Grid of power cables. During World War II, Churchill created Britain's "Social State" including social workers and state funded health care, which had to be set up to care for millions of children, disabled people and mothers evacuated from bombing target areas before the Blitz, and the injured and homeless in air raids. This wartime civil defence network of state hospitals and social services provided a testing ground and nucleus for Attlee's National Health Service or Welfare State of 1948, initially done on an economic, sound budget. While civil defence hating Marxists like Corbyn choose to ignore the wartime British social state, and claim that Attlee was elected in 1945 to create what was already begun (Churchill's 1945 manifesto also provided for a welfare state), the truth is that Attlee just took the credit for extending the WWII welfare system, and he was only elected because by 1945 people wanted a change after 14 years of Conservative rule. The problems of nationalisation soon became clear: the government, as state employer for millions of health workers and other nationalised industry workers, is constantly fighting union blackmail by strikes for higher wages. Taxation to pay those wages then chokes the private industry which is paying the tax, pushing up its costs, making its exports too expensive to be competitive in the world. While some of Attlee's nationalisation program made sense and has never been reversed (Attlee nationalised the Bank of England), much of it has later been re-privatised (sold off) in part or whole by Conservative governments (for example, water companies, telecommunications, and the railways). Corbyn wants to re-nationalise, at tremendous expense. While the wholesale nationalisation in 1960-90's Britain was defended as preventing exploitative private cartels of greedy big businesses, "state control" (aka Trade Union Marxist strike-blackmail control) had its own set of problems. Prior to the privatisation of Britain's only and state-owned telecommunications company, "Post Office Telecommunications" (which was later renamed British Telecom, or BT), my commerce teacher used to debunk the notion of private telephone companies by explaining that the idea would lead to roads being repeatedly dug up by the different companies, each to lay their own cables, while the unnecessary duplication of head offices (for all the private companies) would be inefficient compared to state control. However, sometimes the advantages of competition and consumer choice outweigh those disadvantages. The Labour Party was committed to nationalisation through the infamous communist type "Clause 4" of its constitution, which demanded "common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange". This communist type "Clause 4" was fought bravely by the great Labour Leader Hugh Gaitskell at the 1959 Blackpool conference of the Labour Party, but he was outvoted, Labour lost the next election, and "Clause 4" for communist-type nationalising remained until 1995. Its final death in 1995 led to the landslide Labour victory in 1997, led by CND member Tony Blair, who started terrible wars instead of deterring them or defending people with a peaceful, disaster mitigating Civil Defence Corps (which Attlee had set up in 1948 but Marxist Harold Wilson had abolished in 1968). By 1974, the Labour Party Manifesto was driven almost entirely by its Marxist Union paymasters and had an agenda virtually copied straight from Karl Marx: "We shall introduce an annual wealth tax on the rich; bring in a new tax on major transfers of personal wealth ... To achieve far greater economic equality ... To increase social equality ... To bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families." Wyatt comments on page 103 of his 1977 book that this led to a Catch-22 that made Marxist influence dominate in the Labour Party and bankrupt the country: "All Labour Governments have begun by overspending and have been forced to draw back. Each time they have drawn back, the protests of their Left Wing have become more influential, and the cutbacks less effective. Each Labour Government leaves us with a total public spending higher than when it took office and which weighs down productive industry still further. By uneven jerks, the economy grows weaker." The problem is that, just as the fact that 70% of immigrants today vote Labour, drives Labour to welcome excessive immigration (which drives up hospital waiting lists, house prices, rent costs, pollution, overcrowding, social deprivation, etc.) for the extra votes, the majority of state employed voters also vote Labour, which encourages Labour Governments to expand the state payroll for political vote gain, as Wyatt explains on page 101: "The larger the government payroll can be made, the greater the voting strength of Labour. Labour is the champion of public expenditure, however wasteful. ... In June 1976 there were some 2,900,000 local government employees ... an increase of ... 1,200,000 over the figure for June 1964 ... There are some 850,000 workers in the National Health Service ... Their numbers have multiplied exceedingly without any improvement in the quality ... Add the totals employed in the Civil Service, local government and National Service ... 4,500,000. When wives and adult dependants are included, the voting figure at general elections is gigantic. By the nature of their work, none of these employees can be connected to a profit motive, or have any direct interest in whether industry does well or badly." Wyatt points out on page 102, that reducing the number of state employees to the 1964 level would save £6 billion a year and be a terrific boost to bankrupt 1977 Britain, but it would be political suicide for the Labour Party to sack so many Labour voters, and Marxists loved making Britain bankrupt as it provided an added excuse to flog a dead horse (or kill a golden goose, if you prefer): "An added attraction to the extremist is that this wasteful expenditure entails an unnaturally high rate of taxation. It enables him to say that, in order for justice to be done, those with incomes beyond £10,000 a year or with assets beyond £50,000 should be annihilated by taxation. ... The less money the individual is allowed to keep, the less democratic an expression can he give to his wishes, and the more he becomes a slave to the State; and eventually he accepts his fate because he can see no way of escaping it." Putting that another way, it was Britain's enormous Marxist orientated state sector expansion by Harold Wilson after 1964 which caused the financial crisis of the 1970's. Thatcher had to use draconian tactics after 1979 to stabilise and begin rebuilding Britain's economy, cutting down state sector spending and thereby reducing private sector taxation back to levels that made private business profitable again. A Gallup Poll in January 1977 showed that 54% of British people stated that the most powerful man in England was not the relatively harmless puppet Prime Minister James Callaghan, but the man who pulled his strings, the infamous Marxist Jack Jones, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union (which in 1977 had two million members, and a large Labour Party block vote). Wyatt explains on page 104: "According to the BBC's overseas monitoring service, Jack Jones himself said on East German radio on 26 June 1976 that he felt at home in East Germany. There is no reason to doubt him." In the same way, Jeremy Corbyn, while a vile hater of liberty in his own right, is also just a puppet on a string controlled by the big union paymasters, which effectively influence Labour. So with a Marxist Labour government, the control of the country by the Prime Minister becomes just a front for the freedom hating extremists (militant trade unionists).
Wyatt puts this clearly in the title of chapter 9 of his 1977 book: "The Marxist Minority in the Labour Party controls the Minority Labour Government", where he explains on page 104 that less than 30% of the electorate actually voted for Labour when it got 39% of votes cast and won the election in October 1974. Wyatt goes on to explain on pages 111-112 that, in accordance with General Secretary Jack Jones' love of communist East Germany, Labour's Programme for Britain 1976: "sets out the plan for creating an Eastern European style society in Britain. At the 1976 Labour Party Conference in Blackpool, care was taken to see that this plan was endorsed by a card vote ... This makes the whole document of 147 pages the confirmed and actual policy of the Labour Party. ... As an addition to this document, which was first published on 28 May 1976, Labour's National Executive ... announced the impending nationalisation of the four big banks - National Westminster, Lloyds, Barclays and Midland."
Britain was only spared turning into another East Germany by this Marxist crap because the money promptly ran out! In 1976, Callaghan had to beg the IMF (International Monetary Fund) for a bailout of $4 billion. The IMF insisted then (like Germany does now, when bailing out Greek debts) that Callaghan made severe cuts to Britain's wasteful expenditure, and this condition on the IMF loan killed off Jack Jones' dreams for forcing USSR communist system upon Britain: we didn't have the money to nationalise everything. As Thatcher put it, socialism had run out of other people's money!
"Nor should it be assumed that having achieved Labour's Programme for Britain 1976 the Marxists would be satisfied. They would go on and on until Clause 4 had been turned into a reality by State takeover ... Just as in Eastern European countries the government would make the plans for industry and order industries to carry them out, however unsuitable they may be for the economy. Strangled by regulations and inappropriate instructions, what was left of free enterprise would be bankrupted and thus could be taken over by the Marxist-dominated Labour Party at little cost, until the State owned everything, however profitless and inefficient it had become."
- Woodrow Wyatt, What's Left of the Labour Party?, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1977, pages 113-114.
Wyatt's analysis then becomes as bleak as Orwell's 1984. Wyatt explains on pages 122-3 how the 1976 Marxist Labour Party planned to nationalise, and bring into government control, the press (TV was already fully infiltrated by Marxists):
"The Marxists know very well that it is impossible to run a Marxist state if a free press continues to operate within it. The repression which is inseparable from a Marxist State requires that the citizen should not know the facts about what is going on in his own country or abroad. It requires that the citizen should have no place, other than in controlled Party circles, to voice any criticism of the way the country is being run.
"Isolation from fact and opinion is essential in curbing discontent and refusal to cooperate with the authorities. It is not by chance that as the Marxist influence has grown in the Labour Party, so has concern with ways, which it is hoped can be made to look respectable [e.g. clamping down on misinformation, fear mongering, enemy propaganda, or faked news], to end the freedom of the press. ...
"Hitler obligingly set out his plans in Mein Kampf but the world did not read this instructive work for fear of being bored. The Marxist extremists controlling the Labour Party have with equal frankness set out their plans. It is not witch hunting to point out the similarity of their ideas to the systems operating in Eastern Europe. It is merely recording the facts from their own published proposals. ... the Labour Government would have collapsed during 1975, 1976 and 1977 if the International Monetary Fund had not helped."
Wyatt on pages 125-6 shows why Britain was going bankrupt by examining the number of administrators in the NHS, National Health Service. In 1966 there was one administrator for 9.5 hospital beds, while ten years later in 1976 there was one administrator for every 4.8 beds. This example led to cycle of expansion and sacking of the number of administrators in hospitals: nurses and doctors would ask for administrators to free them from paperwork and allow them to spend more of their time on patients. Then a vast amount of the NHS budget would be spent on administrators, leading to cut backs on nurses and doctors. The next government would then pledge to cut the administrators, and the cycle of hiring and firing would begin all over again! (My mother, an immigrant state registered staff nurse in NHS hospitals from the start of her career in 1951 until retirement, saw endless cycles of hiring and firing of NHS administrators for political agendas. It cost a great deal of money to fire administrators due to redundancy pay-offs, and system changes. The original Matron system left the administration responsibility in the hands of a senior nurse. Efforts to cheapen the administration cost led to some tragic, irresponsible errors in paperwork, with examples of patients being given the wrong medication, or even having the wrong leg amputated.)
"It would seem unthinkable that the Marxists and Trotskyists and ultra-Left Wing fanatics should be able to foist their ideas on the British people. But in the same speech in which Callaghan welcomed Labour's Programme for Britain 1976 he said: 'I also draw the Party's attention to a new factor creeping into the Party, which I warn against - namely those elements which misuse the word 'Socialist' and who seek to infiltrate our Party and use it to their own ends. They are almost all recognisable by their jargon and their intolerance'."
- Woodrow Wyatt, What's Left of the Labour Party?, page 128.
Wyatt explained on pages 151-153 that genuine, carefully rational Marxist-fascist witch-hunting is encouraged as a fun and moral sport: "Between 1956 and 1972 the nationalised industries, despite their monopolistic position, lost £1,168,000,000. Between 1962 and 1972 the nationalised industries received over £6,500,000,000 in subsidies, with which they were still unable, overall, to make a profit. ... The idea that the nationalised industries can ever be as efficient as the private sector is a joke. While the nationalised industries paid only £81 million in taxes between 1962 and 1972, the private sector companies paid £13,729,000,000. Yet investment in the nationalised industries between 1948 and 1972 was about 1/5 of the entire total of national investment in fixed assets in the United Kingdom. ... Pouring money into the nationalised industries and getting low productivity, and inferior results, has helped to hold back rises in the standard of living which would have taken place but for nationalisation."
Wyatt also explains on page 43 the history of communist party thugs, as wolves in sheep's clothing, infiltrating Labour due to the electorate's hatred of communist (owing to the communist aggressive inhumanity of the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, etc.):
"In 1950, all the Communist Party's 100 candidates were defeated, including two Communist MPs who had sat in the 1945 Parliament. This heightened the determination of the Communists to control the Labour Party by indirect means, since they would not establish themselves in Parliament under their own name. Already the Communists had been for some years the masters of the Electricians' Union, by rigging the ballots. This gave them a minor say at Labour Party conferences. They now concentrated on capturing the important Engineers' Union either through open Communists or through those who for tactical or other reasons did not disclose themselves as Communist sympathisers [likewise, communists simply took out cheap Labour Party memberships to elect Jeremy Corbyn to party leadership, and they apply for admission as TV audience members on political TV debates, claiming to be undecided, Labour or even Conservative, in order to be accepted in large numbers to falsely "represent" another party, so they can clap for Marxist causes and shout down or heckle reason]. Some of the extremists in the Parliamentary Labour Party since 1945 were actually undercover Communists, others were very close to the Communist viewpoint [this includes the whole Labour shadow Cabinet today in 2017]. ... The importance of deception to the Communists can be seen by their fury when a low-profile Communist is publicly identified as such."
Wyatt's chapter 5 is titled, "[Nye] Bevan and [Harold] Wilson find useful the Support of Marxists and Extremists", and states at pages 51-3:
"One side, led by Nye Bevan and Harold Wilson, was relying on the support of Marxists and extremists ... Accordingly, as pressures grow, the leaders of the Labour Party feel obliged to put more and more nonsense into their Party programme, in order to placate their internal enemies [an example of Irving Janis's "groupthink"]. ... After the 1952 Labour Conference, Hugh Gaitskell made a speech at Stalybridge. In it, he openly alleged that there had been distinct Communist infiltration among the delegates to the 1952 Labour Party Conference at Morecambe. He went on to say, 'It is time to end the attempt at mob rule by a group of frustrated journalists, and restore the authority and leadership of the solid, sound, sensible majority of the movement."
On page 59, Wyatt tells the sorry story of how the communists abused him for exposing communist infiltration of the Electricians' Union, in his television broadcasts about the problem:
"The Communists were still in command and retaining their hold by cooking the union elections. It was thought very disloyal of me to restore democracy to the Electricians's Union. I was expelled from the local Labour Party to which I belonged in London [the usual Communist tactic of ganging up like thugs to intimidate whistle-blowers], which recommended that I should not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate again. Fortunately, Gaitskell, unhelped by Wilson, persuaded the National Executive to take no notice. Communists and extremists are considered all right because they are on the Left. Those who attack, expose and root them out are reprehensibly on the Right. Doing so ensured that I had no political future."
Wyatt explains the sick "CND" anti-nuclear deterrence psychology of Communist thugs on page 65:
"Productivity was never of any interest to the extremists. They would rather control men's lives in uniform misery according to their definition of the public good, than allow them to flourish freely. In 1960, the most promising cause for overthrowing the Labour leadership was that of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Many well-meaning but intellectually backward people, especially among the young, had been persuaded that their nuclear destruction was imminent. Futile protest marches, from the atomic research centre at Aldermaston to Trafalgar Square, were undertaken and were very popular at Easter. Those like Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Tony Greenwood, and [Union boss and 1964-6 Minister for Technology in Harold Wilson's Labour Government] Frank Cousins, anxious to curry favour ... joined in the demonstrating. That they could not have been very sincere [like Tony Blair's CND membership] was evidenced by their happily taking office subsequently in Labour Governments more heavily armed with the power of nuclear destruction than any that went before them.
"Not that they were alone in their hypocrisy. Others of their comrades flaunted themselves at unilateral nuclear disarmament meetings, and later satisfied themselves that their consciences were in order when they received and accepted the call to office. Judith Hart, Peter Shore, and others all thought their passionate support for unilateral nuclear disarmament was of secondary importance to ministerial position."
Famously, at the 1957 Labour Party Conference where anti-nuclear deterrence hatred had culminated in a motion for unilateral nuclear disarmament, Bevan responded that such a stupid, defeatist policy would send Britain's Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber. But the nuclear haters persisted when Bevan died in July 1960, and union boss Frank Cousins denounced Hugh Gaitskell's pro-nuclear deterrent views as contrary to Socialism. This eventually reached a head in the 1983 and 1987 general elections, where Labour was led to defeat, respectively, by anti-nuclear Michael Foot and by anti-nuclear Neil Kinnock. Woodrow Wyatt shows that income tax levels reached 83% in 1975, and on page 133 he explains how the British communist nuclear disarmament plan to allow blackmail or invasion by Russian communists fitted into the taxation plan to create slaves in a dictatorship:
"all taxation is a limitation of an individual's rights to deal as he wishes with the money he has earned or accumulated. All taxation carried beyond a certain point must diminish the will, by effort and ingenuity, to earn more. ... Slowly we have grown to accept the view that none of our money is our own, that the State owns all of it and is graciously pleased to allow us to spend an ever-smaller part of it. We are grateful for tax reliefs, as though they were a present, instead of a diminution in the amount confiscated. ... the greater the taxation, the less the liberty. Not only is the taxpayer made more dependent on the State, but he has less freedom of choice as to what to do with his money. The decisions are increasingly removed from him, inducing a servile state of mind."
Wyatt's final chapter 12, "What is to be done?" at page 165 offers brilliant advice that is fully applicable today to sort out Marxist Jeremy Corbyn's divided Labour Party:
"The real home for the Marxists and their allies is in a separate Communist Party in which they could openly declare their true beliefs instead of dissembling about them as they do today. ... A prerequisite is a landslide, or massive, victory for the Conservatives at the next election. A narrow anti-Labour majority would not destroy the extreme Left Wingers. It would stimulate them to argue more fiercely that the reason Labour lost was because the manifesto was not Socialist enough."
*********************
Woodrow Wyatt, What's Left of the Labour Party? (Marxism!),page 175:
"We are not suited to government by loud-mouthed minorities restlessly destroying what has been proved worthwhile, with the unlikely aim of replacing it with something better after their work of destruction is completed."
*********************
Update: 6 June 2017, some good news at last after the recent terrorist attacks
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express (page 7): martial arts expert, kick boxer and journalist Geoff Ho of the Sunday Express bravely fought the London terrorists in the 3 June 2017 attack, and this story is useful because it proves that something can be done against this low-technology (truck hit-and-run followed by knife attack) terrorism:
"Geoff had been watching the Champions League final in the bar with friends. He quickly saw what was happening and stepped in to try and stop them killing people, but they stabbed him. He is a hero, and we are all praying for his speedy recovery."
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express page 8 on need for fighting extremists not merely appeasing or paying them off with fine words. Col Richard Kemp, Former Chairman of the government's Cobra Intelligence Group states: "We must confront this violent challenge to our way of life with the same defiance as our fathers met Nazi aggression ... the spirit of ordinary citizens who ran at the terrorists, hurling missiles at them to save their fellow Londoners. It is the fighting spirit that we must all adopt, not candles, illuminations, teddy bears and group hugs. The gloves must come off ... The threat these enemies pose to the lives of our people morally outweighs any risk to their own human rights. ... One of the greatest dangers is from people from this country who have fought with the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria or elsewhere. They have been bloodied in battle and involved in mass murder, torture and rape. That makes it easy for them to kill again and they are trained, motivated and under orders ... Four hundred have already returned ... we must destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Our action against IS has been feeble, allowing them to direct attacks worldwide including in the UK."
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express (page 9) Corbyn now accepts - far too late - laws against terrorists, although he arrogantly opposed every anti-terror law since 1983, boasting in 2011: "I've been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983."
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express (page 2) Editorial endorses Donald Trump's criticism of politically correct crap from British politicians regarding terrorism: "Being hung, drawn and quartered is nothing more than they deserve after throwing men off tall buildings just for being gay, lowering people in cages into swimming pools to drown them, cruelly stoning victims to death and now causing havoc on our streets. How dare they. Donald Trump ridicules our politicians for being politically correct [the old Chamberlain problem of shaking hands with terrorists] in our reaction to these outrages. He is right."
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express page 16 Leo McKinstry explains how the standard response of appeasing pro jihadi unity is precisely what terrorists expect and want: "Every new act of Islamic terrorism is now followed by the same ritual ... they are dangerous because they rob us of the ability to defend ourselves and retaliate against our enemies. ... We are being groomed to accept Islamic terrorism in the UK as normal. The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan even said that these atrocities are 'part and parcel' of modern urban life. That is the attitude that runs through the establishment. ... In 1940 there was a genuine sense of unity, forged by a shared national identity. Just as importantly, Winston Churchill's government starkly spelt out the nature of the threat ... and took heroic action against it. There has been little such defiance from the British state against militant Islam. As Theresa May admitted yesterday, there has been 'far too much tolerance of extremism in our country'. ... 23,000 jihadi fanatics in Britain .... at least 500 Islamist plots. MI5 has only 4,000 officers ... Internment without trial, controversially used in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, has an ugly history, but it might be a necessary emergency measure. The government also needs to ... [be] excluding Muslims who have committed the treasonable offence of fighting for our enemies [like ISIS] abroad. ...
"In the wake of every Islamic massacre, politicians blather that the terrorists will not 'divide us' But the reality is because of mass immigration and [divisive] multiculturalism we ... slide towards self-imposed Muslim segregation through Sharia courts, separatist schools and fundamentalist Mosques. ... integration will provoke the usual cries of Islamophobia ... we have pandered to this kind of divisive victimhood for too long. The time for candles and cowardice is over."
Above: 5 June 2017 Daily Express page 12 Former Guardian journalist Seumas Milne advising Jeremy Corbyn to avoid nuclear deterrent questions until after election: "A secret recording has emerged of Jeremy Corbyn's spin doctor teaching his boss how to shut down debate on Britain's nuclear deterrent. On the recording, former Guardian journalist Seumas Milne, who has been described as on the 'far left' of the Labour Party, can be heard talking to Mr Corbyn about how to find a 'form of words' to 'shut down' the outrage over the Labour leader's refusal to use Trident to defend Britain. Mr Milne told Mr Corbyn: 'We need, without looking defensive, to seal down the Trident thing so it doesn't keep intruding in the next few days. We just need a form of words to shut down the nuclear question'. ... Mr Milne, who went to top public school Winchester College, is the son of former BBC director general Alasdair Milne. Labour former minister Tom Harris claimed that Mr Corbyn chose Mr Milne 'because of his political views' not because of his skills as a communicator."
Update (9 June 2017, 4.07pm London time):
Just a quick note about results in this nuclear weapons and Brexit based election. Conservatives, despite an awfully weak election campaign (Prime Minister May refused to address crowds or go face to face with Jeremy Corbyn in a TV debate, she refused to give details of Brexit in her manifesto, and she even failed to commission and publish a full dossier on her opponent's support for terrorism groups and his employment of communists in key posts), won 318 seats and Corbyn's labour won only 261 seats, despite offering the earth and more (e.g. an increase in the £1.7 trillion national debt to pay for "free" student university tuition - which unlike Corbyn's propaganda, won't be paid for by taxing Microsoft and Google with so much Corporation Tax, since they would probably move away from Britain to a tax haven, taking thousands of jobs with them - and massive increases in NHS and other spending to appease the Marxists and communist unions which backed him). Despite this result, a resounding win for May's Conservatives, Corbyn made everyone laugh on TV this morning by claiming to have "won" the election and offering to become Prime Minister. The fact is that even if he could have made a coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democrats (who have said they won't go into coalitions again after their 2010-15 experience with Mr Cameron), Corbyn would only have had 261 + 35 + 12 = 308 seats, compared to 318 seats won outright by May. In addition she has 10 seats from the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, which has a very similar manifesto to the Conservatives (unlike the dissimilar Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat manifestos - e.g., Labour wanted Brexit whereas the SNP and Liberal Democrats both rejected Brexit), making 318 + 10 = 328. which is over the 326 seats that are needed by one side to fully outvote the others in their combined force! The BBC Corbyn lobby made an issue out of the failure of May to increase her vote to strengthen her hand to negotiate for a hard Brexit, but the election wasn't actually about Brexit, but about Marxism. (Marxism as far as Corbyn was concerned, plus terrorism - given his exploitation of the two unpredictable and horrendous terrorist attacks during the last three weeks of the campaign. If May was guilty of anything, it was neglecting the human greed that sucks up to false Marxist promises. She underestimated the villainy of her opposition, which gave false promises for votes.)
What annoys me is that the TV "news media", e.g. the BBC, endlessly restates allegations about Trump that he is trying to avoid world war 3 by making business with RUSSIA, which has thousands of nuclear warheads, yet it refuses to probe Jeremy Corbyn's terrorist connections.
It's so biased that it's effectively supporting a racist, fascist bigot who lies about civil defence. There is a guy at Harvard University who publishes deceptive nuclear weapons effects data that was discredited on this blog years ago, and also a ranting hate attack about Richard Feynman, but he's a relatively nice guy when compared to the kind of absolutely horrible people in England who are supporting fascism today.
God help the world if he is elected Prime Minister on 8 June 2017. There have been quite a few surprise election results lately, so we really don't know what will happen in the election. If the recent so-called "Islamic State" bombings lead to some retaliation attacks on the community which supported the terrorists, then Corbyn might be elected Prime Minister by promising to win a Nobel Peace Prize, walk on water, resurrect the dead, etc.
The future is unpredictable, so I think we should be prepared for every possibility.
I also hope that the MI5 files on Jeremy Corbyn's terrorist links are fully declassified and published BEFORE voting day, so democracy can be informed as fully as possible. See the following news, published on 19 May 2017 about Corbyn, MI5, and terrorism:
News Exclusive: MI5 opened file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his IRA links
Claire Newell Hayley Dixon Luke Heighton Harry Yorke, online education editor 19 MAY 2017 • 9:00PM MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA, The Telegraph has discovered.
The Labour leader was investigated over fears that he could have been a threat to national security at a time when he was supporting convicted terrorists and campaigning for a unified Ireland.
The revelations come as a Telegraph investigation reveals Mr Corbyn’s full links to the IRA, including his support for one of the Balcombe Street gang who waged a 14-month bombing campaign across south-east England, and his links to the bomb maker believed to have been behind the Hyde Park and Regent's Park devices.
Mr Corbyn also shared a platform with a wanted IRA killer and John McDonnell, his shadow Chancellor, claimed that the pair of them used to “pin people against the wall” in the House of Commons to lobby them on behalf of Ireland.
It was against the background of his support for the Republican cause that MI5 began looking into Mr Corbyn’s activities, and a source close to the investigation confirmed that a file had been opened on him by the early Nineties.
The source told The Telegraph: "If there was a file on someone, it meant they had come to notice. We opened a temporary file and did a preliminary investigation. It was then decided whether we should open a permanent file on them".
A file would be opened on "someone who sympathises with a certain group, or is friends with a specific person" and the purpose was to “assess whether the person was a threat", the source added.
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was also monitoring the future Labour leader at around the same time, but it is unclear if the intelligence was shared.
Peter Francis, the undercover officer turned whistle-blower, has revealed that the force secretly compiled files on Mr Corbyn and nine other MPs which detailed their political beliefs, personal background and any demonstrations that they attended.
He was personally asked to collect information on the Islington North MP as he infiltrated anti-racist groups in the Nineties, he said.
The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit said: “I think it just marks him out as what he clearly is: a hard-Left, Marxist, terrorist sympathiser. It leaves him very comfortable in the company of McDonnell, who, as we know, said that they will gain power not through Parliament but on the streets and the picket lines.”
It's worth remembering that the IRA were behind the 3,300 lb bombing of Manchester's Arndale shopping centre causing 200 casualties on 15 June 1996, long after Corbyn had been associated with IRA terrorists.
It's also worth bring up the fact that the IRA killed two children with a bomb in Warrington, England, on 20 March 1993.
On the topic of Corbyn's switch from IRA terrorism to support for so-called Islamic bombers (calling Hamas, Hezbollah "friends" and accepting money from an Iranian TV show that is banned in the UK because it used torture tactics), it's worth remembering that 52 people were murdered by by four suicide bombers in London on 7 July 2005.
I know that a lot of Corbyn's supporters don't want to think about the connection of Corbyn to terrorism, but I think the public deserves to be fully informed about what is going on.
News Growing row over Jeremy Corbyn's links to the IRA as he refuses five times to condemn the militant group
Kate McCann, senior political correspondent 21 MAY 2017 • 10:00PM Jeremy Corbyn's links to the IRA were at the centre of a growing row after he repeatedly refused to condemn the actions of Republican terrorists.
The Labour leader was asked five times to denounce the IRA yesterday but chose instead to state his opposition to "all bombing".
When asked if he could unequivocally condemn the IRA, Mr Corbyn said: " No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned."
It can also be revealed that Mr Corbyn was heavily involved with London Labour Briefing - a hard-left magazine which celebrated the Brighton bomb and joked about the death of Conservative MPs.
Evidence emerged yesterday that Mr Corbyn was involved in the magazine, which praised the bomb designed to kill Margaret Thatcher in an article that read: "The British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it" and "What do you call four dead Tories? A start".
On Saturday the Daily Telegraph revealed that MI5 had opened a file on Mr Corbyn amid concern over his links to the IRA.
Yesterday his refusal to distance himself from the terror organisation, coupled with the revelation that he was linked to London Labour Briefing, drew criticism from veterans, rivals and Labour candidates who fear it will distract from the party's message to voters.
Alan Barry, the co-founder of Justice for Northern Ireland Veterans, called the Labour leader an "odious individual" while the security minister Ben Wallace, who saw service in the country, said Mr Corbyn "has spent a lifetime siding with Britain’s enemies."
What is most chilling of the news reports I linked to in this blog post is the fascist-type refusal of Corbyn's racist ideologues movement, called Momentum, to even bother to answer questions or respond to critics (if they do that in Government, we're totally done-in-for):
Jeremy Corbyn was paid by an Iranian state TV station that was complicit in the forced confession of a tortured journalist
Adam Payne
Jul. 2, 2016, 12:09 PM 65,331
Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 (about $27,000) for appearances on the Iranian state broadcast network Press TV — a channel that was banned in the UK for its part in filming the detention and torture of an Iranian journalist.
Corbyn was paid for appearances on Press TV five times between 2009 and 2012, according to his register of interests, available at this online House of Commons database.
Corbyn's final Press TV appearance was six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari. Ofcom is the government's TV regulatory body which sets rules for UK broadcasters. Bahari told Business Insider that while he was detained by Iranian authorities he was tortured and threatened with execution before he agreed to read out a pre-agreed script on Iranian television, filmed by Press TV.
A spokesperson for Corbyn told Business Insider, "We don't comment on historical matters." [EMPHASIS ADDED!]
... During the period between the year of Corbyn's first appearance and his last, for example, Iran hanged at least 1,314 people, according to Amnesty International. It is a place where the rights of women, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities are harshly curtailed. In 2011, the year of Corbyn's third appearance, three Iranian men were executed for homosexuality. An Amnesty International report released last year said that Sunni Muslims and Kurdish political prisoners have been executed for bringing "corruption" to the world.
NC: Well at least we know what "human rights", "peace", "liberalism", "compassion", and "freedom" mean in Corbyn's Orwellian Doublethink Dictionary. When he - and all his pseudo-liberal friends in Brussels, the lawyers of the East Coast of the USA, and also in the terrorist-backing enclaves of his fan base - claim to be supporting human rights, peace, liberalism etc., they're up to the same propaganda tricks as the USSR gulag torture system. What they mean by "peace" is war. What they mean by "liberalism" is torture. What they mean by "human rights" is hatred towards the innocent. What they mean by "compassion" is standing shoulder to shoulder with a terrorist who has murdered innocent human beings.
Note by author of this blog post: I just want to respond to some rants I've heard from some of my "friends" who claim that Jeremy Corbyn and CND are bona fide "people of principle".
What "principle"? The principle of bombing innocent people? The principle of torture? The principle of refusing to admit to making mistakes? The principle of bigotry? The principle of intolerance to justified criticisms? The principle of fascism? What bloody principle? Tell me what "principle" you are claiming Jeremy Corbyn to be a a person of, for a start! Hitler was claimed to be a "man of principle" such as a "peacemaker" and a hater of Jews. That doesn't prove Jeremy Corbyn to be right. It's plainly gibberish, waffle, hogwash, lies.
Next, some friends have assumed my "politics" is the opposite of Jeremy Corbyn's. Again, what "politics"? I've repeatedly explained on this blog for years that party politics is no substitute for genuine democracy, which is (as in Ancient Greece where "democracy" originated) referendums on individual issues, not a once-every-five-years selection of a party with a collection of various "policies", some of which you agree with and some of which you don't. For the record, "borrowing you way out of debt" socialism party politics have proved failures in practice, because they have led to bankrupcy and misery every time.
For thugs who are obsessed with petty party politics, here's something you thugs will enjoy reading: a GUARDIAN left wing (pro Corbyn) article about current Prime Minister Theresa May - who as Home Secretary in Cameron's government struggled for years against the lawyers of the European Union's fascist EUROPEAN COURT OF "HUMAN RIGHTS" to deport terrorism preacher Abu Hamza, who was incited terrorists to murder innocent people:
UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May
Critics condemn home secretary’s remarks, which put her on collision course with cabinet colleagues
Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason Monday 25 April 2016 19.54 BST First published on Monday 25 April 2016 12.30 BST Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.
The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.
May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.
“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.
“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”
So that's something for you to cherish, from your pseudo-liberal fascist newspaper writers. Cheers.
Milne is an apologist for terror, and wrong on almost everything
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's new communications chief
By Kate Godfrey 6:09PM BST 23 Oct 2015
I am Labour through and through. Yet over the last couple of days, thousands of people have told me that I should leave the party. What did I do to attract such attention? What was it I did that made people so angry?
I wrote something. Not an article, so much as a raggedly little statement of feeling that just happened to be shared by thousands. A statement of disappointment and of anger that Jeremy Corbyn has appointed as his key adviser a one-time Stalinist called Seumas Milne. And I stand by it. I hold no brief for Milne. It kills me that Labour does. I think Milne is an apologist for terror, and will always be an apologist for terror. I think that he never met a truth he didn’t dismiss as an orthodoxy and that nowhere in his far-Left polemic are actual people represented.
Jeremy Corbyn appoints top advisor who once defended terrorism
Seumas Milne, a left-wing journalist who commissioned articles by Osama bin Laden, is the Labour leader's new communications chief
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's new communications chief
By Kate McCann, Senior Political Correspondent
7:12PM BST 20 Oct 2015
Jeremy Corbyn has appointed a senior aide who defended terrorists and praised the "armed resistance" which killed British soldiers in Iraq.
Seumas Milne, who is Mr Corbyn's new Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, spoke of the so-called "resistance movement" and its success at forcing "occupation troops" out of Iraqi cities in an article in 2004.
He wrote: "The resistance war can of course be cruel, but the innocent deaths it has been responsible for pale next to the toll inflicted by the occupiers", adding that armed terror groups were responsible for "Iraq's real war of liberation".
It followed his claim that Americans "can't see why they're hated", written just two days after terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers killing almost 3,000 people.
The left-wing Guardian commentator is understood to have resolved talks about his contract with the party, which had been ongoing for weeks.
A senior Labour source said that there has been opposition to the appointment from top party bosses, amid concerns that Mr Milne will be "difficult to control".
A party spokesman confirmed the appointment on Tuesday, adding: "Seumas joins the Labour Leader’s office on leave from the Guardian where he is a columnist and associate editor. He will take up his position on 26th October 2015".
The former Comment editor of the Guardian between 2001 and 2007 once gave a byline to terrorist Osama Bin Laden by reproducing text from a taped speech on the newspaper's website.
Osama Bin Laden was given a byline on the Guardian website by Milne Photo: AP
And in a post Mr Milne wrote on September 13 2001, just two days after the 9/11 terror attacks he said: "Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty.
"But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent.
"Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world."
He added: "If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming."
… In another article from 2014 titled "A real counterweight to US power is a global necessity", the left-wing columnist appeared to praise Russia's intervention in Ukraine as a check on US global power….
In a further post Mr Milne claimed soldier Lee Rigby's death wasn't "terrorism in the normal sense" because Mr Rigby had been a member of the armed forces.
He wrote: "Rigby was a British soldier who had taken part in multiple combat operations in Afghanistan. So the attack wasn't terrorism in the normal sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians."
Stalinist Seaumas Milne also lies about Stalin's role in motivating Hitler to invade Poland in September 1939 by Stalin's agreement with Hitler to jointly invade Poland (Hitler did not take the decision to start WWII by invading Poland without Stalin's help):
"Nor did the Soviet Union launch the most bloody and destructive war in human history..."
- Seaumas Milne, "The Revenge of History", page 41.
This is of course a complete lie, but it is maintained by Stalinist "educationists" in Russian textbooks! The truth is, Stalin and Hitler both invaded Poland in September 1939, Hitler invading Poland from the West, and Stalin invading Poland from the East. It was the comradeship of Stalin which led Hitler to his biggest evil, under the terms of the August 1939 German-Soviet Pact. Milne ignores this truth, because it doesn't fit in with his lie.
The Soviet invasion of Poland was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939. On that morning, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on 6 October 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.[7] The joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland was secretly agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939.[8]
The Red Army, which vastly outnumbered the Polish defenders, achieved its targets by using strategic and tactical deception. Some 230,000 Polish prisoners of war had been captured.[4][9] The campaign of mass persecution in the newly acquired areas began immediately. In November 1939 the Soviet government ostensibly annexed the entire Polish territory under its control. Some 13.5 million Polish citizens who fell under the military occupation were made into new Soviet subjects following mock elections conducted by the NKVD secret police in the atmosphere of terror,[10][11] the results of which were used to legitimize the use of force. The Soviet campaign of ethnic cleansing began with the wave of arrests and summary executions of officers, policemen and priests.[Note 5][12][13] Over the next year and a half, the Soviet NKVD sent hundreds of thousands of people from eastern Poland to Siberia and other remote parts of the Soviet Union in four major waves of deportation between 1939 and 1941.[Note 6]
At least one of the 1980s terrorist supporters in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet now seems to be partly listening to criticism, and while failing to apologise for backing terrorism, claims to have "moved on" (presumably moved on from supporting the IRA to supporting ISIS):
Diane Abbott refuses to denounce IRA in bizarre TV interview: 'I used to have an Afro. The hairstyle is gone, the views are gone.'
By Laura Hughes, political correspondent 28 MAY 2017 • 11:46AM
"Diane Abbott has tried to distance herself from claims she supported the IRA by suggesting both her hairstyles and views have changed over the years.
"The shadow home secretary said she had "moved on" from remarks she made in the 1980s when she declared her support for the IRA and claimed "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us"."
"Jeremy Corbyn’s new Sinn Fein aide Jayne Fisher has close links to a string of convicted IRA terrorists, Guido can reveal. Fisher is the former head of Sinn Fein’s London office. In 2009 she was filmed singing alongside Brendan “Bik” MacFarlane, an IRA member who was jailed for a bombing and machine gun attack on a bar in Belfast which killed five civilians.
"[YOUTUBE VIDEO] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSNxlLBnd_s [video showing: Corbyn aide Jayne Fisher sings with IRA terrorist Bik Macfarlane]
"Guido has also found a photo of Fisher (below centre right) in 2012 with Owen Jones and Sinn Fein MLA Jennifer McCann (below centre left), who served ten years for shooting an RUC police officer:
"In the photo below from 2014, Fisher is pictured alongside Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy, who was sentenced to five years in prison for possession of explosives with intent to endanger life in 1982.
"Fisher has not responded to several attempts to contact her. She has close links to multiple convicted terrorists, will be interesting to see if she passes the Commons security vetting process. ...
"UPDATE: She has gone dark on social media, what kind of political operator does that? Someone with something to hide. ..."
I'd like to add this about the complacent lying on nuclear weapons, civil defence, and peacemaking by Jeremy Corbyn:
It is the fault of the present government's obsession with secrecy, keeping the facts out of the public domain. Large sections of the public then believe in the lying Marxist claims about Reagan's W79 truly invasion-deterring tactical nuclear weapons, and civil defence to reduce the collateral damage from explosions and gas/contamination being "useless" and incapable of deterring threats like Saddam's gas and missiles in 2002, so we end up with the secrecy playing into the hands of Corbyn and his loud mouthed "peace protestor" CND fanbase.
The Conservatives motto on countering CND propaganda about deterrence and civil defence is basically: "Quoque paulo nimium sero". Too little, too late. In 1986, about 7 years too late, they tried to counter the Brezhnev era propaganda by funding publication of Paul Mercer's brilliant book, "Peace of the Dead", but it was too late then, and it's still ignored now. While Conservatives spend time doing detailed research, they keep it confidential and private for too long, and then they pay the price politically, because the quick-and-easy lies and falsehood slogans issued by CND have been unopposed for too long.
By that time, the TV screens are filled with "peace protest marches" by Communist Party of Great Britain flag waving "CND supporters" and thousands of innocent people who have been terrorised by CND propaganda into showing solidarity with Stalinist haters of democracy.
The arguments for using Belfast style "peace walls" to stop terrorist attacks, with proper civil defence in actual war zones - evacuation of innocent civilians from war targets, emergency feeding and emergency shelter against collateral damage from war - and nuclear deterrence to prevent or stop further I.S. invasions in the Middle East and North Africa, are:
1/ Refugees streaming into Europe as a result of the various insurgencies and civil wars because insufficient help is being done either to stop the wars or to help refugees. We cannot turn a blind eye to victims of violence or to the refugees streaming into Europe from the wars and terrorism. (The refugee problem is welcomed by Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist Labour Party because a majority of them are Muslim and his anti Jewish stance is supposed to turn them into future Marxist Labour Party supporters. The refugees will continue to stream into Britain from the EU at least until Britain's exit from the EU in two years time, probably longer if the exit process is extended or if free movement is retained due to trade blackmail from the EU against a pathetically enfeebled Marxist dominated British government, which will occur if Corbyn does well in the election and forms a coalition government with the pseudo-Liberal Democrats.)
2/ Alternatives to "peace walls" to stop terrorists (as used successfully in Israel and Northern Ireland), low-yield air burst tactical nuclear deterrence (as used successfully by Kennedy and Reagan against the Cold War's Warsaw Pact), and civil defence evacuation, sheltering, and emergency feeding, have all failed miserably.
3/ Efforts to bomb dictators and insurgents into submission failed in Vietnam, they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so far they have failed in Syria. Even with troops on the ground, it is not possible really to "win" a war against their mindset. Every bomb dropped on them is portrayed by the propaganda as interference by Imperialist Christian Crusaders.
4/ The paucity of options means that sooner or later the ancient tactics of building walls around vital cities to help resist invasions, the use of credible deterrence to deter invasions, and the use of civil defence to ensure that deterrence is credible by protecting civilians against the collateral damage of war, will be needed if the wars are to end.
5/ There are six million displaced refugees within Syria alone. There are more in the civil war in Yemen and across large areas in Northern Africa, where various terrorist groups and insurgencies are engaged in conflict.
Writing in the Daily Express on 8 April 2017 (page 14), Ross Clark states that due to escalation risks we can't actually go very far in bombing the Russian air bases or Russian military advisers who are supporting the dictator Assad or the Iranians, or we could end up with a world war, so that really leaves us with just options like building walls, providing gas masks, shelters, emergency feeding and other related civil defence to prevent a refugee crisis worsening, and deterring further invasions and expansion of I.S. controlled areas:
"However much we might disapprove of Putin it cannot be ignored that he leads a powerful, nuclear-armed nation with the ability to overrun Eastern Europe. Anything that risks war against Russia cannot be contemplated. ... But if we turn a blind eye to dictators who crush their own people the outcome is no better. All we do is encourage other dictators. ... We should follow it up [Trump's strike on Assad's sarin nerve gas aircraft base] by increasing our efforts to help Syrian refugees, not least the six million displaced within their own country. We should also examine the possibility of establishing safe havens [i.e. walled cities, protected from air strikes by ground to air missile systems] inside Syria."
Just a reminder: Britain's current national debt of £1.7 trillion is currently costing the UK £49 billion a year in interest repayments, more than the UK defence budget. That is at a very low interest rate of 2.9%, due to the AA credit rating of the UK. With Marxist Corbyn spending like crazy to re-nationalise railways, water companies, etc., the debt will get higher, and the credit rating will be downgraded, forcing an increase in the interest rates. The base interest rate has been as high as 15% in 1988-9 and 17% in the disastrous winter of discontent of 1978-9 (just before Thatcher was elected on 4 May 1979). Such interest rates would increase UK interest payments by more than a factor of 5, from £49 billion a year to £250 billion or more. The entire UK government tax revenue last year was £744 billion, and we're currently spending £68 billion more than that (the deficit). The BBC TV news folk repeatedly allow Marxists to falsely claim that the £68 billion deficit (the acceleration of the debt) is the £1.7 trillion national debt, obfuscating the problem.
I'd also like to draw attention to additional details supporting events that I briefly mentioned in the blog post itself:
On Monday 24 April 2017, the Communist Party of Great Britain issued the following historic statement, withdrawing all communist party candidates from the forthcoming 8 June 2017 general election for the first time since the 1920s:
"Our members will be campaigning for a Labour victory as the essential first step towards the formation of a Left-led government at Westminster."
These people are hardened ideologues who are experts at subtly infiltrating the system unseen to sabotage and undermine true democratic debate with fake news and fear-mongering. It is difficult to state how easy it is to underestimate the potency of their propaganda. There is a severe danger that the real democrats will be undermined by communists and their fellow travellers, disguised as democrats. Wolves in sheep's clothing. The communists will not campaign under the hammer and sickle. They will move under false flags. Never underestimate this vicious, hypocritical, demonic enemy:
"We sometimes need to remind ourselves that communists are not pie-in-the-sky idealists but proponents of an ideology that leads to mass slaughter and the destruction of freedom and democracy. Communism is merely another form of totalitarianism. For every Hitler there is a Stalin. For every Idi Amin there is a Hugo Chavez. ... at a celebration in 2014 of the 35th anniversary of the Ayatollah's seizing power in Iran ... Corbyn spoke on 'the case for Iran', alongside the British representative of Mahdi Army militia, a group which between 2004-8 killed at least 70 British soldiers in Iraq. ... in November 2012 he [Corbyn] hosted a meeting in Parliament with Mousa Abu Maria, a member of the banned terrorist group Palestiiian Islamic Jihad. He [Corbyn] has attended events run by Paul Eisen, a notorious Holocaust denier. ... And he sponsored the visit to Britain of anti-semitic hate preacher Sheikh Raed Salah. Salah says that 9/11 was a Jewish plot ... he calls Jewish people 'monkeys' and 'bacteria'. ... When the government tried to have Salah banned from Britain, Mr Corbyn described him as 'a very honoured citizen who represents his people very well' ..."
- Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 26 April 2017, page 12.
By STEPHEN POLLARD PUBLISHED: 07:37, Sat, Jun 3, 2017 | UPDATED: 10:52, Sat, Jun 3, 2017
MOST of the focus on Labour has been on Jeremy Corbyn. A man who has hailed terrorists as “friends”, who stood in silence to commemorate IRA murderers and who lays wreaths at the graves of the Munich Olympic terrorists has no business being in Parliament, let alone Downing Street. But the people underneath him should also concern us: the likes of John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry. ...
Ms Thornberry, who has been turned from a nonentity into shadow foreign secretary solely because the able Labour MPs have refused to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, was sacked by Ed Miliband for a sneering tweet of a home draped with a England flag.
... Mr McDonnell would have a far worse fate in mind. On May Day he spoke in front of banners of Syrian President Assad’s Baath Party and the hammer and sickle of a Stalinist faction of the Communist Party. Mr McDonnell says: “You can’t change the world through the parliamentary system.” In 2006 he made clear that his membership of the Labour Party has only ever been “a tactic” to advance his ideology of revolutionary socialism. So it should surprise no one that in 2012 he praised rioters who two years before had been arrested for “kicking the s*** out of Milbank” as “the best of our movement”. ...
Then there’s Mr Corbyn’s ex, Diane Abbott. In 1984, as a Labour councillor, she said: “Though I was born here in London I couldn’t identify as British.” In the same interview she said that the Irish struggle “is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” And Ms Abbott was caught out not having a clue how much a Labour pledge would cost. Speaking to Nick Ferrari about the cost of 10,000 new police officers she first claimed it would cost £300,000 – £30 per police officer. Then she said: “Haha, no. I mean... sorry. They will cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million.” When it was pointed out this would mean an annual salary of £8,000 she got even more confused. ...
The May 2017 Manchester bomber's mother is a nuclear scientist. The "idea" of Corbyn that "education" can combat terrorism is pathetic, because it is debunked by the hard facts:
"Peddling their narrative of Muslim victimhood they continually make excuses for the jihadists and pin the blame for terrorism on western societies. According to their warped analysis, violent radicalism is caused not by a barbaric, supremacist dogma but by deprivation, inequality, poor housing, unemployment or lack of education. In the wake of the Brussels massacre there has been a barrage of such rhetoric ...
"Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden came from an incredibly rich family, whose wealth was estimated in 2009 at more than £5 billion. The perpetrator of the massacre on the Tunisian beach [in 2015] in which 38 people died, was a university electrical engineering student ... A report from MI5 in 2011 revealed that 2/3rds of British terror suspects were from middle-class backgrounds. 'There is no simplistic relationship between poverty and involvement with Islamic extremism,' said the report. ...
"The apologists always screech that 'education' is the way to combat jihadism but that is just another attempt to evade reality. In fact, a high level of education is one of the distinguishing features of extremists. One global study found that no fewer than 48% of jihadists around the world has been through some kind of higher education. Both the killers of Lee Rigby attended Greenwich University, while Tarik Hussane ... was a medical student [for what it's worth, Syrian civil war butcher Assad is a London trained medical doctor; Stalin trained as a Priest; Mussolini was a communist newspaper editor before becoming a fascist; while Hitler won an Iron Cross in WWI]. ... Bilal Abdullah, the leader of the Glasgow airport attack in 2007, was an NHS doctor ... multiculturalism has been a disastrous failure, promoting social disintegration and the import of extremism."
- Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 4 April 2016, page 12.
Corbyn's lying ability is on a par with the string theorists, Hitler, Stalin, and other mad ranters who persuade themselves of their profundity. He always rants out the propaganda lies with a dressing of moral superiority, reminding you of the last Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, when he ranted that his own party voter Gillian Duffy was "just a bigoted woman" merely because she proved him wrong! That says it all. Thugs are endorsed by a large fan base of nasty Nazi minded terrorists, who try to scare and threaten people into supporting the leader.
At 9:16 pm,
unilateral disarmament peacenik said...
Jeremy Corbyn has a peace plan that cannot fail. It's called unilateral disarmament. For terrorism, we disarm all Christians so that terrorists will feel no threat from us. Oh, yes, removing all the arms will only prevent fist fights, so we have to remove legs to, preventing kick boxing. This will diffuse tensions and encourage other people to follow us! Utopia.
"... It is possible to trace the birth of distorted PC multicultural thinking back to October 2000, when the liberal think tank the Runnymede Trust published a report called The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain. The report, commissioned by the equality and human rights guru Trevor Phillips, urged that Britain should become a “community of communities” in which each community would respect the other by avoiding causing offence. He fell for it hook, line and sinker. When one writer dared to criticise the report Phillips compared his article to the “jottings from the BNP leader’s weblog”. In other words, racism.
"But much to his credit Phillips had a Damascene conversion, assuming I’m allowed to use a Christian analogy. He dramatically called for the end of multiculturalism and demanded that “a core of Britishness” be asserted. Today he says of the report: “It would be fair to say that I made a big mistake. It was a clear statement that some groups can play by their own rules.” Inevitably, Phillips was pilloried for telling the truth. Red Ken Livingstone said Phillips had swung so far to the Right he would soon be joining the BNP. In today’s shameful PC climate good men are expected to hold their tongues and the human rights lobby holds sway."
Just a humble observation: Ken Livingstone, who hates Jews so much he was suspended from the Labour Party (after much pressure on his friend, the equally bad Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn), and who was known during Marxism crazed time as Leader of London County Council in the 1980s as "Red Ken", was elected Mayor of London afterwards. Now London has another Mayor of similar "political correctness" aka horseshit. Multiculturalism is divisive, it is the cause of civil wars around the world, it is the opposite of British integration, it breeds disrespect and hatred, it is segregation, it results in apartheid which causes racism, suspicion, fear and anger. Until someone is allowed to broadcast the facts on TV and answer back at the "racist" slurs used to defend terrorism, terrorism won't be stopped.
In the book, "Anti-Imperialism: a Guide for the Movement" (Bookmarks, 2003, 280 pages), Jeremy Corbyn claims that nuclear weapons are unnecessary because the USSR was "no real threat" (far from being a threat, he wanted Communists to replace what he called British Imperialism), and claimed:
"Branding a state as a 'rogue state' has been a pretext for undermining the state ... The declaration of North Korea as some kind of threat is, in a sense, a pretext for stepping up economic and military pressure on that country ... to weaken, if not destroy, the North Korean economy in order to ultimately force some kind of integration between North and South Korea. Then we may see the spread of free market capitalism into North Korea." (Emphasis added.)
Note the hatred by Corbyn of the idea that North and South Korea should be integrated by capitalism; he hates integration and peace, preferring instead division, fear and misery.
On 18 May 2002 in Trafalgar Square, Jeremy Corbyn together with Anjem Choudary of the now-outlawed al-Muhajiroun jihadist group (which inspired the London Bridge attackers Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane, as well as the 2013 murders of Lee Rigby, namely Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale), both ranted anti-Israel hatred to a crowd of 8,000 (as assessed by police). The Weekly Worker newspaper stated of this 18 May 2002 event:
"Al-Muhajiroun chanted 'Skud, Skud Israel', and 'Gas, gas Tel Aviv', along with their support for Bin Laden. Two would-be suicide posers were dressed in combat fatigues with a 'bomb' strapped to their waists."
Anjem Choudary was the leader of terrorist support group al-Muhajiroun, which was outlawed in 2005.
If you want to attack one religion for failing to stop criminals, you should do the same to any other religions that provide cover. The BBC hypocritically exposes abuses in the Catholic Church as failures of "the Catholic Church", but it bends over backwards to try to put imaginary distance between the abusers of Islam and the Islamic religion itself. The hypocrisy here is the partiality, the bias and the inequality of the BBC.
"I think if you are a member of a group which has some extremists in it who carry out terrorism, then eventually you are associated with that, eventually you have to ask whether you are being tarnished and whether verbally denying support for the extremists is really enough. For example, only a small percentage of Nazis actually committed evil acts, but the whole lot were tarnished and the organisations were banned as a result."
There comes a time when "the game isn't worth the candle", to use an old expression of relevance to Britain's future if Corbyn is elected and succeeds in bringing the country back to the stone age, while he is absorbed with his collection of man-hole covers and sycophantic lunatics. When you ban criticisms of Islam on the basis that such criticisms are "offensive", or "Islamophobic", then you're paranoid, illiberal, and pandering to prejudice just the way Chamberlain did with racist terrorists in 1938. But worse than that, by banning all justified criticisms of thin-skinned racist terrorist thugs and their fellow-travelling flock of "Four legs good, two legs better"-chanting sheep (see Orwell's "Animal Farm"), you are giving justification to terrorism.
If you say that Western "imperialist" values are bad because they led to 9/11, you are justifying that terrorism. This is what Jeremy Corbyn does, although he claims using lies that he isn't justifying terrorism: the fact is, like the BBC, Jeremy Corbyn is effectively inviting terrorism by means of telling the terrorists that Western criticisms of Islam are a just cause for it. This is simply not true. The cause of terrorism is not Western resistance to terrorism. The "hate crime against liberal freedom" is the crime of killing liberal freedom by banning it on the pretext that evil-supporters are "offended" by truth; it is not true that genuine criticisms of any religion "explain" or "cause" terrorism.
Jeremy Corbyn isn’t anti-war. He’s just anti-West And his inability to state his true beliefs defines his leadership of the Labour party Nick Cohen
Before the bodies in Paris’s restaurants were cold, Jeremy Corbyn’s Stop the War Coalition knew who the real villains were — and they were not the Islamists who massacred civilians. ‘Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East’ ran a headline on its site. The article went on to say that the consequence of the West’s ‘decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention’.
This flawless example of what I once called the ‘kill us, we deserve it’ school of political analysis takes us to the heart of Corbyn’s beliefs. Even his opponents have yet to appreciate the malign double standards of the new Labour party, though they ought to be clear for all to see by now.
I think you are wrong concerning the propaganda from Corbyn's Marxist support groups like CND, the Communist Party, and Momentum. What's really important is the divide-and-rule "cultural warfare" tactics such as one-sided comedians. The BBC commissions endless anti-Conservative comedians like Ian Hislop, Jimmy Carr, and their associates, but wouldn't dream of making fun of Corbyn's anti-Jew propaganda and Corbyn's pro-terrorist propaganda.
Imagine that Prime Minister Theresa May had, like Jeremy Corbyn, given speeches at rally's supporting the IRA and the people behind recent terrorist attacks. She would be pilloried by BBC comedians as a terrorist supporting evil monster. But that doesn't happen to Corbyn. That fact says it all about the hypocrisy behind the "cultural warfare" being waged by Corbyn's fan base. Theresa May and her advisers simply ignore it, just as they ignore the fact that over 70% of immigrant terrorist sympathisers actually end up voting for Jeremy Corbyn.
This apathy towards fighting Marxist "cultural war" is the Conservative's main problem.
Thanks, I think that's a worthwhile criticism. Cultural warfare by Marxist-fascist saturation of the "liberal arts" is probably as important as their pseudo-science such as eugenics, Marxist economics, climate fear mongering, and nuclear weapons fear mongering. The refusal of Conservatives to expose the fear-mongering agenda of the Marxist-fascist rabble-rouser is deplorable.
Frederick Forsyth wrote yesterday (Daily Express, 9 June 2017, page 13):
"The BBC stopped a torrent of flak from the rest of the media last week for the biased audience in the so-called leaders' debate. I mean the one where seven party leaders faced each other (with Amber Rudd deputising for Theresa May). The complaint was that the audience was rowdily anti-conservatice. ... It had tasked the polling agency ComRes to choose an audience that could be expected to support the seven party hierarchs in equal and balanced proportions. So why the unstinting barracking, heckling and slagging off of Ms Rudd ... The Tory voters listened politely to the left-of-centre five, even while disagreeing with them. The pro-Labour claque behaved like a pro-guillotine mob in the French Revolution [or even the October 1917 Red Revolution in Russia]. This was the reason the whole audience seemed biased. That is the shape of modern politics. Those who believe in fair play and common manners tend to vote Tory; apart from a few intellectuals, the rabble tend to vote hard-Left. ... Extremists prefer to be part of a chanting mob."
Wrong, Frederick Forsyth (he also predicted wrongly a "solid if not landslide majority in the Commons for Mrs May" in the same column, written on Wednesday 7 June and published 9 June). It is worse than he thinks:
1. The ComRes audience research has to assume that the people volunteering to be audience members in debates are really telling the truth about their voting intentions (ComRes does not spy on them in voting booths to check they are telling the truth). Thus, fanatically pro-Corbyn Momentum Marxists and unemployed Communist Party terrorists with time on their hands can easily infiltrate these debates to heckle reasoned arguments for the TV cameras.
2. The use of seven party members with equal time and equal audience fan numbers is not representative of the country, because of mob rule: the six out-of-power "leaders" and their fans simply unite and thereby gang up as a 6-against-1 majority or 6/7 mob, in other words almost 86% of the TV panel and audience against the elected leader. This means that the elected leader and their supporters are in a 1 in 7 minority on the TV show and appear weak and unstable. The "equality" of the 7 platforms in the debate and audience is not reflective of the distribution of voters between different parties in the country!
Just a bit more about Corbyn's pathetic Marxist "Manifesto". He claims that pushing corporation tax in Britain from 19% up to 26% will give him £19.4 billion extra to spend towards free university education (a trick to get young voters to vote for him).
In reality, the Conservatives proved that you get less corporation tax if you increase the tax rate because corporations move away from Britain to places with cheaper tax. This does not just reduce the actually paid amount of tax (instead of increasing it as Corbyn lies), it also COSTS JOBS!
"... to get an idea we can look at the time when corporation tax was last at the 26% proposed by Labour. That was in 2011/12, and the tax at that level raised around £41 billion. Add on inflation and that would be around £44.5 billion today. However in fact, with the rate cut to 20%, the tax revenues have now soared to almost £50 billion a year."
- Richard Teather, https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-effect-of-labours-corporation-tax
If you want a curve on a graph using Excel, the mathematical formula this suggests is:
Actually-collected corporation tax = 487 x {corporation tax rate in %} ^ {-0.76} £billion/year
Thus, the actually collected corporation tax is not proportional to the corporation tax rate, but is almost inversely proportional to it! This "paradox" is, of course, what did-in every single Marxist, communist, or hard Socialist regime in history, from Hitler's National Socialists to the USSR. To get more tax money collected to help the poorest, you need to cut tax rates to boost productive business, job opportunities, and capitalist enterprise.
Marxists will never understand this fact. It is contrary to their whole religious dogma.
(Mrs May couldn't even be bothered to take the time and effort needed to explain this convincing to students! In the final TV debate with a student TV audience, she simply claimed in about 2 seconds that Labour's Manifesto budget was wrong, which caused jeers, and then passed on to making some kind of 1870s style rehearsed speech designed to send voters asleep. What they wanted to hear was reasoned arguments based on facts, even if she had to keep notes with facts and figures in her hands to read out to answer questions. People simply didn't want a patronising speech in the style of eighteenth century Prime Minister George Grenville, whose carelessly imposed taxation on America set off their divisive war of independence, the greatest tragedy in British history.)
(Quick note about inflation rates. All uses of generalised "inflation" numbers are quackery, since different products undergo differing changes in prices due to supply and demand. E.g., the price of chocolate has undergone less "inflation" than houses, because mass immigration causes a severe inflation due to the supply-and-demand of houses, whereas a move in preferences away from sugar and fat reduces the demand for chocolate. A single "averaged" inflation rate conversion factor is thus misleading, depending on how it is defined. Even for house prices, the inflation rates are different in different places, being highest where immigration is greatest, e.g. in hard left Corbyn cabinet "safe seat" areas in London...).
There is much in common between Theresa May's far too "over-simplified" slogan sound bite hubris-based, patronising, arrogant, "written for idiots" style in speeches and debates, and the government's similarly poorly defended, poorly argued, self-defeating civil defence and credible nuclear deterrence information. Far more details are needed to win the public over to reason, in the face of lying, evil propaganda saturation by the BBC and friends of the enemy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP, went on TV trying to downplay the current threat from Left riot mob fascist ideology by recalling that in 1832 the Duke of Wellington, the great British hero of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, had to put iron shutters on his windows to stop them being broken by rioting mobs.
They really don't seem to appreciate the real threat of revolution from the fascists. The situation they are engineering is more like Russia, October 1917, or Paris 1789, than 1832.
How to achieve peace through tested, proved and practical declassified countermeasures against the effects of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and conventional weapons. Credible deterrence through simple, effective protection against invasions and collateral damage. Discussions of the facts as opposed to inaccurate, misleading lies of the "disarm or be annihilated" political dogma variety. Hiroshima and Nagasaki anti-nuclear propaganda debunked by the hard facts. Walls not wars. Walls bring people together by stopping attacks by "divide and rule" style divisive terrorists, contrary to simplistic Vatican propaganda.
Historically, it has been proved that having weapons is not enough to guarantee a reasonable measure of safety from terrorism and rogue states; countermeasures are also needed, both to make any deterrent credible and to negate or at least mitigate the effects of a terrorist attack. Some people who wear seatbelts die in car crashes; some people who are taken to hospital in ambulances, even in peace-time, die. Sometimes, lifebelts and lifeboats cannot save lives at sea. This lack of a 100% success rate in saving lives doesn't disprove the value of everyday precautions or of hospitals and medicine. Hospitals don't lull motorists into a false sense of security, causing them to drive faster and cause more accidents. Like-minded ‘arguments’ against ABM and civil defense are similarly vacuous.
‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile-defense construction in Europe will be removed.’
‘The [ABM] treaty was in 1972 ... The theory ... supporting the ABM treaty [which prohibits ABM, thus making nations vulnerable to terrorism] ... that it will prevent an arms race ... is perfect nonsense because we have had an arms race all the time we have had the ABM treaty, and we have seen the greatest increase in proliferation of nuclear weapons that we have ever had. ... So the ABM treaty preventing an arms race is total nonsense. ...
‘The Patriot was not a failure in the Gulf War - the Patriot was one of the things which defeated the Scud and in effect helped us win the Gulf War. One or two of the shots went astray but that is true of every weapon system that has ever been invented. ...
‘President Bush said that we were going ahead with the defensive system but we would make sure that nobody felt we had offensive intentions because we would accompany it by a unilateral reduction of our nuclear arsenal. It seems to me to be a rather clear statement that proceeding with the missile defence system would mean fewer arms of this kind.
‘You have had your arms race all the time that the ABM treaty was in effect and now you have an enormous accumulation and increase of nuclear weapons and that was your arms race promoted by the ABM treaty. Now if you abolish the ABM treaty you are not going to get another arms race - you have got the arms already there - and if you accompany the missile defence construction with the unilateral reduction of our own nuclear arsenal then it seems to me you are finally getting some kind of inducement to reduce these weapons.’
Before the ABM system is in place, and afterwards if ABM fails to be 100% effective in an attack, or is bypassed by terrorists using a bomb in a suitcase or in a ship, civil defense is required and can be effective at saving lives:
‘Paradoxically, the more damaging the effect, that is the farther out its lethality stretches, the more can be done about it, because in the last fall of its power it covers vast areas, where small mitigations will save very large numbers of people.’
‘The purpose of a book is to save people [the] time and effort of digging things out for themselves. ... we have tried to leave the reader with something tangible – what a certain number of calories, roentgens, etc., means in terms of an effect on the human being. ... we must think of the people we are writing for.’
“FY 1997 Plans: ... Provide text to update Glasstone's book, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, the standard reference for nuclear weapons effects. ... Update the unclassified textbook entitled, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. ... Continue revision of Glasstone's book, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, the standard reference for nuclear weapons effects. ... FY1999 Plans ... Disseminate updated The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.”
‘During World War II many large cities in England, Germany, and Japan were subjected to terrific attacks by high-explosive and incendiary bombs. Yet, when proper steps had been taken for the protection of the civilian population and for the restoration of services after the bombing, there was little, if any, evidence of panic. It is the purpose of this book to state the facts concerning the atomic bomb, and to make an objective, scientific analysis of these facts. It is hoped that as a result, although it may not be feasible completely to allay fear, it will at least be possible to avoid panic.’
‘The consequences of a multiweapon nuclear attack would certainly be grave ... Nevertheless, recovery should be possible if plans exist and are carried out to restore social order and to mitigate the economic disruption.’
‘Suppose the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had been 1,000 times as powerful ... It could not have killed 1,000 times as many people, but at most the entire population of Hiroshima ... [regarding the hype about various nuclear "overkill" exaggerations] there is enough water in the oceans to drown everyone ten times.’
In 1996, half a century after the nuclear detonations, data on cancers from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors was published by D. A. Pierce et al. of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, RERF (Radiation Research vol. 146 pp. 1-27; Science vol. 272, pp. 632-3) for 86,572 survivors, of whom 60% had received bomb doses of over 5 mSv (or 500 millirem in old units) suffering 4,741 cancers of which only 420 were due to radiation, consisting of 85 leukemias and 335 solid cancers.
‘Today we have a population of 2,383 [radium dial painter] cases for whom we have reliable body content measurements. . . . All 64 bone sarcoma [cancer] cases occurred in the 264 cases with more than 10 Gy [1,000 rads], while no sarcomas appeared in the 2,119 radium cases with less than 10 Gy.’
‘... it is important to note that, given the effects of a few seconds of irradiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, a threshold near 200 mSv may be expected for leukemia and some solid tumors. [Sources: UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, New York, 1994; W. F. Heidenreich, et al., Radiat. Environ. Biophys., vol. 36 (1999), p. 205; and B. L. Cohen, Radiat. Res., vol. 149 (1998), p. 525.] For a protracted lifetime natural exposure, a threshold may be set at a level of several thousand millisieverts for malignancies, of 10 grays for radium-226 in bones, and probably about 1.5-2.0 Gy for lung cancer after x-ray and gamma irradiation. [Sources: G. Jaikrishan, et al., Radiation Research, vol. 152 (1999), p. S149 (for natural exposure); R. D. Evans, Health Physics, vol. 27 (1974), p. 497 (for radium-226); H. H. Rossi and M. Zaider, Radiat. Environ. Biophys., vol. 36 (1997), p. 85 (for radiogenic lung cancer).] The hormetic effects, such as a decreased cancer incidence at low doses and increased longevity, may be used as a guide for estimating practical thresholds and for setting standards. ...
‘Though about a hundred of the million daily spontaneous DNA damages per cell remain unrepaired or misrepaired, apoptosis, differentiation, necrosis, cell cycle regulation, intercellular interactions, and the immune system remove about 99% of the altered cells. [Source: R. D. Stewart, Radiation Research, vol. 152 (1999), p. 101.] ...
‘[Due to the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986] as of 1998 (according to UNSCEAR), a total of 1,791 thyroid cancers in children had been registered. About 93% of the youngsters have a prospect of full recovery. [Source: C. R. Moir and R. L. Telander, Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, vol. 3 (1994), p. 182.] ... The highest average thyroid doses in children (177 mGy) were accumulated in the Gomel region of Belarus. The highest incidence of thyroid cancer (17.9 cases per 100,000 children) occurred there in 1995, which means that the rate had increased by a factor of about 25 since 1987.
‘This rate increase was probably a result of improved screening [not radiation!]. Even then, the incidence rate for occult thyroid cancers was still a thousand times lower than it was for occult thyroid cancers in nonexposed populations (in the US, for example, the rate is 13,000 per 100,000 persons, and in Finland it is 35,600 per 100,000 persons). Thus, given the prospect of improved diagnostics, there is an enormous potential for detecting yet more [fictitious] "excess" thyroid cancers. In a study in the US that was performed during the period of active screening in 1974-79, it was determined that the incidence rate of malignant and other thyroid nodules was greater by 21-fold than it had been in the pre-1974 period. [Source: Z. Jaworowski, 21st Century Science and Technology, vol. 11 (1998), issue 1, p. 14.]’
‘Professor Edward Lewis used data from four independent populations exposed to radiation to demonstrate that the incidence of leukemia was linearly related to the accumulated dose of radiation. ... Outspoken scientists, including Linus Pauling, used Lewis’s risk estimate to inform the public about the danger of nuclear fallout by estimating the number of leukemia deaths that would be caused by the test detonations. In May of 1957 Lewis’s analysis of the radiation-induced human leukemia data was published as a lead article in Science magazine. In June he presented it before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the US Congress.’ – Abstract of thesis by Jennifer Caron, Edward Lewis and Radioactive Fallout: the Impact of Caltech Biologists Over Nuclear Weapons Testing in the 1950s and 60s, Caltech, January 2003.
Dr John F. Loutit of the Medical Research Council, Harwell, England, in 1962 wrote a book called Irradiation of Mice and Men (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London), discrediting the pseudo-science from geneticist Edward Lewis on pages 61, and 78-79:
‘... Mole [R. H. Mole, Brit. J. Radiol., v32, p497, 1959] gave different groups of mice an integrated total of 1,000 r of X-rays over a period of 4 weeks. But the dose-rate - and therefore the radiation-free time between fractions - was varied from 81 r/hour intermittently to 1.3 r/hour continuously. The incidence of leukemia varied from 40 per cent (within 15 months of the start of irradiation) in the first group to 5 per cent in the last compared with 2 per cent incidence in irradiated controls. …
‘What Lewis did, and which I have not copied, was to include in his table another group - spontaneous incidence of leukemia (Brooklyn, N.Y.) - who are taken to have received only natural background radiation throughout life at the very low dose-rate of 0.1-0.2 rad per year: the best estimate is listed as 2 x 10-6 like the others in the table. But the value of 2 x 10-6 was not calculated from the data as for the other groups; it was merely adopted. By its adoption and multiplication with the average age in years of Brooklyners - 33.7 years and radiation dose per year of 0.1-0.2 rad - a mortality rate of 7 to 13 cases per million per year due to background radiation was deduced, or some 10-20 per cent of the observed rate of 65 cases per million per year. ...
‘All these points are very much against the basic hypothesis of Lewis of a linear relation of dose to leukemic effect irrespective of time. Unhappily it is not possible to claim for Lewis’s work as others have done, “It is now possible to calculate - within narrow limits - how many deaths from leukemia will result in any population from an increase in fall-out or other source of radiation” [Leading article in Science, vol. 125, p. 963, 1957]. This is just wishful journalese.
‘The burning questions to me are not what are the numbers of leukemia to be expected from atom bombs or radiotherapy, but what is to be expected from natural background .... Furthermore, to obtain estimates of these, I believe it is wrong to go to [1950s inaccurate, dose rate effect ignoring, data from] atom bombs, where the radiations are qualitatively different [i.e., including effects from neutrons] and, more important, the dose-rate outstandingly different.’
‘From the earlier studies of radiation-induced mutations, made with fruitflies [by Nobel Laureate Hermann J. Muller and other geneticists who worked on plants, who falsely hyped their insect and plant data as valid for mammals like humans during the June 1957 U.S. Congressional Hearings on fallout effects], it appeared that the number (or frequency) of mutations in a given population ... is proportional to the total dose ... More recent experiments with mice, however, have shown that these conclusions need to be revised, at least for mammals. [Mammals are biologically closer to humans, in respect to DNA repair mechanisms, than short-lived insects whose life cycles are too small to have forced the evolutionary development of advanced DNA repair mechanisms, unlike mammals that need to survive for decades before reproducing.] When exposed to X-rays or gamma rays, the mutation frequency in these animals has been found to be dependent on the exposure (or dose) rate ...
‘At an exposure rate of 0.009 roentgen per minute [0.54 R/hour], the total mutation frequency in female mice is indistinguishable from the spontaneous frequency. [Emphasis added.] There thus seems to be an exposure-rate threshold below which radiation-induced mutations are absent ... with adult female mice ... a delay of at least seven weeks between exposure to a substantial dose of radiation, either neutrons or gamma rays, and conception causes the mutation frequency in the offspring to drop almost to zero. ... recovery in the female members of the population would bring about a substantial reduction in the 'load' of mutations in subsequent generations.’
George Bernard Shaw cynically explains groupthink brainwashing bias:
‘We cannot help it because we are so constituted that we always believe finally what we wish to believe. The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it and become blind to the arguments against it. The moment we want to disbelieve anything we have previously believed, we suddenly discover not only that there is a mass of evidence against, but that this evidence was staring us in the face all the time.’
From the essay titled ‘What is Science?’ by Professor Richard P. Feynman, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, and published in The Physics Teacher, vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-20:
‘... great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.
‘We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the South Sea Islanders’ airfields - radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners' airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. ... you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’
Richard P. Feynman, ‘This Unscientific Age’, in The Meaning of It All, Penguin Books, London, 1998, pages 106-9:
‘Now, I say if a man is absolutely honest and wants to protect the populace from the effects of radioactivity, which is what our scientific friends often say they are trying to do, then he should work on the biggest number, not on the smallest number, and he should try to point out that the [natural cosmic] radioactivity which is absorbed by living in the city of Denver is so much more serious [than the smaller doses from nuclear explosions] ... that all the people of Denver ought to move to lower altitudes.'
Feynman is not making a point about low level radiation effects, but about the politics of ignoring the massive natural background radiation dose, while provoking hysteria over much smaller measured fallout pollution radiation doses. Why is the anti-nuclear lobby so concerned about banning nuclear energy - which is not possible even in principle since most of our nuclear radiation is from the sun and from supernova debris contaminating the Earth from the explosion that created the solar system circa 4,540 million years ago - when they could cause much bigger radiation dose reductions to the population by concentrating on the bigger radiation source, natural background radiation. It is possible to shield natural background radiation by the air, e.g. by moving the population of high altitude cities to lower altitudes where there is more air between the people and outer space, or banning the use of high-altitude jet aircraft. The anti-nuclear lobby, as Feynman stated back in the 1960s, didn't crusade to reduce the bigger dose from background radiation. Instead they chose to argue against the much smaller doses from fallout pollution. Feynman's argument is still today falsely interpreted as a political statement, when it is actually exposing pseudo-science and countering political propaganda. It is still ignored by the media. It has been pointed out by Senator Hickenlooper on page 1060 of the May-June 1957 U.S. Congressional Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, The Nature of Radioactive Fallout and Its Effects on Man:
‘I presume all of us would earnestly hope that we never had to test atomic weapons ... but by the same token I presume that we want to save thousands of lives in this country every year and we could just abolish the manufacture of [road accident causing] automobiles ...’
Dihydrogen monoxide is a potentially very dangerous chemical containing hydrogen and oxygen which has caused numerous severe burns by scalding and deaths by drowning, contributes to the greenhouse effect, accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals, and contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape: 'Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.'
Protein P53, discovered only in 1979, is encoded by gene TP53, which occurs on human chromosome 17. P53 also occurs in other mammals including mice, rats and dogs. P53 is one of the proteins which continually repairs breaks in DNA, which easily breaks at body temperature: the DNA in each cell of the human body suffers at least two single strand breaks every second, and one double strand (i.e. complete double helix) DNA break occurs at least once every 2 hours (5% of radiation-induced DNA breaks are double strand breaks, while 0.007% of spontaneous DNA breaks at body temperature are double strand breaks)! Cancer occurs when several breaks in DNA happen to occur by chance at nearly the same time, giving several loose strand ends at once, which repair proteins like P53 then repair incorrectly, causing a mutation which can be proliferated somatically. This cannot occur when only one break occurs, because only two loose ends are produced, and P53 will reattach them correctly. But if low-LET ionising radiation levels are increased to a certain extent, causing more single strand breaks, P53 works faster and is able deal with faster breaks as they occur, so that multiple broken strand ends do not arise. This prevents DNA strands being repaired incorrectly, and prevents cancer - a result of mutation caused by faults in DNA - from arising. Too much radiation of course overloads the P53 repair mechanism, and then it cannot repair breaks as they occur, so multiple breaks begin to appear and loose ends of DNA are wrongly connected by P53, causing an increased cancer risk.
1. DNA-damaging free radicals are equivalent to a source of sparks which is always present naturally.
2. Cancer is equivalent the fire you get if the sparks are allowed to ignite the gasoline, i.e. if the free radicals are allowed to damage DNA without the damage being repaired.
3. Protein P53 is equivalent to a fire suppression system which is constantly damping out the sparks, or repairing the damaged DNA so that cancer doesn’t occur.
In this way of thinking, the ‘cause’ of cancer will be down to a failure of a DNA repairing enzyme like protein P53 to repair the damage.
'For the mindset that engendered and enables this situation, which jeopardizes the existence of the United States as a nation as well as the lives of millions of its citizens, some American physicians and certain prestigious medical organizations bear a heavy responsibility.
Charles J. Hitch and Roland B. McKean of the RAND Corporation in their 1960 book The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, pp. 310-57:
‘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. ... 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.’
Disarmament after World War I caused the following problem which led to World War II (reported by Winston S. Churchill in the London Daily Express newspaper of November 1, 1934):
‘Germany is arming secretly, illegally and rapidly. A reign of terror exists in Germany to keep secret the feverish and terrible preparations they are making.’
British Prime Minister Thatcher's address to the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament on 23 June 1982, where she pointed out that in the years since the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 10 million people had been killed by 140 non-nuclear conflicts:
‘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.’
J. D. Culshaw, the then Director of the U.K. Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch, stated in his article in the Scientific Advisory Branch journal Fission Fragments, September 1972 (issue No. 19), classified 'Restricted':
'Apart from those who don't want to know or can't be bothered, there seem to be three major schools of thought about the nature of a possible Third World War ...
* 'The first group think of something like World War II but a little worse ...
* '... the second of World War II but very much worse ...
* 'and the third group think in terms of a catastrophe ...
'When the Armageddon concept is in favour, the suggestion that such problems exist leads to "way out" research on these phenomena, and it is sufficient to mention a new catastrophic threat [e.g., 10 years later this was done by Sagan with "nuclear winter" hype, which turned out to be fake because modern concrete cities can't produce firestorms like 1940s wooden-built areas of Hamburg, Dresden and Hiroshima] to stimulate research into the possibilities of it arising. The underlying appeal of this concept is that if one could show that the execution of all out nuclear, biological or chemical warfare would precipitate the end of the world, no one but a mad man would be prepared to initiate such a war. [However, as history proves, plenty of mad men end up gaining power and leading countries into wars.]'
J. K. S. Clayton, then Director of the U.K. Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch, stated in his introduction, entitled The Challenge - Why Home Defence?, to the 1977 Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch Training Manual for Scientific Advisers:
'Since 1945 we have had nine wars - in Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam, between China and India, China and Russia, India and Pakistan and between the Arabs and Israelis on three occasions. We have had confrontations between East and West over Berlin, Formosa and Cuba. There have been civil wars or rebellions in no less than eleven countries and invasions or threatened invasions of another five. Whilst it is not suggested that all these incidents could have resulted in major wars, they do indicate the aptitude of mankind to resort to a forceful solution of its problems, sometimes with success. ...'
It is estimated that Mongol invaders exterminated 35 million Chinese between 1311-40, without modern weapons. Communist Chinese killed 26.3 million dissenters between 1949 and May 1965, according to detailed data compiled by the Russians on 7 April 1969. The Soviet communist dictatorship killed 40 million dissenters, mainly owners of small farms, between 1917-59. Conventional (non-nuclear) air raids on Japan killed 600,000 during World War II. The single incendiary air raid on Tokyo on 10 March 1945 killed 140,000 people (more than the total for nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) at much less than the $2 billion expense of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs! Non-nuclear air raids on Germany during World War II killed 593,000 civilians. The argument that the enemy will continue stocking megaton fallout weapons if we go to cleaner weapons is irrelevant for deterrence, since we're not planning to start war, just to credibly deter invasions. You should not try to lower your standards of warfare to those of your enemy to appease groupthink taboos, or you will end up like Britain's leaders in the 1930s, trying to collaborate with fascists for popular applause.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: ‘My Lords, if we are going into the question of lethality of weapons and seek thereby to isolate the nuclear as distinct from the so-called conventional range, is there not a danger that the public may think that Vimy, Passchendaele and Dresden were all right—sort of tea parties—and that nuclear war is something which in itself is unacceptable?’
Lord Trefgarne: ‘My Lords, the policy of making Europe, or the rest of the world, safe for conventional war is not one that I support.’
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North): ‘I remind the House that more people died at Stalingrad than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yet people talk about fighting a conventional war in Europe as if it were acceptable. One rarely sees demonstrations by the so-called peace movement against a conventional war in Europe, but it could be nothing but ghastly and horrendous. The casualties would certainly exceed those at Stalingrad, and that cannot be acceptable to anyone who wants peace’
On 29 October 1982, Thatcher stated of the Berlin Wall: ‘In every decade since the war the Soviet leaders have been reminded that their pitiless ideology only survives because it is maintained by force. But the day comes when the anger and frustration of the people is so great that force cannot contain it. Then the edifice cracks: the mortar crumbles ... one day, liberty will dawn on the other side of the wall.’
On 22 November 1990, she said: ‘Today, we have a Europe ... where the threat to our security from the overwhelming conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact has been removed; where the Berlin Wall has been torn down and the Cold War is at an end. These immense changes did not come about by chance. They have been achieved by strength and resolution in defence, and by a refusal ever to be intimidated.’
‘... peace cannot be guaranteed absolutely. Nobody can be certain, no matter what policies this or any other Government were to adopt, that the United Kingdom would never again be attacked. Also we cannot tell what form such an attack might take. Current strategic thinking suggests that if war were to break out it would start with a period of conventional hostilities of uncertain duration which might or might not escalate to nuclear conflict. ... while nuclear weapons exist there must always be a chance, however small, that they will be used against us [like gas bombs in World War II]. ... as a consequence of war between other nations in which we were not involved fall out from nuclear explosions could fall on a neutral Britain. ... conventional war is not the soft option that is sometimes suggested. It is also too easily forgotten that in World War II some 50 million people died and that conventional weapons have gone on killing people ever since 1945 without respite.’ - - The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin), House of Lords debate on Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations, Hansard, vol. 444, cc. 523-49, 1 November 1983.
‘All of us are living in the light and warmth of a huge hydrogen bomb, 860,000 miles across and 93 million miles away, which is in a state of continuous explosion.’ - Dr Isaac Asimov.
‘Dr Edward Teller remarked recently that the origin of the earth was somewhat like the explosion of the atomic bomb...’ – Dr Harold C. Urey, The Planets: Their Origin and Development, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952, p. ix.
‘But compared with a supernova a hydrogen bomb is the merest trifle. For a supernova is equal in violence to about a million million million million hydrogen bombs all going off at the same time.’ – Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), The Nature of the Universe, Pelican Books, London, 1963, p. 75.
‘In fact, physicists find plenty of interesting and novel physics in the environment of a nuclear explosion. Some of the physical phenomena are valuable objects of research, and promise to provide further understanding of nature.’ – Dr Harold L. Brode, The RAND Corporation, ‘Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects,’ Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 18, 1968, pp. 153-202.
‘It seems that similarities do exist between the processes of formation of single particles from nuclear explosions and formation of the solar system from the debris of a [4 x 1028 megatons of TNT equivalent, type Ia] supernova explosion. We may be able to learn much more about the origin of the earth, by further investigating the process of radioactive fallout from the nuclear weapons tests.’ – Dr Paul K. Kuroda (1917-2001), University of Arkansas, ‘Radioactive Fallout in Astronomical Settings: Plutonium-244 in the Early Environment of the Solar System,’ pages 83-96 of Radionuclides in the Environment: A Symposium Sponsored By the Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology At the 155th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, California, April 1-3, 1968, edited by Symposium Chairman Dr Edward C. Freiling (1922-2000) of the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, Advances in Chemistry Series No. 93, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1970.
Dr Paul K. Kuroda (1917-2001) in 1956 correctly predicted the existence of water-moderated natural nuclear reactors in flooded uranium ore seams, which were discovered in 1972 by French physicist Francis Perrin in three ore deposits at Oklo in Gabon, where sixteen sites operated as natural nuclear reactors with self-sustaining nuclear fission 2,000 million years ago, each lasting several hundred thousand years, averaging 100 kW. The radioactive waste they generated remained in situ for a period of 2,000,000,000 years without escaping. They were discovered during investigations into why the U-235 content of the uranium in the ore was only 0.7171% instead of the normal 0.7202%. Some of the ore, in the middle of the natural reactors, had a U-235 isotopic abundance of just 0.440%. Kuroda's brilliant paper is entitled, 'On the Nuclear Physical Stability of the Uranium Minerals', published in the Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 25 (1956), pp. 781–782 and 1295–1296.
A type Ia supernova explosion, always yielding 4 x 1028 megatons of TNT equivalent, results from the critical mass effect of the collapse of a white dwarf as soon as its mass exceeds 1.4 solar masses due to matter falling in from a companion star. The degenerate electron gas in the white dwarf is then no longer able to support the pressure from the weight of gas, which collapses, thereby releasing enough gravitational potential energy as heat and pressure to cause the fusion of carbon and oxygen into heavy elements, creating massive amounts of radioactive nuclides, particularly intensely radioactive nickel-56, but half of all other nuclides (including uranium and heavier) are also produced by the 'R' (rapid) process of successive neutron captures by fusion products in supernovae explosions. Type Ia supernovae occur typically every 400 years in the Milky Way galaxy. On 4 July 1054, Chinese astronomers observed in the sky (without optical instruments) the bright supernova in the constellation Taurus which today is still visible as the Crab Nebula through telescopes. The Crab Nebula debris has a diameter now of 7 light years and is still expanding at 800 miles/second. The supernova debris shock wave triggers star formation when it encounters hydrogen gas in space by compressing it and seeding it with debris; bright stars are observed in the Orion Halo, the 300 light year diameter remains of a supernova. It is estimated that when the solar system was forming 4,540 million years ago, a supernova occurred around 100 light years away, and the heavy radioactive debris shock wave expanded at 1,000 miles/second. Most of the heavy elements including iron, silicon and calcium in the Earth and people are the stable end products of originally radioactive decay chains from the space burst fallout of a 7 x 1026 megatons thermonuclear explosion, created by fusion and successive neutron captures after the implosion of a white dwarf; a supernova explosion.
How would a 1055 megaton hydrogen bomb explosion differ from the big bang? Ignorant answers biased in favour of curved spacetime (ignoring quantum gravity!) abound, such as claims that explosions can’t take place in ‘outer space’ (disagreeing with the facts from nuclear space bursts by Russia and America in 1962, not to mention natural supernova explosions in space!) and that explosions produce sound waves in air by definition! There are indeed major differences in the nuclear reactions between the big bang and a nuclear bomb. But it is helpful to notice the solid physical fact that implosion systems suggest the mechanism of gravitation: in implosion, TNT is well-known to produce an inward force on a bomb core, but Newton's 3rd law says there is an equal and opposite reaction force outward. In fact, you can’t have a radially outward force without an inward reaction force! It’s the rocket principle. The rocket accelerates (with force F = ma) forward by virtue of the recoil from accelerating the exhaust gas (with force F = -ma) in the opposite direction! Nothing massive accelerates without an equal and opposite reaction force. Applying this fact to the measured 6 x 10-10 ms-2 ~ Hc cosmological acceleration of matter radially outward from observers in the universe which was predicted accurately in 1996 and later observationally discovered in 1999 (by Perlmutter, et al.), we find an outward force F = ma and inward reaction force by the 3rd law. The inward force allows quantitative predictions, and is mediated by gravitons, predicting gravitation in a checkable way (unlike string theory, which is just a landscape of 10500 different perturbative theories and so can’t make any falsifiable predictions about gravity). So it seems as if nuclear explosions do indeed provide helpful analogies to natural features of the world, and the mainstream lambda-CDM model of cosmology - with its force-fitted unobserved ad hoc speculative ‘dark energy’ - ignores and sweeps under the rug major quantum gravity effects which increase the physical understanding of particle physics, particularly force unification and the relation of gravitation to the existing electroweak SU(2) x U(1) section of the Standard Model of fundamental forces.
Even Einstein grasped the possibility that general relativity's lambda-CDM model is at best just a classical approximation to quantum field theory, at the end of his life when he wrote to Besso in 1954:
‘I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the [classical differential equation] field principle, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [non-quantum] gravitation theory included ...’
‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ - Professor Richard P. Feynman (quoted by Professor Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, Houghton-Mifflin, New York, 2006, p. 307).
‘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
In 1896, Sir James Mackenzie-Davidson asked Wilhelm Röntgen, who discovered X-rays in 1895: ‘What did you think?’ Röntgen replied: ‘I did not think, I investigated.’ The reason? Cathode ray expert J. J. Thomson in 1894 saw glass fluorescence far from a tube, but due to prejudice (expert opinion) he avoided investigating that X-ray evidence! ‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ - Richard Feynman, in Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, Houghton-Mifflin, 2006, p. 307.
Mathematical symbols in this blog: your computer’s browser needs access to standard character symbol sets to display Greek symbols for mathematical physics. If you don’t have the symbol character sets installed, the density symbol 'r' (Rho) will appear as 'r' and the 'p' (Pi) symbol will as 'p', causing confusion with the use of 'r' for radius and 'p' for momentum in formulae. This problem exists with Mozilla Firefox 3, but not with Microsoft Explorer which displays Greek symbols.
Mean yield of the 5,192 nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed Russian nuclear stockpile as of January 2009: 0.317 Mt. Total yield: 1,646 Mt.
Mean yield of the 4,552 nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed U.S. nuclear stockpile as of January 2007: 0.257 Mt. Total yield: 1,172 Mt.
For diffraction damage where damage areas scale as the two-thirds power of explosive yield, this stockpile's area damage potential can be compared to the 20,000,000 conventional bombs of 100 kg size (2 megatons of TNT equivalent total energy) dropped on Germany during World War II: (Total nuclear bomb blast diffraction damaged ground area)/(Total conventional blast diffraction damaged ground area to Germany during World War II) = [4,552*(0.257 Mt)2/3]/[20,000,000*(0.0000001 Mt)2/3] = 1,840/431 = 4.3. Thus, although the entire U.S. stockpile has a TNT energy equivalent to 586 times that of the 2 megatons of conventional bombs dropped on Germany in World War II, it is only capable of causing 4.3 times as much diffraction type damage area, because any given amount of explosive energy is far more efficient when distributed over many small explosions than in a single large explosion! Large explosions are inefficient because they cause unintended collateral damage, wasting energy off the target area and injuring or damaging unintended targets!
In a controlled sample of 36,500 survivors, 89 people got leukemia over a 40 year period, above the number in the unexposed control group. (Data: Radiation Research, volume 146, 1996, pages 1-27.) Over 40 years, in 36,500 survivors monitored, there were 176 leukemia deaths which is 89 more than the control (unexposed) group got naturally. There were 4,687 other cancer deaths, but that was merely 339 above the number in the control (unexposed) group, so this is statistically a much smaller rise than the leukemia result. Natural leukemia rates, which are very low in any case, were increased by 51% in the irradiated survivors, but other cancers were merely increased by just 7%. Adding all the cancers together, the total was 4,863 cancers (virtually all natural cancer, nothing whatsoever to do with radiation), which is just 428 more than the unexposed control group. Hence, the total increase over the natural cancer rate due to bomb exposure was only 9%, spread over a period of 40 years. There was no increase whatsoever in genetic malformations.
‘If defense is neglected these weapons of attack become effective. They become available and desirable in the eyes of an imperialist dictator, even if his means are limited. Weapons of mass destruction could become equalizers between nations big and small, highly developed and primitive, if defense is neglected. If defense is developed and if it is made available for general prevention of war, weapons of aggression will become less desirable. Thus defense makes war itself less probable. ... One psychological defense mechanism against danger is to forget about it. This attitude is as common as it is disastrous. It may turn a limited danger into a fatal difficulty.’
Advice of Robert Watson-Watt (Chief Scientist on the World War II British Radar Project, defending Britain against enemy attacks): ‘Give them the third best to go on with, the second best comes too late, the best never comes.’
All of this data should have been published to inform public debate on the basis for credible nuclear deterrence of war and civil defense, PREVENTING MILLIONS OF DEATHS SINCE WWII, instead of dDELIBERATELY allowing enemy anti-nuclear and anti-civil defence lying propaganda from Russian supporting evil fascists to fill the public data vacuum, killing millions by allowing civil defence and war deterrence to be dismissed by ignorant "politicians" in the West, so that wars triggered by invasions with mass civilian casualties continue today for no purpose other than to promote terrorist agendas of hate and evil arrogance and lying for war, falsely labelled "arms control and disarmament for peace": "Controlling escalation is really an exercise in deterrence, which means providing effective disincentives to unwanted enemy actions. Contrary to widely endorsed opinion, the use or threat of nuclear weapons in tactical operations seems at least as likely to check [as Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as to promote the expansion of hostilities [providing we're not in a situation of Russian biased arms control and disarmament whereby we've no tactical weapons while the enemy has over 2000 neutron bombs thanks to "peace" propaganda from Russian thugs]." - Bernard Brodie, pvi of Escalation and the nuclear option, RAND Corp memo RM-5444-PR, June 1965.
Update (19 January 2024): Jane Corbin of BBC TV is continuing to publish ill-informed nuclear weapons capabilities nonsense debunked here since 2006 (a summary of some key evidence is linked here), e.g. her 9pm 18 Jan 2024 CND biased propaganda showpiece Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We? https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001vgq5/nuclear-armageddon-how-close-are-we which claims - from the standpoint of 1980s Greenham Common anti-American CND propaganda - that the world would be safer without nuclear weapons, despite the 1914-18 and 1939-45 trifles that she doesn't even bother to mention, which were only ended with nuclear deterrence. Moreover, she doesn't mention the BBC's Feb 1927 WMD exaggerating broadcast by Noel-Baker which used the false claim that there is no defence against mass destruction by gas bombs to argue for UK disarmament, something that later won him a Nobel Peace Prize and helped ensure the UK had no deterrent against the Nazis until too late to set off WWII (Nobel peace prizes were also awarded to others for lying, too, for instance Norman Angell whose pre-WWI book The Great Illusion helped ensure Britain's 1914 Liberal party Cabinet procrastinated on deciding what to do if Belgium was invaded, and thus failed deter the Kaiser from triggering the First World War!). The whole basis of her show was to edit out any realism whatsoever regarding the topic which is the title of her programme! No surprise there, then. Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia are currently designing the W93 nuclear warhead for SLBM's to replace the older W76 and W88, and what she should do next time is to address the key issue of what that design should be to deter dictators without risking escalation via collateral damage: "To enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of our nuclear forces as directed in the 2018 NPR, we will pursue two supplemental capabilities to existing U.S. nuclear forces: a low-yield SLBM warhead (W76-2) capability and a modern nuclear sea launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) to address regional deterrence challenges that have resulted from increasing Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities. These supplemental capabilities are necessary to correct any misperception an adversary can escalate their way to victory, and ensure our ability to provide a strategic deterrent. Russia’s increased reliance on non-treaty accountable strategic and theater nuclear weapons and evolving doctrine of limited first-use in a regional conflict, give evidence of the increased possibility of Russia’s employment of nuclear weapons. ... The NNSA took efforts in 2019 to address a gap identified in the 2018 NPR by converting a small number of W76-1s into the W76-2 low-yield variant. ... In 2019, our weapon modernization programs saw a setback when reliability issues emerged with commercial off-the-shelf non-nuclear components intended for the W88 Alteration 370 program and the B61-12 LEP. ... Finally, another just-in-time program is the W80-4 LEP, which remains in synchronized development with the LRSO delivery system. ... The Nuclear Weapons Council has established a requirement for the W93 ... If deterrence fails, our combat-ready force is prepared now to deliver a decisive response anywhere on the globe ..." - Testimony of Commander Charles Richard, US Strategic Command, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 13 Feb 2020. This issue of how to use nuclear weapons safely to deter major provocations that escalate to horrific wars is surely is the key issue humanity should be concerned with, not the CND time-machine of returning to a non-nuclear 1914 or 1939! Corbin doesn't address it; she uses debunked old propaganda tactics to avoid the real issues and the key facts.
For example, Corbin quotes only half a sentence by Kennedy in his TV speech of 22 October 1962: "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", and omits the second half of the sentence, which concludes: "requiring a full retalitory response upon the Soviet Union." Kennedy was clearly using US nuclear superiority in 1962 to deter Khrushchev from allowing the Castro regime to start any nuclear war with America! By chopping up Kennedy's sentence, Corbin juggles the true facts of history to meet the CND agenda of "disarm or be annihilated." Another trick is her decision to uncritically interview CND biased anti-civil defense fanatics like the man (Professor Freedman) who got Bill Massey of the Sunday Express to water down my article debunking pro-war CND type "anti-nuclear" propaganda lies on civil defense in 1995! Massey reported to me that Freedman claimed civil defense is no use against a H-bomb, which he claims is cheaper than dirt cheap shelters, exactly what Freedman wrote in his deceptive letter published in the 26 March 1980 Times newspaper: "for far less expenditure the enemy could make a mockery of all this by increasing the number of attacking weapons", which completely ignores the Russian dual-use concept of simply adding blast doors to metro tubes and underground car parks, etc. In any case, civil defense makes deterrence credible as even the most hard left wingers like Duncan Campbell acknowledged on page 5 of War Plan UK (Paladin Books, London, 1983): "Civil defence ... is a means, if need be, of putting that deterrence policy, for those who believe in it, into practical effect."
33 Comments:
Nigel:
You have failed to explain Jeremy Corbyn's rationale for supporting terrorists.
1. Jeremy Corbyn defines criminals and terrorists as being "victims themselves".
2. Jeremy Corbyn then "shows solidarity with victims (criminals and terrorists)."
What annoys me is that the TV "news media", e.g. the BBC, endlessly restates allegations about Trump that he is trying to avoid world war 3 by making business with RUSSIA, which has thousands of nuclear warheads, yet it refuses to probe Jeremy Corbyn's terrorist connections.
It's so biased that it's effectively supporting a racist, fascist bigot who lies about civil defence. There is a guy at Harvard University who publishes deceptive nuclear weapons effects data that was discredited on this blog years ago, and also a ranting hate attack about Richard Feynman, but he's a relatively nice guy when compared to the kind of absolutely horrible people in England who are supporting fascism today.
God help the world if he is elected Prime Minister on 8 June 2017. There have been quite a few surprise election results lately, so we really don't know what will happen in the election. If the recent so-called "Islamic State" bombings lead to some retaliation attacks on the community which supported the terrorists, then Corbyn might be elected Prime Minister by promising to win a Nobel Peace Prize, walk on water, resurrect the dead, etc.
The future is unpredictable, so I think we should be prepared for every possibility.
I also hope that the MI5 files on Jeremy Corbyn's terrorist links are fully declassified and published BEFORE voting day, so democracy can be informed as fully as possible. See the following news, published on 19 May 2017 about Corbyn, MI5, and terrorism:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy-corbyn-amid-concerns-ira-links/
News
Exclusive: MI5 opened file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his IRA links
Claire Newell Hayley Dixon Luke Heighton Harry Yorke, online education editor
19 MAY 2017 • 9:00PM
MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA, The Telegraph has discovered.
The Labour leader was investigated over fears that he could have been a threat to national security at a time when he was supporting convicted terrorists and campaigning for a unified Ireland.
The revelations come as a Telegraph investigation reveals Mr Corbyn’s full links to the IRA, including his support for one of the Balcombe Street gang who waged a 14-month bombing campaign across south-east England, and his links to the bomb maker believed to have been behind the Hyde Park and Regent's Park devices.
Mr Corbyn also shared a platform with a wanted IRA killer and John McDonnell, his shadow Chancellor, claimed that the pair of them used to “pin people against the wall” in the House of Commons to lobby them on behalf of Ireland.
It was against the background of his support for the Republican cause that MI5 began looking into Mr Corbyn’s activities, and a source close to the investigation confirmed that a file had been opened on him by the early Nineties.
The source told The Telegraph: "If there was a file on someone, it meant they had come to notice. We opened a temporary file and did a preliminary investigation. It was then decided whether we should open a permanent file on them".
A file would be opened on "someone who sympathises with a certain group, or is friends with a specific person" and the purpose was to “assess whether the person was a threat", the source added.
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was also monitoring the future Labour leader at around the same time, but it is unclear if the intelligence was shared.
Peter Francis, the undercover officer turned whistle-blower, has revealed that the force secretly compiled files on Mr Corbyn and nine other MPs which detailed their political beliefs, personal background and any demonstrations that they attended.
He was personally asked to collect information on the Islington North MP as he infiltrated anti-racist groups in the Nineties, he said.
The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit said: “I think it just marks him out as what he clearly is: a hard-Left, Marxist, terrorist sympathiser. It leaves him very comfortable in the company of McDonnell, who, as we know, said that they will gain power not through Parliament but on the streets and the picket lines.”
It's worth remembering that the IRA were behind the 3,300 lb bombing of Manchester's Arndale shopping centre causing 200 casualties on 15 June 1996, long after Corbyn had been associated with IRA terrorists.
It's also worth bring up the fact that the IRA killed two children with a bomb in Warrington, England, on 20 March 1993.
On the topic of Corbyn's switch from IRA terrorism to support for so-called Islamic bombers (calling Hamas, Hezbollah "friends" and accepting money from an Iranian TV show that is banned in the UK because it used torture tactics), it's worth remembering that 52 people were murdered by by four suicide bombers in London on 7 July 2005.
I know that a lot of Corbyn's supporters don't want to think about the connection of Corbyn to terrorism, but I think the public deserves to be fully informed about what is going on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/21/growing-row-jeremy-corbyns-links-ira-refuses-five-times-condemn/
News
Growing row over Jeremy Corbyn's links to the IRA as he refuses five times to condemn the militant group
Kate McCann, senior political correspondent
21 MAY 2017 • 10:00PM
Jeremy Corbyn's links to the IRA were at the centre of a growing row after he repeatedly refused to condemn the actions of Republican terrorists.
The Labour leader was asked five times to denounce the IRA yesterday but chose instead to state his opposition to "all bombing".
When asked if he could unequivocally condemn the IRA, Mr Corbyn said: " No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned."
It can also be revealed that Mr Corbyn was heavily involved with London Labour Briefing - a hard-left magazine which celebrated the Brighton bomb and joked about the death of Conservative MPs.
Evidence emerged yesterday that Mr Corbyn was involved in the magazine, which praised the bomb designed to kill Margaret Thatcher in an article that read: "The British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it" and "What do you call four dead Tories? A start".
On Saturday the Daily Telegraph revealed that MI5 had opened a file on Mr Corbyn amid concern over his links to the IRA.
Yesterday his refusal to distance himself from the terror organisation, coupled with the revelation that he was linked to London Labour Briefing, drew criticism from veterans, rivals and Labour candidates who fear it will distract from the party's message to voters.
Alan Barry, the co-founder of Justice for Northern Ireland Veterans, called the Labour leader an "odious individual" while the security minister Ben Wallace, who saw service in the country, said Mr Corbyn "has spent a lifetime siding with Britain’s enemies."
What is most chilling of the news reports I linked to in this blog post is the fascist-type refusal of Corbyn's racist ideologues movement, called Momentum, to even bother to answer questions or respond to critics (if they do that in Government, we're totally done-in-for):
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6
Jeremy Corbyn was paid by an Iranian state TV station that was complicit in the forced confession of a tortured journalist
Adam Payne
Jul. 2, 2016, 12:09 PM 65,331
Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 (about $27,000) for appearances on the Iranian state broadcast network Press TV — a channel that was banned in the UK for its part in filming the detention and torture of an Iranian journalist.
Corbyn was paid for appearances on Press TV five times between 2009 and 2012, according to his register of interests, available at this online House of Commons database.
Corbyn's final Press TV appearance was six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari. Ofcom is the government's TV regulatory body which sets rules for UK broadcasters. Bahari told Business Insider that while he was detained by Iranian authorities he was tortured and threatened with execution before he agreed to read out a pre-agreed script on Iranian television, filmed by Press TV.
A spokesperson for Corbyn told Business Insider, "We don't comment on historical matters." [EMPHASIS ADDED!]
... During the period between the year of Corbyn's first appearance and his last, for example, Iran hanged at least 1,314 people, according to Amnesty International. It is a place where the rights of women, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities are harshly curtailed. In 2011, the year of Corbyn's third appearance, three Iranian men were executed for homosexuality. An Amnesty International report released last year said that Sunni Muslims and Kurdish political prisoners have been executed for bringing "corruption" to the world.
NC: Well at least we know what "human rights", "peace", "liberalism", "compassion", and "freedom" mean in Corbyn's Orwellian Doublethink Dictionary. When he - and all his pseudo-liberal friends in Brussels, the lawyers of the East Coast of the USA, and also in the terrorist-backing enclaves of his fan base - claim to be supporting human rights, peace, liberalism etc., they're up to the same propaganda tricks as the USSR gulag torture system. What they mean by "peace" is war. What they mean by "liberalism" is torture. What they mean by "human rights" is hatred towards the innocent. What they mean by "compassion" is standing shoulder to shoulder with a terrorist who has murdered innocent human beings.
Note by author of this blog post: I just want to respond to some rants I've heard from some of my "friends" who claim that Jeremy Corbyn and CND are bona fide "people of principle".
What "principle"? The principle of bombing innocent people? The principle of torture? The principle of refusing to admit to making mistakes? The principle of bigotry? The principle of intolerance to justified criticisms? The principle of fascism? What bloody principle? Tell me what "principle" you are claiming Jeremy Corbyn to be a a person of, for a start! Hitler was claimed to be a "man of principle" such as a "peacemaker" and a hater of Jews. That doesn't prove Jeremy Corbyn to be right. It's plainly gibberish, waffle, hogwash, lies.
Next, some friends have assumed my "politics" is the opposite of Jeremy Corbyn's. Again, what "politics"? I've repeatedly explained on this blog for years that party politics is no substitute for genuine democracy, which is (as in Ancient Greece where "democracy" originated) referendums on individual issues, not a once-every-five-years selection of a party with a collection of various "policies", some of which you agree with and some of which you don't. For the record, "borrowing you way out of debt" socialism party politics have proved failures in practice, because they have led to bankrupcy and misery every time.
For thugs who are obsessed with petty party politics, here's something you thugs will enjoy reading: a GUARDIAN left wing (pro Corbyn) article about current Prime Minister Theresa May - who as Home Secretary in Cameron's government struggled for years against the lawyers of the European Union's fascist EUROPEAN COURT OF "HUMAN RIGHTS" to deport terrorism preacher Abu Hamza, who was incited terrorists to murder innocent people:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum
EU referendum and Brexit
UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May
Critics condemn home secretary’s remarks, which put her on collision course with cabinet colleagues
Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason
Monday 25 April 2016 19.54 BST First published on Monday 25 April 2016 12.30 BST
Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.
The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.
May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.
“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.
“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”
So that's something for you to cherish, from your pseudo-liberal fascist newspaper writers. Cheers.
Meet your new Dr Goebbels propaganda minister if Marx is elected come 8 June 2017:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11951587/Seumas-Milne-will-finish-Labour-off.html
Seumas Milne will finish Labour off
Milne is an apologist for terror, and wrong on almost everything
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's new communications chief
By Kate Godfrey
6:09PM BST 23 Oct 2015
I am Labour through and through. Yet over the last couple of days, thousands of people have told me that I should leave the party. What did I do to attract such attention? What was it I did that made people so angry?
I wrote something. Not an article, so much as a raggedly little statement of feeling that just happened to be shared by thousands. A statement of disappointment and of anger that Jeremy Corbyn has appointed as his key adviser a one-time Stalinist called Seumas Milne. And I stand by it. I hold no brief for Milne. It kills me that Labour does. I think Milne is an apologist for terror, and will always be an apologist for terror. I think that he never met a truth he didn’t dismiss as an orthodoxy and that nowhere in his far-Left polemic are actual people represented.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11944144/Jeremy-Corbyn-appoints-top-advisor-who-once-defended-terrorism.html
Jeremy Corbyn appoints top advisor who once defended terrorism
Seumas Milne, a left-wing journalist who commissioned articles by Osama bin Laden, is the Labour leader's new communications chief
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's new communications chief
By Kate McCann, Senior Political Correspondent
7:12PM BST 20 Oct 2015
Jeremy Corbyn has appointed a senior aide who defended terrorists and praised the "armed resistance" which killed British soldiers in Iraq.
Seumas Milne, who is Mr Corbyn's new Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, spoke of the so-called "resistance movement" and its success at forcing "occupation troops" out of Iraqi cities in an article in 2004.
He wrote: "The resistance war can of course be cruel, but the innocent deaths it has been responsible for pale next to the toll inflicted by the occupiers", adding that armed terror groups were responsible for "Iraq's real war of liberation".
It followed his claim that Americans "can't see why they're hated", written just two days after terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers killing almost 3,000 people.
The left-wing Guardian commentator is understood to have resolved talks about his contract with the party, which had been ongoing for weeks.
A senior Labour source said that there has been opposition to the appointment from top party bosses, amid concerns that Mr Milne will be "difficult to control".
A party spokesman confirmed the appointment on Tuesday, adding: "Seumas joins the Labour Leader’s office on leave from the Guardian where he is a columnist and associate editor. He will take up his position on 26th October 2015".
The former Comment editor of the Guardian between 2001 and 2007 once gave a byline to terrorist Osama Bin Laden by reproducing text from a taped speech on the newspaper's website.
Osama Bin Laden was given a byline on the Guardian website by Milne Photo: AP
And in a post Mr Milne wrote on September 13 2001, just two days after the 9/11 terror attacks he said: "Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty.
"But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent.
"Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world."
He added: "If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming."
… In another article from 2014 titled "A real counterweight to US power is a global necessity", the left-wing columnist appeared to praise Russia's intervention in Ukraine as a check on US global power….
In a further post Mr Milne claimed soldier Lee Rigby's death wasn't "terrorism in the normal sense" because Mr Rigby had been a member of the armed forces.
He wrote: "Rigby was a British soldier who had taken part in multiple combat operations in Afghanistan. So the attack wasn't terrorism in the normal sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians."
Stalinist Seaumas Milne also lies about Stalin's role in motivating Hitler to invade Poland in September 1939 by Stalin's agreement with Hitler to jointly invade Poland (Hitler did not take the decision to start WWII by invading Poland without Stalin's help):
"Nor did the Soviet Union launch the most bloody and destructive war in human history..."
- Seaumas Milne, "The Revenge of History", page 41.
This is of course a complete lie, but it is maintained by Stalinist "educationists" in Russian textbooks! The truth is, Stalin and Hitler both invaded Poland in September 1939, Hitler invading Poland from the West, and Stalin invading Poland from the East. It was the comradeship of Stalin which led Hitler to his biggest evil, under the terms of the August 1939 German-Soviet Pact. Milne ignores this truth, because it doesn't fit in with his lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Soviet invasion of Poland
The Soviet invasion of Poland was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939. On that morning, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on 6 October 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.[7] The joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland was secretly agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939.[8]
The Red Army, which vastly outnumbered the Polish defenders, achieved its targets by using strategic and tactical deception. Some 230,000 Polish prisoners of war had been captured.[4][9] The campaign of mass persecution in the newly acquired areas began immediately. In November 1939 the Soviet government ostensibly annexed the entire Polish territory under its control. Some 13.5 million Polish citizens who fell under the military occupation were made into new Soviet subjects following mock elections conducted by the NKVD secret police in the atmosphere of terror,[10][11] the results of which were used to legitimize the use of force. The Soviet campaign of ethnic cleansing began with the wave of arrests and summary executions of officers, policemen and priests.[Note 5][12][13] Over the next year and a half, the Soviet NKVD sent hundreds of thousands of people from eastern Poland to Siberia and other remote parts of the Soviet Union in four major waves of deportation between 1939 and 1941.[Note 6]
At least one of the 1980s terrorist supporters in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet now seems to be partly listening to criticism, and while failing to apologise for backing terrorism, claims to have "moved on" (presumably moved on from supporting the IRA to supporting ISIS):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/28/general-election-2017-latest-news-polls-analysis/
Diane Abbott refuses to denounce IRA in bizarre TV interview: 'I used to have an Afro. The hairstyle is gone, the views are gone.'
By Laura Hughes, political correspondent
28 MAY 2017 • 11:46AM
"Diane Abbott has tried to distance herself from claims she supported the IRA by suggesting both her hairstyles and views have changed over the years.
"The shadow home secretary said she had "moved on" from remarks she made in the 1980s when she declared her support for the IRA and claimed "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us"."
More news about Shadow Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn's obsession with supporting terrorist murders:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/27/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-blamed-iras-poppy-day-massacre-british/
By Ben Riley-Smith, assistant political editor
27 MAY 2017 • 10:00PM
"Jeremy Corbyn blamed one of the IRA’s most notorious bombings on Britain’s “occupation” of Northern Ireland, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal."
https://order-order.com/2016/12/14/new-corbyn-aide-closely-linked-convicted-ira-terrorists/
"Jeremy Corbyn’s new Sinn Fein aide Jayne Fisher has close links to a string of convicted IRA terrorists, Guido can reveal. Fisher is the former head of Sinn Fein’s London office. In 2009 she was filmed singing alongside Brendan “Bik” MacFarlane, an IRA member who was jailed for a bombing and machine gun attack on a bar in Belfast which killed five civilians.
"[YOUTUBE VIDEO] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSNxlLBnd_s [video showing: Corbyn aide Jayne Fisher sings with IRA terrorist Bik Macfarlane]
"Guido has also found a photo of Fisher (below centre right) in 2012 with Owen Jones and Sinn Fein MLA Jennifer McCann (below centre left), who served ten years for shooting an RUC police officer:
https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/fisher4-540x283.jpg
"In the photo below from 2014, Fisher is pictured alongside Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy, who was sentenced to five years in prison for possession of explosives with intent to endanger life in 1982.
https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/fisher3.jpg
"Fisher has not responded to several attempts to contact her. She has close links to multiple convicted terrorists, will be interesting to see if she passes the Commons security vetting process. ...
"UPDATE: She has gone dark on social media, what kind of political operator does that? Someone with something to hide. ..."
I'd like to add this about the complacent lying on nuclear weapons, civil defence, and peacemaking by Jeremy Corbyn:
It is the fault of the present government's obsession with secrecy, keeping the facts out of the public domain. Large sections of the public then believe in the lying Marxist claims about Reagan's W79 truly invasion-deterring tactical nuclear weapons, and civil defence to reduce the collateral damage from explosions and gas/contamination being "useless" and incapable of deterring threats like Saddam's gas and missiles in 2002, so we end up with the secrecy playing into the hands of Corbyn and his loud mouthed "peace protestor" CND fanbase.
The Conservatives motto on countering CND propaganda about deterrence and civil defence is basically: "Quoque paulo nimium sero". Too little, too late. In 1986, about 7 years too late, they tried to counter the Brezhnev era propaganda by funding publication of Paul Mercer's brilliant book, "Peace of the Dead", but it was too late then, and it's still ignored now. While Conservatives spend time doing detailed research, they keep it confidential and private for too long, and then they pay the price politically, because the quick-and-easy lies and falsehood slogans issued by CND have been unopposed for too long.
By that time, the TV screens are filled with "peace protest marches" by Communist Party of Great Britain flag waving "CND supporters" and thousands of innocent people who have been terrorised by CND propaganda into showing solidarity with Stalinist haters of democracy.
The arguments for using Belfast style "peace walls" to stop terrorist attacks, with proper civil defence in actual war zones - evacuation of innocent civilians from war targets, emergency feeding and emergency shelter against collateral damage from war - and nuclear deterrence to prevent or stop further I.S. invasions in the Middle East and North Africa, are:
1/ Refugees streaming into Europe as a result of the various insurgencies and civil wars because insufficient help is being done either to stop the wars or to help refugees. We cannot turn a blind eye to victims of violence or to the refugees streaming into Europe from the wars and terrorism. (The refugee problem is welcomed by Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist Labour Party because a majority of them are Muslim and his anti Jewish stance is supposed to turn them into future Marxist Labour Party supporters. The refugees will continue to stream into Britain from the EU at least until Britain's exit from the EU in two years time, probably longer if the exit process is extended or if free movement is retained due to trade blackmail from the EU against a pathetically enfeebled Marxist dominated British government, which will occur if Corbyn does well in the election and forms a coalition government with the pseudo-Liberal Democrats.)
2/ Alternatives to "peace walls" to stop terrorists (as used successfully in Israel and Northern Ireland), low-yield air burst tactical nuclear deterrence (as used successfully by Kennedy and Reagan against the Cold War's Warsaw Pact), and civil defence evacuation, sheltering, and emergency feeding, have all failed miserably.
3/ Efforts to bomb dictators and insurgents into submission failed in Vietnam, they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so far they have failed in Syria. Even with troops on the ground, it is not possible really to "win" a war against their mindset. Every bomb dropped on them is portrayed by the propaganda as interference by Imperialist Christian Crusaders.
4/ The paucity of options means that sooner or later the ancient tactics of building walls around vital cities to help resist invasions, the use of credible deterrence to deter invasions, and the use of civil defence to ensure that deterrence is credible by protecting civilians against the collateral damage of war, will be needed if the wars are to end.
5/ There are six million displaced refugees within Syria alone. There are more in the civil war in Yemen and across large areas in Northern Africa, where various terrorist groups and insurgencies are engaged in conflict.
Writing in the Daily Express on 8 April 2017 (page 14), Ross Clark states that due to escalation risks we can't actually go very far in bombing the Russian air bases or Russian military advisers who are supporting the dictator Assad or the Iranians, or we could end up with a world war, so that really leaves us with just options like building walls, providing gas masks, shelters, emergency feeding and other related civil defence to prevent a refugee crisis worsening, and deterring further invasions and expansion of I.S. controlled areas:
"However much we might disapprove of Putin it cannot be ignored that he leads a powerful, nuclear-armed nation with the ability to overrun Eastern Europe. Anything that risks war against Russia cannot be contemplated. ... But if we turn a blind eye to dictators who crush their own people the outcome is no better. All we do is encourage other dictators. ... We should follow it up [Trump's strike on Assad's sarin nerve gas aircraft base] by increasing our efforts to help Syrian refugees, not least the six million displaced within their own country. We should also examine the possibility of establishing safe havens [i.e. walled cities, protected from air strikes by ground to air missile systems] inside Syria."
Just a reminder: Britain's current national debt of £1.7 trillion is currently costing the UK £49 billion a year in interest repayments, more than the UK defence budget. That is at a very low interest rate of 2.9%, due to the AA credit rating of the UK. With Marxist Corbyn spending like crazy to re-nationalise railways, water companies, etc., the debt will get higher, and the credit rating will be downgraded, forcing an increase in the interest rates. The base interest rate has been as high as 15% in 1988-9 and 17% in the disastrous winter of discontent of 1978-9 (just before Thatcher was elected on 4 May 1979). Such interest rates would increase UK interest payments by more than a factor of 5, from £49 billion a year to £250 billion or more. The entire UK government tax revenue last year was £744 billion, and we're currently spending £68 billion more than that (the deficit). The BBC TV news folk repeatedly allow Marxists to falsely claim that the £68 billion deficit (the acceleration of the debt) is the £1.7 trillion national debt, obfuscating the problem.
I'd also like to draw attention to additional details supporting events that I briefly mentioned in the blog post itself:
On Monday 24 April 2017, the Communist Party of Great Britain issued the following historic statement, withdrawing all communist party candidates from the forthcoming 8 June 2017 general election for the first time since the 1920s:
"Our members will be campaigning for a Labour victory as the essential first step towards the formation of a Left-led government at Westminster."
These people are hardened ideologues who are experts at subtly infiltrating the system unseen to sabotage and undermine true democratic debate with fake news and fear-mongering. It is difficult to state how easy it is to underestimate the potency of their propaganda. There is a severe danger that the real democrats will be undermined by communists and their fellow travellers, disguised as democrats. Wolves in sheep's clothing. The communists will not campaign under the hammer and sickle. They will move under false flags. Never underestimate this vicious, hypocritical, demonic enemy:
"We sometimes need to remind ourselves that communists are not pie-in-the-sky idealists but proponents of an ideology that leads to mass slaughter and the destruction of freedom and democracy. Communism is merely another form of totalitarianism. For every Hitler there is a Stalin. For every Idi Amin there is a Hugo Chavez. ... at a celebration in 2014 of the 35th anniversary of the Ayatollah's seizing power in Iran ... Corbyn spoke on 'the case for Iran', alongside the British representative of Mahdi Army militia, a group which between 2004-8 killed at least 70 British soldiers in Iraq. ... in November 2012 he [Corbyn] hosted a meeting in Parliament with Mousa Abu Maria, a member of the banned terrorist group Palestiiian Islamic Jihad. He [Corbyn] has attended events run by Paul Eisen, a notorious Holocaust denier. ... And he sponsored the visit to Britain of anti-semitic hate preacher Sheikh Raed Salah. Salah says that 9/11 was a Jewish plot ... he calls Jewish people 'monkeys' and 'bacteria'. ... When the government tried to have Salah banned from Britain, Mr Corbyn described him as 'a very honoured citizen who represents his people very well' ..."
- Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 26 April 2017, page 12.
More news of the new communist Fifth Column in Britain:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/812553/Jeremy-Corbyn-general-election-vote-Diane-Abbott-John-McDonnell
By STEPHEN POLLARD
PUBLISHED: 07:37, Sat, Jun 3, 2017 | UPDATED: 10:52, Sat, Jun 3, 2017
MOST of the focus on Labour has been on Jeremy Corbyn. A man who has hailed terrorists as “friends”, who stood in silence to commemorate IRA murderers and who lays wreaths at the graves of the Munich Olympic terrorists has no business being in Parliament, let alone Downing Street. But the people underneath him should also concern us: the likes of John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry. ...
Ms Thornberry, who has been turned from a nonentity into shadow foreign secretary solely because the able Labour MPs have refused to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, was sacked by Ed Miliband for a sneering tweet of a home draped with a England flag.
... Mr McDonnell would have a far worse fate in mind. On May Day he spoke in front of banners of Syrian President Assad’s Baath Party and the hammer and sickle of a Stalinist faction of the Communist Party. Mr McDonnell says: “You can’t change the world through the parliamentary system.” In 2006 he made clear that his membership of the Labour Party has only ever been “a tactic” to advance his ideology of revolutionary socialism. So it should surprise no one that in 2012 he praised rioters who two years before had been arrested for “kicking the s*** out of Milbank” as “the best of our movement”. ...
Then there’s Mr Corbyn’s ex, Diane Abbott. In 1984, as a Labour councillor, she said: “Though I was born here in London I couldn’t identify as British.” In the same interview she said that the Irish struggle “is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” And Ms Abbott was caught out not having a clue how much a Labour pledge would cost. Speaking to Nick Ferrari about the cost of 10,000 new police officers she first claimed it would cost £300,000 – £30 per police officer. Then she said: “Haha, no. I mean... sorry. They will cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million.” When it was pointed out this would mean an annual salary of £8,000 she got even more confused. ...
The May 2017 Manchester bomber's mother is a nuclear scientist. The "idea" of Corbyn that "education" can combat terrorism is pathetic, because it is debunked by the hard facts:
"Peddling their narrative of Muslim victimhood they continually make excuses for the jihadists and pin the blame for terrorism on western societies. According to their warped analysis, violent radicalism is caused not by a barbaric, supremacist dogma but by deprivation, inequality, poor housing, unemployment or lack of education. In the wake of the Brussels massacre there has been a barrage of such rhetoric ...
"Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden came from an incredibly rich family, whose wealth was estimated in 2009 at more than £5 billion. The perpetrator of the massacre on the Tunisian beach [in 2015] in which 38 people died, was a university electrical engineering student ... A report from MI5 in 2011 revealed that 2/3rds of British terror suspects were from middle-class backgrounds. 'There is no simplistic relationship between poverty and involvement with Islamic extremism,' said the report. ...
"The apologists always screech that 'education' is the way to combat jihadism but that is just another attempt to evade reality. In fact, a high level of education is one of the distinguishing features of extremists. One global study found that no fewer than 48% of jihadists around the world has been through some kind of higher education. Both the killers of Lee Rigby attended Greenwich University, while Tarik Hussane ... was a medical student [for what it's worth, Syrian civil war butcher Assad is a London trained medical doctor; Stalin trained as a Priest; Mussolini was a communist newspaper editor before becoming a fascist; while Hitler won an Iron Cross in WWI]. ... Bilal Abdullah, the leader of the Glasgow airport attack in 2007, was an NHS doctor ... multiculturalism has been a disastrous failure, promoting social disintegration and the import of extremism."
- Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 4 April 2016, page 12.
I think that the BBC should be ashamed of themselves, for endorsing this lying psychopathic lunatic.
Corbyn's lying ability is on a par with the string theorists, Hitler, Stalin, and other mad ranters who persuade themselves of their profundity. He always rants out the propaganda lies with a dressing of moral superiority, reminding you of the last Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, when he ranted that his own party voter Gillian Duffy was "just a bigoted woman" merely because she proved him wrong! That says it all. Thugs are endorsed by a large fan base of nasty Nazi minded terrorists, who try to scare and threaten people into supporting the leader.
Jeremy Corbyn has a peace plan that cannot fail. It's called unilateral disarmament. For terrorism, we disarm all Christians so that terrorists will feel no threat from us. Oh, yes, removing all the arms will only prevent fist fights, so we have to remove legs to, preventing kick boxing. This will diffuse tensions and encourage other people to follow us! Utopia.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/813514/london-bridge-attack-june-2017-terror-victims-political-correctness
"... It is possible to trace the birth of distorted PC multicultural thinking back to October 2000, when the liberal think tank the Runnymede Trust published a report called The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain. The report, commissioned by the equality and human rights guru Trevor Phillips, urged that Britain should become a “community of communities” in which each community would respect the other by avoiding causing offence. He fell for it hook, line and sinker. When one writer dared to criticise the report Phillips compared his article to the “jottings from the BNP leader’s weblog”. In other words, racism.
"But much to his credit Phillips had a Damascene conversion, assuming I’m allowed to use a Christian analogy. He dramatically called for the end of multiculturalism and demanded that “a core of Britishness” be asserted. Today he says of the report: “It would be fair to say that I made a big mistake. It was a clear statement that some groups can play by their own rules.” Inevitably, Phillips was pilloried for telling the truth. Red Ken Livingstone said Phillips had swung so far to the Right he would soon be joining the BNP. In today’s shameful PC climate good men are expected to hold their tongues and the human rights lobby holds sway."
Just a humble observation: Ken Livingstone, who hates Jews so much he was suspended from the Labour Party (after much pressure on his friend, the equally bad Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn), and who was known during Marxism crazed time as Leader of London County Council in the 1980s as "Red Ken", was elected Mayor of London afterwards. Now London has another Mayor of similar "political correctness" aka horseshit. Multiculturalism is divisive, it is the cause of civil wars around the world, it is the opposite of British integration, it breeds disrespect and hatred, it is segregation, it results in apartheid which causes racism, suspicion, fear and anger. Until someone is allowed to broadcast the facts on TV and answer back at the "racist" slurs used to defend terrorism, terrorism won't be stopped.
The BBC is too busy giving free publicity to terrorism, to tell the truth.
In the book, "Anti-Imperialism: a Guide for the Movement" (Bookmarks, 2003, 280 pages), Jeremy Corbyn claims that nuclear weapons are unnecessary because the USSR was "no real threat" (far from being a threat, he wanted Communists to replace what he called British Imperialism), and claimed:
"Branding a state as a 'rogue state' has been a pretext for undermining the state ... The declaration of North Korea as some kind of threat is, in a sense, a pretext for stepping up economic and military pressure on that country ... to weaken, if not destroy, the North Korean economy in order to ultimately force some kind of integration between North and South Korea. Then we may see the spread of free market capitalism into North Korea." (Emphasis added.)
Note the hatred by Corbyn of the idea that North and South Korea should be integrated by capitalism; he hates integration and peace, preferring instead division, fear and misery.
On 18 May 2002 in Trafalgar Square, Jeremy Corbyn together with Anjem Choudary of the now-outlawed al-Muhajiroun jihadist group (which inspired the London Bridge attackers Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane, as well as the 2013 murders of Lee Rigby, namely Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale), both ranted anti-Israel hatred to a crowd of 8,000 (as assessed by police). The Weekly Worker newspaper stated of this 18 May 2002 event:
"Al-Muhajiroun chanted 'Skud, Skud Israel', and 'Gas, gas Tel Aviv', along with their support for Bin Laden. Two would-be suicide posers were dressed in combat fatigues with a 'bomb' strapped to their waists."
Anjem Choudary was the leader of terrorist support group al-Muhajiroun, which was outlawed in 2005.
If you want to attack one religion for failing to stop criminals, you should do the same to any other religions that provide cover. The BBC hypocritically exposes abuses in the Catholic Church as failures of "the Catholic Church", but it bends over backwards to try to put imaginary distance between the abusers of Islam and the Islamic religion itself. The hypocrisy here is the partiality, the bias and the inequality of the BBC.
As I argued to one friend recently:
"I think if you are a member of a group which has some extremists in it who carry out terrorism, then eventually you are associated with that, eventually you have to ask whether you are being tarnished and whether verbally denying support for the extremists is really enough. For example, only a small percentage of Nazis actually committed evil acts, but the whole lot were tarnished and the organisations were banned as a result."
There comes a time when "the game isn't worth the candle", to use an old expression of relevance to Britain's future if Corbyn is elected and succeeds in bringing the country back to the stone age, while he is absorbed with his collection of man-hole covers and sycophantic lunatics. When you ban criticisms of Islam on the basis that such criticisms are "offensive", or "Islamophobic", then you're paranoid, illiberal, and pandering to prejudice just the way Chamberlain did with racist terrorists in 1938. But worse than that, by banning all justified criticisms of thin-skinned racist terrorist thugs and their fellow-travelling flock of "Four legs good, two legs better"-chanting sheep (see Orwell's "Animal Farm"), you are giving justification to terrorism.
If you say that Western "imperialist" values are bad because they led to 9/11, you are justifying that terrorism. This is what Jeremy Corbyn does, although he claims using lies that he isn't justifying terrorism: the fact is, like the BBC, Jeremy Corbyn is effectively inviting terrorism by means of telling the terrorists that Western criticisms of Islam are a just cause for it. This is simply not true. The cause of terrorism is not Western resistance to terrorism. The "hate crime against liberal freedom" is the crime of killing liberal freedom by banning it on the pretext that evil-supporters are "offended" by truth; it is not true that genuine criticisms of any religion "explain" or "cause" terrorism.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/ :
Jeremy Corbyn isn’t anti-war. He’s just anti-West
And his inability to state his true beliefs defines his leadership of the Labour party
Nick Cohen
Before the bodies in Paris’s restaurants were cold, Jeremy Corbyn’s Stop the War Coalition knew who the real villains were — and they were not the Islamists who massacred civilians. ‘Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East’ ran a headline on its site. The article went on to say that the consequence of the West’s ‘decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention’.
This flawless example of what I once called the ‘kill us, we deserve it’ school of political analysis takes us to the heart of Corbyn’s beliefs. Even his opponents have yet to appreciate the malign double standards of the new Labour party, though they ought to be clear for all to see by now.
I think you are wrong concerning the propaganda from Corbyn's Marxist support groups like CND, the Communist Party, and Momentum. What's really important is the divide-and-rule "cultural warfare" tactics such as one-sided comedians. The BBC commissions endless anti-Conservative comedians like Ian Hislop, Jimmy Carr, and their associates, but wouldn't dream of making fun of Corbyn's anti-Jew propaganda and Corbyn's pro-terrorist propaganda.
Imagine that Prime Minister Theresa May had, like Jeremy Corbyn, given speeches at rally's supporting the IRA and the people behind recent terrorist attacks. She would be pilloried by BBC comedians as a terrorist supporting evil monster. But that doesn't happen to Corbyn. That fact says it all about the hypocrisy behind the "cultural warfare" being waged by Corbyn's fan base. Theresa May and her advisers simply ignore it, just as they ignore the fact that over 70% of immigrant terrorist sympathisers actually end up voting for Jeremy Corbyn.
This apathy towards fighting Marxist "cultural war" is the Conservative's main problem.
Thanks, I think that's a worthwhile criticism. Cultural warfare by Marxist-fascist saturation of the "liberal arts" is probably as important as their pseudo-science such as eugenics, Marxist economics, climate fear mongering, and nuclear weapons fear mongering. The refusal of Conservatives to expose the fear-mongering agenda of the Marxist-fascist rabble-rouser is deplorable.
Frederick Forsyth wrote yesterday (Daily Express, 9 June 2017, page 13):
"The BBC stopped a torrent of flak from the rest of the media last week for the biased audience in the so-called leaders' debate. I mean the one where seven party leaders faced each other (with Amber Rudd deputising for Theresa May). The complaint was that the audience was rowdily anti-conservatice. ... It had tasked the polling agency ComRes to choose an audience that could be expected to support the seven party hierarchs in equal and balanced proportions. So why the unstinting barracking, heckling and slagging off of Ms Rudd ... The Tory voters listened politely to the left-of-centre five, even while disagreeing with them. The pro-Labour claque behaved like a pro-guillotine mob in the French Revolution [or even the October 1917 Red Revolution in Russia]. This was the reason the whole audience seemed biased. That is the shape of modern politics. Those who believe in fair play and common manners tend to vote Tory; apart from a few intellectuals, the rabble tend to vote hard-Left. ... Extremists prefer to be part of a chanting mob."
Wrong, Frederick Forsyth (he also predicted wrongly a "solid if not landslide majority in the Commons for Mrs May" in the same column, written on Wednesday 7 June and published 9 June). It is worse than he thinks:
1. The ComRes audience research has to assume that the people volunteering to be audience members in debates are really telling the truth about their voting intentions (ComRes does not spy on them in voting booths to check they are telling the truth). Thus, fanatically pro-Corbyn Momentum Marxists and unemployed Communist Party terrorists with time on their hands can easily infiltrate these debates to heckle reasoned arguments for the TV cameras.
2. The use of seven party members with equal time and equal audience fan numbers is not representative of the country, because of mob rule: the six out-of-power "leaders" and their fans simply unite and thereby gang up as a 6-against-1 majority or 6/7 mob, in other words almost 86% of the TV panel and audience against the elected leader. This means that the elected leader and their supporters are in a 1 in 7 minority on the TV show and appear weak and unstable. The "equality" of the 7 platforms in the debate and audience is not reflective of the distribution of voters between different parties in the country!
Just a bit more about Corbyn's pathetic Marxist "Manifesto". He claims that pushing corporation tax in Britain from 19% up to 26% will give him £19.4 billion extra to spend towards free university education (a trick to get young voters to vote for him).
In reality, the Conservatives proved that you get less corporation tax if you increase the tax rate because corporations move away from Britain to places with cheaper tax. This does not just reduce the actually paid amount of tax (instead of increasing it as Corbyn lies), it also COSTS JOBS!
"... to get an idea we can look at the time when corporation tax was last at the 26% proposed by Labour. That was in 2011/12, and the tax at that level raised around £41 billion. Add on inflation and that would be around £44.5 billion today. However in fact, with the rate cut to 20%, the tax revenues have now soared to almost £50 billion a year."
- Richard Teather, https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-effect-of-labours-corporation-tax
In other words:
26% corporation tax rate gives £41 billion/year, whereas
20% corporation tax rate gives £50 billion/year.
If you want a curve on a graph using Excel, the mathematical formula this suggests is:
Actually-collected corporation tax = 487 x {corporation tax rate in %} ^ {-0.76} £billion/year
Thus, the actually collected corporation tax is not proportional to the corporation tax rate, but is almost inversely proportional to it! This "paradox" is, of course, what did-in every single Marxist, communist, or hard Socialist regime in history, from Hitler's National Socialists to the USSR. To get more tax money collected to help the poorest, you need to cut tax rates to boost productive business, job opportunities, and capitalist enterprise.
Marxists will never understand this fact. It is contrary to their whole religious dogma.
(Mrs May couldn't even be bothered to take the time and effort needed to explain this convincing to students! In the final TV debate with a student TV audience, she simply claimed in about 2 seconds that Labour's Manifesto budget was wrong, which caused jeers, and then passed on to making some kind of 1870s style rehearsed speech designed to send voters asleep. What they wanted to hear was reasoned arguments based on facts, even if she had to keep notes with facts and figures in her hands to read out to answer questions. People simply didn't want a patronising speech in the style of eighteenth century Prime Minister George Grenville, whose carelessly imposed taxation on America set off their divisive war of independence, the greatest tragedy in British history.)
(Quick note about inflation rates. All uses of generalised "inflation" numbers are quackery, since different products undergo differing changes in prices due to supply and demand. E.g., the price of chocolate has undergone less "inflation" than houses, because mass immigration causes a severe inflation due to the supply-and-demand of houses, whereas a move in preferences away from sugar and fat reduces the demand for chocolate. A single "averaged" inflation rate conversion factor is thus misleading, depending on how it is defined. Even for house prices, the inflation rates are different in different places, being highest where immigration is greatest, e.g. in hard left Corbyn cabinet "safe seat" areas in London...).
There is much in common between Theresa May's far too "over-simplified" slogan sound bite hubris-based, patronising, arrogant, "written for idiots" style in speeches and debates, and the government's similarly poorly defended, poorly argued, self-defeating civil defence and credible nuclear deterrence information. Far more details are needed to win the public over to reason, in the face of lying, evil propaganda saturation by the BBC and friends of the enemy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP, went on TV trying to downplay the current threat from Left riot mob fascist ideology by recalling that in 1832 the Duke of Wellington, the great British hero of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, had to put iron shutters on his windows to stop them being broken by rioting mobs.
They really don't seem to appreciate the real threat of revolution from the fascists. The situation they are engineering is more like Russia, October 1917, or Paris 1789, than 1832.
Post a Comment
<< Home