Crazed Bombers Support Bombs Shock 97


An “independent” all-party commission set up by a lobby group funded by NATO, the FCO and Qatar, consisting of eight of the most right wing establishment figures in the universe, supports keeping Trident. The joint chairmen were “Lord” Browne of the Labour Party, “Sir” Malcolm Rifkind of the Tory Party and “Sir” Menzies Campbell of the Lib Dems. Over three years of deliberation, the Commission did not have, or consider, one single original thought not approved by the Westminster Establishment, and demonstrated that there is no difference at all between the three neo-conservative parties.

Why “Establishment figures endorse status quo” is news beats me. The only news is that the estrangement of ordinary people from the moribund political establishment means nobody cares what these old troughers and sycophants think. In Scotland the referendum has given an impetus to a popular will to take back the power kidnaped by an unrepresentative political class. These old fogeys may need to have the power (with American permission) to kill billions of their human beings, in order to feel potent and important. But if they want to keep these appalling devices, they are going to have to look for somewhere new to keep them. The Pool of London?


97 thoughts on “Crazed Bombers Support Bombs Shock

1 2 3 4
  • Mary

    You could have given an emetic warning Craig. I had my lunch late today and nearly threw up.

    http://www.basicint.org/tridentcommission/commissionmembership

    Revolting bunch of warmongers. Guthrie is tied up with the JNF and goes to the Herzliya gathering to speak and to receive instructions. At one time he failed to declare his interests in an arms company in a Lords debate.

    Honorary Patron along with BLiar. http://www.jnf.co.uk/about-the-jnf/executive-board/

    Is that an interest that should be registered? If so he should have declared it.

    http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-guthrie-of-craigiebank/3608

  • craig Post author

    One of the funders is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I have phoned them up to ask what on earth they are doing funding such a body. They are going to get back to me tomorrow.

  • Abe Rene

    Those billions could be used to build a million Y-cubes and greatly diminish the problem of affordable housing. Now, if any party puts this in their manifesto, I may well vote for them.

  • MJ

    “But if they want to keep these appalling devices, they are going to have to look for somewhere new to keep them”

    That will probably not be necessary. Last I heard an independent Scotland would be a member of NATO and that would entail certain obligations.

  • craig Post author

    MJ

    Absolute nonsense. There is no obligation for NATO states to have or to host nuclear weapons. I am increasingly bewildered by the visceral hostility of unionists which causes them quite happily to invent any “fact” they wish.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    The status quo is exactly what they want – depriving societies from dealing with their real problems while covert wars are carried on which suit their real interests while populations think that they are not happening because there are no declared wars occurring and no nuclear weapons are not going off.

    It’s called neo-Malthusianism with a vengeance.

  • Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    They’re just afraid someone will call them weak on Defense. Big missiles are manly, and look strong in the face of threats on a smaller scale, like red mercury neutron bombs in suitcases.

  • craig Post author

    Ben,

    “like red mercury neutron bombs in suitcases”. Not that such a thing has ever existed, but don’t let that stop you. Though you are right to imply that a nuclear missile launching submarine is absolutely no defence against non-state actors.

  • Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    A lot of hoaxes perpetrated on the unwary and gullible, Craig. But the guy who designed the neutron bomb has never disavowed red mercury’s existence.

  • Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    I don’t know what AQ is treating clothing with but there is a lot of talk about ‘undetecable’ explosives coming soon.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/sep/30/thisweekssciencequestions1

    “Others, including Sam Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, disagree, and Barnaby says there is evidence that the Soviets churned out vast quantities of mercury antimony oxide, the intermediate – and equally elusive – compound from which red mercury is supposedly produced by placing it inside a nuclear reactor. “There’s no doubt that they made a large amount of that stuff. I’ve talked to chemists who have analysed it in East Germany,” he says. “But what they did with it is a mystery.”

    Some say the intermediate compound can multiply the yield of explosions and that it was used inside conventional Soviet nuclear weapons or as a rocket fuel additive. Others say the compound was irradi ated in the core of nuclear reactors to produce pure red mercury, capable of exploding with enough heat and pressure to act as a trigger inside a briefcase-sized fusion bomb.”

  • MJ

    “There is no obligation for NATO states to have or to host nuclear weapons”

    The terms of Scotland’s membership of NATO will surely be a matter for discussion and negotiation.

    What do you think NATO will consider Scotland’s most important contribution? A contingent from the 3rd Foot and Mouth lifting their kilts in Kabul, or the Faslane base?

  • Iain

    “What do you think NATO will consider Scotland’s most important contribution? A contingent from the 3rd Foot and Mouth lifting their kilts in Kabul, or the Faslane base?”

    Do you have to be so negative and disparaging?

    In answer to your question, I would suggest our strategic position in the North Atlantic is our key contribution. As for your suggestion that hosting ‘nukes’ would be part of the entry deal, we only have to look at the current membership to see that is just tripe.

    What is it about Unionists and the application of common sense? Be it NATO, EU or a range of other issues they seem to think Scotland is unique, in being unable to gain the rights and deals others take for granted. Distinct case of jockholm syndrome?

  • A Node

    MJ 1 Jul, 2014 – 3:45 pm

    “There is no obligation for NATO states to have or to host nuclear weapons”
    …..
    What do you think NATO will consider Scotland’s most important contribution? A contingent from the 3rd Foot and Mouth lifting their kilts in Kabul, or the Faslane base?

    obligation – compulsory
    contribution – voluntary

  • craig Post author

    MJ

    There is a founding Treaty for NATO which has a mutual defence obligation as its main principle. That is what you subscribe to. There are not subsidiary treaties of obligation.

    Scotland’s geographical position and excellent infantry units are important to NATO. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Scotland will be able to continue in NATO if Scotland so wishes. Unionists seem unable to debate on the basis of anything other than “it’s impossible! it’s awful! it’s an absolute disaster!”.

  • MJ

    “Do you have to be so negative and disparaging?”

    No, I just thought it was quite amusing. Sorry.

  • MJ

    “Unionists seem unable to debate on the basis of anything other than “it’s impossible! it’s awful! it’s an absolute disaster!””

    And Separatists seem unable to face up to reality. If Alex Almond is unable to stand up to a nobody like Donald Trump, how do you think he’s going to fare when the heavy mob move in?

  • craig Post author

    MJ

    Actually I don’t want to be in NATO anyway, disagree with Salmond on that. But the Trump thing is bollocks. Its not far from my parents’ old home, and I support the golf courses. I find the anti-golf course campaign disguised as environmentalism ludicrous, particularly as in this case it is directed by New Labour types with fuck-all genuine environmentalist interest. Of course it upsets those who want to see the Highlands unproductive, picturesque and providing no jobs for local people.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    “Why “Establishment figures endorse status quo” is news beats me.”
    __________________

    And – with due respect – why you thought that this subject was worthy of a thread beats me.

  • DoNNyDarKo

    Habbabreak Habbakuk !
    You don’t have to be here do you ? Take up golf or something.
    Or do you have to be here ? Is that your job ?
    And getting back to the thread,
    It’s pertinent to the Scottish referendum, and Britain in General.Britain has no control over Trident and could never use it without US permission.It’s a waste of money… a banana stuffed down the trousers of Westminster.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-missile-renewal-study
    Paul Ingram, executive director of BASIC, said: “The reason why we set up the commission was to stimulate a debate that we perceive has been dominated by electoral calculation. We believe Britain is well placed to lead global nuclear disarmament by renewing Trident.”

    By making new nuclear missiles it will help global nuclear disarmament!! Duh !! That is the sum of the intelligence of this bunch of morons that were doing the study.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Craig,

    You said:-

    ” One of the funders is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I have phoned them up to ask what on earth they are doing funding such a body. They are going to get back to me tomorrow.”

    My thinking may be simplistic but this comes to mind:-

    A. Since multi billions are spent on manufacturing armaments and waging wars (e.g. The WMD war in Iraq) – there is an “opportunity cost” for such endeavors. The cost of expenditure on the armaments and the wars is the lost opportunity to build houses, repair infrastructure, improve education, build hospitals etc. BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THE FUNDS ELSWHERE.

    B. The idea of upholding and protecting “security” by manufacturing more and more armaments seems counter intuitive. If I spend more on armaments, then my potential enemy is placed in fear that I am gaining a strategic advantage and may be intent on one day waging war against him. So – logically he too arms himself while both of us suffer the same problem stated at A above.

    C. Taking A and B together it seems that organisations such as NATO and the Pentagon might be better off reasoning with honesty that if perpetual warfare is their desire – then continue with A and B above and manufacture the weapons in abundance and have the wars. If the opposite is a more humane, desirable and sensible objective then do the opposite of that which promotes warfare.

    I recall reading Hans Blix’s book, his account as chief weapons inspector in Iraq and his account of the urgings he got from Western powers to state that there were WMDs in Iraq. He refused to lie and do that. Instead, he simply asked for some six(6) weeks extra time to give his final and affirmative account. He was denied that opportunity and to this day we see a former prosperous country; with a well educated population – women included; a high standard of living – relegated to a decimated and wasted sectarian mess. With saviours like these – who needs enemies?

    PEACE!

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    Donny

    “Habbabreak Habbakuk !
    You don’t have to be here do you ? Take up golf or something.
    Or do you have to be here ? Is that your job ?
    And getting back to the thread,
    It’s pertinent to the Scottish referendum, and Britain in General.”
    ____________________

    Thank you for your interest, Donny. I’m also sure that Craig is grateful for your spirited defence.

    And now, getting back to the thread:

    “It is pertinent to Britain in general” – what a silly, meaningless statement. Just about anything happening in Britain is probably pertinent to Britain “in general”.

    As for its pertinence to the Scottish referendum, I think not. The thread is about the “conclusions” of a small group of now private citizens brought together by a lobby firm and grandiosely styling themselves a “commission”. The importance of this “commission” and of its “conclusions” is, I would suggest, even less than that of the various “Vietnam War Crimes Tribunals” of the past and the more recent “Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Court” (or whatever it called itself).

    Hope that clarifies.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Craig,

    The Guardian headline reads as follows:-

    ” Trident gets thumbs up in report that will dismay anti-nuclear campaigners

    Cross-party commission comes out in favour of keeping nuclear missile deterrent to prevent future security threats for Britain”

    So – A. You fire nuclear weapons at me – B – I do nothing – or I fire mine back at you. And C – you build more of yours and I build more of mine – so that you do not gain any significant strategic advantage over me.

    But – we both are aware of MAD ( mutually assured destruction). We both know that the consequences of a first strike will be that neither side can win – because the retaliatory strike will inevitably come and then …..?

    I keep saying – mad men are running the world. Or – should I be saying – are ruining the world?

  • Je

    Trident relies on the enemy playing cricket. And there is only one plausible enemy, Russia. We’ve seen their dastardly tricks – Polonium attack, what they’ve done in Ukraine.

    The assumption that Trident is invulnerable is nonsense. This society is wide open and so are the crew. To infiltration. Or a biological attack. One sub at sea, first one sailor gets ill then the rest. End of.

    Or hardball. A surprise attack on Faslane and a threat to nuke the rest of the UK if there’s retaliation. Are you really going to be suicidal and retaliate with the UK’s one boat at sea? Or let it sail home to the US when it runs out of stores. And that’s the end of the deterrent.

    They won’t play cricket.

  • Mary

    One of the old nuclear subs, HMS Tireless is moored up with 11 others at Devonport. Why? Because they don’t know what to do with the nuclear reactors.

    Look at it. It looks a wreck. The tiles on the hull seem to be out of place.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-27915381

    ‘In 2007 two sailors died in an explosion on board Tireless during an exercise under the Arctic ice cap.

    Failed air-purification equipment was thought to have caused the explosion.

    In 2013 she returned to Plymouth after a leak in her nuclear reactor.

    HMS Tireless joins 11 other former navy nuclear submarines which are waiting to be dismantled at Devonport while the government searches for a site to dispose of their radioactive reactors.’

    The planet and its oceans have already been polluted. Stop the madness NOW.

  • Mary

    Habbakuk Cease your hostile and vituperative ad hominem trolling. Every thread is polluted by them.

    Like HMS Tireless you should be tied up in port and decommissioned.

  • Kempe

    ” I support the golf courses. I find the anti-golf course campaign disguised as environmentalism ludicrous ”

    Sure, just what Scotland needs another golf course shut off from the bulk of the population where a rich elite can waste time hitting a ball with a stick. Can we take it that you also supported the bullying and intimidation the area’s resident were subjected to during the building of the course? Which incidentally they didn’t want.

    The site was a SSSI, I don’t find it encouraging that the SNP were prepared to trash it just for a golf course. They are after all supposed to be the guardians of Scotland’s heritage; they don’t appear to have made a good start.

    As for the Scottish jobs as far as I recall an Irish company was brought in to build the course and most of the subsequent jobs have been filled by cheaper east europeans.

  • N_

    “There is no obligation for NATO states to have or to host nuclear weapons”.

    Nor on paper to allow US nukes into their ports – and Denmark didn’t, for a while – but that doesn’t stop the Scottish SNP Government from saying on p.465 of their marketing document (‘White Paper’) that they “expect” to allow US ships into Scottish ports that the US military won’t confirm or deny are carrying nukes.

    That means they will allow US nukes into Scottish waters. They just haven’t got the guts to say so.

    Talk about having your cake and eating it, saying one thing to the Scottish population and another to US diplomats.

    Why is the comparison always with Denmark and Norway, two allies of the murderous US? How about, say, neutral Switzerland or Sweden or Ireland?

    How about telling both the US and the rUK military to fuck right off. Who do they want to defend Scotland against, again?

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.