Britain Cannot Withstand Martian Death-Ray 94

The broadcast news bulletins are all leading with the claim of some old General that Britain could not resist an attack by Russia. One remarkable thing about this claim, is that all those excitably supporting it are precisely the same people who claim that the countless billions spent on Trident make an attack on the UK impossible. Plainly they have never believed their own propaganda about Trident.

But there is something still more problematic in the General’s argument. The truth is that there is zero chance of Russia attacking the UK. Nothing Putin has ever said or done has evinced the slightest desire to attack the UK. Now I am, as you know, no fan of Putin and I believe he does hanker after annexing to Russia those parts of the former Soviet Union outside Russia which are Russian speaking. But he probably does not see even that limited aim as completely achievable, and indeed in ten years he has reintegrated just Crimea and Ossetia. The UK, being neither Russian speaking nor part of the former Soviet Union, is in no danger of being attacked by Russia at all.

Nor has the UK ever been in danger of attack by Russia. Yet extraordinarily, as discussed in my new book Sikunder Burnes, Russophobia and an explicit fear of Russian attack has been an important part of British politics, actually driving policy, for 200 years. In that period Britain has invaded Russia during the Crimean War, and as early as 1834 David Urquhart, First Secretary at the British Embassy in Constantinople, was organising a committee of “mujahideen” – as he called them – and running guns to Chechnya and Dagestan for the jihadists to fight Russia. In 1917 British troops again invaded Russia, landing at Archangel and Murmansk.

Yet, although by contrast Russia has never attacked Britain, and has never had any serious plan, intention or decision to attack Britain, for centuries British foreign and defence policy has been predicated on a non-existent “Russian threat”. Of course, the arms manufacturers and the political and military classes have made incalculable sums out of this long term waste of a significant proportion of Britain’s resources. A Russian invasion of Britain is, and has always been, as likely as an attack by Martian death-ray.

General Barrons does however have one important point. Britain’s forces are not configured for defence. They are configured for attack. Aircraft carriers are of no defensive use whatsoever, and indeed are hopelessly vulnerable against any sophisticated enemy. Their sole purpose today is the projection of power against poor countries. Their use lies only in the neo-con policy of attacking smaller states like Iraq, Libya and Syria. They are Blair force carriers.

Britain is a country where thousands of children go to bed hungry. Yet is spends billion upon billion on Trident missiles whose sole purpose is to increase politicians’ sense of importance, and aircraft carriers designed to facilitate the maiming of other nations’ children. A rational, defence oriented military would have neither. Again, I return to the conviction that Scottish Independence is not just good for Scotland, but the psychological shock that rUK needs to end these imperial cravings for physical power projection.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

94 thoughts on “Britain Cannot Withstand Martian Death-Ray

1 2
  • Republicofscotland

    I’m not fan of Putin either, a man who has been in power in Russia since 1999, in one form or another, and like the West, his security services also neutralise with near impunity, Litvinenko being a prime example.

    But as you rightly allude to, the West is obsessed with dubbing Russia as the “bogeyman” when infact recent history shows that the Great Satan ( consecutive US governments ) along with their ever obedient sidekick, the dis-United Kingdom and Israel, Saudi Arabia, and several other prominent players are indeed the real warhawks.

    The rest aside, Westminster somehow believes that the dis-United Kingdom is still a force to be reckoned with around the world. The inane imperialist, attitude can be clearly seen in the renewal of Trident. Meanwhile as you rightly point out, wide spread poverty and disenchantment are rife around the dis-United Kingdom.

    • Sal

      Perhaps it has something to do with people voting for him. He does have an over 80% approval rating. Yeltsin sold out Russia, Putin hasn’t thats why he is a target. US enemy number 1

  • Republicofscotland

    “The broadcast news bulletins are all leading with the claim of some old General that Britain could not resist an attack by Russia.”


    I recall a even wackier claim than that, when Phil Hammond, Defence Secretary at the time claimed that a independent Scotland, couldn’t survive a attack from outerspace, he saud that during the 2014, Scottish independence referendum.

    Astonishingly Phil Hammond, is now the Chancer of the Exchequer, god help us all. For when the coffers are bare, Hammond will blame it on a attack from outerspace.

    • Habbabkuk


      ““The broadcast news bulletins are all leading with the claim of some old General that Britain could not resist an attack by Russia.”


      I recall a even wackier claim than that, when Phil Hammond… etc”


      The language of your post (“even wackier”) means that you consider the General’s claim to be “wacky”.

      That in turn means that you believe that Britain COULD resist an attack by Russia.

      Would you like to tell us the factors underlying that belief of yours? The nuclear deterrent? UK conventional forces? Other?

      Thanks in advance for sharing.

      • fred

        RoS brought this up at the time, he completely failed to understand what Phil Hammond was saying. I did explain it to him but it didn’t sink in so he continues to repeat his falsehoods.

        When Phil Hammond talked of attack from outer space he was talking about other countries using satellites in orbit or intercontinental missiles, EMP weapons, not little green men from Mars but it went right over his head, so to speak.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ fred
          Perhaps Mr. Hammond should have speculated as to WHY on earth Russia or China (or Martians) would wish to attack an independent Scotland? To knock out competition to their second-rate whiskey industries?

      • Republicofscotland

        “The language of your post (“even wackier”) means that you consider the General’s claim to be “wacky”.


        Good afternoon Habb.

        Wacky in the sense, that the general believes that Russia would attack the dis-United Kingdom in the first place. The general, was in reality deploying jingoism, with Russia in mind.

        I believe he acted in that manner, in the hope that more spending would be applied to the military. I doubt he’ll be taken seriously, in the halls of Westminster. Nor the blogs of the dis-United Kingdom.

      • michael norton

        EYE think he is meaning the two new super carriers being manufactured in The People’s Socialist Republic of Scotland

  • Michelle

    While your article is at least honourable in saying that Russia does not want to attack the UK you take 2 steps back by saying that you still think he is hankering to take Russian speaking parts of ex soviet states. Have you ever thought the people that live there want to be a part of Russia. Why would Crimeans want to remain a part of Ukraine when it had regime change imposed on it by the US, namely Biden, Nuland, ambassador Pyatt who were behind that.

    Those journos who spew rubbish about Putin wanting to retake Eastern Europe are complicit in pushing for war. NATO is already building up its military in Eastern Europe because of the fake Russian threat. Scotland is allowed a referendum, Falkland Islanders can choose to be part of the UK but Crimeans are not allowed to vote to rejoin Russia. Double standards comes to mind. America had plans for Crimea and was ready to turn a naval school into a NATO base. They had to cancel those plans.

    Putin said about Russian expansionism “As far as expanding our zone of influence is concerned, it took me nine hours to fly to Vladivostok from Moscow. This is about the same from Moscow to New York, through all of Eastern and Western Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Do you think we need to expand something?”


    • Resident Dissident

      Why do you think that Medvedev attended Karimov’s funeral and then Putin went to his graveside a couple of days later? Don’t you think it might have something to do with maintaining a zone of influence?

      The Russians had a naval base on Crimea not a naval school – and they had a long contract and an International agreement to guarantee its continued existence – there was no serious threat to the continuation of the status quo before Putin’s Anschluss. The last time there was a referendum held under normal conditions in 1991 Crimea voted to be part of the Ukraine.

      • John A

        No, Crimea did not vote to be part of Ukraine in 1991. They voted to become the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The proposal was approved by 94% of voters. This was prior to the break up of the former USSR. After the breakup of the USSR, Crimea became part of Ukraine, but the people were never given the chance to vote on that.
        After the US financed Maidan coup and neo nazi violence against Russian speakers, including attacking a convoy of Crimean buses going back from Kiev, the overwhelmingly Russian speaking population of Crimea, voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. Since the breakup of the USSR, Crimea was purely a milch cow to Kiev with Crimea getting virtually nothing in return.
        As for Russia not having to worry about losing its legal naval base there, I can well imagine a scenario where the US navy turned up in force (they were already steaming in that direction), the Kiev puppet government simply tearing up the lease and the US grabbing the naval base for themselves.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I see some of your points, Craig. But to dismiss aircraft carriers as purely aggressive weapons is a bit simplistic. Given an attack by nation A on nation B – to keep it impersonal – carriers would be essential to B in taking the fight to A. Stopping A at B’s borders might not be enough to discourage A’s aspirations. The vulnerability of carriers is a moot point: presumably these would under operational conditions be embedded in a battle group, one function of which is to help protect the carrier. While Putin’s current intentions may be confined to reuniting those provinces Russified through the centuries – usually by force – with Mother Russia, history is not short of examples in which hubris takes over, borders are breached and treaties discarded….because they can be. Perhaps ensuring that they can’t be is still good policy; if you desire peace, prepare for war.

    Mind you, this admittedly assumes honest rulers on our side, which is very far from a given.

    • Mark Golding

      Admiral Woodward (RIP sorry Sandy) was shitting himself commanding the Hermes aircraft carrier group off Falklands. Considering an Exocet attack by Argentine Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard warplanes carrying the AM39 Air Launched version of the Exocet.

      The kick-back was a signal to Thatcher to pressure Mitterrand to recall a French technical team from Argentina throughout the war.
      Task special forces (PLUM DUFF, MIKADO and KETTLEDRUM), to destroy Argentina s Exocet missiles.

      Finally the bastard skipper put HMS Sheffield with no defense against Exocet in a position as dead-duck decoy that led to her demise and end the life of my best mate ‘Eggy’ -RIP brother. Nothing moot about aircraft carriers.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        With all due and sincere respect to your late friend, there is another version of that.

        At approximately 10 a.m. on 4 May, Sheffield was at defence watches, second degree readiness, as part of the British task force dispatched to the Falkland Islands during the Falklands War. HMS Sheffield was one of three Type 42 destroyers operating as a forward AW picket for the task force, south east of the Falklands. On some task force ships including HMS Sheffield the threat from the 209 submarine was seen as higher priority than the threat from the air, and the destroyer’s 965 screen operators seem unable to distinguish Mirage and Super Entendard aircraft and Sheffield may have lacked an effective IFF as well as jammers [7] HMS Glasgow was operating at high readiness and detected, two Super Etendard, ‘Agave’ Targets, 40nm out on 965M Main surveillance LRAW [8] immediately communicated ‘Handbrake’ by UHF and HF to all task force ships. Sheffield had assessed the Exocet threat overrated, for the previous two days, and assessed another, false alarm, as did HMS Invincible. The destroyer never apparently heard the incoming aircraft and missiles on its ESM sets or saw a radar contact on its screens, swept by its own radar, or should have appeared through data link, from Glasgow. Sheffield failed to go to state 1 Zulu, launch chaff D, prepare the 4.5 and Sea Dart, go to action stations, take any action or even inform the captain [9] Sheffield had relieved her sister Coventry as the latter was having technical trouble with her Type 965 radar.[10] Sheffield and Coventry were chatting over UHF. Communications ceased until an unidentified message was heard flatly stating “Sheffield is hit”.[10]

        I assume that’s the official version. And it appears that Sheffield did have some protection, that the Super Etendards had been identified by another ship in the fleet, and that the cockup theory would be adequate to explain what happened next. HMS Coventry was sunk while acting as a decoy, but the version above gives Sheffield picket duties only.

        • Ba'al Zevul

          …and moot or not, it would have been very hard to do much about the Falklands without carrier-based air support. I wonder what the oputcome would have been without Hermes and Invincible?

  • Resident Dissident

    Of course the Putin regime don’t want to invade the UK – where else can they send their kids to get a decent education, launder their funds and provide nice accommodation for their whores. They do of course want to protect their interests. The Scillian mafia of course never wanted to invade New York. The real defence against Putin and his fellow oligarchs has to be financial and political and needs to be aligned with the interests of ordinary Russians who have seen their country raped by massive capital outflows year after year.

      • michael norton

        Two people charged in BELGIUM with terrorist offences

        A man and a woman detained on Friday have been charged with terrorist offences, although the woman has been freed under conditions, federal prosecutors said on Sunday. Police searched three houses across the country, including one in Brussels, part of an ongoing investigation into what prosecutors said was a terrorist group. The two were charged with participation in the activities of a terrorist group. The judge overseeing the case said the man was suspected of having given weapons training. Prosecutors said there was no evidence that the activities involved planning a concrete attack. Belgium has been at the heart of investigations into the militant attacks in Europe since the Paris attacks in November last year that were partly planned in Brussels. Militants later attacked Brussels airport and metro in March this year, killing 32 people. (Reuters)
        Belgium is the nest of Islamist terror in Europe the home of the gas tank bomb

  • Rich

    Completely agree, Craig,

    One small thing …

    >spends billion upon billion on Trident missiles whose sole purpose is to increase politicians’ sense of importance

    Well … theres also the massive income for arms manufacturers (and the power that also gives).

  • Tony

    Very good article indeed.

    On the specific question of nuclear weapons, this quote is worth reading and understanding:

    Denis Healey, former Defence Secretary: 14/03/2011: “Document” Radio 4

    “I was very doubtful about the need for Britain to have nuclear weapons but I didn’t express it in public. The main reason we had them was not to deter a Soviet attack but to reassure the Americans”.

  • john young

    Whether you like dis-like,agree/disagree with Putin he surely is a million miles ahead of anything that “Disneyland” throws up,how anyone/anywhere can accept anything from that country that is a bad bad movie is beyond me.

  • kashmiri

    You are doing here one big mistake, Craig. You are – I sincerely hope by mistake – conflating an attack with an invasion. Invading someone has an objective of establishing control over that country’s territory. Attacking someone, one the other hand, often aims “only” at denying them control over their own assets. As you have pointed out, UK is in no danger of being invaded by Russia. However, countries continuously try to force other countries into submission, using a threat of control denial – be it area denial (A2AD), denial of economic control (economic sanctions), denial of control over infrastructure (clandestine IT operations), etc. In this sense, Russia (and China, and a few other countries) is very much interested in weakening UK’s control over its assets. Whether a Trident or two would help – I can’t say; probably not. But please do not conflate an “attack on a country” with a ground invasion.

1 2

Comments are closed.