When slavery was abolished in the British Empire, taxpayers paid huge sums in compensation to slave owners for the loss of their “property”. No compensation was ever paid to the slaves for the loss of their freedom.
The problem with that approach is, of course, that the state did not take into account that the “property” of which it was relieving the landowners was acquired as part of an inhuman and immoral situation.
I was considering the same question in relation to the constitutional moves of South Africa to redistribute land without compensation. It seems to me this is plainly morally justified. The only question marks I can see are of practicality, in terms of making sure those taking over the land are trained to keep it properly in production, and that redistribution is not corrupt. Those are not insuperable problems, and I support the South African government in its endeavours.
But I wish to apply the same principle, of the state acting to right historic injustice on behalf of the people, much more widely and in the UK.
I apply precisely the same argument to the great landed estates, particularly but not only in Scotland. I believe the fundamental answer to land reform is confiscation by the state of large estates, and that social justice can never be redressed by the taxpayer simply handing over money to the ultra-wealthy. We have already been doing far too much of that through the bankers’ bailouts.
I have no moral qualms at all about simply taking back the land, whether it be from the Dukes of Sutherland, Buccleuch and Atholl, from a Dutch businessman or from a sheikh. In England the Grosvenor estate, the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, and similar holdings could be confiscated. I do not see this as harm to the “owners”. Let them work for a living, or try their luck with the benefits claim system. Residential properties in large estates might become council homes, while tenants of commercial properties might pay rents to the council rather than to the Duke of Westminster, and the council use a large portion of that money for homebuilding.
Agricultural land from vast estates might perhaps best be given to the tenant farmers who have rented it. In the Highland glens, there are vast tracts which were once cattle rearing and arable. We have been lied to for generations that these are only fit for moorland for grouse and deer hunting – despite the fact that they are studded with the croft foundations of the cleared populations they once supported, who reared cattle and grew crops. These unfarmed lands should be given free to communities to develop; with assistance for the expensive task of bringing them back into production. That assistance would be a better use of state money than paying “compensation” to the ultra-wealthy.
But it is not only land. I favour nationalisation without compensation of all PFI projects, and of all railways and utilities. The owners have milked the public and the taxpayer far too long. Any business investment carries risk, including political risk. If you misjudge the political risk, your business fails. These businesses have made a misjudgement of political risk in the view they could profiteer, that it is possible to rip off the people forever without blowback. That is a business miscalculation, and such businesses deserve to fail.
The Labour Party’s renationalisation proposals have been carefully calculated within the existing framework of “legitimate” property rights. Therefore John McDonnell has framed rail nationalisation in terms of the expiration of franchises, and talked of PFI projects in terms of buyouts. I reject this approach in favour of the more radical approach of confiscation.
Yes, I realise that some percentage of the investments removed will belong to pension funds and insurance companies and even foreign states, and to small investors. Still more will belong to hedge funds and plutocrats, and the stake of ordinary people in wealth through pension funds had been – deliberately – tumbling for two decades. The less wealthy individuals with a stake in pension funds will lose a little, but gain from the wider public good, and for them there might be a compensation mechanism.
I also realise the markets will not like confiscation, and there will be an increase in bond yields; but this will pass. There is no measure to redress social injustice the markets will like. The City of London is our enemy and will naturally attempt to resist or punish any attack on its continued ability to be the conduit for the hoovering dry of the national wealth.
The fact is, that the extreme injustice and inequalities of society have now become so very glaring that there is no way to make any impression on wealth disparity without changes that may be rightly considered revolutionary. Either we are content to live in a society where the wealthiest one per cent will within two decades own ninety per cent of all wealth in the UK and the rest of us be helots, or we make changes to the fabric of the economy and government which are truly radical.
The economic system has tilted beyond correction by tinkering.
What is immorally owned ought not to be compensated on expropriation by the community.
As with the owners of slaves, the owners of “property” would be likely to attempt to defend their riches through the courts. This is where the doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament might for once be put to good rather than evil use, in passing law making such state confiscation unequivocally legal. Both the UK and Scotland appear set for at least a period outside the EU; I cannot think of a better use for any window of legal autonomy.
I am fully aware that I am proposing very radical measures very unlikely to be adopted by the current political Establishment. But the most telling fact of recent western society, itself a natural and predictable result of that galloping wealth inequality, is that the political Establishment has its coat on a very shoogly peg.
Another disgrace. The racism in the Tory government, namely in the Home Office under May and Rudd, is revealed.
‘Windrush: Home Office criticised after deportees not contacted
7 hours ago
Windrush scandal
Caroline Nokes, immigration minister, said deportees can ring the Windrush helpline or visit the government website
Campaigners have accused the Home Office of a lack of “decency” after it emerged dozens of people deported to Commonwealth countries have not been contacted by the Windrush task force.
Ministers said “no specific attempt” had been made to approach 49 people deported to Ghana and Nigeria in 2017.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46421326
Speak up Mr Javid, would-be candidate as the next PM and an admirer of the little democracy in the Middle East. *
* https://www.timesofisrael.com/meet-sajid-javid-uks-top-muslim-pro-israel-politician-who-just-may-become-pm/
.
SE, thank you.
Step forward for pro bono, Geoffrey Cox QC MP, mighty millionaire defender of social justice for the abused and down trodden.
¡No pasarán!
.
Nationalisation without compensation, however justified, is an act of war to be avoided in favour of due process in a democracy. Compensation is paid is to facilitate peaceful change, by compensating vested interests without war. Slave owners or arms dealers and the unions involved building Trident need to be bought off in a law abiding society.
To argue for compensation for slaves themselves is a fair point but what about compensation for all those who died in the American civil war estimated at 600,000!
‘Nationalisation without compensation’
Article 17.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
The obvious problem, Dave, is that when a tiny minority has expropriated a majority of wealth, for the people to compensate them for their assets merely perpetuates the imbalance.
Yes, like the slave-owners such as the Gladstone family!
.
. . . . and as mentioned earlier, in fact, the act of war and criminal theft actually took place at the time of the original theft.
To suggest that the remedy for theft is an act of war, well, is bizarre. In fact, bonkers.
Sláinte
.
Except where did those who were robbed get their land in the first place. In one sense all property is theft, but the law acts for practical reasons in favour of the sitting tenant. So a remedy for theft can be theft, but its not the mark of a law abiding society,
‘perpetuates the imbalance’
It does not. Land in the hands of new owners gives them the ability to produce and sell, accumulate capital and invest.
Napoleon expropriated the Church when he occupied what is now Germany in 1806. The local nabobs joined in stealing Church lands. As compensation the Prussian State introduced Church Tax which exists today whereby the Ordinary Plebs pay compensation to the Church for the land expropriated by the Ruling Elites allied with Napoleon.
Then again Germans still pay a Sektsteuer to finance the Kaiser’s Navy sitting at the bottom of Scapa Flow
No mention of Zimbabwe? The obvious warning for those advocating confiscation of white farms stands on South Africa’s borders. The corruption by Zuma is also a warning of what will come if the constitution is ignored and the rule of law abandoned. It won’t be socialists in Edinburgh who go hungry when the food runs out in South African cities and South African politicians use the scarcity to give their political opponents a choice: switching allegiance or death by starvation.
There may be historical reasons for justifying the redistribution of land both in South Africa and Scotland. However, it needs to be done with public consent and within a legal framework. Venezuela is an example of how quickly thieves can steal everything in the name of the people.
It is also highly idealistic to assume that a large number of Scots want to farm the Highland with the work, hardship and isolation that that entails. The government assistance will probably go the way of much Third World Aid – into private pockets with little to show for the ‘investment’ in a generation’s time.
There are ways to radically reduce inequality without giving tyrants the right to do what they want: taking control of monetary policy; reintroducing lending limits; breaking up monopolies; fighting tax evasion; increasing transparency in local and national government; enhanced local democracy; making declaration of membership of the freemasons a requirement for employment in the public sector; increasing the minimum wage and improving working conditions. As a Scot, you should be focussing on returning Scottish education to the pre-eminent position it once had and building new industries that use that technological know-how and pay its employees well. I guess that stealing property is easier.
It is also very naive to assume that what Scotland does after BREXIT will have no effect on negotations for re-entry to the EU. You will find that your ‘Dutch businessman’ has friends in Brussels.
Wrt Zimbabwe, the most effective solution would have been for Mugabe to have nationalised the land, and then charged a rent to the White farmers to continue to farm the land.
The moral question would have been resolved as the Black majority Zimbabwean state would be the rightful owners of the land, and those with farming expertise would have continued to ensure that the economy remained productive, and the population fed.
I once met an exiled White Zimbabwean farmer, and asked whether his farm could still have been profitable under those circumstances. He assured me that it could.
South Africa needs to avoid Mugabe’s catastrophic error. It should nationalise its farmland, and rent it to whoever wishes to productively farm it, including its current owners.
Wrt PFI, enough profit has already been derived from these unequally negotiated contracts; most have been sold on by the original providers as financial products anyway, so terminating them without compensation is well overdue.
Similarly, privatised utilities have been ripping off the public for decades now – the party should by now be well and truly over. Nationalise without compensation.
.
Lana—
Most PFI contracts are easily nullified as being based on fraud and ignoring basic human rights.
Please let’s not unwittingly cheerlead for commonly acknowledged corrupt corporate dealing.
.
Your arguments regarding expropriation without compensation are naïve in the extreme. Try, if you would, to return the land to the original owners, who were butchered by the invading blacks, without any negotiation
The game is like Expropriating Jews in Nazi Germany. It is to TAKE BY FORCE – it is not an economic policy it is a Political Game of Hostage Taking.
Stalin expropriated farms and invited people to work as Employees of The Collective but the “very unreasonable” Kulaks in Ukraine killed their cattle and resisted the Onward March of Socialism so off to the Gulag.
Chris Barclay makes a very good point: there are other ways to make serious inroads into inequality. The difficulty at the moment is getting people to vote for them.
Article 17.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Supporters of expropriation without compensation will argue that if it’s Constitutional it can’t be arbitrary. And Kristallnacht would’ve been ok if it had been legal.
I haven’t read all 148 responses to your article, so maybe this question has been answered already.
You are right – all PFI projects and privatized infrastructure – water, gas, electricity, the railways, and the airports too – should be taken back into public ownership with no compensation paid.
But is Britain able to do this? I imagine the WTO, of which we are a member, has rules against these things, doesn’t it?
But thank you for your thoughts, which are as intelligent as always.
The WTO may well have rules – but there’s no one to enforce them!
All anyone can do in the way of reprisal is refuse to buy from or sell to you.
That’s just shooting yourself in the foot under most circumstances.
Rather like Haiti and Zimbabwe. Fortunately Botswana and post-war West Germany chose another root.
Sorry I meant route, but it could have been Freudian slip.
Not sure if this has been posted yet but I’m certain General Melchett wouldn’t approve:
https://youtu.be/UYonSZ8s3_o
It’s a good post, provocative again, but fits in with many ideals of a socialist society. However, it hardly fits in with my ideas about how George Soros might view this blogpost: not favourably I suspect.
I see Turkey has had enough of his Open Society reforms. Andrew Korybko reports.
https://orientalreview.org/2018/12/03/after-soros-flees-turkey-will-he-flee-the-rest-of-the-global-south-too/
It’s an interesting argument, and from a moral point of view, it’s reasonable to consider it. But could it be done? The trouble is, it would only be politically thinkable (without dangerous retaliation) in a world where extreme economic injustice was not already ingrained and “naturalised” over centuries, and in that case it probably wouldn’t be necessary, as the people’s wealth would not have been so comprehensively stolen as to require re-appropriation on the people’s behalf. The question is would wealth confiscation ever really be “on the people’s behalf”? What does history tell us about this?
Far more likely, a government of the future would pauperise us all using rampaging inequality as a mere excuse for equalising everyone to the position where each and all owns sweet eff all (except for the political class itself and, ironically, the richest in society who would be exempted from giving up their ill-gottens by virtue of being “wealth-creators”, or some such all too familiar fig-leaf). Young people can’t afford homes anymore, but rather than a future government reappropriating unearned rentier income (either by punitive taxation or by some form of confiscation), I can more easily imagine a situtaion where they “nationalise” all homes to distribute them algorithimically among the population. This could also see the workforce being forcibly relocated to wherever the work is, while places where the work is not would be filled with the people who cannot work for whatever reason. Those people would literally be left to rot in dying, workless towns without services, while young, single, able-bodied workers would be crammed into “smart” (i.e. total surveillance) cities and work towns, squeezed for all they’re worth, and then “retired” to the dying communities on the periphery when they’ve no more juice in them.
Amazing in light of what happened to Zimbabwe (where the land situation was even more unequal and unjust than in South Africa) when it did the same thing. Now even the IMF (https://www.rt.com/business/437348-imf-supports-ramaphosa-land-reform/) supports South Africa’s programme. How times change. Looks like Mugabe was pioneer. Much like Trump is with globalisation. Mugabe set the stage and took the heat, now others are following. I said the same to a white South African 15 years ago and they simply would not believe it would ever happen there.
500 years of Western dominion over the world is coming to an end. In Africa, as Ali Mazrui said Westernisation is but a thin veneer. It will be easily wiped away by the rise of the East.
Nationalisation without compensation. Very much a post Independence argument. A lot of hurdles to be negotiated even in a post Independence scenario.
Whether the SNP? Will the organisation dissolve, or will it continue as an entitled bastion of political insiders as per the ANC?
Is there any reason to infer that a post Independence media will be any more representative of the masses than the dire present position? The Daily Mail, Express etc will not necessarily disappear. Nor on current evidence is there much hope for an organic formation of mass media platforms representative of the sentiment of the regular punter. What of BBC Scotland? Burn it to the ground and start anew says I, but what would replace it?
The SSP, Solidarity and the Scottish Greens have only ever enjoyed single figure representation in our mixed, proportional representation parliament. I suspect that for nationalisation without compensation to enjoy majority support we would require a couple of generations raised under the influence of a democratic mass media (and as per above, that second proviso a’int a given).
.
VO, my friend.
Obfuscation. Unworthy.
Sláinte
.
Slavery was finally abolished in the United States only in 1941!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_lease
erm, slavery has never in reality been abolished – just ask someone at the foodbank or sleeping in the park ffs – they just changed the name
.
My own family, way back in the mists of time, were handed land (stolen by act of war) by a grandson of a Norman warmonger.
Any rational human with an understanding of natural social justice would gladly hand back the ill-gotten, mercenary gains.
Let’s forget all the pompous and misdirected legal disingenuities. The continued deceit. The self-justifying obstacles.
The gout is playing up and the baubles long evaporated. Contentment is understanding the difference between right and wrong.
sláinte
.
So AlexYounger if a bastard son of George Younger1 He looks exactly like him..
Remember George Younger called off NATI;’s Ancgor Express Exercise in the wake of the Anglo-American assassination of Sweden’s PM Olof Palme.
The Uk better find a more credible candidate to make threats against Russia now.
Anchor Express Exercise was ro end the USSR for apparently killing the Swedish leader.
Mr Ford. How do you know he is the illegitimate son of George Younger?
I don’t think they resemble each other either.
https://goo.gl/images/aFod5E. George Younger
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Alex_Younger.gif
And why not link the BBC article, announcing George Younger’s death?
Just by looking at Alex Younger, and critically examining his cryptic family history.
While travelling through a remote part of South Africa in 2000 a black South African friend and work colleague pointed out a settlement which her extended family would be repossessing a century after eviction. On being asked what they would do with it she explained that the younger generation lived in Jo’burg and would not be leaving the big city for remote rural life – instead they were contemplating building a casino there – but that she would visit and restore the graves of her ancestors and hire out the farm. She was lucky. My grandfather, John Cameron MacGregor, had been evicted from his croft in the Western Highlands of Scotland and there seemed little chance of his family being able to repossess our land. We agreed to prefer South African justice.
So, nationalisation of such land without recompense to current owners seems perfectly justified but insufficient. In 1909 Winston Churchill wrote “It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies – it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.” Probably the best way to deal with the mother of monopolies is to nationalise all of it, not just the moorlands. In time all land is owned by the public and leased to current owners. This can be done incrementally whenever land changes hands, which can be encouraged by taxing land value which lowers the value of land as a financial assets [1].
But if we really want to tackle inequality then we must do two other things. First, we need to clear the debt burden carried by people, which has never been higher than now. Outstanding household debt stands just short of £1.6 trillion, 13 percent higher than its peak in the third quarter of 2008. The way to do this is to have a national debt jubilee – an ancient policy used repeatedly in the past [2].
Second, we need to reform the finance sector which is fleecing the populace. A simple change in the solvency law would do this. For the vast majority of businesses insolvency occurs when liabilities exceed assets. But for financial companies assets can include financial assets such as loans and derivates contracts. Such a change in law would stop banks and shadow banks lending money they have not got. Put another way, a finance company will no longer be able to finance credit with someone else’s credit. The net result will be less debt, lower house prices, no chance of boom and bust and, over time, less inequality [3].
1. Ryan-Collins J, Lloyd T, Macfarlane L, Muellbauer J. Rethinking the economics of land and housing [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Dec 3]. Available from: https://aleph.unisg.ch/hsgscan/hm00607355.pdf
2. Jubilee Debt Campaign UK [Internet]. Jubil. Debt Campaign UK. [cited 2018 Dec 3]. Available from: https://jubileedebt.org.uk/
3. McMillan J. The end of banking: money, credit, and the digital revolution. Zurich, Switzerland: Zero/One Economics GmbH; 2014.
Agree and let me add: Incomes needs to be regulated so they are basically equal, incomes that are based on speculation needs to be taxed into oblivion, while supporting with tax cuts any investment in real producing companies, domestic that is.
The weallt in the world today is enough, that every single person could have a life in security, health, education to what the living standards was of a Danish worker in the 80’ties. Which was not that bad, I remember, I was one.
But we gorgot about socialism and equality when we all suddenly had two cars, kids in university and two annual vacations, Winter one to Norway/Sweden and the summer one not to Majorca but Thailand, At home everything was swell with Danish designer furniture and kitchens, and 60 inxh Korean widescreens in Technicolor and 7.1 audio to disturb the neighbors, Filet Mignon on the Weber on Sundays and too much Bordeaux too….
Where did the solidarity go ? Soli what? Yep that’s right, we forgot not at least helped by many developing nations atrcious corruption and levels of mismanagenent. I know I was the too, 5 years working there in the developing world. Very few local people i knew were socialists, I was laughed out by locals whose only aim was to get position power and money, and fock the rest.
The current world system will be upended someway or other, it is inevitable, either the rich cede mony or power peacefully or the end up in hastily built gallows, it is not a threat, but simply a prediction. The French revolution is something to learn from as was the bolshevik, nothing good transpires to those involved, and the idealists are often the first victims.
I do hope we have learned from history and avoid the folly of war, unfortunately my gut feelings counter this. I have not been as worried since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (I do remember the Cuban Crisis, but in eyes of a 6 year old)
This is off topic but I am asking if anyone knows hoe to access the LA Times website. The reason being that there is this article about the use of neutron bombs in Iraq. We always believed that Ali Abbas whose arms were incinerated in a blast that killed his family was the survivor from such a blast.
articles.latimes.com › Collections
19 Aug 1990 – Since World War II, the United States has been involved in two major … United States were to base its strategy for war with Iraq on the neutron bomb. … option before he commits even more ground forces to the Persian Gulf.
This is the message that comes up
…cont’d
This is the message that comes up in response to the link https://notices.californiatimes.com/gdpr/latimes.com/
‘Los Angeles Times
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.’
Warning Graphic photo. His torso was badly charred too.
Icons Of The Iraq War: Ali Ismail Abbas And The Civilian Toll
https://www.rferl.org/a/iraq-war-/24930933.html
Copies to Messrs Blair and Bush.
SE. . .
“Copies to Messrs Blair and Bush.”
Well, not only on res gestae, both guilty as proved. Verdict. 25 years apiece. Take them down.
.
Re LA Times
Access it blocked because of EU privacy regulations.
I can access it using a VPN but a search on the site for Iraq/Nutron or Nutron Bomb show nothing but the use of regular weapons in Iraq. Do you have a link to the particular article that you are looking for? I am aware that the US appear to have used shells hardened with depleted uranium that has caused a toxic legacy for people living in the affected area, is that what you were looking for?
Yes agree Molloy and thanks Pete.
Pete. Ali Abbas’s arms were incinerated, the hand and lower arm bones were left as stumps of white ash. His torso was charred as I said. His parents and brothers were all killed in the attack, making use of a neutron bomb more likely than any other weapon. That is a theory of course.
The photos show the injuries in a line on his torso as if a window aperture allowed the entry of the heat from the blast.
The LA Times heading was ‘Use Neutron Bomb on the Iraqis? : War: Rather than get bogged down …’ I don’t know the date or anything else. Thanks in advance for any help.
Using copy/paste the article, dated Aug 19th 1990 by Sam Cohen, nuclear analyst,is:
“Since World War II, the United States has been involved in two major conventional wars in Asia, both of politically and economically disastrous. Thus the wisdom of getting involved in another in the Middle East is open to serious question. Were this to happen, President Bush, as was the case with Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam) and Harry S. Truman (Korea), might be prematurely retired by a disgruntled American electorate, leaving behind an economy badly battered by a costly conventional war. This need not happen if the United States were to base its strategy for war with Iraq on the neutron bomb.
When the neutron-bomb concept was devised in 1958, its possible use in NATO defenses was not uppermost in defense-planners’ minds. Rather, the bomb was envisioned as a weapon for use in Asian ground wars, where any potential opponent lacked a nuclear-response capability. In such circumstances, the neutron bomb, which uses an instantaneous burst of nuclear radiation to incapacitate enemy personnel without destructive blast and heat effects, represented an extremely potent battlefield weapon. It is vastly more effective and far more discriminating than conventional weapons. And it would enable a quick military victory at a far smaller cost in American lives and national treasure.
This possibility led to the highest priority being assigned to the development of the weapon. In the early 1960s, a series of successful tests at the nuclear test site in Nevada were conducted. Subsequently, it was proposed that neutron weapons be produced and stockpiled. But the proposal was rejected out of hand by the Defense Department. Meantime, the United States entered into and suffered the consequences of the Vietnam War.
Which brings us to the possibility of a major ground war with Iraq. For the precise reasons–battlefield effectiveness at minium cost to U.S. lives and treasure–that led to its development, the neutron bomb’s time may be at hand. Bush might wish to include it as a military option before he commits even more ground forces to the Persian Gulf.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan ordered the stockpiling of neutron weapons, including hundreds of artillery shells that could be delivered by eight-inch cannons. Because of West Germany’s refusal to accept these weapons, they were stored in sites in the United States.
Today these artillery shells would be ideally suited for use against Iraq’s armored forces. Such a capability could be achieved by deploying artillery units with nuclear-trained crews to Saudi Arabia. These units are capable of firing conventional rounds as well as nuclear. Delivery of the neutron shells to Saudi Arabia could occur within a day’s time, if the President so ordered.
Such a deployment, should it take place, must be announced openly, to send a clear message to Iraq about the seriousness of U.S. intentions. What’s important is that the threat of such use could deter an attack from occurring.
No doubt, civilized nations would bitterly condemn the United States for again turning to nuclear weapons, in this case, the neutron bomb. But perhaps these nations should contemplate the economic chaos and social misery that could result from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein dominating the world’s oil supplies.
Aside from world opinion, however, there is a far more important issue for the United States to weigh–how to balance its choice of weapons to win a war quickly versus the domestic political and economic consequences of fighting a war that goes on interminably and inconclusively. An already sSince World War II, the United States has been involved in two major conventional wars in Asia, both of politically and economically disastrous. Thus the wisdom of getting involved in another in the Middle East is open to serious question. Were this to happen, President Bush, as was the case with Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam) and Harry S. Truman (Korea), might be prematurely retired by a disgruntled American electorate, leaving behind an economy badly battered by a costly conventional war. This need not happen if the United States were to base its strategy for war with Iraq on the neutron bomb.
When the neutron-bomb concept was devised in 1958, its possible use in NATO defenses was not uppermost in defense-planners’ minds. Rather, the bomb was envisioned as a weapon for use in Asian ground wars, where any potential opponent lacked a nuclear-response capability. In such circumstances, the neutron bomb, which uses an instantaneous burst of nuclear radiation to incapacitate enemy personnel without destructive blast and heat effects, represented an extremely potent battlefield weapon. It is vastly more effective and far more discriminating than conventional weapons. And it would enable a quick military victory at a far smaller cost in American lives and national treasure.
This possibility led to the highest priority being assigned to the development of the weapon. In the early 1960s, a series of successful tests at the nuclear test site in Nevada were conducted. Subsequently, it was proposed that neutron weapons be produced and stockpiled. But the proposal was rejected out of hand by the Defense Department. Meantime, the United States entered into and suffered the consequences of the Vietnam War.
Which brings us to the possibility of a major ground war with Iraq. For the precise reasons–battlefield effectiveness at minium cost to U.S. lives and treasure–that led to its development, the neutron bomb’s time may be at hand. Bush might wish to include it as a military option before he commits even more ground forces to the Persian Gulf.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan ordered the stockpiling of neutron weapons, including hundreds of artillery shells that could be delivered by eight-inch cannons. Because of West Germany’s refusal to accept these weapons, they were stored in sites in the United States.
Today these artillery shells would be ideally suited for use against Iraq’s armored forces. Such a capability could be achieved by deploying artillery units with nuclear-trained crews to Saudi Arabia. These units are capable of firing conventional rounds as well as nuclear. Delivery of the neutron shells to Saudi Arabia could occur within a day’s time, if the President so ordered.
Such a deployment, should it take place, must be announced openly, to send a clear message to Iraq about the seriousness of U.S. intentions. What’s important is that the threat of such use could deter an attack from occurring.
No doubt, civilized nations would bitterly condemn the United States for again turning to nuclear weapons, in this case, the neutron bomb. But perhaps these nations should contemplate the economic chaos and social misery that could result from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein dominating the world’s oil supplies.
Aside from world opinion, however, there is a far more important issue for the United States to weigh–how to balance its choice of weapons to win a war quickly versus the domestic political and economic consequences of fighting a war that goes on interminably and inconclusively. An already strained American economy might not hold up well under another large, protracted conventional ground war. Thus the United States might want to come down on the nuclear side–in favor of the neutron bomb.trained American economy might not hold up well under another large, protracted conventional ground war. Thus the United States might want to come down on the nuclear side–in favor of the neutron bomb.”
That is much appreciated Pete. Thanks again.
As heartily as I support nationalisation without compensation, I am waiting to know how it can be achieved without an armed revolution, ( a policy I would also heartily support)
Mr. Murray will recall from visits to Whitehall when a salary man at the FCO, seeing her majesty regularly parade her army outside his office window…….I can imagine the correspondence now between HM and the legislative body when told that her family, as one of the larger landowning dynasties, was having their lands taken in to public ownership. I believe her response would end with “…you, and who’s army”.
.
Clapham, you wag, the irony.
“her response would end with “…you, and who’s army”.”
Carleton will be gone soon. Elizabeth’s only sensible option is assent and apology.
Sláinte
.
Ref the late GHW Bush, this poor creature has been enrolled to add to the ‘legacy’. The motto reads ‘Mission Accomplished’. Sickening.
George HW Bush’s service dog Sully pays touching last tribute
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46424261
There is a two page spread in the Times obits section and the photo of the Labrador and the story is all over the MSM today.
The laws are made by the rich for the rich. There is no Rule of Law, and, no International Law. Have you not noticed.
The expertise is already managing the big estates. Lord Muck from Glabber Castle would not know where to start. Neither would a Lego builder or pop star.
PFI is the biggest rip off ever, and it is in the hands of wealthy foreigners. And is inferior buildings etc.
How did the English Monarchy come to own so many billions of hectares World wide? Rule of Law or gun?
Slavery came about by the gun. No one volunteered for slavery.
The white man has killed his way into ownership of the countries of non whites. Guns against bows and arrows, spears and boomerangs. No contest! They deserve to lose it without compensation.
When I was about 10 we met an old guy in the Burns Monument Hotel in Ayr who was on annual leave. He said to me, “if you want to make money son go to South Africa”. That was over 60 years ago.
I thought the film Zulu was a shot in the foot for the English. However, not a lot of people know that.
I have had a look at some black countries. Most white men are total bastards. Even in their own countries.
Then there is the other big landowners, churches. Big resistance would come from that faction.
Interesting to see the fors and the against posters.
I just read that the Greek Orthodox Church is the biggest property owner in Israel. True or false?
Big estates are mainly isolated from prying eyes, which allows the owners freedom to get up to whatever, without the neighbours complaining to plod. Happy days and nights.
Big estates are usually tax breaks for the rich. They make a Paper Loss.
.
Sorry, rather irritated. Therefore reposted the riposte as a main comment.
“
Tony O (my friend),
re “. . . style of a full blown brainwashed, Soros supporting. . .”
For me, what you say is supposition. Also overlooking the v strong likelihood (often imho) of CM’s irony and sardonic humour.
Please withdraw the comment. It is unworthy of you.
Sláinte
.“
Molloy,
You are guilty of taking part of what I wrote, out of context. Anyone can do that to demean anyone else, in order to support their own view. I never do that. Having reviewed, the totality of what I wrote, in a very brief post, I have no reason to withdraw it, and no capability to do so. I am also happy to defend, all the other points, I made within this post.
eg The Trotsky origins of the neocons, the real history of George Soros, which Craig recently quite blatantly stated he supported. I also defend the words I included with regards to Craig Murray.
“I think Craig Murray is a decent man. Highly intelligent, and not, so far as I know, lacking in empathy. He is certainly not lacking in courage. It’s just, that I simply do not agree with him.”
Thanks for reading it.
Tony
.
Okay, Tone. Agree to differ. Fair enough. Sláinte
.
Why doesn’t the BBC tell us the lies he told Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh about Iran-Contra plot which killed Palme along the way?.
Who he?!
GHW Bush, the spook who constantly lied to Lawrence Walsh that he was ‘out of the loop’ when it came to secret operations during Iran-Contra.
.
Good farmers (earlier comment). Nice settlers. Smiling governors in uniform. Racist consorts.
All then and now. Thieves of common resources.
(Spare us the flannel and smoke.)
Sláinte
Blaming the City of London is like blaming Ebay . They are both just a places where transactions take place. If you want to blame , blame the politicians .Eg., It was Gordon Brown that bailed the banks out, on the other hand the man in charge of the City finances at the time ,Mervyn King ,thought that those banks that had behaved recklessly should be allowed to go bankrupt.
Brown believed in Bilderberg. Mervyn King was an honourable man.
Is the UK more brainwashed than the USA?
Come on Trow , you’re pretty spaced out yourself. My take on you is that by talking about a POTUS creating earthquakes you are making a metaphor for the extraordinary lengths the POTI will go to commit evil, way beyond our own imaginations or conception of evil. If I thought it was actually technically possible to create an earthquake, I’d get all the neo-cons together like the G20 and wobble the place down somehow.
Pretty much irrelevant to the question of which population is more hoodwinked by their government. I think that the Brits are, given their response to the evil deeds, like the crash at the Mull of Kintyre, all the assassinations, ‘false flag ‘ operations, etc. Can you imagine even an elite bastard in the USA becoming DCI?
Hope you get rid of the other evil bastards by making that quake which is much less destructive and more effective than a nuke.
You left us because you could see the 1% and we couldn’t. So how come you appoint a torturer, Gina Haspel to the CIA and we , being sheep are happy to do whatever we’re told.
Obviously I am using you to represent your nation, and me to represent ours, which is far from fact.
You should be in front of us if you are the produce of rebellion. Metaphorically speaking.
I have had nothing to do with the CIA and what Gina Haspel is up to. Have constantly complained about their actions. I am enough in front of them that they have tried to kill me on several occasions.
What about Alex Younger?
Ha Ha. Younger today said Islamic State and Russia should not underestimate the West.
YCNMIU. Russia has put HIS Islamic State under their control, simultaneously controlling the poison from spreading to Russia and the West and that nob-head thinks Putin’s the problem.
He obviously overheard the goldfish planning WW3 via stethoscope and Google translate.
Please, don’t make me laugh again, old-timer. Gotta go, nice talking.
Still only silliness about AlexYounger.
Expected from a Brit.
Thatcher said human beings are motivated only by money. That has been complicated a little since by Islamism which rawly states that you can also motivate through sex. Islamist I know believe they are brining non-Muslim girls into Islam by raping them.
I know the Islamists are clearly sectionable, but it illustrates Thatcher’s madness. She believed that appropriating wealth was the only key to salvation and self-realisation. The people who have had their wealth appropriated can either choose to become helpless victims, or fight back.
Mrs Thatcher actually went into a pulpit to preach her new religion of me-first, fuck-you selfishness.
She actually quoted from the Gospels and interpreted them as meaning that we are personally responsible for our actions on the day of judgement meant that the state is not responsible for helping the poor or disadvantaged.
The thing that interests me in all this is not that there is any way that Thatcher is right and the Jewish Christian and Islam scriptures are wrong, but the link between Thatcher’s friendship with weirdo paedophile rapist Jimmy Saville and her extraordinary predilection for doing evil to the less strong.
Good job I too am keeping a record of this vast and ever-increasing number of snapshots of the blog. Didn’t someone suggest this a little while ago as an interesting experiment?
Where next, Grouse Beater, Egg Beater? Hmm, have to have a little think, and ask around.
A suggestion: leave ’em up just long enough for the dipsticks to read, and then remove. That way we’re all happy, apart from the dipsticks, obviously.
By dipsticks you mean the neo-cons, Tories and foaming Islamists? Or do you mean us , the sane?
Shill Hellex, stop disgorging eternal brain-short-circuited foam like a chemistry experiment gone wrong. Speak man , or woman. I know it’s hard on a Monday afternoon , to accept the stark challenge that all neo-liberal, neo-conservative values are driving us once again into financial oblivion. Oh do it out the window, we’ll be drowning in the stuff soon.
With regard to South Africa, it should be pointed out that — at least as far as Cape Province is concerned — the African population has no prior claim on the land. Dutch migrants into the Cape long predate the arrival of Africans there. If we’re talking about “Social Justice”, the land should be given to the Kalahari Bushmen, since they are the few remaining descendants of the original inhabitants of the Cape, not the so-called “Bantu” peoples from further north who have no greater claim than anyone else. They are as much migrants as the Dutch. That’s the problem when you start talking about redistribution. Who do you redistribute it to?
“With regard to South Africa, it should be pointed out that — at least as far as Cape Province is concerned — the African population has no prior claim on the land.” [ETC.]
It’s much more complicated than this. There was massive intermarriage between ‘Bantus’ and Khoisan (‘Bushmen’, ‘Hottentot’) people – hence the presence in South African Bantu languages of click sounds – otherwise only found in Khoisan languages. There are also historical records of ‘Hottentot’ peoples becoming ‘Bantu’ peoples. It’s clear that the European settlers committed genocide against the Khoisan (as they did to indigenous people wherever they colonised – the America’s, Australia). The ‘Bantu’ invaders/incomers, however, incorporated (by force, sometimes, no doubt) the existing Khoisan population into their own.
Athanasius
The Israelis say the Palestinians were nomads. The Turks say the Kurds were nomads on the banks of the Euphrates. I find it rather unlikely that such a vast area of fertile, non-equatorial land was entirely vacant apart from a few bushmen. That sounds like a re-writing of history from a time before record-keeping.
Israel declares Palestine Viper as its national snake.
Is it a thawing of hostilities adopting the viper? Or is it just another theft from the oppressed Palestinian folk.
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/israel-declares-palestine-viper-as-its-national-snake/
I see there are many snakes in Israel! This one is named Palestinian because it is indigenous to Palestine, not Israel.
‘Measuring up to 5 feet, the Palestinian Viper is responsible for an overwhelming majority of venomous snake bites in Israel, which has 42 species of snakes including nine venomous ones.’
How about the one lurking in the Western Wall? 🙂
Firefight after Israeli special forces’ cover was blown ‘nearly triggered new Gaza war’
Hamas has tightened security in enclave as Israeli army declined to comment about details of disastrous undercover operation which nearly sparked another war
1 day ago
‘Israeli special forces posing as medical aid workers used “detailed but fake” ID cards of real Gaza citizens in their botched intelligence raid in the strip last month, and may have entered through an official crossing, Hamas officials have claimed.
The Gaza citizens whose identities had been “stolen” allegedly hail from across the tiny 25-mile-long enclave but not the area where the Israeli uncover operation was taking place. This was in case they were discovered by local residents, according to several officials within Hamas, the militant group which runs the strip.’
/..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-strip-raid-gake-id-medical-aid-workers-idf-special-forces-hamas-a8661486.html
Giyane,
The Dutch arrived in the Cape in 1652. For perspective, Wikipedia estimates the population of England and Wales at that time to have been less than five and a half million. Compare that to today’s overcrowded hell hole. Is it really such a stretch to imagine an area whose people, technologically at least, were stone age as being almost deserted? We KNOW for a fact that Palestine was not empty, or primitive. The Cape was a completely different matter.
And a petition on Brexit – sorry
https://www.change.org/p/the-parliament-petitions-committee-save-the-uk-halt-the-break-up?recruiter=919191027&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_message.pacific_abi_select_all_contacts.select_all.pacific_email_copy_en_us_3.control.pacific_email_copy_en_us_5.v1.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.control.pacific_email_copy_en_gb_4.v1.lightning_2primary_share_options_more.control
Leaked Commons legal analysis of Brexit deal
http://2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Withdrawal-Agreement-Legal-and-Governance-Aspects.pdf
27 pages!
h/t TLN
Part Two: Citizens’ Rights. This essentially enables EU citizens
resident in the UK and UK citizens resident in a Member State at the
end to the transitional or implementing period (TIP) to continue to
enjoy the bulk of the rights they presently enjoy. There are some
exceptions. A notable omission is that UK citizens to whom these rights apply will not enjoy free movement rights to other Member states.
States;
So the new head of MI6 Alex Younger came to Scotland, St. Andrews Uni, to spout his anti-Russian rhetoric, and how the SIS has foiled countless terrorist attacks in the UK, and that we just need to take his word for it.
The MI’s are Scotland’s unseen enemy monitering those in Scotland they deem need watching. The SIS are not our friends North of the border, they exist in Scotland to make sure the status quo remains unchanged.
By that I mean that Scotland remains part of the union, it keeps the production of North sea assets flowing South, it keeps Trident in Scotland etc, it does so by monitoring and if need be interevening, or having local law enforcement do so, to halt those who want to see the status quo change for the benefit of those who live in Scotland.
Alex Younger can come up here, the head of a basically foreign and if need be hostile SIS, and preach of how those they see as wanting to change the status quo (always labelled terrorists to frighten you) are a danger to your way of life, when infact, he and his ilk are tasked with stopping any change that may hinder or make poorer the regime he serves, regardless if it makes Scotland a poorer and weaker place.
The SIS and the 77th Brigade are a threat to Scottish independence.
.
RofS—Excellent work.
What self-entitled, moronic toerag products of an evil and greedy privileged class. Toxic s##cum.
¡No pasarán! my friend.
.
New Head of MI6? He has been in post for four years…