The English Desert

[Dirk]

"It is possible that a part of Eastern England would have become a desert."

Who said this? Was it maybe an environmental scientist? A geologist?

When were they talking about? Millions of years BC, right?

Wrong!

It was in fact a retired Air Force Major General. He was talking about just last century.

In July 26th 1956, at the Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath, around 80 miles from London, an American B47 crashed while attempting to land. Its landing gear smashed and the behemoth bomber aircraft skidded into a storage building. The fuel set alight and a blazing inferno in the building ensued.

This would have been an event in itself. But here's the clincher. The storage building just happened to house three Mark VI atomic bombs. Each individual bomb was loaded with four tons of TNT.

The General in charge stated in a telex: "preliminary exam by bomb disposal officer says a miracle that one Mark Six with exposed detonators didn't go off."

This is one of a good few incidents i'm aware of around the world, and that's only American nukes. Almost-mushroom clouds have occurred in North Carolina (1961), Vancouver (1950), Texas (1958), Spain (1966) and Greenland (1968). Incidentally, in Greenland, one bomb was never recovered.

In the Spanish incident, 558 acres were contaminated by radioactive plutonium. Similar for the Greenland incident, but i don't know the figures.

Other incidents involving almost-nuclear firestorms that i don't have figures for include Kentucky, New Mexico, Morocco, Delaware (never recovered) and Georgia - the state - (also never recovered).

These monstrosities are a menace to society. How many other incidents have they covered up? How many incidents have yet to be declassified? Why do we keep these things?

 

[David]

Why do we keep these things?

MAD. I personally believe that we should trade in all our nukes for FA bombs. Same effect, no radiation.

 

[myp]

We keep these things because everyone else keeps them- that's the sad truth. There would have to be a worldwide push in order to eliminate them.

 

[Dirk]

MAD. I personally believe that we should trade in all our nukes for FA bombs. Same effect, no radiation.

The thing is that "Mutually Assured Destruction" is mad.

We keep these things because everyone else keeps them- that's the sad truth. There would have to be a worldwide push in order to eliminate them.

We have them because other people have them. Governments have such childish attitudes, don't you think?

 

[deanhills]

The thing is that "Mutually Assured Destruction" is mad.



We have them because other people have them. Governments have such childish attitudes, don't you think?

I would rather say that we have them as a war preventitive measure. Rather than to make war. Sort of a key ingredient in balance of power as well.

 

[Dirk]

I would rather say that we have them as a war preventitive measure. Rather than to make war. Sort of a key ingredient in balance of power as well.

That's not what NATO said. They still insist on the right to launch a preemptive strike - see their "strike first" policy.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/21-nato-considers-first-strike-nuclear-option/ - an article on the issue, including the claims of NATO, which are frankly see-through.

 

[deanhills]

That's not what NATO said. They still insist on the right to launch a preemptive strike - see their "strike first" policy.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/21-nato-considers-first-strike-nuclear-option/ - an article on the issue, including the claims of NATO, which are frankly see-through.

Interesting info Dirk. But wonder whether that would ever be implemented? Looks as though they are leaving all that hard work to the US. I would say the US would be more inclined to "strike" than NATO though "in practice".

 

[Dirk]

Interesting info Dirk. But wonder whether that would ever be implemented? Looks as though they are leaving all that hard work to the US. I would say the US would be more inclined to "strike" than NATO though "in practice".

But it would be under NATO legislation that it would be hypothetically "legal". Do you not think that "only in defence" is a better idea? Hell, even the Warsaw Pact had that rule! If nuclear war had occured, America would have gone down in history as the "bad guys".

 

[deanhills]

But it would be under NATO legislation that it would be hypothetically "legal". Do you not think that "only in defence" is a better idea? Hell, even the Warsaw Pact had that rule! If nuclear war had occured, America would have gone down in history as the "bad guys".

They have already gone down as "bad guys" for Iraq. And ironically that is at least some preventive measure against Iran being creative in is power pursuits in the area.

 

[Dirk]

The more that the US are the aggressors, the more hatred they will stir up against them world-wide. They are setting people against them. They are creating more enemies by going into other countries.

What's also bad for them is that their excuses are becoming ever more flimsy.

The one for Afghanistan was pretty good. The whole twin towers thing? That was a masterpiece in a horrific kind of way. After all, what they simply had to do was say "why would the US Government attack its own citizens?". And, of course, denounce any people questioning the official story (even a scientist, on one occasion) as heretics, conspiracy theorists, traitors and loonies. And then blame it on a nomadic desert wanderer militant group of illiterate peasants in a desert halfway around the world (a long shot at best). Flawed, but reasonably well orchestrated. Except for the terrible truth of people reporting honestly in the first few hours and one or two minor slip ups afterward.

The Iraq one on the other hand. That was a load of S*** to be honest. The US claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which the US does, of course, have itself) and attacked it. It didn't have weapons of mass destruction and the US should frankly have faked them because now everyone's come to realise that Saddam was a good boy and destroyed them all after the first Gulf War. We also knew they didn't, as did America, before the 2003 attack on Iraq. Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector said there DEFINITELY were NO WMDs at all. Then, America sent its own inspector in there. A member of the Republican party, even. He said:

Anyone who cling to the notion of their [WMD] existence is really delusional. I think it's most important that the president of the United States recognizes that in fact the weapons are not there.

 

[numan]

They have already gone down as "bad guys" for Iraq.

Just before satanic Bush started the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein predicted that it would be similar to the sack of Bagdad by the Mongols in the 13th century. (I am sure most Americans are so uneducated that they know nothing of what the Mongols did, but it was far worse than anything that the Germanic barbarians ever did to Rome)

Sadly, the Bush Neo-Cons proved Saddam correct.

I remember one Iraqi woman saying, "Before the Americans came, we thought being under Saddam was Hell, and life without him would be Heaven. After the Americans came, we thought that life under Saddam was Heaven, and the Americans had brought us Hell."
.

 

[numan]

The more that the US are the aggressors, the more hatred they will stir up against them world-wide. They are setting people against them. They are creating more enemies by going into other countries.

What's also bad for them is that their excuses are becoming ever more flimsy.

That is the consistent, deliberate policy of the war profiteers in the USA.

They only attack weak "enemies," and expend absurdly vast amounts of materiel at vast expense, in order to make yet more profit in replacing their murder weapons.

The military-industrial "conspiracy" is the only example of a cancer which is deemed vital to the survival of its host.
.

 

[numan]

'
I don't see a lot of difference between the Nazis and the British ruling classes, except that English tyranny lasted longer and was more wide-spread than the German variety.

I have read the forgery called the Protocols of Zion, and thought them ridiculous as applied to the Jews. But as a description of the English vampire ruling classes, it fit them down to a tee! A people obsessed with power, bent on dominating the world, using the power of money, intrigue and manipulation to crush their opponents and force their will on others, oppressing and exploiting people all over the world in order to shave a little profit off the last farthing! A ruling class cold and cunning and heartless, mean and vicious! This is all patent and clear, revealed in any history book you care to pick up. They even boast about it! Like the American ruling class, their zealous imitators, they treated their own people as badly as they treated others, and this was a practice long established in English society. They were mean and callous to a degree almost unbelievable in any other Germanic society.

During the Second World War, under rationing, the average Englishman was better fed than he had ever been in history! I knew a very nice lady who managed to crawl out of the rubble of Berlin alive. She said that when the British came into the city, the English officers were what she expected: tall, healthy, well-mannered gentlemen. But she was shocked by the ordinary soldiers. They were short to the point of dwarfishness: deformed and unhealthy. Such was the result of the malnutrition which they had experienced all their lives, so that their rulers would have a little more money for their luxuries!

As bad as the British ruling class was, the American vampires of the Military-Industrial Conspiracy are ten times worse. Many of the British genocides were due less to planning than to neglect and incompetence. But the sub-human creatures who rule America plan their crimes with the meticulousness of a Heydrich or an Eichmann. What looks like stupidity and incompetence is usually a screen to conceal the most efficient methods for achieving the maximum degree of looting.
.