Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – CND

Hiroshima - aftermath of the bombMore on Britain …

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – CND

A selection of leaflets and pamphlets from the early 1980s which provide an idea of how the campaign was developing in the early years of the Thatcherite disaster. The early 1980s was probably the last resurgence of the movement against nuclear weapons in Britain – prompted by the agreement by the British government of the stationing of US imperialism’s cruise nuclear missiles in US airbases in the southern part of England.

The Neutron Bomb, Eric Burthop, CND, London, 1978, 20 pages.

Various leaflets, CND, London, ND., 1980s?, 10 pages.

Protest and Survive, EP Thompson, CND, London, 1980, 40 pages.

Domestic Nuclear Shelters, advice on domestic shelters providing protection against nuclear explosions, The Home Office (UK), Her majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 1981, 16 pages. The British Government’s idiotic approach to surviving a nuclear blast.

No Nuclear Weapons, Peter Kennard and Ric Sissions, CND and Pluto Press, London, 1981, 48 pages.

The Arms Drain, Job Risk and Industrial Decline, a Trade Union analysis, Tim Webb, CND, London, 1981, 48 pages.

30 Questions and Answers about CND, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, London, ND., 1982?, 8 pages.

Merseyside CND Magazine, April-May 1982, plus leaflets, Whitechapel Press, Liverpool, 1982, 22 pages.

Target North West, civil defence and nuclear war in Cumbria, Lancashire, Manchester, Merseyside and Chester, Robert Poole and Steve Wright, the Richardson Institute Study Group on Civil Defence, Manchester Free Press, Manchester, 1982, 60 pages.

END, Journal of European Nuclear Disarmament, Issue 2, February-March, 1983, END, London, 1983, 36 pages.

Nuclear disarmament starts here, Ian Davison, CND, London, 1983, 46 pages.

The Defence of Britain, a sequel to Protest and Survive, EP Thompson, CND, London, 1983, 40 pages.

The Ground Launched Cruise Missile, a technical assessment, Tim Williams, Electronics for Peace, Maidenhead, 1983, 36 pages.

Nuclear Winter, a new dimension for the nuclear debate, Christopher Meredith, Owen Greene and Mike Pentz, Scientists against Nuclear Arms, London, 1984, 52 pages.

More on Britain …

WWII Redux: The endpoint of U.S. policy, from Ukraine to Taiwan

Boeing B-29 Assembly Line - 1944

Boeing B-29 Assembly Line – 1944

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

WWII Redux: The endpoint of U.S. policy, from Ukraine to Taiwan

[The article below was first published on the CounterPunch website on 23rd February 2022. It’s reproduced here as part of the effort to put what is happening in Ukraine at the moment into perspective.]

WWII Redux: The endpoint of U.S. policy, from Ukraine to Taiwan

by John V. Walsh

The Threatened Peoples of East Asia and Europe Can Stop the U.S. Drive to Restore its Global Domination.

“This is not going to be a war of Ukraine and Russia. This is going to be a European war, a full-fledged war.” So spoke Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky just days after berating the U.S. for beating the drums of war.

It is not hard to imagine how Zelensky’s words must have fallen on those European ears that were attentive. His warning surely conjured up images of World War II when tens of millions of Europeans and Russians perished.

Zelensky’s words echoed those of Philippine’s President Rodrigo Duterte on the other side of the world at the Eastern edge of the great Eurasian land mass:When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled flat.” We can be sure that Duterte, like Zelensky, had in mind WWII which also consumed tens of millions of lives in East Asia.

The United States is stoking tensions in both Europe and East Asia, with Ukraine and Taiwan as the current flashpoints on the doorsteps of Russia and China which are the targeted nations. Let us be clear at the outset. As we shall see, the endpoint of this process is not for the U.S. to do battle with Russia or China but to watch China and Russia fight it out with the neighbors to the ruin of both sides. The US is to “lead from behind’ – as safely and remotely as can be arranged.

To make sense of this and react properly, we must be very clear-eyed about the goal of the U.S. Neither Russia nor China has attacked or even threatened the U.S. Nor are they in a position to do so – unless one believes that either is ready to embark on a suicidal nuclear war.

Why should the U.S. Elite and its media pour out a steady stream of anti-China and anti-Russia invective? Why the steady eastward march of NATO since the end of the first Cold War? The goal of the U.S. is crystal clear – it regards itself as the Exceptional Nation and entitled to be the number one power on the planet, eclipsing all others.

This goal is most explicitly stated in the well-known Wolfowitz Doctrine drawn shortly after the end of the first Cold War in 1992. It proclaimed that the U.S.’s “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet union or elsewhere….” It stated that no regional power must be allowed to emerge with the power and resources “sufficient to generate global power.” It stated frankly “we must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power.” (Emphasis, jw)

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is but the latest in a series of such proclamations that have proclaimed global domination as the goal of U.S. foreign policy since 1941 the year before the U.S. entered WWII. This lineage is documented clearly in the book by the Quicny Institute’s Stephen Wertheim “Tomorrow, The World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.

Let us consider China first and then Russia, the foremost target of the U.S., first. China’s economy is number one in terms of PPP-GDP according to the IMF and has been since November, 2014. It is growing faster than the U.S. economy and shows no signs of slowing down. In a sense China has already won by this metric since economic power is the ultimate basis of all power.

But what about a military defeat of China? Can the U.S. with its present vastly superior armed forces bring that about? The historian, Alfred McCoy, answers that question in the way most do these days, with a clear “no”:

“The most volatile flashpoint In Beijing’s grand strategy for breaking Washington’s geopolitical grip over Eurasia lies in the contested waters between China’s coast and the Pacific littoral, which the Chinese call “the first island chain.”

“But China’s clear advantage in any struggle over that first Pacific island chain is simply distance. …The tyranny of distance, in other words, means that the U.S. loss of that first island chain, along with its axial anchor on Eurasia’s Pacific littoral, should only be a matter of time.”

Certainly the U.S. Elite recognizes this problem. Do they have a solution?

Moreover, that is not the end of the “problem” for the U.S. There are other powerful countries, like Japan, or rapidly rising economies in East Asia, easily the most dynamic economic region in the world. These too will become peer competitors, and in the case of Japan, it already has been a competitor both before WWII and during the 1980s.

If we hop over to the Western edge of Eurasia, we see that the U.S. has a similar “problem” when it comes to Russia. Here too the U.S. cannot defeat Russia in a conventional conflict nor have U.S. sanctions been able to bring it down. How can the U.S. surmount this obstacle? And as in the case of East Asia the U.S. faces another economic competitor, Germany, or more accurately, the EU, with Germany at its core. How is the U.S. to deal with this dual threat?

One clue comes in the response of Joe Biden to both the tension over Taiwan and that over Ukraine. Biden has said repeatedly that he will not send U.S. combat troops to fight Russia over Ukraine or to fight China over Taiwan. But it will send materiel and weapons and also “advisors.” And here too the U.S. has other peer competitors most notably Germany which has been the target of U.S. tariffs. The economist Michael Hudson puts it succinctly in a penetrating essay, “America’s real adversaries are its European and other allies: The U.S. aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia.”

Such “difficulties for the U.S. were solved once before – in WWII. One way of looking at WWII is that it was a combination of two great regional wars, one in East Asia and one in Europe. In Europe the U.S. was minimally involved as Russia, the core of the USSR, battled it out with Germany, sustaining great damage to life and economy. Both Germany and Russia were economic basket cases when the war was over, two countries lying in ruins.

The US provided weapons and materiel to Russia but was minimally involved militarily, only entering late in the game. The same happened in East Asia with Japan in the role of Germany and China in the role of Russia. Both Japan and China were devastated in the same way as were Russia and Europe. This was not an unconscious strategy on the part of the United States. As Harry Truman, then a Senator, declared in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.. . ”

At the end of it all the U.S. emerged as the most powerful economic and military power on the planet. McCoy spells it out:

“Like all past imperial hegemons, U.S. global power has similarly rested on geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, now home to 70% of the world’s population and productivity. After the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan failed to conquer that vast land mass, the Allied victory in World War II allowed Washington, as historian John Darwin put it, to build its “colossal imperium… on an unprecedented scale,” becoming the first power in history to control the strategic axial points “at both ends of Eurasia.”

“As a critical first step, the U.S. formed the NATO alliance in 1949, establishing major military installations in Germany and naval bases in Italy to ensure control of the western side of Eurasia. After its defeat of Japan, as the new overlord of the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific, Washington dictated the terms of four key mutual-defense pacts in the region with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and so acquired a vast range of military bases along the Pacific littoral that would secure the eastern end of Eurasia. To tie the two axial ends of that vast land mass into a strategic perimeter, Washington ringed the continent’s southern rim with successive chains of steel, including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and most recently, a string of 60 drone bases stretching from Sicily to the Pacific island of Guam.”

The U.S. was able to become the dominant power on the planet because all peer competitors were left in ruins by the two great regional wars in Europe and East Asia, wars which are grouped under the heading of WWII.

If Europe is plunged into a war of Russia against the EU powers with the U.S. “leading from behind,” with material and weapons, who will benefit? And if East Asia is plunged into a war of China against Japan and and whatever allies it can drum up, with the U.S. “leading from behind,” who will benefit?

It is pretty clear that such a replay of WWII will benefit the U.S. In WWII while Eurasia suffered tens of millions of deaths, the US suffered about 400,000 – a terrible toll certainly but nothing like that seen in Eurasia. And with the economies and territories of Eurasia, East and West, in ruins, the U.S. will emerge on top, in the catbird seat, and able to dictate terms to the world. WWII redux.

But what about the danger of nuclear war growing out of such conflicts? The U.S. has a history of nuclear “brinksmanship,” going back to the earliest post-WWII days. It is a country that has shown itself willing to risk nuclear holocaust.

Are there U.S. policy makers criminal enough to see this policy of provocation through to the end? I will leave that to the reader to answer.

The Peoples of East and West Eurasia are the ones who will suffer most in this scenario. And they are the ones who can stop the madness by living peacefully with Russia and China rather than serving as cannon fodder for the U.S. There are clear signs of dissent from the European “allies” of the U.S., especially Germany but the influence of the U.S. remains powerful. Germany and many other countries are after all occupied by tens of thousands of U.S. troops, their media heavily influenced by the U.S. and with the organization that commands European troops, NATO, under U.S. command. Which way will it go?

In East Asia the situation is the same. Japan is the key but the hatred of China among the Elite is intense. Will the Japanese people and the other peoples of East Asia be able to put the brakes on the drive to war?

Some say that a two-front conflict like this is U.S. overreach. But certainly, if war is raging on or near the territories of both Russia and China, there is little likelihood that one can aid the other.

Given the power of modern weaponry, this impending world war will be much more damaging than WWII by far. The criminality that is on the way to unleashing it is almost beyond comprehension.

John V. Walsh, until recently a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for Asia Times, San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Times/San Jose Mercury News, LA Progressive,, CounterPunch and others.

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

The great game of smashing countries

Women at university in Afghanistan - 1970s

Women at university in Afghanistan – 1970s

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

The great game of smashing countries

by John Pilger

[The present chaotic situation in Afghanistan just goes to demonstrate two crucial aspects of modern society; the hypocrisy and outright lies spouted by western politicians and their meek and complaint (in the main) media and the remarkably short memories of the population in general who suck up such baseless ‘information’ in a totally uncritical manner. When it comes to the population this is probably due to the fact that the majority of people have no concept of history. What happens today is dependent upon what happened yesterday – not last year or even decades ago.

Due to this short memory span the politicians (of all colours) are able to use/abuse the ignorance and gullibility of the population in an attempt to maintain the high moral ground. ‘Forgetting’ that they were the ones who created the problem in the first place, i.e., fundamentalist head-bangers, they pose as those who had created a ‘modern’ society in Afghanistan rather than the ones that had spend 20 years and an unimaginable amount of money to dominate the country – in the process destroying its society and people – even in the last couple of days in the country murdering children in a ‘targetted’ drone attack.

In Britain the enthusiasm that Labour politicians jump into the debate just goes to show how redundant social-democracy has always been in the country. With such imperialist ambitions and thinking they will never be able to offer a real alternative to the blatant capitalist suck-holing of the present ruling Tories. Instead of hanging their heads in shame – as they were the party/government that took Britain into the latest Afghan debacle – they still maintain that the decision was correct in the first place – and will, no doubt, take the same approach when the next chapter in the efforts to maintain US hegemony is opened.

The peoples of those imperialist countries who continually (even though they have ‘lost’ those wars in which they have had direct involvement) support their ruling class in such ‘adventures’ should look to the words of VI Lenin, if they have any hope for their own future;

‘Let us consider the position of an oppressor nation. Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.’ (The right of nations to self-determination, p23.)

Below is an article by a anti-war, Australian journalist. which sets out the the case against current hypocrisy.]

This version was first published on the CounterPunch website on 25th August 2021.

The great game of smashing countries

As a tsunami of crocodile tears engulfs Western politicians, history is suppressed. More than a generation ago, Afghanistan won its freedom, which the United States, Britain and their ‘allies’ destroyed.

In 1978, a liberation movement led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) overthrew the dictatorship of Mohammad Dawd, the cousin of King Zahir Shar. It was an immensely popular revolution that took the British and Americans by surprise.

Foreign journalists in Kabul, reported the New York Times, were surprised to find that ‘nearly every Afghan they interviewed said [they were] delighted with the coup’. The Wall Street Journal reported that ‘150,000 persons … marched to honour the new flag …the participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.’

The Washington Post reported that ‘Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned’. Secular, modernist and, to a considerable degree, socialist, the government declared a programme of visionary reforms that included equal rights for women and minorities. Political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

Under the monarchy, life expectancy was thirty-five; one in three children died in infancy. Ninety per cent of the population was illiterate. The new government introduced free medical care. A mass literacy campaign was launched.

For women, the gains had no precedent; by the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up 40 per cent of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70 per cent of its teachers and 30 per cent of its civil servants.

So radical were the changes that they remain vivid in the memories of those who benefited. Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who fled Afghanistan in 2001, recalled:

Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked … We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian films on a Friday … it all started to go wrong when the mujahedin started winning … these were the people the West supported.

For the United States, the problem with the PDPA government was that it was supported by the Soviet Union. Yet it was never the ‘puppet’ derided in the West, neither was the coup against the monarchy ‘Soviet backed’, as the American and British press claimed at the time.

President Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, later wrote in his memoirs: ‘We had no evidence of any Soviet complicity in the coup.’

In the same administration was Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, a Polish émigré and fanatical anti-communist and moral extremist whose enduring influence on American presidents expired only with his death in 2017.

On 3 July 1979, unknown to the American people and Congress, Carter authorised a $500 million ‘covert action’ programme to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular, progressive government. This was code-named by the CIA Operation Cyclone.

The $500 million bought, bribed and armed a group of tribal and religious zealots known as the mujahedin. In his semi-official history, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote that the CIA spent $70 million on bribes alone. He describes a meeting between a CIA agent known as ‘Gary’ and a warlord called Amniat-Melli:

Gary placed a bundle of cash on the table: $500,000 in one-foot stacks of $100 bills. He believed it would be more impressive than the usual $200,000, the best way to say we’re here, we’re serious, here’s money, we know you need it … Gary would soon ask CIA headquarters for and receive $10 million in cash.

Recruited from all over the Muslim world, America’s secret army was trained in camps in Pakistan run by Pakistani intelligence, the CIA and Britain’s MI6. Others were recruited at an Islamic College in Brooklyn, New York – within sight of the doomed Twin Towers. One of the recruits was a Saudi engineer called Osama bin Laden.

The aim was to spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and destabilise and eventually destroy the Soviet Union.

In August, 1979, the US Embassy in Kabul reported that ‘the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.’

Read again the words above I have italicised. It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly. The US was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell.

Six months later, the Soviets made their fatal move into Afghanistan in response to the American-created jihadist threat on their doorstep. Armed with CIA-supplied Stinger missiles and celebrated as ‘freedom fighters’ by Margaret Thatcher, the mujahedin eventually drove the Red Army out of Afghanistan.

Calling themselves the Northern Alliance, the mujahedin were dominated by war lords who controlled the heroin trade and terrorised rural women. The Taliban were an ultra-puritanical faction, whose mullahs wore black and punished banditry, rape and murder but banished women from public life.

In the 1980s, I made contact with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, known as RAWA, which had tried to alert the world to the suffering of Afghan women. During the Taliban time they concealed cameras beneath their burqas to film evidence of atrocities, and did the same to expose the brutality of the Western-backed mujahedin. ‘Marina’ of RAWA told me, ‘We took the videotape to all the main media groups, but they didn’t want to know ….’

In1996, the enlightened PDPA government was overrun. The Prime Minister, Mohammad Najibullah, had gone to the United Nations to appeal to for help. On his return, he was hanged from a street light.

‘I confess that [countries] are pieces on a chessboard,’ said Lord Curzon in 1898, ‘upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.’

The Viceroy of India was referring in particular to Afghanistan. A century later, Prime Minister Tony Blair used slightly different words.

‘This is a moment to seize,’ he said following 9/11. ‘The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.’

On Afghanistan, he added this: ‘We will not walk away [but ensure] some way out of the poverty that is your miserable existence.’

Blair echoed his mentor, President George W. Bush, who spoke to the victims of his bombs from the Oval Office: ‘The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering … ‘

Almost every word was false. Their declarations of concern were cruel illusions for an imperial savagery ‘we’ in the West rarely recognise as such.

In 2001, Afghanistan was stricken and depended on emergency relief convoys from Pakistan. As the journalist Jonathan Steele reported, the invasion indirectly caused the deaths of some 20,000 people as supplies to drought victims stopped and people fled their homes.

Eighteen months later, I found unexploded American cluster bombs in the rubble of Kabul which were often mistaken for yellow relief packages dropped from the air. They blew the limbs off foraging, hungry children.

In the village of Bibi Maru, I watched a woman called Orifa kneel at the graves of her husband, Gul Ahmed, a carpet weaver, and seven other members of her family, including six children, and two children who were killed next door.

An American F-16 aircraft had come out of a clear blue sky and dropped a Mk82 500-pound bomb on Orifa’s mud, stone and straw house. Orifa was away at the time. When she returned, she gathered the body parts.

Months later, a group of Americans came from Kabul and gave her an envelope with fifteen notes: a total of 15 dollars. ‘Two dollars for each of my family killed,’ she said.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a fraud. In the wake of 9/11, the Taliban sought to distant themselves from Osama bin Laden. They were, in many respects, an American client with which the administration of Bill Clinton had done a series of secret deals to allow the building of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline by a US oil company consortium.

In high secrecy, Taliban leaders had been invited to the US and entertained by the CEO of the Unocal company in his Texas mansion and by the CIA at its headquarters in Virginia. One of the deal-makers was Dick Cheney, later George W. Bush’s Vice-President.

In 2010, I was in Washington and arranged to interview the mastermind of Afghanistan’s modern era of suffering, Zbigniew Brzezinski. I quoted to him his autobiography in which he admitted that his grand scheme for drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan had created ‘a few stirred up Muslims’.

‘Do you have any regrets?’ I asked.

‘Regrets! Regrets! What regrets?’

When we watch the current scenes of panic at Kabul airport, and listen to journalists and generals in distant TV studios bewailing the withdrawal of ‘our protection’, isn’t it time to heed the truth of the past so that all this suffering never happens again?

John Pilger can be reached through his website:

[To accompany this article we provide a link to an RT broadcast of 24th August 2021 which looks at the history of Wikileaks and Julian Assange in the ‘whistle-blowing’ of the activities of the US (and NATO – including British) forces murder of the Afghani people when they entered the country 20 years ago, supposedly to ‘save’ them from the Taliban. War under capitalism and imperialism exists merely to make money for the military-industrial complex and any arguments about the ‘morality’ of such incursions are merely there to con both the working class who are the ‘boots on the ground’ and who, in their respective countries, allow their Governments to shovel vast amounts of public funds into the bank accounts of the major transnational players.

Here are a couple of interesting links that address the logistics, i.e., sheer criminal waste of money, involved in the Afghanistan ‘adventure’. Afghanistan: Black Hawks and Humvees – military kit now with the Taliban gives an idea of the sheer scale of the war materiel that the American (and, to a lesser extent those of the other interventionist nations) people are paying for to keep the transnational companies shareholders in the lap of luxury to which they have become accustomed. In the War on Terror, the only winner is the arms trade further develops that point

Continuing to bang the RT drum the most recent edition of Going Underground contained interviews which looked at the machinations of the NATO countries, and its hangers-on, to re-write the history of US involvement in Afghanistan and the debacle of its end.

Although a bit of an annoying rant this piece from RT, Afghanistan was a giant money laundering scheme also makes some pertinent points.]

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told