Posted on 05/02/2022 8:20:42 PM PDT by Nextrush
"During more than 40 years of active journalism, including a stint as a defence reporter, I have never once been prevented from writing anything by a so-called "D" Notice (nowadays they are officially called DSMA notices, if you care), until now. I used to scoff when people told me that such things were common, or that I was constrained in reporting by them. Now I cannot"-
Peter Hitchens Column Saturday April 30, 2022
"In the United Kingdom, a DSMA-Notice (Defense and Security Media Advisory Notice) is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security..."
Wikipedia Article On "DSMA-Notice"
British journalist Peter Hitchens, the contrarian conservative journalist and outspoken defender of British tradition and traditional values including a Christian aversion to war, now finds himself constrained in his work by a government order.
The order comes amidst the conflict in Ukraine which increasingly concerns Mr. Hitchens who was able to write and publish this regarding he situation in his weekly column this weekend.
"It is time to ask some very simple questions about the Ukraine crisis, which each day threatens to spread, very dangerously indeed.
I never really believed there was a nuclear danger in the Cold War, which I lived through. Now it think there is one.
Though this country is not actually at war with Russia, and has no defence treaty with Ukraine, politicians and other supporters of this conflict often refer to "we" when discussing it.
Who is this "we"? What British national interest is served by deeper involvement in what is at root a Russo-American war? Must we again be the fifth wheel in America's cart?
How much are you prepared to pay in taxes for the munitions we send? If, as is horribly possible...
(Excerpt) Read more at nextrushfree.blogspot.com ...
I was more worried it would start by accident, ala the book” Fail-safe”
The truth is always the first victim in war.
>> Who is this “we”?
They’re easy to spot here.
Yep.
Same.
After the fact, there were at least a few instances where one side was contemplating launching in response to a supposed incoming attack.
I don’t believe the UK would be supporting Ukraine the way it is if the US was not also. Other NATO members follow the US lead.
That said, I agree with supporting Ukraine, despite Russia’s nuclear sabre rattling. If we allow nuclear rogue states to use that threat to give them almost complete freedom of action they might get the idea that they can get away with anything short of a direct attack on a nuclear armed state. At that point you can kiss goodbye to the nuclear proliferation treaty. Every nation state will be rushing to get nukes to protect themselves, and in the longer term this will only increase the dangers of a nuclear war because the last thing we need is more nukes in the hands of unstable regimes that could be run or taken over by millinarian religious nutcases in say, the middle east.
Exactly. I am mystified why so many Freepers are dazzled by Putin and adopt the “don’t poke the bear” idiocy that the Putin regime like to foster to demoralise the population in the west and make them so terrified in the West that they can do whatever the hell they want.
As you say, Britain is also a nuclear armed state and Russia isnt going to be stupid enough to provoke Britain into launching a nuclear counter attack in response to dropping a bucket of sunshine on London, especially one that is also a NATO state. That is why nuclear deterrence is a thing, and it works both ways.
Exactly. I am mystified why so many Freepers are dazzled by Putin and adopt the “don’t poke the bear” idiocy that the Putin regime like to foster to demoralise the population in the west and make them so terrified in the West that they can do whatever the hell they want.
As you say, Britain is also a nuclear armed state and Russia isnt going to be stupid enough to provoke Britain into launching a nuclear counter attack in response to dropping a bucket of sunshine on London, especially one that is also a NATO state. That is why nuclear deterrence is a thing, and it works both ways.
Thanks for posting the link. That Peter Hitchens piece is quite interesting.
I also find it awkward that, when Britain and the USA rightly denounced Putin's illegal invasion of a sovereign country, they seemed to have forgotten that we gave him the idea, by doing this in Iraq in 2003. Unlike them I can truly claim to have opposed both these actions.
I tire of being told that Nato is purely defensive alliance when we know it bombed Serbia in 1999, incidentally killing civilians, when Serbia had not attacked a Nato member.
I also don't recall Libya attacking a Nato member before that 'defensive' alliance launched the air war on Tripoli which also killed civilians, children included, and turned that country into a cauldron of chaos, benefiting nobody.
“what is at root a Russo-American war?”
“This means that EVERY pro-Ukrainian article in the Daily Fail, The Sun, The Guardian, the Telegraph, The Express and others is nothing but UK government/MI6 propaganda.”
Scary stuff - we all saw the UK heading this way for the past 20 years or so. And did the UK, and the rest of Western Europe for that matter, really have a choice? Once they opened the floodgates to mass immigration from the ‘south’, they knew full well that it would upset people...so they had to be silenced.
The REAL QUESTION that we should have for the Neocons and Bidenistas is the following: Why are they so hell-bent on PERMANENTLY ending Western Culture? I wonder if anyone has figured out the answer yet?
I agree 100%. Putin is completely opposed to FR’s predominant world-view, as well as the world-view of any rational, civilized person (even those who I may disagree with strenuously on various political issues).
I think what’s happening is something akin to Trump Derangement Syndrome (the “if Trump says something, it must be at least wrong and maybe evil” stupidity that we saw so much of during Trump’s term in office). Just because a Democrat is for something doesn’t mean we have to be automatically against it (we might be for it also, but likely for a very different reason).
“He used polonium and Novichok to murder people on British soil, Russian state media has selectively mentioned London as a nuclear target several times,”
Both of those are outright lies from the same people who told you Trump was a Russian asset and dozens of monstrous other lies in the last 20 years. The polonium guy was murdered by someone once his business dealings, and the “novichok” incident was fentanyl and targeted a guy who was in prison in Russia until Putin released him in a prisoner swap. He was very likely the guy who helped Steele invent his dossier and that was Brits intel silencing him.
Both of those are Brit operations being cast as Russian.
Don’t believe the government claims.
It is funny that you think the UK or US would retaliate.
Why would the UK not retaliate? If the UK is destroyed the thirst for vengeance would be insurmountable. A nuclear attack on the UK wouldn’t be limited to the UK either, they would have to nuke the rest of NATO as well to try and take out as much nukes as possible pre emptively, they couldn’t risk a NATO nuclear retaliation being launched before they had chance to pre empt them. Even if the US and NATO held off, the UK nuclear response would leave what was left of Russia devastated and unable to defend itself against a largely intact West.
Even Obama said we could absorb a nuclear attack
Our leaders do not have the will to use nuclear weapons
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.