Thursday, September 24, 2009
We've just been watching 'The Leader, his Driver and the Driver's Wife', Nick Broomfield's film made in 1991 about the final push of the white supremacist movement in South Africa and Eugene Terre'blanche in particular. Braodcast just before Mandela was released, it feels almost a relief to watch a doc which is big on the characters, not worried too much about traffic noise, about people being in shot, and fundamentally that Nick Broomfield wasn't exactly getting the interview he wanted. I really like programme-making that acknowledges the existence of the crew in the making of the film and the impact that has on how people are behaving.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I was quite excited when the US (and now apparently the UK) started to show signs of nuclear de-commissioning; what with Obama cancelling the missile defence shield and now Mr. Brown saying he's probably going to ditch one of the Trident subs, I felt like perhaps there really has been a sea change along with the administration change in the States.
Until my housemate pointed out that it's still only really going to take one missile to trigger a crisis. What's the point of getting rid of only a single submarine? While it's good on the one hand (I guess a few thousand/million less people will be killed/injured should the 'necessity' for a strike arise), it proves the point that nuclear weapons are still seen as a useful deterrent. It seems the British government are only dropping the fourth Trident to try and fill in part of the hole blasted in the budget by the bailout of the banks.
But it's obviously not a deterrent; Israel having the bomb hasn't stopped suicide bombers. America and the UK are still terrified of home-grown terrorists. Surely nuclear weapons are redundant now that old-style cold war battle scenarios are past? No single man with home made explosives strapped to his chest is going to be put off by the threat of a nuclear missile.
Can't the government do something a bit more constructive with the cash - think how many nurses' pay could be hiked, how many youth schemes could be funded, how the train network could be finally sorted and all those high speed train links commissioned. If we're going to make it about the money rather than the moral high ground, then surely as a deterrent, it's just not economically efficient; it doesn't do the job.
Until my housemate pointed out that it's still only really going to take one missile to trigger a crisis. What's the point of getting rid of only a single submarine? While it's good on the one hand (I guess a few thousand/million less people will be killed/injured should the 'necessity' for a strike arise), it proves the point that nuclear weapons are still seen as a useful deterrent. It seems the British government are only dropping the fourth Trident to try and fill in part of the hole blasted in the budget by the bailout of the banks.
But it's obviously not a deterrent; Israel having the bomb hasn't stopped suicide bombers. America and the UK are still terrified of home-grown terrorists. Surely nuclear weapons are redundant now that old-style cold war battle scenarios are past? No single man with home made explosives strapped to his chest is going to be put off by the threat of a nuclear missile.
Can't the government do something a bit more constructive with the cash - think how many nurses' pay could be hiked, how many youth schemes could be funded, how the train network could be finally sorted and all those high speed train links commissioned. If we're going to make it about the money rather than the moral high ground, then surely as a deterrent, it's just not economically efficient; it doesn't do the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
