19th-century South Bank Polytechnic was enlarged and changed and renamed South Bank Poly University in 1992. 2003 seems to have been the date of its rechristening as LSBU. Kate Hudson seems to have been teaching Russian and east European politics and history. The book's biographical note describes her as 'Head of Social and Policy Studies at London South Bank University'; she was presumably appointed when LSBU was newly reorganised, and this seems to coincide with her being 'Chair of CND' in September 2003. She wrote several books, one on the collapse of Yugoslavia, which left Amazon reviewers unimpressed. She was in the Communist Party of Great Britain until recently.
A not very helpful website of LSBU yielded a mention in issue 1 of 'Connected', a magazine of that University, in winter 2006:-
Social sciences mark 40 years at the cutting edge
In May, the Department of Social and Policy Studies celebrated its 40th anniversary. Head of department Dr Kate Hudson hosted a celebration for everyone involved in teaching and research over the past 40 years. `The Department has made a significant contribution to the development of social science, both nationally and internationally, and been at the cutting edge of theoretical developments in the study of sociology, social policy and politics,' said Dr Hudson.
"At the same time, our commitment to active practitionership means that our work is actually helping to shape the society in which we live.
I could find no information on what 'Dr' means here; I would guess some rehashed material given a Ph. D.
The University website, curiously, puts huge emphasis on the employability of its graduates: we learn their starting salaries are quite high. It's probably true to say it's an organisation funded by Jewish paper money, ultimately at taxpayers' expense, to produce gullible half-trained young people.
The claim 'our work is actually helping to shape ... society' seems false. CND had no effect, and her 'Communist' pseudo-leftism hasn't either: there are wars everywhere, for example.
'CND' is the official history of the 'nuclear world' including the UN, World Court and so on, interleaved with fragments on CND personalities - Bertrand Russell, Canon Collins, Tony Benn, up to E P Thompson, Ken Livingstone, Bruce Kent; all of them utterly ignorant of the tricks being played - and the organisation itself. And other arguably-related activists and activities.
The book is indexed, fairly usefully. The content is absolutely standard official history. Everything in her book could be taken from the New York Times. Her sources (listed at the back) include books by journalists, popular authors, and 'useful idiots'; her staple source for background, in 3 volumes, is Lawrence S Wittner, 'The Struggle Against the Bomb' vol 1 -1953 (pubd 1993); vol 2 1954-70 (pubd 1997); vol 3 1971-present (pubd 2003). Stanford University Press.
It's a strange experience to read a revisionism-free book - the first nuclear sceptical Youtube was 2008 - in all senses. It's not correct to say Hudson knows nothing; she actually knows a negative amount, far more errors than truth.
She has absolutely no knowledge of sciences/ scientific method, or statistical calculations, or history. Thus, her introductory chapter (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) quotes a few old publications, including Osada, translated into English. She has no idea of the dubiousness of this material, or the effects of US censorship for years in Japan after WW2. She has no idea about radiation, and how difficult it is to detect; and the fact that no evidence of genetic damage whatever was found. One of the amusing aspects of the book is the way that every stage seems to be more dangerous than the one before: probably the book was written as separate chapters. She can't separate the effects of chemical warfare from other effects: I could find no mention of chemical warfare in Vietnam, for example.
On statistics, she does not (for example) present a chronology of scares, and see if conclusions can be drawn. On history, she has little grasp of population figures: it may, for example have been better if Hitler had wiped out the British forces at Dunkirk, since it's possible Stalin would have been defeated and eastern Europe spared mass rapes and murders. She prefers to quote Rotblat. She has no idea how the media can shape perceptions; she thinks some events capture the attention of the media, and doesn't understand the way the media can force fakes, wars, corruption onto the public. Vanunu is a perfect example of a faked scoop.
Hudson has no idea Jews control the fount of money, mostly as far as I know through the Fed. No doubt some of it went to her university department. She has no idea of the net effects of wars - cui bono? How much money do Jews make from wars? What were their motivations around the year 2000? She has no idea about 9/11, the subject of her final chapter.
The only value of this book is as a reference list. The chapter headings look at 1 Hiroshima etc/ 2 Aldermaston / 3 'Vietnam War to neutron bomb' (poor Russell's Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal isn't even mentioned)/ 4 Cruise missiles/ 5 Cold War, Gorbachev/ 6 Post Cold War/ 7 9/11 'World Trade Center'.
The most important missing element is, of course, Jewish influence: she may be Jewish herself, or believe herself to be Jewish - certainly her associates and life and memberships are consistent with that, as are her whole treatment of history. She does however mention Palestinians and UN resolutions about Israel a few times. Much of this is in the past, though the waste and devastation remains. As to the future, Hudson mentions people like the neo-cons and the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) but not AIPAC. So her futurology is worthless.
It's tempting to say that women just can't handle serious issues, and, disappointingly, that seems truer now than ever. But of course there are plenty of males going along with nonsense, too.