The US had no problem invading Iraq because they had no business investments next door and were in effect tampering with the European oil supply a competitor. At the same time someone in the good old USA is making a fortune at their tax payers expense by dropping crackers on Iraq, all in the name of security and for the conversion of Iraq to democracy. South Korea is right next door to north Korea and even if they don’t have neucs they can still do a hell of a lot of damage to American interests in North Korea. So the same urgency doesn’t exist, Lets face it the security of the world does not lay in the hands of piss ant country’s like Korea or Iraq, it lays in the hands of the countries that sell the weapons. Nuclear weapons are not important in the scheme of things but the hysterics that can be generated with them is nearly as effective as the threat of terrorism.
robb

Would that be the “me me me” theocracy just south of Canada?

Look, no one thinks that nuclear weapons are a pure “good” and we all think that in absolute terms that they are horrifying; but so is war at large, and so is most of the mess of human affairs; do let’s try to be sober about it all, as Fiasco has been hinting.

“Those who beat their swords into ploughshares generally wind up doing the ploughing for those who kept their swords.” — Benjamin Franklin

suz: “outlawing nuclear weapons is part of the process by which warfare in general becomes avoidable (and eventually unthinkable) through the supervision procedures and negotiating bodies…”

But (to coin a phrase) who will negotiate with the negotiators? Furthermore, this “outlawing” of which you speak: who will enforce it, and uphold your shiny new law? Might it be some, oh I don’t know, I’m spit-balling here… some, let’s say, nuclear-armed power of incredible military reach and might — a, well, “superpower” (to coin another phrase) if you will; that is, if anyone could ever possibly imagine such a ridiculous thing. And what would happen if other people became unhappy with the way this imaginary “superpower” chose to uphold the imaginary “laws”? Might they then try to get nukes themselves? Too many levels, man, it’s blowing my mind…

These “supervision procedures and negotiating bodies” you imagine… don’t we in fact have them, in the here and now? And aren’t they unable, at this very moment, to keep a low-level tinhorn ME theocracy from cooking up nukes in the basement, right under our noses, while everybody literally looks on and complains? But I’m sure the new lefty plan will be better than the old lefty plan; Darwin and natural selection and what-not.

Mick Strummer: “nuclear weapons can and will be abolished when there is an extra state authority - lets call it the UN…”

Oh, for the love of God, Mick, let’s please call it ANYTHING but the UN…

suz: “I see it the other way around…”

Yes, that does tend to be the problem.

In other words, to outlaw nuclear weapons, you’ll need to outlaw war first.

I see it the other way around: outlawing nuclear weapons is part of the process by which warfare in general becomes avoidable (and eventually unthinkable) through the supervision procedures and negotiating bodies which have to be used and respected as part of the nuclear disarmament process.

In other words, to outlaw nuclear weapons, you’ll need to outlaw war first.

I prefer the pragmatics of unravelling the supposed logic of the ‘balance of armed power’ and replacing it with forms of conflict resolution based on negotiation.

Suz, if there was ever a period of history where negotiated conflict resolution was more successful than the Cold War, I don’t know when it was.
You’re quite right about the necessity to avoid one-sided nuclear conflicts, by the way. It’s for that reason I admire the treachery of Klaus Fuchs (and others), who sent the plans for the Bomb over to the Soviets.

I don’t accept that the hope that humankind could rid itself of nuclear armaments is equivalent to the fanciful and Pollyannaish notion of ‘ponies for all’. Just don’t accept it. To me that’s a cynical kind of pragmatism. I prefer the pragmatics of physicians actually pointing out what the medical impact of nuclear warfare is. I prefer the pragmatics of unravelling the supposed logic of the ‘balance of armed power’ and replacing it with forms of conflict resolution based on negotiation.

And if you look at what’s actually killed large numbers of people in conflicts post 1945, it’s been a) strategic conventional bombing, b) small arms, or even blades. and c) the economic devastation that war brings to a country. Rwandans managed to kill somewhere between half a million and a million of their own with no more than machetes, AK-47s and grenades.

Millions of people were killed in warfare pre nuclear weapons - it doesn’t logically follow that nuclear weapons have caused any decrease in deaths in warfare post-1945. If nuclear weapons had been used in Rwanda, as many if not more people would have been killed and the country itself - the land, the earth, the water etc - would have been devastated. The only possible situation where nuclear weapons can be used which wouldn’t lead to nationwide immolation (ie where the impact is not restricted to a single city such as in Hiroshima) is if only one party to a conflict has nuclear weapons. If both parties have nuclear weapons (eg Pakistan and India), the devastation on both sides could be total and irreversible, with devastating impact on the world economy, apart from anything else. Nuclear weapons don’t make sense and are unacceptable to me - and to millions of others.

Fraser’s comments were inescapably dim, even for what we’ve become accustomed to.

Unless you consider that it’s that time of the political cycle again, when Uncle Mal reminds us how nicer he is than that horrid little public-school oik who now has his job.

Furthermore, as insane as it sounds, Fiasco actually has a defensible point.with regards to the effect that nuclear weapons have had on warfare. And if you look at what’s actually killed large numbers of people in conflicts post 1945, it’s been a) strategic conventional bombing, b) small arms, or even blades. and c) the economic devastation that war brings to a country. Rwandans managed to kill somewhere between half a million and a million of their own with no more than machetes, AK-47s and grenades.

Of course, they’re not naive, they don’t think it can be achieved any time soon. But they hope for it. They don’t capitulate to the irrational and in a way insane death wish which brings nuclear weapons into existence and says that they have a useful role to fill. Surely human beings are better than that.

For example if a visit is made to Paris and then Berlin a huge difference in attitude is observed. In Paris there is a continual wail of Police sirens and flashing police lights when just observing from street corners, handcuffs are continually put on people just waiting at bus stops etc and even the subways are closed authoritarian type structures.

Berlin on the other hand is far more relaxed and easy going with an open subway system etc. Both France and Germany are nuclear powers so generalising about nuclear power definately leading to a police state may be true in one place and not necessarily the feeling one experiences in another.

Similarly can a country use nuclear technology just to ensure that medical supplies are sterilised and not be tempted to further expand into other areas where the good to society is less obvious? Or just generate electricity without being tempted to have nuclear arms?

Even if people are comfortable with what is in their country at any given time how can we be sure that a change of government either by election or coup will not completely change the situation to where the citizens do not want to go?

Just how secure the Nuclear facilities are from accidents like Japan,Three Mile Island and Chernobyl experienced a few years ago or as a prize for a determined terrorist network is another problem that scares the hell out of people.

Unfortunately another major problem with the Nuclear industry is that it is invariably wrapped in secrecy and it is very hard for the average person to accept them on trust.

It is an industry that will cover up and hide wherever possible on its past performance and given the newfangled QANTAS type buyout attempt by equity trusts there is not even the limited protection of reporting to the stock exchanges should this style of bid for a nuclear company ever be successful.

So in short I personally think that moves towards the nuclear option should be resisted as much as possible at all levels because history does indeed show that it is easy to rush in but the process has a clearly defined path that there is probably no coming back from if the wrong choices are made.

It is a very addictive process for people who believe in it and I think it would be as difficult to unscramble the desire to be nuclear armed once this status is attained as it would be to unscramble the tax taking ability from any Government anywhere in the world.

Best not to be nuclear armed if at all possible and discourage others from having Nuclear arms as well. At least then there is no double standard.

Maybe the Efrikorners realised that were was no need for South Africa to have nukes to see off the mortal threat posed by Swaziland and Namibia.

But probably they just didn’t trust the blecks, who were about to gain power, with nuclear weapons.

Who are they supposed to be deterring with the ultimate weapon? The French?

The Jacobite succession never was adequately resolved in my view, Spiros.

Kim, there’s a point there - though I simply can’t see how we can denuclearize until (and if) we can get to the point that we trust other nations enough to demilitarize in its full generality. However, these people don’t seem to have a coherent plan for getting where they want to go, and some useful intermediate targets to aim for in the meantime.

Rob, I agree some practical and intermediate steps are needed, but perhaps groups like this make a start by getting the issue on the agenda and then others can fill in the gaps.