"No task is more urgent than to destroy the nuclear monster before it destroys us". How naieve can you get? Of course we are going to be destroyed by it. We still have the same insane brains which created the weapons in the first place.

i kind of enjoy reading about mice imploring cats to wear heavy boots. i suppose there is some private purpose in this silly article. it may just be 'feel good', that is common among latte lefties.

elites need armies, both for protection from neighbors, and more commonly from the lower class. armies like weapons, and nuclear bombs are best. nations with nuclear bombs don't get invaded.

as long as the rich rule, with assistance from the military, or the military rules, with assistance from the rich, the bomb is here to stay. if oz had citizen initiative, we mice could run our country for the people. global warming and nuclear warfare could be resisted effectively. but these writers, and all the latte chatterati, can't conceive of actually doing something to save the nation. like the born-slaves they are, the limit of their ambition is to implore massa' to stop doing what massa' wants to do. fat chance!

If Dr Tilman Ruff is "naive" to want to eliminate nuclear weapons, he is in very good company. Even Henry Kissinger along with other not-exactly-doves, have voiced this opinion. U.S. President John Kennedy was the first world leader to state that "we must eliminate these weapons of war before they eliminate us"

Polling patterns in the U.N. consistently show support for the elimination of nuclear weapons.The UN General Assembly approved a resolution initiated by New Zealand that would lead to the removal of all nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert (high alert status). The recorded vote was 139 in favor and 3 against (U.S., UK, France) with 36 abstentions. China voted yes. Russia did not vote on this resolution. Document A/62/391

Opinion to get rid of nuclear weapons is supported in national polls, too, even including France.
Results of a February 2008 report from Canada from a new poll conducted by CBC shows that when it comes to nuclear weapons, 88% of Canadians believe they make the world a more dangerous place, while just 6% believe they make it safer.
Additionally, 73% support the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world through an enforceable agreement

World opinion has turned to see global warming as a danger to be countered. The politicians, and the big money corporations were slow to join this opinion.

But the same thing is surely happening, in regard to nuclear weapons. Millions of ordinary people world-wide, see what a pointless and suicidal path is the path of nuclear weaponry. As usual, the big boys of power and money are slow to cop on to the truth.

Dr Tilman Ruff is onto something here. Australia's Prime Minister has just shown leadership in reconciliation with aboriginal people.

The Australian government could again show leadership in the movement to free the world from the threat of nuclear weapons
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

YES, YES! LETS ALL STAND IN A CIRCLE HOLDING CANDLES AND BEGGING CIVILISED NATIONS TO DESTROY THEIR WEAPONS!

But last time we did this it was sponsored by the USSR, and the hard core of the peace movement were progressives dedicated primarily to countering US influence.

Are you going to get the mad states to do it first?

It took less than one line to know what twits these long haired radical rat bags were.

The shocking truth is that we support hundreds of these twits, with our taxes, to a very good standard of living, in our universities.

We need a common sense test, to be applied to the entrance requirements for both for both students, & more importantly, staff.

Quite a number of skeptical responses and I can understand why, though I'd have thought the stakes were high enough to at least treat the issue seriously rather than dismissing it out of hand.
I've yet to see any analysis pointing out why the article is wrong.

Nuclear weapons have become far more powerful than the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs - after all, it's been decades.

The problem is, they're now so powerful, the fallout is likely to affect whichever country deploys them, then there's the retaliations to consider.

Which, to me, seems like a decidedly poor tool for anyone save the suicidal. It's as though someone is holding another person hostage, but instead of holding a gun to their head, they're strapped in dynamite.

Nobody can win in this situation - surely there are more focused means of military leverage that don't risk the entire planet.

ChristinaMac

I wish the world was what you hope for but my cynicism of the Big Five and long experience dealing with weapons experts extinguishes it.

The Big Five (US, Russia, China, France, UK) “own” the UN Security Council and dominate the UN. They are not going to allow a disarmament conference to really erode the status quo that they dominate.

“Our disarmament ambassador, Caroline Miller, proclaimed at the conference last week that it’s high time we “walked the walk” instead of just “talking the talk”

Caroline is talking about a UN meeting.

Meanwhile Caroline's political masters appear to have no problems with our uranium mines making profits selling uranium to China and now Russia. These Australian uranium shipments feed Chinese and Russian nuclear reactors thus freeing-up uranium strategically mined in these two countries for nuclear weapons use.

“The new government should also reconsider our status as a nuclear “umbrella” nation.”

OK we hamstring our existing nuclear protector (the US) while happily confirming nuclear explosive agreements with historically hostile countries. This is what Putin’s siloviki call the “useful idiot track”.

“We’ve already banned chemical weapons, biological weapons and anti-personnel landmines, and a cluster bomb ban is currently being negotiated.”

The well furnished ivory tower that is the UN may be under the impression that “banning” these things stops countries doing things and hiding things. One or two US government biological warfare experts I know would disagree.

The Big Five as well as Israel either maintain stocks or “assembly in weeks” capabilities for all the weapons mentioned.

In the case of chemical and biological weapons those countries that don’t maintain stocks maintain research establishments purportedly to counter these weapons. However to counter them you need to produce the threat to test the countermeasures. The capability to produce chemical and biological for countermeasures often exceeds “trace” experimental levels and is usually a mass production capability.

I suggest the Big Five has already rigged the UN and NPT. If there isn't already a forum of exclusively non-nuclear weapons nations (no observers) there should be. This might be more effective.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Sadly to record, the USA is and has been the greatest stumbling block both in the UN and out of it to nuclear disarmament and the abolition of biological warfare. For those who like to display the usual right-wing neo-fascist bigpotry and knee-jerk abusive reaction about this, read a few books rather than burning them.

Sadly to record, the USA is and has been the greatest stumbling block both in the UN and out of it to nuclear disarmament and the abolition of biological warfare. For those who like to display the usual right-wing neo-fascist bigotry and knee-jerk abusive reaction about this, read a few books rather than burning them.

Nucs are with us for eternity, there is no tunning back. A small nuclear war is no big deal, like if we bomb Iran soon, their are no catrostropic consequences, they can't shoot back. That is a deal we can't refuse, but with our whimp government and military leadership,
(not the boots on the ground guys), it is questionable, wheather we whimp out and allow Iran to get the bomb. Israel may whimp out also,
but I don't think so, they have too much to lose, like their country, Israel. But, they don't have enough military might, to do the job correctlly, and the U.S doesn't have the wisdom to do the job right, they are not even considering taking out the Iranian oil and gas fields. Whithout the Iranian oil and gas fields, Iran will be out of business for a long time. Total destruction is the correct war plan, so the U.S war planners don't have a clue. Fire the 10,000 lawyers at the Pentagon, give them a rifle and send them to the front lines of the moslem war.

DeepDarkOpps

"we" must outlaw Nuclear weapons?

Err...who is 'we'?

I assure you healthwatcher... there are many 'non' we out there who have them...or want them.. and will stop at nothing to get them.

Then..'they' will deal with 'we' in terms of a chunk of holy book which supports their claim that "The world and all that is in it belongs (not to 'we') to Allah and his messenger"

There is a vid on youtube of a Mullah calling for:
-Biological
-Chemical
-Bacterial

attacks on the west so that 'Allah is the only God, and Mohammad is his messenger'
He clearly states.. they want to rule the WORLD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipsYKjHJktQ&NR=1

If you goto 3m08s point...you can see it for yourself mate.

As I've often tried to make the point.... such people..such speeches, are not 'myths' nor are they just rhetoric....they bloody mean business....
Its time we did also.

While I wholeheartedley agree with the sentiments raised in this article I am pessimistic that global leaders will actually make the commitment to eradicating nuclear weapons. We are still governed and influenced by notions of nuclear (or mutual) deterrence and the Cold War (even though some of the players have changed). Not to mention the interests of business and money and the pursuit of power.

Bottom line is you cannot always trust the people who govern. History has showed that human life often plays a poor second to these other interests.

The nuclear race started around World War 2 when intelligence revealed Hitler had access to the science of nuclear weaponry and then it was on for the US/Europe to gain the upper hand. Anti-nuclear campaigners at the time (including some of the scientists that were involved in the first series of nuclear testing in the US) were up against the fear that Hitler would be in possession of a catastrophic weapon and had the 'madness' to use it. The irony in that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not lost.

The US and French governments were both negligent when it came to nuclear testing both in around the Bikini Atoll, Muroroa and in New Mexico where the first tests revealed horrific medical consequences to the people living in the valleys downwind and to soldiers who were there to guard the facilities. The population was not warned that nuclear testing was to take place near their homes.

Japanese tuna fisherman, New Mexico residents and other inhabitants of the these test sites were all affected terribly by the fallout and most died within six months.

The US and French governments acted criminally and negligently and given our recent track record, it does not bode well for nuclear disarmament mores the pity.

Of course Tilman is right. No one seriously disputes that. What everyone is criticising or disputing though are the practicalities of implementing a meaningful control. No one Nation is going to give up a weapon at its disposal that has the most intimidating attributes while-ever there is the slightest chance of using it in a justifiable cause.

So the only way to accomplish what Tilman proposes is to remove the justifiable cause in the equation. Make war itself a crime against humanity. Any and every war. There should be no more justification for war. War, by which it suddenly becomes acceptable to kill men, women and children in uncontrolled numbers, either directly or as so called “collateral damage”, is an institution that has outlived its usefulness. There is no longer any meaningful application for it in today’s society. It belongs to an age when Nations still believed they could live in secure physical and financial isolation. When might meant dominance. When resources were limitless and the sea and air inexhaustible.

We still perpetuate the myth of war as a noble institution by handing out medals to people (so-called heros) for killing other people in a cause that was justified by “war”. We set up memorials, we celebrate war anniversaries. That is how we can stop it. We have to change; society has to change. Declare everyone who kills another human being a war-criminal, treat them as the murderers they really are, and the need (and the justification) for atomic weapons will disappear, along with all the other horrible weapons of war

Outlaw nucs ? Who is going to do this, the U.N ? This is one of the stupidest ideas posed by the left, but only one of the stupidest, all the leftist ideas are stupid. The lefts ideas are utopian, devoid of
reason and logic and common sense. The left doesn't care about real world consequences, only that their intentions are noble. That makes them feel good about themselves, that is what matters to the left.

DeepDarkOpps

DeepDarkOpps, I've seen a a few of your posts and haven't dignified them with a response, but I've gotta say, that comment, and others you've made, come across looking pretty damn dodgy.

You've advocated the total destruction of middle eastern nations. No discussion of the morality of wiping out an entire people, or of the fact that plenty of people are moderates.
Just an extreme right-wing holocaust solution.

You also make the rookie mistake of tarring an entire political ideology with one brush. 'The left?' who the hell are you talking about?

You talk as if all leftists share the same goal. That's just bull.

Are you talking about centre leftists, like Rudd (for whom a case could be made that he's a right wing leader) or are you talking about fringe leftist groups, socialist alliances, communists, the Greens or certain factions in the ALP? They've all got totally different stances, and when I hear people berating 'the left' or 'the right' it just seems plain stupid. Honestly, get a sense of perspective.
There was an interesting discussion on how dumb tarring entire political ideologies with a single brush really is:
"What the left believes"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1381

I put it to you, you've got no idea what the 'left' believes. You've described what some leftists believe, sure. The same ignorance can be applied to some members of 'the right.'

As for the 'DeepDarkOpps' name, to be brutally honest, it sounds like you're trying to sound like some kind of intelligence insider, but your simplistic one-sided posts say otherwise.

TurnRightThenLeft

I agree with your views. Left and Right are misleading labels which vary with the subject at hand.

The assumption that Left = wooly headed peaceniks falls down. China and Russia were hard left when they undertook crash programs to build nuclear reactors for electrical power and nuclear weapons for national defence.

I see Iraq as mainly being about the US hoarding Iraqi oil which would classify me as “Left” but my opinions on nuclear weapons may place me on the Right.

As to the nickname “DeepDarkOpps” I’d say wannabe is more likely. However I’ve bumped into a few military of that type who do see things in Black and White, Left and Right.

They are not trained to think about political subtleties and those that do are often weeded out of such “Opps”.

Pete

We all know who the left are. The whacko enviromentalists, the global warming alarmists, the college professors who teach womans studies, gay studies, cultural equivalence, black studies and all the other nonsense that makes you come out of college stupider then when you went in, qualified only to teach in college, what has no market value. The left are the people who major in such nonsense. You can actually go thru an Ivy league university without having to take an American History course, a civics course or plenty of other relevent courses needed to understand what American Exceptionalism is all about. College is a pretty bad investment, unless you major in the hard sciences, then you will learn something and get a good education, but the social sciences are mostly a waste of time, unless your goal is to be a far out leftist, detached from the real world.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose, just go to college and study the social sciences and you will learn, first hand.

DeepDarkOpps

DeeprkOpps

Hmmm. You appear to be writing within American terms of reference. From which US state do you hale from please.

Pete