If Rudd’s international commission on the abolition of nuclear weapons “…will revive the work of the "Canberra Commission" on nuclear disarmament set up by former Prime Minister Paul Keating” it becomes an even bigger joke.

Who on earth remembers, or has even heard of, the Keating (another windbag) Canberra Commission?

I admit I must agree with much of what you say serbie. Alperovitz and the revisionist theory of American atomic diplomacy appears to be quite sound. It will be interesting how the American government will utilise their supremacy in conventional weapons in the future. It strikes me that no longer will it be nuclear first strike but a conventional one. That is quite possibly followed up by a nuclear one once the CandC on the belligerent country is neutralised. Also for real change to occur in the realm of nuclear policy, would you not agree that american foreign policy (which is arguably tied to their nuclear policy) would need to drastically change. I find it doubtful that America would change its foreign policy at all. American 'exceptionalism' would not allow it.

Gar Alperovitz was writing in the 1960s, when the information to refute him was all classified. The historian Richard Frank has strongly challenged his arguments on the basis of transcripts of decoded wartime Japanese communications that were released in 1995 and had not been made available to any but a handful of the most senior US military and civilian leaders during the war. Here is a summary of his argument.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

Basically, the decoded messages made it clear that the militarists who ran Japan's government had no intention of surrendering, unless it was a negotiated surrender that left them in power. This left Truman with three choices: accept a negotiated surrender that left the Japanese free to rebuild and come out fighting again, this time with biological and nuclear weapons, launch a massive land invasion of the home islands with massive US (and Japanese) casualties (google Battle of Okinawa), or drop the bomb.

Believe it or not, everything bad that happens in the world is not the fault of the US. Do you seriously think that the decisions of India, Pakistan, Israel, France, Britain, etc. to acquire nuclear weapons were based on a fear of US invasion?

If the reason for the abolition of nuclear weapons is flawed because the latter are the “poor man’s defense” against the preeminence of the U.S. in conventional weapons of ‘prompt global strike’ by which the U.S. will continue to dominate the world by the threat of their use against its rivals and enemies, such as N. Korea and Iran as Marko Beljak implies, then the other reason is that in the age of millenarian movements the abolition of nuclear weapons is also flawed as rogue states bristling in their apocalyptic beards, like Iran, could produce STEALTHILY nuclear weapons. In such a situation to set up an International Commission for nuclear disarmament, as Prime Minister Rudd proposes to do, is the ultimate stupidity that any one could suggest. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the magnitude of such stupidity takes astronomical dimensions. Just imagine that countries such as America, Britain, France, and especially, Israel, which could be the targets of a nuclear attack by an Islamist state or by proxies of the latter, would even consider their nuclear disarmament.

Rudd’s proposal limpidly illustrates that Australia does not have a statesman at the helm of the government but a political dilettante and a populist to boot who is more concerned to ingratiate himself with the celestial wishes of its liberal minded constituency than to deal with the geopolitical realities.

Moreover, what is rather surprising and amusing is to see that Gareth Evans is willing to underwrite such political buffoonery by accepting the chair of the International Commission for nuclear disarmament. It seems that his Tasmanian “Biggles” days are not over.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

Further I would argue that mankind cannot jump the shadow of its ‘true enemy’ ‘war itself’ as the abolition of war would entail the reinvention of man into an angelic nature. Also, the “amelioration of security” by diplomatic means and international institutions, such as Palme, in the age of millenarian movements with irrational actors, is also a flawed conception. In such circumstances nuclear or conventional disarmament is a grand illusion. Only a benign superpower or a coalition states can keep the order of the world by a combination of sticks and carrots. And in our times the United States relatively is such a benign power.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

War is part and parcel of capitalism with interludes of peace between: Because fundamentally we live in a system based on profits and what occurs is each against all. Where each state is against every other for a declining share of shrinking markets. As well, the US has the worlds largest debt which is increasing and the worlds largest military might and that is an explosive mixture with the consequences far more explosive than previous wars. The US want global hegemony starting with the control of the oil in the Middle East. As well, the fundamental and explosive contradiction is the world economy as it collides against the nation state. Generally for the majority of the ruling elite, do not want war but they get driven to war! The war was a fundamental redivision of the world whereby the US would take over much the British Empire and other countries in its quest for world hegemony in the American Century. Germany wanted to reorganise Europe under its rule and sway. Japan had its Imperial colonial sights on the South Pacific including Australia. The war was well and truly over with Japan when the atomic bombs were used.
But for workers it was a colossal catastrophe with worker shooting worker.

"Operation Starvation" was an attempt to mine the sea lanes that Japan needed for survival. These sea lanes provided the commodities that were needed for Japan to make war:Iron, Rubber, Magnesium, Phosphorous and Uranium/Plutonium if they were to ever build a Nuclear bomb. A JCS report (july 6, 1945) states that since the implementation of operation starvation (Marh 27th 1945) over 500 Japanese ships had been sunk and imports were down by 90 percent. It is rather possible that if this operation was to continue Japan could have been brought to its knees through embargo and blockade. When combined with the constant bombing of the Japanese homeland, Japan eventually would have been unable to make war or even feed its populace. The Bomb was not necessary to end the war. Japan was a defeated country, it was only a matter of time before they realised that.

It is an absolute fact that the Japanese were never going to surrender. My uncle was an Australian secret service fighter heavily involved in the Pacific Arena and he knew exactly what was going on.
To win the war against the Nips was going to drag on for years with horrible death counts and the US wisely decided to end it quickly. After all when at war one takes sides and your own are more valued.
People seem to think that the US is our enemy - that is so lame and stupid, the result of fools that have been educated at left socialist universities like Monash. These people have had a brainwash that they will never escape from. The only way people like that would possibly learn about reality is when their little suburban moronic lives are actually threatened with extinction by some foreign enemy that is holding a smoking gun at the head of their children. For some I would doubt even that.
The Nuclear Deterrent and the dominance of the US is the only reason why the west is still enjoying a level of life style that is free and relatively pleasant. Every one of you has been given a freedom that men and women died for and will continue to protect even if some of you rally do not deserve it. That is the generosity of the US and the western dominance.
Australians better wise up soon because the next world conflict is on the horizon and you better prepare yourselves because it WILL AFFECT YOU!
Its a terrible reality but the human race is not governed by logics and reason or by love and good will but by power and evil and those that decide to chose a free world as their model better realize that and be prepared to defend it. If you do not recognize the value of my statement then I can not help you. I know that the majority of real world people understand this so please take your Monash garbage and throw it out with the rest of your trash.

Absolute is a very strong word. You might change your mind after reading this. Or, at least the absolute bit. peruse this http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/28.pdf

@ The Militant Canadian

So I downloaded the pdf and read it.

HMMM!?

Now I ask myself which part of this document you seem to indicate opposes what I said was "absolute".

The entire document is filled with reasons why the nuclear bombs were used. Maybe its a Canadian thing? Maybe you were educated to comprehend things differently or maybe you are what most Americans think you are?
Anyway - your information was totally supporting my point and I thank you for that.

So the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians who died are worth less than whoever you think would have been saved?

The Japanese were willing to surrender. No one would have been harmed had they been given a few more weeks to consider and for diplomacy to continue. I'm sorry but your relative who was an agent was not privy to the private communications between the presidents of Japan, the USSR and USA.

Does that mean that if the USA is nuked by another country it will save lives of Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese and Russians? How do you know Hitler wasn't killing people to save the lives of his own soldiers? And if so, what a noble cause! How many Iraqis were saved since the war began...? There are approximately 1 million Iraqis dead since 2003......greater than Saddam Hussein's entire record...did that save lives of Iraqis, even though it far exceeds the death caused by the dictator himself?

If that doesn't make sense to you then you should get your head checked like most idiots, because that is your argument and line of reasoning.

I am confused a bit: “Why nuclear disarmament is not enough to abolish nuclear danger” (an article title) and “Abolishing nuclear weapons alone can make a world even less stable than it is” (an article contextual conclusion).

Is it possible to abolish guns existing and would world become more safe afterwards?