Bill asks: "I can imagine a world without nuclear weapons. Can you?"

I answer "Nope".

The last year the world had no nuclear weapons was 1944 - and wasn't that a peaceful year, hey Bill?

Pete

To Pete: we have come within minutes of nuclear annihilation on several documented occasions. I am sorry that you cannot see any more than such a disastrous future, obliterating everything we have and have ever fought to protect.

"But for good luck, we would all be dead,"
- Professor Stephen Hawking, 18/1/07, as the symbolic Doomsday Clock is moved forward from 11.53 to 11.55, with midnight marking global catastrophe.

In support of Bill Williams, a saner future world, and a long overdue Treaty to ban nuclear weapons and their immense unnecessary diversion of resources and funds, we can see what's possible:

“I fully share the commitment of the US President Barack H. Obama to the noble goal of saving the world from the nuclear threat and see here a fertile ground for a joint work.”
- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in a statement to the UN Conference on Disarmament on March 11, 2009.

"I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
- US President Barack Obama

It's up to us to understand what is at stake and to demand nothing short of nuclear weapons abolition.

Atom1

I base my opinions on what I see as likely not idealism.

As I think it extremely unlikely that countries with nuclear weapons would junk them, thus losing their military advantage, I am resigned to thinking of a world WITH nuclear weapons.

The Russians and US are playing nuclear disarmers for suckers while both sides (and Israel) are developing more accurate low-yield weapons that are more likely to be used than ever before.

Meanwhile Nato, Sweden and Switzerland (by geographical proximity) rely on the American nuclear umbrella for protection against Russia and a gradually nuclear capable Iran.

Australia also relies on the US nuclear umbrella.

Nuclear disarmers talk as if only Russia and the US have nuclear weapons. They appear ignorant of the countries (France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan) that see possession of nuclear weapons as grim instruments essential to their national survival.

Public statements always sound nice in the UN but that does not stop people in some countries (not ours) believing that they would have no country or future without nuclear weapons.

And remember that WWII generated 50-60 million dead just using conventional weapons but it was 2 nuclear weapons that actually stopped the war - quickly stopping the killing.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2008/08/influential-view-on-indian-nuclear.html

“I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
“It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’....”
- General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War 2 and later US President.

Pete ("Meanwhile Nato, Sweden and Switzerland (by geographical proximity) rely on the American nuclear umbrella for protection against Russia and a gradually nuclear capable Iran. Australia also relies on the US nuclear umbrella.")

... you talk of "protection" that does not - cannot - exist in the event of nuclear conflict.

Nuclear weapons are WORTHLESS. They cannot be used in any real sense.

They have not prevented the many wars and deaths since WW2.

But to think they will prevent - and always prevent - a further world war is to be blind to a possible future and to human nature.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent & prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war."
- Albert Einstein

To be sure of no future nuclear conflict is to abolish nuclear weapons, and to boycott all who build, design, test, store, fuel or maintain such weapons and their delivery systems.

“We are at a critical moment in history… For many, there is a strong temptation to cling to the strategies of the past 40 years. But to do so would be a serious mistake leading to unacceptable risks for all nations.”
- Former US Secretary of Defence, Robert MacNamara, “Apocalypse Soon”, May/June2005

Humans can build hundreds of thousands of cars daily. Needlessly.
We can abolish nuclear weapons.

It is nice to see nuclear-backed leaders talking about disarmament, but to be perfectly honest I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime. Why would the USA ditch its nuclear arsenal despite the retention of nuclear weapons by hostile nations? Why would Pakistan junk its nukes while India retains its own arsenal? Israel? China? France?

I think that a 'groundswell of public opinion' would prompt leaders to talk more about disarmament - perhaps even to make some very public displays of disbanding their nuclear programs - but I doubt that it would lead to actual disarmament. The eventual result would be a whole heap of nuclear-capable nations going about their business silently, pretending to cooperate but really doing very little to disarm themselves. The USA would pretend to have no nukes, but nobody would believe them; Russia would do the same. Pakistan would make a big show of junking their missiles, while stockpiling them secretly, just in case India retained a handful of weapons. India would do the same.

I'm sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but I just don't see how actual disarmament could take place. Nuclear weapons may go the way of catapults and crossbows, but only when a more efficient method of killing is invented.

I would love to see the world free of nuclear weapons.

Do I see it happening, not likely.

My hopes are smaller in that I hope in 20 years to see less weapons and nuclear armed countries than today, but I am not optimistic.

With the prospect of Pakistan's 200 odd nukes falling into the hands of nut jobs, and the decidedly fruity Iran going full steam ahead, the chances are slim

Bill what is your mob planning to do about the alleged 75-100 nukes controlled by the Pakistan Government, but may soon fall into the hand of Taliban? Ditto North Korea, Iran, Israel etc.

The answer is clear: bugger all

I hear where you're all coming from - a position of hopelessness.

ICAN calls for nuclear abolition by ALL nuclear states. We need to look at:

a) the alternative to nuclear weapons abolition - likely future use of such unimaginable weapons of terror, with any use also risking global escalation.

b) What a Nuclear Weapons Convention actually would mean. To:
1. Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert/launch on warning status
2. Remove nuclear weapons from deployment
3. Remove the warheads from their delivery vehicles
4. Disable the warheads by removing their explosive pits
5. Place the fissile material under United Nations control.
- All including processes of verification.
See
http://www.icanw.org/nuclear-weapons-convention
including the PDF summary and draft text.

“Anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet. For the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action for its prevention.”
- Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice and member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council.

Atom 1

It is not a question of, “a position of hopelessness.” Many years ago when I was introduced to the story of Don Quixote and his habit of tilting at windmills; I thought how silly can anyone be. My position is realism.

Reality tells me that you can not abolish nuclear weapons - it may be desirable it is just not possible. Next you suggest placing fissile material in the hands of the UN which in my view is a dysfunctional organisation.

I note a serious omission in your list; the possibility of fabricating fuel rods for nuclear power reactors, using fissile material surplus to military requirements

As long as we use uranium, we'll have nuclear weapons. There'll always be guns as long as there's gunpowder. Ideal worlds don't exist in ideological worlds, they are incompatible. With the two Japan bombs, it was either that or invade, creating many more casualties on both sides.

It's the thought of the devastating reach of a nuclear explosion, which is the reason they haven't been used. Along with probable retaliation from a number of sources, so the scale of damage has been the deterrent. They'll be used, it's the degree which will matter. Many old soviet states now have control over missiles based in their countries, so there are many countries with or have access to nukes. Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, all believed to have at least one nuclear bomb and let's no forget India and the Chinese. The Russians gave away heaps to their various allies at different times, so who knows who has or hasn't got them.

Many people don't realise Australia hosted British nuclear missiles back in the late 1950's, 60's and early 70's based outside Darwin. There will be a nuclear free world, when nuclear technology becomes redundant. Until then, it's a guessing game.

Maybe a nuclear winter, will counter act global warming and take care of over population. Let's hope we don't find out.

Antigreen ("Reality tells me that you can not abolish nuclear weapons - it may be desirable it is just not possible")
1. Your "reality" is based only on the past.
2. "Desirable" is trumped by "NECESSARY" - necessary to ensure prevention of nuclear annihilation.

("I note a serious omission in your list; the possibility of fabricating fuel rods for nuclear power reactors, using fissile material surplus to military requirements")
I refer you to my second post:
"... and to boycott [and lobby] all who build, design, test, store, fuel or maintain such weapons and their delivery systems."