One Person's Ban The Bomb Questions For Understanding And A Perspective
1.Are ban the bomb activists misguided and simply medling in matters beyond their grasp?
2.Is there a sound and sensible place for nuclear weapons globally as vital protectors of civilization and if banned would mean another equally terrible class of mass destruction weapon would be established globally to take their place?
3.Is 2009 civilization so precious that not to protect it with nuclear weapons would be to deny that our complex sophisticated world of today is worth protecting?
4.Who are nuclear weapons aimed at stopping and how?
5.Is there a safe way of stopping the people that are currently claimed to be stopped with nuclear weapons and to thereby allow nuclear weapons to be effectively outlawed and eliminated as anything more than the knowledge to make them?
6.When Japan has the technical knowhow and expertise to develop nuclear weapons in weeks or months and presently claim to depend on USA's nuclear arsenal for self defence, is it simply academic or mental gymnastics to suggest that we need to ban nuclear weapons, when their re-establishment after a global ban would be easy for a current nuclear weapons nation and begs the question of whether it's better to have them, than risk an international race to re-establishment, if a nuclear weapons ban regime disintegrates?
7.Does the human race just have to accept that nuclear weapons are here to stay and that we just have to learn to live with them for ever in the safest way possible?
8.When nuclear weapons are a device to mass exterminate millions of people in minutes and days after a blast over a heavily populated area and that such areas are presently targeted with nuclear weapons that have firing shedules of minutes after the launch button is pushed, they breach the Geneva Convention against targeting of civilian areas and are thus illegal, so why do good people not react accordingly with drastic counter measures as they do towards murderous criminal agendered gangs with a similar refined specific Police contol?
9.Are nuclear weapons like the common cold virus and just too hard to eliminate owing to their ever changing nature that makes nuclear weapons a matter for living with, rather than wasting time and resources trying to do the impossible, as alchemists tried to do, in their quest to turn cheap metals into gold?
10.Is the issue of nuclear weapons like no other weapons matter, in that it's about strategic balance, where such a balance makes a nuclear weapons surprise attack unable to be successful in taking over another nation owing to the response by the attacked nation being such that the attacking nation would be nuked into the stone age from hidden submarines armed with copius nuclear weapons, thus showng it impossible to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but to always have a core minimum for that balance?
11.Should the sensible response to the world's targeted and primed for immediate launching nuclear weapons, be the construction and maintenance of nuclear blast and radioactive fallout survival shelters as Switzerland has?
12.Are nuclear weapons a blessing in disguise that would allow a sophisticated interception and destruction to harmlessness of an incoming asteroid that would otherwise cause a huge impact crater as we see on the moon with an associated deep and extreme ice age from a blanket of sun blocking dust in the atmosphere?
13.Is the issue of nuclear weapons best left to the scientists who know the technology and have expertise to keep them as weapons of effective threat rather than use, such as the Trident System of nuclear defence, based on the fact of hidden submarines with enough intercontinental ballistic missiles to destroy a nation's civilization and most of its people, if that nation was insane enough to launch a nuclear attack on another, thus preventing such insanity?
14.Are we entering the final stage of nuclear weapons efficiency and sophistication where a launch of a nuclear weapon could be spotted by satelite and an anti balistic missile killer rocket would explode the attacking rocket and remove the danger, thus allowing the best holder of that active technology to keep world peace and security, as USA aspires to do?
15.Why do intelligent human beings not realize that if human kind is intelligent enough to finally make nuclear weapons inneffective by their being able to be shot down in their launched attack trajectory, then an international state of affairs, where nuclear weapons, or their equivalent in other mass destruction methods, are effectively banned and checked as banned, is preferable, attainable and urgent?
16.Has the sixty three years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, lulled intelligent communities into the unshakable belief that we are safer with, than without nukes, owing to Nagasaki being the last city nuked and a lesson in nuclear war insanity?
17.Is it a good situation to live in a world that has a nuclear weapons policy that if a nation was to launch a surprise nuclear weapons attack, the resulting tit for tat exchange would mean a possible continuation until all the world's large cities were severely nuked and that such an end result prompts the stalemate of not risking that insane situation to develop, potentially feasible though it is?
18.When the realestate and ship transaction system in civilzed countries allows people to buy and sell, free of hidden contract conditions and depends upon a mutually agreed set of requirements with remedies and penalties for default, based on a registry, why is it not already the same with the maintenance of international peace and security, without the need to depend upon the threat of all-out nuclear war that could end in the extinction of most life on earth and certainly the human species except if some were able to spend years or decades in a nuclear radiation and fallout excluding shelter?
19. If, in a hypothetical world, remotely activatable exposive devices were compulsorily fitted to all males between eighteen and fifty-five, on the understanding that they would almost certainly never to be activated and that it was necessary for all such males to be fitted with them for a peace ensuring balance of power, we would mostly react in horror, so why do most on this planet meekly tolerate the parallel situation we endure, under a nuclear weapons threatened world we're told is safer this way?
20. When nuclear weapons are so terrible that they must never be used, why do we have them ready to launch at densly populated cities on a few minutes notice? If the answer is to make it too dangerous to mount a first strike, why would it ever be necessary to be the first to nuclear bomb a nation's civilan population after Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, when that action was a violation of the Geneva Conventions on protection of the civilian population? Moreover, why would any nation want to show what a nuclear bomb can do, in a first strike warning message attack, as USA did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, when the effects are now well known? Is this not enough to make us ardent ban the bomb workers?
21. Viewpoint. Since it's true that, where there is a will there is a way, and that whatever our human kind can conceive and believe we can achieve, it's vital that we start to conceive and believe in a world free of the dangers of nuclear weapons. We can do it via abolition, by 2020, from an international agreement by 2015, with continual inspection and proof that no nuclear weapons exist anywhere worldwide or in space. This permanent inspection regime must be our job to help secure, under the present United Nations system, from the existing International Atomic Energy Agency.
We wouldn't tolerate being fitted with a personal remote controlled explosive device to ensure that we behaved in a civilized manner from a central control agency, because the fitting of that would be grossly uncivilised. Nor should we tolerate nuclear weapons that are virtually the same in effect, for the same reason. From our space exploration so far, this world is a unique and most beautiful jewel of amazing life and splendor. The best in it, by our enthusiastic determination, can easily achieve nuclear weapons abolition by 2020, or earlier, by putting our minds collectively to it. Let's go for it now.
In a nutshell, we wouldn't want to be in a nuclear explosion, but at least with interconinental balistic missiles delivery, we're all at risk. It's our prime task to remove the threat of any nuclear weapon. All nuclear weapons must be abolished. It's our prime humanitarian duty to ensure and our most logical act, while they still exist.
Murray Richard Tingey