[The following essay was first published several years ago during the time of the Bush rule.]
In a world teeming with nuclear bombs, there is no doubt that disarmament should be a major policy of the U.S. Every student knows the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the destruction and agony that the atom bombs wrought. Yet, today’s nuclear bombs are many times more powerful. It only takes some of the thousands of bombs on hair-trigger alert in America and elsewhere to go off and bring the end of civilization. The destruction of the environment alone would be devastating. Yet, the Bush administration has done practically nothing for disarmament. Including, the rejection of a bi-lateral proposal to destroy thousands of nuclear warheads. Nor was the previous Clinton administration much better. They may try to fool people into thinking that disarmament should only be for other nations, even though our nation is one of the two major possessors of nuclear weapons, but the truth is that the world will not be safe from nuclear bombs unless all nuclear-holding nations decide to disarm. Amazingly, the Bush administration and the Congress want to build even more nuclear bombs. Appallingly, they say it is for our security when the truth is just the opposite. If people all over the world would reject the status quo and demanded an end to nuclear weaponry, they would be gone. However, the outcry must be heard through the ballot box, through the streets and through a determination that will make sanity the order of the day. If you have ever read the short story, “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson, you would understand that the dilemma that the world faces with nuclear bombs today is similar to the one faced by the townspeople in that famous story.
Today, we live in a society very close to that of George Orwell’s “1984,” a world of destructive chaos that is buttressed by laissez-faire capitalism, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, quasi-police state control, and imperialistic wars. Nonetheless, citizens-in-general could change the face of politics in America and, maybe, make the world a better place to live.
Forum Remarks
[Statement by Mark Greene that he meant to make at the 2004 televised debate for the U.S. House of Representatives with Democratic congressman Adam Smith, Republican Paul Lord and a Green Party candidate; Mark was not able to either begin or finish the statement at the debate.]:
--- As a nation and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we must work to uphold our commitment to this important treaty, which is the most important regulatory safeguard to controlling nuclear weapons on this planet. The treaty has worked well as there are less than a dozen countries that have developed nuclear weapons since the dawning of the Atomic Age in 1945. Without this treaty, that has been in effect for well over a quarter of a century, there may well have been dozens of countries with nuclear weapons before the New Millennium in 2000. We know that there are that many that have the capability to build these powerful hydrogen bombs. It is politics that is keeping a relative peace, and it will have to be politics that maintains that peace. Strong-armed power only goes so far, as the ancient Greek writer, Aesop, tried to tell us through his fable, the “North Wind and the Sun.” Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says that nations must work towards disarmament of their weapons. This is very urgent. Although the U.S. and Russia signed the Moscow Treaty of 2002, which calls for the dismantling of thousands of long-range missiles, it did not go far enough. [The treaty said nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which there are thousands of, nor did it call for the destruction of the warheads of the dismantled long-range missiles. Even with a successful adherence to the treaty, there will still be roughly two thousand long-range missiles left in silos, on hair trigger alert, on each side. This is still enough for a cataclysmic tragedy, accidental or otherwise, that could destroy civilization the world over. We must work through a multi-lateral basis with the nuclear armed holding countries, for a common sense lowering of the nuclear threshold. The world should demand that the nuclear armed countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or have withdrawn, should either sign or re-commit to the treaty, or get rid of their missiles. And once they sign, they are obligated just like we are, to work towards disarmament, most likely through multi-lateral agreements. We need to be more diligent in working with other countries in protecting nuclear materials. There’s a lot to do in this area that makes a lot of common sense].
The Party of Commons does not sponsor or produce advertising.
Copyright 2009, Party of Commons TM
In a world teeming with nuclear bombs, there is no doubt that disarmament should be a major policy of the U.S. Every student knows the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the destruction and agony that the atom bombs wrought. Yet, today’s nuclear bombs are many times more powerful. It only takes some of the thousands of bombs on hair-trigger alert in America and elsewhere to go off and bring the end of civilization. The destruction of the environment alone would be devastating. Yet, the Bush administration has done practically nothing for disarmament. Including, the rejection of a bi-lateral proposal to destroy thousands of nuclear warheads. Nor was the previous Clinton administration much better. They may try to fool people into thinking that disarmament should only be for other nations, even though our nation is one of the two major possessors of nuclear weapons, but the truth is that the world will not be safe from nuclear bombs unless all nuclear-holding nations decide to disarm. Amazingly, the Bush administration and the Congress want to build even more nuclear bombs. Appallingly, they say it is for our security when the truth is just the opposite. If people all over the world would reject the status quo and demanded an end to nuclear weaponry, they would be gone. However, the outcry must be heard through the ballot box, through the streets and through a determination that will make sanity the order of the day. If you have ever read the short story, “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson, you would understand that the dilemma that the world faces with nuclear bombs today is similar to the one faced by the townspeople in that famous story.
Today, we live in a society very close to that of George Orwell’s “1984,” a world of destructive chaos that is buttressed by laissez-faire capitalism, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, quasi-police state control, and imperialistic wars. Nonetheless, citizens-in-general could change the face of politics in America and, maybe, make the world a better place to live.
Forum Remarks
[Statement by Mark Greene that he meant to make at the 2004 televised debate for the U.S. House of Representatives with Democratic congressman Adam Smith, Republican Paul Lord and a Green Party candidate; Mark was not able to either begin or finish the statement at the debate.]:
--- As a nation and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we must work to uphold our commitment to this important treaty, which is the most important regulatory safeguard to controlling nuclear weapons on this planet. The treaty has worked well as there are less than a dozen countries that have developed nuclear weapons since the dawning of the Atomic Age in 1945. Without this treaty, that has been in effect for well over a quarter of a century, there may well have been dozens of countries with nuclear weapons before the New Millennium in 2000. We know that there are that many that have the capability to build these powerful hydrogen bombs. It is politics that is keeping a relative peace, and it will have to be politics that maintains that peace. Strong-armed power only goes so far, as the ancient Greek writer, Aesop, tried to tell us through his fable, the “North Wind and the Sun.” Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says that nations must work towards disarmament of their weapons. This is very urgent. Although the U.S. and Russia signed the Moscow Treaty of 2002, which calls for the dismantling of thousands of long-range missiles, it did not go far enough. [The treaty said nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which there are thousands of, nor did it call for the destruction of the warheads of the dismantled long-range missiles. Even with a successful adherence to the treaty, there will still be roughly two thousand long-range missiles left in silos, on hair trigger alert, on each side. This is still enough for a cataclysmic tragedy, accidental or otherwise, that could destroy civilization the world over. We must work through a multi-lateral basis with the nuclear armed holding countries, for a common sense lowering of the nuclear threshold. The world should demand that the nuclear armed countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or have withdrawn, should either sign or re-commit to the treaty, or get rid of their missiles. And once they sign, they are obligated just like we are, to work towards disarmament, most likely through multi-lateral agreements. We need to be more diligent in working with other countries in protecting nuclear materials. There’s a lot to do in this area that makes a lot of common sense].
The Party of Commons does not sponsor or produce advertising.
Copyright 2009, Party of Commons TM
Comments
Post a Comment