Rolling Back the Tide

It started with one explosion in 1945. An explosion unlike any the world had ever seen. The first nuclear weapon, detonated by the United States, launched an era of nuclear proliferation that persists to this day. With the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons are increasingly irrelevant, but the threat they represent is still very real. The tide of proliferation has ebbed. Now we have the chance to roll it back to end the threat of nuclear weapons forever.

Update (07/08/14): source links added


Design: Peter Fedewa


The present world policies on energy and weapons are incompatible with the survival of most if not all life on this small and beautiful planet. We must recognize that our present course is incompatible with a future for our grandchildren as well as millions of species they will depend on if they survive our neanderthal politics. Is it written in the stars that we cannot see where we are going? Or have we refused to exercise our responsibilities by succumbing to the propaganda of the profit-now warmongers? The planet will be here when we are gone. Maybe an intelligent species will evolve which sees the beauty of preserving its life support systems in perpetuity.

This is crazy planet now. We have millions maybe billions who are starving, sick, homeless, jobless, facing all kinds of life challenges. But what do the big leaders of the world do? They put TRILLIONS into weapons of war. This is crazy thinking. I guess what they say is true, man's worst enemy is himself. Albert Einstein said it very well: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." Too bad the proponents of this madness of manufacturing nuclear weapons, all so a few sick people can make a profit, too bad those sick people will not listen to the wisdom of MLK: “Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, "Love your enemies." It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. Just keep being friendly to that person. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies. (from "Loving Your Enemies")” ― Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Too bad the greed-driven sick leaders of the world who insist on building more destructive nukes, THEY ARE DESTRUCTIVE WHEN JUST TESTING THEM, BY GIVING SO MANY PEOPLE SICK WITH CANCERS, THEY EVEN SICKEN AND KILL THE CITIZENS OF THEIR VERY OWN NATIONS WITH CANCERS AND OTHER DISEASES THROUGH THE TESTING OF NUKES. Too bad the greedy ones refuse to use love to negotiate their ways through life and only want to use violence and destruction. They think that he with the biggest/most bombs win, and they could not be more wrong. When it gets to that point, we ALL lose. We ALL lose all. Too bad those sick and greed-driven ones cannot get the simple concept of LOVE ONE ANOTHER. What we now call "civilization" could abruptly end all because a small number of humans refuse to even consider the concept of LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Too bad humanity itself could end just because of that hate and ignorance. Too bad.

While I agree with the overall thrust of your message, I question why the factoid about the estimated number of cancers caused by testing is a necessary and valid item to include in the argument. Thanks for giving the reference to the basis of that estimate which is based upon a Center for Disease Control report of 2005. However, it took 124 pages of details in chapter 4 to form the basis of the estimate of 17,000. The number could be clearly many more or many less, but in comparison to cancer deaths from all causes it is still a very small fraction. As such would it not be prudent to avoid raising this issue given the risks of the actual use of these weapons in warfare?

I agree that the risks of using these weapons in anger far outweigh the risks posed by past testing. I don't think that raising the impacts of testing harms any argument against the use of these weapons. The estimate we used fell in the more conservative range of our research but, whether it is 10 people or 100,000, the fact remains that it is important to acknowledge the human cost posed by nuclear weapons testing. Yes, there is a "good news" story in that the LTBT stopped atmospheric testing and radioactive particles in the atmosphere diminished. Still, simply stating the number of nuclear explosions without connecting back to those directly effected by the explosions ignores an important element of nuclear proliferation; nuclear weapons kill people.

Add new comment