NEWS
Elite Policy and the "Axis of Evil".
Having brought up Iran [in Part 1], we might as well turn briefly to the third member of the famou ...
Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops.
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran. Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding a ...
Elite Policy and the "Axis of Evil".
Having brought up Iran [in Part 1], we might as well turn briefly to the third member of the famou ...
Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops.
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran. Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding a ...
Nuclear Disarmament Party
Comments
Use the form below to add your comment. Scroll down
to read other comments.
Your comments will be acknowledged within 48 hours.
Thanks for visiting!
Current Comments as of 15/05/2008:
| 23/10/2006 - Mary Walsh | |
|
I am a member of the Labor Party. How many other members are there that are horrified to know that the Labor Party will support the Liberal Party and release further uranium into the world?
An article in this week's Age is headed; Injuries point to new Israeli weapons. The article out of Gaza City describes injuries which cannot be explained under previous war wound examples. I am thinking weapons are perhaps germ warfare. Why aren't Israel and America bound by the same rules of disclosures that they impose on the rest of the world? Where are the crowds? Where are the voices? Who really owns the media? And why doesn't anyone care past the football and the latest fashion craze, anymore? Where did we, as parents, go wrong with the current generation that everyone appears to be so complacent. Is it the booze, the drugs or just the "I'm alright Jack" mentality? I've attended rallies over the years and feel I've done my bit - but where are the young ones? I am concerned for my grandchildren - what about yours? |
|
| 11/08/2006 - robert legge | |
|
Nukes in a post-Cold War era
Culpeper, VA Star Exponent Column Robert Legge Independent columnist and resident of Madison County Thursday, August 10, 2006 Possession of nuclear weapons only emboldens our enemies Last week was the 61st anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan that ended World War II. I attended a memorial service commemorating the event. Most who attended were what I would call "peace" activists. Some had even visited survivors in Hiroshima. Many spoke of the "madness" of nuclear weapons and urged disarmament primarily on moral grounds.Such talk may sound nice, but I think that "give peace a chance" and "everyone should love one another" is naïve rhetoric. "MAD" worked For the past 61 years, even though there have been plenty of wars, the possibility of a nuclear exchange has had a calming effect on major disputes, keeping regional wars from becoming catastrophic, especially involving the U.S. and USSR. Some called it Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD, but it prevented the two superpowers from ever having a major military engagement. So our nuclear arsenal provided us safety during that era. And even though nuclear war was "unthinkable," our government actively was preparing for its aftermath. To help keep the economy functioning, the government stored $4 billion in cash in a large underground facility just east of Culpeper. But thankfully the risk has abated and the Mount Pony facility now houses old films and audio archives. The "Cold War" thankfully is over. Unfortunately, the risk of a nuclear attack is not. We are still threatened by a few rogue nations like North Korea. But as was the case in the U.S./Soviet confrontation, a missile attack leaves an immediate telltale trail that will invite certain devastation to the launching nation. So I don't worry too much about them. Terrorists are the main threat Our primary concern today is that weapons grade material will fall into the hands of stateless and unknown terrorists. The possibility of them constructing a nuclear device that is brought by air or ship into a U.S. city is very real if not inevitable. While WMD (weapons of mass destruction) is now part of the lexicon, we are not nearly as concerned about biological and chemical weapons as we are nuclear. And fortunately, controlling nuclear weapon inputs is easier than with chemical or biological. The construction of atomic weapons requires material that only comes from large nuclear-generating plants operating openly in independent nations. If enriched uranium and plutonium can be controlled, we can largely eliminate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our nukes are a double-edged sword Military planners must be most concerned with a single nuclear device being brought to this country secretly and detonated in a U.S. city. Our powerful nuclear arsenal will provide us no security for such a scenario. The terrorists would know that we would have no idea who had built, let alone delivered, the weapon. We'd have little recourse. Frankly, I see little realistic use for our nuclear arsenal given the current risk. The genie is out of the bottle. Time is clearly on the side of the terrorists. It is fine for us to say that no one else should possess nuclear weapons, but other countries will simply use the same "national security" reasons that we use to decide whether to build nuclear weapons or make plutonium. Granted, total nuclear disarmament may be difficult to imagine. But it can be done in "baby steps" by taking all missiles off "alert status," taking weapons off delivery systems, and agreeing to a"no first use" agreement. I submit that our possession of such a huge nuclear arsenal emboldens other nations to pursue their own arsenal or weapons-grade material. It seems only logical that if we take the lead on serious reduction and eventual disarmament that would enhance our national security. Sure it would be nice to keep these weapons "just in case." Chemical warfare was outlawed after World War I. For almost a century this terrible weapon has been largely off limits. I think the same can happen with nuclear weapons, especially considering the consequences are far more dire. National security planners are unlikely to be swayed by the "nuclear weapons are immoral and we should disarm" argument. Their job is to keep us safe. But I think the case can now be made that our possession of these weapons is no longer in our national security interests. Robert Legge rjma@hihgstream.net |
|
| 14/03/2006 - heather !!!!!!!! | |
|
U know your comment page has really made me understand things more and made me be able to say the things i have wanted to say even when i cant say them at school.so thanks for this opportunity for me to express my feelings freely with getting in trouble example almost got sespended at school. so thanks again i will definatly be writing again.
|
|
| 14/03/2006 - Heather !!! | |
| im 15 years old and i cant believe that everything that our country stands for is going down the toilet. most of you who read this will think its just another teenager that thinks she knows everything. But i was actually writing a paper that explains my position on the problem of the U.S. trying to control other country's nuclear weapons. The question was " should the u.s. have influence over other countries with respect for their nuclear weapons?" My first answer was how in the world could you have respect for a country that makes nuclear weapons? But i guess i cant even have respect for my own country then cause im pretty sure that everyone knows the u.s. has nuclear weapons and who ever doesnt really needs to look between the lines hint hint the atomic bomb.Now i see though that we( the u.s.) never minds its own business!!! Yes i know we should have gone to Afghanistan to get Binladen we still havent caught him though but according to the president we really close w/e. Yes i know that we needed to get the terrorists ( But how many have we actually captured and stopped?) And YES i know it was a very great thing to get Sadam out of power but look at the trouble that caused! but what are we going to do next? Oh and u know how i said that we get into stuff thats not our business well look at vietnam we wernt really supposed to be in that war and not that im saying that the men who went to fight that war are bad i give you props men! my grandpa fought that war and he is constantly remembering what happened and how horrible it was! We wernt supposed to be over there!!!! But im getting off track. nuclear war. the u.s. went into iraq saying that they were checking for WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! ok First of all how do u go from Sadam to oh well lets check them for nuclear weapons in like a month???? i dont understand this do u??? And u know what they found NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nothing whatsoever so now our men over there are getting blown up!!!!literally. but im getting kinda ticked now so..... im trying to sound professional. ok the united states made up a peace treaty for like nuclear bombs and stuff like that ok nearly 70 countries signed this treaty 54 met the deadline. iran,isreal and north korea are among approximatly 120 countries that didnt send in reports. So know they think the y have nuclear weapons. But did this ever cross the united states minds if we have nuclear weapons they will think we have more power so what is there initial reaction? Dont sign it.Plus another thing i have to point out is that along time ago we helped them make these weapons, we showed them how to work them, to use them against other countries without this crossing any of their minds!!! WHAT THE HECK DID U JUST DO??????????? then they think oh no what if they use these weapons against us well lets just go in and take these weapons from these countries and hope they come qeuitly! um no!!!!!!!! Plus our country is trying to become the country that rules all! So dont give me any crap of this is the best country ! ya right!!!! Another thing i didnt mention is that my cousin is now in north korea fighting. i know this whole thing is messed up. so the question comes up again should the u.s. try to control other countries nuclear weapons my answer is no! its none of our business and it should stay none of our business if they make a threat then its our business. my opinion is that we can trade and get along or leave each other out of each others problems. not everything i have said can make much sense it could be completly off track but u have no idea how mad i am anout this whole thing and no matter who u r its affecting u, u cant stop it | |
| 22/11/2005 - Nathan Stormont | |
| I am an Australian citizen and have lived here since I was born. It makes me sick to see the use of nuclear bombs on our own shores barely thirty years ago. I am not that old but from what I've read in the history books has echoed a hollow past and a harrowing future if there is a nuclear war. When will we realise that following the United States will only cause hurt for our country? How's that old Midnight Oil song go... "US forces give the nod, it's a setback for your country." We've had bombs go off at our doorstep in the past few years and I find myself asking when will the next Atomic Bomb go off? And where? I look around Sydney, where i've lived my whole life, and I can't help feeling that this wonderful city god has given us could be destroyed as a result of corrupt governments and fighting other people's wars. I support your cause. When I am old enough to vote I will be voting for the Nuclear Disarmament Party. | |
| 25/08/2005 - Robert Scnider | |
| I am a former American citizen and scientist. I, sadly, aided in the Manhattan project. At the time we were told it would bring great peace to earth. We were forced to work for hours. From that single weapon, Fatman, an era exploded. Our world is not safe. I am coming to Australia to express my views and I urge you to attend. The seminar is free and further details will be found on my website. I have decided not to reveal my exact indentity just yet, as I may face some "Immigration issues". I support your cause, the true and just cause. The only cause. | |
| 21/08/2005 - Tim McMahon | |
|
I am ashamed, ashamed that the red, white, and the blue, the country I have loved since I have been born, and have lived all my life, would revert once more to one of the darkest eras of our existence. Since the creation of the Atomic bomb, there has been more destruction than what could ever be caused by a single, or even a dozen explosions. This horrendous damage is much more deep than simple weapons against humanity, but weapons against our environment. Many people praise the good that atomic energy has done, though far fewer ever realize the after effects to the planet. Bittersweet irony that cannot be rendered repairable by any good deed. The fact remains. Mankind has created it's own downfall. I am just ashamed that this had to have come from America, the "Land of the free", where the Greek origin of Democracy was "reborn".
P.S. I am only 17, and am going to be of age to vote in the U.S. just in time for elections. Hopefully, somebody that actually cares about the world, and events occurring within it will run. I will definitely vote for him/her and pray that he/she wins. |
|
| 15/02/2005 - Chris ~ | |
| No where has the United States (or anyone associated with the United States) stated that they would use (or threaten to use) nuclear weapons on a large scale on any country for the sole purpose of that country conforming to their ideals, thoughts, beliefs, or to take actions that will bring them abreast of the U.S. The nuclear bunker busters, however, cannot even be SEEN as nuclear weapons, because the do not "pack the punch" that a normal nuclear device does; the "bunker busters" are intended to reach far beneath the surface of the earth by breaching sediment, concrete, steal, etc. all the way into the heart of a bunker, and ensure its descruction. After breach, it detonates, yeilding a small (1 kilo or so) nuclear charge that, if the initial blast does not destroy the target, the massive cave in will. Please, ensure your facts are correct. :) | |
| 29/10/2004 - Jayba From Australia | |
|
I agree that we must disarm nuclear weapons, but even if we are able to disarm any weapons in Australia, what about the rest of the world? Many other countries either have nuclear weapons or the ability to create such weapons. We must try to keep the alliance with the US but not 'suck up' to them as they are a strong country that will defend us if necessary. However while George Bush blames Osama Bin Laden for September 11, Bush is in alliance with the Bin Laden family, this does not make sense. Iraq is accused of having Weapons of Mass Destruction but what does America use to fight...WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! I believe that the only reason the US went to war with Iraq was for oil and they killed thousands of innocent people for that. An American soldier kicked a pregnant Iraqi woman three times, she had a miscarriage. He was responsible for an unborn baby's death. Why do we need war? It makes no sense. Would someone please explain to me why the world has evil rulers. That is why I agree with NDP as I believe we should stop war, disarm all nuclear weapons and try to make peace before fighting. I agree with all of NDP's policies and am grateful that at least one party is trying to do something to help our world. I am very grateful that NDP cares about the Palestinian people.
PS. I am a 14 year old, and i would just like to say that even though we are not old enough to vote, and many people assume that teenagers only care about themselves (only some teens are like that) teenagers do care about their world and what happens in government. Most teens do not want war! |
|
| 01/10/2004 - Will James | |
|
The sentiments I read here are very worthy, and the NDP is to congratulated for the stance taken. Given the amount of Depleted Uranium already used (in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and in Iraq - twice) I do however, struggle not to be overcome with sorrow and despair, when I see people of obvious good-will still consumed with an outmoded concept of "Nuclear War", involving big bangs and mushroom clouds. The fact of the matter is that the world has already experienced three Nuclear Wars, and continues to experience Nuclear War IV. With the collusion of the corporate media, all of these wars have been carried out with apparent impunity on a scale that simply beggars the imagination. I wonder how many of the people who may read this comment have tried, as I have, to get any sense at all out of the major political parties on this issue? No response from the Coalition; and an utterly nonsensical response from the Labour party, about removing all unexploded radiation munitions, followed by no response when it was pointed out that unexploded radiation munitions are not the issue, as Depleted Uranium only becomes toxic when it explodes and burns, dispersing poisonous dust with a half life of 4.5 BILLION years. Try as I may, I simply cannot shake the conviction that the "bogeyman" of the big bang nuclear explosion, with the mesmerising fireball and accompanying mushroom cloud, is merely a confection, designed to scare us into submission. The Nuclear Wars already waged, and currently being waged, are every bit as deadly and yet seem to slip under the radar. Add to the genocide being committed in Afghanistan and Iraq the increasing use of so-called "micro-nukes", manufactured in the main by Israel, and deployed to increase the climate of fear, and it becomes, in my humble opinion, necessary to refocus. With respect.
(We agree with everything in this comment with the exception of the risk of nuclear war, which seems to us to be greater than ever before - Michael Denborough) |
|
| 25/09/2004 - Christian man Read the bible | |
|
You are nothing but atheist lunatics. Denouncing a Chrsitan religon? Are you mad?!?! Read Matthew 24....Its proof the rapture exists. And nuclear war is imminent...read Revelation..."And the smoke fire and brimstone sent the armies back to gog and magog"
Smoke, fire , brimstone. Nuclear war. (This does not seem to be a God of love to us - Michael Denborough) |
|
Stop the war -
Survival not greed
Survival not greed
Philosophy
We are living in the most dangerous time in history. Over the past 80 years there have been two dominant political ideologies. Communism has failed. Capitalism is out of control, causing aggressive trade polices, wars, an increasing gap between rich and poor and massive destruction of the environment. Nations have become increasingly hard to define as multinational corporations have taken control of governmental policies throughout the world.