Home | About | Donate

Anti-Nuclear Coalition Accepts Nobel Peace Prize As Calls for Disarmament Grow


#1

Anti-Nuclear Coalition Accepts Nobel Peace Prize As Calls for Disarmament Grow

Julia Conley, staff writer

"The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away."


#2

The concept of killing off a billion people because you don’t like some particular dictator-for-life is bizarre and anti-God. Many of the dictator’s subjects don’t like the creep either.

Kings used to intermarry to prevent disastrous wars. We could do that. Actually Mr. Trump already married two former Soviet-bloc women. Perhaps if we did a great deal more of this behavior, nobody would want to launch the bomb because it would kill off their own families first.

For that matter, we probably should have a 1 square mile well-populated U.S. enclave perhaps ten miles downwind from the Kremlin. We blow up Moscow, we get some blowback on people we know. We could reciprocate with an enclave near the Maryland shore. The cost of a global thermonuclear war is far greater than the cost of setting up an enclave or two.

Now about that nuclear football: why should a somewhat paranoid President have the sole right to push the button at 4:30 a.m.? Why not have a jury of twelve (fairly well-paid) ordinary citizens of each country, and either most or all of them (or the survivors) have to decide to push the button or else the missiles won’t launch? Wouldn’t that be a bit safer for the world?


#3

Until you get rid of the corporate oligarchs in the world who all own their respective governments and nations, you will never get rid of nuclear weapons. There is way too much money to be made by making them and maintaining and storing them. If you truly wish to get rid of them then massive boycotts and general strikes are the only answer left. Good luck with that in the USA where the citizens are nothing more than good corporate consumers.


#4

This is disappointing coverage. To cite N. Korea’s recent tests and not once mention the nuclear maneuverings of the U.S. is disingenuous. Jo Hayward-Haines


#5

Wait a minute! Shouldn’t Dumbf be getting the prize, like Oliar, so he can then start even more illegal killing of innocents in sovereign nations???!!!


#6

I wonder how many people are aware the N.Korea TWICE offered a nuclear cut back deal with the U.S. only to be turned down because the Fascist States of Amerika refused to cut back? Look it up…

Here’s one example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/asia/north-korea-offers-us-deal-to-halt-nuclear-test-.html


#7

Another meaningless award, as sensible as Obama’s.

No nation that has nuclear weapons is going to give them up. ICAN receives the Nobel for “wishful thinking.” Notice that not one of the nations that has endorsed this wonderful treaty actually has nuclear weapons.

All the mice got together and decided that the cat should wear a bell. Now who gets to bell the cat?


#8

Good post. Until it is a UNILATERAL decision by ALL countries that have nukes, you are right, just more Kabuki theater.


#9

Sorry that “unilateral” snuck in there. Boy is my face red.


#10

Egypt is going nuclear - and soon - and Russia is going to build it - a Generation 3 nuclear power plant on the Mediterranean coast about 130 kilometers northwest of Cairo.

In his recent surprise visit to Syria & Egypt, Vladimir Putin and Russia are now positioned on both the north and south of Israel.

The only way forward I think is for all nuclear countries to ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and for this to happen, the United States will have to be on board.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/egypt.aspx


#11

Arguably an irrational North Korea poses the greatest nuclear threat, but not in the way you might think. The fear is, an equally irrational U.S. administration could decide to preemptively take out the North’s nuclear capability. It would be a constitutionally illegal war act, but push come to shove, with prison walls closing in on Trump, it is not beyond him to use a war as a pretext to seize control of the government, or at least to derail the legal threat.

Now we have been told that the Pentagon has this precise war game plan ready. But the best laid plans of rats etc., and we just might miss. North Korea launches the war heads, and millions of innocents perish.

Call it paranoia, call it idle speculation, but knowing what you know today about Trump, can you truly say the probability is zero?


#12

If one is not paranoid about our insane leader with his tiny hands on the nuclear trigger; then you are either part of Trumps base; an evangelical, that belongs to the church insanity of the rapture; or have not been paying attention!


#13

Ah maybe re-think. Russia and some European countries have air raid shelters to withstand a nuclear blast. Within the last few months Russia had a test day. Everyone is required to show up at their shelter ready to preform the job assigned to them.

Only high government people and the rich have shelters here. While Russians are ajusting to life in a bunker you will be wondering why your eye have melted and your flesh a cracking like meat on the BBQ.

In a nuclear exchange the US citizen is done. Sorry but the 350 billion you spent on star wars defense is only seen in a movie theater. It is a corporate rip off. So what’s new suckers.


#14

You misconstrued my last sentence, a rhetorical question. If the probability in not zero, it follows that the previous scenario I outlined ,that is, a deranged or self-preserving push of the nuclear button by Trump, should be of great concern to us.

‘Paranoia’ and ‘idle speculation’ are self deprecating terms, false modesty if you will, as in “not”.