John Kerry Isn’t As Dangerous

October 2, 2004
photo by Wayne Sumstine

 

 

John Kerry will do more to end nuclear proliferation than George Bush who is moving us closer to nuclear holocaust. Stopping nuclear proliferation is the first step in the direction of world peace. John Kerry is certainly correct to say that Bush is sending mixed messages.

With regards to Iran’s nuclear power program, Bush says that he has been working with other nations to send the message to the mullahs “that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.” But a few minutes later in the debate, he says that the way to protect the USA is to implement a missile defense system and to continue research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Kerry responds by saying, “We're telling other people you can't have nuclear weapons but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapons that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down. And we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Wouldn’t the world be safer without nuclear power, waste, and weapons anywhere on the Earth? And wouldn’t the world be richer if it wasn’t spending billions developing “mini,” “micro” and “tiny” nuclear bombs and bunker busters designed to be used on non-nuclear, third world countries such as Lebanon, Iran, Syria? Since 1985, the US has spent $90 billion on the missile defense system. The USA could stop the insanity of producing new weapons of mass destruction and become part of the “world of nations?”

Nuclear abolition is a must for the 21st Century. The only way to make the world free of the fear of nuclear holocaust is to make using nuclear weapons the ultimate crime against humanity. It is an ultimate crime because it effects not only one generation and all the plants and animals that get poisoned by the release of deadly radiation, but generations to come through genetic mutations and birth defects. Seventeen million Iraqis have been exposed tons of depleted uranium, a component of toxic nuclear waste, during the “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” DU war zones will remain contaminated for 4.5 billion years. This isn’t a crime? It certainly doesn’t create a free society, but a sick and dying society.

The United Nations classified DU munitions illegal because they are poisonous weapons of mass destruction that are intended to cause unnecessary suffering. To use them breaks all international laws, treaties, and conventions. So, is it any wonder why Bush didn’t support the United States becoming a member of the International Criminal Court? Bush stated that the reason why he didn’t join was to protect American troops and diplomats who could be put up for trial. Of course they could, if they were committing war crimes.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see the International Criminal Court organizing a world inspection system to monitor every nuclear nation-state to see that it follows the path of nuclear abolition. The United States as well as the other nuclear nations—or terrorist organizations-- would have to disarm, as well as decommission its nuclear power plants, or be arrested for crimes against humanity, if they refused to follow the demands of disarmament.

We reside on a small planet with fragile ecosystems that is interdependent. Neither national borders nor missile defense systems are protection against living in an unjust society of extreme poverty and extreme wealth that breeds hatred, desperation, terrorism, and war. The International Criminal Court could be a vital step in achieving global justice that is essential to create a lasting and true world peace.

Doctress Neutopia

 
 





 
 
Human Extinction or Lovolution?