Double standards in nuclear capability and governments' desire for global street cred

Would someone please explain and justify to me the double standard by which certain countries - including our own - may have nuclear weapons, but other countries not. On second thoughts, don't bother, since insanely, this is precisely what our government is doing (Peter Brooks expressed it very nicely on the 10 October in a cartoon in the London Times: "In the club".

All the arguments used to defend our (and other) government's possession of nuclear weapons can and will be used by other governments (quite understandably) to justify their own acquisition of such weapons. And our suicidal march along the road of nuclear proliferation will continue. Sooner or later they will be used - inevitably!

The current nuclear powers CANNOT solve the problem because (so long as they insist on retaining their own nuclear weapons) they ARE the problem!

I am not suggesting that it is an EASY problem to solve. There is a terrible logic to possessing nuclear capability: would America have nuked Japan in 1945 if Japan had also had a nuclear capability? I doubt it, somehow.

There is also the central question of global "street cred" and "respect". It may sound far fetched (and terribly disrespectful) comparing national governments (especially our OWN Right Honourable PM) with the members of an armed street gang, but in fact it goes to the very heart of the matter.

Can our own democratically elected governments really be that primitive and stupid? I'm afraid so. We need to recognise that our own animal nature still dominates the way we (and governments) behave. It dominates our entire socio-economic order, as it always has (unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins), making it inherently unsustainable (and in respect to nuclear capability, suicidal), but like Christian literalists, we are loath to admit it and face up to the implications.

Once we do, we can start to deal with it. But until then our situation is hopeless - if a nuclear bomb doesn't get us, climate change or environmental degradation will.

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org

To: Comment at the Guardian Re: In response to Guardian leader on nuclear proliferation Date: Monday 16 October 06

Would someone please explain and justify to me the double standard by which certain countries - including our own - may have nuclear weapons, but other countries not. On second thoughts, don't bother, since insanely, this is precisely what our government is doing (Peter Brooks expressed it very nicely on the 10 October in a cartoon in the London Times: "In the club". All the arguments used to defend our (and other) government's possession of nuclear weapons can and will be used by other governments (quite understandably) to justify their own acquisition of such weapons. And our suicidal march along the road of nuclear proliferation will continue. Sooner or later they will be used - inevitably! The current nuclear powers CANNOT solve the problem because (so long as they insist on retaining their own nuclear weapons) they ARE the problem! I am not suggesting that it is an EASY problem to solve. There is a terrible logic to possessing nuclear capability: would America have nuked Japan in 1945 if Japan had also had a nuclear capability? I doubt it, somehow. There is also the central question of global "street cred" and "respect". It may sound far fetched (and terribly disrespectful) comparing national governments (especially our OWN Right Honourable PM) with the members of an armed street gang, but in fact it goes to the very heart of the matter. Can our own democratically elected governments really be that primitive and stupid? I'm afraid so. We need to recognise that our own animal nature still dominates the way we (and governments) behave. It dominates our entire socio-economic order, as it always has (unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins), making it inherently unsustainable (and in respect to nuclear capability, suicidal), but like Christian literalists, we are loath to admit it and face up to the implications. Once we do, we can start to deal with it. But until then our situation is hopeless - if a nuclear bomb doesn't get us, climate change or environmental degradation will. My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org