Previous editorials

Current editorial

February 2021

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017

December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)

December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015

December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004

December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 200
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000

16 Ravensdene Park,
Belfast BT6 0DA,
Northern Ireland.
Tel: 028 9064 7106
Fax: 028 9064 7106

This is an archive of material
mainly from 1992 until December 2020.
Please go to our CURRENT WEBSITE
for material from January 2021 onwards.
What's new?

Billy King


Nonviolence News



These are regular editorials produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent News.

Number 252: September 2017

[Return to the related issue of Nonviolence News]

No nukes would be good nukes: Getting past MAD

Developing a culture of peace in a world of war, war preparations and war-as-entertainment is a difficult business. Treaties on landmines and cluster weapons represent a couple of successes. This summer's United Nations Treaty on nuclear weapons is an important staging point in working to have these weapons of mass – and eco – destruction banned and binned, and there are no thanks due to nuclear weapon holding states who would prefer just to sit on their WMD piles until, finally, an accident or deliberate use brings catastrophe.

This complacency was well represented by the fact that the only nuclear weapon supporting state to attend the UN conference was the Netherlands. With great disdain and aloofness the others, in a cynical display of 'what we have we hold' effrontery, the nuclear weapons holding states - China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, the USA - did not attend. And recently Donald Trump has unwisely been counter-threatening North Korea which is a relatively new member of the club. Trump might talk big but in fact Barack Obama instituted a $400 billion modernisation plan of the USA's nuclear arsenal and apparatus that includes new nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers – so much for his Nobel Prize for Peace.

The August news supplement to Nonviolent News (Supplement to issue 251) had a short news item about the UN conference in July and the treaty banning nuclear weapons; this item is repeated in the news section of this issue.

'Nuclear deterrence' is the main legitimating theory behind holding nuclear weapons. Obviously it is also the main reason why North Korea want to possess an intercontinental nuclear weapons system, and military might is certainly one factor in why the North Korean regime has not been toppled by the USA. 'MAD', or Mutually Assured Destruction, was or is the theory that nuclear weapon use would entail complete destruction of both sides in a conflict and thus something neither side would wish to contemplate. If this is the case, why not negotiate their elimination rather than risk our elimination by annihilation?

But one problem with nuclear deterrence is regarding proliferation, that if you hold a weapon then others are likely to want to do so too. It is simply illogical to say "we are entitled t hold nuclear weapons but you can't". And the idea that western countries like the USA are a 'safe pair of hands' for nuclear weapons, compared to somewhere such as North Korea, is a nonsense when you consider the past US record of accidents (just do a word search and you will be shocked), generals who wanted to use nukes, and the unpredictability of someone like Donald Trump.

But the biggest problem with nuclear weapons is simply that they are Weapons of Mass Destruction – many times more powerful than what destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and indiscriminate. They are thus illegal in international law but the 'big boys' (sic) and a former colonial power like Britain still retain them. If used they could destroy millions and even institute a nuclear winter. If not used they take up huge resources which could be used for something useful, like transforming countries to green energy and helping avoid the worst excesses of global warming.

The idea that the holding of nuclear weapons has given 'peace' is an illusion. During the Cold War there were different times when the world seemed to be on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear weapons are also highly inappropriate for the security risks of today's world which are less to do with big power's military confrontation (Russia as a renewed enemy for the West not withstanding) and more to do with issues which are internal to states and non-state actors. Furthermore, nuclear weapons have done nothing to prevent the hundreds of conflicts which have gone on – many involving the big powers either directly or indirectly through proxy wars – since nuclear weapons came on the scene.

The UN conference in July has led to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It will now be up for ratification. Nuclear weapon holding states may do their best to ignore this UN Treaty but the extent of world support for it does a good job in pulling the rug from under the legitimation of nuclear weapons. Because they are the big boys (sic) they can, for the moment, ignore this but it is to be hoped that the power of international pressure and UN law will eventually drive them to the negotiating table.

The abolition of nuclear weapons would be a major gain for peace and world stability. Might is not right, and might does not even necessarily achieve its goals but rather resentment and even failure. However getting the mighty to realise that they, and the world, will be safer by disarming and engaging with each other in a more meaningful fashion is a more difficult task. Otherwise the risks are simply too great. We have 'got away with' no major nuclear weapons disasters, intentional or unintentional, so far since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not through good management but good luck. We cannot expect that luck to last for ever.

Compliments need to be paid to all those who have struggled against nuclear weapons for years, in many countries. This includes activists at home in Ireland and, in relation to the recent UN conference, perhaps we can especially mention activists from Scotland whose doings are detailed online and in the August-September issue of Peace News This gives just some idea of the huge amount of work going on behind the scenes at this conference, and is symbolic of the very detailed work going on, day in and day out, in many parts of the globe to get rid of this criminally dangerous and ludicrously expensive weaponry.

- See also 'Readings in Nonviolence' in this issue.

Eco-Awareness Eco-Awareness

Larry Speight brings us his monthly column –

Learning to appreciate nonhuman nature

""First contact!" someone yelled. Horns honked. Eclipse glasses were popped on to faces, all of which turned eastward to the sun.
As the sky grew dark, around 10.16am, the temperature started to drop and eclipse viewers started to shout and cheer. The most common exclamation was: "Oh my God!" A ring of light glimmered around the black moon – the long-awaited corona, finally safe to view with the naked eye."
(The Guardian, 22 August 2017)

The media reports that millions of US Americans made a special effort, often at some expense, to see a total solar eclipse on Monday, 21st August as the moon blocked out the sun in a coast-to-coast 70-mile wide 2,600 mile long arch across the United States. This was the first coast-to-coast solar eclipse in the United States in nearly a century. Many were awestruck, most were deeply touched. There was interest in the eclipse outside the United States with billions watching it live on television and the internet.

The mass interest in the eclipse and the awe many experienced raises two interesting points. First, aside from the rarity appeal of the event, why do so few people feel a sense of awe for the equally spectacular bio and geological wonders all around them? The forests and seas are things of wondrous beauty and mystery, as are roadside verges, which in rural Ireland at this time of the year are ablaze with a multitude of colours and forms. Yet we systematically poison, burn and trash the bio-world and often without the prospect of economic gain. The case of an endangered red kite found shot to death on a public laneway in County Down this August is a case in point. (The Irish News, 23 August 2017) Across the globe people litter beaches, mountain pathways and roadsides for no other reason than cold indifference.

A second point about the solar eclipse, as Nicholas Kristof points out in The New York Times, 21 August 2017, and Justin Gillis in the same newspaper on 18 August 2017 is the ability of scientists to predict with pin-point accuracy the timing and location of solar eclipses decades even centuries in advance. As both writers point out the millions of Americans, including President Donald Trump, who made a point of watching the eclipse, trusted the accuracy of the science. Yet, when it comes to climate change and its truly dire consequences for humankind and the entirety of nonhuman nature, people, both the powerful and the powerless, behave as if the science is fiction.

The question is why are so many people discriminating in the science they chose to trust and act upon? A plausible explanation is that we are not, as the Enlightenment thinkers believed, rational beings. We see the world and symbolically construct it through the prism of our biases and emotional needs. Many people as a matter of course studiously ignore evidence-based information that undermines their deeply ingrained prejudices and worldview. Addressing this disposition is one of the major challenges of our time and one we cannot ignore.

Lessons learnt by social psychologists and therapists in their work to understand what motivates people to commit mass murder, such as committed in Barcelona this August, can be applied to our destruction of nonhuman nature. Laura Spinney writing about this in New Scientist, 19 August 2017, informs us that one cause of such atrocities is the inability of the perpetrators to empathise with those outside their identity group. Referring to research by Tania Singer of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, Spinney informs us that compassion "evolved as part of an ancient nurturing instinct that is usually reserved for kin." Singer's work shows that extended training in compassion and theory of mind, which enables one to see a situation from the other's perspective, not only enhances prosocial behaviour but as MRI scans show results in corresponding structural brain changes.

If empathy training and theory of mind were an integral part of school curricula, and made available to the post-school population, it could only but lead to a weakening, and perhaps over a period of time, to the disintegration of the idea of 'the other'. Gone would be the idea of my group, tribe or race against all others and my species against all other species. This of course would cost a great deal of money. Would the global cost equate to the trillion dollars the United States has spent in fighting their war in Afghanistan since 2001, or the billions they annually spend on other wars and what is called national security? The same question can be put to any country. Prevention is always cheaper than dealing with the aftermath and this includes climate change, the death of the oceans, loss of biodiversity and the scarce living organism called soil in which we grow food.

As the widespread interest in the total eclipse of the sun in the United States shows people of every demographic feel a connection and are interested in the greater that lies outside themselves. With planning and an adequate budget this aptitude can be further awakened and extended in the interests of the survival of humankind and the nonhuman world we are an integral part of.

Copyright INNATE 2021