70 years since VJ Day - a victory that was necessary and moral

I remember hearing the stories of the men who endured being POWs of Japan in World War 2. Growing up with TV series such as Tenko exposed me to a taste of the sadism and violence of imperial Japan.  So it is with some sadness to note that one of the primary narratives, from the so-called "liberal" left has been not remembering the brutality, fascism and racism of Japanese militarism, but demands for American apologies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's a small sign that culturally, the stories of the Burma Railway (which saw around 100,000 work as slave labour), the Nanking Massacre (at least 50,000 killed, 20,000 women and girls raped) and Japan's brutal occupation of almost all of east Asia from Korea to today's Indonesia, have such a low profile. You can be sure that China's modern tyrants and the two Koreas damn well make sure nobody forgets in their countries, as they don't need to exaggerate the genocidal approach Japan took to placing their lands under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".  Perhaps it is because Western leftwing academics aren't excited when it isn't Europeans doing the invading and killing, as it doesn't fit the banal "only white people can be racist" narrative.   The so-called "peace" movement has no answer as to how the world should have responded to imperialist Japan, is it because it is less concerned with "peace" than it is with opposing Western civilisation, liberal democracy, freedom and capitalism, with a distinctly anti-European bent?

The endurance of those who fought militarist Japan is difficult to calculate.  There were Americans, Koreans (not Kim Il Sung after 1940 despite the complete fictional account he based his legitimacy on), Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, Nepalese and many others, and they were rolling back a regime that had at its centre a philosophy of:

- Racial supremacy:  The Japanese were the master race, all others were inferior.  Indeed, Koreans  and Manchurians were so inferior that chemical and biological weapons were tested on them (and yes the Allies took the research conclusions for their own purposes after the war).  

- Militaristic fascism:  Japanese imperial rule was based on the entire militarisation of society, with no sense of consultation or input from the governed.  All were subjects, all were to do as they were told and to operate effectively as slaves, for the Empire of Japan.  It was a complete totalitarian regime, and given the superiority of Japanese rulers, its subjects were deemed to be grateful for the mercy of the Emperor.

- Religious authenticity:  The rule of the Empire was deemed to come from the Emperor, who was the living embodiment of god.  That was absolute and not able to be questioned.

One measure of the human cost of Japanese imperialism is over 6 million deaths due to murder, under its occupation from 1937 to 1945 alone, but Japan's imperialism started in 1910 (with Western consent) in Korea and its invasion of China commenced in the early 1930s.  100,000 were massacred in Manila alone in early 1945.  The "Three Alls" policy applied to China after 1940 was to "kill all, burn all, loot all" in retaliation to Chinese resistance to the occupation.  Women and girls throughout the occupied territories, particularly in Korea, were kept as sex slaves (so-called "comfort women") to please the military.   Japanese newspapers even celebrated the "contest" between army officers as to who could kill 100 with a sword first.

Japan's militarist regime was the aggressor, but it also had the compliant and enthusiastic support of a people who did what they were told, who worshipped their Emperor and basked in the propaganda that told them how superior and special they are, and how lucky they were to have been chosen to lead Asia.  What dissent there was in Japan was not organised and on a minor scale.  Japan's dictators had the effective consent of its population to conquer.

So the defeat of Japan, unconditionally, was wholly moral and justified.  The use of nuclear weapons to accelerate that defeat and contribute towards it was also moral and justified.   The reason Japan had nuclear weapons applied to it was because it had invaded the United States, it had conquered and placed much of Asia under its brutal sadistic jackboot.  The moral culpability for the deaths inflicted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and indeed already by conventional bombing in Tokyo, Osaka and many other cities, was the Imperial Government of Japan, which was willing to continue murdering and killing innocents abroad and refusing to surrender in a war that it started.

No one can doubt the abject horror and suffering the two atomic bombs caused, the horror they inflicted undoubtedly contributed not only to them not being used in Korea by President Truman (against military advice), but also inadvertently creating the deterrent effect which remains to this day.  However, the justification for their use is not from those impacts, but because defeating a ruthless, sadistic and murderous tyranny justifies using weapons that minimise the casualties of your own population.   Better to use the atomic bombs than to suffer greater Allied casualties by ground invasion or not obtaining an unconditional defeat and complete withdrawal of Japan from Asia.

When a tyranny wages war against its neighbours, and brings death and destruction upon them, its victims cannot be constrained from inflicting defeat upon it, for fear of the inevitable deaths it causes upon the weakest who reside under that tyranny.  All tyrannies hope and expect that governments with less appetite for war than it, will weaken in the face of taking such unpalatable decisions.  These same tyrannies don't think twice of massacring others.  The children killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the responsibility of their parents - the same parents who remained in Japan, working and contributing towards a system that had been waging a sadistic expansionist war against its neighbours.

So yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, appallingly dreadful and unspeakably vile though they were, were a considered, reasonable military decision to seek to accelerate an end to a war that was the responsibility of the Empire of Japan.   The attacks on Japan were acts of self-defence, to remove a regime that until the last day of the war, insisted on retaining control over Japan, on taking responsibility for prosecuting war crimes itself, and essentially no change in government.   It took the evidence of the nuclear attacks to force Japan to surrender with only one condition - that the Emperor would be protected.  That was one condition that could, grudgingly, be accepted.  You don't need to imagine what the Empire of Japan would do when it defeated a country - for it did so many times - it enslaved the entire country under martial law, and engaged in forms of genocide.

Those who fought against Japan were heroes, they defeated one of the most malignantly evil regimes of the 20th century (albeit this has quite a long list), an expansionist racist tyranny that any "true" liberal would celebrate the defeat of, without question.

The hand-wringing about the atomic attacks may be understandable, given their historic significance. However, to talk of the suffering of those attacks outside the wider context of Japanese eliminationist racism and militarism, is disingenuous.  It smacks of cheap anti-Americanism.   There are questions that can be asked about how some Japanese war criminals were effectively excused and some Japanese atrocities were deliberately ignored after the war, and bigger questions about how Japan still hasn't effectively faced up to its history (but then neither has communist China).  

However there should be no questions about the victory over Japan.  Moreover, given the enormous assistance the West gave to Japan to rebuild, reject communism, become a friend and until recently become the second biggest economy in the world (with a standard of living to match),  and be a functioning, vibrant liberal democracy,  the picture painted of an evil USA engaging in mass murder of Japanese civilians unjustifiably, seems selective indeed.   Now if only Japan's leaders could start treating their wartime history like German leaders treat theirs.   

Forgotten Posts from 2009 : Christopher Hitches on Iran

Why wait to disarm Iran?

So says Christopher Hitchens in Slate.

Iran is as much a pistachio-and-rug-exporting country as it was when the sadistic medievalists first seized power. So it wouldn't be surprising in the least if a regime that has no genuine respect for science and no internal self-critical feedback had screwed up its rogue acquisition of modern weaponry. A system in which nothing really works except the military and the police will, like North Korea, end up producing somewhat spastic missiles and low-yield nukes, as well.

If there's no saber in the scabbard, then at least don't make the vulgar mistake of rattling it.  Against this, we are at least entitled to consider the idea that a decaying regime that is bluffing and buying (or rather stealing) time on weapons of mass destruction is in a condition that makes this the best moment to do at least something to raise the cost of the lawlessness and to slow down and sabotage the preparations. Or might it be better to wait and to fight later on more equal terms? Just asking.

Maybe, just maybe, Iran has moved back from the brink.  It now appear to be with us in fighting the Islamic State, but let's not forget that the Iraqi Shi'a sectarian regime was backed by Iran.

Iran may have moved one step away from the brink, but it still sponsors Hamas, Hezbollah and so intervenes egregiously in Iraq, Syria and Palestine.  It still maintains a system that glorifies death and enslaves the population to Islamism.

Iran's case for having nuclear weapons for defensive purposes can only be if it considers itself at risk from neighbours, and Iraq under the Islamic State would be the most obvious risk.  If the West and Iran together work on nullifying that threat in Iraq, could there be a path for Iran to open up its nuclear facilities?  Or is Iran actually remaining on the path of having an option to take on Israel?

Where is the so-called peace movement now?

The Times reported that the US Administration is claiming that the Syrian target hit by Israeli airstrikes in September 2007 was a nuclear reactor supplied by North Korea.

North Korea of course has developed nuclear weapons, in defiance of promises to the international community. It utters rhetoric constantly calling for death to the USA, Japan and south Korea. It has now been caught selling nuclear technology to Syria.

Syria is an enemy of Israel, sponsors terrorism, invaded and ran Lebanon as an extension of itself for years.

However, that doesn't matter.  

It isn't the United States, United Kingdom or any other Western liberal democratic state.  

It is basically a rule of thumb that if anti-Western autocracies engage in war-mongering, it doesn't get the so-called peace movement excited.  They excuse it because "well the USA has nuclear weapons", granting moral equivalency between a regime that brutally suppresses dissent and does not permit independent media or protests, and the relatively free West.

Update

On Syria it is more palpable.  The so-called "peace" movement happily rallies thousands to march against Western intervention in Syria, but never protest against Russian arming and assisting the Syrian regime, or Qatar or Saudi doing the same to the rebels.

No, you see "imperialism" is just ok for Arab states, Iran, Russia or indeed any country that doesn't share the political or cultural background of the Western world.

As it was in the Cold War, when the so-called "peace" movement constantly rallied against Western military spending and activity, and never protested the Soviet bloc, or China, is how it is today.

So-called "peace" activists are blind to militarism and violence from dictatorships that aren't allied to the West.  They are simply reconstructed anti-capitalist fans of violent revolution, and their self-styled calls for morality and peace are transparently vacuous.

Greens support lunatic fringe on food irradiation so why believe them on climate change?

The Green Party says it believes in science and evidence, and to present itself as the face of reason.

Yet the latest press release from Green MP Steffan Browning demonstrates how quickly the Green Party is beholden to the lunatic fringe of the radical environmental movement.

He says:

"Irradiation is not safe. It is the treating a food with ionizing radiation to kill bugs."

This assertion is backed up with nothing whatsoever.  It is the sort of simpleton view seen in this leaflet which claims without citation that "Numerous scientific studies have exposed the harmful effects of food irradiation".

No, they haven't.

The Health department of Queensland produces a leaflet that is more sober, as does the IAEA.

Browning makes not one claim about why irradiation is not safe. Nothing.

So let's speculate on what he thinks, or rather, fears.

- Irradiating food means it is radioactive:  Hilarious.  It is like saying that if you are exposed to light, you start to glow. 

- Irradiating food "changes its structure" so that it "degrades vitamins and nutrition":  Well yes, it can if it is used for preservation.  Much like drying does, and cooking does.  Cooking changes the molecular structure of food, and the chemistry of food and can destroy vitamins.  The obvious examples would be to boil vegetables to death or cooking food till it is blackened and charred.  However, do the Greens want to stop people having that food or cooking their food incorrectly?

It's bullshit to say irradiated food is not safe.  It's scaremongering, hysterical, anti-scientific and irresponsible for the Green Party to embrace such a stance.

Indeed, let me quote the summary of a World Health Organisation report on the topic (High-dose irradiation: wholesomeness of food irradiated with doses above 10 KGy, a joint FAO/IAEA/WHO study group. Geneva, Switzerland, 15-20 September 1997), given the Greens regularly cite UN organisations to hit governments over the head:

On the basis of the extensive scientific evidence reviewed, the report concludes that food irradiated to any dose appropriate to achieve the intended technological objective is both safe to consume and nutritionally adequate. The experts further conclude that no upper dose limit need be imposed, and that irradiated foods are deemed wholesome throughout the technologically useful dose range from below 10 kGy to envisioned doses above 10 kGy.

So.

Given how willingly the Greens are to make unsubstantiated claims that are essentially the baggage of scaremongering hysterical anti-technology, anti-scientific luddites, why the hell should anyone listen to them when they talk about climate change?

Why should the Greens be any more credible when preaching about science on that topic than they are on food irradiation?

Oh, and we've been here before.  Remember Russel Norman's rant two years ago about mobile phone towers that, when challenged (because Russel doesn't seem to mind TV and radio masts for broadcasting) descends into ad-hominem attacks against me?  

Yes - that's the Greens on science.  On the one hand, claim science is right behind you on climate change and that people who challenge that are unscientific, unreasonable and lunatic fringe.

On the other hand, make non-evidence based scaremongering claims based on little more than the ranting fears of fringe groups that don't even have an elementary understanding of science.

In other words - the Greens are not serious about science.

Fear, Fascism and isolationism

Those are the three themes that I am getting from the stories that should be most shaking up New Zealanders.

Fear

The greatest publicity has been for the trifecta of emergencies in Japan.  The earthquake, which was largely survived in its own right, thanks to technology, vigilance by property owners and compliance with strict laws.   The tsunami, which demonstrated how powerless people are with little warning, once again.  Now the nuclear emergency, which is a mix of genuine concern and fear, and ridiculou hyperbole.  New Zealand is only affected by the harm to Japan's economy, not the spread of isotopes.  However, environmentalists will dine out on this for some time to demand lower electricity consumption and "investment" in expensive forms of electricity generation.   There will be scope for post-mortems of the nuclear emergency, but for now two other matters should be of higher priority.

Fascism

First is closer to home.  It IS fascism, a term overused perhaps by some libertarians, but it is plain and simple in Christchurch.  Private property has been appropriated, not to protect the public, but because central and local government are applying the thumping hammer of blunt authority to clear away the damage as quickly as possible.

Not PC puts it beautifully in describing how a pin-up for vapid womens' magazines gets more access to central Christchurch properties than the people who, without which, the damned businesses (damned indeed) wouldn't be there in the first place.

Like a panzer division of wreckers, the state has authorised demolition squads to go in and destroy what is NOT theirs.

Eric Crampton's list of outrages should send shivers down the spines of property owners throughout New Zealand.  This could happen to you.  THIS is what central and local government think of you - it isn't the warm friendly collectively helpful image that the morally bankrupt left claim - it is the "we know best, get out of our way" approach that says a great "fuck you" to the people who create the wealth, who pay the wages of public "servants".

Meanwhile what do you get from politicians? A blind eye.  You should all be furious, because they are scum for not standing up for Christchurch property owners.

The government of course is complicit.  There is now no shred of belief that the National Party believes in property rights or business, its true colours have been shown here, and it is disgusting.

Not one fucking press release demanding that property owners have the right to access their properties, that properties should not be destroyed without the consent or even  notice given to the owners.  Nothing.  If you still vote National after this, then I DO hope you face the same situation one day - because frankly you're complicit in endorsing these useless inert nobodies in just accepting what their bureaurats tell them.

Instead, John Key thanks the pin-up and his consort for their "support" in getting a taxpayer supported piece of disaster tourism (2 sites in one country).   Not that it is their fault that they get the privileged access to Christchurch, it is the government's.

Of course along with National is the Maori Party (which only believes in property rights for part of the population), Peter Dunne (who as Minister in charge of legalised theft is uninterested) and ACT.  What's ACT said?  Fuck all of course.  Rodney Hide is setting up a new bureaucracy to enable councils to borrow through central government instead.  Given ACT has effectively endorsed the Labour/Alliance/Green vision of local government powers, who should be surprised?

The left, naturally, regards property rights as something that applies to them when someone wants to mug them in the street and that's about it.  The state can (and should) run roughshod over such rights in the "public good" as it sees it from that point of view.  The Greens, Labour and Jim Il Sung are contemptuous about business, employers and property rights, and ever trusting of government agencies.

However, what about you?  Are you going to tolerate a fascist style demolition of buildings without even advising the owners?  Are you going to tolerate zero accountability for those looking after the "protected area" of central Christchurch? Are you going to tolerate it being ok for the pinup from the UK and his consort to gain access to Christchurch that the people who fucking build and make Christchurch alive don't have?

Of course you are - you're New Zealanders - you'll vote for John Key again because you're not discontented enough and because Phil Goff is about as inspiring as a pair of socks.  You'll trust local government again because you're fearful of actually having power in your own hands, but most of all you'll do nothing because you're not personally affected.

Isolationism

There couldn't be a clearer message to dictatorships in the past few weeks from the United States, it is "We don't intervene anymore".

Despite the vapid generalisations from some quarters.  The dictatorships in the Middle East all vary by degrees and kinds.  The Tunisian one was easy, he rolled over quickly.  Egypt took more time, but ultimately the fact the US bankrolls the regime was significant, and Mubarak eventually rolled over as well.  Gaddafi is different, not just in degree, but nature.  He is despicably evil, a murdering megalomaniacal thug.  At worst he is unhinged and merciless.   His record of intervening in other countries is extensive, although he withdrew from this primarily because he observed the US invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein - an act that would be far simpler to do in Libya.

Protestors and rebels in Libya have been encouraged, verbally, by Western powers and others, demanding that the Gaddafi autocracy go.  However, in terms of action, little has been done since Westerners were evacuated.  The Obama regime has been silent, and so Gaddafi has been acting with impunity to take back the country he has run as his own fiefdom.   The cartoon like view Gaddafi gives of himself may amuse some, but it comes with blood and death.

So a no-fly zone over Libya is obvious, it would cost little and help to ensure Gaddafi did not act with impunity.  The UK and France have been pushing for it (the latter ironic given France's history of warmth towards dictatorships), but Germany has resisted  - as if Germany really is able to exercise moral authority given its past performance in resisting action in the Balkans.  The UK and France have led efforts at the UN Security Council for a resolution.  Not the US.  Of course Russia and China are likely to oppose, or at best abstain. However, neither have any credibility when it comes to dealing with dictatorships, for obvious reasons.   So for that, I believe airstrikes and a no fly zone should be applied anyway, because the value in containing and disposing of the Gaddafi regime is worth it.   His regime lost legitimacy when it participated in Lockerbie and sponsoring terrorism in Europe and elsewhere.  There should be no legal or moral barrier to intervention from the air (ground intervention would be unwise though).

However, as much as I want Gaddafi removed, there is a more disturbing concern.  Obama's withdrawal of the US from the world says that other dictatorships can act with impunity, despite his words.  Syria has had protests that have been put down - another regime that has regularly disregarded international law by invading a neighbouring country - Lebanon.  Yet what is the Obama administration saying to the likes of Iran and North Korea by being so shy of doing anything?  It is saying that there are no consequences for all sorts of actions against their own people, but also that the US is relatively uninterested. 

You see the world the left wanted, with the US pulling out of other countries, and leaving civil conflicts to themselves, is happening more and more.  The result is that dictatorships feel less threatened, more emboldened and more powerful than they were under previous Administrations.

Obama has declared his hand on foreign policy.  It is progressive isolationism.  Withdrawal from Iraq will be followed by Afghanistan, and then where?

and if rebels in Benghazi are crushed by the efforts of the Gaddafi army and air force, all on TV, what will that say about the US interest in freedom in other countries?

Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

The Greens think so. That's why MP Kennedy Graham has written to Barack Obama calling for, among other things, the end to nuclear deterrence:

"To reduce the numerical surplus of nuclear weapons, from some 20,000 in the national arsenal to some 5,000 is laudable, but it does not confront the central challenge – which is to cross the threshold of minimal deterrence. Russia and the others will follow, but the lead can only come from the US."

So the Greens WANT the US to make the first move, and somehow trust Russia and China, let alone India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel to follow. Really?

Let's be clear what he is advocating is for global security to be ensured through conventional weapons, under UN auspices:

"So the twin challenge is to wean the US, and the world, off nuclear deterrence and replace it with a credible alternative means of securing global governance through conventional weaponry."

Now who would doubt the usage of nuclear weapons is truly horrible to imagine. It is why it is an effective deterrence.

While some may doubt it, nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe from 1948 to 1989. The USSR knew if it rolled east it would face tactical nuclear weapons in response, and strategic weapons on its capitals. A horrible proposition, but the credibility had to be there for the deterrence. Better to threaten annihilation than to face war and totalitarian tyranny.

Similarly, Japan and South Korea were protected by nuclear weapons. North Korea has always wanted to take over South Korea by force, but the US nuclear umbrella has made it clear that Pyongyang would be flattened if it tried. The credibility of that threat has been critical to protecting South Korea.

Today the Korean situation is little better, with the USSR no longer shielding North Korea. However, elsewhere there remains instability and risk of conflict. One need only look at some of the other nuclear powers.

Russia is effectively a one party state with a strong military and substantial interest in expanding its sphere of influence back to some of what it once had. Who could seriously trust Putin and Medvedev to undertake arms control given how Russia has acted towards Ukraine?

China always claims peaceful intent, but whilst relations with Taiwan have warmed, China has never withdrawn the military option for "reunification". China also has border disputes with India, and in the South China Sea.

India and Pakistan will say "you first" to each other, and frankly until Kashmir can be solved and Pakistan is no longer a breeding ground for Islamist terror, neither will abandon nukes.

North Korea will abandon nukes when there is Korean reunification, on the South's terms.

Israel will abandon nukes when Arabs and Iran stop calling for its destruction and treat it as a trading partner and friend.

In this environment, why abandon nuclear deterrence? For Israel it has kept the peace on a large scale since the Yom Kippur War. For the Korean peninsula it has prevented a second Korean War, and elsewhere it makes Russia think how far it can push the West.

In such a world, it is immoral for the US, UK and France to abandon nuclear weapons, for they are the only relatively moral states to hold them, the only ones that can keep the dictatorial other two members of the UN Security Council honest (and any other states that acquire them).

For until aggressive dictatorships are wiped from the face of the earth, there will be governments that seek to be aggressive against their citizens and citizens of other nations. They will seek war, and some will seek weapons of mass destruction (treaties on chemical and biological weapons have not stopped the most egregiously aggressive states from having both - like North Korea, Syria, Russia and Libya). Sadly, only by holding similar firepower, and a clear willingness to use it if provoked, can we talk a language they not only understand, but have used their whole political career.

Any other belief is naive - as naive as anyone who trusts Putin, Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or as evil as one who sees any of them as morally equivalent to any US President.

Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

Appeasing North Korea

So:

- You run a totalitarian slave state which a loud declared intent of "liberating" your neighbour. You are known to already hold ICBMs, biological and chemical weapons.
- You develop a nuclear weapons programme which isn't admitted as even being a nuclear programme until the US confronts the world with the evidence.
- You announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement all the time continuing to develop your nuclear programme. The IAEA declares that it cannot provide any meaningful assurances that you are not developing nuclear weapons.
- The Clinton administration does a deal - the "Agreed Framework" to supply fuel oil, light water reactors and economic aid, in exchange for ceasing plutonium enrichment. In comes the fuel oil, and the aid - you're smiling.
- The IAEA immediately states its dissatisfaction with the Clinton Administration's deal because it gives North Korea too long to comply- which of course, pleases you immensely, because you can move things.
- The aid continues, you allow inspections of the facilities you have cleaned out, and you keep both the aid, and the reprocessed plutonium and uranium.
- Under the Bush Administration, after being called a member of the axis of evil, you admit to having a nuclear weapons programme all along. You say you have every right to do so, and besides the promised nuclear reactors are years behind schedule. You refuse to allow inspections, but say you will halt (again) if you get aid. Your first bluff worked - you got aid AND weapons.
- Meanwhile a ship is discovered with missiles you've made being transported to Yemen.
- The US halts oil shipments and aid, and demands you keep up your side of the bargain. You remove seals from the original nuclear reactor and announce it is going to be activated again, and you'll restart reprocessing plutonium.
- IAEA refers the issue to the UN Security Council.
- You declare how you proudly develop your nuclear deterrent and you'll prove it, but you'll freeze in exchange for concessions.
- Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admits that you cheated during the Clinton years.
- You say you'll treat the US as a friend as long as it stops slandering your system - President Bush had previously called your leader a tyrant, you maintain concentration camps for children of political prisoners down to infant age.
- You reach agreement with the US again to halt the programme, and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. Then you say you want a light water reactor again.
- You test fire seven missiles just to show you're serious.
- You announce you'll test a nuclear weapons, and you do.
- UN Security Council passes resolution of sanctions, mainly financial and trade in luxury goods.
- You agree to shut down the reactor after receiving 50,000 tonnes of fuel aid, and allowing inspections to verify. Inspections verify you have shut down the reactor.
- You throw out inspectors once more and recommission the plant.

Now a deal is struck between you and the US, for you to be removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism, and to have a new verification plan for the ceasing of activities.

You still have nuclear weapons, missiles and still sabre rattle daily against South Korea, Japan and the USA on your media.

Yes, I know the question is - what else can be done? Well, this house of cards is ready to collapse - you'd be wiser to engage with it as much as possible, offer North Korean officials trips to learn about economics, business and governance elsewhere, and plan for the collapse.

However playing its endless game of blackmail and bribe, is not the answer. That should end. Meanwhile, I am sure South Korea and Japan are grateful for the US nuclear umbrella.

United States murderers, Japanese victims?

Idiot Savant has cracked open the bottle of anti-Americanism again with his dismissal of the Hiroshima nuclear attack as an act of murder:

“the United States murdered between 90,000 and 140,000 Japanese civilians when they destroyed the city of Hirsohima with a primitive atomic weapon. It was a war crime of the first magnitude, but no-one has ever been punished for it. Instead, those responsible were decorated and hailed as heroes.” (sic)

Of course, this was an unprovoked attack. The Empire of Japan had long been a peace loving nation, which respect the territorial integrity, human rights and the peaceful right of its neighbours to co-exist. Its government was recognised as such.

The Empire of Japan behaved impeccably, so there is no reason for Idiot Savant to mention the 200,000 massacred by Japan in Nanking, and a minimum of 3 million Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians during its imperial period through the 1930s to 1945.

After all, no reason for him to commemorate those murders is there? No post on 13 December to commemorate the fall of Nanking. No, he couldn’t be anti-American now could he?

He wouldn’t mention the over 3,000 killed by medical experiments and biological warfare experiments now. No. He wouldn’t mention that as recent as May 1945 Japan was still taking US POWs to be used in vivisection experiments. No. Japan was simply a victim.

Japan used chemical and biological weapons against Chinese forces and civilians, but no Idiot Savant wont commemorate that and condemn Japan’s murders annually. Japan was simply a victim.

Japan killed 100,000 civil and military POWs building the Burma railway, with up to 10 million Chinese civilians engaged in slave labour, and at least 4 million in Java in what is now Indonesia. No, Japan was simply a victim.

At least 50,000 women primarily from Korea and China, but also women from all of the Japanese imperial conquests were raped as “comfort women” for Japanese soldier. No, don’t see Idiot Savant talking about Japan's state policy of raping and enslaving women, Japan was simply a victim.

So. The United States entered the war against a racist, militarist murdering state, which engaged on a blood thirsty and sadistic rampage through Asia. Japan’s government encouraged and almost compelled young men to sacrifice their lives for the Empire, and when it conquered it treated the civilians and prisoners of war as less than animals. The USA sacrificed over 400,000 of its young men and women to defeat this barbaric regime as well as the despicably evil Nazi Germany.

So was Hiroshima a war crime? No.

Responsibility for the civilian deaths in Japan lies clearly and unequivocably with the Japanese government. The Japanese government waged war against the United States and the whole of Asia. It could, at any point, have surrendered unconditionally, and spared its people – civilian and military - the ongoing death and destruction that war brought upon them. War started by the Japanese government.

The Cairo Declaration in 1943, made by Churchill, Roosevelt and Chiang Kai Shek called for Japan’s unconditional surrender, the return of all of China back to Chinese control and free and independent Korea. It called on Japan to surrender or face “unrelenting military pressure”.

On 26 July 1945 it was made perfectly clear to the Japanese government in the Potsdam Declaration, after the defeat of Nazi Germany, that it should surrender or face “the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland”. On 31 July Emperor Hirohito affirmed that Japan was to be defended at “all costs”.

The United States had a choice. Undertake a land invasion at considerable cost to itself, and lengthening the war, or release the greatest weapon available at the time. It chose to end the war, quickly, at the cost of two cities.

It was a decision not taken lightly, and one that saw Truman refuse subsequently to use nuclear weapons in Korea (when that may have made a considerable difference). Yes, it was indiscriminate, yes the results were horrendous and horrible – indeed perhaps sufficient to contribute towards the fact nuclear weapons have not been used since, but to consider the bombing in isolation of context is disgraceful, despicable and betrays the ultimate responsibility. It also betrays that, by and large, Japanese civilians happily went along with the war effort, offered no resistance and little interest in overthrowing its government, which was spilling rivers of blood across Asia.

The bombs would not have been dropped had Japan surrendered or not even engaged in its imperialist war of genocide and slavery.

Idiot Savant is right to note the sheer awfulness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. However his refusal to consider the context, to acknowledge Japan was to blame for the continuation of the war, for the murder of many millions of others, and in SPITE of that, the Allies rebuilt, rehabilitated and changed Japan into a modern liberal democratic state, is just pure narrow minded bigotry against the United States.

He doesn’t commemorate those who died under the atrocities committed by Japan’s sadistic regime – only those who died who at best were exposed to risk by Japan’s vile imperialist government, and at worst who happily obeyed their brutal, racist government as it spilt blood across Asia.

It is tired old Marxist anti-Americanism, in which even the deeds and victims of the most vile and blood thirsty regimes can be ignored. What is the psychological process of denial one must go through to treat US military action after many efforts to end a war peacefully, as murderous and unjustified, whereas the most heinous sadistic actions of its enemies are not really worth giving much attention to? Let alone the victims.

Iran sabre rattles

According to the BBC, Iran has test fired nine missiles, including a new missile with the capability of hitting Tel Aviv. Is Iran trying to provoke or trying to deter? This wont deter, it will scare - and scared Israel is more likely to strike. Ahmadinejad may want war, because he isn't very bright. However, I doubt that many in Iran are happy about this move.

I fully expect the so-called "peace movement" to hold instantaneous protests at Iranian embassies, burning Iranian flags and calling for Iran to stop threatening its neighbours. Look forward to seeing some protest in Roseneath in Wellington for example.

Wont happen though will it?

The so-called "peace" movement never ever protests against militarism by anti-Western states, like Iran, North Korea or Russia. Yes remember those protests? The so-called "peace" movement is uninterested in peace, only surrender and disarmament.

It will be exceedingly dangerous if there is an attack on Iran in self defence - but given the choice between that and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, it is no choice at all. Since 1979 Iran has been consistently the most pernicious influence in the Middle East, providing financial, military and spiritual succour to terrorists there and elsewhere (the IRA included at one time). It is a thoroughly vile and despotic regime. The preference has to be that Iran backs off, Ahmadinejad is displaced, it opens up its facilities for inspection and it backs off from its Islamist imperialism.

Police truce with mafia

This is how John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, described the Bush Administration deal with North Korea in the Daily Telegraph today.

He effectively says the collapse of the concrete tower, dramatically presented to television is not as significant as the collapse of the Bush Administration's foreign policy:

"North Korea has violated every significant agreement ever reached with the United States, and all indications are that the North is again following its traditional game plan. It is quite adept at pledging to give up its nuclear programme, having done so several times in the past fifteen years. Not once, however, has it actually taken decisive steps to do so. Indeed, quite the opposite."

His article describes how North Korea has played the West as a fool, time and time again. There is no evidence that it has stopped any activities whatsoever, its announcement that it has nuclear weapons and the subsequent deal to NOT allow full inspection of its facilities and NOT dismantle its nuclear weapon stocks shows how North Korea continues to play.

North Korea had transferred nuclear technology to Syria, which both deny, even though the ample evidence that the infrastructure destroyed by Israel in Syria was almost identical in layout to the Yongbyon facility, and that the lead North Korean engineer working at Yongbyon had visited the facilities in Syria. Israel thankfully destroyed this facility, but don't expect the so-called peace movement to be grateful - many of them will only start to be concerned if a nuclear weapon goes off in Tel Aviv, but even then I'm sure that would be "Israel's fault".

Bolton warns:

"Europeans appear overwhelmingly to favour the election this November of Senator Obama, in many respects because his foreign policy is so congenial to their tastes. It may be comforting now to think that the unilateralist cowboys are about to retire to their ranches. It will be less so when we are all confronted, as we will be inevitably, with the continuing reality of Iranian, North Korean -- and other -- nuclear weapons programs."

There isn't an easy solution to North Korea. There is no military option as it would provoke an attack of devastating proportions. However, there should be no negotiation.

North Korea has only learnt through deterrence to not attack the South or Japan, since 1953, although it has repeatedly engaged in terrorist and espionage attacks. It is one of the most evil regimes on the planet - negotiating with child torturing scum is not likely to produce an outcome morally superior to deterring it with the trigger threat of annihilation. North Korea after all has no compunction whatsoever about letting around a million of its citizens starve to death, about having tens of thousands of men women and children be slave labour in gulags and executing those who try to leave. To think that a regime capable of such profound evil is willing to negotiate an end to having the ultimate means of threatening the world, is naive. North Korea is a regime we will have to wait out for death or a coup - meanwhile, let Kim Jong Il know that if he dares start a war, North Korea will suffer massive retaliation and this time South Korean, US and allied forces will go all the way to the Yalu River - and complete the job.

North Korea still in the Axis of Evil

Numerous reports this week said that North Korea is no longer in the "axis of evil" because of it being apparently compliant on destroying its nuclear programme - in fact the US Administration never said this at all. It was removed from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, notwithstanding that there is not the slightest evidence that it has stopped doing so.

Of course what to do about North Korea has never been easy. A state already isolated by its own choice is difficult to isolate further with sanctions, especially when China is its lifeline and has no interest in encouraging the regime to fall and the country to collapse completely. Military action was never an option, with North Korea's 1 million strong army, aged but ample cruise and ballistic missile defences, biological and chemical weapons arsenal all able to inflict mass death and destruction on South Korea, as well as Japan. North Korea is not Iraq, although the ability of North Korea to sustain a war for more than a few months is questionable, there is little doubt that within days it could slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in South Korea with impunity.

The great Clinton administration, admired and loved by the liberal left, did a deal with North Korea to subsidise a light water reactor and energy supplies if North Korea gave up uranium enrichment. North Korea lied (it's used to this, it does this daily to its entire population on virtually everything) and developed nuclear weapons anyway - almost laughing at the naivete of its enemies. New Zealand taxpayers were part of that dupe, paying NZ$500,000 for heavy fuel oil for North Korea- while it lied about its nuclear weapons programme. It was hardly a surprise, as there was never any incentive for North Korea to give up nuclear weapons development. Why should an evil totalitarian dictatorship surrender this enormous power potential to the rest of the world? After all, it brings attention and most importantly gives a bargaining chip second to none.

So Bush, far from saying it isn't a member of the Axis of Evil, did say according to CNN:

The United States has no illusions about the regime in Pyongyang," he said. "We remain deeply concerned about North Korea's human rights abuses, uranium enrichment activities, nuclear testing and proliferation, ballistic missile programs and the threat it continues to pose to South Korea and its neighbors.

Meanwhile according to the Sunday Times, China has ramped up its treatment of North Korean refugees to shooting them on sight. The Beijing regime is concerned that Koreans fleeing persecution may embarrass China during the Olympics so is stepping up efforts against them:

"The police are doing house-to-house checks for North Koreans in the villages and checking household registration papers much more thoroughly in the border towns... But the most effective new measure is a cash reward, which people believe can be £150 for informing on a North Korean in hiding"

They are sent back to North Korea if found, and placed in gulags to be beaten, used as slave labour or executed. This of course is far more brutal that Tibet, but you don't see many protests for North Koreans do you?

The Sunday Times also has an interesting article about the lack of clothing options available in North Korea's capital Pyongyang, derived from a Chinese report in the Chinese National Defence Journal. Central planners might admire North Korea's commitment to travel demand management, with forced spreading of working hours:

"Office starting hours are staggered between 7am and 9am to avoid the impression of a rush hour on the excellent public transport system. All employees must report half an hour before the official start of work to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong-il, the “dear leader”, and his late father, the “great leader”, Kim Il-sung. "

Sue Kedgley might admire the almost non-existence of private cars and...

"There is no advertising and the few taxis charge huge fares beyond the means of most North Koreans – twice as much as a taxi in Shanghai, for instance.... Only four colours of clothes are permitted: black, green, blue and white. The government distributes clothing fabric by rank, with an ordinary official receiving enough to tailor one new jacket a year. However, they may buy their own shoes."

The absence of capitalism, consumerism, the absence of waste - the lack of energy use. Think how gloriously environmentally friendly they are!

Pity Pakistan

Founded from the religious separatism, and bigotry that Jinnah inspired in the Pakistan movement, the artificial division of India into two then three states, the hundreds of thousands murdered and who died in the population transfer, as a heterogeneous India became several lands - and Pakistan and India would be antagonists, fighting over borders and Kashmir especially. It became an "Islamic Republic" ensuring that the common law legal system and criminal law it inherited from Britain would be frittered away with Islamic law and its brutal treatment of women.

So with its cold war with India, it was inevitable sadly that it would become nuclear - and so Pakistan is the only predominantly Muslim nuclear weapons state. It also is the location of not a few madrasses, teaching hatred of the West, fomenting the Islamist attitudes of anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, and anti-individualism. So letting Pakistan slide towards the sort of rule of Iran or the Taliban, would not just be scary, it would be downright dangerous.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Pakistanis are not Islamists, there is an Islamist element, but they are, by and large, moderate. So that is why having secular leaders, which has been mostly the case in recent years, is important. Unfortunately, those who Pakistan has had have either been authoritarian or grossly corrupt.

I didn't cheer the arrival of Benazir Bhutto. She may be a pin up of the left because she is a woman in a Muslim country, secular and a socialist, but her and her husband are under charges of corruption for a reason. Apparently a rather large property outside London was found that was paid for by the Pakistani government, which was allegedly for her and her husband (though she denied it), when the government was seeking to sell it off, suddenly they came out of the woodwork. Pervez Musharraf isn't so corrupt, but his state of emergency and martial law were unacceptable.

Now he has not only surrendered control of the army, but has declared the state of emergency will be over in a few weeks, with elections allowed in the New Year. That is all good, but what Pakistan needs is leadership - secular, modernising, reforming and not corrupt. India is growing enormously because it has finally unlocked the entrepreneurship of its people and its enormous market. Pakistan could share in this, if only it wasn't shackled by socialist policies that India has been throwing away, and the stifling influence of Islamism. The former needs reforms, the latter needs a serious battle against terrorism, seeking of peace with India on Kashmir, and to ensure the judiciary is fully independent, respects private property rights and contracts, and to be open. Pakistan is not Iran, but it is a long way from being a Turkey. That is the model it should be looking to follow, and if the economy is opened up, fear of terrorist attacks against Westerners reduced, then the prosperity that would arise would be a useful antidote against Islamism.

A booming Pakistan bordering Afghanistan and Iran will speak volumes, and will be our best hope that the nuclear weapons will stay in the hands of those who are sane.

20 years nuclear free and no better off

The long and sorry tale of the fourth Labour government's eventual prohibition on nuclear arms and nuclear powered vessels says a lot about the internal tensions in that government at the time. David Lange capitulated to the far left of the Labour party, which for reasons partly of hysteria, but mostly the insidious anti-Americanism infecting their minds, saw nuclear powered ships banned and even a banning of conventionally powered ships that the US did not categorically deny had nuclear weapons.

The background to this is something the left today is in denial about. The USS Buchanan was conventionally powered, had no means to deploy nuclear weapons, so the likelihood it would carry nuclear weapons was fairly obviously nil. Nevertheless, the US had a broad "neither confirm nor deny" policy, for obvious strategic reasons. However, the shrill harpies of the left (and it was Margaret Wilson, Helen Clark, Ann Hercus and others) didn't think that was good enough - they cared next to nothing about relations with the US. This implied a moral equivalency between the US and the USSR, which is nothing short of disgusting.

Some see it as a coming of age, and believe there was some sort of broad support by "that generation" for the nuclear ban. In fact, it split the nation and I wasn't supportive of it. Even though the Cold War saw many actions by the West that were difficult to defend morally (support for fascist dictators against communist ones), the fundamental point was that the Soviet Union and its empire was expansionist and evil. Only by denying how evil it was, how utterly oppressive, life destroying, authoritarian and anti-reason that system was, could someone see that deterring its military aggression was immoral. Most of those who now live in the EU, but who until recently were part of the Warsaw Pact see this. The supposed liberal credentials of some on the left who turned a blind eye to this must be questioned.

^

The Green Party press release on this shows clearly how anti-Western the anti-nuclear movement is. Keith Locke said:

^

"In fact, George W Bush is escalating the arms race with the Star Wars weapons programme and his nuclear missile shield, while the British government is spending billions on a new generation of Trident nuclear submarines. Nuclear Free New Zealand shouldn't shrink from criticising existing nuclear states for further developing their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems"

^

What about India and Pakistan Keith? What about Iran refusing to accept IAEA inspections? What about North Korea, a brutal dictatorship dedicated to wiping out the South Korean government, now holding nuclear weapons? What about China, itself an authoritarian one-party state?

^

The truth is that the anti-nuclear campaigners wanted the West to disarm unilaterally. Some thought naively that in some sort of John Lennon moment, the USSR and China would also lay down their arms (even though they were more than willing to execute citizens who disagreed with them), but others didn't really give a damn.

^

Without nuclear deterrence, there is little doubt that North Korea would have sparked a second Korean War (it did start the first). There is also little doubt that the USSR would have been more aggressively expansionist (think it wasn't? Remember Afghanistan).

^

As ACT's Heather Roy has pointed out, the ban on nuclear propulsion was largely motivated by dangers that are imagined rather than real. Indeed, the Somers Report (dismissed wholeheartedly by Labour) points out how the US naval fleet emits less radiation than Auckland hospital does in a year. The nuclear propulsion ban is irrational and childish. Rational debate on this is almost impossible, as many on the left don't want it, and take an approach to risk management that the Greens love - prove it is safe. Well, on that basis nobody should ever use motorised transport, or eat almost anything.

^

Phil Goff's naive press release (honestly does he believe this crap? He's smarter than that) calls for worldwide nuclear disarmament. The simple truths are:

- Some countries will not disarm, even if others will. It would be foolish for our allies (US, UK and France) to disarm unilaterally, while other states that are not allies wont (China, Russia, North Korea).

- Verification of nuclear disarmament is impossible with dictatorial regimes, so any commitments cannot be confirmed independently. In other words, while Russia, China and Iran are authoritarian and non-transparent regimes, any agreement to disarm cannot be trusted.

- The ability to manufacture nuclear weapons will never go away.

^

In other words, until the End of History IS true, unilateral or multilateral disarmament by Western countries and Israel, of their nuclear deterrents is very unwise. If most countries co-existed peacefully without aggressive intent, without wanting to destroy other governments (like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China all do to greater or lesser extents), then nuclear weapons would be redundant. It wont happen because a peaceful country that threatens no one bans its allies from visiting with their vessels.

^

The number of nuclear weapons in the world declined significantly after New Zealand banned nuclear weapons/nuclear powered ships. You'd have to be mentally unhinged to believe the two events are linked. The reason it happened was because the USSR dismantled Marxism-Leninism, let go of its oppressive empire in eastern Europe and no longer threatened Western Europe, the USA and its Asian allies. Russia, the USA, France and the UK have all cut their arsenals. The USA and Russia by over half. It was Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin that did most for reducing nuclear arsenals

^

New Zealand can claim not one iota of credit for that.

Peace protests against Russia perhaps?

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond. This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other . . . increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict" so said Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with The Times.

^

Part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US has been located in Europe for decades, but then so has the Russian one, and still is. The missile defence system is aimed mainly at rogue states (Iran in particular) but Russia is, after all, not always that friendly and far from being a friend of liberal constitutional democracy and rule of law. Putin is dreaming if he thinks the US might attack, but then Putin is propping up a Stalinist dictatorship in Belarus and continues to play his strong man card against more open regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.

^

I'm looking forward to the so-called peace movement organising protest marches with Russian flags to burn, outside Russian embassies at Putin's sabre rattling. However, it almost never in its history of protesting nuclear weapons would ever confront Russia or the USSR - which spoke volumes about its true agenda, largely hidden to many of its supporters (and well known to Moscow, which in the Cold War delighted to watch protests at Western nuclear facilities, given that any totalitarian regime can avoid such inconveniences).

^

The US missile defence system if put in place in Poland and the Czech Republic, should not surprise Russia. After all, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied those countries with its puppet regimes from not long after World War 2 until 1989, when Gorbachev declared they were on their own - and like the meek little cowardly bullies those regimes were, they fell. Poles and Czechs may rightly feel somewhat fearful of the bear to the east, which has done little for it - the liberation from Nazism was like going from the fire to the frying pan.

^

Putin concluded "We have brought all our heavy weapons beyond the Urals and reduced our military forces by 300,000. But what do we have in return? we see that Eastern Europe is being filled with new equipment, two positions in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as radar in the Czech Republic, and missile systems in Poland. What is happening? Unilateral disarmament of Russia is happening".

^

and Mr. Putin, if you think there is any appetite by the Western world to attack you, you're dreaming. Bulgaria and Romania lost two generations to a previous version of Russian imperialism, why should you be surprised that it is suspicious of Russia?

Britain's independent nuclear deterrent

As I write this the House of Commons has voted for the replacement of the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines, carried only because the Conservative Party almost entirely is voting with the Labour government – as nearly 100 Labour MPs have voted against it. 409 in favour, against 161.
^
The arguments put in favour of Trident are that it is inappropriate for the UK to abandon its nuclear deterrent when nuclear proliferation (Iran, North Korea) continues, potentially posing a serious threat to its security. Another consideration is that while Russia is no longer an enemy, it is not exactly a very good friend – the risk that Russia could once again have ambitions eastward cannot be foreseen 25 years in advance. Indeed, anyone who 25 years ago would have forecast a quasi-genocidal war in Sarajevo would have been looked at askance. In addition, having a nuclear deterrent puts Britain with France and the US, as the three leading Western defence powers. While the UK could certainly expect the US nuclear umbrella to be used for its defence, abandoning its nuclear deterrence would send a negative message to the US, and greatly harm bilateral relations.
^
Those against Trident believe it is a waste of money (£15 billion) that could be spent on social services (note they NEVER argue for tax cuts, funny that), but are primarily driven by two motives. First is a utopian vision for nuclear disarmament, with the naïve belief that if the UK disarms, it will encourage non-proliferation elsewhere. Those opposed to Trident are part of the so-called “peace movement” and claim to want a nuclear free world.
^
Let’s look at nuclear disarmament, which has happened on a grand scale since the end of the Cold War, with the US, UK, France and Russia all substantially reducing their nuclear arsenals since the late 1980s. This happened not because any one party unilaterally disarmed, but because the USSR – a regime far too many in the “peace movement” either supported or whose sins it ignored – was defeated economically, politically and philosophically. Had the nuclear disarmament called by the very same type of people in the 1980s occurred, the Soviet Union would not have been brought to its knees – something that far too many in the so called “peace movement” didn’t like (ignoring the Soviet launched imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Korea and the Middle East).
^
Further nuclear disarmament or the termination of nuclear programmes has occurred either because a threat was removed (South Africa) or a threat was real (Libya). North Korea pursued a nuclear weapon because it lost the Soviet nuclear umbrella and needed a tool of blackmail so its bankrupt system – and it seems to have worked. India and Pakistan had the capability for many years before “turning the last bolt”, but the sub continent’s nuclear deterrent has worked. Iran on the other hand is pursuing nuclear weapons as it embarks on its own ambition to obliterate Israel. Israel’s nuclear deterrence is just that – it has also largely worked to defend it since the Yom Kippur War. None of the almost all fascist Arab states dare touch it – and Israelis wont dare remove their greatest tool. Meanwhile, on its own, and subject to few protests from the so-called peace movement, China builds up its nuclear arsenal. However, that’s apparently ok (don't see Chinese flags burnt or major protests outside Chinese embassies).

^
There is an argument that since the end of the Cold War, Europe is at peace and no longer needs nuclear weapons. This is incredibly naïve – while many ex. communist states are now EU members (indeed almost all European ones are now), Russia is not. Russia remains a state to watch. Britain’s nuclear deterrent keeps Russia from doing anything silly.
^
A nuclear weapon free world will only come will all those holding nuclear weapons at present are truly open liberal democracies, with no sectarianism and no states vowing to wipe them off the earth, with no terrorists seeking to fight jihad, and no rogue states engaging in blackmail. That means an end to Islamism, an end to Marxism-Leninism, an end to kleptocratic fascism. In other words, a truly free world of secular peaceful states.
^
Unfortunately the so-called peace movement grants moral equivalency between the UK, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. The UK has never seriously threatened its nuclear weapons in anger, Russia (as the Soviet Union) not long ago sought to eliminate freedom and liberal democracy in the West.

Now is not the time to be naïve and pander to the one eyed hypocrisy of the so-called peace movement, which seeks as a priority disarmament of open free liberal societies, but has little interest in disarming closed, authoritarian states. Stupid or another agenda? You decide.