Christian Hope - Peace Education Scotland

Christian Hope - Peace Education Scotland

Moral Arguments in Campaigning on nuclear disarmament Why ethics? Why ethics? A fundamental reason to renounce nuclear defence A critical point at which to attack the problem (The nuclear mindset depends on a moral inconsistency.) Abolition depends on moral rejection. Humanity Morality Legality Just War (Summary) Ad Bellum Just cause Competent authority Probable success x Last resort Proportionality x In Bellum Distinction x Proportionality x Military necessity Fair Treatment No inhumane consequences x Nuclear weapons and Just War Theory Nuclear weapons cannot meet Just War criteria. Ad bellum they fail on: proportionality and probability of success. In bellum they fail on: distinction (inherently indiscriminate), proportionality and inhumane consequences. And Just War theory can hardly cover our Pre Bellum (Prae bello ?) stage where preparation for war is part of our way of life, where we decide to engineer and maintain the capability for mass destruction of innocent humanity. What we do: AWE, the Atomic Weapons Establishment, has been central to the defence of the United Kingdom for more than 50 years. We provide and maintain the warheads for the countrys nuclear deterrent, Trident. [from AWE official website]

And what we do : But it is up to you, personally: Before you decide that the weapons should be set aside you must face up to all that could follow, should your decision be implemented. On the other hand, if you accept the weapons for your defence, then morally, you hold them in your own hands. If your opinion on nuclear weapons is based on a complete and rational personal decision, then you are in a position to challenge others to make a consistent moral judgement. how to decide ? The Morality of the Nuclear Deterrent The problems: - a mindset - embedded in history - everyone thinks they know The Morality of the Nuclear Deterrent ------------ Many real questions ---------Though shalt not kill - ever? Just War theory: - does it apply? - can nuclear deterrence be consistent with it? Can we use threats to keep the peace? Can we threaten whole populations with death? Can we make of them hostages to control their leaders? Can we threaten life itself? Can we take on ourselves powers that we deny to others? Can we take risks for peace? Can we risk other lives for our principles? Are we bound to defend life? Or freedom? Or religious freedom? Or conscience . . . ? Define the scope. Get all the questions, in the right order, on one sheet of paper, with logical connections between them. T he Morality of the N uclear D eterrent - howto decide for yourself The UK is developing a new generation of weapons to replace Trident. Meanwhile we stand accused of hypocrisy in trying to deny the use of nuclear technology to others who might use it for weapons development. There has never been a more urgent time to examine our moral position. Ultimately this is up to you, personally. If you accept nuclear weapons (NW) for your defence, then morally you hold them in your own hands. This chart is designed to help you decide, and to make national decision makers more accountable. Just follow the chart, answering the questions for yourself; it's easier than it looks but the decisions can be hard. 1

Thou shalt not kill. Ever? Start here No Yes sometimes Is it ever permitted to kill in self defence? Can a nation-state kill in self defence? Yes 2 never No Yes Can a state, acting in selfdefence, kill civilians as the result of a military action? 3 No Yes Can a state, acting in self defence, kill civilians through a deliberate policy? 5 No Yes 6 No You have accepted the standard by which mass bombing of cities during World War 2 was justified. 7

No 4 You may be a pacifist, but please continue with other questions which are still relevant to your case. 25/3/8 Can NW be an effective deterrent if the intended use is limited to ensuring defeat for aggressors (e.g. by targetting of military infrastructure)? No Are you prepared to take an action that inevitably results in destruction of some innocent lives? Key No 10 Yes Yes 24 No Is it acceptable for a state merely to possess nuclear weapons as a means of keeping the peace? Moral questions 12 Yes Other questions No No Is it acceptable for a state to be willing to use NW if it is so attacked, believing that this therefore is very unlikely to happen? 11 You must estimate the

loss of life that would result from this action in a practical war situation, including the response of your forces to an escalating nuclear conflict. Can you accept responsibility for this? Are you certain that our state will not become an aggressor during the lifetime of our present long-term defence policy? Yes No Yes You believe that we have some intrinsic stability or moral superiority that is lacked by potential enemies 14 CONDITIONS FOR DETERRENCE The potential aggressor must believe that the capability and the will to retaliate will survive a nuclear attack. You must therefore convince the enemy that members of your armed forces are sufficiently disciplined that they would inflict an appalling death on millions of innocent people, even after it would serve no useful purpose, deterrence having failed. Ref. to notes 25 26 As holders of NW, can we deny other states the right to seek security through NW? No Yes 17 16 15

Is it acceptable for a state to thus threaten to use NW, while not intending to? Are these conditions morally acceptable? No Yes No Could it be done without also deceiving a large proportion of the population? Yes You are very optimistic, or, you have handed over your conscience to the government. Yes Yes 27 Yes Is the possession and deployment of NW, such that the perceived threat or the fear generated by uncertainty is an effective deterrent, a morally acceptable means of defence? 21 18 Yes Are they attainable in practice? No No 19 Is this morally acceptable? No

No So is it likely that some more will want to do so? Is there any other long-term effective prevention? Yes Yes No 20 28 Will this moral censure be likely to prevent them from doing so? No 29 No Yes Is escalation of the destructive capability of the nuclear states a most likely consequence of the "balance of terror" ? 23 Could a nuclear deterrent be an effective defence against non-national groups using NW? 22 Do we need to re-examine the case for retaining a deterrent in these circumstances? Yes No No

Yes Yes 31 You have renounced the principle of the nuclear deterrent as being immoral. You must therefore put your vote and your best efforts of persuasion behind its abolition, particularly where it is deployed on your behalf or in circumstances controlled by your government. However: Is it therefore likely that eventually the policy of deterrence will lead to a nuclear war? Yes 35 No Would the unconditional abandonment of the nuclear deterrent by your country be more likely or less likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons in the long term? more likely So do you need to adjust your moral standpoint? No 36 Yes 13 Comments 14 8 Can a state intentionally kill civilians using nuclear weapons deployed as a deterrent? 9 Yes 37 32 Does the risk of nuclear war

imply a risk of serious consequences for neighbouring non-combatant states or even for the the rest of humanity? No Have we the right to achieve our own security by endangering the rest of humanity? 30 No Yes No 33 Yes Yes Less likely No Would the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent mean that your country might be subjugated by others with nuclear weapons? 38 Yes No No Would conventional warfare between nation states become more likely without the nuclear deterrent. 40 Yes No 42 So are your prepared to compromise your moral standpoint?

39 You have accepted nuclear weapons for your defence, and therefore also their development, maintenance and deployment. To be involved in this process, through military service, a civilian occupation or merely by paying your taxes, would not be inconsistent with the position you have taken. However, you already bear responsibility to the extent that your decisions could allow use of the weapons in the circumstances and conditions that you have accepted in the above questions. Yes 41 You can support unilateral nuclear disarmament. 45 43 You must now decide what steps are open to you to persuade people to end our mass destruction capability. 34 Yes Yes So do you need to adjust your moral standpoint? No In the face of so much real need in the world can we justify securing our defence through vast expenditure on the nuclear deterrent? 44 Your answers so far, indicate that you cannot support the present UK nuclear defence policy in the long term, and that you must therefore decide what course you will support in extricating ourselves from it, by weighing the risks of various routes to disarmament. You should now examine the morality of practical modes of deployment, e.g. a preventive strike capability - is this an inevitable development of a deterrent policy? 46 The purpose of this document is to enable a broadly based democratic response to a very complex problem. By limiting the scope to morality of deterrence using nuclear weapons it becomes feasible to present a basic analysis on one sheet. Notes overleaf give additional background. Anyone who is not happy with the questions or the logic can amend the chart as part of their own individual response. Those who do so may wish to subject their changes or enhancements to the scrutiny of others and thereby make a contribution to the general debate.

Further information is at: www.nuclearmorality.com or contact Martin Birdseye +44 (0)77 6274 6895, [email protected] T he Morality of the N uclear D eterrent - howto decide for yourself The UK is developing a new generation of weapons to replace Trident. Meanwhile we stand accused of hypocrisy in trying to deny the use of nuclear technology to others who might use it for weapons development. There has never been a more urgent time to examine our moral position. Ultimately this is up to you, personally. If you accept nuclear weapons (NW) for your defence, then morally you hold them in your own hands. This chart is designed to help you decide, and to make national decision makers more accountable. Just follow the chart, answering the questions for yourself; it's easier than it looks but the decisions can be hard. 1 Thou shalt not kill. Ever? Start here No Yes sometimes Is it ever permitted to kill in self defence? Can a nation-state kill in self defence? Yes 2 never No Yes Can a state, acting in selfdefence, kill civilians as the result of a military action? 3 No Yes Can a state, acting in self defence, kill civilians through a deliberate policy? 5 No Yes 6

No You have accepted the standard by which mass bombing of cities during World War 2 was justified. 7 No 4 You may be a pacifist, but please continue with other questions which are still relevant to your case. 25/3/8 Can NW be an effective deterrent if the intended use is limited to ensuring defeat for aggressors (e.g. by targetting of military infrastructure)? No Are you prepared to take an action that inevitably results in destruction of some innocent lives? Key No 10 Yes Yes 24 No Is it acceptable for a state merely to possess nuclear weapons as a means of keeping the peace? Moral questions 12 Yes Other questions No

No Is it acceptable for a state to be willing to use NW if it is so attacked, believing that this therefore is very unlikely to happen? 11 You must estimate the loss of life that would result from this action in a practical war situation, including the response of your forces to an escalating nuclear conflict. Can you accept responsibility for this? Are you certain that our state will not become an aggressor during the lifetime of our present long-term defence policy? Yes No Yes You believe that we have some intrinsic stability or moral superiority that is lacked by potential enemies 14 CONDITIONS FOR DETERRENCE The potential aggressor must believe that the capability and the will to retaliate will survive a nuclear attack. You must therefore convince the enemy that members of your armed forces are sufficiently disciplined that they would inflict an appalling death on millions of innocent people, even after it would serve no useful purpose, deterrence having failed. Ref. to notes 25 26 As holders of NW, can we deny other states the right to seek security through NW?

No Yes 17 16 15 Is it acceptable for a state to thus threaten to use NW, while not intending to? Are these conditions morally acceptable? No Yes No Could it be done without also deceiving a large proportion of the population? Yes You are very optimistic, or, you have handed over your conscience to the government. Yes Yes 27 Yes Is the possession and deployment of NW, such that the perceived threat or the fear generated by uncertainty is an effective deterrent, a morally acceptable means of defence? 21 18 Yes Are they attainable in practice?

No No 19 Is this morally acceptable? No No So is it likely that some more will want to do so? Is there any other long-term effective prevention? Yes Yes No 20 28 Will this moral censure be likely to prevent them from doing so? No 29 No Yes Is escalation of the destructive capability of the nuclear states a most likely consequence of the "balance of terror" ? 23 Could a nuclear deterrent be an effective defence against non-national groups using NW? 22 Do we need to re-examine the case for

retaining a deterrent in these circumstances? Yes No No Yes Yes 31 You have renounced the principle of the nuclear deterrent as being immoral. You must therefore put your vote and your best efforts of persuasion behind its abolition, particularly where it is deployed on your behalf or in circumstances controlled by your government. However: Is it therefore likely that eventually the policy of deterrence will lead to a nuclear war? Yes 35 No Would the unconditional abandonment of the nuclear deterrent by your country be more likely or less likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons in the long term? more likely So do you need to adjust your moral standpoint? No 36 Yes 13 Comments 14 8 Can a state intentionally kill civilians using nuclear weapons deployed as a deterrent?

9 Yes 37 32 Does the risk of nuclear war imply a risk of serious consequences for neighbouring non-combatant states or even for the the rest of humanity? No Have we the right to achieve our own security by endangering the rest of humanity? 30 No Yes No 33 Yes Yes Less likely No Would the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent mean that your country might be subjugated by others with nuclear weapons? 38 Yes No No Would conventional warfare between nation states become more likely without the nuclear deterrent. 40

Yes No 42 So are your prepared to compromise your moral standpoint? 39 You have accepted nuclear weapons for your defence, and therefore also their development, maintenance and deployment. To be involved in this process, through military service, a civilian occupation or merely by paying your taxes, would not be inconsistent with the position you have taken. However, you already bear responsibility to the extent that your decisions could allow use of the weapons in the circumstances and conditions that you have accepted in the above questions. Yes 41 You can support unilateral nuclear disarmament. 45 43 You must now decide what steps are open to you to persuade people to end our mass destruction capability. 34 Yes Yes So do you need to adjust your moral standpoint? No In the face of so much real need in the world can we justify securing our defence through vast expenditure on the nuclear deterrent? 44 Your answers so far, indicate that you cannot support the present UK nuclear defence policy in the long term, and that you must therefore decide what course you will support in extricating ourselves from it, by weighing the risks of various routes to disarmament.

You should now examine the morality of practical modes of deployment, e.g. a preventive strike capability - is this an inevitable development of a deterrent policy? 46 The purpose of this document is to enable a broadly based democratic response to a very complex problem. By limiting the scope to morality of deterrence using nuclear weapons it becomes feasible to present a basic analysis on one sheet. Notes overleaf give additional background. Anyone who is not happy with the questions or the logic can amend the chart as part of their own individual response. Those who do so may wish to subject their changes or enhancements to the scrutiny of others and thereby make a contribution to the general debate. Further information is at: www.nuclearmorality.com or contact Martin Birdseye +44 (0)77 6274 6895, [email protected] A personal algorithm the interactive flowchart http://nuclearmorality.com/interactive/interactive.html Local flowchart The Morality of the Nuclear Deterrent Applications Individual decision path Groups, workshops, research Decision makers - an open decision path - accountable - an opportunity for change - and moral high ground - or exposure What do they really think about Nuclear Weapons? Response kindly provided by Seema Malhotra MP at the 2015 general election. Another graphical tool: MINDMAPS Trident Discussion Mind Map ----------------------------- What from? - not terrorism, rogue states, cyber warfare or human tragedies. Nuclear weapons no help in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine etc. inspired by The Truth about Trident by Timmon Wallis W W2 experience shows that mass destruction of cities does not win wars. Allied refusal to negotiate surrender terms with

Japan was prolonging the war. Soviet invasion probably prompted surrender to US. Trident designed in'70s for Cold War that ended in '90s. N5 exceptionalism causes permanent risk of proliferation. Most NATO countries will not allow nuclear weapons on their territory. Relations with USA ( and the world) should not be just nuclear. NW keeping us safe today And in the uncertain future No - not for P5 seat at UN, or for G8, G20 or OECD. And UK does have constructive leading roles in many other fora not related to NW. Yes - for 'bad boy' status in NPT. Alliance with NATO and `Special Relationship' with USA depends on UK Trident. Needed for a seat at the Top Table NW ended WW2 OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD OUR SECURITY Safe The cost of saving jobs in this way is probably between 1 million and 10 million each. 20,000 people could be saved from dead-end Trident jobs and redeployed to useful ongoing green engineering projects and some

to Trident (and global) nuclear decommissioning. Scrapping Trident may yet be a crucial factor in holding UK together. For detailed consideration of this issue a good starting point is: The Truth About Trident :Disarming the Nuclear Argument by Tim Wallis, Luath Press 2016 ISBN: 978-1-910745-31-1, 12.99 from Quaker Bookshop https://bookshop.quaker.org Counter argument Response Affordable NW = nuclear weapons NPT = Non-Proliferation Treaty CTBT = Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty FMCOT = Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty OEW G = Open Ended Working Group ICJ = International Court of Justice N5 = Nuclear armed signatories of NPT P5 = Permanent members of UN Security Council LEGAL SAFE RESPONSIBLE Protect jobs Immoral, expensive and very dangerous, Trident must be scrapped. THE BOMB IS HERE TO STAY Committed to multilateral disarmament In the face of NPT Article VI, UK retains 215 100 kT

warheads and presses ahead with Trident renewal, - promotes the CTBT while using simulation technology, - promotes FMCOT but retains ample fissile material, - researches verification but prohibits inspection, and - boycotts multilateral negotiations under UN OEWG. UK already disarmed to the minimum for deterrence Morally Acceptable Labour unelectable if opposed to Trident. W E ARE ALREADY DISARMING W hat about Scotland? Nuclear weapons can be abolished. They depend on a vast amount of engineering. To monitor and verify elimination is easier than for any other weapon. W e employ thousands of professional people just to maintain the technology; we can decide not to do it. Most countries have already done so. A treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a very practical possibility. You Can't Uninvent the Bomb' Legal W hat else might we do with 4 billion a year over the next 45 years? But what about ... Independent And kept the peace since In a system where failures are potentially catastrophic, the record of

numerous accidents to submarines, fires, human failures, transport safety lapses and design compromise indicates that by any conventional risk analysis Trident is unsafe. Premise ------------------------------ Abbreviations This ignores role of UN and changing face of Europe. Soviets did not invade non-aligned neighbours and actually had no intention to invade Western Europe. Meanwhile some nuclear armed countries were defeated in wars. 16 nuclear war 'near misses' - a very unsafe time. UK currently on trial for breaching NPT Article VI. And in 1996 the ICJ ruled out use of NW except in the extreme case of defending survival of the state and only if all other laws of war could be met - clearly impossible with current weapons. Humanitarian initiatives will fill the 'legal gap'. Not really. US owns the missiles and controls the software. NATO (=US) controls targetting. Firing has to be approved by UK PM Symbols Disarmament by UK would have no eff ect What does that say about deterrence, if it requires firepower equivalent to unleashing all that of W W 2 in one assault? Needed for the real world of today British nuclear disarmament would be welcomed by nearly all countries. It would put moral pressure on rest of P5 and

strengthen anti-nuclear movements in P5 and NATO countries, Moral rejection is an essential step towards abolition. Nuclear weapons cannot meet Just W ar criteria. Ad bellum they fail on: proportionality and probability of success. In bellum they fail on: distinction (inherently indiscriminate), proportionality and inhumane consequences. All the attempts at moral justification depend on deterrence theory. Deterrence depends on intention to use, i.e. a commitment to mass murder, unimaginable suffering and putting all life at risk. To resolve nuclear ethics for yourself against personal moral criteria see: Electoral evidence suggests the opposite: Labour won in 1964 with a mandate to disarm but failed to do so. Labour lost in 1983 after split with SDP which also opposed Trident. And in 2015 by losses to SNP and other anti-nuclear parties. The UK nuclear mindset derives from 1945. Trident is no more of the 'real world' of today than colonialism, slavery or apartheid. Ongoing multilateral disarmament initiatives being boycotted and voted down by UK are supported by the overwhelming majority of countries. We must join the 'real world' of the 21st century. Martin Birdseye 4 7 2016 Key to symbols Trident Discussion Mind Map INSPIRED BY The Truth About Trident by Timmon M. Wallis WW2 experience shows that mass destruction of cities does not win wars. Allied refusal to negotiate surrender terms with Japan was prolonging the war. Soviet invasion probably prompted surrender to US. The UK nuclear mind-set derives from 1945. Trident is no more of the 'real world' of today than colonialism, slavery or apartheid. Ongoing multilateral disarmament initiatives being boycotted and voted down by UK are supported by the overwhelming majority of countries. We must join the 'real world' of the 21st century. Nuclear weapons cannot meet Just War criteria. Ad bellum they fail on: proportionality and probability of success. In bellum they fail on:

distinction (inherently indiscriminate, proportionality and inhumane consequences. All the attempts at moral justification depend on deterrence theory. Deterrence depends on intention to use, i.e. a commitment to mass murder, unimaginable suffering and putting all life at risk. To resolve nuclear ethics for yourself against personal moral criteria see: http ://nuclearmorality.com Electoral evidence suggests the opposite: Labour won in 1964 with a mandate to disarm but failed to do so. Labour lost in 1983 after split with SDP which also opposed Trident. And in 2015 by losses to SNP and other anti-nuclear parties. This ignores role of UN and changing face of Europe. Soviets did not invade non-aligned neighbours and actually had no intention to invade Western Europe. Meanwhile some nuclear armed countries were defeated in wars.16 nuclear war 'near misses' - a very unsafe time And kept the peace since NW ended WW2 But what about PREMISE What from? - not terrorism, rogue states, cyber warfare or human tragedies. Nuclear weapons are no help in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine etc. COUNTER ARGUMENT Trident designed in'70s for Cold War that ended in '90s. N5 exceptionalism causes permanent risk of proliferation. Not reallyUS owns the missiles and controls the software. NATO (=US) controls targeting. Firing has to be approved by UK PM NW keeping

us safe today Most NATO countries will not allow nuclear weapons on their territory. Relations with USA (and the world)should not be just nuclear. And in the uncertain future Needed for the real world of today Independent OUR SECURITY Morally Acceptable Labour unelectable if opposed to Trident. Nuclear weapons can be abolished. They depend on a vast amount of engineering. To monitor and verify elimination is easier than for any other weapon. We employ thousands of professional people just to maintain the technology; we can decide not to do it. Most countries have already done so. A treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a very practical possibility. In the face of NPT Article VI, UK retains 215 100 kT warheads and presses ahead with Trident renewal,- promotes the CTBT while using simulation technology,- promotes FMCOT but retains ample fissile material,researches verification but prohibits inspection, and - boycotts multilateral negotiations under UN OEWG. You cannot un-invent the bomb Trident is Immoral, expensive and very dangerous. Trident must be scrapped. OUR PLACE IN THE

WORLD Needed for a seat at the Top Table Legal LEGAL SAFE RESPONSIBLE WE ARE ALREADY DISARMING Disarmament by UK would have no effect Affordable UK already disarmed to the minimum for deterrence What does that say about deterrence, if it requires firepower equivalent to unleashing all that of WW2 in one assault? Scrapping Trident may yet be a crucial factor in holding UK together. What about Scotland? Protect jobs The cost of saving jobs in this way is probably between 1 million and 10 million each. 20,000 people could be saved from dead-end Trident jobs and redeployed to useful ongoing green engineering projects and some to Trident (and global) nuclear decommissioning. This poster is produced by the Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Find more resources and see how to get involved at http://christiancnd.org.uk/. Christians working and praying for a nuclear-weapons-free world No - not for P5 seat at UN, or for G8, G20 or OECD. And UK does have constructive leading roles in many other fora not related to NW.

Yes - for 'bad boy' status in NPT. UK currently on trial for breaching NPT Article VI. And in 1996 the ICJ ruled out use of NW exce pt in the extreme case of defending survival of the state and only if all other laws of war could be met clearly impossible with current weapons.Humanitarian initiatives will fill the 'legal gap'. Safe Committed to multilateral disarmament British nuclear disarmament would be welcomed by nearly all countries. It would put moral pressure on rest of P5 and strengthen anti-nuclear movements in P5 and NATO countries, Moral rejection is an essential step towards abolition. For detailed consideration of this issue a good starting point is: The Truth About Trident:- Disarming the Nuclear Argument by Tim Wallis, LUATH Press 2016 ISBN: 978-1-910745-31-1, 12.99 from Quaker Bookshop https://www.bookshop.quaker.org NATO Alliance and `Special Relationship with USA depends on UK Trident. THE BOMB IS HERE TO STAY Response What else might we do with 4 billion a year over the next 45 years? M. Birdseye & D. Varma In a system where failures are potentially catastrophic, the record of numerous accidents to submarines, fires, human failures, transport safety lapses and design compromise indicates that by any conventional risk analysis Trident is unsafe. Abbreviations: NW = nuclear weapons NPT = Non-Proliferation Treaty

CTBT = Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty FMCOT = Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty OEWG = Open Ended Working Group ICJ = International Court of Justice N5 = Nuclear armed signatories of NPT P5 = Permanent members of UN Security Council UK Ban Treaty Phobia The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, supported by an overwhelming number of nations, is open for signature. There is a clear mechanism for nuclear-armed states to sign up. It does not require them to disarm immediately but to enter into negotiations on a time scale for the destruction of their stockpiles. Still our Government persists in ignoring a historic opportunity. This 'mindmap' seeks to explain why, so that we can bring about a change of heart on this issue. (This is a mind-map. Start in the middle.) This is a misunderstanding of technology. Nuclear weapons depend on a vast amount of engineering. To monitor and verify elimination is easier than for any other type of weapon. We employ thousands of professional people just to maintain the technology; we can decide not to do it. Most countries have already done so. A treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a very practical possibility. The vote depended on the premise that multilateral disarmament was not achievable in the foreseeable future. That this prevented us from supporting steps towards it, was not a rational position to take. The global ban treaty is a new route to disarmament. To oppose its implementation just because we opposed it's formulation is equally irrational. Parliament is a forum in which this most dangerous form of national pride could be extinguished. Many people believe that we must live with nuclear weapons forever because they cannot be uninvented. Last year Parliament voted to go ahead to develop a new generation of the Trident weapons system. The parliamentary vote "It can't be done" All parties called for multilateral disarmament, but given the opportunity to

join negotiations for a ban treaty the nuclear weapons states failed to participate. Why? Multilateral hypocrisy? In negotiation towards the ban treaty, everyone could have a say. All nations had rightfully equal status as being almost equally threatened by the consequences of a nuclear conflict. A multilateral disarmament agreement between nuclear nations, would have excluded the rest and would not limit the freedom of the nuclear nations to re-arm at some future date. The ban treaty has made nuclear weapons illegal under international law, for those that sign it. The treaty is aligning international law with humanitarian principles and moral law. The non-nuclear countries have taken the moral high ground in the name of humanity. It is shameful that Britain is not there with them.. 19 9 17 http://christiancnd.org.uk/shop/free-downloads/ Power and Status Reasons for ban treaty phobia Fear of chaos Not only is this a morally bankrupt position but it is invalid from any point of view now the weapons are banned by international law. We could become a pariah state, with decidedly negative status on account of it. There is no doubting the influence of the desire for political power and status. Tony Blair admitted that this was the deciding factor behind his backing for Trident renewal in 2006/7. Critics said that the treaty would jeopardise the security and stability achieved through the NPT. The ban treaty is challenging the freedom that we contrived for ourselves, as a supposedly temporary measure, under Article VI of NPT. The increased pressure to implement Article VI is applicable to all the nuclear-armed nations. How will they react? Is this be more dangerous than the continual degradation of the moral power of the NPT (after 47 years of failure on Article VI) and the indefinitely prolonged holding of nuclear weapons by increasingly unpredictable, possibly unstable, national leaders?

The UN vote indicates that the overwhelming number of governments have judged otherwise. (and see http://www.icanw.org) GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Calls on Her Majestys Government to respond positively to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 08 July 2018 All Churches in Wales & the Society of Friends: REPLACEMENT OF TRIDENT IS A DENIAL OF OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS Moderator of the Church of Scotland Attempts to sustain peace through the threat of indiscriminate mass destruction could not be further from the peace to which Christ calls us. Leaders and senior figures of All UK Faiths on occasion of Nobel Peace Prize 2017 We call on the UK government to add its support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Rachel Lampard, VicePresident of Methodist Conference: It is scandalous that the UK Government has consistently

opposed opportunities for discussion on multilateral disarmament. Church Leaders to The Times: "THE GOVERNMENT MUST TAKE A LEAD CANCELLING TRIDENT WOULD BE A MOMENTOUS STEP. BRITAIN CAN LEAD THE WAY." Quakers in Britain: CONDEMN UNRESERVEDLY THE POSSESSION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE POLICY OF DETERRENCE Archbishop of Canterbury 2010 (Rowan Williams) I find myself baffled ... why we need a more expensive way of unaccountable slaughter... Paul Parker, Recording Clerk of Quakers in Britain: We see that of God in everyone. This means we cannot threaten others with weapons of mass destruction Pope Francis: The use and possession of nuclear weapons deserves condemnation. "The threat of their use, as well as their very possession,

is to be firmly condemned." 11th November 2017 Pope Francis: NUCLEAR DETERRENCE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR AN ETHIC OF FRATERNITY AND PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE. Church of Scotland 2018 Reaffirm that possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inherently evil, congratulate ICAN on the Nobel Peace Prize, welcome the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and urge the UK Government to engage with the treaty to disarm its nuclear weapons. All RC bishops in Scotland: USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WOULD BE A CRIME AGAINST GOD AND HUMANITY. Baptist Union of Great Britain: Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales: We will never achieve peace with a defence policy built on fear. We ask Parliament to reflect that the use of nuclear weapons

can never be justified. 15-7-2016 Moral Arguments in Campaigning for Justice, Peace and Planet Topics that naturally benefit from a moral approach: - Peace and disarmament, - Economic justice, - Environmental protection and reverence for the natural world. METHOD - Integrity of approach Look for the whole picture Invoke existing moral norms Press for consistency of application Invoke human security and solidarity TOOLS - Simple graphical methods Mindmaps Flowcharts? Banners, placards, leaflets Thank you Martin Birdseye nuclearmorality.com/ christiancnd.org.uk/ http://nuclearmorality.com/interactive/interactive.html http://nuclearmorality.com/interactive/flowlocal.zip

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Programming Languages Chapter 2: Syntax

    Programming Languages Chapter 2: Syntax

    Programming Languages 2nd edition Tucker and Noonan Chapter 2 Syntax A language that is simple to parse for the compiler is also simple to parse for the human programmer. N. Wirth C-style EBNF C-style EBNF lists alternatives on separate lines...
  • Trường Đại Học Khoa Học Tự Nhiên Khoa Vật Lý Bộ Môn Vật Lý ...

    Trường Đại Học Khoa Học Tự Nhiên Khoa Vật Lý Bộ Môn Vật Lý ...

    trƯỜng ĐẠi hỌc khoa hỌc tỰ nhiÊn khoa vẬt lÝ bỘ mÔn vẬt lÝ Ứng dỤng gvhd: pgs. ts. lê văn hiếu hvth: nguyễn Đăng khoa
  • Neural networks (1) - Emory University

    Neural networks (1) - Emory University

    Chain rule: (f(g(x)))' ... A neural network model is a. blackbox. and hard to directly interpret. Fitting Neural Networks. Initiation. When weight vectors are close to length zero . all Z values are close to zero. The sigmoid curve is...
  • Domain Name Service (DNS) Fall 2002 Ch 8-

    Domain Name Service (DNS) Fall 2002 Ch 8-

    The longer name is the canonical hostname, the shorter the alias hostname. Fall 2002 * Ch 8- DNS© Jörg Liebeherr and Magda El Zarki, 2002 DNS Services (cont'd) Mail server aliasing: same as above, aliases can exist for long canonical...
  • Rocks and Minerals

    Rocks and Minerals

    Rocks. Minerals. Minerals. Minerals. Minerals. Mineral. Properties of Minerals. Just like we can use properties like texture, odor, taste, and shape to describe an object, we can also use different properties to describe minerals.
  • Warm-up Questions Scribes had power in Sumerian society.

    Warm-up Questions Scribes had power in Sumerian society.

    I will develop a timeline that shows the sequence of events in later Mesopotamia. ... Scribes had power in Sumerian society. What can you conclude from this? All scribes came from the upper classes. Scribes invented pictographs and cuneiform. People...
  • Chapter 8: Major Elements - University of Vermont

    Chapter 8: Major Elements - University of Vermont

    T M1 T Creates an "I-beam" like unit in the structure (+) The pyroxene structure is then composed of alternating I-beams Clinopyroxenes have all I-beams oriented the same: all are (+) in this orientation (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) Inosilicates:...
  • Future Perfect Continuous - WordPress.com

    Future Perfect Continuous - WordPress.com

    Do not use future perfect continuous of future continuous with non-action verbs. The future continuous may be used alone without another future time in the sentence. In this way we may use the word for to indicate the length of...