Weapons of mass destruction
Our politicians and other theorists, who will not be at risk at the sharp end of action, talk glibly of the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We know they are talking about weapons such as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
I submit that for the rest of us, weapons of mass destruction can be many things.
The invasion force that went into Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega, leaving over 2000 dead Panamanians, was for them a WMD.
For the passengers of the Iranian airliner shot down over the Gulf of Iran, and their relatives, the US missile that did it was a WMD.
For the people of Afghanistan, the massive bunker-buster bombs and the cluster bombs that the allies rained down on them were WMD which could go on killing for many years (as do the land mines in Cambodia, Vietnam and more recent war arenas).
And for the helpless Palestinian populations of the refugee camps of the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli tanks and bulldozers are WMD.
It is also very obvious that an invasion of Iraq by the world's superpower (which possesses more WMD than any other country on Earth), perhaps aided by other powerful countries, would be the most obscene use of weapons of mass destruction the world would know.
Instead, let us insist that our diplomats earn their money and titles by using diplomacy to rid the world of WMD, instead of ordinary people's lives.
Ron Gray
Adelaide
North Korea's nukes
North Korea has reportedly acquired equipment to enrich uranium and thus produce weapons-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU). It may or may not have acquired sufficient equipment to produce significant amounts of HEU. It may or may not have used the equipment for that purpose. It may or may not have the capacity to "weaponise" fissile material to incorporate it into functional weapons.
All that's known for sure is that North Korea has a significant missile program, and that about 100 grams of plutonium (not nearly enough for even one weapon) was produced in a "research" reactor and separated in a medical "radiochemical laboratory" in the early 1990s.
If North Korea does have nuclear weapons, the world is obviously a more dangerous place. The same applies to the US arsenal and to North Korea's nuclear-armed neighbours, Russia and China. And the same applies to Japan, which is a de facto nuclear weapons state it has the fissile material and all other necessary equipment and expertise to produce weapons in a short space of time.
Australia is complicit in this nuclear madness in many ways, most importantly its nuclear alliance with the US. Australian governments and uranium companies have also played a direct role in fanning the flames of regional tension in north-east Asia by allowing Japan to stockpile plutonium derived from Australian uranium.
Australia makes only a small contribution to the Japanese stockpile of several tonnes of plutonium, but it would set an excellent precedent (and cause a huge political stink) if the Howard government did as it should and withdrew permission for Australian-derived plutonium to be separated and stockpiled.
Australia has also been involved in the US-led 1994 "Agreed Framework" in which North Korea agreed to stall its nuclear weapons program in return for two nuclear power reactors and heavy fuel oil for electricity generation and heating. North Korea appears to have breached that agreement. The US alliance hasn't come close to meeting its commitments under that agreement.
Jim Green
Sydney
Terrorism
It's a question many Australians might rather ignore, but we can't avoid it when rationally considering future public policy: are efforts to reduce deaths from terrorism more important than efforts to reduce deaths (of similar unpleasantness and prematurity) from other causes?
Fatalities due to terrorism generate exceptional anger partly because terrorist acts reflect an especially immoral mentality. However, if the harm done to victims by various acts and omissions is the same, shouldn't all these acts and omissions be regarded as equally undesirable, irrespective of motives?
We want terrorism to stop but there are numerous causes of premature death and serious suffering. Globally, poverty- and war-related deaths run to several million per year (dwarfing deaths from terrorism) and domestic spending on education, health, welfare and community services affects Australian mortality and morbidity rates.
To ensure the optimal allocation of resources, and justice for all people, we should be equalising our moral concern about deaths from different causes and in different locations even if the constant media focus on terrorism affecting Westerners makes doing this a challenge.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Farmhand
Most of us have friends or relations on the land and it is un-Australian to criticise landholders, but here goes.
Surely it has to be asked why Alan Jones is leading the charge from the big end of town on this charitable mission.
Last week, there was a two-page spread on one wealthy farming family who are better known for spending many millions of dollars on two hobbies of horse racing and polo. The reporter said they were only receiving 85% of what they normally receive for stock. I find that hard to believe. Nearly all farm products are close to record prices, and some areas of NSW will still harvest average crops.
It has been estimated that over 90% of American farm subsidies go to big corporations. I don't believe one genuine small farmer will go broke during this drought with just a bit of short-term assistance and not charity.
If half the sympathy, time, effort and money was put into helping the needy and vulnerable in this society, the shock-jocks wouldn't have a law and order issue to talk about.
Jim Dooley
Green Point NSW
From Green Left Weekly, October 30, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.