How much more ‘nuclear’ do we need? There are already enough nuclear warheads stored on our globe to destroy our world many times over. And this is supposed to ‘protect’ and ‘preserve’ us? What kind of reasoning is that, given our present warring environment, global unrest and the fact we have never stopped attacking each other since time itself has been recorded, with whatever means we have had at our disposal. But never has time been more dangerous than a ‘nuclear’ now. Just as in the video games, one country can nuke and destroy another whilst sitting in the comfort of an armchair with as much compassion or sense of responsibility for the victim (as we have seen on TV recently covering streetwalkers in Afghanistan), as those who currently enjoy the thrill of playing popular violent video games at home. We have nuclear weapons underground, on the ground, on the sea, under the sea (ships and subs) and circulating radiation in the air from nuclear power mishaps, some of which remains circulating for tens of thousands of years, and more. So why introduce more unwanted and radioactive nuclear waste dumps here, needing ‘guarding’ against their lethal leftovers forever. We are not immune to capricious and severe climatic change or could guarantee highly toxic and dangerous substances would not be released in the future. Natural alternatives exist. More than 400 nuclear power plants already exist with more planned in the pipeline. Who among us could guarantee a nuclear power plant, or many, would not be bombed anytime in the future? What a quick and easy victory that would be, if madness in the extreme. Nuclear mayhem could ignite with just one madman, overnight. No doubt our Japanese neighbours were given ardent assurances of the safety of their nuclear reactor despite it having been built on a known dangerous fault line. If that can happen, anything can.
Moya Cahill,
Stanthorp
