B.A.N. - an initiative to eliminate nuclear weapons

First off, to put the subject in perspective, there exists in the nuclear arsenals of the nine nations who have nuclear weapons today, over 15,000 nuclear warheads, most of them hundreds of times more powerful than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII. Between Russia and America, they share nearly 13,000 of those. Essentially, two men could start a nuclear war, one which would turn Earth into a radioactive dead-zone.

The question that begs to be answered is why do these nations, which includes China, India, Pakistan, France, Israel and Britain, and of course North Korea, have such weapons and why have we, the people, permitted the propagation of weapons of mass destruction; moreover, why are we empowering a handful of men with the fate of the human race?

The "logic" proposed by the propaganda machinery of the post WWII era military and governing officials, was that nuclear weapons would decrease war. 

Assuming that reasoning holds any water, why then, have Russia and China continued to build massive military powers, both whom are leveraging their muscle as we speak, and why has the United States built the 2nd largest arsenal of such when they claim to be the protectors of the free world? 

Given the proliferation of wars and conflicts, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and countless hundreds of others, resulting in tens of millions dead, are nuclear weapons really bringing peace to our world, or are they actually numbing down humanity, removing our innate abilities as people from the equation, the power to communicate and our empathy for one another. 

B.A.N. an acronym for Ban All Nukes, is an initiative started by author of speculative fiction, Réal Laplaine, to add to the international momentum started by such groups as ICAN, Beyond the Bomb, and others, and who, in several of his books helps to raise awareness about our current circumstances, where a handful of men have been empowered to hold nine billion people hostage with weapons of mass destruction, so much the case, that instead of taking away that power and removing the threat, people have generally accepted the matter with apathy - an apathy that must be changed if we are to ensure the future, our children's future and their children's. 

One could argue that weapons of different kinds fit the bill, or gravity, or some other physical force such as the sun, constellations etc., and of course, on a purely physical level all of that would be true. But there is one thing more powerful than all of them, because it is the ONE thing that can mold those powers, leverage them, transcend and manipulate them and that is the power of a MIND.  Two centuries ago, we lived in a horse and buggy era, by candlelight, eking out our survival and hoping to live longer than the diseases that assaulted us. Today we're flying to the stars. Today we have hand-held devices that allow us access to an ocean of information and knowledge. Those developments are not because of "evolution" or some "god", they are the result of our ability to envision, to dream, to project and to find ways to make those visions into reality. 

A dreamer, Steve Jobs, who wanted to bring computers into the homes of everybody, to empower us, changed the world. Today, smart phones, digital pads and computers are intrinsically weaved into our lives. Just twenty-five years ago, that was not the case. 

Ideas are more powerful than anything, because once they are accepted, they have the power to change us and our world - especially when those ideas are packed with emotion. 

77 years ago, no one had heard of something called a weapon of mass destruction - an atomic bomb. When America dropped two atomic warheads on Japan in 1945, justifying their use to end a war which the Japanese had already clearly lost, it introduced a new idea to the world - the idea that weapons of such magnitude were justifiable in the pursuit of peace, and that their necessity was predicated on never having another world war. 

This "idea" has inculcated the last 7 generations of humanity with the mentality that weapons of mass destruction are a necessity, and that we must live with them, an idea fostered by those who saw opportunity in creating a new arsenal of weapons, so many of them over the years to follow, that now, there exists over 15,000 nuclear warheads hundreds of times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. 

Frightening as that is, the more shocking thing is that this idea has become normalized and accepted in our culture, where most people accept this reality without questioning it.  I imagine if one had surveyed people back before 1945 and asked them if they would agree to their governments developing weapons that could wipe whole cities off the map, that a majority of them would have declined the offer. 

George Orwell, in his book, 1984, presents a picture of a dystopian Earth,  where the very meanings of words and concepts have been carefully and deceitfully altered to give them new interpretations. In that world, freedom  is equated to government control and a complete lack of privacy, free thought is seen as the enemy and traitorous to the sanctity of the system, war is good and necessary, and hate is redefined as love.  These are just ideas, but they were planted in the minds of a culture with enough emotional impact to make them stick, just like 9/11 fostered a new cultural mentality, a willingness to give up some of our privacy and freedom, to achieve more security - thus, many more cameras, government surveillance, entire agencies developed to watch the people.  

Since 1945, the world has been taught that nuclear weapons = peace. That it is not far from Orwell's depiction of dystopia, and certainly the very idea is as untrue as it is oxymoronic.

Nuclear weapons have not stopped wars. Not in the least, because in the last 7 decades since WW II, wars have continued and millions have died, and superpowers have built up massive military establishments, including thousands of nuclear weapons. The existence of nuclear weapons, and the fear of annihilation which they bring, have NOT reduced war, they have simply lulled the world into an apathy and acceptance that their use could actually end our culture.

We don't need weapons of mass destruction to deter human beings from war, any more than we need a bullet in the head. We need to tap into something far more powerful than fear, because fear is only used by cowards and tyrants; and governments who rely on such weapons have already demonstrated their inability to do the job of true leadership, which involves communication, diplomacy, empathy, understanding, all those things that transcend pure force. And while it is necessary to use the occasional knuckle sandwich to deal with bullies who appear,  we certainly don't have to drop nuclear bombs on them. 

Our leaders need to reset their moral compasses and get centered again on what the job is really all about. Leading a nation is not a matter of pulling more muscle than someone else - it's about leading it to new levels, new advances, a better life. 

There is no better life when weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs, are being used to hold the world hostage by a handful of men who have not only failed to grasp their real job as leaders, but who are simply playing another game while pretending to lead. It's time for every individual to realize that the world doesn't belong to these few men who can wage war at our expense. It doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us. 

It's time for a new idea to take root, that peace is possible without weapons of mass destruction, and to that end, we must not only abolish nuclear weapons, it's time to raise the bar on leadership. 

Clearly, it is possible today for just about anyone to jump on the saddle and run a nation, but maybe it's time to set some baseline criteria in place. 

It's accepted standard around the world that we don't let doctors, or pilots, or engineers operate until they are trained and licensed to do so. You wouldn't let a doctor perform surgery on you if he/she wasn't trained, or step into a plane with someone who was not certified to fly it, or live in a building engineered and built by a hack, and yet, we do exactly the opposite with leaders. We allow anyone to step up to the soap box and with enough votes and financial backers, he/she is handed the reins to a nation and the lives of millions.

Shouldn't there be some criteria, a baseline for leadership, just like we require of doctors, pilots etc.? Some standard that requires they have demonstrated true leadership skills, actual contribution to their society, the ability to deal with the challenges they will face, and certainly, the mental fortitude and integrity that assures us that they are not following an agenda that backseats the true interests of the people they are meant to serve.

It's only reasonable to assume that the people we elect to lead us are demonstrably capable of doing so and are not war mongers or the types who like to build bombs instead of peace.

The industry of war is one of the largest industries in the world today - that should tell you why nuclear weapons exist and continue to be built - it's very profitable stuff.

There are many people, as we speak, who are fighting to legislate the abolishment of nuclear weapons, and many nations have stepped up to the line, but the 9 nations who actually possess these weapons, refuse to do so. What does that tell you about their leadership?

Time for change.

Article by author, Réal Laplaine www.reallaplaine.com

Like all baby boomers of the post WWII era, I grew up in an era which never existed before my time - it was the era of the threat of nuclear war. As young kids in elementary school, we routinely did bomb drills, aware that at any time, something could fall from the sky and kill us. It was a pretty brutal reality to face at the age of seven or eight, and I think for most, it just became normalized to face the possibility of evisceration - that at any time, the Cold War between America and the USSR, could result in everyone suffering a horrible fate.  For over seven decades now, kids have grown up with a mental state, a sort of complacent zeitgeist, that nuclear weapons exist and that if used, would probably result in a very decimated world.   In the wake of America's use of two atomic bombs on Japan, governmental, military and other invested agencies started a campaign to the effect that nuclear weapons would be a deterrent to war. It was pure propaganda, because in the last seven decades, we've seen many wars waged in many places, many of them by America, and tens of millions have died...so, one might question the workability of that mantra.  More to the point, since ego-driven testosterone men, mostly men, like to shoot bullets at one another for reasons mostly associated with landgrabs (witness current Russia) or other agendas that make the industry of war one of the most profitable ones in the world, why do nuclear weapons exist? And why should we permit a handful of men, literally nine men in nine different countries who possess such weapons, the power to use them to the end of a catastrophic result for the human race?  The question that begs to be answered is quite simple: who does planet Earth belong to?

Read full article here