Mots-clé
(Allemand)
|
Nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, effects of nuclear weapons, humanitarian
|
Mots-clé
(Anglais)
|
Nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, effects of nuclear weapons, humanitarian
|
Mots-clé
(Français)
|
Nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, effects of nuclear weapons, humanitarian
|
Mots-clé
(Italien)
|
Nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, effects of nuclear weapons, humanitarian
|
Description succincte
(Allemand)
|
By any definition, nuclear weapons would be classed as inhumane. The fact that it has taken decades to discuss the problems they create through a humanitarian framework demonstrates how adept our societies are at forgetting, disguising and denying the overwhelming and the terrifying. For far too long, countries that possess them, countries that imagine themselves to be protected by them and countries that aspire to develop and possess them have created an aura around nuclear weapons. Their immense destructive capacities have served to inspire awe rather than disgust. Their impact on living beings, the environment and all that we have created, in the short and the long term, has been used to create a framework in which nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantee of security. We have built an edifice around a weapon that is too big, too clumsy and too inhumane to use. We talk about nuclear weapons that are designed to deter not to use. Nuclear weapons–at enormous expense and in large numbers–are supposed to remain in their silos in perpetuity, growling menacingly but never unleashed. Of course it makes no sense. Nuclear weapons are not magic. Perhaps it seemed that way in 1945 when the harnessing of the energy procured from the breaking of the nucleus of the atom was a new idea, when the promise of this new type of energy was to produce electricity“too cheap to meter”. But today, nuclear energy is just one of a mix of energy production measures. Some countries have invested the up-front capital, some have taken on board the risks associated with this type of energy production and some have decided it is not for them. Similarly for nuclear weapons. The overwhelming majority of countries have decided never to acquire nuclear weapons. Some, through alliance and treaty arrangements, have been assured of the use of nuclear weapons in their defence, should the situation ever arise. Most have sought the opposite, demanding that they never be used against them under any circumstances. Proliferation, despite what the politicians and experts may tell you, is not the norm. We have been here before. Chemical weapons were the aspirational modern weapon of choice for many countries a century ago. Their inhumane impacts however destroyed any credibility of any country that wished to portray itself as civilized. As part of the development of the laws of war and what became known as international humanitarian law, the use of chemical and biological weapons was outlawed in 1925. The possession of these weapons was banned by treaties in 1992 and 1972. Chemical weapons were deemed “against the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. The inhumane effects of chemical weapons provide the most sickening reading: vomiting, immediate smothering choking, oedema of the lung possibly death by asphyxiation, blistering, convulsions, loss of bodily control, and long-term nerve damage for survivors. Death through chemical weapons exposure could be seen as a mercy. So too for nuclear weapons. The idea that some countries’ security could be predicated on the threat of instant vaporization of large numbers of civilians and on enormous numbers subjected to a excruciatingly painful death caused by fires, blasts and overwhelming prompt nuclear radiation is not an idea of which we should be proud.
Documents annexés
|
Description succincte
(Anglais)
|
By any definition, nuclear weapons would be classed as inhumane. The fact that it has taken decades to discuss the problems they create through a humanitarian framework demonstrates how adept our societies are at forgetting, disguising and denying the overwhelming and the terrifying. For far too long, countries that possess them, countries that imagine themselves to be protected by them and countries that aspire to develop and possess them have created an aura around nuclear weapons. Their immense destructive capacities have served to inspire awe rather than disgust. Their impact on living beings, the environment and all that we have created, in the short and the long term, has been used to create a framework in which nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantee of security. We have built an edifice around a weapon that is too big, too clumsy and too inhumane to use. We talk about nuclear weapons that are designed to deter not to use. Nuclear weapons–at enormous expense and in large numbers–are supposed to remain in their silos in perpetuity, growling menacingly but never unleashed. Of course it makes no sense. Nuclear weapons are not magic. Perhaps it seemed that way in 1945 when the harnessing of the energy procured from the breaking of the nucleus of the atom was a new idea, when the promise of this new type of energy was to produce electricity“too cheap to meter”. But today, nuclear energy is just one of a mix of energy production measures. Some countries have invested the up-front capital, some have taken on board the risks associated with this type of energy production and some have decided it is not for them. Similarly for nuclear weapons. The overwhelming majority of countries have decided never to acquire nuclear weapons. Some, through alliance and treaty arrangements, have been assured of the use of nuclear weapons in their defence, should the situation ever arise. Most have sought the opposite, demanding that they never be used against them under any circumstances. Proliferation, despite what the politicians and experts may tell you, is not the norm. We have been here before. Chemical weapons were the aspirational modern weapon of choice for many countries a century ago. Their inhumane impacts however destroyed any credibility of any country that wished to portray itself as civilized. As part of the development of the laws of war and what became known as international humanitarian law, the use of chemical and biological weapons was outlawed in 1925. The possession of these weapons was banned by treaties in 1992 and 1972. Chemical weapons were deemed “against the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. The inhumane effects of chemical weapons provide the most sickening reading: vomiting, immediate smothering choking, oedema of the lung possibly death by asphyxiation, blistering, convulsions, loss of bodily control, and long-term nerve damage for survivors. Death through chemical weapons exposure could be seen as a mercy. So too for nuclear weapons. The idea that some countries’ security could be predicated on the threat of instant vaporization of large numbers of civilians and on enormous numbers subjected to a excruciatingly painful death caused by fires, blasts and overwhelming prompt nuclear radiation is not an idea of which we should be proud.
Documents annexés
|
Description succincte
(Français)
|
By any definition, nuclear weapons would be classed as inhumane. The fact that it has taken decades to discuss the problems they create through a humanitarian framework demonstrates how adept our societies are at forgetting, disguising and denying the overwhelming and the terrifying. For far too long, countries that possess them, countries that imagine themselves to be protected by them and countries that aspire to develop and possess them have created an aura around nuclear weapons. Their immense destructive capacities have served to inspire awe rather than disgust. Their impact on living beings, the environment and all that we have created, in the short and the long term, has been used to create a framework in which nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantee of security. We have built an edifice around a weapon that is too big, too clumsy and too inhumane to use. We talk about nuclear weapons that are designed to deter not to use. Nuclear weapons–at enormous expense and in large numbers–are supposed to remain in their silos in perpetuity, growling menacingly but never unleashed. Of course it makes no sense. Nuclear weapons are not magic. Perhaps it seemed that way in 1945 when the harnessing of the energy procured from the breaking of the nucleus of the atom was a new idea, when the promise of this new type of energy was to produce electricity“too cheap to meter”. But today, nuclear energy is just one of a mix of energy production measures. Some countries have invested the up-front capital, some have taken on board the risks associated with this type of energy production and some have decided it is not for them. Similarly for nuclear weapons. The overwhelming majority of countries have decided never to acquire nuclear weapons. Some, through alliance and treaty arrangements, have been assured of the use of nuclear weapons in their defence, should the situation ever arise. Most have sought the opposite, demanding that they never be used against them under any circumstances. Proliferation, despite what the politicians and experts may tell you, is not the norm. We have been here before. Chemical weapons were the aspirational modern weapon of choice for many countries a century ago. Their inhumane impacts however destroyed any credibility of any country that wished to portray itself as civilized. As part of the development of the laws of war and what became known as international humanitarian law, the use of chemical and biological weapons was outlawed in 1925. The possession of these weapons was banned by treaties in 1992 and 1972. Chemical weapons were deemed “against the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. The inhumane effects of chemical weapons provide the most sickening reading: vomiting, immediate smothering choking, oedema of the lung possibly death by asphyxiation, blistering, convulsions, loss of bodily control, and long-term nerve damage for survivors. Death through chemical weapons exposure could be seen as a mercy. So too for nuclear weapons. The idea that some countries’ security could be predicated on the threat of instant vaporization of large numbers of civilians and on enormous numbers subjected to a excruciatingly painful death caused by fires, blasts and overwhelming prompt nuclear radiation is not an idea of which we should be proud.
Documents annexés
|
Description succincte
(Italien)
|
By any definition, nuclear weapons would be classed as inhumane. The fact that it has taken decades to discuss the problems they create through a humanitarian framework demonstrates how adept our societies are at forgetting, disguising and denying the overwhelming and the terrifying. For far too long, countries that possess them, countries that imagine themselves to be protected by them and countries that aspire to develop and possess them have created an aura around nuclear weapons. Their immense destructive capacities have served to inspire awe rather than disgust. Their impact on living beings, the environment and all that we have created, in the short and the long term, has been used to create a framework in which nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantee of security. We have built an edifice around a weapon that is too big, too clumsy and too inhumane to use. We talk about nuclear weapons that are designed to deter not to use. Nuclear weapons–at enormous expense and in large numbers–are supposed to remain in their silos in perpetuity, growling menacingly but never unleashed. Of course it makes no sense. Nuclear weapons are not magic. Perhaps it seemed that way in 1945 when the harnessing of the energy procured from the breaking of the nucleus of the atom was a new idea, when the promise of this new type of energy was to produce electricity“too cheap to meter”. But today, nuclear energy is just one of a mix of energy production measures. Some countries have invested the up-front capital, some have taken on board the risks associated with this type of energy production and some have decided it is not for them. Similarly for nuclear weapons. The overwhelming majority of countries have decided never to acquire nuclear weapons. Some, through alliance and treaty arrangements, have been assured of the use of nuclear weapons in their defence, should the situation ever arise. Most have sought the opposite, demanding that they never be used against them under any circumstances. Proliferation, despite what the politicians and experts may tell you, is not the norm. We have been here before. Chemical weapons were the aspirational modern weapon of choice for many countries a century ago. Their inhumane impacts however destroyed any credibility of any country that wished to portray itself as civilized. As part of the development of the laws of war and what became known as international humanitarian law, the use of chemical and biological weapons was outlawed in 1925. The possession of these weapons was banned by treaties in 1992 and 1972. Chemical weapons were deemed “against the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. The inhumane effects of chemical weapons provide the most sickening reading: vomiting, immediate smothering choking, oedema of the lung possibly death by asphyxiation, blistering, convulsions, loss of bodily control, and long-term nerve damage for survivors. Death through chemical weapons exposure could be seen as a mercy. So too for nuclear weapons. The idea that some countries’ security could be predicated on the threat of instant vaporization of large numbers of civilians and on enormous numbers subjected to a excruciatingly painful death caused by fires, blasts and overwhelming prompt nuclear radiation is not an idea of which we should be proud.
Documents annexés
|
Mandataire
(Anglais)
|
Reaching Critical Will (RCW) - Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Geneva
|
Budget imputé
(Anglais)
|
Politische Direktion - Abteilung Menschliche Sicherheit - Rahmenkredit für zivile Friedensförderung und die Stärkung der Menschenrechte
|
Bases légales
(Anglais)
|
Art. 57 Abs. 1 RVOG Art. 57 al. 1 LOGA Art. 57 cpv. 1 LOGA
|
Droits d'auteur
(Anglais)
|
Copyright, Bundesbehörden der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft | Droits d'auteur: autorités de la Confédération suisse | Diritti d'autore: autorità della Confederazione Svizzera | Dretgs d'autur: autoritads da la Confederaziun svizra | Copyright, Swiss federal authorities
|
Renseignements
(Anglais)
|
Abteilung Sicherheitspolitik (ASP)
|
