Campaign for Nuclear Proliferation

CND's latest pronouncements on the British nuclear deterrent do nothing to illuminate the problem of nuclear technology and much to highlight CND's dual standards. Leaving aside for the minute, the issue of nuclear weapons and looking at CND’s policies we find a strange duality.

CND are happy to host representatives of would-be nuclear powers (Iran) and concede that Iran is entitled to nuclear technology(1), irrespective of where it could lead.

Yet CND vigorously opposes nuclear technology and weapons in Britain.

So we see CND’s astonishing dual standards:

1) It is wrong for Western powers to have nuclear technology

2) It is acceptable for oil rich fundamentalist theocracies to waste precious resources on nuclear ambitions, which could lead to nuclear weaponry, or worst

How can these two contradictory points be reconciled? They can not be, as an example will demonstrate.

CND's approach begs the question, if it is acceptable for Iran to have nuclear technology, then why not Mali?

Or what if Nicaragua chose to waste precious resources on nuclear technology (paralleling Iran) how could CND oppose it?

To be consistent with its position on Iran, then CND could not oppose the mass proliferation of nuclear technologies in dirt poor countries around the world.

If CND will not oppose the proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran, then why does it even exist??

If the proliferation of nuclear technology is wrong then it is wrong in all countries, not just western ones.

The way to reduce nuclear technology is to oppose its increase, wherever it occurs.

Notes:

1: "CND therefore respects Iran’s right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme", see http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/iran.html

Mali is one of the poorest countries in Africa, 174 out of 177.

Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries in Latin America, 112 out of 177.

(Hat tip: David T in CiF)