John Zube


Quotes, Notes, Comments & Slogans
for Individual Liberty & Rights
against Popular Statist Errors & Prejudices

Index - N2

(2013 - 2014)



NTH-POWER PROBLEM: Already one government possessing nuclear weapons is one too much. Now there are at least six known to have them: USA, USSR, UK, France, China and India - and dozens more could easily get them by using their nuclear reactors. A further spread must be prevented, at almost any cost, seeing how much this would increase the likelihood of nuclear war. Any kind of commando raid and sabotage effort would be morally justified in that cause. A nuclear attack would not be. - ACCIDENTAL WAR, ARMS RACE, ATOMIC ENERGY, DECISION, DESERTION, DISARMAMENT, ESPIONAGE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, MILITIA, RESISTANCE, RESEARCH, REVOLUTIONS, SECRECY, SEPARATE PEACE, TREASON, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, URANIUM MINING, WAR AIMS. - From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War, 1975, online at OR PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR "WEAPONS" - PAKISTAN, ISRAEL, NORTH KOREA, NWT.

NUCLEAR “WEAPONS”, NUCLEAR “SCIENTISTS”: what kind of animals are they who’d develop a weapon like that? - Jeri Taylor, Pathways, in Startrek Voyager, Pocket Books, 1998, p.315. – Even the worst animals are less murderous. Usually, they only kill for food or fight for the possession of females. They would not kill females or offspring of their species in large numbers. – JZ, 13.3.12, 31.5.13.

NUCLEAR AGE: Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project which created the atomic bomb, remarked in later life that in time this nuclear age would be seen as a phase in human history that was transitory, dangerous and degrading. Either it would be understood in this way or there would be no one there to make the judgment. – Gwyn Prins, editor, in: The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, XVII - NWT

NUCLEAR AGE: The nuclear age is an age where many of us are not likely to reach a ripe old age. – J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE: At Hiroshima we underwent a sea change: the nuclear blade entered our very souls. Thirty-four years later, we lead the world's weapons race; but it could as well be said that the weapons race leads us. The weapons lead our leaders. The weapons grow wise and oracular, they dictate foreign policy and domestic spending. Our true sanctuaries and synagogues are now the bunkers and Trident bases and Strategic Air Command fields. In them, the high priests of our destiny assemble: the money moguls, the political shamans, the generals incanting exorcisms against our enemies. They surround their idol, the bomb, they invoke a tribal god-on-our side, they pour the bowls of blood: the blood of the poor, the blood of soldiers, of civilians, of women and children, of the ill, the aged. They pour the blood of the unborn. They pour healthy blood and tainted; a great and growing flood of the latter pours out, cancerous blood, blood of the fallout." - Daniel Berrigan, THE AUSTRALIAN, 7.8.79. - If mere incantations could help ... - J.Z.JZ - Can anyone tell me which are quite rightful targets for any nuclear "weapons"? Cities, countries, whole populations, armies of conscripts, who, under certain conditions, which we should offer them, would gladly rise against their rulers or desert from them? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. – This kind of decision-making monopoly is still not sufficiently questioned and criticized by anarchists and libertarians, not to speak of the territorial statists. - JZ, 31.5.13. - NWT

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE: Precisely because of the enormous expenditure of human and material resources which it requires, the arms race has been described as 'an act of aggression which amounts to a crime for even when they are not used, by their cost alone, armaments kill the poor by causing them to starve’.”  Joseph Camilleri in article, p.32 of John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age. - Driving the Soviet regime to bankruptcy and collapse was actually the declared intention of the US government since the fifties, according to Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, 1963. Only it took decades longer than expected until the US succeeded and all the time the threat of nuclear war, even if only by accident or miscalculation, continued and was even increased, since the number and power of nuclear weapons was multiplied. Under the all too popular J. F. Kennedy it was doubled. When I heard of his assassination I thought at first that this was in response to his nuclear strength policy. - Moreover, the self-delusion, that these devices constitute "strength" rather than a terrible weakness, was so long upheld that it lead to the continuance of over-kill nuclear weapons stocks in the US as well as in the new Russia. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. - None of the nuclear powers has as yet discarded all its nuclear "weapons", which indicates that all of them are power-mad and these "weapons" should be least of all in the hands of madmen or power addicts. - They should be in no one's hands. No one can be trusted with them. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE: Since 650 B.C., there have been 1656 arms races, only 16 of which have not ended in war. The remainder have ended in economic collapse. - US Naval Institute Proceedings. - "OPEN ROAD", Summer 82.

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE: The nuclear arms race amounts to a conspiracy to commit mass murder. And this isn't even kept a secret! - J.Z.JZ, 8.6.82. - By now we have put up with this threat by our and foreign territorial "protectors" for all too long and haven't even questioned and criticized their decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE: Three decades after Hiroshima, we have by no means renounced that crime. Indeed, we are fervently preparing to destroy more than a distant city. The nuclear stakes have risen; we are now preparing simply to end the world. We are proceeding on this mad course with a persistence, skill, investment of resources, income and scientific talent incomparably greater than is expended an housing or schooling or health or good, or all of these taken together." - Daniel Berrigan, THE AUSTRALIAN, 7.8.79. - It's easy to blame governments but is there one publication by any voluntary association that is continuously open to all suggestions on how to prevent nuclear war? - J.Z.JZ - Is anyone interested in my 1975 A to Z handbook on nuclear war prevention? Does anyone know a better one? It makes ca. 500 points on 270 pages, most of them alphabetized, in summary form. - The response to it was close to zero and still is! - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR ATTACK: The fear of such an attack is the main driving force behind the nuclear arms race and the deterrence policy. To overcome this fear, some effective alternative defensive methods must be convincingly described and put into operation. Some of these are mentioned under: Defence, Desertion, Disarmament, Free Migration, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Revolutionary Warfare, Sabotage, Secession, Tax Strike, Tyrannicide. - Once certain rightful war aims are believably proclaimed and certain appeals and public declarations made in a trustworthy way, by the people themselves, then every dictatorship (every government from which such an attack might come), would be rendered so shaky that any new and large wrong - that it would commit - could topple it and its rulers would realize this. The threat of well-organized and popular revolutions and military insurrections, as well as of liberation wars and tyrannicide, is probably the most effective deterrent for them. - APPEALS, DECLARATIONS, GOVERNMENTS-IN-EXILE, GUARANTIES, LIBERATION WAR, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, MILITIA, PEACE DECLARATIONS, PEOPLE, REVOLUTION, SECESSION, SURRENDER, TRUST, WAR AIMS. - From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War. -UNILATERAL, SURPRISE ATTACK, FIRST STRIKE –

NUCLEAR DEFENCE: we will not operate on the basis that half the population, or three quarters of it, is expendable. Leaders with such notions are criminally irresponsible". - A. E. Van Vogt: The Wizard of Linn, 81. - Yet none of them ended in prison - or was assassinated for that reason! Let all the would-be victims have their free say in the matter! - J.Z.JZ, 3.8.82. - And let them seek and gain freedom of action. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: For honourable members opposite the deterrent is a phallic symbol. It convinces them that they are men." - S. Silverman, 1895-1968, A. Andrews Quotations, p.400.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Historians have blamed the military staffs of the European powers before 1914 for rigging their mobilization schedules and planned responses to an adversary’s mobilization in such a way that limited military intervention by one power in an accidentally triggered local conflict automatically engulfed all those nations, within a few weeks, in one of history’s most destructive wars. But the situation today may be even worse, or could soon become so. Today, some government leaders and strategists have become so possessed by the idea that everything ought to depend upon deterrence that they press for military preparations that make the preparations of 1914 look prudently flexible and rationally cautious. – Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.125/26.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: I admire your faith in the ultimate good sense of your species. History, however, does not bear you out.” - Thomas N. Scortia, Earth Wreck, p.48.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: I'm scared! I don't know whether the world is full of smart men bluffing ... or imbeciles who mean it." - Morrie Brickmen, in The Peter Plan by L. J. Peter, p.83.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: If ever the world was presented with a saying of the highest wisdom and deepest truth, it was when we were told not to do evil that good might come. All the fighters, from the unscrupulous politician of a low type, who consents to trick or flatter for the advantage of himself or his party, up to the dynamiter, who seeks to terrorise society for the sake of views of which he himself has but a slight understanding, are all fighting together in one vast army to render true progress impossible. Progress can never be won by the weapons of trickery, flattery, or terrorism. The use of all such weapons only means the wearisome passage from one set of evils to another." - Auberon HERBERT, Mack ed., p.197.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Is there no moral revulsion in you against the so-called nuclear deterrent or nuclear strength policy? – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.97. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, Q.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: It is a tragic paradox of our age that the highly humane objective of preventing nuclear war is served by a military doctrine and engines of destruction whose very purpose is to inflict genocide.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, Columbia University Press, N.Y., London, 1971, p.130. - Can we rely on this service in the long run or would that be against all odds? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Jonathan Schell … dismissingly compared SALT to an aspirin administered to a patient with a terminal disease.” - Strobe Talbot, TIME, 29.3.82.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Most men die of their remedies, not of their diseases. – Moliere, The Imaginary Invalid, 1673, 3, tr. John Wood.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: People love peace so much that governments had better get out of their way and let them have it. - President Eisenhower, quoted only from memory. - Governments are, obviously, quite untrustworthy as disarmers and unwilling to permit sufficient arms controls or to arrange for them. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. – Did President Eisenhower get out of the way? – J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08. - Correct quote, from The New International Webster’s Quotation Dictationary of the English Language, New Revised Edition, Trident Press International, 2,000, p.244: “I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people what peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: The deterrent efforts are largely in vain, in the long run. They do not sufficiently deter those people who are immoral and irrational enough built such mass murder devices in the first place and do keep them in readiness, while they are safely sheltered themselves. Enough of them have already declared that they are prepared to use them. Apparently, these "people" or top decision-makers in territorial States are still insufficiently deterred. - "… a host of Cold War warriors devoted to the proposition that safety is to be found only             in the perfection of weapons that will more efficiently destroy the world." - Fred C. J. Cook, "The Warfare State", p.247. - - "… the grim determination of the warriors to match megaton with megaton, power with power to the final and inevitable collision." - Fred C. J. Cook, ibid, p.251. - J.Z.JZ, 27 5 06, NWT manuscript. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, NORTH KOREAN REGIME

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: The language in which the strategy of deterrence is being discussed tends to obscure the fact that this strategy is based on a scheme of totally unprecedented cruelty. Various abstractions and metaphors – which remain necessarily (and fortunately) untested by reality – help to insulate the design against the wrath of the innocents who are its targets. Owing to these metaphors, a scheme that would have been rejected as abhorrent in the Dark Ages by kinds and the common people alike, appears to reflect the human ideals of modern civilization. …” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, Columbia University Press, N.Y., London, 1971, p.130.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: The possibilities for the outbreak of a nuclear war that cannot be blocked by mutual deterrence are broader than the risk of an accidental weapons launch. Deterrence is based on the premise that people in control of nuclear weapons wish their country to survive. Yet there has never been a period in history without men acquiring positions of power who were willing to die, and to see others die, for causes that they themselves invented and which were espoused by only a few of their henchmen. In several countries the political process is such that leaders can come to the top who consider it a virtue, or perhaps part of their “revolutionary” creed, to live dangerously. Vivere pericolosamente was one of Benito Mussolini’s favorite slogans. - One is reminded of the almost total lack of forethought that Hitler and his military staff gave to the decision to declare war against the United States. … - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.127. - Power addicts are also power-mad. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: The tragedy lies in the fact that the deliberately threatened execution of millions and millions of people, strenuously prepared so that it might not fall below some level of “assured destruction”, can serve to prevent only those nuclear wars that would be initiated by a calculated decision to attack. It is crucial, of course, that this contingency be blocked. But should nuclear war nonetheless break out, the desperate logic of the Great Deterrent offers not the slightest mercy for humanity. It is foreordained by today’s exclusive reliance on deterrence that nuclear fighting – should it ever start – cannot end without killing, the systematically prepared killing, of most of the people in the nations whose misfortune it was to collide in a war.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, Columbia University Press, N.Y., London, 1971, p.131.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: There has been too much careless talk about the "nuclear deterrent", but it has not deterred our leaders from stockpiling these anti-people "weapons" and declaring that they are ready to use them, once they consider this to be "necessary", against what they consider to be rightful targets, namely, us! (Directly or indirectly!) - Nuclear "deterrence" has so far always only meant: Not yet! - Even if no malicious and mad leaders were involved: There are always miscalculations and accidents. - J.Z.JZ, NWT 27 5 06.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: To every Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other terrorist his own "nuclear deterrent?" - J.Z.JZ, 17.11.78. – Q.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: We have created a glittering armada of rockets, warheads and electronics, controlled by the unfathomable workings of the minds of a few frightened men. From all over the world there is the muttered protest of people who perceive this as a technological monstrosity. America's march up the nuclear mountain was made in the name of peace. The time for a courageous march down, under the same banner, may be at had - if the other side is willing. - Hugh Sidey, (Sidney?) in TIME, March 29, 1982. – With these weapons there is a strong case even for unilateral disarmament with regard to them. – JZ, 13.11.13.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we in agreement." - Bible, Isaiah, A. Andrews Quotations, p.128. - We? Most people have still no say on it. The territorial vote is a farce, at least in this respect. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Why kill Russians? They are the victims of their own government. It seems bizarre that we attempt to deter the slave masters (by?) threatening to kill the slaves.” - Joseph P. Martino, Defending a Free Society. - And almost never seriously attempting to really liberate those we declare to be living under dictatorships or trying to encourage a revolution or military insurrection against such regimes. - The Soviets, on the other hand, aimed clearly at world revolution, ostensibly to liberate the proletariat - while, actually, threatening to obliterate it with their nuclear devices. - These contradictions were, to my knowledge, never sufficiently and publicly discussed. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. – TARGETS, ENEMIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS ARE NATURAL ALLIES & SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH, NOT THREATENED WITH EXTERMINATION.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: Yet the fact that a thing is horrible does not make it impossible, as the inhabitants of Hiroshima discovered." - Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future, p.95.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: You are a willing participant in an international game of 'chicken' between governments which ultimately will probably result in nuclear holocaust.” - George Kysor, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION 68-27. – He does have a very interesting blog! – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. - Einstein.

NUCLEAR DEVICES: It's my spaceship (Earth), too - and you do not have my consent for any nuclear explosion or reactor on it or near it. - J.Z.JZ, 29. 3. 84.

NUCLEAR DEVICES: That a Hitler, a Stalin, and a Mao could gain and retain power for many years, makes all territorialist political institutions suspect and unsafe - and least to be entrusted with nuclear powers. Usually, they cannot even be trusted with "normal" government powers. - J.Z.JZ, 10.2.77, 27.2.09. - I find all territorial powers abnormal, unnatural and wrong. That should be obvious for ABC mass murder powers. If no subject has the right to such powers, how can a "leader" rightfully acquire them? - Is he a magician, who pulls them out of a hat? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR DEVICES: That the peaceful atom can be separated from the warlike atom is an illusion. If we don't phase out nuclear power, it is likely to phase us out." - Kenneth Brower, in OMNI, 4/80, p.128. - NUCLEAR REACTORS

NUCLEAR DEVICES: They don't really deserve the name of 'weapons' or 'arms'! - J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR DEVICES: Why are large standing armies, treasures and taxing powers dangerous in the hands of rulers? Because the danger of their abuse amount, in the long run, to a certainty. The same applies to nuclear weapons and radioactive materials (also to B. & C mass murder 'weapons'), apart from all other moral and rational objections one might raise against them. - J.Z.JZ, 17.11.78, 27.2.09.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: Astonishingly, 40 years into the Atomic Age Scientists are just discovering the unforeseen, catastrophic global consequences of nuclear war. Nuclear explosions, particularly ground bursts, lift enormous quantities of fine soil into the atmosphere, causing what is commonly referred to as nuclear winter. … - Bernard Lown and Evgueni I. Chazos, in OMNI, 9/86, p.6. –  NUCLEAR WINTER, NWT

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: called not just for a freeze but for dismantling of all nuclear weapons, citing them as “an affront to our Christian beliefs and commitments.” – American Baptist minister, quoted in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – How many or how few Christian preachers demanded the same? – JZ, 1.6.13. - NUCLEAR FREEZE IS NOT ENOUGH

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: Can’t make scientific progress go away!” – Imagine an enemy regime’s H-bomb being already planted under each of our cities by enemy agents. Should we not try to find and disarm them? Would it really be impossible to induce a dictator’s military forces to destroy their nuclear devices if we offer them a separate peace with quite rightful and attractive peace aims, offering them much more than their dictator will and can offer them? – Haven’t we done away with the “progress” involved in enslaving other people? Are we still using all the torture instruments ever invented? Hasn’t the FDA postponed or prevented medical progress? Are we obliged to utilize and keep in readiness every mass murder device ever invented? - J.Z.JZ, 17.4.91, 26.1.08. – Let us try to scientifically advance the progress of peace-making and of the science of depriving rulers of their territorial powers and especially their decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armaments, and diplomatic negotiations and treaties, which have always promoted wars rather than peace and made wars possible, together with e.g. taxation powers, public debt powers and monetary despotism powers. – LET US WORK TOWARDS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IN PEACEMAKING. – JZ, 13.11.13.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: How is it possible that a quarter of a century of arms negotiations involving more than 7,000 sessions, has not resulted in the dismantling of a single major nuclear weapons system? In large part the absence of results relates to the very process of disarmament negotiations. They are carried out in secret by the wrong people in a snail-paced, piecemeal wary. (*) – Bernard Lown and Evgueni I. Chazos, in OMNI, 9/86, p. 6. - One explanation is that these disarmers take territorialism and monopolistic decision-making powers of a few top people for granted. And these top people have very good reasons not to trust each other. Only the disarmament of quite wrongful governments and quite wrongful “weapons” by the people themselves, their targets, optimally by ideal militias of volunteers, for the protection of all individual rights and liberties, would have a good chance to achieve that aim, soon. But not a single such militia exists as yet to my knowledge. And the people as a whole are still ignorant, prejudiced and disinterested in real solutions, just like their mis-leaders. – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08. (*) They are well paid and don’t want to make themselves superfluous. – Territorialism provides the targets, power, funds and motives for these mass murder devices. – J.Z.JZ, 1.6.13. – Actually, the total of nuclear weapons has been reduced somewhat. Firstly, because there was all too much over-kill capacity with them. Secondly, because the fewer ones are either more powerful or more accurate in actually hitting what they are aimed at. – JZ, 13.11.13. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Disarmament of nation States is one of the highest political goods which we can obtain.” - David Hart, 1978. – This disarmament would be the inevitable by-product of depriving all States of their territorial power. The targets, powers and the motives for nuclear war would disappear with territorialism, also the funds to keep up this mutual mass murder threat and to protect these weapons from the people, whom they directly or indirectly target or threaten. A rightful international militia federation for their disarmament and the protection of individual rights and liberties generaly, could then be easily established. Many of the power-mad former territorial rulers, those who survived, might then be placed either in insane asylums or as attractions in zoos as dangerous and wild animals. – JZ, 13.11.13.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: President Johnson, in his television address to the nation on 21 January 1965, … said: “Disarmament is not merely the Government’s business, but everybody’s business.” - … But how much concerned with disarmament is “everybody”? One hopes that this is not another case of “What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business”. Of course, all of us should be concerned about disarmament, since the policies adopted by the government may determine whether we will live out our natural lives or be burned up, buried under rubble, radioactivated, or perish in some of the other horrid eventualities that will rise if the arms race runs on uncontrolled and the nations continue to rely on ever-increasing armed force for security.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.178. – But how much say do the nations and their individuals have on such subjects? At present dissenters are not even free to secede from nuclear-armed territorial governments and to engage in their own kind of “foreign” policy of making allies or friends or staying neutral. – Territorial States or, rather, their governments, still have a decision-making monopoly on such questions and that constitutional or usurped authority is only rarely at least questioned. Thus their subjects become targets for mass murder devices. They are considered merely as property of territorial governments. They are not organized and trained in rightful militias to protect their individual rights and liberties against any territorial government, especially their own, which have all left some of the most important rights and liberties unrecognized and undeclared in their constitutions. – J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 1.6.13, 13.11.13. - DEMOCRACY, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PEOPLE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, DISARMAMENT, WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER & MASS DESTRUCTION, MILITIA & DECLARATION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: The general flaw of nuclear disarmament proposals was that it was entrusted to territorial governments, i.e., essentially, to Warfare States! That is like entrusting crime-fighting to the Mafia. - Under international "controls" by governments and their international institutions nuclear proliferation is continuing and even terrorists get some chances to arm themselves with such "weapons". - We have reached the absurd condition where more "democratic" governments possess these mass murder devices than dictatorial ones! At least at present they seem to have them also in much greater numbers. - Who and where are the people, who constitute the rightful targets for these "weapons", in this respect? The populations are everywhere almost totally powerless and without influence and thus hopeless and apathetic. – Nuclear “weapons” are anti-people "weapons" not weapons suitable to execute or capture tyrants. They are the most anti-democratic "weapons" that can be imagined. - They are quite unsuitable for the defence of democracies and for the liberation of captive peoples. - Blind militarism, believing only in "big bangs" or "gang bangs" remains, obviously, even after decades, still ignorant of these facts or not caring enough about them. - Thus they offered enough evidence to make the disbandment of all standing armies urgent. Governments unable to enforce gun control towards violent private criminals should not be expected to be successful in their attempts to achieve nuclear disarmament of criminal governments, especially when they themselves are criminal enough to have armed themselves with nuclear mass murder devices rather than e.g. tyrannicide weapons or policing weapons only. - Nuclear "weapons", not to speak of chemical and bacteriological "weapons", can all too easily be hidden - and governmental inspectors are unlikely to find them all or even most of them. - J.Z.JZ, 27.5.06, 12.1.11, 13.11.13. - BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS? NUCLEAR OR EVEN GENERAL DISARMAMENT OF GOVERNMENTS? NWT

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: The remedy is to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and particularly to keep them out of space. – “A Step Further Out”, in FAR FRONTIERS, Fall 85, p.9. - It might be easier to destroy Soviet nuclear “weapons” with the help of Russian soldiers and other captive peoples in the USSR than to destroy such “weapons” in the hands of our own rulers. - J.Z.JZ, 1989/90. – What kind of cooperation in its disarmament can one expect from a government like e.g. the North Korean one? – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR ENERGY: A special tax or insurance contribution might be demanded of all advocates and practitioners of nuclear power, to help clean up the messes they will cause, at least to the extent that this can be done. They should also have to put their lives and health on the line in the cleaning up process. Call it compulsory indemnification or insurance charges and levies, rather than taxes, if you like. – J.Z.JZ, 19.11.93, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR ENERGY: The peaceful atom is a violent myth. – Button-slogan. – Just to save a few words, some people arrive at such senseless statements. These peaceful protesters are themselves made up of atoms.  What they meant to say but did not, was atomic reactors for energy production and for the production of the raw material for nuclear weapons.  But the slogan is a good indication of how thoughtless many “peace lovers” are. – JZ, 1.6.13. - NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE, MOSTLY, ESSENTIALLY OR POTENTIALLY NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACTORIES!

NUCLEAR ENERGY: you could not dispute the fact that nuclear energy, in whatever form and for whatever purpose, meant the possibility of nuclear weapons.” - Poul Anderson, Orion Shall Rise, p.131. - & NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NUCLEAR REACTORS

NUCLEAR FREE ZONES: Nuclear Free Zones are a basically sound idea, but badly worded, since all dead and living matter is made up of atoms or nuclear matter. Only the scope of the suggestion is much too small, revealing parochial rather than worldwide thinking. In an age of IBM's no area is absolutely safe, even when it is declared to be a "nuclear-free zone". Admittedly, if it has no nuclear installations, or installations subsidiary to nuclear warfare, like some communication bases for e.g. nuclear armed submarines, then it is correspondingly less likely to be attacked with nuclear mass murder and mass destruction devices. (The air, rain, rivers, seas and oceans would be radioactively polluted even if they were not directly targeted. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.) The old idea of nuclear-free zones has been especially outmoded by the development of nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons placed in space - i.e., in formerly nuclear-free zones. - To offer full safety there ought to be only one Nuclear Free Zone, one encompassing the whole Earth and the space around it. They must all become free of nuclear weapons - and of installations for their production, including nuclear power plants. - Otherwise, it will be almost as ineffective as "gun control", a disarmament, which disarms the honest citizens and leaves the criminals armed against them. It has thus been aptly called: "victim disarmament". - To initiate a world-wide Nuclear-Free-Zone and achieve at least a moderate degree of increased security, any democratic people could and should initiate a unilateral nuclear disarmament. - - See: DECISION, DECLARATIONS, DEFENCE, DISARMAMENT, GOVERNMENTS-IN-EXILE, LIBERATION WAR, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, MILITIA, MONETARY FREEDOM, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, PEOPLE, REVOLUTION, SURRENDER, TAX STRIKES, TYRANNICIDE, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. – Mainly from: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War.

NUCLEAR POWER: and strontium 90 (although normally associated with atmospheric testing, strontium 90 escapes during the normal operation of every nuclear reactor). Because of its chemical similarity to calcium, strontium 90 lodges in bones and organs and is a potent carcinogen. The nuclear industry does not include strontium 90 in its analysis of radioactive release from nuclear reactors and states that its presence in the atmosphere is a result of weapons testing. The fact is that the strontium releases at nuclear plants are so high that, according to Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh, "for the people who live around the nuclear reactors, weapons testing has never stopped." - PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78. - "PEACEFUL" & "SAFE" NUCLEAR REACTORS

NUCLEAR POWER: In the nuclear industry money is mentioned more often than morals. … An accident in a nuclear reactor is referred to as an "excursion"; a nuclear bomb is called a ’device’. - James Schlesinger, secretary of energy, has gone so far as to call the nuclear plant a "comfortable neighbor". - PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78. – LANGUAGE ABUSE BY POLITICIANS


NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power is unclean power. - J.Z.JZ, Nov. 77.

NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power was first used to make weapons of total destruction for use against military enemies (*), but today it even imperils citizens in their own country, because there is no fundamental difference between atoms for peace and atoms for war. (**) – Robert Jungk, The Nuclear State, John Calder, London, 1979, page VII. - (*) The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets but victims of governmental terrorism against civilians. – J.Z.JZ, 19.9.07. - (**) To speak in this way of atoms does not make sense at all, because even the most peaceful people are built up of atoms. Moreover, life on Earth depends largely on the ONLY relatively safe nuclear reactor in this planetary system, namely the sun. – J.Z.JZ, 19.9.07. - NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NUCLEAR REACTORS, PEACE & WAR

NUCLEAR POWER: Sen. Mike Gravel, former chairman of the defunct Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, describe the atomic establishment as a "multi-billion-dollar alliance of government and industry, inflated with taxpayer dollars and protected by the military secrecy of the AEC." This alliance has spent billions in order to produce 10 percent of the nation's electricity at no demonstrable saving to the consumer. Fission-generated electricity, produced by a controlled atomic explosion, is one step in the nuclear fuel cycle. Each step in the fuel cycle creates dangers to all living things. The atomic establishment has shown a systematic and relentless disregard for medical and scientific findings showing the hazards of the fuel cycle to the world today and to the future. - PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78. – Truths remain largely ignored even when they are published in as popular mass media. – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR POWER: The atomic establishment has deliberately underestimated the exposure of workers to radiation by from 500 to 2,000 times. - PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78.

NUCLEAR POWER: We pay twice for nuclear power - once in federal taxes that finance DOE research benefiting commercial nuclear ventures and once again in our utility rates. PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78, article "Death Wish". – Then we pay for it with out health and finally we pay endlessly for decommissioning these power-plants and trying to keep their radioactive wastes safe. – J.Z.JZ 31.5.08.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Congressman Clarence D. Long, in October 1974, claimed America is turning the world into an 'atomic time bomb' by supplying small countries with nuclear materials. "We've already sold nuclear reactors to 33 foreign governments' he writes, "reactors that produce plutonium, the key ingredient in atomic weapons." - Jack Stoneley: CETI, p.164. – PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS – BY SPREADING THE FACILITIES FOR THEIR PRODUCTION

NUCLEAR REACTORS: All the advocates of nuclear power production should be prepared to sacrifice their lives and fortunes for the clearing up of nuclear reactor accidents like that at Chernobyl. Even such an effort would, probably, not be enough. – J.Z.JZ, 29.1.93. – How many nuclear reactors are there by now, how many accidents have we had so far with them and how soon is another and major one likely? – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: By the time you decommission a nuclear power station, the cost of its electricity is treble that from conventional sources.” - Ian Stewart, Wall of Death, ANALOG, 10/90, 108. – UNECONOMIC IF ALL THEIR COSTS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Can you assure us and guarantee that your descendents – in up to 10 000 generations – will still as carefully guard your nuclear waste dumps – as you might be able and willing to do so now? – J.Z.JZ, 23. 4. 89. – Or that they will forgive you for your or your government’s or some corporation’s careless handling of radioactive material, which you have not managed or cared to prevent? – Do our governments and our large corporations always adopt the long-term view or do they have their eyes mainly on the short-term bottom-line, or the next election, i.e. at most only a few years ahead? - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.08, 1.6.13. – Q.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Chernobyl … I can feel it in my bones.” – Button slogan. – Alas, we can’t feel it, until the cancer breaks out, but we ought to know that the potential for it is there. – J.Z.JZ, 4.8.92, 26.1.08, 27.2.09.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Disregarding overwhelming medical and scientific evidence, government and business stumble blindly toward nuclear disaster.” - Corinne Browne and Robert Munroe, in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Due do the pollution, accident, sabotage, bombing and terrorism threat and the fact that they produce the raw material for still more nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors should not be built or continued in operation unless they have been approved by all the people living several hundred miles around them. People sufficiently informed on this subject will refuse to permit such power production. – J.Z.JZ, n.d. - Due to the pollution, accident, sabotage and war danger, the establishment of any nuclear reactor should be made dependent upon a referendum of people living around it in a circle with the radius of at least 100-500 miles. - I am aware that wind and rain could carry radioactive dust, liquids and gasses much further still! - J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Earth is flat, pigs can fly and nuclear power is safe.” – Button slogan.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Even if they were safe in peacetime, they would not be so in war time - since they would then constitute prime targets. - J.Z.JZ, 28. 5. 84.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: False hopes, expectations, promises and prophecies were attached to them. “Deus ex machina!” This always meant either self-deception or the willful deception of others. They, too, are either government property or government subsidized and controlled projects. We never hear about their true costs and risks from their advocates, their limited life spans, their decommissioning costs and about their ongoing costs and risks for many thousands of years or about the limited amounts of uranium available for them. Anyhow, the energy production costs do not matter very much. It is mostly the transmission costs that do matter. Moreover, insurance costs should be fully included in the price of the electricity they provide. – Private insurance companies refuse to cover the risks involved, because they are too high. Furthermore, at least all those of the people, who are living for hundreds of kilometers around them, should be free to decide whether they want such plants to be built or continued. – For they have to bear their main risks. - J.Z.JZ, 30.3.05, 24.10.07, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Fusion reactors ought to be prevented or destroyed - after corresponding referenda. From the fusion reactor to the fusion bomb is but a step. A step, which man is still irresponsible enough to take. Especially "the" man, or "Big Brother". One does not let children play with handguns and should not let politicians and generals play with atomic or hydrogen bombs. - J.Z.JZ, 27.9.79, 12.1.11, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: How many nuclear “weapons” will have to become constructed from the materials of supposedly peaceful nuclear reactors before these reactors are finally recognized as at least potential nuclear weapons factories? – J.Z.JZ, 7.8.03, 1.6.13. - PEACEFUL ONES? Q.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: How many people would buy nuclear power at its true price, if alternative powers could be freely offered to them and if they were to leave themselves open to damage suits as accessories? - J.Z.JZ, 76/82. – I am not in favour of subsidizing alternative power sources but at least they should not be taxed. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: In zehntausend Jahren, haben sie ausgerechnet, kann es einmal zu einem Reaktorunglueck kommen. Das ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit. Feine Wahrscheinlichkeit! Heuer Tschernobyl, schon 1981! Three Mile Island. – Und was meinst du, was sie uns alles verschweigen?” - Johannes Mario Simmel, “Doch mit den Clowns kamen die Traenen”, Roman, Knaur, Vollstaendige Taschenbuchausgabe 1990. ISBN 3-426-02957-X, p.46. - My rough re-translation: “In ten thousand years only, they reckoned, can it come to one nuclear reactor accident. That is the probability. Finely reckoned probability. We had already Tschernobyl in 1891. Then Three Mile Island. – And what, do you think, they have kept secret from us?” - How many other such accidents were there already? Only a few were relatively well published. I know only of one, the recent large accident in Japan, which was well published. The area and the sea round it are contaminated – and yet this power plant is still operating in the parts that were not destroyed. - Its reactors were not sufficiently protected against a tidal wave. – JZ, 2.3.12.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Mutate now. Avoid the rush!" - Graffiti, shown in the AUSTRALASIAN POST, 23.3.78.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Nuclear energy is the latest and most dangerous form of energy which man has identified." - TIME & LIFE series.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Nuclear power is 'modern', 'scientific' and 'progressive' and promises unlimited energy - but so do wind, tide, geothermic, sun power and numerous other alternatives - and none of the latter carry any of the risks and dangers of nuclear power. - J.Z.JZ, 1977.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Nuclear power plants may present as great a threat to the survival of life on earth as does nuclear war.” - Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, 106. – Actually, even all supposedly alternative energies are indirect results of the energy supplied by the only relatively save nuclear reactor in this planetary system, namely the Sun. It’s just as well that this reactor is not subject to human manipulation and, hopefully, it will never be. – Obviously, seeing the natural catastrophes that are also, indirectly caused, by this vast and distant nuclear reactor, it is not quite safe, either, for human beings. Think of floods, draughts, storms, earthquakes, ultraviolet light burns, skin cancer. - J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. - & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Nuclear reactors produce plutonium and enriched uranium as raw material for still more nuclear destructive devices. The governments running or supervising them may also secretly stockpile these materials "to keep their options open". Thus referenda should initiate the destruction of all these camouflaged nuclear arms factories. - Due also to the pollution, accident and sabotage risk involved and through their being primary targets in a nuclear war, the people, those living up to 500 miles around them, should become free to veto, by referendum, the establishment and the continuance of any such power plant. - See: Atomic Energy, Peaceful Use, Referendum. - From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: People tend to live longer than nuclear reactors, even when they are already somewhat poisoned by them. But can they safely live in a nuclear garbage dump or former reactor zone? – J.Z.JZ, 9.6.92, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Plutonium 239 is a murderous substance - a tissue destroyer. It emits alpha particles that are dangerous if inhaled or ingested. A microgram of plutonium can cause cancer in an animal, and a few micrograms are certain death to a human being. One pound of plutonium represents enough poison to give 9 billion people lung cancer. - Plutonium is extremely hard to manage, because its toxicity will not be reduced to "safe" levels for almost a half-million years. There is no safe or permanent way of storing it and no way of disposing it. There is no way to get rid of it. It is here to stay, on the soil, in the water, in the air, and in our lungs. - However, officials of the United States Department of Energy in Washington, CC., describe plutonium in terms that make you want to cuddle it: 'Silver gray and warm to the touch from the energy of alpha radiation". They claim that nuclear reactors, each of which produces some 500 pounds of plutonium annually, are necessary for the production of safe, clean and cheap energy.” - Corinne Browne and Robert Munroe, in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78. - Plutonium is also handy for the production of still more nuclear "weapons". - J.Z.JZ

NUCLEAR REACTORS: Small nuclear plants can be relatively safe.” – Karl Hess. – Yes, but when they are produced and used by the hundreds or thousands? Radiation exposure beyond the natural background level has been compared to the exposure to machine gun fire. The only safe exposure to it - is none. All modern steel produced contains already, for quality checks, a small quantity of radioactive isotopes. Many years ago, when isotopes were used to provide constantly luminous dials for watches, I read that from that source alone the wearer could already get half of what was then considered to be a still tolerable dose during his life time. Aeroplanes flying through the atmospheric remains of nuclear tests, spread all over the world, had to be regularly washed down to remove particles that adhered to them – I also read, years ago. And by now we have xyz smoke detectors in homes, sometimes even made compulsory, all containing a small quantity of radioactive materials. It all adds up. The danger from exposure to cathode tube computer displays had been ignored for decades. At least they are now largely displaced by other kinds of screens, which seem to be safer. But, in the long run? At least the exposure at X-Rays at medical examinations has been somewhat diminished and, partly, replaced, by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound imaging. Whether these alternatives are safe enough, in the long run, remains to be seen. I spoke with one of the ultrasound examiners I encountered in one of my examinations of this kind, about the safety of an ultrasound producing gadgets to ward off insect pests, birds on the roof and dogs and cats around my place. He warned me against using it! What did he know about this exposure danger? – Mostly we are now using lead-free petrol. But I read recently a warning about some of its ingredients. Any spillage on one’s skin should be immediately and carefully washed off because of the long-term health hazard involved, it said! There are even warnings about electromagnetic effects from lamps, xyz household gadgets, by now also including computers, mobiles, games modules etc., etc., in endless proliferation and also of high tension power cables. So what does “relative safety” mean in the long run? – Will the response to some such potential or real dangers be as belated as was that to asbestos and to compulsory mass ex-rays to detect tuberculosis? - J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08. – Imagine cars, trucks and trains as well as aircraft being driven by small nuclear reactors and the consequences of their crashes. Already many ships and submarines are so powered. And some of them still get lost at sea. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. -  RADIATION HAZARD

NUCLEAR REACTORS: The only nuclear reactor that is safe enough for us the one placed ca. 150 million km away from us. And even from it one can get sunburn and sun stroke and skin cancer. – J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 24.1.08. – The only nuclear reactor safe enough for human beings in this whole solar system is – the sun. – J.Z.JZ, 21.4.97. - The only nuclear reactor we really need and which is relatively harmless to us – is the sun. JZ, 12.7.11, 22.2.12.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: The only safe fast breeder is a rabbit!" - FREEDOM, 2.9.1978.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: The police cannot protect the lives and health of the people against nuclear reactors but it can well protect the nuclear reactors from the population. – Wilfried Thomsen, Radicalauer. (Die Polizei kann zwar nicht die Sicherheit der Bevoelkerung vor Kernkraftwerken garantieren, wohl aber die Sicherheit der Kernkraftwerke vor der Bevoelkerung.“) – As long as the people are uninformed, unarmed, unorganized and untrained for this. – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08, 12.1.11. - POLICE & PEOPLE

NUCLEAR REACTORS: The relative high cost of nuclear power means it would provide only an additional 2 per cent of the world’s electricity supply by 2030, and “safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints”. – Marion Wilkinson & Deborah Smith, in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, May 5/6, 07. – In some countries, e.g. France, I believe, this percentage has become much higher, probably because it was largely financed and “guaranteed” by the government. – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR REACTORS: The sun is a nuclear reactor that is safe enough - but only by being far enough away. -J.Z.JZ, 10.2.77. - And as everyone knows, one can get burnt even by it. - J.Z.JZ, 20.9.02.

NUCLEAR SCIENCE & RESEARCH: Nuclear science and research should be stopped for the same reasons that research into torture methods and "scientific" investigations of Nazi doctors in extermination camps, using involuntary human guinea pigs, were finally stopped. – See: Peaceful Use, Research, Scientists. - From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War.

NUCLEAR SCIENCE: So much mere science and technology – and much of it with little or even no moral sense and responsibility at all. – JZ, 16.9.09, 9.3.12, 15.1.13. – Compare the remark made after WWII by Omar Bradley, a U.S. General: “ Nuclear giants and ethical infants!” He said it much more concisely - in my opinion. However, one should at least try to improve upon the so far best kinds of quotes. – JZ, 9.3.12. – MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, POLLUTION, RADIOACTIVITY, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, DETERRENCE, NWT, NUCLEAR REACTORS

NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS: To me, no atomic physicist is completely responsible and trustworthy.” - Frank Herbert, Hellstrom's Hive, p.134. - ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, SCIENTISTS, PHYSICISTS

NUCLEAR STATE: This is another misnomer. The State is an idea, on a form of organization, not made up of matter. Only its human members, voluntary and involuntary ones, mostly willing or unwilling victims of it, are made up of matter, of atoms and molecules. They were and are thus “nuclear” even before we had the “benefits” of nuclear mass murder devices and polluting nuclear reactors. As a wrongful and irrational organization, still pretending to be justified, necessary and helpful, the State actually puts mass murder devices or anti-people “weapons” officially into a few hands - of the kind of people, who are power addicts and who are likely to abuse that wrongful power sooner or later. – JZ, 22.2.12. – DETERRENCE, NWT, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR WEAKNESS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Americans are now capable of vaporising every living being on earth some 17 times over; our opposite number can dispose of every one of us some eight times over. Enough? Will the generals and their henchmen in the labs and think tanks and Congress declare a standoff, hang up their bombs and go fishing? Like hell they will." - Daniel Berrigan, THE AUSTRALIAN, 7.8.79. – Governments have made us so powerless in this sphere as well, that we do, usually, simply accept this situations as if it were inevitable. – JZ, 1.6.13. – OVERKILL, MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction, IS STILL CONSIDERED A RATIONAL & MORAL POLICY.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: And I suppose he was telling himself he must destroy in order to save - a common enough view among the small-minded." - Isaac Asimov: Waterclap, World of If, 4/70.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Atomic warfare is bad enough; biological warfare would be worse; but there is something that is worse than either. The French can tell you what it is; or the Czechs, or the Greeks, or the Norwegians, or the Filipinos; it is subjection to an alien oppressor.” - Elmer Davis, "No World, if Necessary", 1946. - Another mind that is captured by its own rhetoric. Obviously, the referred to victims of a dictatorship did not all fight to the death or commit suicide. But our rulers do not seem to be satisfied with misruling us, they believe, that they have to murder us as well, directly or indirectly. - J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 1.5.06. - Compare: "Rather dead than red" and "Rather red than dead" with: What's wrong with being neither red nor dead? - "It is better to be neither. As the history of our time amply demonstrates, some who choose the latter (red) have not avoided the former. Avoidance of both sickening alternatives is the moral good which determines deterrence, and deterrence alone, effects.” - TIME, March 29, 1982. - Whoever is the author seemed to be unaware that nuclear deterrence amounts also to an extreme statist collectivism and a totalitarian decision-making over the survival of not just one nation but several ones. Some of the fanatic, ignorant and prejudiced anti-communists were and are as much of a threat as were and are the Chinese communist totalitarians, whom the Australian government is now providing with uranium. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 5. 06. –

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: atomic weapons are (*) very little use against an underground. - Robert Heinlein, Requiem, p.240. - Nuclear "weapons" can hardly be used defensively against a ground attack against their sites by revolutionary or insurrectionist forces, unless those in charge are inclined towards suicide rather than surrender. – (*) of? - J.Z.JZ, 23.1.02. - REVOLUTION, WEAPONS, UNDERGROUND, RESISTANCE, DICTATORSHIPS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Caricature, source not noted, and unsigned, showing one uniformed fat "gentleman" talking to another fatso, with the inscription: Did I have a nightmare last night! I dreamed they had a billion missiles and we had only a million.” - JOKES

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Cost of One Nuclear Warhead: $38.5 Million. - The United States currently possesses 7,700 nuclear warheads, and at the cost of $38.5 million a piece, that's $290,000,000,000 worth of senseless slaughter and atrocity. For the cost one warhead, we could feed millions of people, provide healthcare to thousands of cancer patients, build public schools, send thousands of students to college, or house a homeless population. - International Citizens Tribunal. – Quoted by Afrikanus Kofi Akosah sharing International Citizens Tribunal's photo. – Facebook, 23.2.13. - NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Defence using nuclear weapons is rather like sitting on a box of gelignite with a hammer in your hand. Use it and you'll get rid of the enemy without any trouble - but you'll blow yourself up in the process." - TARGET, October 1964.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Do you believe that Jesus would take part in a war fought with atomic and bacteriological weapons?" - A. J. Muste: "How to Deal with a Dictator." – Q.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Do you know that the Jugoslavian Nomirsky wrote a book describing what will remain after World War III is thru with us? It consists out of white leaves.” - JOKES

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Earth, this unassuming small planet, became the playball of statism. Robert Oppenheimer saw this as follows: We can be compared with two scorpions in a bottle. Each is able to kill the other but only by risking the own life.” - Translated by J.Z.JZ from "LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr.3. - Have our leaders, all of them, really more sense? - J.Z.JZ – LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Even most advocates of "limited governments" still favor unlimited nuclear strength and do not notice the contradiction. - Nuclear strength means absurd strength: It holds the victims rather than the culprits responsible. The culprits might survive, in the safest bunkers. - To defeat a dictator, much less destructive weapons than nuclear devices are required. Otherwise his victims maybe completely wiped out instead and their oppressors may well be the only survivors. - Nuclear strength means: If anything goes wrong, all goes wrong and we have had it. - "A nuclear armed nation is like a mouse with detonator teeth and a nitroglycerine- soaked tongue" - suggested D.Z., 7. 12. 73, when he was ten. - All nuclear strength policies remind me of the words of a rowing boat captain to his crew: "It's not all brute strength and stupidity!" - Nuclear strength is an invitation to disaster: It makes us a primary nuclear target for others. - All in all it amounts not to an extreme strength but an extreme weakness in national and individual security. Security can only be achieved when nobody has any nuclear strength left. To possess only a suicidal strength does indicate an extreme military weakness, probably the most dangerous of all. - "1945 gave us a whole new situation. Up to then it was people who ran out of time. Now there's always the chance that time will run out of people first." - William Garner, "The Us or Them War", end of ch.27. Don't let time run out of people! would be a shorter version. - Nuclear strength means wide-spread individual powerlessness, since nuclear power in the hands of a few renders all others impotent. (One might well ask whether most of those with nuclear potency want to make up for sexual impotence due to their age.) Admittedly, nuclear strength in everyone's hands would make everybody even more insecure and, probably, would reduce our survival chances to hours or even minutes only. - Only the power to destroy all nuclear powers ought to be in everybody's hands. The only rightful and sensible conclusion is not a further monopolization of nuclear power but general decision that nobody ought to be allowed any ABC mass murder devices. That is the only “gun control” we really need. It would be impossible to effectively control anybody's nuclear strength with complete safety, if he is left in possession. - But all nuclear strength could be destroyed. This process of destruction can be controlled although not by governments, no matter how "strong" they are. It could be achieved by people properly armed, organized, trained and motivated for this, best in ideal militia forces. - No moral or rational aim can be achieved with nuclear strength. What is usually called "nuclear strength" is nothing but a scientific preparation for mass murder. If you want to make friends with the innocents you have first of all to cease threatening them, indiscriminately, together with their oppressors and exploiters. - Another kind of chain reaction, induced among the enemy's conscripts, dissolving a regime's military forces by desertion or turning them against him en bloc, is a much more effective approach to peace than any nuclear chain reaction and it is also a way to avoid nuclear war. - Secede from all nuclear powers and associate against them on an exterritorial basis, which does not offer them any nuclear targets. - Real strength instead of the fiction of nuclear "strength"- would lie e.g. in the following measures and preparations: Outlawry and tyrannicide of all, who retain or build nuclear mass murder devices. - Induced mass desertions from the enemy's forces. - Alliances with governments in exile. Public declaration of quite just war aims. - Revolutionary warfare, leading e. g. to military uprisings among the enemy's forces. - Separate peace treaties with the enemy's armies. - Establishment of militias for the protection of human rights, largely also with deserters from the enemy regime's military forces. - Highly discriminating destructive warfare measures, like destruction of furnaces and ball-bearing industries only - but without nuclear weapons. - Respect for the human rights even of the enemy's soldiers and civilians. - Proper clarification of: Who is the real enemy? - Appeals and declarations - which could and would be trusted even by the enemy's soldiers. - ACCIDENTAL WAR, ACUTENESS OF DANGER, ARMS RACE, BACKFIRING, DECISION, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE, DISARMAMENT, CONTROL, DOOMSDAY BOMB, ENEMY, FAILSAFE, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, MADNESS, OVERKILL, POLITICIANS, POWER, RESPONSIBILITY, SLEEPLESSNESS, STRENGTH, SURRENDER, TARGETS, TERRORISM, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TYRANNICIDE, WAR AIMS. - From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War.  Here somewhat revised, 1.6.13, 14.11.13. -GOVERNMENTS & NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT MIX WITH PEACE

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Every nuclear destructive device in its use or even by the threat of its mere existence, is an extreme example of initiated coercion - for, inevitably, it would always kill or harm noncombatants, civilians, innocents, children, even secret allies, quite indiscriminately, either directly or through its side-effects. Moreover, it does provoke retaliation with similar wrongful devices. - J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: He made a good case that all official thinking about nuclear weapons has been close to, if not actually, insane. …” - Daniel Kagan in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82, on Jonathan Schell: The Fate of the Earth. - & DETERRENCE POLICY, INSANITY

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” - Friedrich Nietzsche & DETERRENCE POLICIES, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, MASS MURDER DEVICES, WEAPONS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: How do you argue with a terrorist high-jacker who threatens to detonate a nuclear bomb in the center of New York or London?" - Jack Stoneley, CETI, p.166. - Indeed, how do you argue with any government, which does that? - See: PEACE PLANS 16-17 & 61-65. - J.Z.JZ - These are two books which no territorial government is likely to read but which all their victims ought to read. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. - Are there any better libertarian peace books? Both have been online a for years. Response from other libertarians: Zero. Thus the ground for "ground zero" "events", almost everywhere, is very well prepared. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: How much of the Anti-Americanism now existing in the world is due to the USA government being the first and largest nuclear power? And also, largely, a “Christian” one – Who does not feel threatened by such a power? Such an expression of Christian" "love" towards "enemies"! (*) They are certainly not targeting tyrants but rather, their hundreds of millions of victims. This "weapon" has first and only been used against Asians. Who will be next? – Which race, ideology or creed? – The dislike of Americans may be stronger among subjects than rulers, because the rulers have the safest shelters. - Is anyone outside of the USA out of reach of USA nuclear "weapons"? So why should they love the USA government and those Americans who put up with it or are even proud of it still? - J.Z.JZ, 22.6.86, 26.1.08, 12.1.11. – (*) It reminds one of the Crusades and, indeed, many people living in the Middle East area do consider the Western interventions there a part of a continuing crusade. – JZ, 1.6.13. - ANTI-AMERICANISM, ITS NUCLEAR ROOT.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: In 1965, the US had 1,600 nuclear missile warheads. By 1974 it had 6,000. The Russian total increased from 262 to about 2,200. By 1977, the American total will be … - Jack Stonely, CETI, p.162.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: in the end we made them proud that they too could slaughter people by the millions. Look at me, everybody! I can make babies come deformed, same as you can!” – John Brunner, Tation, FAR FRONTIER, Spring 85. - PROLIFERATION

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: it amounts to a loaded gun held at the head of every man, woman and child on the globe.” – Robert Heinlein, Solution Unsatisfactory. – With the exception of those, who are the few decision makers. All the others are only their victims. The decision-makers might survive a nuclear war, at least for a while, in the safest shelters. – How do we deal with hostage takers, who do this only to a handful of people? These highest-level hijackers have hijacked whole populations and so far got away with this. – J.Z.JZ, 18.7.87, 26.1.08, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Mass murder devices or ABC "weapons" are glorified or seen as the only options, as modern and scientific "defence weapons", while e.g. tyrannicide and other rightful liberation and defence efforts, fraternization between conscripts, desertion from and revolutions and military insurrections against dictatorships are maligned or otherwise hindered. - J.Z.JZ, 5.2.02, 11.2.02. - And not seriously considered by libertarians and anarchists, either. - 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Most people also overlook the reply to Marcus Cato, (Carthage must be destroyed!) made by Publius Scipio Nasica, which he as persistently advanced: "In my opinion, Carthage must be spared!" - Judging from hindsight: Who of the two was right? - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. – Only the territorialism of all States has to be abolished, i.e., all associations have to become transformed into those of like-minded volunteers, who do their things only for or to themselves. – JZ, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Never before in the history of mankind has the problem of men killing each other reached the proportions where they can kill everything that exists.” – David Harris, husband of folk-singer Joan Baez, quoted by Ron Kimberling, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 6/72. – Well, the planet Earth, as a desert, inhabited only by a few plants and insects, might remain. – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: None of us lost too much sleep over the threat of imminent annihilation of the human race and our responsibility for this state of affairs.” - Frances Hoffer, PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS, 32 916. - RESPONSIBILITY, IRRESPONSIBILITY, APATHY, THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Now that I'm a cranky, constipated old man, I can afford to say that the younger generation of scientists makes me sick to my stomach. Short-order fry cooks of destruction, they hear through the little window the dim order: 'Atom bomb rare, with cobalt sixty!' and sing it back and rattle their stinking skillets and sling the deadly hash - just what the customer ordered, with never a notion invading their smug, too-heated havens that there's a small matter of right and wrong that takes precedence even over their haut cuisine." - C. M. Kornbluth: Gomez, The Best of OAK, by F. Pohl, 107. - Who is the "customer" here? The involuntary taxpayer and involuntary territorial subject, disfranchised in this respect and extensively lied to! - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02, 12.1.11. – NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Nuclear strength is actually an extreme weakness. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Nuclear strength: It is neither right nor cheap nor harmless but threatens everything we hold dear - except for those struck blind by faith in "modern scientific progress" as guided by governments. - J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Nuclear Strength" is the modern and exaggerated version of "Carthaginem esse delendam!” - Not only one but all cities and other population centres “ought” to be destroyed with efficient, modern and cheap devices for mass extermination and destruction! – Or so they want to make us believe. - J.Z.JZ, 3.7.82, 27.2.09.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Once the 'strategic necessity' of planning the deaths of hundreds of millions of people is accepted, we begin to live in a world in which morality and action inhabit two separate, closed realms. All strategic sense becomes moral nonsense, and vice versa. … - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth. - STRATEGIC "THINKING" VS. MORALITY

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Our National Death Wish.” - Heading of article by Corinne Browne and Robert Munroe in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 8/78.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Progress and strength does not consist in being able to exterminate, en masse, the primary victims of your enemies. – Their despotic rulers may survive – in their safest bunkers. - J.Z.JZ, 30.3.84, 1.5.13. – Nuclear strength is a weakness. Real enemies would be targeted by tyrannicide rather than nuclear weapons. Anti-americanism is largely based upon hate for & fear of its nuclear mass murder “strength”. –JZ, 14.11.13. – ENEMIES, ANTI-AMERICANISM

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Right now the US nuclear arsenal contains the equivalent of 615,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. That's enough to annihilate every major Russian city 36 times over. The Russians are not quite so well supplied. They have only the capacity to annihilate every major American city 11 times. As of last count, the USSR was adding one new nuke every 48 hours, the US one every 8." - Frederick Pohl, DESTINIES, 2/4, p.28. - The bombs are not "Hiroshima-sized" but can be carried in a bomber or a rocket. And "the Russians" were and are made up of e.g. over 120 ethnic groups, many of them considering Russians as foreign invaders with a foreign religion and ideology. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. – How many thousand different religions and ideologies are represented there, too, at least in some individuals? – JZ, 14.11.13. - So who was the real enemy there? Who is it now, in any territory? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. - ENIEMIES OR SECRET ALLIES? – OVER-KILL, MAD: MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: So much money, thought and labor have been invested in the wrongful principles, practices and aims that are based on territorialism and collective responsibility notions and so little thought, money and labor have been directed - in a rightful and sensible way - against the real enemy, namely tyrannical regimes and all regimes are already tyrannical and totalitarian - to the extent that they are territorial. - J.Z.JZ, 4.2.02, 7.2.02, 14.11.13. – DESPOTISMS,  TOTALITRIANISM, DEFENCE, TYRANNICIDE VS., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY TERRITORIALISM, ENEMY

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: So now," I said, "you've made your tests and done your exploring, and you've found that while we can mix together a little of this and that and make a big bang, emotionally and philosophically we're still ignorant savages. That we've made a little progress in the physical sciences, but in the humanic sciences we are still determined not to make any progress, I suppose you' ... - uh/-ah- quarantine us? See to it that we don't get out beyond our solar system?" - Mark Clifton: When They Come From Space, p.141. – Humanist, human? J.Z.JZ

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: State and war are the same. ‘ - Romain Rolland, in "Clerambault". - Nuclear strength and nuclear war are also identical in the long run. Even during formal peace times our lives are partly taxed away to maintain this threat against us. - J.Z.JZ, 31. 10. 82, 1. 5. 06. - & THE STATE, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The 'ideal' of nuclear war is the complete automation of slaughter.” - PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS, 33 443.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: the 'insane' non-future of nuclear armament. Each nuclear weapon, be it ordered, manufactured, or acceded to, further jeopardizes the human race. With each weapon, the ante is raised."- James Reston, Jr., OMNI, 1/82.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The Kranians ... Thank God they are not sufficiently enlightened to wish to blow themselves to bits." - Edmund Cooper: Tomorrow Came, p.38. - It is not the territorial subjects, who want to blow each other up, but, rather, their supposed protectors, who threaten to directly or indirectly mass-murder them, with their anti-people "weapons". They are too much gentlemen or too much afraid for themselves to advocate and practise tyrannicide. But murdering innocent people scientifically, by the millions, that's O.K. - As power addicts they probably get a high out of this. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. – CIVILIZATION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, TYRANNICIDE OR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VICTIMS OF TYRANTS?

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The military powers flexing their muscles like impotent beach boys.” - From James Bond movie: "Diamonds Are Forever".

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils." - Earl Mountbatten.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The symbols of a destruction so great as to be beyond the comprehension of all but the demonically insane." - Allen Drury: Come Nineveh, Come Tyre, p.402.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The time came, when there were more than 25 000 of them on the planet, ten for every city.” - Carl Sagan, Contact, p.184. – Referring to the governmental stockpiles of nuclear “weapons”. And in some countries, like Australia, already 90 % of the population live in its few cities. – As an ally of the USA, it might be the primary target of Anti-American despotic regimes, in a “limited” nuclear attack. - J.Z.JZ, 8.9.07, 1.6.13. - NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR NONSENSE, DEFENCE? COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WARS AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATIONS, AGAINST WHOLE CITIES

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The total helplessness of being in the hands of madmen armed with all means of destruction, while you are completely unarmed against their murderous madness. Madmen to whom your life counts as zero. Who would kill you with the same indifference that they would kill any other animal." - Enrico Arrigoni: The Totalitarian Nightmare, p.196. - But we have the "consolation" that they have outlawed handguns in our hands. (Victim disarmament laws.) Are they afraid that we might use them against them, in self-defence? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: The weak shall inherit the earth - or nobody! - J.Z.JZ, 1.6.78.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: there are nuclear missiles targeted on a hundred cities.” - Ian Stewart, Wall of Death, ANALOG, 10/90, p.109. – As if cities and their populations were the enemies! – JZ, 14.11.13. – ENEMY CONCEPT, PEOPLES CONSIDERED AS PROPERTIES OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Think of what else they’ve made people believe. They’ve persuaded us that we’ll be safe if only we spend all our wealth so everybody on Earth can be killed in a moment – when the governments decide the time has come.” - Carl Sagan, Contact, p.402. - Not all but all too much. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11. - NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR NONSENSE, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIAL ONES, VS. THE PEOPLE, TARGETING UP TO 90 % OF US DIRECTLY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: This belief in the supreme strength is a fatal sickness. - J.Z.JZ, 1.6.78. - And morally it is also sickening! - J.Z.JZ - 3.8.82.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: This is too much power to be confined to one man or group with the hope they'll administer wisely." - Frank Herbert: Committee of the Whole, The Worlds of Frank Herbert, p.47. – POWER, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Threats in the way you mean them are a thing we no longer can indulge in.” - Frank Herbert, Committee of the Whole, p.39 in "Worlds of Frank Herbert".

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Typical of man's genius is the way he develops a bomb designed to drive us into the cellar about the time he starts building homes without any cellars.” - Homer King in Hemet, Calif. News, quoted in READER'S DIGEST, Oct. 54.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: We have approximately 31.000 atomic devices from artillery shells to giant ballistic missiles, in the US and the NATO nations. It is estimated that Russia has an equal stock-pile. The firepower from these two arsenals is sufficient to destroy each antagonist 40 times over." - Paul McIlvaine, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 10.3.80. - And people believe in it and promote it as 'defence' and 'national security''. - J.Z.JZ, 18.3.80. - To that extent "nuclear strength" is a fruit of "representative" democracy but not of direct democracy. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. – OVERKILL, MAD – MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION, DETERRENCE HYPYTHESIS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: We shall replace the state with the free market, and men shall for the first time in their history be able to walk and live without fear of destruction being unleashed upon them at any moment – especially the obscenity of such destruction being unleashed by a looter armed with nuclear weapon and nerve gases.” – Roy A. Childs, Jr., Liberty Against Power, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1994, p. 156. - MARKET VS. THE TERRITORIAL STATE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, ARMAMENT & DISARMAMENT & INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, POWER ADDICTS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH THREAT

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: What he felt, he told himself, was scorn and a hopelessness - a crystal-clear recognition of the doom of a world where the potentials of learning were siphoned from easy-going savants by tribal headmen wielding the fruits of wisdom with the same indifferent abandon as a Neanderthaler using a club.” - Ernest Hill, Tip of the Iceberg, in GALAXY, May 71. – CIVILIZATION, WEAPONS & MORALITY, WAR AIMS

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: What life expectancy has mankind when it still questions the right to life of e.g. fetuses? And also what life expectancy have ordinary citizens, who are more or less opposed to governments armed to over-kill rates with nuclear mass murder devices or anti-people "weapons"? - J.Z.JZ, 1972, 1.5.06. - & LIFE EXPECTANCE OF MANKIND, ABORTIONS & NUCLEAR WEAPONS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES – OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THREATENED BY NUCLEAR “WEAPONS”

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: While the Nazis tried to keep their mass murder preparations and procedures secret, we proudly show off ours by turning e.g., IBM sites into tourist attractions! - That it stood publicity so long does not make it right. The principles and institutions behind it have never been properly aired and sufficiently criticized as yet! – Neither have alternative defence and war prevention methods been sufficiently published and discussed nor has sufficient interest for them as yet been demonstrated – but the rulers and their misruled victims. - J.Z.JZ, 26.6.78, 1.6.13, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Why bother building any more nuclear warheads until we’ve used the ones we have? – Anonymous. - The fact that many advanced such ideas only anonymously does indicate that even in the supposedly free countries not even full freedom of expression does as yet exist. Reprisals from the power addicts are still to be feared. - J.Z.JZ, 24. 11. 06, 1.6.13. - Would I still be alive if the mass media and governments had taken my writings serious? - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11, 1.6.13. - & DEFENCE, MEGA-KILLS, OVERKILL POWER, JOKES, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Why place all our bets - to a total of 180,000 million dollars (just the increase of the US nuclear arsenal for the next few years) - on nuclear strength and none at all on rightful and effective alternative defence and war prevention methods? (As described e.g., in PEACE PLANS 16-17 and 61-63.) - - J.Z.JZ, 6.10.81. – DEFENCE, WAR PREVENTION, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

NUCLEAR STRENGTH:: You cannot persuade a man while he thinks you wish to hit or coerce him.” – Aylmer Maude, Tolstoy and his Problems, p.23.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: You're an old-timer if you can remember when setting the world on fire was a figure of speech." - Franklin P. Jones, quoted in READER'S DIGEST, 4/63.

NUCLEAR TARGETS: All taxpayers are held collectively responsible, even in States that imagine themselves to be anti-communistic and opposed to State-socialism. All citizens living in nuclear target areas are also held collectively responsible for the actions of their governments. And the "nuclear strength" policy of their governments runs under the misnomer "defence of freedom", leaving unstated: "via mass-murder devices!" Coercive collective responsibility is one of the essences of enforced territorial collectivism. - J.Z.JZ, 27.10.78 & 1.5.06. - TAXATION & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR UMBRELLA: We are all living in a fool's paradise, the nuclear "umbrella". Whosoever believes in the effectiveness of the nuclear umbrella has not yet realized what radioactive rain means and the hard and heat radiation from a nuclear explosion or the following firestorm - otherwise he would not use this analogy. Nuclear devices simply are neither defensive means nor effective enough deterrents. There are no effective umbrellas against the nuclear war threat. - When attacked or threatened with nuclear devices - because one hasn't taken the necessary preventive steps in time - it is far preferable to surrender immediately than undertake or let one's ally resort to a nuclear counterstrike. This way some more people are likely to survive and altogether less nuclear devices will be used. - ALLIANCES, COMMUNISM, COUNTER-TERROR, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, RED / DEAD, RETALIATION, SURRENDER. From: J.Z.JZ, An ABC Against Nuclear War. – Rev., 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR BY ACCIDENT, MOST LIKELY COMPUTER FAILURE: In any year the odds were 50 to 1 against accidental war. This … had already been made public in the Hershon Report. But the report was several years old and the people at Ohio State, who put it together, made it clear that they did not have access to confidential information. The situation was much worse than they had reported because everything had got more complicated. … ‘Does not the increasing intricacy of the electronic systems and the great speed of missiles make that figure worse each year?’ Black asked. He had in mind the public warning, several years previously, by Admiral L. D. Coates, the Chief of Naval Research, which admitted that all insiders knew: electronic gear was becoming so complex that it was outstripping the ability of men to control it; complexity of new generations of machines was increasing the danger of accidents faster than safeguards could be devised. The statement had never been countered but simply ignored. – Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail-Safe, Hutchinson of London, 1963, p.139. – Add to this the danger of vandalism via computers, by some hackers that are mentally unbalanced. – Moreover, all territorial political leaders are more or less power-mad and unwilling to abdicate. Thus if their power is threatened, they might be prepared to do away not only with themselves but with mankind. The guilty one might survive mankind for a while in the safest bunker. That was the situation almost 50 years ago, longer, if one included the time since 1945, the attacks on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are all living on “borrowed time” or against the laws of probability. - JZ, 13.3.12. – ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, HIJACKING, TERRITORIALISM, THREATS TO ALL COMPUTERS FORM VIRUS ATTACKS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & “LIMITED” NUCLEAR WAR: Last year, the World Health Organization did a study of nuclear war. Remember, I said together Russia and America have 50,000 nuclear weapons. The W.H.O. took only 7,000 weapons because they could not find any more legitimate [legitimate? – JZ] targets in the whole world to bomb. They bombed every city and significant town in the U.S.A., Canada, China, Russia, Europe, Hawaii, Guam and then some more. Before I say the next thing, I want you now all to pause to think of someone in your life who has died that you loved. … The World Health Organization experts found in the first hour in this very [very? - JZ] limited nuclear war, one billion people dead of the effects of blast and heat alone, I repeat, one billion people. In the next two weeks, one billion more died of the effects that I just described. That is half of the world’s people. It won’t be limited, all of the bombs will be used.” - Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, ed. by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 312. – Officially, there are now only ca. 10,000 of these “weapons” left. How many more exist already unofficially? The world population is now close to 7 billion. Will the mad governments and their private underground competitors build more, so that they can be sure all will be targeted and wiped out, directly or indirectly? – JZ, 4.3.12. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & CHILDREN: If you people here have children or grandchildren, if one of your children developed leukemia, what would you do? Would you spend every single penny you’ve got to save your child’s life? You would. You would make a total commitment to your child. Do you know that surveys done here in Canada, in New Zealand, in the United States, in Australia, in Scandinavian countries show that up to 75 percent of our children know for a fact that they are going to be killed in a nuclear war before they grow up? Our children have leukemia equivalent. Yet they see most of us unconcerned, lacking the courage to change the priorities in our lives to save their lives. Children are very perceptive, they know where we are, they know we’re frightened, and so they protect us. But if you ask your children how they feel, they’ll tell you. They know more about this than we do. – I know that, you see, because I treat children with a lethal disease, cystic fibrosis, and I have had little tiny one, aged three, who have looked up at me from their sick bed, and they said, “I’m doing die tonight”, when it wasn’t clinically apparent. Do you know, they’re right every time? They are so perceptive. So clear. The most intelligent questions I ever get are from young children, not adults. We cloud the truth with layers of rationality, left brain stuff, we sort of have a hypertrophied left brain and an atrophied right brain, we sort of walk around like that. But children can’t deny reality until late in adolescence. They are totally vulnerable to the truth. We have brought our children into a world where they perceive and know they have no future. – A little girl at breakfast the other day, out of the blue, she said, “Mommy, if there is a nuclear war, will God make us another world because we are being careless with this one? – An eight-year-old girl stood up before a forum of physicians and said, “Nobody likes to be given a broken present at Christmas. That’s how I feel about my life.” – A fifteen year old pubertal boy came up to me after a speech, and shoved a dirty note in my hand; and listen to this for truth. He wrote: “Remember, people should be more afraid of nuclear war, than they are to act or speak out against it.” We are scared of people thinking we’re nuts. So we don’t’ do it. …”. – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p.305/6. - CHILDREN

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHY: We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive. – Albert Einstein, in  - Alas, he did not offer it – in this sphere. Neither did his admirers. – JZ, 15.1.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & POLITICIANS, PEOPLE AS TARGETS, NOT RULERS OR GOVERNMENTS, DETERRENCE: The crews had joked sourly about it. Politicians protecting politicians while we nuke the folks.’ - William Prochnau, Trinity’s Child, Sphere Books, 1985, p.280. – ‘It always was a bunch of bullshit, leaving the leaders alone. Bunch of fucking politicians protecting another bunch of fucking politicians.’ His voice cracked and he tried to cover it by blustering again. ‘Assholes. Sittin’ down in their holes, flying around in their safe airplanes, pushing their fucking dominoes this way and that way over millions of people. Fuck ‘em. They got us into this mess.’ - Ibid, p.281. – He thought about vengeance for the millions dead. Could he be avenged – should they be? – by killing millions more?’ – Ibid, p.295. - Those, who ought to be deterred most, the territorial decision-makers, are not sufficiently deterred. They might even be the only survivors – in the safest bunkers. See the movie: Dr. Strangelove. – JZ, 1.3.12. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, NUCLEAR TARGETS, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, Q., TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & SCALE OF ITS MASS MURDERS: 1.) In the 1960’s, Robert MacNamara, who was Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense, said if America had 200 hydrogen bombs that would be enough to kill one third of the Russian people, and destroy two thirds of their industry. That became the official policy of deterrence. If Russia (*) did something we didn’t like, we were prepared to kill, if necessary, 100 million of them. That rolls off my tongue. Think about it. Hitler killed maybe 50, million people, one of the most grotesque leaders in the history of the human race. We (**), on the other hand, some 20 years after Hitler died, said we were prepared, if necessary, (***) to kill 100 million human beings. It was Albert Einstein who said, “The splitting of the atom changed everything save man’s mode of thinking; thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” – Somewhere along the line in the nuclear age, America and Canada lost their souls, as did the Soviet Union. (****) Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 306. -  By now the maximum of a total of 50,000 of the USA and of Russia have been reduced to about 10,000, but these are more accurate, less likely to miss their wrongful targets and also, probably, even more powerful. Furthermore, more and more governments acquire this “strength”, secretly or openly. Anyhow, is mass murder through 10,000 such devices more justified than mass murder through 50,000? None is prepared to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament, because these devices are still considered to be genuine weapons!  –  (*) He should have said: If the Soviet government did something … we were prepared to kill, without justification and necessity, 100 million of its primary victims, namely the Russian people and people from over 120 other ethnic groups, not to speak of all others, all misruled by that regime, and this upon the immoral principles of “collective responsibility” and of territorialism. – (**) Our territorial governments, with all too much tacit consent by their victims! – (***) How can that be necessary or justified? – (****) A sufficient knowledge and appreciation of all genuine individual rights and liberties was never as yet achieved in any population. – JZ, 4.3.12, 1.6.13. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, OBEDIENCE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, GOVERNMENTS, STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & SCALE OF ITS MASS MURDERS: 2.) However, at that time the Air Force had all the bombs, and the Army and Navy were jealous. There is intense rivalry between the forces of America that surpasses the rivalry and hostility between Russia and America. The latter [hostility – JZ] is used to justify the former. So they decided to diversity, so everybody could have nuclear weapons. So by today America has 30,000 hydrogen bombs instead of 200, when 200 was enough to kill 100 million human beings. … Remember the Trident submarines are berthed in Puget Sound, which is not far from here. Each bomb is equivalent to 100.000 tons of TNT. The Hiroshima bomb was 13,000 tons of TNT, and it took out a city and killed 100,000 people. The H-bomb is eight times bigger, and there are ten bombs on each missile. … It has 24 missiles, so there are 240 hydrogen bombs. There are enough bombs on this one weapon to destroy every major city of the Northern Hemisphere. … The Archbishop of Seattle, the Rev. Hunthausen, calls this the Auschwitz of Puget Sound. Auschwitz killed maybe a million people. This could vaporize in minutes hundreds of millions of human beings. Reagan wants to build 30 of them, because he says he is not strong enough. One wonders what his inadequacy is! The 7th Trident, about to be launched, will violate the SALT II Treaty, which was not signed by America or ratified, but has been abided by. Russia ratified it. [Its despotic regime did. What is its signature worth – or that of ANY TERRITORIAL government? – JZ, 4.3.12.] Already in the oceans there are 32 submarines: Polaris and Poseidons. They contain 160 bombs, this has got 240. It is possible that one of these could induce nuclear winter; we are not sure, and destroy all life on the planet. Now there are only 240 bombs on this. I just said America has 30,000 nuclear bombs. Are you with me? Russia has 20,000, so together the superpowers have 50000. But Reagan says he is still not strong enough and he has to build 17,000 more in the next 10 years. (****) Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 306/7.  - OVERKILL, NUCLEAR WINTER

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT BY COMPUTER & SHORTAGE OF TIME FOR DECISION-MAKING: the Pershing II only takes six minutes to hit Moscow, not enough time to decide whether or not to press the button. So, in order that the button gets pressed, even if they die, they are going to computerize their button. Which means the computer gets the message from the satellite, and it by itself presses the button. In November 1979 there was a serious computer error that lasted six minutes. When someone plugged a war games tape into the fail-safe computer and it said, “We are under attack”, they put the whole Western world on red alert for six minutes. The men in the missile cellars put their keys in the locks ready to turn them, like in “The Day After”, to launch their missiles. Three squadrons of B52s took off heading towards Russia. At the seventh minute they had to officially notify the President, but they couldn’t find him. When the mistake was understood, they were 13 minutes from annihilation. That was headlines in your papers, but in America there was a little tiny article near the obituaries in the NEW YORK TIMES reporting that particular event. – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 318/19.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, BUNKERS FOR THE RULERS: Elitists and governments are building underground luxury bunkers to survive war or economic collapse. Do they know something that they aren’t telling anybody? - Afrikanus Kofi Akosah shared Conspiracy Watch's photo. – Facebook, 5.11.12. - John Zube : My comment on exposing the territorial decision-makers, rather than their victims, to the dangers caused and upheld by these decision-makers, was censored away here, probably because it was deemed to be too disobedient and radical. Did any of the prior tyrants ever have as much tyrannical power as is represented by the "nuclear strength" of a "nuclear arsenal"? – Q., TYRANNY, MAD, NWT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, CAUSE, POSSIBLE: COMPUTER ERRORS: Now how could nuclear wart start? Many ways. First of all, by computer error. The computers in the early warning system that decide whether or not we are under nuclear attack keep making mistakes. They are a set of old Honeywell computers that desperately need upgrading. They break down about every 35 minutes. But seriously, they made 152 very serious errors in an 18-month period, and last year 255. So the number of errors in the U.S./Canadian system is increasing, and you are all part of this. We don’t know how many computer errors the Russians make. Their computers are far less sophisticated than ours, we know that. They tracked a jet for two and a half hours and still didn’t know, according to the CIA, what it was when they shot it down. (4) Their computers are inadequate, but Reagan won’t sell them high technology, You would think it would be in our best interest for the Russians to have the best computers that money can buy, so they don’t kill us by accident. That is a simple, reasonable logic. So nuclear war could occur by computer error, …” - (4) Editor’s note: She refers to Korean Airlines flight 007, which was shot down on September 1, 1983 by a Soviet fighter plane, …” – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, ed. by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 308/9.DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DETERRENCE, SANITY, INSANITY, WAR, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, DEFENCE: The sanity part’, she continued. ‘The part that’s designed to make sure that insane men won’t throw the switch and sane men will.’ – ‘You can’t [see?] insane men doing it?’ –‘You think sane men would do it?’ - William Prochnau, Trinity’s Child, Sphere Books, 1985, p.125. … You tell him nuclear war is insane. So the world goes nuts and he asks if it’s sane or insane to go nuts with it. Not exactly an illogical question.’ - ‘Sanity is what every body else is doing, …’ - ‘Right. Like Jonestown. Nine hundred little robots marching up to the Kool-Aid barrel. Like the arms race. Crazy to build fifty thousand nuclear weapons. But if everybody else is doing it, it’s crazy not to build them. That means mass suicide is sane. It’s crazy to do it, but if everybody is doing it, it’s sane. Right? – Ibid, p.127. – The insanity or craziness of territorialism and its insane or crazy consequences. – JZ, 1.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DETERRENCE, SANITY, INSANITY, WAR, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, DEFENCE: Caging a nation (*) with twenty thousand nuclear weapons was a policy with some risks. ’ - William Prochnau, Trinity’s Child, Sphere Books, 1985, p.239. – (*) Caging ALL nations, all of mankind in this way … - JZ, 1.3.12. – ‘What lunatic designed this madness?’ he asked disconsolately, … ‘There’s no way to win.’ – ‘There never was, …’ – Ibid, p. 254. – TERRITORIALISM, NWT, WAREFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, ETHICS, MORALITY, POWER, TERRITORIALISM, CONSCIENCE: The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. - Omar Bradley  - Roy Halliday, Quotations with an Attitude, online.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, HIROSHIMA: How does one explain to the descendants of the Hiroshima victims that the nuclear oven which obliterated their relatives was on a higher moral plane than that which obliterated the helpless Jews in Nazi Germany? - D. A. Wells - Roy Halliday, Quotations with an Attitude, online. – MASS MURDER WEAPONS, THE NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST PREPARATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, HUMAN FALLIBILITY, OLD AGE & SENILITY DEFECTS: Then the next thing is that the two superpowers are run by old men, right? That is true, isn’t it? Chernenko is an old man who is really very sick, he has advanced emphysema, is very short of breath – he smoked too much and destroyed his lungs. President Reagan is nearly 74, and at the end of next term he will be 78; the oldest President America has ever had. I do not have anything against old men, I love them! I have treated a lot of them as patients. But it is also clinically true that men of that age are more likely than younger men to have a small or large cerebrovascular accident or stroke. After the first Mondale-Reagan debate, the WALL STREET JOURNAL, hardly a left-wing publication, was talking about signs of incipient senility in President Reagan. It has to be considered. You can all think of old people you have known and loved, who do strange things before the diagnosis is made. For instance, my father-in-law lived with us for some years before he died. Dear old chap, one day he started wearing two shirts down to breakfast, and I thought, boy that’s nice – he is into the layered look! Then about two months later he had three shirts on and I thought, wow, he is really getting into it. Then he started wearing four shirts, and the penny dropped. We are both physicians, and it took us many months to make the diagnosis of the onset of senility. What I am saying is that old people tend to do strange things for quite a while before the diagnosis of senility is made. I think, because we examine airline pilots every six months, the leaders of the superpowers should be obliged to have a six-monthly medical, neurological and psychiatric examination for the public health of the people of the world. Because, you see, they are our pilots, and they are flying a planet which is totally and utterly out of control, as are they.” -  (****) Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, ed. by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 309. – (****) On pages 314 to 318 she brings some interesting details from an interview with Pres. Reagan, on his errors, prejudices, false assumptions and religious views towards Armageddon. Aspects of his beliefs and attitudes that made him also unfit to be a president, at least in his old age - and he was one of the better ones. As a believer in Armageddon he was more than others unfit to possess and control nuclear “weapons”. – JZ, 6.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, INTEREST, TIME & ENERGY TO FIGHT IT: I was working 86 hours a week as an intern. I’d admit a child with meningitis, do the examination, insert the IV., treat the baby, run upstairs, take off my white coat, do a T.V. interview in my bedroom, run back and admit another child with pneumonia, etc. So anyone that says to me they don’t have enough time to work to save the earth is talking rhubarb. It doesn’t wash. Do you want to live, or do you want to be murdered? Do you want your babies to live, or do you want them to be vaporized? That’s the question today, and every one of you has enough time, and every one of you must make a decision tonight to make a total commitment to the planet. That means changing the priorities in your lives and becoming very uncomfortable. – The strongest instinct is that for survival. If you are being chased by a bull, you can jump a fence six feet tall, because we have a gland just above our kidneys called the adrenal gland that pumps out adrenaline, pushes up the blood pressure, turns on the neurons, increases the blood sugar, and we can do anything. We are very smart. We have survived for three million years. I don’t believe we are going to turn off our instinct for survival and kill ourselves. The dinosaurs had no choice. We do! – Several years after the French stopped testing bombs in the Pacific, our country [government! – JZ] decided to sell uranium. We have in Australia one third of the world’s richest uranium. … I went to the press and I said, “This is much more dangerous than French tests, because any country that buys our uranium can make bombs.” They said: “We don’t care.” They said: “We need the money.” … . – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 303/4. – URANIUM MINING

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, NUCLEAR RETALIATION:  What rationale can there be for a nation, which has just lost multi-millions of its citizens in a first-strike in feeling justified in a reciprocal strike? Is there some issue so important that the annihilation of two nations is preferable to the survival of either? - D. A. Wells - Roy Halliday, Quotations with an Attitude, online.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, STUPIDITY & SCIENTISTS & NEVILLE SHUTE’S BOOK & FILM “ON THE BEACH”: I saw that film the other day for the first time. … and I had exactly the same feeling at the end of it. Just a feeling of utter and complete devastation, and I wept for about half an hour. My son Will, who is seventeen, looked at me and said, “mom, how would the American people feel seeing you cry like that?” I said, “I can’t help it, they are so stupid.” That’s the feeling I have had since I was 17, and I’m 46 now, and in America over half the scientists and engineers are working insidiously and very hard creating the global gas oven. They are making a lot of money out of it. It’s terrific fun, it’s intellectually very challenging and, boy, are they moving towards annihilation. They are so stupid. The same is happening in the Soviet Union. They are so stupid. Well, I went to medical school when I was 17. I was really concerned about this. I remember one day in the refectory standing up talking about nuclear war. The boys were all playing their poker, you know. Australia is a very macho society, and they looked up from their cards and said, “What’s that stupid woman talking about?” So I stopped. I then graduated and had three babies in three years, because I loved having babies. When I was pregnant with the first one in 1963, I thought, “Should I bring a baby into this world? But I did because I was selfish, and I wanted to have a baby. He is now 21, the next one is 20, and the next one is 18. I don’t know how much longer they are going to live. Then we came to America in 1966, and it sort of radicalized us. – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 302.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, CHOICE, COMPETITION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM: Damn it, I thought, for all the beauty we can be, for all the glory that so many already are, does it have to come down to the lowest clod in the world punching some button and calling an end to light? Is there nobody in the pattern who has ever come up with something better than …  – Richard Bach, ONE, a novel.Pan Books, 1989, p.145. – If we had already an Ideas Archive or a comprehensive libertarian encyclopaedia, then the solution would not remain as little known as it still is today. – In some very important spheres we still market or enforce problems rather than solutions or at least spend, willingly or unwillingly, much more on them. – Instances: War, territorialism, monetary despotism, protectionism, national unity. - JZ, 1.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, VANCOUVER EXAMPLE: I want you to know that every town and city in North America with a population of 10000 or more is targeted with at least one bomb. Every nuclear power plant (if you drop a big bomb on one of those you contaminate permanently an area the size of West Germany with radioactive fallout), every military and every industrial facility, and every university that receives funding from the Pentagon, everything is targeted.So let us bomb Vancouver. As I talk, I want you to think of where you live. The bomb is going to drop here, this is going to be the epicentre. How far do you live from here, as the crow flies? I want you to think about why you were born. What do you want to leave behind when you die? What are you living for? Who do you love the most in your life? What is most precious to you? This is going to be a 20 megaton bomb (5), with seven times the collective energy of all the bombs dropped in the Second World War. It will come now in 10 minutes, at 20 times the speed of sound, and explode here with the heat of the sun, about 15 million degrees Fahrenheit. It will dig a hole three quarters of a mile wide and eight hundred feet deep, converting this building, all others, us, and the earth below to radioactive fallout injected into the mushroom cloud. Six miles from here, in all directions, every building will be totally flattened, The heat will be so intense, concrete and steel will melt. Everyone will be killed, most will be vaporized. In Hiroshima people disappeared, and they left their shadows behind them on the concrete pavement. - Twenty miles from here, in all directions, wind of up to five hundred miles an hour [will? – JZ] just literally pick people up, and turn them into missiles travelling at over one hundred miles an hour. The over-pressures into the orbit can extravasate [extravacate? – JZ] the eyes. A man was standing, clinically shocked, in Hiroshima, holding his eyes in the palm of his hand. The over-pressures popcorn the windows, and shards of glass flying at one hundred miles an hour will decapitate people, and enter human flesh producing shocking lacerations and hemorrhages. Those close in who aren’t vaporized, and who look at the flash of the explosion, may have their eyes melt and run down their cheeks. It happened in Hiroshima. A woman was running, holding her baby. She had been charcoalized, she and baby had been turned into a charcoal statue. Everyone within twenty miles will be grotesquely burnt. All will die, having never seeing [seen? – JZ] a physician for their pain. But the White House is stockpiling huge quantities of morphine, just in case there is going to be a nuclear war. Twenty-six miles from here, the heat will be so intense that clothes spontaneously burst into flames, so that you will just turn into a walking, flaming torch. Forty miles out, it you look at the flash, it is like looking at the sun, you will be instantly and permanently blinded. Then the whole area will be engulfed in a holocaust of three thousand square miles. So, if you have got into a fallout shelter, the fire will literally use the oxygen in the shelter, and you will asphyxiate, as people did in Dresden. The blast and heat will turn the fallout shelters into crematoria. … - (5) Editor’s note: Helen Caldicott’s choice of a 20 megaton bomb for her illustration of the destruction of a nuclear weapons attach on Vancouver is unrealistic. Although nuclear weapons of this size and larger ones have been made and tested, the military on both sides have concluded that a greater number of smaller weapons, generally having explosive power of one megaton or less, wreak more havoc more efficiently. Nevertheless, her description of what would happen to Vancouver or similar large cities, and to the people living in them, is qualitatively accurate.” - Dr. Helen Caldicott, Total Commitment to Peace, chapter 21 of “Nuclear War: The Search for Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1985, Canada, ISBN 0-88925-598-9, edited by Thomas L. Perry, M.D. & Dianne DeMille, p. 310/12. – I made similar calculations in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, but then threw them away and concentrated on points that could prevent any such disaster. In my second peace book in 1975, I alphabetized about 500 such points. Both books are online in English at - JZ, 4.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WAR GAMES: Die einzige Moeglichkeit, das Spiel zu gewinnen, ist die, es nicht zu spielen. – Aus dem amerikanischen Film “War Games”. – Motto in Johannes Mario Simmel, “Doch mit den Clowns kamen die Traenen”, Roman, Knaur, Vollstaendige Taschenbuchausgabe 1990. ISBN 3-426-02957-X. - My rough re-translation: “The only possibility to win this game consists in not playing it.” – I found quite a few passages in it of interest to me and extracted them. – Many such scenarios have been written by various authors. None of them has so far served as a sufficient deterrence against the “nuclear deterrence” “policy”, nuclear “weapons” and nuclear “defence” activities of territorial governments and against territorialism in general. – Will we really need a “limited” but multi-lateral or even all-out nuclear war to cure us of such policies via the “peace” of the graves or of mass murdered dead? - JZ, 2.3.12. – DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: 1.) Better red than dead. 2.) Better dead than red. 3.) Neither dead nor red. (Unless an individual wants either for himself.) 4.) Better the reds dead. (A collective responsibility notion making for nuclear war.) 5.) To every enlightened person, and to every under-informed or stupid person just the system that he wants for himself and like-minded people. Under that condition no one has to be afraid of dissenters and revolutionaries or governments any longer, because all would be engaged with volunteers only. The few who would still try to dominate others would then encounter the combined resistance of all others, the vast majority, just like formerly well-poisoners and known kidnappers and child molesters or child torturers or child sacrificers. There was at least that kind of progress in the world. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. - FALSE & CORRECT ALTERNATIVES, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: 180 billion US $ planned for upgrading the US nuclear deterrence, but not even a million dollars for thoughts and ideas to make nuclear weapons superfluous. - J.Z.JZ, on news reported in THE AUSTRALIAN, 5.10.80. – Apparently, the vested interest involved in preparing for a general nuclear holocaust is enormous. – J.Z.JZ, 28.4.88. – And not one US taxpayer had any say on this use or abuse of his tax contribution or, rather, enforced tribute. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08, 27.2.09. - He is not even free to secede from such monstrous territorial States and to establish genuine societies and communities of volunteers only, all without a territorial monopoly. Nevertheless, the USA is considered to be a self-governing democracy or republic. In it and in all other territorial States, their subjects have only the quite insignificant vote, on who is to be their master, not any against any territorial power over themselves. - J.Z.JZ, 12.1.11, 1.5.13. - VOTING, DEMOCRACIES, REPUBLICS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: 29 nuclear weapons accidents happened in the US Navy within a year.” – Radio news, 1.6.86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: a cure precisely comparable to shooting the patient. ...” - James Blish: Get out of my Sky, p.24.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A desperate, mad, frustrated world. And why? Because humanity has been hijacked. Literally this is what has happened, as all men are in fact hostages in their own countries. … We are hostages, because we are powerless as individuals, in view of the fact that we have placed ourselves in an indefensible position or at the mercy of those who trade in power.” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.197. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, HOSTAGE TAKING BY THE MILLIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A friend once sent me a Christmas card that he had made. It depicted a man in a gas mask standing on a cliff shouting through a megaphone “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry …” across a plain filled with dead and dying people and animals.I’m sorry…” – Elizabeth Sigmund, Rage Against the Dying, p.102. - CHEMICAL & BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: a host of Cold War warriors devoted to the proposition that safety is to be found only in the perfection of weapons that will more efficiently destroy the world.” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.247. – “… the grim determination of the warriors to match megaton with megaton, power with power to the final and inevitable collision.” – Ibid, p. 251. - And their military unintelligence has so far failed, for at least 30 years, to discover e.g. my 1975 handbook against nuclear war, even though it has been online, too, for many years. – - Our fate is still in the hand of ignorant and prejudiced people prepared to commit unlimited mass murders. - J.Z.JZ, 6.10.07. – The privately committed mass murders are like mosquito bites compared with them. – JZ, 1.6.13. - COLD WAR WARRIORS, DETERRENCE THEORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A mass extermination device isn't private and inviolable property and, for that reason, property on which it is situated isn't inviolable! - J.Z.JZ, 10.2. 77, 4.8.82, 13.1.11. – NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT – BY THE PEOPLE, THE TARGETED VICTIMS OF NUCLEAR WARS, PROPERTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A new word is needed to hit hard enough at those willing to use nuclear "weapons". Murderers, butchers, even mass murderers - are still too soft and not descriptive enough terms. Neither devils nor beasts will do. Indiscriminate mass killers. Rationalizers of holocausts, doomsday guarantors. Dr. Strangelove. They, who love the bomb. Name these beasts properly and you have half killed them already. - Only extraterrestrials and irreconcilable enemies would arm themselves with nuclear weapons against all humans. - Push-button murderers. Bomb barons. Those, who now decide whether mankind is to continue to live or not. Genocide artists. Genocide technicians and scientists. None of the old derogatory terms is really strong enough, to my knowledge. - J.Z.JZ, 31. 10. 02. - & THE HOLDERS & PRODUCERS, OR WIELDERS OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, COMMANDERS, PRIME MINISTERS, DICTATORS, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A nuclear war between the superpowers using only strategic weapons would take about half an hour to complete. The weapons on the submarines off the coast of the United States and the Soviet Union need only 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour to reach their targets. According to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, there are enough weapons to target every town and city with a population of 10.000 people or more. Nuclear reactors are also targeted. Inside each thousand megawatt nuclear reactor there is as much long-lived radiation as would be released by 1000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. - The National Academy of Science did a study in 1975 which reported that if the superpowers used only 10 per cent of their nuclear arsenal, that could destroy 50 to 80 per cent of the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere and 30 to 40 per cent in the southern hemisphere because of the nitrous oxide released in the explosion.” - Helen Coldicott, in editor John Hinchcliff's, "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.26. - Just goes to show how "effective" the bureaucratic ACDA has been and any other governmental disarmament effort. - JZ, 1.5.06. – NUCLEAR REACTORS, DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A nuclear war had destroyed all life on earth, save two microscopic algae, hidden in a cleft of rock. They surveyed the ruin dismally. Said one to the other: 'I suppose we shall have to start this evolution business all over again. But this time, remember, no brains.' - Henry Meulen's THE INDIVIDUALIST, 4/75. - It is not the presence of brains that caused this trouble but, rather, the non-use of brains to prevent it. - J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 1.5.06. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A nuclear war is survived, if at all, only by the defeated on both sides. J.Z.JZ, free after Hans Habe, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Bd. 4, p.37. - Better: There are no victors after a nuclear war. - It was already doubtful in WW I & II and in the Korean War and the Vietnam War whether there were any genuine victories, so great were the losses on both sides. In the Vietnam War the formal winners were worse off than they were before this war. No real victory was achieved. The US allies merely withdrew. - The communist “liberation” ended in the usual communist economic failures and political dictatorship. Only to the extent that these economic policies were discarded again were there some limited economic successes. – J.Z.JZ, 20.6.92, 26.1.08. - WAR, VICTORY, DEFEAT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A nuclear war will, of course, make nonsense of everybody's predictions.” - Aldous Huxley: Brave New World Revisited, p.274.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A physical and mental addiction to the power-high arising from the possession of mass murder devices is the worst, the most dangerous addiction of all times. It has driven territorial statism to the pinnacle of destructiveness, murderousness and absurdity. – J.Z.JZ, 10.7.88, 30.5.08. – DRUG ADDICTIONS, ADDICTIONS, POWER, POWER-MADNESS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A program is needed for people who don’t have a death wish, don’t love nuclear strength and who are able and willing to reject many popular prejudices and accept new ideas, especially those not committed to territorialism and its centralized and coercive rule. To me it is obvious that it is required. For decades it was available on microfiche. For years it has been online. And even there it remains widely ignored. So what can we expect for our future? – See: & - J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A reciprocal insanity (involving nuclear armaments) is at work in the world.” – Norman Cousins. - It is even more indiscriminately murderous and dangerous than the Inquisition was and the Nazi's Holocaust. Even the mere testing of its murder and torture instruments has already cost millions of victims. It is part and parcel of territorial politics and its power-games, going to the brink and even somewhat over it. That has not yet sufficiently deterred these power addicts and their past and future victims to induce them to think rightfully and sufficiently about the abolition of this danger and then to act. – That the ultimate man-made disaster has not happened as yet was more by accident than by design. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11, 14.11.13. – NUCLEAR DETERRENT HYPOTHESIS, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.” – Thomas Hardy, Far From the Madding Crowd, 1874, 18. – [Maddening? – J.Z.JZ ] - I find the crowd’s lack of interest in its own and most important affairs maddening. - After all, these are only man-made devices. All of us know how to murder but not all of us do apply that knowledge. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – Even the peace lovers, anarchists and libertarians do, mostly, not seriously examine and criticize their own flawed ideas on this subject. – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A second principle in the nuclear common world would be respect for the earth. This is nothing but a full realization of the ecological principle, according to which the earth’s environment is seen not merely as a surrounding element in which it is more or less pleasant to life but as the foundation of human as of other life. The oneness of the earth as a system of support for life is already visible around us. …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.177. - I would rather start with respect for genuine individual rights and liberties, for our own lives and let the other living beings and pests look out after themselves. - I have nothing in common with nuclear "weapons" and nuclear power, except that like me, they are on Earth. I do morally and rationally react against them, although we and they are all made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules. - Needed is an enlightened chain reaction against these devices, and the principles, laws and institutions that produce them, rather than mere love or hate relationships based upon ignorance or prejudices. - None of us is as yet free to secede from these legalized and institutionalized wrongs and threats and to contribute, significantly, towards disarming them. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11, 1.6.13. - RESPECT FOR THE EARTH & FOR OTHER LIFE OR, RATHER, FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A thermonuclear war cannot be considered a continuation of politics by other means (according to the formula of Clausewitz). It would be a means of universal suicide." - Andrei Sakharov: Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom, p.32. – It is just more mass murderous than territorial politics usually is - and follows directly from its false premises. - J.Z.JZ, 30.10.02. - “Suicide” when less than one in a million has any say on war and peace, armament and disarmament? The careless use of language has led to the construction of nuclear “weapons” in the first place! – J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08. – LANGUAGE, SUICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A weapon is an enemy even to its owner.” – Turkish proverb. – At least it can be. I believe it applies to all of the ABC mass murder devices. – And this enemy should and could be disarmed by its potential victims, i.e., the peoples themselves, not by their territorial governments. It can be done, although not easily and not yet legally. - J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – It would be more easy for the military forces of a dictatorship, once they have got reasons to trust the rightful peace promises, made by the subjects of their supposed enemy regimes, not its foreign ministers, prime ministers and diplomats, more than they can trust their own rulers. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09, 1.6.13. – WAR AIMS, PANARCHISM, LIBERATION, REVOLUTIONS, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DESERTIONS, REFUGEES, ASYLUM, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM ALTERNATIVES COMPETITIVELY DEMONSTRATED, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATION, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT & PEACE DECLARATION BY THE PEOPLES RATHER THAN THEIR RULERS, MILITIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: a West Coast correspondent for THE NATION in the Fall of 1958. He wandered into a press conference held by the head of the West Coast branch of an Eastern Seaboard company manufacturing instruments vital to rocket and missile production. The president of the firm, which derived 75 % of its business from war contracts, was in a jovial mood. He could see no threat, he said, of any cutbacks in government defense appropriations. - "You've got a big future in rockets and missiles," the reporter remarked conversationally. - "Tremendous," the president agreed. - The reporter wondered whether this wasn't an uncertain and risky business. Didn't it depend a lot on politics, on international affairs? -"Well, of course, our business would mushroom in an international crisis," Mr. Big said. -"Like what?" asked the reporter. - “War." - "What would happen to your business in a war between the United States and Russia?" -  "As I said," Mr. Big re-explained patiently, "business would mushroom." - "For how many hours?" asked the reporter." - Fred J. Cook (11) (“The Warfare State”) – Corporations, with their thoughtless profit urge, have much contributed to the proliferation of nuclear mass murder devices, even among criminal regimes. Some things go beyond a joke. - But would any corporation have developed nuclear mass murder devices and their factories, nuclear reactors, without the support of territorial governments and their primitive power spleens? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - JOKES, CORPORATION PROFITS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A. S. Suvorin mentions a passage of the novel (Dostojewski: Karamasow) in which Ivan Karamasov speaks to his saintly brother about the case of the general, who set his dogs to hound a peasant boy to death before they eyes of his mother; he asks Alesha whether he would want the general to be killed for this. Alesha, after a tormented silence, says, that he would. 'Bravo', says Ivan.” - Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers, p.305. - What else should we do with the territorial nuclear weapons politicians and generals, who threaten to hound all of us to death, under the pretence of protecting us? - J.Z.JZ, 8. 11. 82. - & TYRANNICIDE, TERRITORIALISM & FEUDALISM, PROTECTION, DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abandon, ye people, all those chiefs who have their fingers hovering over nuclear war buttons and who are thus prepared to use anti-people mass murder devices. Outlaw them or secede from them. Grant them amnesty and anonymity only once they abdicated and surrender or destroyed at least one nuclear “weapon”. – We must leave them such a way out or they will attack like a cornered rat. - J.Z.JZ, 7.10.85, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abolish the nuclear war “hot seats” and with them you would indirectly abolish the nuclear war threat, too. Allow no one to decide for nuclear war and allow everyone to secede from rulers thus armed with anti-people “weapons or mass murder devices. – Also permit everyone to participate in the destruction or disabling of all such devices in the hands of anyone. – J.Z.JZ, 7.8.03. 18.10.07, 13.1.11, 1.6.13 . - & THE DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abolition of WMD’s in the hands of everyone, no exceptions – but no restrictions upon rightful weapons in the hands of peaceful volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties? Can you imagine protecting e.g. freedom of speech and press with nuclear “weapons” or other mass murder devices? – J.Z.JZ, 24.10.07. - Only territorial politicians would be capable of such misjudgments. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - & GUN CONTROLS, VICTIM DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Accidental nuclear war? There is only one fail-safe way to prevent it: The destruction of all atomic weapons. Even after 100 years of attempts to develop quite “fail-safe” processes and systems one has still to expect some accidents and some could be disastrous. The danger of an accidental nuclear war is so great that it alone would already suffice to justify even unilateral nuclear disarmament. – J.Z.JZ, n.d., ca. 1964. - But it is not merely accidents that one has to fear with them when they are in the hands of territorial power mongers, whether of the despotic and obviously criminal kind or of the democratic or republican kind. Under territorialism the worst types get to the top and stay there for all too long. – (Hayek’s insight in his “The Road to Serfdom.” - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: After all it is setting a high value upon our opinions to roast men and women alive on account of them.” - Michel Eyquem de Montaigne. - TERRITORIALISM, TOTAL WAR, JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: After several centuries of bringing a variety of nightmarish futures into existence, we have now invented one so unbelievable and overwhelming that it (our future – J.Z.JZ) cannot (*) now come to pass at all.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.143. – In this respect almost all human beings are in an automatic survival mode which psychologist call an attempt to escape from reality. For thinking of it constantly would drive us mad. – Especially if we do not see any way out or any sensible action for ourselves against this threat. Few are aware of the radical changes required and that, to achieve them, they have first to achieve a degree of freedom of action and choice for themselves, which, so far, they almost never dreamed of. – J.Z.JZ, 21.9.07. – (*) may now not come to pass at all, even when one takes only the danger of accidental nuclear war, in the long run, into consideration. If one adds all the other risks involved, mankind’s remaining life span may be rather short. There is no maybe, though about the fundamental wrongfulness of nuclear strength, the “nuclear umbrella”, nuclear power, nuclear deterrence and nuclear “weapons”. – JZ, 14.11.13. - DECLARATION OF ALL GENUINE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLES, MILITIA, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR- & PEACE AIMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: After the great destructions / Everyone will prove that he was innocent.” – Guenter Eich, “Think of This”, 1955, tr. Vernon Watkins. - Assuming that there will be some survivors. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Agreement or destruction? The choice is simple.” - J. Hunter Holly, The Grey Aliens, p.119. - The choice is not so simple under territorial governments, which have monopolized all such decision-making and maintain themselves in power largely using force - and popular prejudices, myths and errors as well as misleading propaganda. We are compulsory producers and consumers of "nuclear strength" and also compelled to be its victims. Institutions that would permit us free choice, in this and all other spheres, have still to be established and they are the opposite of the presently predominant territorial and more or less centralized States. - So far there was e.g. no referendum on nuclear armament or disarmament and, probably, there were only rare cases in which the building of a nuclear reactor was made dependent upon its approval by a referendum among the people living hundreds of km around it. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 5. 06. – Let us panarchistically and tolerantly as well as freely and competitively agree upon each of us to do the own things only to himself and like-minded people, always at the own risk and expense. - No "neighborly" nuclear weapons stockpiles or nuclear reactors! - J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08, 13.1.11. - PANARCHISM NEGOTIATIONS, AGREEMENTS, TREATY, TALKING WITH THE ENEMY ETC.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Aiming at “victory”, we would wind up extinct.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.203. - & VICTORY, WAR AIMS, WARFARE METHODS


NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Alert and realistic conservatives, … would see that everything that anyone might wish to conserve is threatened by nuclear weapons, and would recognize in them a threat not only to “the old values” but to any values whatever.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 160. - CONSERVATIVES & CONSERVATIONISTS, VALUES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All leading politicians should, perhaps, be tied to stakes or displayed in cages or stocks at the point zeros of all nuclear targets. Instead, we tolerate them sitting in the safest bunkers, with their fingers on nuclear “weapons” buttons, all too ready to use these mass murder devices against whole cities and peoples. – Hitler would have loved to be in such a powerful position. - J.Z.JZ, 12.3.06, 29.10.07. - Even many of the democratic - but still territorial - secular leaders have become mere "sky pilots", prepared to let us rise to heaven after a rapid transformation into very hot gas. - They can guaranty this performance better than the religious ones. - Nothing is less democratic and less republican than such preparations and performances. - But we are still not free to secede from these bastards and to send only them to Hell. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - & ITS DECISION-MAKERS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER ADDICTS, LEADERSHIP, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All lovers of liberty and peace should take note how slow governments are to destroy their anti-people mass murder devices accumulated during the cold war under the pretence of nuclear strength and deterrence, even after the cold war has become largely a defunct cold war. – J.Z.JZ, 1.1.93, 30.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM, POWER GAMES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: all nuclear weapons immoral … the world leadership collectively insane.” - James P. Hogan, Endgame Enigma, 230. - Merely to strive for territorial power over whole populations is already a sufficient proof of insanity. - By believing that they could rightly and effectively lead a whole population, even the democratic leaders are already more insane than those insane people, who try to assassinate them. The limited voting rights we have now, under the present conditions of insufficient enlightenment, do permit us only to replace one such insane "leader" by another one. The territorial statist belief is still, essentially, the same as when it was expressed by saying: "The King is dead. Long live the King." - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - & LEADERSHIP, RULERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, POLITICIANS, MADNESS, IRRATIONALITY, IMMORALITY, INSANITY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All people under 37 now were born into a world with nuclear weapons, never had a choice or say in the matter. Their fate is presently still territorially decided by some older fools in wrongful power positions. – This situation remains basically unchanged even now, many years later. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82, 13.1.11. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All the earth fears an atomic war and would do anything to avoid it, yet all the earth fears that an atomic war is inevitable.” – Isaac Asimov, Breeds There a Man …? – The Earth as such can’t fear or do anything. It’s peoples could e.g. consider their exterritorial autonomy, monetary freedom, and voluntary taxation alternatives and ways how to realize them, as well as all other alternatives to the existing territorial monopolies and coercion. They could study their ideal militia options, produce, finally, an ideal declaration of individual human rights and liberties, agree on quite rightful war and peace aims as well as genuine and quite rightful defence, liberation and revolution methods, rather than amusing or entertaining themselves, enjoying their little luxuries and engaging in various sports (mainly only as observers) and committing themselves to hobbies and crafts while mankind approaches more and more its extermination by its territorial rulers. They do not even seriously consider individual and group secessionism from all the misleaders who lead them towards nuclear war and, possibly, the extinction of mankind. – They still “dance at the edge of a volcano” – one about to erupt at any moment. – J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 24.1.08, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All the horrors of the nuclear war threat, even when described by many and the best writers, will not suffice to reverse the trend toward nuclear war it until the possibilities of peaceful, free and tolerant societies are also clearly enough described by many writers. – So far there is not even an agreement between them on the cause of wars, far less on the possible cures. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.98, 30.5.08. – CAUSE OF WARS, WARFARE STATES, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All too many territorial governments are armed against the people of the world with nuclear or anti-people “weapons” or, rather mass murder devices, while pretending that they are only armed to protect the people of the world. Nuclear weapons are obviously unsuitable to be used only against aggressive governments rather than their victimized and exploited subjects. – J.Z.JZ, 19.10.06, 26.10.07. – TARGETS, ENEMIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Alliances with nuclear powers are alliances with governments that are prepared to commit mass murders. – J.Z.JZ, 12.2.88. – Yet the crimes acts clauses on conspiracy to commit murder are not applied to any of these governments. – They got away with this for decades. – And the diverse peoples of the world are still helpless and all too thoughtless pawns or clay in their hands. - J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost all nations are now too big, ‘beyond the safety point’," - Sir Ernest Benn, Confessions of a Capitalist. - They ought to become decentralized to make them less exposed targets for destructive and mass murderous ABC devices. Ultimate safety against the use of such devices lies only in the recognition and realisation of individual sovereignty everywhere, which, socially, means exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups or their self-determination under personal law. - That would remove the targets, motives and financial means for mass murder or anti-people weapons and facilitate their disarmament. - J.Z.JZ, 22.5.82, 4.8.82, 13.1.11. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, TARGETS, PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost all of the still all too numerous statists support their territorial governments in their “Russian Roulette” games with the nuclear war threat. – J.Z.JZ, 8.11.03, 26.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost everyone has acknowledged on some level that the peril exists, but the knowledge has been without consequences in our feelings and our actions, and the superpowers have proceeded with their nuclear buildups, in the recent words of George Kennan, “like the victims of some sort of hypnotism, like men in a dream, like lemmings heading for the sea.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.148. - As territorialists most people and their misleaders can see no way out. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, WARFARE STATE, ENLIGHTENMENT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSIONISM, MILITIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Already merely from the position of psychological warfare we should realize that the "balance of terror" - continually playing at "soldiering" with "super-weapons", which might end in a general holocaust, cannot be a permanent solution but is a continuing vast problem. It does not win any friends but multiplies enemies. The offer of full experimental freedom, on the basis of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, would multiply friends and neutrals and minimize enemies almost to zero. Thus this is, possibly, the most moral, rational and suitable "weapon" against the threat posed presently by nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence and nuclear strength or "the balance of terror". - J.Z.JZ, 19. 9. 82, 1. 5. 06. - & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: although no one had decided to establish a doomsday machine, people had to act as though one were in place. They had to assume that one misstep could be the misstep that ended the world.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.208. - Alas, none of the peoples, anywhere in the world, has so far any say or any freedom of action in this sphere. Their territorial governments have deprived them of both of these very important liberties. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - & THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Although other issues have diverted our attention, the possibility of a cataclysmic war remains so long as national defence is based upon atomic threat and mutual deterrence systems. Today, when a war might wipe out the entire human race, we need effective international law and peace-keeping procedures to make war impossible. . (*) - Taking an active part in the solution of the problems of peace is a moral duty which no conscientious man can shirk." - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.234. – (*) We need, rather, human organizations that, by their very nature, are the very opposite to territorial Warfare States, and would, thus, keep the peace rather than prepare for and conduct wars, exploitation and oppression. They would not commit all too many aggressive actions even during their “defence” efforts, as most territorial governments do. – Obviously, the territorial leaders know nothing better and cannot be taught anything better. Their advisors tend to share their popular errors, prejudices, wrong premises and conclusions, all based upon territorialism. E.g., none of them has so far considered the exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to their territorial internal and external policies, laws and institutions. J.Z.JZ, 26.4.06, 27.5.06, 14.11.13 - Alas, most of their subject-victims are not much better in this respect. Can we accelerate and assure the process of enlightenment enough to reverse this situation? - Even the need for this and the steps required for this are, so far, seen only by very few people. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - PANARCHISM, NEW DRAFT ENLIGHTENMENT & ITS ACCELERATION, MILITIA FOR A DECLARATION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.95. – To take an example that in size is more comprehensive: While one has the right to gamble away one’s own life, one has not the right to gamble with all the lives of one’s family. – J.Z.JZ, 21.9.07. – Moreover, since one has obligations to one’s family, at least as it has dependent members, one is morally not even entitled to gamble with the own life. – Can there be a sufficient insurance for the premature loss of a father or mother? - J.Z.JZ, 23.3.09, 13.1.11, 1.6.13. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: America's mood reminds Keegan of the eve of Pearl Harbour. "Our people', he says, 'still believe that nuclear war is unthinkable. To Soviet leaders, however, nuclear war is both "thinkable" and "winnable". And they are preparing for just such an eventuality!' - Philip C. Clarke: National Defence and the Soviet Threat. - Now we have a range of other territorial rogue regimes striving to obtain this dishonourable and mass murderous power or to maintain it. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. - We are not even free as yet to secede from "democratic governments with their anti-people nuclear "weapons". If we were free to set up alternative systems to territorial governments, all representing the only the aspirations of their volunteers, for their own affairs, as far as humanly possible, we would, thereby, set up attractive models for revolutions and military insurrections against the remaining and obviously criminal territorial regimes. Via recognizing the exterritorial autonomy of all kinds of alternative governments and societies for them, we could also ally ourselves with all their opposition forces and even with their remaining "true believers". But all of our politicians and most of their followers are still stuck in the rut of territorialism. - Even in its democratic forms, this is obviously not a good enough model for countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and most others. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11, 14.11.13. – GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE AS THE BEST ALLIES, TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: An American IBM going wrong, was destroyed in the Pacific, ca. 500 miles from its target. This was the second occurrence of this kind within a month for the US alone. – Radio News, 13.7.87. – If all of them, always, missed their targets then there would be at least something good about them. Apart from the radioactive pollution involved, the best thing would be that they would explode upon being started or that they could not be sent at all. - When the first rocket strike was made, in the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime, some of the rockets, according to some reports, landed in the wrong country! But the propaganda asserted that they could be directed against his palaces only. Will we ever get a correct statistics on hits and misses? But these above-mentioned real cases indicate also that we cannot sufficiently rely on computers in this respect. – J.Z.JZ, 26.8.08. - & ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: An ant hill on my own driveway and one on my neighbor’s reminded me of the wrongful, stupid and self-destructive territorial behavior organized, established and maintained by human beings. We have likewise placed ourselves right into the roadway of destructive ABC mass murder devices by organizing ourselves as territorial targets for them. Will the ants learn from their experience? Will we, in time? – J.Z.JZ, 7.12.95, 24.1.08. - & TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: an eye for an eye fails in an age of A-bombs.” - Eric B. Lindsay, "GEGENSCHEIN", 18.7.76.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: anarchism or annihilation.” – Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p.40. – How flawed his economics must be – is already indicated by his notion that scarcity is something we have already overcome. As a matter of fact all economics is based on the reality of scarcity of the things man needs or wants and of the scarcity and costs of natural resources, labor, intelligence and management, machines, buildings etc. that are required to produce things relatively cheaply and in quantities. – (*) The communist or collectivist anarchism that he represents lead also to a dead end. - J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08. – (*) Most of the things that we do consume were produced during the last few months or weeks. If that production came to a stop, we would not live for long. Already insofar scarcity does always exist. It is also indicated when sellers stress the freshness of their food offers. – There is also an extreme shortage of societies, communities and governance systems that can and do freely compete, exterritorially, with the territorial States, in all spheres, which these States have, quite wrongfully and irrationally, monopolized. - JZ, 1.6.13. - & ANARCHISM, CONSUMER GOODS SOON RUN OUT WHEN THERE IS NO CONTINUING CURRENT PRODUCTION OF THEM.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And extinction by nuclear arms would not be the Day of Judgment, in which God destroys the world but raises the dead and then metes out perfect justice to everyone who has ever lived; it would be the utterly meaningless and completely unjust destruction of mankind by men. To imagine that God is guiding our hand in this action would quite literally be the ultimate evasion of our responsibility as human beings - a responsibility that is ours because (to stay with religious interpretation for a moment) we possess a free will that was implanted in us by God.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.127. - It would also be the ultimate “blasphemy”. – However, there are precedents for such “divine” crimes, on the principle of collective responsibility, in the Bible. As if an omniscient and supposedly benevolent being could think of nothing better than applying the principle of collective responsibility to whole populations for the crimes of a few. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. – If only too many people did not go on believing in a God as a good man or a good woman! Thus they never seriously think about doing something themselves to avoid major catastrophes. – But then most of the atheists do not think seriously about such matters, either. In other words: They have even less excuses for their behavior. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. – RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS & ATHEISTS, BENEVOLENT GOD?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And if enough people in the world make up their minds they will have nothing to do with politicians or with governments who are moving towards military decisions, they will have a good chance of preventing such decisions from being made.” - Jean Skuse, p.103 of: "Confronting the Nuclear Age", edited by John Hinchcliff. - Politicians who and governments which? - Was there ever an era without atoms? - Does the suggestion of "have nothing to do with" clearly enough indicate the rights and liberties of individual and group secessionism as well as exterritorial autonomy for societies of volunteers? We need a clear declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties instead of such vague notions that seem to imply that we are already as free to ignore and disobey territorial governments, and their laws and institutions, boycott them, refuse to pay them taxes, as we are in our relations with private people and associations. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – Compare: NO. – DECLARATION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And the concept of nationhood that allowed us to think we had the right to build such things as nuclear bombs. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day. It lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world, p.199. – The concept of territorial nationhood, combined with the principle of collective responsibility of all subjects of a territorial government for the misdeeds of that government, are the major culpable notions in almost everybody’s head. - They do, almost inevitably, lead to wars and nuclear wars. For that intended or unintended aim, these “principles” do have many allies in other flawed ideas and institutions. - However, most of them are also related to territorialism and collective responsibility notions. - J.Z.JZ, 13.9.07 & 10.10.07, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And what is quite certain, as my father writes, is that no country has the right to threaten to use weapons, which may destroy uncommitted peoples all over the world. This, surely, is even more certain than that we have no right to threaten our “enemy” with such weapons.” - Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.94. - Countries as such have no rights and no weapons. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: and when there's a madman at your door with an atomic bomb it's later than your think.” - Chad Oliver, The Edge of Forever, ASTOUNDING SF, Dec. 1951, p.71. - The territorial misleaders and madmen are usually not at your door but with their "weapons" they reach much more than merely your door. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And when, … politicians let us know of their desire for a “place in history”, it is not only their swollen vanity that invites anger but their presumption in trying to reserve a place in a history whose continued existence their own actions place in doubt.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160. - The natural history of rats, shells and cockroaches will, probably go on - after our misleaders achieved the ultimate in territorial power manifestation, a general nuclear holocaust against the more advanced life forms. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11 - & POLITICIANS SEEKING FAME IN HISTORY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIAL LEADERSHIP

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Any weapon that can bring about irreversible ecological damage to large portions of the earth, untold genetic damage for countless generations to come, and that can destroy in the most horrifying manner massive noncombatant populations - is a colossal evil and totally immoral. The very real possibility of the destruction of all life on our planet is above all a religious and moral issue.” - John Quinn, Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco. - TIME, March 29, 1982.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Apart from all other considerations of survival and so on, we dishonour ourselves by even contemplating the use of nuclear bombs.” – Mr. Morton, quoted in Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.83. - Mass murder devices! - J.Z.JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Apathy can be even more harmful than antipathy to the human condition. They are loath to risk discomfort for the common good of mankind. They are more disposed to risk mankind." - L. J. Peter, The Peter Plan, p. XI. - I remember filling a wall in the old anarchist cellar in Oxford St., Paddington, with jokes and caricatures on the nuclear war threat. They were removed one day and disappeared - to make room for LSD posters! - A "response" by "anarchists" to the greatest threat from territorial States! Drug yourself and forget about it! – When I questioned one of the druggies, who was still semi-conscious, asking him what about their efforts to promote anarchy – his reply was: “You don’t understand, mate! This IS anarchy!” - J.Z.JZ - ANARCHISTS, DRUG ADDICTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Are all of us in a prolonged shock from the nuclear war threat? - J.Z.JZ, 19.9.82. - At least in this respect most of us seem to be even paralyzed. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. - At least to the extent of being unable or unwilling to think and act rationally. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Are we such fools that we are willing to play games with the survival of the whole human race?!” - Marc Stiegler, A Simple Case of Suicide, ANALOG, May 83, p.159. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Aren't we still sacrificing our innocent and defenceless to the dragons?” - J.Z.JZ, 10.2.77. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As a species, we have as yet done nothing to save ourselves. The slate of action is blank. We have organizations for the preservation of almost everything in life that we want but no organization for the preservation of mankind.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185. – The situation is even worse. Those organizations that could save us, like panarchies or polyarchies, are outlawed and this largely with the approval of most of the public! – J.Z.JZ, 21.9.07. On my Facebook page, much against my will, more of my “friends” there are interested in the survival of stray cats and dogs than in the survival of mankind. They also think that pretty pictures, food items, sports trips and tourism, etc. are much more important. – JZ, 1.6.13. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, WARFARE STATES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, CONSENT OF THE VICTIMS, HOSTAGES LOVING THEIR TERRORIST HOSTAGE TAKERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As Carl Sagan put it, it is like two men in a gasoline soaked room. One has 150 matches and the other has 160 matches. It really makes little difference who has the most matches.” – Woody Welling, THE CONNECTION 116, p. 72. – Our “leaders” have not even comprehended that analogy. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR DETERRENT, LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As far as nuclear weapons, I, like you, fear our own leaders as much as I do the Soviets.” – Woody Welling, THE CONNECTION 116, p.72. – Not as much but almost as much, at least with regard to miscalculation and accidents. – J.Z.JZ, 16.8.87.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As far as possible, never stake your life, limbs, security, freedom and rights on computer hardware and software of e.g. the Minister for Defence and on his Defence Department or rely upon such and other people sufficiently functioning or acting as they should, as moral beings, at least not under the present territorialist conditions and beliefs. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.06, 29.10.07. – Compare e.g.: “Might is right!” and ”My country, right or wrong!” - & DECISION-MAKING POWER ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As in the case of the retaliatory strike in deterrence theory, we encounter the disparity between the supposed rationality of threatening the use of nuclear weapons and the irrationality of actually using them if the threat should fail. For while it arguably makes sense to deter the foe (*) from some action with the threat of a holocaust, it can never make sense to launch the holocaust if the foe is not deterred, since there is no human purpose that can justify extinction. And yet the success of the deterrence doctrine depends on the credibility of the threat of this unjustifiable use. Would Carter – a dedicated Christian – have risked extinction in the attempt to hold on to Middle Eastern oil? When he made his threat, did he consider his obligation to all mankind and to the numberless future generations of human beings? Would he have plunged the world into the “vast unknown”? And did Brezhnev consider those obligations when he jarred the peace of the world by sending his armies across Soviet borders to subjugate one of the earth’s sovereign peoples? Would Brezhnev, who has stated that to launch a nuclear holocaust would be “suicide”, commit that suicide if he believed that the West was about to gain control of Eastern Europe? Would Deng Xiaoping take that risk to keep hold of a piece of Inner Mongolia? Did Khrushchev weigh the importance of the earth and the human species when he sent into Cuba missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads? And did Kennedy weigh the importance of those things when he blockaded Cuba and then, according to his brother, waited to find out whether events over which “he no longer had control” would lead the world into a holocaust? These are the questions that hang in the air over our nuclear world, leaving us perpetually uncertain whether the next moment many not be the world’s last.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.213/14. - (*) Who or what the “foe” or “enemy” actually is remains undefined, also by this author. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. 13.1.11. – Where are any of the very diverse peoples in any State territory already really sovereign, i.e. all volunteers and under personal law or exterritorial autonomy? – JZ, 14.11.13. - DETERRENCE DOCTRINE, ENMIES & TARGETS REMAIN WRONGLY DEFINED, ALSO “WEAPONS”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as nuclear "weapons" can be "sold" by power-hungry politicians to unwilling customers via taxation and the threat which powerful territorial politicians do represent, there will be a nuclear war threat. Minimum requirements for it are compulsory taxation and territorial subordination. - J.Z.JZ, 14. 9. 82. - Even I forgot to mention here the belief in collective responsibility. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 5. 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as politics fails to take up the nuclear issue in a determined way, it lives closer than any other activity to the lie that we have all come to live – the pretense that life lived on top of a nuclear stockpile can last.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. - Territorial politics, subjects and politicians can't help being territorial politics, subjects and politicians. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – He, too, did not consider the personal law, voluntary and exterritorial autonomy alternative, although it is nothing but a further development of freedom to experiment, freedom of choice, freedom of action and experimentation, freedom of contract and freedom of association. I do blame the ignorance - even of important thinkers in this sphere - on the absence of a comprehensive declaration of all individual rights and liberties and the lack of interest of most of even these people, and also of anarchists and libertarians in helping to provide such a declaration. – Some of them even think that the all too flawed and incomplete bills of rights passed by governments are good, complete and helpful enough. - JZ, 1.6.13. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS & TERRITORIAL POLITICS, CONSTITUTIONALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as the nuclear war threat exists and in the interest of the survival of “nations” and man, all national frontiers would best be done away with and replaced by those around individuals, according to their own individual choices. That would do away with nuclear targets. What worked in the religious sphere, namely religious liberty or tolerance, as well as in numerous private activities, would also work well with regard to the different political, social and economic systems which individual prefer for themselves. To each the system of his dreams and choice. No one’s governmental or societal dream or nightmare is to be coercively applied to anyone but like-minded people. – J.Z.JZ, 1.10.85, 25.1.08. - Laissez-faire in every sphere – even for statists still foolish enough to believe in statism. They do deserve to suffer under it – themselves, until they have finally learnt their lesson. – JZ, 1.6.13. – All that the statists and all others would have to lose is their territorial monopoly claim and practice and all their costs and risks. – JZ, 14.11.13. - & PANARCHISM, FRONTIERS, BORDERS, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: as long as we continue to accept the underlying assumptions of this strategy we will be condemned to go on sketching “scenarios” for futures that must never be, while neglecting all planning for futures that can be and that would permit us to be.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.196. – There is still insufficient thinking, planning and action to assure mankind’s survival. Instead, all the Warfare States, with all their wrongful territorial monopolies and powers, are kept alive and kicking, at an enormous cost and risk, largely unquestioned even regarding many of their most important monopolies and powers. – JZ, 14.11.13. - & STRATEGIC THINKING IN TERMS OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS. PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM, WARFARE STATES, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As mankind stands at the gates of space, with one foot on the threshold of immortality, it has the other foot in the grave ...” - ISFSC leaflet: "The Road to Freedom".

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As the physical reality of this destructive potential became more and more lethal for the whole world, the state of mind of responsible people became rather less anxious.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.120. – Are the decision-makers on these questions really responsible people? Do they have really full freedom of action any more than most of their potential victims? They had decades to destroy these devices, even unilaterally. Instead they multiplied them and made them more powerful. – Does territorialism give them any other options? - J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As Thomas Schelling, the economist and noted nuclear theorist, has put it, in “The Strategy of Conflict”, a book published in 1960, once instability is introduced on either side, both sides may reason as follows: “He, thinking I was about to kill him in self-defense, was about to kill me in self-defense, so I had to kill him in self-defence”. Under deterrence, military “superiority” is therefore as dangerous to the side that possesses it as it is to the side that is supposedly threatened by it. (According to this logic, the United States should have heaved a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union reached nuclear parity with it, for then stability was achieved.) All these conclusions follow from the deterrence doctrine, yet they run so consistently counter to the far simpler, more familiar, and emotionally more comprehensible logic of traditional military thinking – not to mention instinct and plain common sense, which rebel against any such notion as “assuring” our own annihilation – that we should not be surprised when we find that the deterrence doctrine is constantly under challenge from traditional doctrine, no matter how glaring at odds with the facts traditional doctrine may be.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.200. - DETERRENCE & SELF-DEFENCE, INSTABILITY FACTORS, DIMINISHING THE “BALANCE OF TERROR” & SELF-DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: At present there is no greater danger in the world than that of atomic war. Sooner or later deterrence will fail, and if we stick to our policy of first use of nuclear weapons under those circumstances, Western civilization will presumably be destroyed.” – Robert McNamara, US Defence Secretary from 1961 to 1968 and former President of the World Bank. – STERN, Hamburg, No. 17/1982.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: At present, according to Cheney, 16 nations, including Libya and North Korea, have missiles with ranges of up to 24-hundred kilometers.” – Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia, 1992, p.85. – And such powers are still generally believed to be “defensive” ones! – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. - TERRITORIALISM, DEFENCE, AGGRESSION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: At present, most of us do nothing. We look away. We remain calm. We are silent. We take refuge in the hope that the holocaust won’t happen, and turn back to our individual concerns. We deny the truth that it is all around us. Indifferent to the future of our kind, we grow indifferent to one another. We drift apart. We grow cold. We drowse our way toward the end of the world. But if once we shook of our lethargy and fatigue and began to act, the climate would change. …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.230. - Not the climate but the situation. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - INDIFFERENCE, HOPES, INACTIVITY, DISINTEREST

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: At these moments – the Berlin crisis, the Cuban missile crisis, the American mining of Haiphong Harbor in 1972, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, among others – the world suddenly glimpses how far the superpowers are ready to go in pursuit of their interests. When calm returns, however, we are permitted to forget this ugly fact about the nuclear world, and to indulge ourselves again in the illusion that we possess nuclear arms solely in order to prevent their use.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.211. - NUCLEAR BRINKMANSHIP, CRISES, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: At this stage, even if they're using hydrogen bombs instead of sticks and rocks, you're basically dealing with Stone Age characters.” - Robert Anton Wilson, "The Illuminati Papers", p.87. – POLITICIANS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, RULERS, LEADERSHIP, GOVERNMENTS, STONE AGE SAVAGES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: attention to the possibility of nuclear war by miscalculation is at least as important as to deliberate attack." - Fred C. Iklé, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. He "does not rule out the possibility of a nuclear Pearl Harbor". - TIME, March 29, 1982. - & MISCALCULATION, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Ballistic missile submarines patrolling close to the American coast have shortened our warning drastically, probably to under 7.5 minutes, a response time so short that it invites errors which could annihilate our two nations.” - Newt Gingrich, Window of Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Future, p.244. - ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Because most libertarians cannot intellectually grasp and categorise the nuclear threat, they act as if it did not exist. In this they are hardly better than the average man but, because of their freedom knowledge (which, in fullness, offers the solution), their behaviour is all the less to be excused. - J.Z.JZ, 10.2.77. - Rothbard was one of the honourable exceptions but still not clearly enough in favour or panarchism. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Belief in nuclear strength demonstrates blindness, immorality and madness regarding most of the nuclear questions, problems and risks. – J.Z.JZ, 5.11.86, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Better active than radioactive.” - Demonstration banner shown in SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 6.8.77. - Active in what way? In what direction? With what means? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – BLIND, IGNORANT OR PREJUDICED ACTIVISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Billions for the wrongs and nonsense of “nuclear defence” and “nuclear deterrence” but not a dollar for any common sense on the subject. – That seems to be the position of all large territorial governments and of most of the “military experts” on this subject, even of most anarchists and libertarians.  – Mass murder preparation on the largest possible scale are being considered as the means to achieve and maintain peace, ignoring the long history of past arms races, balance of power and deterrence policies, the risks of an accidental nuclear war, also the fact that this “deterrence” has not prevented dozens of conventional wars, which occurred every year since the first to nuclear weapons were used at the end of WW II, and the fact that most of the leaders, who resort to such means, must be considered to be power addicts and also power-mad and should be treated as such, especially that even the very survival of mankind might be at stake. -  JZ, 22.1.13 & 14.2.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Blood cannot be washed out with blood.” – Persian proverb. - REVENGE, RETALIATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Both sides constitute disasters of an enormous scale, waiting to happen. – J.Z.JZ, 30.7.93, 13.1.11. – Territorial governments are well prepared and institutionalized to produce these disasters but not to cope with their consequences or to prevent them. – J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08. – There is no territorial solution to the problems created and maintained by territorialism, - JZ, 14.11.13. - & NUCLEAR REACTORS, “WEAPONS”, “DETERRENCE”, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Both sides won … Neither survived!” – Jack Williamson, Brother to Gods, ANALOG, Dec. 78, p.23. - VICTORY, SURVIVAL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Britain (said Mr. Khrushchev) could be completely destroyed by three hydrogen bombs and France by four. Japan would probably need another four. - George Mikes, The Land of the Rising Yen, p.150. - Are there already 4 people in either country that are seriously interested, so far, in the panarchistic alternative? - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Burn not your house to fright away the mice.” – Thomas Fuller, M.D., Gnomologia, 1732, 1024. - Frighten? The other territorial arsonists are not mice, either. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR STRENGTH & DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But an answer to the question of whether wars can any longer be regarded as just is not the end of it. If a thermonuclear war will result in the nearly total destruction of just and unjust alike, the question of which side has the just cause, and which the unjust – becomes irrelevant; the problem is not to distinguish between causes for which a thermonuclear war is to be fought, but to prevent it happening.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.225. – JUST WAR HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But Earth had always persecuted anyone who demonstrated intelligence and gumption, systematically punishing success and rewarding failure – then putting the human results of that process of “unnatural selection” in charge of nuclear explosives. – L. Neil Smith, The Wardove, p.67. - Earth is not immoral, short-sighted, stupid, prejudiced, malicious and power-mad. Its territorial leaders are. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – And their voluntary subjects, obviously, too. But those dissenters, who do not bother to look seriously at their voluntary and exterritorial autonomy alternatives, are also all too short-sighted, prejudiced and insufficiently interested in all their remaining alternatives, although these do include the recognition and practice of basic individual rights and liberties, which, so far, were and also still are widely ignored or denied. – I discussed them, as far as I could, in ca. 500 points, in my ABC Against Nuclear War, JZ, 1975, which has also been ignored online, for years already. – See - JZ14.11.13. - LEADERSHIP, IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But if the arms race continues, that is, if a high proportion of the best scientific brains in all advanced nations are employed intensively in the search for new and more effective weapons systems, offensive and defensive, it would be a very bold prediction to say that no new discovery will be made which could upset the balance. The achievements in space, in electronics and in information-gathering devices must make us wary of writing down any development is impossible.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.241. – NUCLEAR POWER BALANCE, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR ARMS RACE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But if the master morality lived on in a few people, just a few, and they had access to thermonuclear weapons ..." - THE DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP, No.10. - HITLERISM, NAZIS, POWER ADDICTION & MADNESS, LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But now our responsibilities as citizens in the common world have been immeasurably enlarged. In the pre-nuclear common world, we were partners in the protection of the arts, the institutions, the customs, and all “perfection” of life; now we are also partners in the protection of life itself.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 122. - What rights and liberties for effective actions in this respect, do people so far posses or have striven for? Territorialism has made them helpless in this and many other respects, messed up, monopolistically and coercively, by territorial governments and their all too obedient subjects and victims. It has left no free and easy way out, except prayers, petitions, marches, demonstrations, protests etc., all ineffective towards territorial power addicts, the worst of the lot, those that got to the top under territorialism. We are still not free to secede from these monsters and to peacefully and exterritorially manage, under personal law, our own affairs, together with like-minded people. We are forced to live in the nuclear targets of our "great" territorial leaders, as long as they let us live, by not yet using these "weapons". We are, in fact, hijacked by them, as their hostages. Whole peoples as property of a handful of the new feudal lords, in democratic camouflage, posing as our helpers and protectors. Most of us are not even questioning their decision-making power and monopolies. These sheeple deserve what they will get. But what about the rest? And all the minors? - It was not always the governments, which decided upon war or peace. Even that tradition is largely forgotten or ignored. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - & CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITIES, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But now, before the exhaustion of either party can be reached, everyone will be dead, and all human aims – the aims pursued in the “war” and all others – will have been nullified.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.191. - & WAR AIMS, RIGHTFUL & WRONGFUL ONES, NUCLEAR STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But revolutionary realism, for an anarchist in an age of atom bombs, is pacific: the bomb is now the symbol, not of anarchy, but of totalitarian power. It is only to be released from the hands that hold it with the kiss that, in Dostoevsky's parable, the Prisoner gave the Grand Inquisitor.” - H. Read: Anarchy and Order, p.81. - The kiss of love or the kiss of death? - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. – LOVE? FORGIVENESS?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But schools are out to teach patriotism; newspapers are out to stir up excitement; and politicians are out to get re-elected. None of the three, therefore, can do anything whatever toward saving the human race from reciprocal suicide. - Bertrand Russell - Roy Halliday, Quotations with an Attitude, online. - It isn’t a conscious suicide attempt or mutual suicide pact but, rather, the unknown and in the long-term inevitable consequence of territorialism, with its monopolism and compulsion that leads to the general holocaust, much against the wishes and intentions of most people. – JZ, 16.3.12. – PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But the drive for invulnerability leads to total vulnerability. A valid concept of national security should ensure life and a healthy future for the human race. Instead, the Pentagon scenario of national security through mutually assured destruction assures our annihilation.” – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, p.92. - DETERRENCE, MAD: MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION, NATIONAL SECURITY & TOTAL NATIONAL INSECURITY, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But the real moral point was made by Mr. Alex Comfort, when he wrote that we should no longer talk of dying to the last man but of killing to the last child. I would say, of torturing to the last child.” - Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.108. – The fearful choices arise mostly only when we are not given or have not established for ourselves enough free choices. – J.Z.JZ, 23.7.09, 14.11.13. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But there was nowhere to retreat.” – Stephen Baxter, Flux, p. 23. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But, no matter how one phrases it, the fact, which is rarely, if ever, mentioned, either in the cold, abstract language of the theorists or in the ringing tones of the statesmen, is that the nuclear powers put a higher value on national sovereignty than they do on human survival, and that, while they would naturally prefer to have both, they are ultimately prepared to bring an end to mankind in their attempt to protect their own countries.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. – Rather, their own territorial power positions. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. – Can we afford such “leaders” any longer? – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. – We permit the greatest stupidities and wrongful acts to our “leaders”, while we do not even sanction the smallest stupidities and wrongful acts to our children in primary schools! – What shall we think of the reason, morality and maturity of the adults who think and act like this? “Nuclear giants and ethical infants.” - General Omar Bradley called them. - J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. - & NATIONAL TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, I.E., UTMOST POWER TO TERRITORIAL RULERS, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: By growing to actually rely on terror, we do more than tolerate its presence in our world: we place our trust in it. And while this is not quite to “love the bomb”, as the saying goes, it decidedly is to place our faith in it, and to give it an all-important position in the very heart of our affairs. Under this doctrine, instead of getting rid of the bomb, we build it ever more deeply into our lives.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.201. - And this happens even while the main terrorists, the official ones, the territorial leaders, are engaged in a world-wide campaign against private terrorists, who at least so far, have at most murdered by the thousands, while the territorial leaders, in their terrorist war actions, have murdered by the millions and still pretend that they are our protectors. At least the private terrorists do act indiscriminately murderously, also on the “principle” of collective responsibility, without this false pretence. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - Politicians outlawed our guns for self-defence against them and private criminals but still keep their anti-people mass murder devices stockpiled and in readiness, obviously not against other tyrants but against the peoples of the world, at least indirectly against even those they themselves subjected territorially. (Retaliation or preemptive strikes.) - They remain vague about protection, defence, deterrence, aggression and real enemies but not about more power in their own hands. - By their wrongful powers, monopolies, laws, constitutions, jurisdictions, institutions, "weapons", "principles", errors and prejudices - they have turned themselves into our main enemies. - And yet most of their victims, still grant them the sanction of the victims, being institutionalized by governmental compulsory indoctrination for years, in schools and even by tax-supported government propaganda. - The mass of popular, statist and territorialist errors, prejudices, myths, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, is still not systematically countered e.g. by an ideal human rights declaration, a militia for the protection of these rights and by an encyclopedia of the best refutations, as well as by an archive of and information center for the best ideas and solutions, although some of these and related approaches are still not outlawed. - Most anarchists and libertarians are still not anarchistic and libertarian enough to make use of all their remaining self-help and self-enlightenment options! - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - & TRUST IN TERROR, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DICTATORS, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, SELF-HELP OPTIONS REMAINING, IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPEDIA, STATISM, PREJUDICES, NEW DRAFT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: By the end of 1976 nineteen countries had nuclear reactors, including fifteen non-nuclear weapons countries. By 1984 twenty-eight non-nuclear-armed nations are expected to have reactors. Their combined potential annual production of plutonium will amount to 30 000 kilograms – enough to produce 10 atom bombs a day.” – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, p.77. - GOVERNMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY, WHEN IT COMES TO ANTI-PEOPLE "WEAPONS" OR MASS MURDER DEVICES.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can man be dissuaded from unleashing a nuclear war?" - Sean McBride, quoted in SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 8.3.78. – It is not “man” to be persuaded, but territorial governments, which will have to become forced to give up their mass-murder devices or anti-people “weapons” – J.Z.JZ, 11.2.08. - Towards that aim we should ally ourselves with all their suppressed and exploited people, including e.g. the military forces of dictatorships. We can and should make our appeals and unilateral separate peace treaty offers, over the heads of the rulers, quite clearly and trustworthily (that would exclude the participation of political leaders and diplomats). They should be offers too good to refuse, which their dictators could not possibly match: Genuine self-determination under the systems of their own individual choice and dreams. Among them also those, which could assure them of great and earned prosperity. We could practically prove our case towards them by already realizing the exterritorialist and voluntaryist "meta-utopia" of which Nozick wrote, in our already somewhat but not yet sufficiently free countries, perhaps by starting with governments and societies in exile, all only for their present and future volunteers. Developing and publishing a quite rightful and comprehensive libertarian revolution and military insurrection program against all kinds of authoritarian regimes, could also greatly help the freedom, justice and peace-loving peoples of the world. So far only the totalitarians have developed detailed programs, which are effective for their purposes. Libertarians and anarchists could not be bothered. At least that was my experience, so far. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can one interest the hundreds of book- and the thousands of article writers against nuclear war in a rightful, rational and practical program against this threat? So far I have not seen any evidence for this. Almost all “think” only along the lines of conventional territorialist flawed premises and assumptions and flawed statist ideas. – In my own two peace books I thought otherwise – that’s why both remained non-sellers and un-influential, even when put on the Web. Mere readers are even less thoughtful and creative in this respect. - J.Z.JZ, 21.9.07. - & - PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can the human race still be dragged back from racial suicide, the way they are ignorantly, disinterestedly and blindly harrying themselves into the nuclear fire, singing and playing and otherwise amusing themselves while all the preparations are made for their extermination and that of everyone else? - J.Z.JZ, 3. 5. 83, 1. 5. 06. – Here I abused the term “suicide” myself. What really threatens us is not suicide by all of mankind but mass murder of mankind by a few, a mere handful of people, those in territorial power. – J.Z.JZ, 11.2.08, 13.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, LEADERSHIP, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can you tell me a single rightful target anywhere on Earth for any nuclear weapon? – 17.7.95, 24.1.08. - & RIGHTFUL TARGETS FOR THEM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Certain crimes have already set precedents for the greatest crimes! - Racine, Phèdre, 4.2. - „Quelques crimes toujours précèdent les grands crimes." – “Ein schwer Verbrechen sieht sich den Weg schon gebahnt.“ - MASS MURDERS, GENOCIDES, TERRITORIALISM, AIR RAIDS, BOMBING POLICIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Certainly, there is no need for anyone to strain to be irrational, as Kahn suggests, or out of control, as Schelling suggests: a world that has embarked on a holocaust is in its nature irrational and out of control.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.206. – Neither the world nor any of its many diverse peoples have so embarked. Only their territorial misleaders did, alas, without their territorialist subjects and victims sufficiently protesting or resisting them, for they, too, in most cases, know of nothing more "rightful" and "rational" than the territorial Warfare States. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07, 23.2.09, 13.1.11. Nor do they show any serious interest in any rightful and rational as well as peace, justice, freedom and prosperity promoting alternatives to them. – JZ, 14.11.13. - & ITS IRRATIONALITY OR INSANITY, TERRITORIALISM, PREJUDICES, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Civilizations used to be destroyed by invasions of barbarians from without. This time it is threatened by barbarians from within, grown up among us, tolerated and even praised by us for their "leadership" towards the nuclear holocaust, all under the pretence of protecting or defending us and preventing nuclear war by their nuclear deterrent. Whoever subscribes to mass murder devices, under any excuse, is one of the worst and most dangerous barbarians. Compared with them the suicide bombers of Palestine are relatively harmless idiots, criminals and terrorists. - J.Z.JZ, 14.11.82, 1.5.06, 14.11.13. Alas, the Israeli and Zionist territorial government shows no more respect for all individual rights and liberties, than any other “democratic” territorial government. As a territorial regime it is also a Warfare State, with all too often all too indiscriminate warfare methods. At least the majority of Jews in the world was intelligent enough to stay out of it. – JZ, 14.11.13. - CIVILIZATION, INVASIONS BY BARBARIANS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, BIG BROTHERS, AUTHORITARIANISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Clausewitz writes: War can never be separated from political intercourse, and if, in the consideration of the matter, this is done in any way, all the threads of the different relations are, to a certain extent, broken, and we have before us a senseless thing without an object.” War can, for example, decline into a mere looting or banditry or some other form of aimless violence. But of all the “senseless things” that can ever occur when war’s violence (its means) is severed from its political purposes (its ends), a nuclear holocaust is the most senseless. To call this senseless thing “war” is, in fact, simply a misnomer, and to go on speaking of “nuclear war”, and the like, can only mislead and confuse us. Thus, while the Soviet Union and the United States (*) are perfectly free to fire their thousands of nuclear weapons at one another (**), the result would not be war, for no end could be served by it. It would be comprehensive destruction – a ‘senseless thing’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.191. - (*) governments - (**) Rather, at their subjects – it is, alas, not a duel with pistols only between heads of governments! – J.Z.JZ - & RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Compared to continuing to incur a constant risk of the destruction of the human race, all other evils are lesser evils. Anyone who finds one of these lesser evils intolerable can always contract out by committing suicide. But it is unreasonable that we should also bring the whole human race to an end, because most human beings, now and in the future, would undoubtedly prefer the lesser evil.” – Dr. Arnold Toynbee, in Philip Toynbee: The Fearful Choice, p.80. - Apparently, neither of these thinkers considered opting or contracting out of all territorial States. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Compared with the present war preparedness for unconditional destruction and mass murder, the senseless unconditional surrender demand of WW II was moderate and rational! In other words, leaders have become even more mad and powerful since then. – J.Z.JZ, 2.4.87, 25.1.08. – Unconditional surrender demands should only be directed to totalitarian regimes and their supporters, not to the rest of the whole population of a country, which constitutes the primary victim of any such regime. – JZ, 1.6.13. - & UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER DEMANDS INSTEAD OF QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS & WARFARE METHODS, IF WAR CANNOT BE AVOIDED

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Conclusion of an archaeological report in the year 10,000 on earth, written by?: 'For some unknown reason or the other, the population of Earth committed mass suicide, using simultaneously various mass extermination devices with an overkill 'safety factor' of 10 to 200 times. What they were afraid of we will probably never know.' - Source unknown. - Suicide is the wrong term for a situation in which most people are quite disenfranchised in this respect, since such decision-making is territorially monopolized. However, most people do not oppose even this monopoly! To that extent they gave their consent to mass murder, even their own murder! - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: consider how a war would end before becoming entrapped in those processes through which fighting, once started even at a low level of violence, tends to prolong itself.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.108. – And to extend itself, resorting to ever more atrocious means. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: continuing to struggle for advantage in nuclear arms is futile and increasingly dangerous.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.243.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Damn it, why should a billion people die because some inventor had a brain that couldn't see an inch into human nature?” - Van Vogt: The Weapon Makers, p.118. - It isn't human nature that makes for nuclear war but statist territorialism. - The whole territorial State structure is unnatural, monopolistic, centralistic and coercively upheld. - There are, e.g., only few quite voluntary taxpayers. And none of the territorial subjects have chosen all of the territorial laws that are imposed upon them. It is even impossible for them to read and know them all. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - HUMAN NATURE, MAN, LAWS, LEGISLATION, TAXATION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Dangerous implements should not be entrusted to children.” - S. A. Coblentz, The Men Without Shadows, SF ADVENTURE CLASSICS, July 72. - It is quite child-like to assume that one person could rightfully and effectively run the lives of millions of others. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Dare we imagine a different future for our world than the one which is being imposed on us by our government, by international alliances, and by the principalities and powers which are working towards the destruction of the whole human race? - Jean Skuse, p.103 of: "Confronting the Nuclear Age", edited by John Hinchcliff. - TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Defence, yes, but not with nuclear weapons - because with them a true defence is not possible. - J.Z.JZ, 23. 3. 85. Only a reverse aggression or quite wrongful and misdirected retaliation is possible with them. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 5. 06. - DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Defenders of nuclear strength and the nuclear deterrent are morally and intellectually so corrupt and limited that nothing rightful and positive can be expected of them. – J.Z.JZ, 5.7.86, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Der Untergang des Abendlandes, he thought grayly. Spengler foresaw the collapse of a top-heavy civilization. He didn't foresee atomic bombs, radioactive-dust bombs, bacteria bombs, blight bombs - the bombs, the senseless inanimate bombs flying like monster insects over the shivering world. So he didn't guess the extent of the collapse.” - Poul Anderson, The Book of Poul Anderson, p.10. - Misprint? greyly? - J.Z.JZ - On the other hand, Google offers presently (11.1.11) 33,000 references when searching for "panarchy". - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – Today I get 114,000 Google results for panarchy and 18,200 for panarchism. However, many to most of the abstracts refer to other kinds than the one advocated by P. E. de Puydt. – JZ, 1.6.13. - SPENGLER, CIVILIZATION, HIERARCHIES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHY, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Despite achieving the ultimate in a deterrence system, the world has never been more unstable. A nuclear cataclysm can be provoked by a temporary irrationality of leadership, a misunderstanding between the antagonists, a malfunctioning of equipment, a spreading of misinformation within the military, or the result of panic.” - Ralph Summy, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, June 82. – Add to this the fact that the decision-makers will be in the safest shelters, while their victims will be, largely, unsheltered. – J.Z.JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: despite all the progress made by science and education in ensuring that children are healthier, the world’s children are threatened with extinction before they reach middle age. – Keith Suter, quoted by Ralph Summy, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, June 82. - SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Destroying civilization, always a task for fools, was relatively easy with the tools constructed for the purpose in the 20th. century.” - Edgar Pangborn: The Children's Crusade, p.133, in "CONTINUUM", No.1.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Did you come out to destroy my world? Return to your cave!“ – Sabbath, 33b. – From a collection of Jewish Wisdom. – But how can one make the powerful, mad and monopolistic decision-makers return to their caves? – Some people still seem to believe in word-magic. - J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08. - NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS, NUCLEAR WAR STRATEGISTS, NUCLEAR POWER POLITICIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Different from the more intelligent rats, human beings join or remain on the sinking ship of the territorial State. They even shout for or make more holes, to make it sink faster, although they will go under with it. – J.Z.JZ, 17.8.86, 30.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Disaster or paradise are predetermined by the means we employ now. What is the inevitable end of the current means? - J.Z.JZ, 21. 11. 82. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, TOTALITARIANISM, STATE SOCIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Do we wait until … the bombs start falling?” - Deborah Wheeler, Jaydium, p.300. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods, which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces.” - Jean Paul Marat, 1744-1793. - Emailed in by C.B. – Underlining by me. We are still stuck with many of his errors and prejudices, since they haven't been systematically refuted as yet. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – Even in the USA, the beggars and the homeless people have become all too visible. – JZ, 14.11.13. - POVERTY, WELFARE STATE, PROGRESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm. –Malayan proverb

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: E. M. Forster told us “Only connect!’ Let us connect. (*) Auden told us, “We must love one another or die.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. - (*) Let us rather secede, individually and in groups, and let us connect and associate only on a voluntary basis and exterritorially, each under those personal law associations preferred by him or her. – J.Z.JZ, 1982, 23.9.07. - (**) To be just to each other is enough. Often it already suffices to leave each other alone. – J.Z.JZ, 23.9.07. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, OPTING OUT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Each day there are incidents that could lead to the holocaust. Each month we escape Final Confrontation by ever narrower margins.” – Marc Stiegler, A Simple Case of Suicide, ANALOG, May 83, p.146. – Mankind is not a single entity and only a few powerful men have had so far any say on war and peace, armament and disarmament, international conferences and treaties. – For them it might be classed “suicide” but, certainly, not for the rest. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. - When the problem, its cause and the consequences are not even clearly seen and expressed, then one cannot expect a solution from these complainers. - Already Confucius declared that we should begin by calling things, events and facts by their proper names, if we want to understand and achieve anything. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Einstein was only one among many far-seeing people to express an understanding of this fundamental mismatch of strengths when he stated, in 1950, as he contemplated the likely detonation of a hydrogen – or thermonuclear – bomb … that “radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.12/13. - And yet he was one of the original promoters of building atomic bombs! How far-seeing was he, really? He rejected panarchism in some correspondence that I reproduced on microfilm. Ulrich von Beckerath, as a mathematician and philosopher, asserted that Einstein, in his Theory of Relativity, mixed up several different concepts of time. U. v. B. wrote book a manuscript on this. It was destroyed with his library in an air raid, in November 1943. Only hints towards this manuscript can be found in his post-war correspondence. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Either men will learn to live like brothers, or they will die like beasts.” – Max Lerner, “The Gifts of the Magi”, Action and Passions, 1949. – They don't have to live as brothers but should live as free men, each doing his own things, being tolerant towards others and thus tolerated by them. – Compare: "Und willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, dann schlag ich Dir den Schaedel ein!" (If you don't want to be my brother, I'll smash your head in!) - German proverb. - TOLERANCE, BROTHERHOOD, COSMOPOLITANISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Eliminating the nuclear war threat will require many different and radical steps. I listed about 500 of them alphabetically in - Here are some of them: 1.) Eliminate the means, the anti-people “weapons” by a disarmament carried out or controlled by the people, even unilaterally, best through an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties. - 2.) Eliminate the nuclear targets by voluntaristic and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers - replacing territorial States with compulsory membership or subordination. - 3.) Repeal the monopolistic decision-making power of governments on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties and alliances. - 4.) Eliminate the financial power for the financing of a nuclear arms race by replacing compulsory taxation, through well organized tax strikes, leading to voluntary taxation, the replacement of financial despotism by financial freedom, and of monetary despotism by monetary freedom, in a monetary and financial revolution, including refusals to accept inflated government paper money altogether or at par, so that finally sound and optional exchange media and value standards can drive out the bad ones. - 5.) Offer all working in the nuclear arms race industries other and better jobs. That would be possible under full monetary and financial freedom. - 6.) Eliminate the motives for war by panarchism: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice, starting, perhaps, with recognizing corresponding governments in exile. - 7.) Deterrence through outlawry and tyrannicide, combined with amnesty and asylum for those destroying or surrendering mass murder devices. - 8.) Removing the motives for war by declaring quite rightful war and peace aims in a believable way, by the people themselves, quite publicly. - 9.) Removing secrecy: Everyone a spy for peace or disarmament inspector. - 10.) Removing all despotic regimes through libertarian revolutions and military insurrections, supplying and publishing the best programs for this, which include exterritorial majority and minority autonomy for all the diverse groups, so that no one has any longer to be afraid of any of the others. - 11.) Separate peace treaties with captive peoples, unilaterally offered, also with insurrectionist armies, and welcoming any number of deserters and refugees - offering them not incarceration but well paid jobs, made possible by full monetary and financial freedom. Exterritorial autonomy for them and all others, if they want it. - 12.) A new and complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, also offered as the basis for a new kind of international law. - 13.) Local militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties – and nothing else – internationally federated. - 14.) Free Migration, Free Trade, Free Movement of Capital, free from taxation and under value-preserving clauses. - 15.) Spread of property incentives through businesslike purchases of enterprises by their employees, on terms, ultimately paid off with part of the additional productivity that would be achieved by people clearly working for themselves. – J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: End the nuclear arms race, not the human race.” – Slogan of nuclear war protestors, reported in TIME, 5.5.82. – Alas, the “how” is left to territorial governments, so this “armament” goes on. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: England and the USA are prepared to commit mass murder with nuclear devices, at any time. At least that accusation one cannot as yet raise against Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders and Australians among the English speaking States. – J.Z.JZ, 1.2.07, 25.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think. – Chinese proverb - Proverbial wisdom is not always very wise. Should we really forget e.g. about the nuclear war threat? Psychologically this is a natural reaction but, rationally and morally? – J.Z.JZ, 12.1.08. -  How can one truly enjoy oneself under that threat, forgetting about it means for one’s offspring, friends and mankind? – JZ, 6.4.12. – Q. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Essentially, the city populations of the world are taken hostage, in the largest and most extended hostage taking that has ever happened. And in this supposedly enlightened and civilized age this is still seriously considered to be a rightful, rational and in the long run practicable "policy", the all too imbalanced "balance of terror". - Moreover, with "nuclear strength" and "nuclear deterrent" and "nuclear defence" preparations the nuke-mad governments threaten to mass-murder these hostages. Compared with them most of the private terrorists were so far relatively harmless creatures! And yet these worst terrorists of all do conduct what they pretend to be an effective war against terrorism! - With their future planned and well prepared mass murders of these hostages and with even "limited" nuclear wars possibly resulting in "nuclear winter" consequences, threatening the health or survival of the rest of the world population, only mental defectives can conceive it, prepare for it and carry it out. - Some even seriously proposed technical "doomsday" devices, thus exposing their own extreme immorality and ignorance of rightful alternatives. - That is the kind of "war games" that they play with our lives, so far only on their war games tables and computers, but all too ready, all too much prepared and motivated to put these "games" into mass murderous practice - at any time. - How many minutes or even seconds warning time would you get in your country, if any? - J.Z.JZ, NWT 27 5 06. – LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, HIERARCHIES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, Q., WHOLE POPULATIONS AS HOSTAGES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: even conventionally armed nations have the potential of blowing the world up, for they may draw the superpowers into one of their wars.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.215.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Even the greatest horror and the strongest language is not enough to prevent some great wrongs and man-made disasters, if some alternative proposals, projects or institutions do not offer the hope and chance for a genuine solution of this problem. – J.Z.JZ, 3.10.92, 1.6.13, 14.11.13. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Even today, the official response to the sickening reality before us is conditioned by a grim fatalism, in which the hope of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and thus of surviving as a species, is all but ruled out of consideration as “utopian” or “extreme” – as though it were “radical” merely to want to go on living and to want one’s descendants to be born. And yet if one gives up these aspirations one has given up on everything.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Eventually - and it's a dead race with time - we must take over and make certain that baby never plays with matches.” - Robert Heinlein, Assignment in Eternity, p.63. – We have learnt to control babies – but not yet territorial governments. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. - In some respects they are just as childish and immature, thoughtless and immoral. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Every day in which the bombs are not loosed is another day in which we can learn to avoid that catastrophe.” - Deborah Wheeler, Jaydium, p.249. – But who does really want to learn about that? My book: An ABC Against Nuclear War, remains a record non-seller and few look it up online, as far as I know, because I have never got a response to this online publication or to my other libertarian peace book. - The “death wish” seems to be stronger than the survival instinct. - J.Z.JZ, 16.9.07. – &

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: every man not a fool steps off the railroad track when he sees a train approaching.” – Source? – However, when it comes to the nuclear war threat, we are not allowed to step of the track the territorial governments are on. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM MAINTAINS THE TARGETS FOR MASS MURDER DEVICES, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Extinction is not something to contemplate, it is something to rebel against.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.184. - & EXTINCTION, RESISTANCE, REBELLION, REVOLUTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Extinction, being in its nature outside human experience, is invisible, but we, by rebelling against it, can indirectly make it visible. No one will ever witness extinction, so we must bear witness to it before the fact. And the place for the rebellion to start is in our daily lives. … And this turnabout in the first instance can be as simple as a phone call to a friend, a meeting in the community.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. – It is high time for people to finally make a stand against the existence of anti-people mass murder devices in anyone’s hands, especially in the hands of the own government and of any foreign government and against all the ideas, institutions and constitutions that led to this situation. Territorial governments, here as well, are not the solution but the problem. – J.Z.JZ, 23.9.07. – Government have slid, unintentionally, into WW I and WW II. They could, unintentionally, also slide into WW III, a nuclear war. Just compare how e.g. the Sep.11 terrorist act has led to two conventional wars, still going on in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The machinery of territorial warfare States is easy to start, for the men in power, but difficult to stop. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. - & EXTINCTION OF MANKIND, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, WARFARE STATE, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Extreme remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases.” – Hippocrates, Aphorisms, c. 400 B.C., 1.6. – But for what are nuclear “weapons” an extreme remedy, unless you consider all human beings to be mere pests? Even then you should not forget about the birds, the bees and the butterflies. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – Would the destruction of all nuclear mass murder devices, even unilaterally, be really an “extreme” measure or remedy? – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. - Or, rather, a moral, rational and common sense one? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Fight the nuclear society!" - ? This is not a society. It is a coercive and coerced territorial collective that is producing or asking for mass murder devices, because, being governmentally mis-educated and also lied to, it does not know anything better. - J.Z.JZ, 5. 9. 82, 1. 5. 06, 13.1.11. – Fight, resist & finally abolish the territorial warfare states, first in your minds. – JZ, 14.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, WAREFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Five Iranian nuclear scientists and the head of the country’s ballistic missile programme have been killed since 2007. The regime has accused Israel’s external intelligence agency, the Mossad, of carrying out these assassinations." - Nizam Ahmad - John Zube : What is a just penalty for those, who do produce and stockpile mass murder devices? – Facebook, 7.10.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For governments, still acting within a system of independent nation-states, and formally representing no one but the people (*) of their separate, sovereign nations, are driven to try to defend merely national interests (**) with the means of destruction that threaten not only international but intergenerational and planetary doom.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. (***) - (*) Not “the” people but some to many people in the territory over which - and its population - they claim exclusive territorial sovereignty. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (**) The national interest is usually only the propaganda fiction advanced by the power addicts and power-mad leading politicians hiding behind this false pretence. – The real national interest demands the abolition of their territorial monopolies and exclusive territorial powers. With that abolition the threat of war would be gone. But these leaders and their faithful subjects would be the last to recognize that. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. -  (***) He should rather have titled it: The fate of mankind – in the hands of territorial governments. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. - TERRITORIAL NATION STATES, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For if we try to guarantee our safety by threatening ourselves with doom, then we have to mean the threat; but if we meant it, then we are actually planning to do, in some circumstance or other, that which we (*) categorically must never do and are supposedly trying to prevent – namely, extinguish ourselves. (*) This is the circularity at the core of the nuclear-deterrence doctrine; we seek to avoid our (*) self-extinction by threatening to perform the act. According to this logic, it is almost as though if we (*) stopped threatening ourselves (*) with extinction, then extinction would occur.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.201. - - (*) Remember, that only our incredibly under-informed and power-madness-driven top territorial leaders are involved in such decision-making! We are completely disfranchised in this respect, although, supposedly, possessing “the” vote. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. – Already Kant, in his “Eternal Peace”, back in 1795, pointed out that each government, which monopolizes the war and peace decisions, is really a despotism. – JZ, 14.11.13. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, VOTING, REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, DEMOCRACY, DESPOTISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For statism it is true today, more than ever before: Whoever reaches for the atomic bomb will die by the atomic bomb!” - LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 3. - He might be reached with a mere knife or gun before he can reach for the bomb! - Or all his potential victims might secede from him and organize sufficiently to disarm him in time. - Anyhow, if he, in the safest bunker, would also be killed, that is hardly a consolation for all his victims. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82, 13.1.11. - TYRANNICIDE, SECESSIONISM, MILITIA, DISARMAMENT BY THE TARGETED PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For the doctrine’s central claim – that it deploys nuclear weapons only in order to prevent their use – is simply not true. Actually, it deploys them to protect national sovereignty, and if this aim were not present they could be quickly dismantled.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 217. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OR TERRITORIALIST STATES & GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For the unavoidable outcome of the tendencies now in operation are either the slavery of totalitarianism or complete annihilation.” - L. Labadie, Selected Essays, p.46. - One might add that in the long run totalitarianism would not prevent annihilation, either. - J.Z.JZ, 11.6.80.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For to build this machine at all was a mistake of the hugest proportions ever known – without question the greatest ever made by our species. The only conceivable worse mistake would be to put the machine to use. Now deterrence, having rationalized the construction of the machine, weds us to it, and, at best, offers us, if we are lucky, a slightly extended term of residence on earth before the inevitable human or mechanical mistake occurs and we are annihilated.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.217. - THE DETERRENCE MACHINE, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, COMPUTER FAILURES OR MISINTERPRETATION OF THEIR RESULTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For us to permit others to build, store and keep in readiness “nuclear weapons” is like us permitting others to bring TNT by the tons into our homes and to play with it, or to allow children to play with sticks of gelignite. I know how you would react it I tried to do that to you, as a visitor, with children, threatening the survival and that of your family. Well, governments are doing it to all of us, with their nuclear strength “policy”, and overkill nuclear power, coming to the equivalent of x tons of TNT per head of the population. What can you do about this? Begin at least to think what you should be able to do about this! – J.Z.JZ, 13.1.88, 30.5.08. - I do know as well as you do, that the territorial governments have made us powerless in this respect. We have to think how to get our freedom of choice and action, as well as of laws and institutions into our hands. Once we are as free, we will certainly choose better ones and safer ones for ourselves than they can offer or are willing to offer to us. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11, 1.6.13, 14.11.13. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM & NWT.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For while the aim of survival causes statesmen to declare regularly that no purpose could ever be served by a holocaust, and that the aim of nuclear policy can only be to prevent such insanity, the pursuit of national objectives forces them to declare in the next breath that they are unwaveringly resolved to perpetrate exactly this unjustifiable and insane action if some nation (*) threatens a “vital interest” of theirs.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. – (*) Not the “nations” threaten but their territorial rulers do and against them e.g. military insurrections, secessionism, governments in exile, welcoming of refugees and deserters, combined with rightful and sensible full employment programs, monetary and financial freedom revolutions, alternative institutions, liberating revolutions, tyrannicide, tax strikes, refusals to accept their paper money etc. are much more rightful and rational means than nuclear suicide preparations. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - & TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM & POLITICIANS, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For while the doctrine relies for its success on a nuclear-armed victim’s resolve to launch the annihilating second strike, it can offer no sensible or sane justification for launching it in the event.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.202. – When half of mankind or a quarter are already murdered, does it make sense to murder the second half or second quarter of it? – JZ, 14.11.13. -  THE GUILTY ONES WIL SIT IN THE SAFEST SHELTERS. DETERRENCE, FIRST & SECOND STRIKES, RETALIATION, DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For while the events that might trigger a holocaust would probably be political, the consequences would be deeper than any politics or political aims, bringing ruin to the hopes and plans of capitalists and socialists, rightists and leftists, conservatives and liberals alike. Having as the source of its strength only the spontaneously offered support of the people of the earth, it would, in turn, respect each person’s will, which is to day his liberty.” (*) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.229. – (*) Primary for this individual liberty would be the choice among political, economic and social systems for each and everyone, just as they are already largely free to choose their religion, their jobs, their insurance contracts, their marriage partners, their sports and hobby activities, their friends and associates and their consumer goods in their shopping carts and subscribe to their wanted consumer services. – J.Z.JZ, 23.9.07, 1.6.13, 14.11.13. - TOLERANCE, LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OF POLITICS & POLITICAL AIMS, FOR ALL KINDS OF IDEOLOGIES & THEIR BELIEVERS, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, PANARCHY, POLYARCHY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Force could be rightfully used to occupy nuclear weapons stores in preparation for the destruction of these devices. With nuclear weapons they cannot be defended against conventional weapons, unless the protectors of these devices are inclined towards suicide. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 5. 06. - & VIOLENT OR FORCEFUL RESISTANCE, MILITIA, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Formerly only young and fit men were conscripted to be slaughtered in battlefields, in trenches, planes, ships etc. all for undisclosed or senseless or wrongful war and peace aims, rather than exclusively for quite rightful ones, which would tend to prevent wars. Now almost all are conscripted into the open nuclear “weapons” free fire zones, of whole cities and even whole countries, to be mass murdered upon the whims of a few powerful men and their or all too obedient henchmen. – J.Z.JZ, 31.10.85, 30.5.08, 1.6.13, 14.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM PROVIDES THE TARGETS, MOTIVES, POWERS, FINANCE & EXCUSE FOR NUCLEAR “WEAPONS”.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Formerly, the future was simply given to us; now it must be achieved. We must become the agriculturalists of time. If we do not plant and cultivate the future years of human life, we will never reap them. This effort would constitute a counterpart in our conscious life of reason and will of our instinctual urge to procreate.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.174. & MAN’S FUTURE, CONSCIOUSNESS, REASON, DUTY – VS. A LEMMING-LIKE “HUMAN” EXISTENCE & DEATH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Four-star retired Admiral Noel Gayler, veteran of three wars, had the courage to state flatly: “Nuclear weapons have no military usefulness.” - Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger. Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, The Women’s Press, 1985, p 344. - NUCLEAR WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: From my analysis, the only way to avoid the threat of atomic war is in the abolition of governments.” - Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.59. - Whoever seriously analyses the voluntary alternatives will find that this means in practice, merely, the abolition of all territorial governments. That would leave to everyone the government or non-governmental free society of his dreams, or free individual choice, i.e.: panarchism, polyarchism, competing governance. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82, 13.1.11, 1.6.13. - VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Full-scale war was not now the long process of mobilization, conversion of civilian factories to produce weapons, and eventually combat, but a series of codes whose transmission would erase two thousand years of painfully constructed civilization from the northern hemisphere. - Dennis Jones, Barbarossa Red, Arrow Books edition, 1986, 1987, p.184.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Generally, I am hopeful when discussing the Arms Race with those who embrace the Augustinian version of the Just War. They can be reasoned with, because there is the essential requirement that in any declaration of war there must be the right intention to secure a good after-effect. They understand that total annihilation is not good after effect. As Eisenhower said: "In a nuclear war there can be no victors, only losers." (*) They recognize that if they were to survive, it would be difficult to live with the guilt of having morally condoned mass murder (**), a greater evil than the Nazi gas chambers.” - John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.85. – (*) Bold lettering inserted by me. - J.Z.JZ - (**) On a territorial scale, not just via one or the other secret extermination camp, with most of them placed in another country, like Poland was for the Nazis. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: George Bernard Shaw warned that a nuclear exchange would not establish who was right but who was left.” - John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.84. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Gigantic cracks can now be seen running throughout the entire American social edifice; and unless the people revolt and take back the power illegally wrested from them, our society and our way of life will not long survive.” - René Baxter, FREEDOM TODAY, 9/75. - SURVIVAL, PEOPLE FREEDOM, POWER, REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Give me Liberty or give me death.” - Patrick Henry, 1776. - This old saying has acquired a new meaning in our times. For lack of sufficient individual rights and liberties to prevent nuclear war, we may all suffer a nuclear war death. So far most seem to be prepared to passively wait for nuclear war, rather than struggle to gain the liberties and rights to prevent it. - Too many of us were descended from obedient slaves! - "Don't rock the boat!" and "Don't make waves!" seem to be among their leading "principles". - Liberty is not something to be given but something to be taken, if necessary with rightful arms and rightful military organizations, from those, who try to withhold it. - After all, the American Revolution started with some rightful militia actions and so did the French Revolution. - But neither were conducted only quite rightfully. In both the remaining loyal monarchists were badly treated and in both forced paper currencies and the following price controls incapacitated the revolutionaries and in France even led to a terror regime. - Neither had quite rightful war aims and warfare methods. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. - We should be able to do much better, if we seriously tried, if we really want ourselves to survive, our family members and our friends and those, whom we can and do respect as our country-men or fellow associates in voluntary communities and societies, all of them exterritorially autonomous and without any territorial monopoly claim, that would re-introduce nuclear targets again. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: God must have been pleased when our moral awareness reached sufficient sensitivity for us to abolish slavery. God will be pleased now with the long-overdue recognition of women's rights, the rights of the handicapped, of the poor, the rights of the unborn, even the rights of the whales. Nature is included in the process: It is not just a tool-box. So it is not a question of creating human unity, but one of affirming it. It used to be that this part of the globe could not protect itself against the other parts. The whole is the target of future war now. The whole world lives on the target. So we are forced to affirm the ancient religious belief that we all belong to one another.” - James Reston, OMNI, 12/81. - The best that can be said about some religious people now is that, at last, they have become somewhat interested in the nuclear problem. Naturally, most of them still only pray, march and protest and few have started to think and act in the right direction. But it is a beginning and the non-religious people have not really been shining examples of morality and rationality in this respect, either. - J.Z.JZ - They and their critics have not concluded from the facts of religious freedom or religious tolerance that a similar peaceful coexistence is possible, rightful, rational for whole political, economic and social systems, all subject to individual choices. Genuine self-ownership, individual sovereignty, exterritorial autonomy, voluntarism and individual choices, rights and liberties, offer a better solution. - Have any problems ever been solved by territorial collectivism or compulsory brotherhood or membership? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – I prefer the realization of individual sovereignty, self-ownership, secessionism, personal law, voluntarism, competing governance, exterritorial autonomy, alternative societies for volunteers. – JZ, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Governments are not directly threatened by mass extermination "weapons" but their subjects are. Governments could come to survive for years, perhaps for decades, in the safest shelters. They would "merely" have lost their numerous subjects and victims. - J.Z.JZ, 29. 3. 84 & 1. 5. 06. - & THE PEOPLE, SURVIVAL, SHELTERS, CIVIL DEFENCE SHELTERS, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Guided nuclear missiles only guide us to mutual nuclear annihilation. - J.Z.JZ, 17.11.78.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Hand guns in the hands of citizens are good enough against those, who hold nuclear holocaust devices ready for use against citizens. - J.Z.JZ, 7. 11. 82. - HAND GUNS & GUN CONTROL, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Has Nazism been defeated or has mass extermination for “defensive” purposes now become the almost universal policy? – J.Z.JZ, 13.4.86. - NAZIS, Q., MASS MURDER PROCLAIMED TO BE DEFENSIVE!

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Have we rejected reason and humanity altogether? Are we so accustomed to living under the mushroom cloud that we no longer believe that a just and peaceful society is possible or even desirable? If we have come to that, we have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, and we are damned irrevocably to a hell on our own planet.” – Morris West, Proteus, p.68. – I do not care about "Sin", the Holy Spirit, God, Holy Writs, Holy buildings and sites, Heaven or Hell, but I do care about man, mankind, reason, morality, rationality, genuine rights and liberties. Nuclear powers threaten all of them, all of us. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - PANARCHISM, JUSTICE, PEACE, SOCIETY,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He believed in slow progress, made only by minorities, if only they do not destroy each other.” - Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers, p.292, on Turgenjev. - Give minorities their exterritorial autonomy chance to their kind of progress and there would no longer be a threat of nuclear war nor would their progress and the resulting all-over progress be slow. - J.Z.JZ, 8. 9. 85 & 1. 5. 06. – PANARCHISM, FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL MINORITIES! FULL FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, ASSOCIATION, SECESSION, EXPERIMENTATION, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTRISM, POLYARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He had heard how hijacked airline passengers identified with their captors, came to hate those outside who tried to help them. It had happened to him. … He was almost one of those soldiers now - who questioned nothing, who simply followed orders, and left the niceties of Armageddon to their superior officers.“ - Craig Thomas, Snow Falcon, p.107. - Not only soldiers but also civilians get brainwashed and imprinted by mass murderers. - J.Z.JZ, 7.11.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He has made his weapons his gods. / When his weapons win he is defeated himself.” – Rabindranah Tagore, Stray Birds, 1916, p.45.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He said that in the event of “general war”, that is, all-out nuclear war, no defensive measures could reduce American fatalities much below eighty million.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.142, on a remark by Mr. McNamara, to the House of Representatives Armed Service Committee on 18.2.1965.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: he still clung to the idea that things would somehow return to normal if only he believed it hard enough. - Douglas Reeman, "To Risks Unknown", p.23. - FAITH, BELIEF, CONVICTION,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He that plants thorns must never expect to gather roses.” – “The Ignorant Physician”, in Fables of Bidpai, ca.750.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He was game - for astrology, for I Ching, for LSD, for demons, for whatever Simon had to offer as an alternative to the world of sane and rational men who were sanely and rationally plotting their course toward what could only be the annihilation of the planet.” - Wilson/Shea: Illuminatus I, p.116. - Such insane men or "leaders" are, territorially, in charge of this world. We are not. Let us become, or, rather, make ourselves, exterritorially autonomous and quite independent of them. Then we could be as free and safe as we want to be. For all their past wrongful actions we should also present them a bill. We should not only get our individual and family shares in all the national, State and local government properties, which they have withheld from us, even while taxing us highly for their system, their powers, their wrong-doings. - We would be insane ourselves not to do this and to obey them any longer, like their slaves or serfs, waiting for their largest human sacrifice. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He was twelve when nuclear thunderbolts slew two cities and man’s last innocence.” – Paul Anderson, There Will Be Time, p.20. – If that is an autobiographical note then P. A. would be about my age. – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. - I just looked up P. A. + bibliography and got 21,800 entries. He lived from 1926 to 2001. (I was born 1933.) I possess and have read many of his books, but, probably, not all of them as yet. It seems that, online, I might be able to get all of them. In many of them he turned out to be a pretty good libertarian. In a class with e.g. Robert Heinlein. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot / That it do singe yourself.” – Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 1612-13, 1.1.140. - For when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, lenity is the soonest winner. - From Henry V., according to my bad memory. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, LIBERATION RATHER THAN CONQUESTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: hideous weapons … are dangerous as long as the insane may obtain power. - Marc Stiegler, A Simple Case of Suicide, ANALOG, May 83, p.159. - Why not attack the problem from the "may obtain power" end, namely, by outlawing and destroying the territorial State system, which permits insane people to acquire excess powers and does not allow sane people to secede from it? – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08. - The insanity of some people should become confined to mismanaging their own affairs and that of insane voluntary followers. - Mass murder devices belong into no one's hands, regardless how sane their owner is supposed to be. - Without territorial targets and supposed enemies, mass murder devices become obviously useless. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Hitherto man had to live with the idea of death as an individual; from now on mankind will have to live with the idea of its death as a species.” – Arthur Koestler. – And still there are people more concerned about the survival of a beetle, frog, plant or snail species than that of man. – How unselfish can you get? However, they do not consider that most of the other species will also be extinguished together with man. – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08. - Do we really have to live with that threat or should we demolish it and also all its foundations, errors, myths and prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions, all the wrongful and imposed institutions and tax burdens, which make this situation possible? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How can one condemn Nazi extermination camps, which took many months to murder a million people, but not e.g. Hydrogen bombs, which, when dropped on a city, could murder a million people in a few seconds? – J.Z.JZ, 29.9.05, 29.10.07. - Nuclear weapons, when used, are even more indiscriminately murderous than was the Nazi regime. And yet all too many "democratic" governments are still "armed with them! "- J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – They amount to the “Nazification” of politics. Even without them territorialism has already all too much in common with Nazism and other forms of State Socialism. – JZ, 14.11.13. - EXTERMINATION CAMPS, MASS MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE? NAZISM, STATE SOCIALISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How can one peacefully coexist with the owners of nuclear weapons, who keep them in readiness? By going on to ignore them, until they are used? - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. – Should we not at least try to realize our right to secede from them and to organize in alternative associations, societies and communities, under personal law, all without a territorial monopoly, thus eliminating the territorial targets, powers, motives and financing options? - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11, 14.11.13. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How can you have a Happy Birthday when the whole world may blow up any minute? - Card greeting, quoted by Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p.23. - Q. - Our whole world, the planet Earth, is unlikely to be blown up even by the largest nuclear weapons in an all out nuclear war. But mankind's civilization will certainly be largely wiped out, with its cities, as well as most of the Earth's population and, possibly, no human will survive a total nuclear war for long. - In great fear, even panic and merely hoping for the best, a chance to survive, all nuclear weapons might be used by their holders, in attempts to destroy those of others first, before one these "defenders" are hit themselves by those of the others. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. -

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How does one "fight" the nuclear war threat non-violently? By inducing those, who built and guard them and keep them in readiness - to destroy them themselves. To achieve that will take some thinking and preparations. Certainly, those now guarding the nuclear weapons stores must realize that they are prime targets and the sooner they cease to be such … - J.Z.JZ, n.d. & 1.5.06. - NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How far behind are the politicians? A decade? A generation? A century? How far behind can we afford to have them, when they have their fingers on the buttons of H-bomb-armed ICBMS?” - Editorial, ANALOG, 8/74. - DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, IGNORANCE, POLITICIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How is it possible to cultivate an ethical sense while you are simultaneously making fission bombs? The two are not only incompatible, they are actively hostile.” - James Blish: Get Out Of My Sky, p.56. - At least as taxpayers, obedient citizens or allies we are all involved in this crime! – J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How many angels can dance on a nuclear warhead? - OMNI, Aug. 82, p.80.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How many children live now in nuclear target zones, under threat of nuclear extermination? - J.Z.JZ, 19.2.83. - It has often happened, in school essay competitions, describing what children imagined would happen when they grow up, that the children wrote IF, in stead of WHEN! - What a world we have left to our children and grandchildren! - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. – CHILDREN, ALSO AS NUCLEAR TARGETS!

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: However the Air Force had control of all the nuclear weapons. But because of traditional rivalries and jealousies the Army and the Navy had to have the weapons (*) also. So it was decided to develop a Triad of nuclear weapons, and the arms race really began in earnest. Also, it was decided to nuclearize all forms of conventional weapons. So now there are atomic bombs in torpedoes and in land mines, and men who go into battle with 18-inch howitzers on their shoulders carry with them atomic bombs. - America now has some 30,000 - 35,000 hydrogen bombs. The Soviet Union has some 20 000 hydrogen bombs which are bigger than the American bombs but they are less accurate. - I've heard people say that America lags behind Russia in the arms race. I don't understand that statement. How can one be behind or ahead when both countries (**) can kill each other many times over?” - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's "Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.26. - (*) Calling them "weapons" makes military men continue in their mistaken belief that they are really weapons. - (**) If only it were up to "countries"! For they cannot act at all! - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. – OVERKILL, MAD: MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” – H. G. Wells, 1866-1946, Outline of History, 1920. - Perhaps because what now counts mostly as “education”, but amounts rather to mis-education, is already a catastrophe on its own. – J.Z.JZ, 9.9.07. – HISTORY, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I also find a process of weapons development by which the leaders of states are being given less and less time to make decisions on whether or not to press a fatal button.” - Herb Feith in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.59. - They already had decades to get rid of these immoral and irrational anti-people weapons and their push-buttons systems to activate and send them to us, their targets, the peoples in xyz countries, mostly living in cities. They did not use these decades, morally and rationally. They seem to be quite incapable or unwilling to do so. They are power addicts and power-mad. They should, finally, become deprived of all their territorial powers, laws and institutions, especially all their mass murder devices, by the targeted peoples themselves, properly enlightened, motivated, armed, organized and trained for this purpose. - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.11. – SECESSIONISM, MILITIAS FOR ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE TARGETED PEOPLE THEMSELVES, DISSOLUTION OF THE TERRITORIAL WARFARE STATES, VOLUNTARISM IN EVERY SPHERE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I am afraid of the people who are not afraid of it. – J.Z.JZ, 14.1.90.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I am sorry to say that there is too much point to the wisecrack that life is extinct on other planets because their scientists were more advanced than ours.” – John F. Kennedy, address, Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 1959. – Never forget that he doubled the nuclear arsenal of the USA and engaged in nuclear brinkmanship, too. – J.Z.JZ, n.d. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I am sure that the lines on which we ought to be thinking are the depoliticization of the issue of the destruction of humanity." - Stephen Spender, in Phillip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, P. 59. - Ending territorial politics and replacing it with individual secession and exterritorial autonomy options for individuals and minorities, would depoliticize nuclear weapons and make them obviously wrong and useless. Or can you imagine e.g. the Pope being armed with nuclear weapons? Wherever he would explode them, he would also kill Catholics or possible converts to Catholicism. Thus he would not even dream of acquiring, stockpiling and using such mass murder devices, except in nightmares. - JZ, 30.4.08. - It is the same for the thousands of other human groups of volunteers, once they are free to organize themselves under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy. Compelled to live under territorial governments, they form an explosive mixture and situation. It becomes diffused and neutralized, even abolished, once individuals and groups are free to sort themselves out to do their own things, anywhere, as far as territories are concerned, on their own private or cooperative properties only and in whole countries, continents and the world, always at the own expense and risk. It worked in the even more irrational, immoral and metaphysical as well as emotional sphere of religion, wherever this tolerance and peaceful coexistence was seriously tried. It would work even better for the supporters of the numerous diverse political, economic and social systems. All the wrongful walls would come down. All the wrongfully conceived enemies would disappear. Also their fears and motivations for defence and aggression would tend to disappear. - JZ, 13.11.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I believe that (even if you hate war and nuclear war especially), you believe in most of the things that make nuclear war inevitable, at least in the long run. (I, definitely, do not believe in these things!) Therefore you do, willy nilly, and contrary to your own good intentions, help to bring about nuclear war. Only once you become aware of that guilt and show a serious interest in the peace-promoting alternatives to the present territorialist and thus inherently oppressive and aggressive systems and institutions is there any hope for us. Don't try to blame others for their disinterest and ignorance and prejudices. Blame your own. I do. - J.Z.JZ, 1.8.82, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I can't see how anybody can't see the risk of not being enlightened on nuclear war. – D.Z., 7.1.77.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I don't care if we all die. - From film: "Strike Force". - That seems to be one of the predominant sentiments of our days. - J.Z.JZ, 19. 11. 82. – So little love is there for the own life, the lives of one’s family, relatives and friends, not to speak of the lives of “foreigners”! – J.Z.JZ, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I don't count a bomb as an arm, you can't point it at a person's head.” … Robert Heinlein, Podkayne of Mars, p.155. - One might add: unless you are a mad or fanatic terrorist and do you want to be in that class? - J.Z.JZ, 10/78.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I don't think it's pessimistic to face the reality of a world situation and prepare to meet it.” - Don Crick, The Different Drummer, p.76.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I feel a bit like Cassandra at times - seeing how people react to the nuclear war threat. - J.Z.JZ 22.8.75. - And to the panarchistic solution of it! - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have read numerous stories and books in which either gangsters or some right-wing officers of Western military forces were going to use nuclear "weapons" and similar devices for mass extermination - but hardly any in which communists would do the same. The bias expressed by most writers is the same as that in most films depicting businessmen as baddies. Yet, the Soviets are best prepared for nuclear war! – J.Z.JZ, 27.1.82. - They might have started it off, might have "won" it and the survivors, who would write or read history, if they still could, would blame "capitalism", the "profit-motive" etc., but not territorialism: the coercive division of the Earth surface and populations into territorial segments, as such ruled in a more or less totalitarian way, and constituting targets, under notions of "collective responsibility" for the decisions of a few monopoly decision-makers. It would remain un-blamed - as it is, today, still very widely unrecognised as the main factor making for wars with ABC mass murder and mass destruction devices. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have said elsewhere (see Jerry Pournelle and Dean Ing, Mutual Assured Survival, Baen Books 1984, ISBN 0-671-559223-0) that mankind’s best hope is for the United States, and Western Civilization, to get off the weary treadmill of the MacNamara strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and adopt a new strategy of Mutual Assured Survival. Such a new strategy may not automatically give us the libertarian utopia hinted at in “The Ungoverned”, but without Assured Survival we will most assuredly lose what liberties we have.” – Jerry Pournelle and Jim Baen in introduction to Vernor Vinge, The Ungoverned, p.10 of FAR FRONTIERS, Vol. III, Fall 1985. - MUTUAL ASSURED SURVIVAL VS. MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY & INTOLERANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have said that we do not have two earths, one to blow up experimentally and the other to live on; nor do we have two souls, one for reacting to daily life and the other for reacting to the peril to all life. But neither do we have two wills, one with which we can intend to destroy our species and the other with which we can intend to save ourselves. Ultimately, we must all live together with one soul and one will on our one earth.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.198. - But that desire or ideal and will must be quite tolerant, much more tolerant that we have ever been before, towards all kinds of diversity, tolerantly practised only among volunteers. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have seen the science I worshipped and the aircraft I loved, destroying the civilization I expected them to serve.” - Charles Lindbergh, 1974, quoted by Stormy Mon, "A Liberty Book", p.72. - & INDISCRIMINATE AIR RAIDS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I hold strongly to my personal liberty and it is precisely because of this that I insist that no one has the right to force his decisions on another. Mr. Buckley chooses to be dead rather than Red. So do I. But I insist that all men be allowed to make that decision for themselves. A nuclear holocaust will make if for them.” (*) – Ronald Hamowy, quoted by Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, revised edition, p.294, Collier Books, 1978, ISBN 0-02-074690-3. – Rothbard, ibid, continues: “To which we might add that anyone who wishes is entitled to make the personal decision of “better dead than Red”, or “give me liberty or give me death” What he is not entitled to us to make these decisions for others (**), as the pro-war policy of conservatism would do. What conservatives are really saying is: “Better them dead than Red”, and “give me liberty or give them death” – which are the battle cries not of noble heroes but of mass murderers. - In one sense alone is Mr. Buckley correct: in the nuclear age it is more important to worry about war and foreign policy than about demunicipalizing garbage disposal, as important as the latter may be. But if we do so, we come ineluctably to the reverse of the Buckleyite conclusion. We come to the view that since modern air and missile weapons cannot be pinpoint-targeted to avoid harming civilians, their very existence must be condemned. And nuclear and air disarmament becomes a great and overriding good to be pursued for its own sake, more avidly even than the demunicipalization of garbage.” – (*) Ronald Hamowy and William F. Buckley, Jr., National Review: Criticism and Reply” - NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW, Nov. 61, p.9, 11. - (**) territorially! – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, FOREIGN POLICY & LIBERTARIANISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I only feel sorry for your kids and a few people like myself and my and their descendants. But you, your parents and grandparents have chosen to take the road to the general nuclear war death, directly or indirectly. – You have not even demanded a say in that matter for yourself but have blindly and thoughtlessly followed your misleaders. - You will not only get this death but will deserve to get it, for that reason, unless you are lucky to die before that event. - J.Z.JZ, 17.8.86, 30.5.08, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I really can't see any way to manage a nuclear war." - Stanford University Physicist and Arms Control Expert Sidney Drell, TIME, 29. 3. 82, p.29.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I remember them as men - ordinary men in an extraordinary world of their own making. Men with fast brains and slow hearts; with the gift of creation in their dreams and the impulse of destruction in their fingers.” - Edmund Cooper: Tomorrow Came, Panther Books, 1963, story: Judgement Day. - This description ignores that most men are not free to follow their creative urges - while some men are allowed to follow their destructive ones. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. - Our territorialist non-thinking and territorialist institutions, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions give them that "authority" or wrongful power. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I see "Panarchy" as defined by P. E. De Puydt as the main way to prevent nuclear war. (Compare his essay "Panarchy" in the appendix to PEACE PLANS 16-17, on - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. - But how many others do, so far, among the total world population? In this respect a wilful and culpable mental blindness prevails still. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. – See also and especially e.g. and

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I sometimes can't blame people if they wish all scientists were lined up and shot. If it were possible to wave a wand and make fission impossible - fission of any kind - I would quickly wave the wand. I have a total conviction - now - that nuclear weapons should not be used under any circumstances. At any time. Anywhere. Period. If I were king. If the Russians bombed New York. I would not bomb Moscow.” - John McPhee: The Curve of Binding Energy, p.87. - “The Russians” had and still have no say on nuclear weapons. Carelessness in thoughts and expression led us to the nuclear war threat. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. – What good is retaliation or revenge in kind, once a massive nuclear attack has happened? – JZ, 1.6.13. – Are we now short of rogue governments like that of the Soviet Union or is there still an over-supply of them? – JZ, 14.11.13. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I trust and believe, we will awaken to the truth of our peril, a truth as great as life itself, and, like a person, who has swallowed a lethal poison but shakes off his stupor at the last moment and vomits the poison up, we will break through the layers of our denials, put aside our fainthearted excuses, and rise up to cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons.” (*) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.231. - Secede, individually and in whole groups, from all the nuclear bomb makers and stock-pilers and thereby, directly and indirectly, and one person after another, gradually to fast, eliminating all nuclear targets by peacefully seceding from them. – Imagine all the top decision-makers finally left sitting alone on their beloved stockpiles of mass murder devices! - Naturally, long before that, the secessionists would have organized the destruction of these devices. Territorial governments are unwilling to part with all of them, still imagining them to be rightful and useful. In their context they are, to some extent. That is why all such governments must be abolished and replaced by voluntary and competing governance systems or societies, none of them with any territorial monopoly. - J.Z.JZ, 12.9.82, 23.9.07, 14.11.12. - (*) And of all ideas, institutions, constitutions, laws and juridical decisions that made the production, stockpiling and use of ABC mass murder devices possible and likely. – Jonathan Schell’s “The Fate of the Earth” is one of the best peace books that I know of. Alas, it still lacks a sufficiently clear peace program. – It constitutes mainly only a general wake-up call, with some general suggestions, some flawed and some, still all too general, going in the right direction. - J.Z.JZ, 23.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I wish that I could say that thirty-three years of 'peace' (i.e., no A- or H- or C- or N- or X-bombs dropped) indicates that we really have nothing to fear from such weapons, because the human race has sense enough not to commit suicide. But I am sorry to say that the situation is even more dangerous, even less stable, than it was in 1946.” - Robert Heinlein: Expanded Universe, p.146. - NUCLEAR DETERRENT, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I'm scared! I don't know whether the world is full of smart men bluffing or imbeciles who mean it. - Morrie Brickman, in READER'S DIGEST, 11/84.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: ICBM warfare is automatically total warfare. - So is strategic bomber warfare, … with nuclear weapons.” – Hank Searls, The Penetrators. - TOTAL WARFARE, LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR IS A DELUSION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If a decision were to be reached while the “defeated” party held potentially decisive means of violence in its possession, then that decision would be not “by arms” but by something else. We have to imagine that this power would accept its defeat while knowing that the use of its bombs could reverse it. (*) A current example illustrates how little willingness there is among nuclear powers to accept such an outcome. For some time, it has been widely believed that the Soviet Union enjoys a preponderance in conventional forces over the NATO powers in Europe, and the United States has reserved for itself the right to resort to nuclear weapons in Europe rather than accept a conventional defeat there. Thus, the United States has already publicly discarded the notion of abiding by any rules of “limited war” if those rules should prove to mean a defeat for the United Sates. That being the likely state of things, there seems little chance that a conventional war between nuclear powers should stay limited. And this means that a conventional war between nuclear powers must not even be begun, since it threatens the same holocaust that the limited use of nuclear weapons threatens. As a practical matter, this rule has up to now been followed by the statesmen of the nuclear world. Disregarding theoretical treatises on the possibility of “limited war” between nuclear powers, including “limited nuclear war”, they have held back from any war; thus, in our thirty-six years of experience with nuclear weapons, no two nuclear powers have ever entered into even conventional hostilities. The same cannot be said, of course, of hostilities between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers, such as the Vietnam War or the Soviet-Afghanistan war. These remain possible – although, for reasons that I shall not go into here, they are not, it would seem, profitable.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.192. - (*) At least some of its leading and nationalistic officers would think so and disobey their governments. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - LIMITED WAR & CONVENTIONAL WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: if both sides have enough warheads to inflict "unacceptable damage", then terms like superiority have no practical meaning. More warheads would only sift the dust finer. - Senator George McGovern, in PLAYBOY article: "The End of the World". - & OVER-KILL NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If even some libertarians advocate a nuclear "deterrence" or "defence" and want to have it themselves, then how much sense can one expect from others, e.g. those, who now have their fingers on the nuclear buttons and there are, by now, thousands if not tens of thousands of them. - J.Z.JZ, 23.8.82. - & LIBERTARIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If I were a cockroach I would not worry about nuclear war either. But are you one? J.Z.JZ, 1986. – Cockroaches are supposed to be able to survive exposure to 100 000 Roentgen units. – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If man will not serve, Nature will try another experiment.” - G. B. Shaw. – Is that a sufficient consolation for us? – J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If most of us were not descendants of slaves and serfs, we would not tolerate ABC mass murder devices in anyone's hands. - J.Z.JZ, 7.7.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If my “An ABC Against Nuclear War” would be a bestseller then there would still be considerable hope for us. But so far, and for decades, it has been one of the least-sellers. – While all those book authors, who do pretend to bring good or sufficient answers to this threat – really do not. – Should they be forgiven because they do not know and do not want to know? - J.Z.JZ, 29.9.05, - 29.10.07. – I have also not got any responses, that I do remember, to my 2 libertarian peace books that are online, by now already for a few years, on  or any hint towards better ones. – JZ, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If nuclear war is entirely immoral and illegitimate, the military officers, scientists, administrators and armaments manufacturers engaged in preparing for that war are all in anti-social employment.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.224.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If our economy were to produce a wonderful abundance of silverware, glasses, and table napkins but no food, people would quickly rebel and insist on a different system. The world’s political arrangements, which now aim at providing some accoutrements of life but fail to lift a finger to safe life itself, are in no less drastic NEED OF REPLACEMENT.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. - ECONOMICS & POLITICS OF TERRITORIAL STATES, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If our species does destroy itself, it will be a death in the cradle – a cause of infant mortality.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.182.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If the human race wants to go to hell in a basket, technology can help it get there by jet. It won’t change the desire or the direction, but it can greatly speed the passage.” – Charles M. Allen, “Unity in a University”, speech at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., April 25, 1967. - Alas, everyone of the human race is not given a choice or even a say on this matter. – Probably less than two dozen main decision-makers are still involved. Can they and do they represent all mankind in this respect? - J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. - REPRESENTATION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If the Nazis had won the war, they would probably have declared that they did so only thanks to their “Final Solution”. – J.Z.JZ, 4.7.86. – Alas, the survivors of the Nazi’s onslaughts had nothing better than mass murder devices in mind for their future “defence” efforts. To that extent the Nazi, with their mentality, have won WW II! – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08. – HIROSHIMA, NUCLEAR WEAPONS,  ISRAEL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If the world could barely tolerate a dozen killer nations, how could it survive thousands of psychotics with rad bombs and war plagues?” – p.52 of Vernor Vinge, The Peace War, in ANALOG, 8/84. - It is not "nations" or "peoples" that are organized as mass murderers but their territorial governments. - J.Z.JZ, 17.8.02. – Most of the private mass murderers and terrorists are by-products of territorial governments. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark come that shall set it on fire.” – Francis Bacon, “Of Seditions and Troubles”, Essays, 1625.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: if there is to be any defence in the nuclear age, it is essential to find a means of ensuring that these weapons will not be used. The penalty for failing to find such a means will be the destruction of civilized life on a major portion of the earth.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.140. – As long as they are still considered as “weapons” they will, sooner or later, be used or, rather, abused. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.08. - DEFENCE, DETERRENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If they continue to think and act in the patterns on which air war has developed into nuclear war, they will have fallen away from their true function as protectors of the civil population, and will have delivered them over to mass slaughter.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.223. – How often have territorial military forces really only acted as protectors of the rights of civilians? – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.08. – DEFENCE, AIR RAIDS, BOMBING, MASS MURDER PREPARATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If this proliferation of nuclear power should occur, it would follow that the nuclear arm would indeed become “conventional”, in the sense that it would be regarded as one of the kinds of armament that would be normal to employ in warfare. And, as has been argued in previous pages, and is contended by most writers on the subject, once nuclear weapons are used, in a “tactical” situation, there is no cut-off point in size. There is nothing to stop the successive use of more and more powerful weapons, until the largest and most powerful are brought into play, and there is all-out nuclear war.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.240. – In other words, causes for wars, targets, enemies and weapons are still not sufficiently defined when it comes to “nuclear weapons” and thus the threat continues. Any minor government that also has some nuclear mass murder devices is thereby also already a “super-power” and thus super-dangerous. – And that is what all too many of them still desire to be – because they are territorial powers. Can you imagine the Pope or the Anglican Church or any football club or association of such clubs being armed with nuclear mass murder devices? - J.Z.JZ, 10.10.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If we can risk nuclear war, then we can risk nuclear disarmament.” – Dangerous Buttons, No.516.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If we cannot trust computers even in small things, like the rounding up or down of bills to be paid, to the nearest 5 cent sums, how can we rely on them in the big things, like the survival of mankind regarding the threat of nuclear war? – J.Z.JZ, 13.8.08.COMPUTERS, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If we have to learn to live with the bomb, then only under conditions where it won’t be governmentally mass produced, tested, stored and kept in readiness of its “military” use, upon the decision of some ruler or government or the other. When there are no longer military aims, motives and means for them, when consent is 99.9 % against them, when they have been reduced in public opinion to a criminal menace and its delivery mechanisms for earth targets have been dismantled, their radioactive cores are guarded by ideal militia forces, perhaps for future use in spaceship drives or as a defence against comets, then we could begin to relax regarding them. – J.Z.JZ, 15.7.87, 25.1.08. - But not while territorial governments are being continued. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If we should all perish in the nuclear holocaust … it would be because the consensus of stupidity has prevented man from seeing reality.” – Erich Fromm – IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, PREJUDICES, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs, you're probably not paying attention.” - Franklin Jones, quoted in READER'S DIGEST, 7/85.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you come to think of it and do really evaluate the anti-people mass murder devices of governments, called ABC “weapons”, then you would have, thereby, fully discredited all territorial governments building them, holding them in readiness or allying them with nuclear armed governments, at least in your own eyes. The same objections apply to governments ready or engaging in “conventional” area bombing and scorched or poisoned earth policies and those regimes or movements, which are mass-murdering their opponents by poison gas, shootings or systematical starvation. – J.Z.JZ, 4.8.92, 26.1.08, 26.1.11. – WEAPONS, DETERRENT HYPOTHESIS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you do not think about the future you cannot have one.” – John Galsworthy, Swan Song, 1928. - & THINKING

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you favour the nuclear war threat then I know that you are going to hell anyway, so I don't have to wish you on your way. What worries me is only that you are likely to drag me into it, too. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. - Twenty years later nuclear "weapons" are still accepted in the hands of the "goodies" and only objected to in the hands of some of the "baddies"! And still there is no interest in the changes of principles and structures that are required to end this threat! - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you've seen one nuclear war, you've seen them all.” - Bob Muron, Appalachia, Va., in OMNI, 1/80. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: if you’re the President, what if you have to push the button! Could he have done it? Could he have decided that the security of his country required the death of thousands – millions – of other human beings? Probably not, he judged. He was too good a man for that.” - Tom Clancy, The Sum of all Fears, p.211. Should anyone be placed in that position and given that power over dozens to hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps even the survival of mankind on Earth? Long before it could come to such a decision we should question and abolish all the powers and facilities for it. – J.Z.JZ, 14.9.07. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If your neighbor produced and stored nuclear mass murder devices then you would be inclined to try to do something about this threat. – Why do you think it is quite different and right if your territorial government does the same? – J.Z.JZ, 19.8.05. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If your weapons are too good, you'll kill off all the game.” - Evelyne E. Smith, GALAXY No.53. – “Weapons” that cannot be confined to killing only selected targets are hardly weapons at all. The pawns in conventional wars between territorial governments had so far also no more choice or better ideas than pawns in chess games. The territorial government gamesters deal with them as their mere property – and although they are human beings, they have so far put up with this. – JZ, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Illich then asks how we can participate in debates in which the degree of acceptance of genocide is discussed. He likens programs for gradual nuclear disarmament to a hypothetical Nazi official who goes to Hitler and expresses opposition to the death camps, then proposes that one death camp be closed per year until all are closed. We immediately see how self-contradictory, how irrational such “reasonableness” would be. The abolitionists who strain toward reasonableness as s/he works with a mass movement, can find herself supporting the genocidal framework itself, today’s framework of the war system.” – George Lakey, From Crisis Response to Abolition of War, in SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, Vol. 3, No.1, 1982. – At least the immediate closing of all death camps and dismantling of all nuclear “weapons” would be a very significant step. To abolish all wars one would have to know all its causes and motives and abolish them or make them quite impractical. Then one should start with the potential aggressors, if that should be still necessary then. And here we find that even the definition of aggression is not yet widely agreed upon. The UN tried, in vain, for years. – J.Z.JZ, 26.1.08, 1.6.13. - DISARMAMENT, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In 1946, the McGraw-Hill book Co. published a compilation of essays under the title, One World or None …” A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb.” In the book, more than 16 academics and nuclear experts, including Albert Einstein, J. R. Oppenheimer and Walter Lippman, expressed their fears for the survival of civilization unless the concept of national self-defence were abandoned in favor of an internationalist approach to security.” - Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia., 1992., p.6. – Alas, these experts, too, did not realize that it is territorial nationalism and organization that constitutes the threat and that exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of communities of volunteers, everywhere, locally, nationally or internationally federated, according to their own preferences, constitutes the largest part of the solution, for then everybody, except criminals and aggressors with victims, could get the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice, thus producing genuine self-governance or societies and communities of volunteers everywhere and a healthy and peaceful competition between them, based on full consumer sovereignty, in the sphere of public services (or presumed public services) as well. – Nuclear weapons require territorial motives, targets means and ideas, combined with the notion of collective responsibility. – J.Z.JZ, 1.10.07, 14.11.13. – One should imagine that when one system has caused one problem after the other, one crisis after the other, one war after the other, one tax after the other, and this for thousands of years, that then, finally, enough of its victims would begin to seriously think about the opposite to territorial states, namely freely competing societies of volunteers only, all under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Alas, this has still not occurred. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In 1980 an integrated circuit chip the size of a dime was twice responsible for putting America on nuclear alert. The three-minute alert was enough for an unarmed command and control plane to be in the air before the military realized no bombs were headed our way. Pentagon technicians replaced a faulty circuit chip worth 46 cents, which had relayed the misinformation from a computer below Colorado’s Cheyenne Mountains to command centers around the world. - Another false alarm lasted about six minutes when the same computer was inaccurately fed information simulating conditions of a nuclear attack.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Why Things Go Wrong or The Peter Principle Revisited, George Allen & Unwin, 1911, p.147. - ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR. THE DETERRENCE THEORY WILL NOT ALWAYS WORK.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in a common political endeavor, reaching across national boundaries … the aim of the endeavor would be to hold the gates of life open … to every living person … it would not seek to derive any rights to dictate to the generations on hand. … Intellectually and philosophically, it would carry the principle of tolerance to the utmost extreme. It would attempt to be as open to new thoughts and feelings as it would be to the new generations that would think those thoughts and feel those feelings. Its underlying supposition about the creeds and ideologies would be that whereas without mankind none can exist, with mankind all can exist.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. – But who does conclude from such general statements upon the exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities which is advanced by panarchists and polyarchists? Not even Ayn Rand did, although she made similar general statements. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. - & TOLERANCE, FOR ALL IDEOLOGIES, AMONG THEIR BELIEVERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In a nuclear conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union – the holocaust – not only the adversaries but also the world’s bystanders will vanish. In this “war”, instead of one side winning and the other losing, it is as though all human beings lost and all the weapons won.” Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.191.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In a world that sits not on a powder keg but on a hydrogen bomb, one begins to suspect that the technician who rules our world is not the master magician he thinks he is but only a sorcerer's apprentice who does not know how to turn off what he turned on - or even how to avoid blowing himself up." - Joseph Wood Krutch, Wilderness as a Tonic, THE SATURDAY REVIEW, 8.6.1963, p. 15. - Don't blame the results of our own stupidities, prejudices, wrong premises and lack of interest on any God or ruler! - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02. - Our territorial rulers represent largely only the foolishness, errors and popular prejudices of their subjects. Most hold dozens to hundreds of wrongful notions in their heads that do, ultimately, lead to nuclear war. And they are still not interested in an Encyclopedia of the Best Refutations, which could also shake their faith in territorial statism. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In August, 1945, when … the bomb was made known through its first use … Hiroshima, there lay ahead an interval of decades which might have been used to fashion a world that would be safe from extinction by nuclear arms, …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.183.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In late 1981, for example, the Soviet government printed a booklet in which it stated, “The Soviet Union holds that nuclear war would be a universal disaster, and that it would most probably mean the end of civilization. It may lead to the destruction of all mankind.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.6.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In my opinion, Carthage must be spared!" - the constant reply of Publius Scipio Nasica to Cato. - Compare the constant struggle of Israel to preserve its territorial existence and that of the Palestinians to obtain a territorial existence. Now, if both were organized exterritorially, they could coexist and territorial targets and countries to conquer or defend would disappear - as they once disappeared for the churches in Europe. - J.Z.JZ, 4.8.82. – Jews having been often the victims of “collective responsibility” actions should actually be the foremost opponents to applying it in theory and in action. Nevertheless, they too, in Israel, as territorial statists “armed” themselves with mass murder devices. Each such "weapon" can be compared to a Nazi extermination camp in a small package. And by now they have an estimated 200 to 300 of them. Even the Nazis did not have as many extermination camps! The total losses that could be inflicted with such “weapons”, largely upon non-combatants, civilians in cities, could easily be larger than the total of the Holocaust mass murders the Nazis committed. – One does not defeat the Nazis of this world by acting like them. – J.Z.JZ, 27.2.09, 26.1.11. - ISRAEL & ARAB STATES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In our present-day world, in the councils where the decisions are made, there is no one to speak for man and for the earth, although both are threatened with annihilation.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. – He seemed to think that the planet would be as much threatened by nuclear war as mankind would be. How did he arrive at that conclusion, so that he even embodied it in his book title? – JZ, 14.11.13. - & DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY OVER WAR & PEACE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In passing, we should note that the purpose of war is not to harm the enemy as much as possible. It is to make him submit to our policy; and the principle of economy of force dictates that ideally we should only harm him to the extent necessary to cause him to submit. I say “ideally”, because, of course, war is not a science in which means are precisely adjusted to ends, but a “terrible and impassioned drama” in which men, even in the highest political councils, act more through passion than by reasons. – Perhaps I should amend the tense in the above paragraph that is, “The purpose in war was …” This amendment is because if nuclear weapons are used in war (as they almost certainly will in any conflict between the two great world powers), the cost in death and destruction will outweigh any gain that could be expected from obliging the enemy to conform to our policy. And, looking at the proposition from the opposite, or Soviet Union side, the same thing is true.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.26. – WAR, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, PASSION, REASON, MOTIVES, LEADERSHIP, WAR AIMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In supposing that the world (*) had found a political means of making international decisions, I made a very large supposition indeed – one that encompasses something close to the whole work of resolving the nuclear predicament, for, once a political solution has been found (**), disarmament becomes a merely technical matter, which should present no special difficulties. (***) And yet simply to recognize that the task is at bottom political, and that only a political solution can prepare the way for full disarmament (****) and real safety for the species, is in itself important. The recognition calls attention to the fact that disarmament in isolation from political change cannot proceed very far.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.225. - (*) Some individuals and that these had succeeded to actually reach the world with their ideas. - (**) It must not only be found but also sufficiently widely recognized and realized, so that it can, from then on, spread, rather fast, by voluntary acceptance, to all others. - (***) The solution must include full employment for all the soldiers and other public servants who would become superfluous as such in the process. - (****) not e.g. for rightful policing weapons and self-defence weapons. - The political solution would, essentially, consist in allowing almost all political solutions to be applied among volunteers, with voluntarism assured by individual secessionism and the exterritorial autonomy of such communities to be limited by the fact that they have to bear the costs and risks their political, economic and social experiments themselves. Only such governments would be truly “limited” governments, without any of the wrongful and harmful features of territorial governments, however otherwise limited these would be. Only individually backed international relations and policies can be rightful and effective as well as peace-promoting, as peace promoting e.g. as individual and group tourism and free trade and free enterprise and free productive cooperatives are - for all, who do want them for themselves. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - POLITICS & NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, A POLITICAL SOLUTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In the battle of strength between a genuine social science and mass murderous nuclear strength preparations this kind of social science can and ought to win. – J.Z.JZ, 1.6.86, 1.6.13. – Alas, so far the social sciences are still very weak and ill prepared. Certainly not push-button-ready for operation. – J.Z.JZ 30.5.08. - SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE NOT SCIENCES UNTIL THEY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVES AS WELL.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in the context of nuclear weapons, the enemy is not the Soviet Union, and it is not the U.S. It is the nuclear weapons themselves. Our common interest is to get rid of them, not to seek some unilateral advantage.” – Noel Gayler, in: Gwyn Prins, editor, The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.236. - & ENEMIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In the future, if nuclear weapons are unleashed, there will be no front and no rear.” - Nikita S. Khrushchev, Speech in Moscow, Aug. 1961.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In these circumstances, public opinion in the free countries would have to represent public opinion in all countries, and would have to bring its pressure to bear, as best as it could, on all governments.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.230. - When even in democratic countries individuals and groups of volunteers are not yet free to secede from their territorial governments and to establish exterritorially autonomous communities, then the best way to exert pressure upon foreign despotic governments would be to pressurize the own democratic governments to concede these rights to the own citizens and to the former subjects of the foreign dictatorships, who have already managed to escape them. This would mean, full freedom for them, to establish their own kinds of governments in exile as alternatives to the despotic regimes and as ideals for all the opposition groups remaining under these criminal foreign regimes. These free an tolerant examples, set in relatively free countries, would inspire rightful revolutionary, military insurrection and putsch attempts and prevent infighting between all such groups, simply by giving them a common ideal of mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence in diversity, upon the basis of exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. Only once this freedom is practically demonstrated, first in the presently democratic countries, will public opinion pressure also become effective upon despotic regimes and their victims. Freedom must not only be talked about but practically demonstrated, even in its most radical and tolerant versions. Otherwise it will remain doubtful for or even feared by all too many. – J.Z.JZ, 23.9.07. – Governments have mostly made sure that their voters are unarmed and unorganized and untrained to protect their individual rights and liberties against their territorial rulers. They made even sure that they know very little about these rights, as far as they could, with their flawed and incomplete bills of rights and with their “education” systems and monopoly for armed organizations. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. - ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC OPINION? Whatever there is of it as yet, governments do not have to take it serious as yet. They get away with simply ignoring it or even with simply remaining unaware of it. Territorial governments cannot provide rule by enlightened people. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. – TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, RULERS, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE AS ALTERNATIVES TO AT LEAST ALL THE OBVIOUS ROGUE GOVERNMENTS, PUBLIC OPINION, ENLIGHTENMENT, NEW DRAFT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In this almost fateful balance between extinction and non-entity which is our world, money is the chief thing whose essence remains profoundly human - an aspiration toward freedom, a flight toward us and away, a merry insistence on pattern and value in all doings ...” - Herbert Gold: The Prospect Before Us. (But can one raise enough of it to spread enlightenment sufficiently to make nuclear war impossible? - J.Z.JZ) – Only free market monies and free clearing options are essentially human products. The governmental monies of central banking require a legal monopoly for their issue and also legal tender power for their compulsory acceptance and their forced and fictitious value. – As for financial freedom, it can also be a means for liberation. In anticipation of it, freedom bonds could anticipate e.g. the privatization of all the capital assets of a dictatorship and thus raise the funds required to overthrow it. See e.g. PEACE PLANS 19C. – Monetary freedom would also allow freedom fighters to issue a tax foundation money to pay for their expenses, which could be used to pay a revolution and liberation tax and such tax payments could, after the victory be recognized as high priority claims against all the capital assets of the defeated despotic State, just like the liberty bonds issued in anticipation of that defeat. – The monies of monetary despotism are not suitable for liberation purposes. - JZ, 14.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In this book, I have not sought to define a political solution to the nuclear predicament – either to embark on the full-scale reexamination of the foundations of political thought which must be undertaken if the world’s political institutions are to be made consonant with the global reality in which they operate or to work out the practical steps by which mankind, acting for the first time in history as a single entity (? - J.Z.JZ), can reorganize its political life. I have left to others those awesome, urgent tasks, which, imposed on us by history (? - J.Z.JZ), constitute the political work of our age. Rather, I have attempted to examine the physical extent, the human significance, and the practical dimensions of the nuclear predicament in which the whole world now finds itself. This predicament is a sort of (territorialist - J.Z.JZ) cage (*) that has quietly grown up around the earth, imprisoning every person in it, and the demanding terms of the predicament – its durability, its global political sweep, its human totality (**), constitute the bars of that cage. However, if a description of the predicament which is the greatest that mankind has ever faced, cannot in itself reveal to us how we can escape, it can, I believe, acquaint us with the magnitude and shape of the task that we have to address ourselves to. And it can summon us to action.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.219/20. - (*) One with many national or statist sub-cages! And with no release, parole or escape for anyone of its victims. Their staff are also victims of this system, not only victimizers and beneficiaries. - (**) Rather, its inhuman territorial totalitarianism! – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - POLITICS, UTOPIAS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM OR WORLD STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in this nuclear age – where overkill of the world’s population is a possibility – security cannot be achieved through ever-higher levels of potential mutual destruction.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Why Things Go Wrong or The Peter Principle Revisited, George Allen & Unwin, 1911, p.129. - DEFENCE, SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In this timid, crippled thinking, “realism” is the title given to beliefs whose most notable characteristic is their failure to recognize the chief reality of the age, the pit into which our species threatens to jump; …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. – It isn’t jumping but is being pushed – by its territorial masters. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07. - & “REALISM”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in today’s system the actual weapons have already retired halfway from their traditional military role. They are “psychological” weapons, whose purpose is not to be employed but to maintain a permanent state of mind-terror in the adversary. Their target is someone’s mind, and their end, if the system works, is to rust into powder in their silos. And our generals are already psychological soldiers – masters of the war game and of the computer terminal but not, fortunately, of the battlefield.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.222. – If that is already the case, then why not choose the alternative of debating and finally publishing quite rightful war- and peace aims, and already realizing them, in the own countries, among the own voluntary communities and thus demonstrating them, believably, to the rest of the world? They must be so attractive that only madmen would still oppose them and these madmen would then no longer find hordes of followers. If our aims are quite rightful and attractive then “enemy” soldiers and officers would rather desert or rise against their government than fight us. Then these armed forces would become our most important allies. At least they would then declare themselves neutral. Famous precedent: The convention at Tauroggen, where the Prussian forces at first declared that they would not longer fight for Napoleon but declared themselves neutral. Later they even resolved to fight against him. Quite rightful and attractive war and peace aims would establish something like a military jiu-jitsu defence, i.e. one that would turn the real enemy’s forces against him. – Just and attractive ideas could be our most effective “weapons”. Compare the slogan: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her own free choice! – Who would fanatically oppose such free choices? – With such ideas sufficiently launched, we could even afford unilateral nuclear disarmament and risk a temporary occupation by the conscripted soldiers of dictators. They would then not be the obedient soldiers of their dictators much longer. - J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07, 26.1.11. - WEAPONS & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, PANARCHISM AS A RIGHTFUL & ATTRACTIVE WAR AIM, DESERTION, DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS AGAINST WRONGFUL & AGGRESSIVE REGIMES, REVOLUTIONARY & LIBERATING WARFARE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, DES.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Indeed, if we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that unless we rid ourselves of our nuclear arsenals a holocaust not only might occur but will occur – if not today, then tomorrow; if not this year, then the next. We have come to live on borrowed time: every year of continued human life on earth is a borrowed year, every day a borrowed day.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.183/84. - THE CERTAINTY OF SUCH A HOLOCAUST IN THE LONG RUN, UNTIL FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES ARE TAKEN, GOING FROM COMPULSORY TERRITORIALISM, TO VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIALITY OR PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Indeed, the connection between sovereignty and war is almost a definitional one – a sovereign state being a state that enjoys the right and the power to go to war in defense or pursuit of its interests.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.187. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Intellectually, we recognize that we have prepared ourselves for self-extermination and are improving the preparedness every day, but emotionally and politically we have failed to respond.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151/52. - One of the reasons for this is that the power to respond to that threat has been taken from us. We have neither achieved, as yet, decision-making power in this sphere nor freedom of action, including e.g. individual secessionism, exterritorially autonomous communities nor ideal militia forces to defend our individual rights and liberties. As a result we feel helpless and, mostly, rather think about something else, the minor things of life that we can still do something about. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.07, 1.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is a nuclear weapon really more powerful for the achievement of any rightful defensive purpose than e.g. a pistol, a dagger, a telescopic rifle, a guided model plane full of explosives? The former cannot be rightly used against real enemies. The latter can be – against the few decision-makers for aggressive wars. – J.Z.JZ, 17.7.95, 24.1.08. – NUCLEAR WEAPONS VS. ORDINARY WEAPONS, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is all this to end in trivial horror because so few are able to think of Man rather than of this or that group of men?” – Bertrand Russell, Man’s Peril, in Peter Mayer, editor, The Pacifist Conscience, a Pelican Book, paper back, 1966, p.321. – As I see it, the peril lies in most people being only able to think in terms of territorially “united” groups of men, instead of in terms of only exterritorially united groups of men, all volunteers, who might be spread all over one or several countries or all over the world, all ruling themselves under their own preferred person law and to that extent having no argument with any other such group of volunteers. – The former organizes them in territorial warfare States, the latter in various free societies, all free to do all their own things for and to themselves only and having thus little reason to hate the members of any other groups or any strong motive to go to war against any of the other groups, also very little power and opportunity to do so. Just like most religions, churches and sects have by now given up any serious attempt at world domination. – J.Z.JZ, 11.9.08, 15.11.13. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM TO DO THE OWN THINGS VS. TERRITORIALISM & STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is any man good and wise enough to be authorized to decide whether millions of others are to die? – J.Z.JZ, n.d.. – DECISION MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I is time we took mankind of the endangered species list by becoming free of nuclear weapons by the year 2000. – Ronald D. Rotstein, The Future, p.174, A Lyle Stuart Book Published by Carol Publishing Group, 1990, 183pp. JZL. Its economic section, in the last chapter, is the worst one. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is it too much to (hope) that mankind could preserve freedom without killing the other half of its own race?” - Dany Celer Majer, HONI SOIT, 26. 7. 82. - As if mankind were altogether free. As if it, rather than the territorial governments, were equipped with nuclear weapons and the power to decide to use them. University students should be more careful in their language use. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is there really enough of a difference between a "democratically" elected president or prime minister with his finger on the nuclear button and, e.g., a power-mad North Korean dictator or an Iranian dictatorial and fanatical guru? - Should we risk mankind's survival on this difference? - Not to speak of the private terrorist madmen, who do also strive to gain nuclear power over dissenters. - J.Z.JZ, NWT 27 5 06. - TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It amounts to “scorched earth policy” and universal hostage-taking on a genocidal or universal holocaust scale. Each government “armed” with ABC mass murder devices has in effect hijacked the whole population which is territorially subjugated by the regime it opposes and threatens to murder these hostages by the hundred-thousands to millions. They hold these victims (but not their territorial governments) responsible for the actions of this governments, while the guilty governments would be able to survive, at least for years, in the safest shelters. Compared with these hijackings the conventional hijackers and terrorists are innocent babies. – J.Z.JZ, 12.2.88, 30.5.08, 1.6.13. - TERRIRORIALISM & ITS MASS MURDER OR GENERAL HOLOCAUST PREPARATIONS, HOSTAGE TAKING, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is a characteristic of wisdom not do to desperate things.” – Thoreau, “Economy”, “Walden”, 1854. – But each war creates many desperate situations of: “kill or be killed!” – J.Z.JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is a commonplace that our civil defense is, and must always be, hopelessly inadequate to cope with the slaughter and destruction which would be brought about by thermonuclear bombardment … It seems a reasonable guess that for every “megacorpse” caused by blast, fire and radiation, there would in a few weeks be another megacorpse caused by the epidemics and starvation resulting from the breakdown of transport and industrial production. No drugs, no drains, no food. “Fortitude” or “the will to resist” under thermonuclear bombardment would be as much use as swordsmanship against a heat wave.” – Wayland Young (Lord Kennet): Strategy for Survival, 1959, quoted in: John Brunner, Talion, FAR FRONTIERS, Spring 85. – COURAGE, DEFENCE, SHELTER, PROTECTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is another nonsensical feature of the nuclear predicament that while each side regards the population of the other side as the innocent victims of unjust government, each proposes to punish the other government by annihilating that already suffering and oppressed population.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY & HOSTAGE TAKING, PEOPLES CONSIDERED AS PROPERTY OF THEIR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is desperately important today, that we look the reality of nuclear war courageously in the face, that we announce one to another what we have seen there. Even if the sight turns us to stone - the sight not only of apocalyptic horrors, but also the sight of ourselves, a people, who seriously, with forethought, are preparing their own demise. The first fruits of our skill and over-skill, the people of Hiroshima, are long dead. A few, on this anniversary, still cling to the tree of life, scarred and ailing. But there will be also a second harvest as a greater storm shakes that tree. We shall live to feel it." - Daniel Berrigan, THE AUSTRALIAN, 7/8/79. - Rhetoric will not help the victims enough, no more so than prayers, as long as they are without the saving ideas and without arms, organization and training against a nuclear armed and thus monstrous territorial State organizations. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02, 26.1.11. – It is not the subjected, victimized and exploited peoples who are so “armed” and murderous, but, rather, their territorial regimes, however democratic or despotic they are. These mere territorial subjects are given no say or choice in this matter. – JZ, 15.11.13. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES & WAR & PEACE MATTERS, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM VS. DIVERSE PEOPLES IN EVERY TERRITORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is folly to punish your neighbor by fire when you live next door. – Publilius Syrus, Moral Sayings, 1st c. B.C., 910, tr. Darius Lyman. – Anyhow, neither the own nor the other territorial governments do act very neighborly. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is high time that the race of man recognize that many, perhaps most, of its rulers have been mad. The course of events charted by these psychotics in power has been a dirty, cruel, bloody road along with men, essentially decent men, have been led to horrible suffering, starvation and pointless, premature deaths. - This book is intended to be a polemic, an evangelistic tract to preach the doctrine that all rulers should be looked upon as potentially crazy, and that mankind must guard against them if it is to survive.” – Russell V. Lee, M.D., The Menace of Madness in High Places, R.V.L., Palo Alto, 1977, in the Foreword. – Only territorial leadership is always more or less irrational with its pretence to be able to rightfully make sound decisions for the lives of millions of its subjects. – JZ, 15.11.13. - THREAT & LEADERSHIP, MADNESS OF RULERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PREMIERS, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is impossible, except for theologians, to conceive of a world-wide scandal or a universe-wide scandal; the proof of this is the way people have settled down to living with nuclear fission, radiation poisoning, hydrogen bombs, satellites and space rockets.” – Mary Mc Carthy, “The Fact in Fiction”, On the Contrary, 1961. – As territorial statists most people are able to make scandalous and wrongful assumptions about their territorial leaders as supposed supermen and about their own supposed inabilities, ignoring the fact that the territorial leaders are, usually, the worst types of humans, the ones least able to recognize their own limitations and the wrongfulness of their power urges. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is ironical that in an age when we have prided ourselves on our progress in the intelligent care and teaching of children, we have at the same time put them at the mercy of new and most terrible weapons of destruction.” – Pearl S. Buck, What America Means to Me, 1943, p.12. - WE? How many people among over 6 billion, have any nuclear weapons at their disposal and any say on their use or destruction? The collective guilt involved consists only in tolerating such a situation instead of becoming interested in the radical, here exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to it. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11. - EDUCATION, CHILDREN, PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT KIND OF COLLECTIVE GUILT EXISTS? PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM BS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: it is my thesis that we shall never eliminate or contain the omnipresent threat of nuclear warfare until ordinary people fully comprehend – both cognitively and viscerally – two aspects of the arms problem: firstly, the full extent to which the human species is endangered by continuing to stockpile weapons of mass extermination and develop the concomitant technology; and secondly, why supposedly sane leaders, supported by the majority of their constituents, persist in the pursuit of arms policies that any detached observer with a long view would clearly perceive as ‘mad’. – Unless the peace movement is able to bring the public to grips with these two interrelated issues, the downward slide towards sui-genocide seems inevitable.” – Ralph Summy, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, June 82. - Under territorialism it is still not suicide but, rather mass murder, closely connected with this "system" and its decision-making monopolies. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is my view that there is no sensible military use for nuclear weapons, whether ‘strategic’ weapons, ‘tactical’ weapons, ‘theatre’ weapons, weapons at sea or weapons in space. – Noel Gayler, in The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.16, ed. by Gwun Prins. – So why continue to call them ”weapons”? I prefer: “mass murder devices”. – J.Z.JZ, 13.7.94.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no longer a question of 'choosing' a good or better system, but a question of whether life on earth will continue.” - Laurance Labadie: Selected Essays, p.66. - It is precisely a question of choosing between territorial systems and exterritorial ones, i.e., between compulsory or voluntarily accepted (by individuals) systems, between hierarchical systems and self-managing ones, between monopolistic and competitive ones. - Alas, even an individualist anarchist like L. L. could remain blind to such distinctions and thus arrived at despair rather than the solution. - J.Z.JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no longer true that wars begin in the minds of men (*); they can now start in the circuits of computers. (**) – Arthur C. Clarke, editorial in ANALOG, 7/83, p. 164. - Deterrence may work for a while – but not forever. - (*) Not all men are involved. Just a few powerful territorial decision-makers, so mad that they imagine to be able to lead their nation or even mankind into a better future, while most of the ideas in their heads are popular errors or prejudices and this is the main reason why they rose to power with the majority of votes. - (**) It may, actually, be only the malfunction of a single computer, which brings nuclear war about. - Has your own computer never played up? - J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08, 26.1.11. – DETERRENCE, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR & COMPUTERIZATION OF NUCLEAR “DEFENCE”, Q., TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no overstatement to say that if any society organized its affairs in this way, giving to each citizen the power to kill all the others, it would be regarded as deranged.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.216. – Societies of volunteers would not do this. However, finally freed peoples, everywhere, might one day resolve to give all their surviving leaders the chance to establish such a “society” or last “summit conference” and deterrence policy “safety” for themselves, in an exclusive club of their own, and to maintain themselves there, as long as they can, somewhere in a remote, infertile or even desert-area, where their wipe-out would not harm any other people. They would not need nuclear devices for this. High explosives would serve just as well. Since, for all too long, the leaders have forced such a situation upon the whole population of the world, it would only be just to sentence these “statesmen” to such an imprisonment, as long as it can last. – Thus getting rid of all of them at the same time would justify the expense of providing them, for their last days or weeks or even years, with all the personal luxuries that they are accustomed to. But not with any personal servants, unless some of them volunteer for this. – Their “goodies” could be delivered by automated transport, e.g. a small field railway, without endangering any other life. Remote controls could be used to ensure that their “deterrent” is still functioning. – A temporary and luxurious asylum for all the leading insane people. - Good riddance to bad rubbish! - J.Z.JZ, 22. 9.07. – Was there ever as yet a quite sane territorial society or State? – The most insane ones seem to be in charge of the territory-wide nut-houses. – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09. – On the other hand, by this kind of experiment with the political leaders only, we might discover that they have already a tacit “gentlemen’s agreement” not to attack each other but merely the subjects of their opponents. – If that is the case, then, perhaps, a doomsday bomb, one just for them, should be planted among them and then ignited. – H. E. would be good enough for that. - JZ, 15.11.13. - LEADERSHIP, WARFARE STATES, A GENUINE DETERRENCE POLICY, GENUINE SOCIETIES & FREE PEOPLES, ALL OF THEM VOLUNTEERS, AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB FOR ALL TERRITORIAL STATESMEN & THEIR DETERRENCE POLICY, ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR MISLEADERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is often said that nuclear arms have made war obsolete, but this is a misunderstanding. Obsolescence occurs (was occurring? – J.Z.JZ) when a means to some end is superseded by a new and presumably better means –when it was discovered that vehicles powered by internal combustion engines were more efficient than vehicles pulled by horses at transporting people and goods from one place to another. (*) But war has not been superseded by some better means to its end, which is to serve as the final arbiter of disputes among sovereign states (**) On the contrary, war has gone out of existence (***) without leaving behind any means at all – whether superior or inferior – to that end. (****) The more than three decades of jittery peace between the nuclear super-powers, which the world has experienced since the invention of nuclear weapons, is almost certainly the result of this lack. There is no need to “abolish war” among the nuclear powers; it is already gone. The choices don’t include  war (*****) any longer. They consist now of peace, on the one hand, and annihilation, on the other. And annihilation – or “assured destruction” is as far from being war as peace is, and the sooner we recognize this the sooner we will be able to save our species from self-extermination.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.192/193. - (*) Actually, horses are internal combustion engines as well, although only of the biological kind. – J.Z.JZ - (**) That would require the realization of individual and group secessionism from territorial States and the freedom for these dissenters to establish their various communities of volunteers only, all under full exterritorial sovereignty or personal laws, whereby they could peacefully realize their own rightful aims while those States from which they have seceded would not be interfered with in the pursuit of their rightful aims. – No rightful cause or motive for a just war would remain for either of these groups. - (***) That is putting it too strongly. Only to some extent, as world wars, has it gone out of existence, so far, while all the preparations for the next world war go on and arms races do mostly end in wars. - (****) Moral reasoning and the ideas of panarchism or polyarchy do exist but are not applied in this case but, rather, ignored, preferring instead the old territorialist notions and prejudices. The real solutions, quite rightful war and peace aims, including these tolerant options, are not even publicly discussed, except among a handful of people in the whole world. – Schell does not seem to be aware of this alternative, either. – (*****) nuclear war? - J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. – Are e.g., campaigns against slavers, pirates and tyrants no longer warranted, if justly conducted only against them? – 23.2.09. - Should we use "weapons" suitable only to murder the slaves rather than execute the slavers? - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11. - & NUCLEAR DETERRENT, DEFENCE, LIBERATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is one thing to die for your country. It is another to die with your country.” - Toynbee. Quoted in: John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.84. - COURAGE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is predicted that within 30 days after nuclear exchange 90 per cent of American human beings will be dead. As Nikita Khrushchev said years ago, in the event of a nuclear war, the living will envy the dead. President Carter stockpiled huge quantities of opium in case of nuclear war - for euthanasia. - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.27. - Neither he not any of his followers stockpiled and discussed ideas, proposals and platforms on how to abolish the nuclear war threat - but, rather, continued with it! - His secret services did not manage to find them either, although they are already somewhat published! As much or as little can we rely on our territorial "protectors". - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is right and much easier to hit, without nuclear devices, but with ordinary weapons, instead (i.e., genuine weapons, that can be used discriminately), only those real enemies, who are in territorial power, decide upon the use of nuclear weapons and are prepared for their use against millions of innocent people. These few wrongdoers, who are equipped with them even to the extent of “over-kill” or genocide, are even risking the survival of all of mankind, e.g. via a “nuclear winter”. Nuclear “weapons” are thus even worse terrorist weapons than the worst kind of unofficial terrorists have so far used. – They are worse than the natural catastrophes, which as supposedly benevolent “god” still causes or tolerates, all too often against his supposed human children. This supposed ruler of the universe did not prevent the first two attacks against two human cities with them, nor the all too polluting nuclear tests with hundreds to thousands of them, not did he or she prevent the stockpiling of tens of thousands of them, for almost instant readiness, mostly against innocent people, nor did our supposed governmental protectors protect us against this threat, rather than causing it themselves. – The basic errors, prejudices, wrong assumptions and conclusions, which make this threat possible, are still all too popular, at every level and quite insufficiently publicly discussed and refuted. I do not even know of any systematic attempt to do so, by enough people to finish this job. As far as I could, perhaps as far as an individual could, I did tackle it in my second peace book, in 1975, which has been already online for years at - but is still habitually ignored by almost all people, rather than refuted or sufficiently supplemented. - J.Z.JZ, 7.10.97, 24.1.08, 1.6.13, 15.11.13. - & TYRANNICIDE, TERRORISM, GENUINE WEAPONS? VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, ESPECIALLY COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, ASSOCIATION, EXPERIMENTATION & SECESSIONISM OR COMPETING GOVERNANCE, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM FOR ALL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is the result of failure to properly define important terms like weapons, enemies, defence, aggression, warfare, strength, collective responsibility, territorial integrity, consent, self-government, people, nations, sovereignty, democracy, individual rights and international law. See my ABC Against Nuclear War at - - J.Z.JZ, 17.1.00.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is useless to ban the Bomb. What we must ban is the (*) ideology of war, which means the ideology of government omnipotence of aggressive nationalism, of intervention run riot.” – William H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, 8/76, p.453. - (*) territorialist … And such an ideology cannot be banned but must be sufficiently refuted. – I wish all suitable slogans, definitions, quotes, jokes and refutations, ideas and wordings on this threat – and how to counter it - should be put together, better and more comprehensively than I did in - Perhaps under “Slogans, quotes, notes & ideas for Survival!”? - Keyboards of PC’s and their wordings might, after all, become more powerful than nuclear “weapons” - J.Z.JZ, 14.1.93, 30.5.08, 1.6.13. – MODERN ENLIGHTENMENT OPTIONS AGAINST TERRITORIALISM, STATISM,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It makes sense to adopt non-violent practices only among the advocates of non-violence, i.e., panarchistically, not towards the actions of territorial coercers around them – people, who have adopted the “value” of violence not only against violent people but also against non-violent ones and who only respect effective defensive force. – J.Z.JZ, 9.12.87, 26.1.08. - & PANARCHISM, MILITIA, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE DIVERSE PEOPLES, WHO ARE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE MAIN TARGETS OF ALL NUCLEAR “WEAPONS”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It means something that we call both pornography and nuclear destruction “obscene”. In the first, we find desire stripped of any further human sentiment or attachment – of any “redeeming social value”, in the legal phrase. In the second, we find violence detached from any human goals, all of which would be engulfed in a holocaust – detached, that is, from all redeeming social value.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.158. - Already most conventional wars are without any rightful war and peace aims. Nuclear war and its “weapons” are without any moral, rational or sensible aims at all. Only territorial power addicts would even dream or think of building, stockpiling and using them. – Already all their territorialist assumptions are insane. Nuclear war preparations and actions heap another kind of insanity upon that insanity, among the leaders as well as among their voters. – J.Z.JZ, 21.9.07. - PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY, SOCIAL VALUES, HUMAN GOALS, TERRITORIALISM, ENEMY, ABSENCE OF RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS & METHODS, WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It supposes that the cataclysmic power in the possession of each side could be directed and used, in a situation where tensions would be immeasurably greater than in any previous state of war or threat of war, with the cool detachment and iron control of a successful gambler at cards or in the stock market. Does all or any of this appear likely?” – View ascribed to Mr. Waskow in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p. 207. – Even many gamblers and stock market traders lose their “cool”. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.08. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was a pleasant night, provided one didn't think too deeply about man-made suns in brief blossom over defenseless cities.” - Bob Shaw, Ground Zero Man, p.38. - This danger is still largely ignored rather than rightfully and rationally tackled in all its causes, most of them territorial, apart from the still persisting and quite wrong notions of collective responsibility. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was easy to say, as many did, that in a nuclear world mankind had to live in peace or perish; it was a far different matter to make actual political sacrifices (*) that would permit the nuclear peril to be lifted. The present-day United Nations is the empty husk of those irresolute good intentions. But, whatever people said, or ineffectually hoped for, the world (**) in fact chose the course of attempting to refashion the system of  sovereignty (***) to accommodate nuclear weapons.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.194. - (*) Not “sacrifices” are needed but merely quite rightful, peaceful and mutually beneficial changes. Only very flawed “ideals” would have to be “sacrificed”, namely the quite utopian ones that are all built on the assumption that statist paradises of various kinds can be built upon a territorial basis, as regimes not only over voluntary but also over involuntary members, who are neither criminals nor aggressors. – That kind of “sacrifice” is as much a “sacrifice” as giving up the burning of witches, heretics and widows. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (**) The world and its population has not any say in the matter. Territorial governments have monopolized this kind of decision-making, among all too little protest against this among their subjects. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (***) They simply have not seriously considered the refashioning or change of territorial sovereignties, of the relatively few now people, who are now territorially ruling whole populations, into mere exterritorial autonomy for the multitude of all the diverse communities of volunteers that would result – once former mere subjects become free to opt out or secede, as individuals or in whole groups, free also to associate in whatever statist or non-statist communities they want to associate themselves, under full freedom to do so (personal law or exterritorial autonomy) and to rule all their internal affairs, those of all their volunteers, quite independently from all other communities. Territorial States, from which one can so secede and within which – and across all former borders – one can establish “States within States”, but only within the limits of personal laws for volunteers, would thereby themselves become turned into remnants of the formerly territorial States, which would then consist only of their remaining volunteers and their exterritorial autonomy would also remain untouched. – For instance, the Kurds are now subjects to three adjacent territorial States and not free in any one of them or in all of them to associate under full exterritorial autonomy. Naturally, their national identity is not the only thing that Kurds possess. They, too, have the usual religious, and ideological other divisions among themselves and these would, under full freedom for alternative institutions, lead also to diverse Kurdish communities of volunteers, all of them exterritorially autonomous, but, perhaps, forming one Kurdish federation or several. - J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07, 15.11.13. - The transformation of territorially imposed systems to individually chosen ones, under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy, would be a win-win situation for the masses of mankind, with the only exception formed by the territorial power addicts, from then on being confined to their kind of volunteers and exterritorial autonomy for all their own affairs. All others could not rightly complain or resist any longer, since they, too, would be free to do their own things. Do the power-mongers have a rightful cause to complain when they lose their territorial power over involuntary victims? Many other power-addicts than the present few territorial ones would then also get their chance - to rule over their adherents, all voluntary victims only, as long as these victims are prepared to put up with them, i.e., do not secede from them individually or in whole groups. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11, 1.6.10, 15.11.13. - UNITED NATIONS & "SACRIFICES" TO ACHIEVE PEACE, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNANCE OR SELF-DETERMINATION, ALWAYS OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY, PERSONAL LAW VS. ANY FORM OF TERRITORIAL DESPOTISM, EVEN THAT OF DEMOCRACIES & “LIMITED” GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was not unless one lifted one’s gaze from all the allegedly normal events occurring before one’s eyes and looked at the executioner’s sword hanging over everyone’s head that the normality was revealed as a sort of mass insanity. This was an insanity that consisted not in screaming and making a commotion but precisely in not doing these things in the face of overwhelming danger, as though everyone had been sedated.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151. - TERRITORIALISM & ITS MAIN THREAT.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It will cease once people stop believing in absurdities and act accordingly. Absurdities like "nuclear strength", "nuclear deterrence", "nuclear weapons", "monopolistic decision-making" by "leaders", "collective responsibility", "national sovereignty", "territorialism", "rights granted by governments", "avalanches of laws", "the monies of monetary despotism", the "welfare based upon tribute payments", "representation" by collectivist territorial voting, giving only majorities a chance, etc. There are tens of thousands of these errors, myths and prejudices so that only their encyclopedic treatment could come to effectively deal with them. - J.Z.JZ, 16.11.82, 1.5.06, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump.” – David Ormsby Gore. - Is it a consolation for us to say that with our territorial votes we have placed many apes into such positions? - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It's hard to explain to kids why a nation that spends billions for nuclear bombs is still trying to outlaw firecrackers.” - LEBANON (Ind.) REPORTER. - The explanation is simple: More people are really concerned about the small firecrackers than the really big ones being in the wrong hands. The threat posed by the big ones in the hands of the Big Ones is incomprehensible to them and still more incomprehensible to them is what they could and should do about the big threat posed by the big men in power. - J.Z.JZ, 25. 3. 84. - It is almost as if the democratic revolutions had not happened at all. Our "representative" rulers have more power than the absolutist kings ever had - and, nevertheless, we still submit to them, quite tamely, and even elect them into their offices, again and again. - J.Z.JZ, 1. 4. 06. – FIREWORKS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH & THE LAW, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS, POWER, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It’s an old problem, … We’ve always had a hard core of imbeciles subscribing to the let’s-get-it-over-with theory of mutual destruction. You’d be surprised how hard they pushed it in the late ‘49’s. We and we alone had The Bomb. The Russians and Chinese were at our mercy … - Tom Ardis, This Suitcase is Going to Explode, p.93. – With one part of their “brains” they accuse the enemy regime to rule despotically and exploitatively over the majority of their subjects and then with the other side of their brains they plan to exterminate these involuntary victims, rather than their victimizers. – JZ, 15.11.13. – LEADERESHIP, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, MUDDLEHEADS AS GREAT LEADERS, WAR HAWKS, WAR MONGERS:

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Jacques Chirac says France (*) is prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests… “Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction”, he said. “The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centres of power. … (**) All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit.” … The International Institute for Strategic Weapons in London says France has 348 nuclear weapons…” - Molly Moore, in Paris, in: “Chirac sounds nuclear warning to terrorists, France will retaliate if attacked.” – THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 21/22 Jan. 06. - As if in any country all of the people - or at least the majority - had any say at all on terrorist attacks or ordinary military aggressions. – Immoral and power-mad people like Chirac might unleash a world-wide nuclear war, simply because they cannot think straight. - How many people in capitals are actually the decisive men on terrorist attacks, already presuming that these attacks are government-organized and not undertaken by a private terrorist radical movement, which their government vainly tried to suppress. How would the French government know the difference? The more suitable weapons against these few governmental decision makers would still be small bombs, poisons, daggers, rifles, pistols and even bows and arrows or small drones carrying explosives. These would also be suitable weapons against the terrorists. Conventional armies and nuclear mass murder devices are quite unsuitable against them. See the current experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the height of idiocy to employ a nuclear device to eliminate one or a few criminals. – A government might as well “respond” in this way against shooters of university student or school pupils or against murderous bank robbers. – French people once took the lead in the process of enlightenment. That was a long time ago. Excessive wine drinking does apparently go on, there, from childhood on and it seems to have burnt out some brains. - J.Z.JZ, 31.10.07, 15.11.13. – In practice most terrorists cannot even be found to be arrested, sent to court or executed. Devastating a whole city or country and all its people because the anti-terrorists can’t cope with the terrorist threats does not make any sense at all. – (*) he! – (**) Remember, the location of Bin Laden was still unknown, years later! – J.Z.JZ, 23.2.09, 15.11.13. – Relatively small-scale private terrorism is not effectively countered by large-scale and official terrorism. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.11. - TYRANNICIDE, TERRORISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, POLITICIANS, RULERS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist Jerome D. Frank, who shares many of Andreski’s views, is convinced that a major nuclear exchange is inevitable unless nations stop building nuclear arsenals. ‘Nothing is more certain and inexorable than the laws of chance’, Frank writes in “Sanity & Survival”, his recent study of human aggression. ‘Present policies involve a continuing risk’ of nuclear war; the longer the risk continues, the greater the probability of war; and if the probability continues long enough, it approaches certainty.’ ” – TIME, March 9, 1970, p. 48. – ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Just as we (*) have chosen to make nuclear weapons, we can choose to unmake them. (**) Just as we have chosen to live in the system of sovereign states, we can choose to live in some other system. (***) To do so would, of course, be unprecedented (****), and in many ways frightening, even truly perilous (*****), but it is by no means impossible.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.219. - (*) The territorially subjected peoples were never given a choice in this matter. Our territorial governments have made that choice for us or, rather, against us. That decision was made secretly, a secret kept not only from the totalitarian regimes of the time but also from the subjects of the democracies. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (**) Actually, only the people themselves, sufficiently enlightened, trained, organized and armed, are able to carry out an effective nuclear disarmament. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (***) We are not yet freed enough of territorial governments to do so but we should liberate ourselves to that extension of freedom of choice, action and experimentation. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (****) Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers has a very long tradition with some remnants still alive, like personal law for civil affairs, diplomatic immunity and the recognition of some churches and orders as being sovereign regarding their own affairs. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - (*****) Would it really be frightening and perilous to live with like-minded people under the institutions and laws that one prefers for oneself? - Alas, Schell does not go into such details. Are e.g. tennis-, chess and cricket clubs and thousands of other voluntary associations frightening and really perilous for their voluntary members? Naturally, stupid, careless and fanatic people can be a danger to themselves and others in every sphere. But if mankind were only constituted out of such fools then it would have wiped itself out long ago. – J.Z.JZ, 22.9.07. - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY RATHER THAN TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Just ask those favouring anti-people weapons to wipe out foreign cities and countries: How many of you are at the same time opposed to tyrannicide and how many of you would consider the mere possession of nuclear destructive devices an indication of tyranny? Aren't those favouring guided missiles usually misguided fools, at least in this respect? If they also favour tyrannicide then ask them whether they really need or would be justified using nuclear weapons for this purpose. - JZ, 78/82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Just killing for the hell of it." - source unknown. Not a bad definition of nuclear war. - JZ, 1.5. 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Knowledge is the deterrent.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 223. – Rather, sufficient knowledge of the right kind could be the best deterrent. Not only the knowledge of the extent and limits of tyrannicide and of quite rightful military revolutions and military uprisings and how best to finance them. Knowledge also of all individual human rights and liberties, including individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, the knowledge to end and avoid deflations, inflations and mass unemployment and involuntary poverty. The knowledge that the people themselves, properly organized and trained, would be the most efficient disarmament inspectors for the destruction of all ABC mass murder devices. Knowledge of quite rightful peace aims, very attractive to soldiers and officers on the other side. Knowledge of how to treat POWs and deserters as allies or neutrals rather than as enemies. I compiled ca. 500 such points in my second peace book, alphabetically. It is online at and I do not want to repeat myself too often. – Only on the basis of all such knowledge, once it is sufficiently compiled, better than I could on my own, and then at least somewhere applied, would it become true what Schell says, ibid: “All human beings would join in a defensive alliance, with nuclear weapons as their common enemy.” - JZ, 22.9.07, 15.11.13. - DETERRENT, KNOWLEDGE AS A DETERRENT,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let not the atom bomb be the final sequel // In which all men are cremated equal.” – Chapman Pincher, Dirty Tricks, p.73.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let us be clear. The possibility of total annihilation in a nuclear war is real. Such a catastrophe will be the work of governments, not of their subjects. The depression and the economic disorder of the 1970s are equally the work of governments and not of their subjects. The solution seems obvious and is difficult: to reduce and confine the power of governments.” - H. S. Ferns: The Disease of Government, p.118. - Any territorial power going beyond privately or cooperatively owned real estate goes too far and leads towards nuclear "strength" and nuclear targets. - JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let us initiate the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the Red Army by a separate peace treaty offer with so attractive terms that they can hardly refuse to accept it and act upon it by destroying their regime's nuclear "weapons" first. - JZ, 18. 4. 83. - Then we should follow suit, without hesitation. - Actually, I believe we could and should have risked, even unilaterally, disarming ourselves, as far as ABC mass murder devices are concerned. Thereby we would clearly have proven how wrong and false the communist propaganda was and that we pose no threat to the Russian people. Anyhow, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the Red Army consisted of fanatical communists. These could then have been overpowered rather fast and easily. And on our side we should have been sufficiently prepared for a rightful and quite effective libertarian revolution or resistance against any occupying force and its regime, together with the occupying force and the military forces remaining in the country of the occupying regime. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more afraid of such resistance to them than of all foreign military forces and their weapons. As it is, the authoritarians and totalitarians are preparing for their kinds of revolutions, insurrections and subversions everywhere, but the supposedly free and freedom-loving countries and their peoples make no preparations for their kind of revolutions to overthrow the remaining dictators or any occupation force. - JZ, 1.5.06, 15.11.13. - Panarchism for our secret allies, the captive nations and other minorities under dictatorships, demonstrated by exterritorially autonomous governments and societies in exile, in our midst, also as our open allies. As rightful war and peace aims that they would be attractive to most subjects of an aggressive enemy regime and turn them into our allies against it. - JZ, 26.1.11, 2.6.13. - UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, LIBERATING REVOLUTIONS & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, WAR & PEACE AIMS, DES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let us picture what is going on here. There are two possible eventualities: success of the strategy or its failure. If it succeeds, both sides are frozen into inaction by fear of retaliation by the other side. If it fails, one side annihilates the other, and then, the leaders of the second side annihilate the “society as a whole” of the attacker, and the earth as a whole suffers the consequences of a full-scale holocaust, which might include the extinction of man. In point of fact, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union has ever adopted the “mutual-assured-destruction” (*) doctrine in pure form; other aims, such as attempting to reduce the damage of the adversary’s nuclear attack and increasing the capacity for destroying the nuclear forces of the adversary, have been mixed in. Nevertheless, underlying these deviations the concept of deterring a first strike by preserving the capacity for a devastating second strike has remained constant.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.197. – (*) It was even officially abbreviated into “MAD” for "Mutual Assured Destruction". Sometimes our leaders give their game away. – JZ, 23.2.09. - Alas, even this extreme case of being turned into targets for mass murder devices, has not sufficiently enlightened the territorial victims of such policies. - JZ, 26.1.11. - NUCLEAR STRATEGY, DETERRENCE, PUBLIC OPINION "ENLIGHTENED" BY GOVERNMENTAL EDUCATION & PROPAGANDA.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Libertarian, anarchistic and panarchist utopianism vs. the nuclear Warfare State and nuclear war threat. – JZ, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Life does not exist for the sake of the governments. …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.170. – Nevertheless, to preserve their existence with mass-murderous and also suicidal means, or, rather, in their attempts to preserve themselves, territorial governments are now prepared to risk even the survival of mankind. – JZ, 21.9.07, 2.6.13. - LIFE & TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Life is full of contradictions. There are people who talk of cooperation in the conquest of outer space, about flights to the moon, and who at the same time (fortunately, in words only) are prepared to blow up this poor planet because they cannot reach agreement with others about the status of sectors of one city. The age-old habit of settling disputes by force of arms today impels various States to equip themselves with atomic weapons. In my youth it used to be said that one cannot live beside a powder-barrel; today we live close to far more dangerous barrels. Scientific knowledge has outstripped wisdom.” – Ilya Ehrenburg, Post-War Years, p.164, in For Freedom, an anthology by Davis-Poynter.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Life today is like a horror show. For a while everything seems quiet and normal – but real horrors may be just minutes away or just around the corner. – They are all too well prepared and even financed via tribute levies upon all territorial subjects of nuclear powers. - JZ, 13.3.87, 25.1.08, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Like a kindhearted executioner, the bomb permitted its prospective victims to go on living seemingly ordinary lives up to the day that the execution should suddenly and without warning be carried out.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.150.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Like all those who are inclined to suicide, we approach the action in two capacities: the capacity of the one who would kill and that of the one who would be killed. As when we dream, we are both the authors and the sufferers of our fate.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – If mere words, describing the horror of it, could prevent nuclear war, then this would be the book to do it. Alas, positive alternative ideas are also required – and they must be widely accepted to become effective. Alas, even books containing such ideas, like my own two, which do not only containing my own few ideas but the best ideas of others that I found, remain largely ignored, although they are online. – A genuine information revolution – in enough heads – has still to happen! A comprehensive libertarian ideas archive and projects listing as well as a libertarian directory, indicating special libertarian interests, and a common libertarian projects list, online,remain still amiss. With their help sufficient collaboration for each major libertarian project might be achieved. – JZ, 10.10.07, 2.2.09, 2.6.13, 15.11.13. -  & -  & SUICIDE OF MANKIND OR MASS MURDEROUS POWERS, INSTITUTIONS & TOOLS?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Like any sane person, I saw the nuclear arms race as the ultimate insanity, but it was all academic to me. The chances were that I would be long dead before the big bang finally came, and so I did not feel personally threatened by a staggering escalation in weaponry.” – Herbert Birkholz, The Sensitives, p.43. - Guild Publishing, London, 1987. – If the “sane” are as insane, what can one expect of the rest? – JZ, 10.9.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Live by the bomb. Die by the bomb.” - Nuclear Freeze slogan, 1983. - How can one live by the bomb? Did the slogan mean that the politics of nuclear terror and deterrence was at least temporarily effective? – JZ, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Look what happened to Hilda Murrell, finding out about nuclear weapons in Thatcher’s armada.” - Ian Watson, Oracle, p.126. – Was there ever a more trivial war aim on both sides? Giving the few inhabitants of the Falkland Islands their individual choice of government affiliation, English,  Argentinean or independence, was, obviously, not considered by either side. And this clash might, nevertheless, have lead to nuclear war! – JZ, 11.9.07. - DURING THE FALKLAND WAR, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Maine sailed out to keep the peace through the threat of the most inhuman forced known to man. … But it worked, had worked, probably would continue to work for a lot more years.” - Tom Clancy, The Sum of all Fears, p.649. – But NOT indefinitely. - JZ - NUCLEAR DETERRENT, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Major wars can never again win anything but desolation over the whole earth. Such war has ceased to be a usable instrument of national policy.” - R. M. MacIver, Power Transformed, p. 86. MACMILLAN, 1964. Alas, although never rightful, rational and useful, such “policies” or “methods” are still being continued by territorial governments. “There is madness in their methods.” - JZ, 26.1.11, 2.6.13. - WAR, WORLD WARS, THE ULTIMATE NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Make no bones about it, we are on the countdown.” - Bob Green, in FREEDOM, 17. 12. 83.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Make no mistake. There is no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon.” - Lyndon B. Johnson, Speech in Detroit, 7. Sept., 1964. – WEAPONS CAN BE TARGETED AT INDIVIDUALS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Man - his own greatest enemy, and as it were, his own executioner. - Sir Thomas Browne. – It is rather the territorial State, which is prepared to become man’s executioner. – JZ, 11.2.08. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, POWER MADNESS, POWER ADDICTION, GOVERNMENTALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: man has undebatably (*) achieved the ability to destroy himself, and his world as well. This capacity alone should serve to make it clear that the time has now come for us to cease to behave like a lot of irresponsible children letting off fireworks in a crowded hall. It was always stupid; now it has become too dangerous.” - John Wyndham, Web, p. 17/8. – (*) indubitably? undoubtedly? – JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Man has used every weapon he has ever devised. … it takes no crystal ball to perceive that a nuclear war is likely sooner or later.” - Ronald Regan, quoted in THE NATIONAL TIMES, 23. to 29. 9. 83. - & DETERRENT THEORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mankind being some millions of years old, the nuclear deterrent only about 63 years, do you seriously believe that what so far worked for 63 years will continue to work for millions of years? – Fear and horror have not deterred dozens of conventional wars every year since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then we have always lived at the edge of a general nuclear holocaust. - JZ, 17.9.87, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mankind is confronted with a choice: we must halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament, or face annihilation. … It is vital that we see modern weapons of war for what they are - evidence of madness.” - Archbishop of Canterbury.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” – John F. Kennedy, address, United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1962. – Apparently, he did not realize that he, his office and his actions, were part of the problem. – JZ, 27.2.09. - Mankind and all "nations", peoples and captive nations are still without any powers, liberties and rights in this respect - although they are the targets! - JZ, 26.1.11, 2.6.13. – JFK doubled the nuclear “arsenal” of the US. – JZ, 15.11.13. - TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Men soon get accustomed to the evils of their condition, particularly if there is nobody in particular to blame. The inaction or negligence or shortcomings of great numbers assume the appearance of a law of nature, or of repeated failures or attempts at the impossible. The apparent difficulties of reform, except by catastrophe or revolution, begets either despondency or over-cheerfulness.” - E. L. Godkin, "Unforseen Tendencies of Democracy", p.47. – APATHY OR UNJUSTIED OPTIMISM.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: military objectives, in the event of a nuclear war stemming from a major attack on the Alliance, should be the destruction of the enemy’s military forces, not on his civilian population.” - Mr. McNamara, quoted by Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.202. – It took our great mis-leaders and "experts" a long time to make this distinction between governments and their subjects, even in cases of totalitarian regimes imposed upon whole populations. They still do not make it - as a rule. For it does not take a nuclear “weapon” to get rid of a ruling dictator tyrant or small despotic clique. These “weapons” are always directed more against their victims than against these victimizers. – JZ, 10.10.08. - TERRITORIALISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DISCRIMINATING INSTEAD OF TOTAL WARFARE, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Millions for defence, but not one cent for survival.” – Alfred Bester, The Stars My Destination, p.189. – Billions for mutual mass murder by governments of the subjects of other governments. Not one cent for survival, except for the high cost of putting such mass murderous rulers, in the safest shelters. – As for the shelters built for ordinary civilians: Nuclear war is likely to come so sudden that most will be outright killed or exposed to deadly radiation before they reach their shelters, even if enough such shelters had been built. And what are the survivors to eat in the future? Highly irradiated food? To grow it and harvest it, they will have to expose themselves to high radiation as well. - JZ, 1.2.92, 26.1.08, - TERRITORIALISM, STATES AS OUR PROTECTORS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: mindless promotion to oblivion.” - Laurance J. Peter and Raymond Hall, The Peter Principle, 1969ff, p.156. – NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS, NUCLEAR POWER

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Minds sick enough to design and build doomsday devices and keep them in readiness are also sick enough to use them, sooner or later. Only into such heads could personal doomsday devices be rightfully implanted, that would all go off automatically with the first explosion of an ABC mass murder device. – JZ, 31.5.06. - Naturally, it would be more sensible to deprive them of all territorial powers. - JZ, 26.1.11. - DOOMSDAY BOMBS, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: modern warfare, supported as it is by the blind devotion of super-patriotism and the consciousless demands ... in which the masses play a passive but crucial role, is not only a conspiracy against life by the few but it is also a form of collective madness ...” - Reichert: Partisans of Freedom, p.587. - How much freedom of action against such threats do most of the victims have so far? - JZ, 26.1.11. – SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Moreover, mere deterrent intentions cannot prevent nuclear war by accident or miscalculation or misinterpretation of some signals. - "… Some fifty such accidents or near-accidents with nuclear armed missiles and aircraft occurred between 1945 and 1960. In the same period there were a number of false radar reports which, had they been accepted and acted upon, would have plunged us within minutes into all the horrors of World War III. - Fred C. J. Cook, "The Warfare State", p.31. - JZ, NWT 27 5 06. – UNINTENTIONAL NUCLEAR WAR, BY ACCIDENT ETC.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Most people would rather die in a nuclear war than think about its prevention and what they themselves could possibly do to help prevent it. – JZ, 6.11.03, 26.10.07. - If they had freedom of action in this sphere as well, would they have remained as ignorant of and apathetic towards their rightful but illegal individual and minority group choices? As it is, we all remain attached to targeted territories, whether we like that or not and forced to pay tribute levies to maintain the nuclear terror threat. - JZ, 26.1.11, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Most Randians forgot that "reason" is man's supreme tool of survival. - JZ, 24. 3. 85. - Not the largest nuclear mass murder devices, like most statists believe, even advocates of "limited" territorial governments. - JZ, 1.5.06. – REASON, AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISM, RANDIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mr. Grimond asks me whether my position is a pacifist one, and to this Mr. Gosling answers for me by saying that everyone except a maniac is at least partly a pacifist. I am, I suppose, very nearly a complete one, not because I think it wrong to kill in any circumstances but because I feel sure that any large scale war in the future is capable of turning into a nuclear war and that nuclear war is beyond the bounds of what I feel to be tolerable. Some correspondents have pointed hopefully to Korea, Indo-China and the Berlin blockade as examples of Russian refusal to use nuclear weapons when a firm stand was made against them by conventional means. But three examples are totally inadequate as a reassurance. - Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.95.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mr. Kennan has said that anything would be better than a policy, which led inevitably to nuclear war. But surely anything is better than a policy, which allows for the possibility of nuclear war. – Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.21. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: must realize that this may be the spark that puts civilization to the torch, ..." - Michael McCollum, ANALOG, 4/79, p.31. - McCallum? - NWT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Must we acknowledge that the civilized nations of the world can only be restrained from attacking one another by the threat of an immediate hell on earth?” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.221. – Nations do not attack each other. Their territorial governments do. There is nothing right and civilized about territorial governments! – JZ, 10.10.08. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Must we see the world in ruins around us and most of us dead - before we get interested in the ideas, which could prevent such a disaster? - JZ, 28.6.77. - My 1975 handbook on the prevention of nuclear war was the opposite of a best seller! Of its mere 1,000 copies you could still get hundreds from me and I know still of no better one! Only its binding and print are very flawed. - JZ, 4.8.82, 26.1.11. Now you can even get it free of charge online in a more legible copy. But how few, if any, have so far read it there or downloaded it and read it on their computer screen or after they had printed it out themselves? Offhand I cannot remember having received a single comment to its “publication” there. - Our survival instinct is dysfunctional in this respect! - JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mutate now and beat the rush.” – Graffiti in Los Angeles. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: My experience with my book - An ABC Against Nuclear War, 1975, - on how to avoid nuclear war, was: Most people would rather accept the risk of nuclear war than, at least, merely read a book on how to avoid it. – JZ, 28.10.04. – This inclination they would have in common with our apish and illiterate ancestors. – JZ, 22.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: My friends, I’m not going to tell you sweet words. The situation in the world is not just dangerous, it isn’t just threatening, it is catastrophic.” – Solzhenitsyn, Words of Warning to the Western World. – Formally, the most powerful totalitarian regime is gone – but its totalitarian and mass murderous “weapons” remain, in the hands of democratic territorial misleaders. – Also its wrongful and irrational territorial organization remains, world-wide. – The genocide of mankind has been scientifically and technologically well prepared. – Some people are even proud of their government’s “nuclear strength”, although these “weapons” were never directed against tyrants only, if at all, but always against their “property”, their subjugated peoples, none of the xyz diverse peoples in any territory ever being set quite free to do their own things among their volunteers, without a territorial monopoly. - JZ, 1.7.92, 26.1.11, 2.6.13, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: my sense of protest against this silent acceptance by the people of the East and the West of a fate that is all too likely to destroy our children’s world, if it does not destroy ours.” – Samuel Pisar, Of Blood and Hope, p.267.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: national interests – in the pursuit of which extinction may now be brought about unintentionally, or semi-intentionally, as a ‘side effect’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.187. - & NATIONAL INTEREST, I.E. TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY INTERESTS, CONTRARY TO THE RIGHTS & LIBERTIES AT LEAST OF MANY MINORITIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: national security produces national insecurity.” - R. A. Wilson, "The Illuminati Papers", p.125. - & NATIONAL SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Never before, he imagined, had humanity been so completely frivolous about its own survival.” - Allen Drury, A Shade of Difference.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Never put a sword in a madman's hand.” - James Kelly, Scottish Proverbs, p.64.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: new doctrines of "counter-force" and "tactical nuclear forces" and partly of the development of new weapons like the neutron bomb, whose use is more thinkable than that of other nuclear weapons. These doctrines and weapons reflect the fact that the superpower strategists have become increasingly concerned with ways of fighting nuclear wars and winning them rather than with preventing their occurrence.” - Herb Feith in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.59.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Next time China threatens to rain nuclear missiles on our West Coast cities – as they’ve been doing every day now for months – I‘d offer to shower them with presents, just like their imperial treasure fleet did long ago.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001, p. 143. - … the worst enemies of China’s government are China’s people …” - ibid, p. 143. - The worst or the best of enemies? Our secret allies! They, especially the “people’s army”, could get rid of this despotic regime almost without any bloodshed, especially if they adopted a panarchistic or polyarchic liberation platform, applicable even to its present rulers, for even the worst governments do have still some voluntary followers. Let them have them! They deserve no better followers and these followers deserve no better government! – JZ, 10.10.07, 23.2.09. - BOMBING OR AIR RAIDS - WITH PRESENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No annihilation powers to anyone. - JZ, 30.10.82. No mass extermination powers to anyone! - JZ, 1.5.06. - THE POWER TO ANNIHILATE MASSES OF PEOPLEM, WHOLE POPULATIONS, SCIENTIFICALLY & TECHNOLOGICALLY PREPARED

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No annihilation without representation.” – Arnold Toynbee. – But what good would an individual or a minority vote or even a majority vote do, when the actual decision-making still lies in the hands of a few individual, from presidents down to technicians? And if the majority approved of nuclear weapons and reactions, would that make them any safer and prevent nuclear wars by accidents, miscalculation or power abuse? – Whom or what does any nuclear weapon represent? – JZ, 26.1.08. - & REPRESENTATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No deal with the xyz territorial governments but any decent, honest, freedom, peace and justice promoting deal with the xyz diverse peoples themselves. For all of them their choice of social, economic and political systems, always only for their volunteers and without a territorial monopoly, thus maximizing satisfaction at least temporarily and learning opportunities as well as making different further choices easy for individuals and minorities. Only self-chosen personal law for all. No longer any territorial imperialism, neither on the local government nor the State nor the Federal Government level. - JZ, 12.3.83, 1.5.06, 2.6.13. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR PERSONAL LAW FOR ALL VS. TERRITORIALISM & ITS IMPERIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, VOLKUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No deals with any governments that threaten to destroy the world! - JZ, 15.3.83. - And yet, while they have nuclear weapons, we should rather surrender than try to fight them, promising them the world, but fully prepared for effective revolutions and insurrections, together with the occupying forces and the military in their homeland, once they have occupied us, and this based on the best revolution and military insurrection programs that can be devised and widely published. Moreover, if one of the ruling territorial power “beasts” can prove that he destroyed at least one nuclear weapon, or points out where it is hidden or surrenders it, then his life should be spared and protected in anonymity and with amnesty. Taking his life in every case might mean further tens of thousands to millions might die. So in that case let him keep and even protect his otherwise to us quite worthless life. - JZ, 1.5.06, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No defensive firearms for peaceful and rational people - but nuclear and other mass murder devices for politicians and generals? What do you expect to result from such a policy? - JZ, 27.8.78. – GUN CONTROL LAWS, DISARMAMENT ONLY WHERE IT IS RIGHTFUL & COUNTS, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No good cause - however good in itself - is worthy of bad weapons.” - Auberon Herbert, The Ethics of Dynamite, Mack edition, p.197.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No nations – no nukes!” – Carol Moore, THE CONNECTION, p.77. – No territorial nations – no nukes! There would no longer be any targets for them. People of all ideologies and systems would live intermixed in the same countries, under different governments or administrations or personal law rules, customs or traditions. Motives, finance and volunteers to service these mass murder devices and keep them in readiness would also disappear. – JZ, 28.2.09. – PANARCHISM, PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, NEUTRALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No president, prime minister or chancellor and no parliament, House of Representatives or Congress to be entitled to involve a whole country and all its people in a war, in a treaty or alliance or to be given the exclusive position and power to make peace! – JZ, 21.1.04. – It is really scandalous that we have put up with this for so long. As if it had been a precious inheritance from the times of our absolute kings and emperors, one that we are not entitled to refuse or shake off, and should not even question. As if we had to remain stuck with it, even in supposed democracies and republics, until the top criminals finally wipe us off the face of this planet. Actually, as Kant pointed out, any government with such powers is still merely a despotic regime. – Alas, he only wanted to transfer this power to “representatives” popularly elected. – But can we really entrust these politicians with our lives any more than with our other rights and liberties? - JZ, 31.10.07. - WAR-MAKING, PEACE-MAKING, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, ARMAMENT & DISARMAMENT, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & ALLIANCES, REPRESENTATION, PARLIAMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No sane man aware of the facts wants to destroy the world; but who, nowadays, is sane, and who has all the facts? - Allen Drury, A Shade of Difference, p.77.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No sense blowing yourself up while trying to erase an enemy force on your doorstep, and even the smallest atomic device isn't all that selective.” - Laurence M. Janifer, Knave in Hand, p.113.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No weapon is ultimate - when it cannot be directed against the real and main enemy ONLY. - JZ, 16.5.00. - The supposedly scientific, modern super-weapons are so primitive, wrongful and irrational, in spite of all their scientific and technological “advances”, that they still apply and even embody the "principle" of "collective responsibility", of genocide, of scorched earth, and thus the indiscriminate mass murder of millions. In this the nuclear “weapons” are even more indiscriminately murderous than were the "Final Solution" mass murder camps of the Nazis, who picked and choose their victims "only" from certain segments of the population. – Even their all too few survivors, in Israel, had not yet learnt their lesson from this experience, but instead, like the Nazis, claimed a territorial monopoly and built and keep in readiness mass extermination devices themselves. – Their degrees of democracy cannot make up for this. In this respect they are totalitarians themselves. – And so is their major ally, the USA Federal Government. – I for one do favor full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of Jewish volunteers, in all their varieties, everywhere, just like I do for all other minority groups, which desire this for themselves. They have also the right to integrate themselves with other kinds of volunteers, everywhere, to the extent that they do prefer this. That is the only quite moral, ethical and justified position. Jewish territorial nationalism and monopolism is as wrongful as any Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc. or ideological, national  or racial territorial monopolism. The Earth is the common inheritance of all of mankind. So are all organizational voluntary options. Full freedom of association and secessionism, contract and experimentation, in every sphere. No territorial monopoly to anyone. No mass murder device to anyone! - JZ, 2.2.02, 26.1.11, 2.6.13. - ENEMY, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, DISCRIMINATING WARFARE, AIR RAIDS, BOMBING, WEAPONS, NAZIS, ISRAEL, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, FULL FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, ASSOCIATION, EXPERIMENTATION & SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: None of us has lost much sleep over the threat of imminent annihilation of the human race and our responsibility for this state of affairs.” – Frances Hoffer, in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, entry 32916. – IRRESPONSIBILITY, APATHY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nor is there any exoneration from complicity in this slaughter in the theoretical justification that we possess nuclear arms not in order to use them but in order to prevent their use, for the fact is that even in theory prevention works only to the degree that it is backed up by the plausible threat of use in certain circumstances. Strategy thus commits us all to actions that we cannot justify by any moral standard. It introduces into our lives a vast, morally incomprehensible – or simply immoral - realm, in which every scruple or standard that we otherwise claim to observe or uphold is suspended.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.153. - & DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, MORALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Not even a collapsing world looks dark to a man who is about to make his fortune.” – E. B. White, “Intimations”, One Man’s Meat, 1944. – Almost all still try to make a fortune or are concerned with their more or less trivial hobbies, while all too few do seriously ponder, doubt or criticize the territorialism, which is one of the foundations for nuclear war power and try to do something towards its abolition. – Somewhat like the mere ants, who try to build their nests on my driveway. - JZ, 20.11.85, 30.5.08, 26.1.11. - LACK OF INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS OR DANCING AT THE EDGE OF A VOLCANO.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of themselves.” – F. Nelson, quoted in: Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.222.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Now we are sitting at the breakfast table drinking our coffee and reading the newspaper, but in a moment we may be inside a fireball whose temperature is tens of thousands of degrees. Now we are on our way to work, walking through the city streets, but in a moment we may be standing on an empty plain under a darkened sky looking for the charred remnants of our children. (*) Now we are alive, but in a moment we may be dead. Now there is human life on earth, but in a moment it may be gone.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - (*) Actually, we would be gone too, with them, largely transformed into gas and tiny particles. - (**) This might still take hours to years and not very pleasant ones at that. - JZ, 21.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear “weapons” are “weapons” for mass murderers but not against mass murderers. – JZ, n.d. - DECISION-MAKERS VS. THE PEOPLE, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear “weapons” are not really weapons to hit back with at the guilty aggressors, the decision-makers. They are simply mass murder devices. – JZ, 25.4.92, 26.1.11. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, TYRANNICIDE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, REVOLUTIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear “weapons” in anybody’s hands are in the wrong hands. – JZ, 7.9.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear arms ruin war by making the decision by arms impossible. The decision by arms can occur only when the strength of one side or the other is exhausted, or when its exhaustion is approached. But in nuclear “war” no one’s strength fails until both sides have been annihilated. – There cannot be a victor without a vanquished, the collapse of whose military efforts signals the end of the hostilities, permitting the victor to collect his spoils. But when both adversaries have nuclear arms that moment of collapse (*) never comes, and the military forces – the missiles – of both countries go on “fighting” after the countries (**) themselves have disappeared.” Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.190. – (*) this kind of collapse – (**) their populations – JZ - WAR & VICTORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear deterrence is almost exclusively a threat to hurt the enemy’s homeland, not to ward off or overwhelm his military force.” – Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.28.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear Holocaust, n. A War to end all wars.” – L.A. Rollins, Lucifer’s Lexicon.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: NUCLEAR ISRAEL. Jerusalem: Israel is ranked sixth among nations with nuclear weapons, according to the US Department of Energy. It says Israel has 300 to 500 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for at least 250 nuclear warheads. Russia ranks first with 140 tons; the United States second with 85 tons.” – Ross Dunn, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD,, 11.10.99. - In other words, the people, who were, quite wrongfully, subjected to one of the worst mass murders in history, are now, through their survivors and their descendants and their territorial government, ready, organized and armed to commit some mass murders of their own. While they were in the Diaspora, dispersed all over the world, they could at least not be completely exterminated with ordinary weapons. What will happen to the Jews remaining in the rest of the world, when Israel does use its nuclear “weapons”? Why assemble and maintain a territorial Jewish State that can be wiped out with a few nuclear weapons by its enemies? And why be so foolish to so assemble in a small territory, after the first nuclear weapons were developed and used? Territorialism seems to affect the power of judgment and the moral sense. – JZ, 24.1.08. – One good thing done by the State of Israel: Twice it has destroyed nuclear reactor buildings of other governments before they were finished to produce more nuclear weapons that could be used and were likely to be used against Israel. But, on the other hand, Israel built its own nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons to keep them in readiness for its mass extermination “actions”. – JZ, 31.5.08. – There are still idiotic territorial governments and other terrorists who want to be the first or at least “players” in this irrational and extremely immoral and mass murderous “game”. – Where are the rightful targets e.g. for Obama’s nuclear “weapons”? - JZ, 28.2.09, 26.1.11. – To kill a tyrant only a knife, arrow, bullet or some poison is needed and the determination to get rid of him. – JZ, 2.6.13. - OF DEMOCRATIC BUT TERRITORIAL ISRAEL, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear madness as the common enemy of East and West. - Richard Owen, THE WEEKEND AUTRALIAN, 23. - 24. 7. 1983. - The common enemy of all sides! - JZ, 1.5.05.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear reactors and nuclear "weapons" have put still more destructive and deadly power into the hands of the territorial State. - JZ, 23. 3. 85.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war “would destroy the world – in order to save it!” – JZ, 14.4.87. – Source of the quote?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war can only occur when people are not free enough to prevent it - by rightfully pursuing their own diverse interests, together with like-minded volunteers and always without a territorial monopoly claim. - JZ, 19. 6. 85, 2.6.13. - PEOPLE, FREEDOM, SELF-INTEREST, SELF-DEFENCE, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war gives the power to destroy mankind and the world but not the power to liberate its people from oppressive rulers. For every leading oppressor killed by a nuclear weapon it will probably murder 10 000 to 100 000 or even millions of his victims. - JZ, 2. 4. 85, 1.5.06. - & LIBERATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war has been misnamed the "suicide of mankind". But mankind has had so far no say at all on such decisions. It is not organized as such for this kind of decision-making. Not even its various national, ethnic, religions or ideological constituents, already living very much intermixed with each other, are freely organized for such decision-making. - We are all put into territorial and collectivist straightjackets, cages or State-wide prisons and have men, or women, all with all too fixed, wrong and irrational ideas, run these territorial-wide or national asylums, concentration camps or Kinder Gartens, under minimum to maximum "security". - They call it "leadership". Alas, too many of their victims still believe that it is, instead of realizing the enormous insecurity and mass murders which their leaders have prepared for them. Often these "leaders" are themselves the worst and most dangerous madmen and criminals, particularly with regard to their nuclear "security", "deterrence" and "defence" "policies". – JZ, NWT 27 5 06. – SUICIDE? TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, STATES, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war has not been prevented yet. It has only been postponed. It may still occur at any time. Already the preparations of it have cost and will cost hundred-thousands of lives, according to Linus Pauling, through water and air pollution from their testing, apart from the vast tax funds wasted upon them and their mental and moral effects of people under this continuing threat. – JZ, 25.4.89, 26.1.08, 26.1.11. – They are so conditioned that they have become apathetic, habitually ignoring this threat or do merely pray, march, protest or hope. Where are the peace, freedom and justice loving thinkers and activists, working towards the establishment of quite rightful, rational, liberating and peace-promoting alternative principles, aims, methods and institutions? - NUCLEAR DETERRENT, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear war is a destructive thing, but still in large part a physics problem." - Paul Nitze, Reagan's appointee to the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency. - He said that, probably, under the delusions of a Star Wars defence system. - It's rather a problem of moral, political and economic knowledge to stop this absolutely unjustified and unjustifiable menace. - JZ, 7.9.85, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is bad for business.” – W. K. Thomson, The Efficiency Expert, ANALOG 11/85, p.60. – Let us, therefore, put it and ALL preparations and preconditions for it, out of business. – JZ, 14.11.85.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is not an acceptable instrument of national policy." - John J. McClay, public statement as chairman of the US General Advisory Committee on Disarmament. And yet, preparation for it is almost everywhere national policy! - JZ, 4.8.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is not only wicked; it is pointless.” - Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.78.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is the continuance of territorial politics with other means. Territorial politics is the continuance of its conventional mass murder wars, civil wars or revolutions with other means, during the armistice periods, wrongly called peace. - JZ, 30.10.02, 26.1.11, 15.11.13. – POLITICS, PEACE, ARMISTICE, ARMS RACES, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is the father of total peace. – Ron Kritzfeld. (Atomkrieg: Vater des totalen Friedens.) – Yes, the “peace” of the world-wide battlefield, where unburied corpses rot away. – JZ, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war means mass murder instead of tyrannicide. – JZ, 3.3.98. - MASS MURDER & TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war turns every city into at least a potential if not already an "accomplished" extermination camp. - JZ, 18. 12. 82, 1. 5. 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war will not happen as the result of rational decisions, based on reasonable and moral premises. But then all other wars have not been due to quite moral and rational decision-making, either. – JZ, 17.2.86, 26.1.11, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear War would be a crime against God, man and all creation. – Presbyterian minister, quoted in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – If God survived it then it would not be a perfect crime. If he or she existed, then he or she would deserve to be nuked! – Only rational and moral beings are entitled to all rights and liberties. All of creation is not rational and moral. – Rationality and morality are rather rare. From this threat one can hardly conclude upon much rationality and morality in any ultimate creator – if he or she existed at all. - JZ, 28.2.09. – GOD, CREATION, RATIONALITY, MORALITY, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear wars do not liberate proletarians but annihilate them, too. Nor do they liberate the captive nations and peoples. Instead, they threaten them with genocide. - JZ, 6.4.84. - COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA & PROLETARIANS, NUCLEAR WAR THREATS INSTEAD OF TYRANNICIDE, LIBERATION & REVOLUTION ATTEMPTS & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS AGAINST DESPOTIC REGIMES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are an extreme example of action upon the principle of collective responsibility. - JZ, 30. 10. 82. - & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are no defence against nuclear weapons. - J.Z, 1.12.81.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are not in my line; unfortunately, I am in their line.” - E. M. Forster, b.1879, Andrews Quotations, p.302.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are not the cause of the power of States, but the result. - PRAJ, 32155. – They are the consequences of territorial rule. – JZ, 28.2.09. – STATES, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are obviously unsuitable for tyrannicide. Since they cannot be used exclusively against the real political and war criminals, they are, obviously, not proper weapons but merely mass murder and mass destruction devices, which will inevitably lead to the murder of many more innocent people than were so far murdered by their ruling territorial power addicts – JZ, 14.5.98, 2.6.13. – They are the terrible result of the immorality and non-thinking involved in territorial nationalism and in collective responsibility notions. – JZ, 24.1.08, 15.11.13. - & TYRANNICIDE, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM, POWER-MADNESS, GENOCIDE, DEMOCIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are progressive in only one way: They make indiscriminate mass murder cheaper, more likely and faster. – JZ, 8.2.95, 24.1.08. - & PROGRESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented.” – Tom Clancy, The Sum of all Fears, 1030. - The Inquisition was. Absolute monarchism was. Torture as a common practice was. Many once common torture instruments are no longer used. The official burning of widows and witches was largely done away with. And we are close to abolishing the victory celebrations of territorial conquests. Open dictatorships and tyrannies have also been diminished in number. The Berlin Wall was destroyed. The Iron Curtain fell, at least from the Eastern side. State socialism is no longer so popular as it once was. Pollution is now largely frowned upon or even penalized. Apart from compulsory fluoridation, well-poisoning was largely discontinued. We have no longer capital punishment for 200 different offences. Religious human sacrifices have been largely abolished. Only to territorial rule are still all too many human sacrifices made or taken. Governments do at least try to excuse their actions towards the public. – JZ, 14.9.07. We are beginning to questions territorialism. Do a Google search for panarchy and for panarchism. - JZ, 26.1.11. – PROGRESS, ENLIGHTENMENT, HUMAN SACRIFICES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons create too risky and explosive a situation. They are always in the wrong hands, directed against the wrong targets and this for the wrong reasons or motives. Morally they can’t be justified at all. A single bullet or dagger, correctly placed, can be more helpful to mankind than all of these “modern and scientific” “weapons”. The same applies to biological and chemical mass murder devices. – JZ, 14.3.98, 28.2.09. – WHOLE PEOPLES AS ENEMIES? TYRANNICIDE, MASS MURDER DEVICES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons do inevitably hit more innocents than guilty ones, even among the uniformed and armed subjects of an enemy regime, while, usually, sparing that regime itself. (To the extent that it has retreated into the safest shelter.) They are, therefore, not “weapons” but merely “mass extermination devices” that wipe out most of our potential secret allies, the captive peoples of the world. – JZ, 29.8.87. Our governments and ourselves have not even fully recognized the existence of captive nations and captives dissenting minority groups, by recognizing governments and societies in exile for all of them, all of them only for volunteers, the present refugees and deserters as well as all their future volunteers, and all confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. With such recognitions the existing despotic territorial regimes would come close to their almost non-violent collapse via military insurrections or revolutions with a good enough liberation program that would sufficiently unite the opposition forces, including those in the military forces of the regime, against their oppressors, exploiters and abusers. All nuclear threats from our side must cease and become replaced by sensible tyrannicide, revolution, military insurrection and liberation policies, combined with unilateral nuclear disarmament. Our “nuclear weapons” were never directed against the real enemies but, rather, their victims. – JZ, 29.8.87, 30.5.08. - They strengthened thus rather than weakened tyrannical regimes. Our military “experts” still manage to overlook that. At least some of them have by now questioned the indiscriminate air raid "policies" of WW II. - Tyrants fear every rightful government in exile (those for volunteers only) much more than they fear our governments' nuclear "weapons". - If all our territorial governments had already been transformed into communities and societies of volunteers only, then the threat of nuclear war and of tyranny and aggression would already be close to over. - The various captive nations and societies, including their soldiers and public servants, would say to themselves: We, too, want to have what they are having for themselves. For this we have only to copy or adopt their personal law institutions - instead of trying to conquer them. - JZ, 26.1.11, 2.6.13, 15.11.13. - GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE, VOLUNTEERS UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM AS A RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIM, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS INSTEAD OF INTERNATIONAL WARFARE.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons make the surgical removal of a national cancer, like tyranny or dictatorship, impossible. They inevitably attack its victims, the patient, the nation, the people, too, as if they were collectively responsible for the crimes of their ruling criminals. – JZ, 14.10.95, 24.1.08. - & TYRANNICIDE, COLLECTIVE RESONSIBILITY, WRONG TARGET & ENEMY SELECTION.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons should be dismantled.” - Mises Institute, DAILY ARTICLE, 24 11 06, by L. H. Rockwell, Jr. – Even unilaterally! – I was glad to find out that L. H. R. Jr. is in this respect, too, an heir of some of the best thinking of Murray N. Rotbhard, e.g. in his essay: War, Peace and the State. – JZ, 26.12.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear weapons surpass the boundaries of legitimate self-defence.” – John Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia. – Those still holding them in readiness are not intelligent enough to realize that. And our survival does, so far, depend upon these people! – JZ, 25.1.08. – SELF-DEFENCE & NATIONAL DEFENCE, TERRITORIAL DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear weapons, if they were ever used in large numbers, would simply blow war up, just as they would blow up everything else that is human.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.189. - Their mere existence is already an almost incredibly inhuman characteristic for our present territorial States, demonstrating their wrongfulness and irrationality to any objective observer. – JZ, 23.9.07. – TERRITORIALISM, STATES & STATISM, WARFARE STATES, DEFENCE, PROTECTION, WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons: These products of scientifically and technologically guided insanity, have been produced, have already been used and will be used again - unless we achieve the liberties, rights and opportunities to stop this madness. - JZ, 6/82, 28.2.09, 26.1.11, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Obviously, no one who believes in a just God can believe that it is his intention that the human race shall be immolated in a thermonuclear war.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.225. – GOD, RELIGIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Of all the crimes against the future, extinction is the greatest. It is the murder of the future.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.168. – It amounts to the total disfranchising of all otherwise possible future voters. – Is that a reasonable and “democratic” action? - JZ, 21.9.07. - & THE FUTURE, A THREAT TO ALL OF MANKIND

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: On 16th December 1991, a Time magazine article headlined: “Soviet Nukes on the Loose” surmised that some Soviet commanders could peddle tactical nuclear arms to foreign governments or terrorist gangs - and quoted Soviet historian Vladelen Sirotikin as saying: “Give me a million bucks and I’ll have a nuclear-tipped missile stolen for you and delivered any place you want.” – Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia., 1992., p.85/86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: On 27 August [1964], … Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus E. Vance pointed out that the typical “tactical” nuclear weapon had several times the yield of the atomic bomb that had destroyed Hiroshima. “Small” and “conventional” were dangerously misleading and totally inappropriate adjectives when applied to any nuclear weapon.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.238. - TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: On paper an ultimate catastrophe brought about by man seems 85 per cent likely. I live for the other 15 per cent.” - Leo Szilard, who died in 1964, quoted by Robert Jungk: The Everyman Project, p.21.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: On the one side stands (*) human life and the terrestrial creation. On the other side stands a particular organization of human life – the system of independent, sovereign nation-states. (**) Our choice so far has been to preserve that political organization of human life at the cost of risking all human life. (***) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.218. -  (*) unfree … - (**) I would rather call it a system of territorially sovereign State governments that have subdued and exploited their subjects. – JZ, 22.9.07. - (***) When and where was that ever the subject of a referendum? And if a national majority were in favor of it, it would still not have the right to impose its preference territorially upon all “its” minorities, as if they were its slaves or serfs. With all minorities, including individuals, the smallest minority, freed, via individual and group secessionism, to do their own things but only for and to themselves, some would soon set enlightening examples and the current kinds of wrongful majority rule systems and their wrongs would come to shrink, slowly or even fast. – JZ, 22.9.07, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: once again ... truth is too terrible for some people to believe." - Robert Cox, editor of the BUENOS AIRES HERALD, READER'S DIGEST, 6/82, p.238.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Once an instrument exists, there is a tendency to use it - regardless of the consequences.” - James R. Preston, Law of the Instrument, ANALOG, 5177 (5/77?, 5.1.77?), p.52. – What are these instruments or devices for - except mass murder and mass destruction? Calling them weapons or instruments is very misleading. – JZ, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Once the “strategic necessity” of planning the death of hundreds of millions of people is accepted, we begin to live in a world in which morality and action inhabit two separate, closed realms. All strategic sense becomes moral nonsense, and vice versa, and we are left with the choice of seeming to be either strategic or moral idiots.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.195. & “STRATEGIC NECESSITY”, MORALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.95.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: One cannot solve the nuclear war problem out of context with everything that makes for war. - JZ, 29.10.89. – CAUSES OF WAR, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, TAXATION, INFLATION, PUBLIC DEBT, CONSCRIPTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: One certainly cannot liberate e.g. "proletarians" or any other classes or groups, all more or less unfree, with nuclear missiles. - JZ, 18. 3. 84, 1.5.06, 2.6.13. - LIBERATION, PROLETARIANS, VICTIMS OF DICTATORSHIPS & TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: One of the advantages of nuclear warfare is that all men are cremated equal. - AUSTRALASIAN POST, Jan. 22, 1981. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: One of the strangest human paradoxes is that we fear human censure and loss of job more than we fear nuclear extinction.” – Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger. Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, The Women’s Press, 1985, p.344. - It is incomprehensible to most, just like the idea of their immediate death. Moreover, they feel their present and extreme helplessness in their territorial subject situation and thus prefer not to think about that threat and to act as if it did not exist. They should ponder how to gain freedom of action in this sphere as well but, as statists, they don’t. – JZ, 29.9.07, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: One strategic thinker, in a striking inversion of the usual understanding of ethical obligation, has said that an “iron will” is required if one is to recommend the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people in a nuclear attack – a point of view that is uncomfortably close to that of Heinrich Himmler, who told the commanders of the SS that in order to carry out the extermination of the Jews they had to be “superhumanly inhuman”. In both statements, it is not obedience to our moral feelings but resistance to those feelings that is presented as our obligation, as though moral feeling were a siren call that it would be weak to give in to and that it is our duty to resist.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.195. - “STRATEGIC THINKERS” & MORALITY OR ETHICS, OUR OFFICIAL POWER ADDICTS, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: only a madman would even consider nuclear war a viable policy option in our modern world of overkill, fallout, and ‘nuclear winter’.” – Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising, Berkley edition, 1987, p.43. - Alas, there is no short supply of madmen in this world, especially among politicians and military men. – JZ, 3.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only complete insanity would produce the final war and aren't enough of us already insane enough? - JZ, 1.4.80, after: "... the insanity that produced the final war" - by Alfred Bester, The Demolished Man, p.86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only if we abolish nuclear weapons and permanently halt the nuclear power industry can we hope to survive. To achieve these ends, it is vital that people be presented with the facts. Today more than ever, we need what Einstein referred to as a “chain reaction of awareness”: “To the village square”, he wrote in 1946, “we must carry the facts of atomic energy” Once presented, the facts will speak for themselves. “– Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, p.84. - Better ideas and forms of social, political and economic organization could, but mere terrifying facts do rarely enlighten enough. – JZ, 19.1.05, 24.9.07. - ENLIGHTENMENT, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, NEW DRAFT (A manuscript, to speed up the process of libertarian enlightenment. - For the time being, offered free upon request as zipped email attachment of 306 Kbs. Reproduce it partly or completely quite freely. It is not copyrighted. – )

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only insane people would seriously consider the use of nuclear “weapons” to murder other peoples en masse. But, as a matter of fact, there are actually dozens of supreme commanders and thousands of their officers who have nuclear weapons at their disposal and only wait for a government command or a computer malfunction or misinterpretation to use them. That is the kind of “protection” that we do get from our territorial governments. – JZ, 9.9.04, 22.10.07. – PROTECTION, TERRITORIALISM, STATES, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only technology has permitted us to put a city to the sword without quite realizing what we are doing.” – Joseph Wood Krutch, If You Don’t Mind My Saying So, THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR, Summer 1967. – TECHNOLOGY, NATURAL SCIENCES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only those stricken with incurable blindness will fail to recognize that the continuation of imperialist power politics and the old game of hegemonies must in the age of the atom bomb and the prodigious development of modern technique lead inevitably to the end of all human civilization.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.547, in its Epilogue. - MANKIND, HUMAN CIVILIZATION, POWER POLITICS, IMPERIALISM, HEGEMONIES, DOMINATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only tiny “minds” would “think” of indiscriminate mass murder devices or methods as tools to achieve anything rightful and positive. – JZ, 13.8.06. - TERRORISM, INDISCRIMINATE AIR RAIDS, WARFARE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only when you think, sufficiently, of the worst - as well as of the best and of all rightful alternatives - can you finally come to help to prevent the worst from happening. - JZ, 16.3.85, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Originally a means to protect national interests, war today can assure the death of a nation, the decimation of a continent.” – Vice-President Humphrey, in his address before the “Pacem in Terris” conference in New York on 17 February 1965, quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.252.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Others may try to emotionally motivate people to resist this threat. But once they are so motivated they would still need a rightful, rational and workable program. - JZ, 18.12.82, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our "great" mis-leaders, in their kind of penis-envy, do want to possess and use the ultimate big dick: nuclear rockets and bombs - against all of mankind, raping it to death and the thought of this atrocity seems to give them their greatest "high". Most of them are already old men and, probably, impotent. - Psychologists assert that it is not sexual pleasure that most rapists are after but, rather, the power they feel in the process. Thus even castrated rapists have been reported to have attempted rape. Their attempts were, probably, even more dangerous for their victims, because of their shame about their impotence. They will not want any surviving witness of it. - The rape attempts with "nuclear strength" or potency would be even more deadly for millions if not thousands of millions of victims. - And what do most of the intended victims of nuclear "armed" and power-mad "leaders" think and do? - They do either manage to ignore this threat, merely waiting for their final day, or, at best, shout "Ban the Bomb" slogans and march, carrying such signs, while avoiding to think seriously and long enough about the problem. "Dancing at the edge of a volcano!" - is still common practice. - By this behavior, they, too, are almost as much to blame as their all too power-mad and ruthless territorial rulers. - An old proverb says it all: "For every tyrant - a thousand ready slaves." - Source unknown, to me or not remembered right now. - Even if they are protesting slaves, but not yet actively resisting and rebelling ones. - We are still all too close to our apish or enslaved ancestors. - Or even below them in this respect: For ape leaders of e.g. the Pavians, do really risk their lives to save one of their young and would not dream of constructing, keeping in readiness and using "nuclear weapons". - Nor would otherwise all too faithful and loyal dogs. - Or would even mere dogs put up with a condition in which they would realize that their masters reserve to themselves the "right" to wipe them out, at any time? - (I wonder: How many of the "stray dogs" are really escapees, who have been mistreated by their masters?) - JZ, 27 5 06. - POWER ADDICTION, POWER MADNESS, MAN, ANIMALS, APATHY, DOGS, INDIFFERENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our ability to kill each other and ourselves is growing much faster than our productive capacity. - E. Reimer: The School is Dead, p. 50. - Well, the over-kill production of nuclear "weapons" grows even faster than our kill-capacity, since we can kill each other only once. - JZ, 20.11.02. – Our reasoning and moral capacity and action potential seems to stop short of these mass murder devices. – JZ, 28.2.09. - What fraction of all mankind has presently any say at all on such matters? - We are all involuntary targets but the vast majority of us are not power-mongers, with exclusive decision-making power and mass murder devices at their disposal. The words "our ability" are thus quite misleading. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our fathers and ourselves sowed dragon’s teeth. / Our children know and suffer the armed men.” – Stephen Vincent Benét, Litany for Dictatorships, 1935.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our generation … has seen what can be done by a HITLER, and it still lives in the knowledge that a handful of psychopaths could bring human history to an end. – ALEX COMFORT, “Authority and Delinquency. A study in the psychology of power”, 1950, 1970, p.107, a book largely on the delinquency of authority. – Alas, kept out of print and off the Web for all too long. - JZ, 15.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our intelligence sources tell us 40 tactical nuclear weapons are missing.” – James Dale Davidson, The Capitalist Manifesto, 1995, 128 pages, p.70. – A very misleading title since, in the main, it offers only information on its associated financial services and newsletter. – JZ, 8.10.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our last war was thirteen centuries ago. It was an atomic war. We nearly destroyed ourselves. It taught us that we must love one another or die.” – Edmund Cooper, Tomorrow Came, p.34. – Rather, that we must be just or tolerant to one another, even without loving each other. – I find it terrible that after almost 2000 years most people have nothing better than “love” or “charity” to offer as a solution to all problems. – JZ, n.d. & 30.5.08, 15.11.13. – JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, LOVE, CHARITY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, CHRISTIANITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: our reliance on “terror” to provide “safety”, and on the threat of “annihilation” to provide “survival”. For it is in an effort to strengthen and shore up the terror and make annihilation more certain that the strategists and statesmen are forced into these appalling postures. Their problem is to find a way of appearing “inexorably” resolved to do things that can never make any sense or ever be justified by any moral code, and irrationality and uncontrol fulfill the requirements for the very reason that they represent the abandonment of morality and sense. Adopted as a policy, they lend credibility to actions that are – conveniently for strategic purposes, if not for the safety of mankind – immoral and insane.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.205/6. – Apparently, territorialists cannot come up with anything rightful and rational in this respect, even after trying, for decades! – JZ, 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our safety is not in blindness, but in facing our dangers. – Schiller, “The Sublime”, 1793.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.” – Martin Luther King, Strength to Love, 1963. - Compare General Omar Bradley: “Nuclear giants and ethical infants.” - Why is it that the Peter Seller film parody on nuclear strength, “Dr. Strangelove”, is not to be found in video shops? – JZ, 26.1.08. – Today I finally got a copy of it, after ordering it ca. 2 weeks ago through a local video store. – 44 years ago it had motivated me to start my PEACE PLANS series, with an initial “investment” for a second-hand rotary duplicator, which cost me 80 Australian pounds. – JZ, 11.2.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our situation is in fact bluntly stated in the title of one of Fuller's books, Utopia or Oblivion. What we need to realize is that utopia is just as likely as oblivion. It all depends on where we put our energy, our money, our beliefs, and our efforts. … 1967: total smallpox victims, 2,500, 000. 1976: total smallpox victims, 40. - Robert Anton Wilson, ILLUMINATI PAPERS, p.52. - On the other hand, the figures for malaria victims, after DDT was outlawed, show just about the reverse of the above-mentioned trend. Not that I favor DDT. Are there really no effective alternatives to it, which do not do a great ecological damage? - JZ, 1.5.06. - & UTOPIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our use of nuclear weapons and other means of mass-destruction during WW II was the greatest moral abdication of the Western powers. – S. Feldman and C. Osgood, reviewing an article by S. Hayakawa, Ref. 14143, PRAJ.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: our weapons now threaten to destroy us.” – John C. Polanyi in: The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.71. – Rather, our territorial political organizations and policies, including “weapons” – or the ideas they are based on, threaten to destroy us – if we subscribe to them any longer. – JZ, 13.7.94, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our world seems to find it easier to split atoms than to smash the dangerous errors, myths false premises and prejudices, which lead to nuclear war. - JZ, 19. 6. 85, 31.5.08. - & POPULAR PREJUDICES, ENCYCOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." - General Omar Bradly. - I just had my 5-year old granddaughter on the phone, because she wanted to make a phone call. - I can't talk with her sensibly about this threat - nor can I with the vast majority of all adults that I know! - Just like an ant, we ignore the possibility of being stepped on by a man - or here by any of the territorial governments that are so armed. - We are conditioned to accept total helplessness in this respect, as a natural and inevitable condition and so we do, mostly, not even to consider how we could gain the power for self-help against the nuclear war threat and for the prevention of nuclear war. My two books on this have certainly not turned into best-sellers but are still record-breaking non-sellers!  - JZ, 20.11.02. – They are online at

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Outlawing all atomic weapons would be a magnificent gesture. However, it should be remembered that Gettysburg had a local ordinance forbidding the discharge of firearms.” – Homer D. King. - LAWS, PROHIBITIONS & GUN CONTROL LAWS, JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: over Cuba, when the USA and USSR played "chicken" with world war just a hair's breadth away.” - Ross Bradshaw in: "From Protest to Resistance". - & CUBA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Panarchism is the only political philosophy and practice that can drag us out of the nuclear mess. Nevertheless, some libertarians manage to ignore it and the nuclear threats and thereby confirm the worst myths and fears of collectivists. With nuclear “weapons” one cannot commit tyrannicide, i.e., hold criminals individually responsible, without also killing thousands to millions of his victims. The ABC mass murder devices, by their very nature, when used, apply the wrongful “principle” of collective responsibility. To use an analogy: It is as if the police, in the pursuit of some armed bandits within a city, were to use heavy artillery bombardment or area bombing against those city districts in which they suspect the criminals to hide. To re-examine their faith in nuclear “weapons”, I would like these “libertarians” and “defenders” of liberty to at least read Murray N. Rothbard’s short essay: War, Peace and the State, if not my own ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS 16/17. - If panarchism were to mean that we would have to permit all the fans of ABC mass murder devices and of nuclear power plants to build and keep them, then I would come to oppose panarchism myself. Fortunately, it is the best means to release and organize all the anti-nuclear energies, to destroy the powers, motives and fears making for nuclear war between territorial States. Panarchies would even eliminate the seemingly obvious targets for nuclear weapons and the secrecy required to build them and keep them in readiness. Under panarchism nuclear “strength”, as well as “strength” in other indiscriminate mass murder devices, would become one of the characteristics by which “leaders” would be defined as tyrants, which would invite and justify tyrannicide. Under a sufficient enlightenment and proper re-organization it would even assure it, soon. – JZ, n.d. & 7.1.99, 26.1.11, 15.11.13. - & PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERENANCE, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, LIBERATION, MILITIA, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Passengers on a ship, who are eating, sunning themselves, playing shuffleboard, and engaging in all the usual shipboard activities, appear perfectly normal as long as their ship is sailing safely in quiet seas, but these same passengers doing these same things appear deranged if in full view of them all their ship is caught in a vortex that may shortly drag it and them to destruction. Then their placidity has the appearance of an unnatural loss of normal human responses – of a pathetic and sickening acquiescence in their own slaughter.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Peace with a cudgel in hand is war.” – Portuguese proverb.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People are as shit-scared and cowardly as ever, and still waiting for orders. Nothing can change humanity. Jesus couldn't do it. Jefferson couldn't do it. Even Hubbard can't do it. People are hopeless." - R. A. Wilson, Schroedinger's Cat II: The Trick Top Hat, p.105. - People as parts of territorial collectives: Yet those few people, thinking as individualists, forced to live among "the people" and according to their rules, are not as indifferent and hopeless cases. However, they, too, have not yet bothered to compile a program for their effective resistance and regime change. Many are e.g. more concerned about the history of their movement than about its future. Or they engage with gusto in mere scholastic debates and controversies. - JZ, 1.5.06. - & PEOPLE, LIBERTARIANS, THE REMNANT, INTEREST IN THE OWN MAJOR AFFAIRS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People are too much involved in their own little problems to know where they are going and how they may end." - Free by JZ after a remark in a Japanese SF film on TV, 18.2.78. - Words were so far all too weak "weapons" against the nuclear strength powers, decision-makers, fanatics and fools, their errors and wrong premises and assumptions - and the disinterest and submissiveness of their victims. - JZ, 20.11.02. – At least until a libertarian ideas archive and refutations encyclopedia are established to market their ideas much more effectively than is possible without them and related resources, still to be established. See my digitized NEW DRAFT manuscript, not yet online or on a disc but offered free by me as email attachment, zipped, 306 KBs.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People can do something about nuclear war only once they become fully aware how little they can do about it right now and why, so that they resemble, indeed, the condemned man waiting in a death cell, for the execution date to be fixed. Aware of their missing options, they can then begin to work with determination towards self-determination, towards the vote and freedom of action in this most important sphere and in all others. Compared with that freedom the current franchise is as nothing, nay, even of negative value. - JZ, 4.8.82, 26.1.11. - FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VS. DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, TERRITORIALISM, OBEDIENCE TO WRONGFUL GOVERNMENTS, DECLARATION OF ALL GENUINE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, MILITIA, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS & ALLIANCES, VOTING

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People cannot for long place confidence in institutions that fail even to recognize the most urgent requirement of the whole species, and it is therefore not surprising that, more and more, people do actually look on politicians with contempt, though perhaps without having quite figured out why.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - POLITICS & POLITICIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People pay taxes, presumably for their own benefit – while TERRITORIAL governments build e.g. anti-people mass murder devices with these means and reserve to themselves the right to do so and to use them if they consider this to be justified and necessary. – JZ, n.d. & 24.1.08. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People refuse to believe in annihilation" - "Naturally", Felix stared at the Director. "Does that surprise you? Everyone lives with the knowledge of his own death. Telling him it may be a little closer or more widespread doesn't make it any more dreadful. To any thinking being, personal death is the most dreadful thing there can be. If he can live with that knowledge, how can you hope to frighten him with anything else?" - "But no one admits, consciously at least, that he is going to die," said Gloria. - "Agreed, but he knows that he is living a lie and still he manages to ignore it. Against that armor you don't stand a chance. Personal death is, after all, a certainty. The ultimate war is only a probability." - E. C. Tubb, "Window on the Moon", in NEW WORLDS SF, 6/63, p.117/118. - So we might need longevity or even immortality to make people really interested in the nuclear war threat! - JZ, 24. 5. 80. - DEATH, LONGEVITY, IMMORTALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People who hold or build mass extermination “weapons” should be as automatically attacked and rendered harmless as those mentally and physically defectives are who would assault small children, or shoot up children in a school. Indeed, the nuclear child molesters do it, indirectly, on a massive scale and are thus much more dangerous, although only few of them would ever assault a child directly. - JZ, 3.6.82, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People who meekly submit to much of their income being stolen from them, by taxation, will also meekly submit to their survival being threatened by "nuclear strength" policies. No tax, no nuclear “weapons”! - JZ, 5.11.82, 2.6.13. - & TAXATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People who permit their governments to force monopolistic and inflated money upon them, who let themselves be subjected to tribute payments, called "taxes" with their consent, and also permit themselves being snowed under by numerous laws and governmental disservices, in the name of genuine law, representation and public services, and still assume that thereby they receive genuine public services, will also tend to accept, all too thoughtlessly, governmental preparations for the general holocaust, as if they were defence preparations or preparations for liberation efforts. They have to come to opt out from their servility and all too great obedience, first with their minds and then with their bodies. - JZ, 5. 11. 82 & 1. 5. 06. - MONETARY DESPOTISM & COMPULSORY TAXATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, SLAVE MENTALITY, SERVILITY, TERRITORIALISM, OBEDIENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Perry emphatically tells us that “war has become as never before in the world’s history, an imminence of catastrophe, while peace has become not only an ideal good, but an absolute and paramount necessity.” … Individual heroism cannot withstand the force of an atomic blast.” - Irving Louis Horowitz, War and Peace in Contemporary Social and Philosophical Theory, a Condor book, 1957, 1973, Chapter 12: Ralph Barton Perry: Universal Individualism, p.180. - We should remember that since 1945 no more nuclear weapons have been used in wars, although numerous wars were conducted since then. But they might be used at any time. Thus rightful organizations and arms, as well as all other suitable means should be organized and prepared to deal effectively with conventional aggressors and to prevent, as far as possible, their aggressions and to achieve the total destruction of all mass murder devices. A “war” against the warmongers and their total war preparations could only be realized in practice by a minor and quite rightful police action. But are we as yet prepared for this? So far we are not even sufficiently prepared for quite rightful tyrannicide. – Individual human rights are still not fully recognized and rightful militias and quite rightful societies for their realization and defence even less. - JZ, 29.9.07. – TYRANNICIDE, MILITIA, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE TARGETED PEOPLES, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: perseverance in the pursuit of peace is not cowardice, but courage, that restraint in the use of force is not weakness, but wisdom. …” - Vice-President Humphrey, in his address before the “Pacem in Terris” conference in New York on 17 February 1965, quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.252.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Politicians don't know how to use police forces and conventional military forces properly. Far less do they know how to use nuclear military “strength”. Even the wisest person would not be able to solve that latter task! - JZ, 6.7.85, 2.6.13. - POLITICIANS, POLICE & MILITARY FORCES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Politics, … is fully stuck with the glaring absurdity that with one hand it builds for a future (*) that with the other hand it prepares to destroy.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160. - (*) I deny that territorial politics does that or can do that or that it can do that better, more cheaply and without great risks than free, private and voluntary self-help efforts could. – JZ, 21.9.07, 2.6.13. – In all their Summit Conferences they never discussed the moral and rational alternative of exterritorial and voluntaristic politics. Most of them are either totally ignorant of or prejudiced against it. – Their powerful and well-financed secret services and “intelligence” services are also unable to dig up this published "secret" for them! – Our fate is in the hands of the stupid, ignorant, prejudiced and least interested people, all of them addicted to territorial power. - JZ, 23.2.09. - & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SECRET SERVICES, POWER MONGERS, SUMMIT CONFERENCES, LEADERSHIP, TERRITORILISM, GOVERNMENTALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Power does not equal security. Political power does not equal military power. Military power does not equal nuclear weapons. - Gwyn Prius, ed., The Choice: Nuclear Weapons vs. Security, p.XV. Published by A. S. Collins.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Power over other men, accompanied with quite insufficient power over the own life, has finally led us to nuclear holocaust power and keeps us under its threat. More territorial government power cannot lead us out of it. Only the abolition of all territorial political power over non-consenting individuals could. Individuals have to regain the kind of power required to resist the current few and exclusive territorial power holders and the individual and voluntary group power to run their own lives in accordance with their own ideas, convictions or faith or their own preferred and free experiments, systems, communities and institutions, always at their own expense and risk. - JZ, 30.10.82, 1.5.06. - & POWER, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: President Dwight Eisenhower wrote in a letter in 1956 that one day both sides would have to “meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of armaments has ended, and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.6. – But mankind has been given no vote on this matter. Only the territorial power addicts have been given that vote and none of the nuclear power addicts has, so far, destroyed all his nuclear mass murder devices – and the masses have meekly submitted to this situation. – JZ, 30.5.08. – The territorial leaders do not represent all sides but mainly only their own side, their own false ideas, errors, prejudices or at most the popular ones of the masses and never all those of the somewhat enlightened people. – JZ, 15.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTATATION, POLITICANS, RULERS, PRESIDENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Pro football is like nuclear warfare. There are no winners, only survivors.” – Frank Clifford, Sports Illustrated, July 4, 1960. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Professor Bernard T. Feld, Secretary General of the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, comes to the frightful conclusion that 'the odds are around one in three that a nuclear weapon will be used in conflict before the year 1984.' He puts the chances of such a holocaust occurring before the end of the century at fifty-fifty. - Writing in NEW SCIENTIST, the professor bases his assessment on the uneasy world political climate, the willingness of the major powers to share their nuclear technology in exchange for raw materials or political influence, and the abject failure to control the arms race.” - J. Stoneley: CETI, p.162. – According to this professor, we have been very, very lucky, so far. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Quite different from the "Sword of Damocles", the nuclear war threat hangs over every head! - JZ 27. 9. 83.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rabbi Oshaya said: God was charitable to Israel when he dispersed the Children of Israel among many nations.” – Pesahim, 87b. – This can be interpreted in two ways: Firstly, it dispersed some intelligent people among other nations. Just compare e.g. the contributions, which Jews made to the culture of Arabs and of Germans and to the rest of the world population. Secondly, with regard to the nuclear war threat, not all Jews are any longer concentrated in nuclear weapons targets. Only a fraction of them have thus exposed themselves in Israel. - While there are still tens of thousands of nuclear mass murder devices around, all nations, communities and societies and movements etc. should seek their own Diaspora or should exterritorially decentralize into communities of volunteers, of all kinds, whose member live exterritorially autonomous, i.e. mixed with each other in the same territories, but all under their own personal law and institutions. Many religious people have done this so far already, although for other reasons. If they were sufficiently enlightened about this experience of their own, they would recommend it to the adherents of all political, economic and social systems. No more large territorial targets for mass extermination devices used under the misconception of collective responsibility of territorial subjects for the crimes of their rulers. – JZ, 2.3.83, 26.1.08. – Moreover, everybody could and should be as free or unfree as he or she wants to be and thus nobody would have any good cause to complain. - JZ, 26.1.11. – RELGIOUS LIBERTY OR TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES, DIASPORA, PANARCHISM DISSOLVES THE TARGETS FOR WMD’S, JEWISH PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities.” – Albert Einstein, after the detonation of the first Hydrogen Bomb. – He should have thought of that beforehand! – Scientists are often morally as irresponsible as are ordinary citizen and subscribe, unthinkingly, to the quite unscientific “principles” of collective responsibility” and territorialism. - JZ, 23.2.09, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Reach for the Stars, Not the Bomb.” – Found on the back of a subway seat, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 6, 1976. – Used as motto in David Alexander Smith, Marathon, A Parabola in Time, Ace Books, 1982. - STARS, UNIVERSE, SPACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: recognize the peril, dismantle the weapons, and arrange the political affairs of the earth so that the weapons will not be built again.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.122. - & PANARCHISM, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, PROPERLY ORGANIZED, ARMED & TRAINED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN VOLUNTEER MILITIAS TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Refusal to threaten a fellow human being is an absolute requirement in the day that has just dawned on us." - Frank Herbert, Committee of the Whole, GALAXY, 4/65, p.22. - Are tyrants and all who possess nuclear "weapons" - "fellow human beings"? - JZ, n.d. – There should me more rightful and defensive weapons – in the hands of many more and sufficiently enlightened people, for the defence of their individual rights and liberties. = JZ, 15.11.13. - Q., TYRANNICIDE, MASS MURDER PREPARATIONS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH & DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: relying on this contradictory system for our survival is our present half-numb, half-terror-stricken world, in which growing mountains of nuclear weapons are supposed to improve the world’s safety, and in which we do not know from one moment to the next whether we will survive or be exploded back into our original atoms. Reflecting on the frightful effects of this arrangement – effects that, even without a holocaust, corrupt our lives, - we are led to wonder why it should be necessary to seek safety in terror, survival in annihilation, existence in nothingness, and to wonder why we shouldn’t resort to the more straightforward measure of disarmament: of seeking survival by banning the instruments of death.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.209. – I see in the underlined section the weakest part of this otherwise excellent book on the dangers we ought to face and abolish. For what effective technical, means, organizational forms, training and suitable weapons do the people have now, anywhere, to “ban” and disarm and destroy nuclear weapons in the hands of their own territorial governments and in the hands of foreign such governments? They, including their intellectuals, have no program and training for such a revolutionary act. They are so apathetic, helpless and ignorant and also disinterested in this sphere that they expect their territorial governments, i.e., the Warfare States themselves, to do this job for them, as if territorial governments could point out any great successes in any of their efforts. It’s like entrusting crime fighting to the Mafia. – JZ, 22.9.07. - Under full freedom to experiment for all, under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy, the already existing solutions in some minds could easily become realized, without having to succeed first in persuading the territorial statists, which seems to be close to impossible. - Letting their opponents opt out, to do their own things for or too themselves, would seem attractive to at least some of the territorial politicians, so that a start could be made somewhere. These politicians, with their remaining volunteers, could then remain in the saddle as long as they still have voluntary supporters and only over them. - JZ, 26.1.11. – Seeing the costly and irrational over-kill potential, which even territorial rulers finally recognized, they have somewhat reduced their nuclear “arsenal” of these “weapons” – but the thousands that do remain, remain wrongful mass murder devices, with no rightful targets on Earth. Even if not used against any cities but only e.g. against nuclear armed submarines and nuclear IBM stations, dug in in desert areas, they would cause an in excusable radioactive pollution. Their dismantlement ought to be done peacefully, best by those supposed to operate and to guard them, who would also be exterminated in an all-out nuclear weapons use. – JZ, 2.6.13. - THREAT, DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Responding to one mass murder of innocents by another mass murder of innocents is no solution, no defence, no liberation but just another case of nuclear war madness. – JZ, 15.8.04. - Another case also of the wrongfulness and irrationality of territorialism. - JZ, 26.1.11. - RETALIATORY STRIKES, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: retaliation is one of the least justified actions ever contemplated, being wholly pointless.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – At least in this case, where it would often mean hundreds of thousands to millions of innocents would also be killed. – JZ, 2.6.13. - RETALIATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Robert McNamara, who served as Secretary of Defense for seven years under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, defined the policy in his bookThe Essence of Security” (*), published in 1968, in the following terms: “Assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering.” Thus deterrence “means the certainty of suicide to the aggressor, not merely to his military forces, but to his society as a whole.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.196. - (*) - It should have been entitled: “The Essence of Nuclear Insecurity”! - JZ, 22.9.07. Or: The Essence of Nuclear Suicidal Insanity among all Nuclear Powers. – JZ, 2.6.13. - (**) Simply overlooked is here the fact that the top decision-makers are not identical with the nation, the people and the military forces. They are only a few monopolists and, in this regard, they are extreme tyrants. Against tyrants has existed, for thousands of years, a policy of tyrannicide. As tyrannicide weapons nuclear weapons are quite unsuitable. Tyrannicide strikes against the real war-mongers and war criminals would be much more sensible, easier and cheaper than to organize and finance “nuclear” “weapons” against the victims of these tyrants. Nevertheless, this alternative path and also the path to prevent any tyranny from arising and continuing, via recognizing all individual rights and liberties, including individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and monetary freedom and the replacement of collective responsibility by individual responsibility, was not taken or even seriously, widely and quite publicly discussed, so far. The territorialist popular religion has prevented this discussion. – JZ, 22.9.07. – Most people are even unconscious of it, as they are of their support of collective responsibility. They simply take both to be self-evident and take them, quite tacitly, for granted. – JZ, 23.2.09. - To some extent this MAD policy resembles the "Christian" threat with "eternal hell fire" for unrepentant "sinners. Obviously, this threat, conducted for almost 2,000 years, hasn't prevented all sinning, either. Should we not expect the "nuclear deterrent" to be as ineffective, because under continuing territorialism, finally, even if only accidentally, the general nuclear holocaust will occur? Should all those, who caused it and all those who did nothing moral and rational to prevent it, expect to get to their kind of "heaven"? - JZ, 26.1.11. – In one respect the general nuclear holocaust would be better than burning eternally in the Christian Hell: It would kill relatively fast, at least all those close to the blast, even before their nerves can transmit the pain message to their brains. – Only some more or less harmed to crippled or mutated survivors may exist still for some decades. Even that would be better than an eternal survival in Hell, also envisioned by a divine father, who, supposedly, loves his children. – JZ, 2.6.13. & DETERRENCE DOCTRINE, THE GOD OF HEAVEN & ETERNAL HELLFIRE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rogue's Gallery: The strangler strokes his silken cord, The mugger loves his knife. The poisoner makes his victims twitch, And thrash away their life. The passionate choose bullets, Or perhaps a heavy club, While some are more inventive, They electrify a tub. But the ones that give me nightmares, And destroy my aplomb, Are those smiling men in politics, With their damned atomic bomb.” - P. M. Ferguson, p.54 of ANALOG, 6/85. - Murderers threaten and kill only some people. Territorial mass murderers, like our present politicians, threaten to kill hundreds of millions, even everyone. - JZ, 17.8.02, 15.11.13. - Moreover, they still pretend to be our protectors - and all too many of their victims do still believe them! - JZ, 26.1.11. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES, POLITICIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rothbard's arguments refuting the interventionists are solidly grounded in hard-core libertarian theory and not refutable. "Liberty must be the highest political end, and in the same way, peace and avoidance of mass murder must be the highest end of foreign policy." - NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 23.10.77. - Alas, territorial politics cannot achieve that. - Even Rothbard did not see or express that clearly enough. - JZ, 26.1.11. – His 1963 article, War, Peace and the State, 8 pages, is one of his best and, possibly, also most ignored articles that he ever wrote. – I reproduced it, repeatedly, in my PEACE PLANS series, on microfiche. – JZ, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Saddam Hussein is not fit to have a finger on the nuclear trigger. And once we stop to think, nor is anyone else.” – Michael Foot, THE TIMES, Quotes of the Week, p.39, January 2, 1999. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR DETERRENT, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.” – Churchill, in the House of Commons, 1955, quoted in: Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 197. – A word play, covering up insanity by pretending that it would always assure survival, no matter for how long this kind of “policy” or “strategy” is pursued and quite ignoring the danger of an accidentally caused nuclear war. – JZ, 19.9.82, 22.9.07. – Or one intentionally caused by one of the more than usually mad leaders. – JZ, 15.11.13. - DETERRENCE, TERRORISM & SURVIVAL,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Sakharov envisages a world quickly descending into chaos and, in all probability, total nuclear destruction. The forces which man now controls are so pervasive, their potential so cataclysmic, that without the broadest scale collaboration and utilization of man's capacity for social management, he will inevitably destroy himself. Sakharov's view of the brink on which mankind stands, is one shared by most thoughtful scientists of the western world - a belief that our potential for destruction has grown so radically that the odds upon the world arriving at the year 2,000 may be stated in the negative. - After-word by H. E. Salisbury to: A. D. Sakharov: Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom. - But are even these few thoughtful scientists prepared to objectively look at all alternative policies proposed to the ones now pursued and making for nuclear war? There is not even one place collecting all these alternative views - apart from my own all too limited single-handed efforts. Most people are strong only in rejecting ideas, which do not agree with their own. – JZ, 4.8.82. – No territorial politicians not any peace movement showed, to my knowledge, any comprehension of the exterritorial imperative, voluntarism, individual sovereignty and individual secessionism as preconditions for the solution of this problem. - – Although Ron Paul at least in one passage sympathized with panarchism, he did not persistently pursue and apply this idea, either. – JZ, 20.11.02, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Scalping a man is a hell of a poor way to cure his dandruff.” - Robert Heinlein, Assignment in Eternity, p.53. – Most of the victims of nuclear war cannot even be accused of having dandruff. However, most of them can be accused of not showing as serious interest in the solution of this problem. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Scan the last sixty years of war, hot and cold; wars to end wars, each serving only as a prelude to larger wars, And, today, we worldlings, in angry and hateful moods, stand tense and poised to strike out at each other, not with shillelaghs, pistols, hand grenades and cannons, but with mass exterminators of the germ and atom types, types that only a people of surrendered principles could concoct.” - Leonard E. Read: Having My Own Way, p.61. - Alternatively, one might ask, upon what 'principles' are nuclear reactors and bombs permissible? - JZ, n.d. – Alas, he too, did simply assume that most people are already free to act in this sphere, i.e. he ignored the decision-making monopolies of territorial governments, everywhere still constitutional or at least legalized and juridically defended and hardly ever questioned by most of their victims. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Scrawled upon one of many metal boxes, produced by the firm “Krone”, and covering electrical connections, sitting on the footpaths in the streets of Germany, near the curb: “Nuclear war bunker for one person. Nr. C 3470961. – I know what I want. (A).”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Secede from all nuclear “Popes” or powers. – JZ, 13.9.89, 25.1.08. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR POWER, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara … remarked before the House Armed Services Committee in 1963, … that once the first tactical nuclear weapon had been used the world would have been launched into ‘a vast unknown’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.31. – The vastness of the unknown existed already beforehand – in the heads of our “leaders”. – Do not forgive them – for they do not know what they are doing to us, do it nevertheless and do not care about that. – But they still want your vote – and your taxes and obedience and, all too often, still get them! - JZ, 23.2.09 - & TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: See especially my second peace book: “An ABC Against Nuclear War.” - Panarchism would abolish the major preconditions for all wars, civil wars and revolutions. - "Perhaps most important of all, panarchism would do away with the threats arising from the mere existence of ABC mass murder or anti-people devices and of territorial governments able and willing to use them. E.g. no nuclear targets would remain nor any war and peace making monopoly. Motives and means for conducting international wars would tend to disappear and almost everybody would gain a personal interest in becoming also a disarmament inspector against the build-up of ABC mass murder devices by anyone, anywhere and at any time. Imagine the almost general outcry of all kinds of religious and non-religious people if the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches tried to arm themselves with nuclear "weapons" against each other. Everybody would realize that his own fate would then be at stake and that of mankind. No nuclear strength advocates would then get far with such an aspiration. Most religious people, today, would not even entertain such a notion in the first place. It would be too obviously wrong, self-defeating and absurd. - JZ to Joe Toscana, a Melbourne anarchist, March 96. - Man must now be organized in a way to minimize the risk of nuclear war. Panarchism provides that organizational framework. It does not restrict any rightful aspirations, not even any wrongful and useless or destructive ones - provided, they are realized only within the own sphere, among volunteers, i.e. at their own cost and risk only. – JZ, n.d. - & PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: See one nuclear war – and you’ve seen them all.” – Graffiti. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Senator Barry Goldwater wrote a book, published in 1962, whose title was “Why Not Victory?” To this question the strategists of deterrence have a decisive answer: Because in the present-day, nuclear world “victory” is oblivion. From this recognition flows the conclusion, arrived at by Brodie in 1946, that the sole purpose of possessing nuclear strategic arms is not to win war but to prevent it. The adoption of the aim of preventing rather than winning war requires the adoption of other policies that fly in the face of military tradition. One is abandonment of the military defense of one’s nation – of what used to be at the center of all military planning and was the most hallowed justification of the military calling. The policy of deterrence does not contemplate doing anything in defence of the homeland; it only promises that if the homeland is annihilated the aggressor’s homeland will be annihilated, too. In fact, the policy goes further than this: it positively requires that each side leave its population open to attack, and make no serious effort to protect it. … According to this logic, the safety can be only as great as the terror is, and the terror therefore has to be kept relentless. If it were to be diminished – by, for example, building bomb shelters that protected some significant part of the population – then safety would be diminished, too, because the protected side might be tempted to launch a holocaust in the belief that it would “win” the hostilities.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.199. - One of the many absurdities of this situation is that the populations, which cannot be effectively and lastingly protected against this threat, have no say in the matter, whilst the relatively few top decision-makers might continue to live for a long time in safe and well provisioned shelters, while their populations are already mutually exterminated by them. The innocents are wiped out, the guilty ones, the mass murderers, survive, at least for some time. – Imagine mankind only being represented by such mass murderers! - JZ, 22.9.07, 2.6.13. - & VICTORY, OBLIVION OR DETERRENCE, MILITARY DEFENCE THINKING, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Should we allow our government or any other government to build any mass extermination camps against any section of any population? If not, should we then permit our government or any other government to build and keep in readiness at least equivalent mass extermination devices, directed largely and almost exclusively against the population of whole cities and even countries, under any excuse or pretence? - Couldn't we come to any better arrangement with the potential victims than threatening them with the ultimate and a suicidal holocaust, i.e., people, who do not themselves and directly threaten us? They are, presently, just the playthings in the hands of their rulers, much like we are now in this respect in the hands of our rulers. - JZ, 12. 2. 83, 1. 5. 06. - TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, PEACE NEGOTIATIONS & TREATIES BETWEEN THE TARGETED PEOPLES, INSTEAD OF THEIR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Should we not do more than merely "wait for the bombs" to rain down upon us, in over-kill quantities? (3) - JZ, NWT, 27 5 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Should we supply totalitarian or dictatorial regimes with nuclear weapons, nuclear raw materials, scientific advice and equipment, all quite "freely", perhaps government-subsidized or on indefinite and cheap credit terms or at all? The Australian government is currently supplying Red China with uranium. Numerous corporations were found to have supplied dictatorships with the equipment to make their own nuclear weapons. All to make friends with such criminals or profit from supplying them! - JZ, n.d. & 1.5.06. - FREE TRADE, URANIUM MINING & EXPORT, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since Aristotle, it has often been said the two basic aims of political association are, first, to assure the survival of members of society (that is, to protect life) and, second, to give them a chance to fulfill themselves as social beings (that is, to enable them to lead a noble or a good life). The threat of self-extermination annuls both of these objectives, and leaves the politics of our day in the ludicrous position of failing even to aim at the basic goals that have traditionally justified its existence.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160/61. - It is not "self-extermination" when the masses of the victims, under territorialism, have no say on the matter at all. - Even he got some of the basics wrong. - JZ, 26.1.11. - POLITICS, STATES, PROTECTION, DEFENCE, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since deterrence depends fully as much on one’s adversary’s perception of one’s “unwavering” will to retaliate as on one’s technical ability to do it, an acknowledgment that retaliation is senseless would in a way amount to unilateral disarmament by verbal means. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence thus deters debate about itself, … The commonest solution to the problem of the missing motive for retaliation is to suggest that the policymakers try to cultivate an appearance of unreason, for if one is insane one doesn’t need to supply any motive for retaliating – one might do it simply out of madness.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.204. – Or out of spite. – JZ, 22.9.07. – It seems that many of them do not find it difficult to appear unreasonable. – But will their counterparts be reasonable enough to recognize that? - JZ, 10.10.07. - & DETERRENCE OF FIRST STRIKE & DETERRENCE FROM COMMITTING THE SECOND & RETALIATORY STRIKE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since in a holocaust the consequences may be the same for the aggressor, its punisher, and bystanders, the distinction between friendly and hostile nuclear forces has lost most of its meaning, and the nuclear arsenals of the world are effectively combined by policy into one great arsenal, (*) which is looked to by all powers (**) equally for their ‘safety’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.215/15. - (*) of anti-people “weapons” or mass murder devices, whose use cannot distinguish between friends and enemies. – JZ, 22.9.07. - (**) By all territorial power-mongers and power addicts, regardless of how much they endanger their territorial subjects. Alas, the victims of this policy do not complain or resist this disfranchisement. If they had a say on these “weapons” and the organizations and weapons to do so, they would sooner or later destroy them, even unilaterally, no longer waiting for their governments to do so. – JZ, 22.9.07. - ENEMIES & ALLIES OR NEUTRALS, DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE, WHO ARE TARGETED BY THESE WEAPONS. IT HARDLY MATTERS WHETHER THEY ARE THE WEAPONS OF THE OWN OR A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since there were many captive peoples victimized by the Soviets, including most of the Russian people, the Western nuclear weapons threatened these people rather than the Soviets. If there had been many workers exploited by capitalists in the West (“proletarians”), then the Soviet nuclear weapons did threaten mainly these victims with death, rather than their governments or their supposed exploiters. – Curiously enough, this contradiction of the ideological split was never publicly and widely discussed - to my knowledge. The wrongful, false and territorial identification of diverse peoples with their mis-rulers, based on the “principle” of collective responsibility or of territorialism, i.e. of people considered as property of governments, and as responsible, nevertheless, for the criminal actions of their territorial rulers, continues to this day. It led to the ABC mass murder devices. – JZ, 28.7.87, 30.5.08, 26.1.11. – COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness. We know that we may fall into the abyss at any moment, but we also know that we many not. So life proceeds – what else should it do? But with a faltering and hesitant step, like one who gropes in darkness at the top of a tall precipice.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151. – What an abuse of the term “we”, as far as merely us, the territorial subjects are concerned, being in this respect the mere property or slaves of territorial power addicts and monopoly-decision-makers! – JZ, 10.10. 07, 2.6.13. - Most people still merely react with a fugue or denial to this threat. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Sir Alec Douglas-Home, then Prime Ministers of the UK, in reply to Chairman Khrushchev’s message of 31 December 1963 proposing the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes, ended by saying that the principal task of statesmen today is to assure that nuclear war will not break out. How are the statesmen going about that task; what ideas guide them in it?” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.199.“ - Neither the “statesmen” nor their advisors realized so far that territorial disputes cannot be territorially settled but merely exterritorially. The attempt to settle them territorially will always lead to wars, civil wars, oppression, revolutions and terrorism. I am also convinced that none of the “great leaders” or their famous advisors has ever read peace books like my own two ones and that their secret services, supposed to look out after the security of whole nations or populations have also either not discovered such publications and their open secrets or have not comprehended them. They are as far as ever from exterritorialist ideas, thinking, tolerance and actions. – JZ, 10.10.08. – LEADERSHIP, STATESMEN, RULERS, POLITICIANS, SECRET SERVICES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: So far too many men are still proud of their "nuclear weapons". We ought to make them ashamed of them! - JZ, 25. 7. 83. – Most of these people love their own children and grandchildren and are friendly towards the children of others, not only during Halloween. But do they ever bother to add up how many million children would be murdered in a nuclear war? – JZ, 15.11.13. - THE MORAL FACTOR, ABHORRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: So far, alas, most people would rather continue risking a nuclear war than “risking” reading, pondering and discussing a book on how to prevent it. – JZ, 13.11.03. - INDIFFERENCE, LACK OF INTEREST IN THEIR OWN AFFAIRS, EVEN THEIR OWN SURVIVAL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: So we have the two super-powers deterring each other from any armed aggression against themselves or their allies by the ultimate threat of mutual slaughter of eighty to a hundred million of their citizens. This could perhaps be described as deterrence under the threat of Mutual Megamurder.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.206.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Some fifty such accidents or near-accidents with nuclear armed missiles and aircraft occurred between 1945 and 1960. In the same period there were a number of false radar report which, had they been accepted and acted upon, would have plunged us within minutes into all the horrors of WW III. …” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.31. - … the incredible risks of daily nuclear roulette today, … ibid, p.33. - ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Some people object against exaggerated claims of protesters, arguing that it would not be absolutely certain or even likely that the survival of man would be risked by nuclear war. - How many millions, dozens of millions or hundreds of millions victims do they consider to be an "acceptable" risks? At what percentage of mankind sacrificed in such "defence" would they become prepared to resist such "defence" efforts? - JZ, 17.12.82, 1.5.06. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: sooner or later a nuclear war will happen. Possibly all life will end. If that's possible, we have to act on the assumption that it's true. We have to avoid ever finding out.” - TIME, March 29, 1982, p.18.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Sooner or later you will learn there are situations where you cannot quit. You run out of places to hide." - Alistair McLean: Caravan to Carracas.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Split States panarchistically, i.e. voluntaristically and exterritorially, thus quite decentralized and intermingled – and you remove nuclear targets for mass murder devices and also motives and means for building, maintaining, protecting and using them. – JZ, 5.6.92, 15.11.13. – PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: States that cannot even keep drugs out of prisons are not good enough institutions to prevent the smuggling in and placement of nuclear mass murder devices. – I have seen that fact pointed out by several authors, among them Michael S. Rozeff on – JZ, 24.9.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Strategic war is so obviously catastrophic to all engaged in it that it is only under enormous political stress, provocation and escalation - probably from lower levels of conflict - that it has any chance of happening.” - Said former Defense Secretary Harold Brown. Adds James Schlesinger: A nuclear war would probably get started only by miscalculation. – Source? - & MISCALCULATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Stumbling, once again, towards another world war, one that will be a generalized holocaust, with no understanding of and proclamation of quite rightful war and peace aims on either side. The law of the biggest “club” offers no solution at all, in this case, either. It amounts to mutual mass murder preparations that will finally end in general nuclear war, in which only the most guilty ones, the top decision-makers, may survive for a while, while the rest die luckily either an instant or a more prolonged and painful death. – Hitler, too, believed in such “wonder-weapons”. Luckily, he did not get them. But the “democratic” victorious and territorial governments did, and multiplied them on and on into absurd quantities. – Already by this alone they demonstrated that they do not rightly represent anybody but themselves, as people prepared to commit mass murder. - JZ, 17.8.86, 30 5.08, 15.11.13. – LEADERSHIP, DEMOCRACY, WAR- & PEACE AIMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Submission to the nuclear policy means death, whether we or they plan it that way or not. - JZ, 11.2.77.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Suicide is never the answer to a problem, it's only at best a compromise with it.” - J. T. McIntosh, First Lady, GALAXY, Vol. 3, No. 8. – If the suicide attempt succeeds then one does not survive this “compromise”, while the aim of most “compromises” seems to be survival. – JZ, 28.2.09. - Anyhow, mass murder should never be misunderstood or misrepresented as suicide. - Hitler suicided in the end. But before that he organized and commanded the mass-murder of millions. - Do we need further such examples to finally distinguish mass murder from suicides? - JZ, 26.1.11. 

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Suicide should be subject to individual, not collective or leadership-decision-making. - JZ, 30.10.82, 1.5.06. – LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: suppose, for a moment, that the world had established a political means of mankind international decisions and thus had no further need for nuclear or any other weapons.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.221. – The most effective means would be individual choice for all political associations, including individual secession upon disappointment with any territorial or exterritorial regime, i.e., a kind of consumer sovereignty for all political “services”. That would make nuclear weapons completely and conventional military weapons largely superfluous, but not protective associations, armed with police weapons, against private and official criminals with involuntary victims. – Mankind is merely an abstract notion. Only individuals are real. - JZ, 22.9.07, 26.1.11. – PANARCHISM, , CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN EVERY SPHERE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Tactical nuclear war would quickly become strategic or total war for small nations and the local populations over whose fields and cities nuclear weapons are exploding. Hiroshima, after all, was destroyed by what is considered to be one small tactical nuclear weapon in today’s arsenal.” – Gwyn Prius, ed. The Choice: Nuclear Weapons vs. Security, p.31. Published by A. S. Collins. - Territorial politicians are still in denial of their mass murder preparations. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: technical knowledge, in the absence of wisdom and discipline, merely gives us more efficient weapons of collective suicide. Butler’s fantasy of the machines which men have made acquiring a mind of their own, and then rounding upon their masters and destroying them, has very nearly come true. If some new force, like the release of atomic energy, had been discovered during this war, and applied (as Mr. Wells has imagined it being applied) to bombs that would go on exploding without cessation for a week or two, we know that passions ran so high that both sides would have used them, as both sides in the next war will use super-poison gas and disease germs. Not only the destruction, therefore, but the passion and the ruthlessness, the fears and hates, the universal pre-emption of wealth for ‘defence’ perpetually translating itself into preventive offence, would have grown. Man’s society would assuredly have been destroyed by the instruments that he himself had made, and Butler’s fantasy would have come true.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.127. - Suicide requires individual decision-making, which is today in all military affairs replaced by mass murder decision-making in a few hands, those of the territorial misleaders and their henchmen. - JZ, 26.1.11, 15.11.13. - MASS MURDER IS NOT SUICIDE. DEFENCE, PASSIONS, FEARS, HATREDS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, ENEMY, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Terminate the terminators! – JZ, 19.10.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial “nations” are in fact preparations for genocide. Whatever benefits they might offer, they are not worth that price. Moreover, these real or imagined benefits could also be provided by free enterprise, coops or mutual aid, under exterritorial autonomy for the volunteers so involved. - JZ, 18.12.82, 1.5.06, 15.11.13. - TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, NATIONALISM & GENOCIDE, WARFARE STATES, VOLUNTARISM,  COMPETITION, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial governments built the bombs, kept the bombs, directed against whole peoples, forcefully and territorially organized into State-sized targets. – JZ, 22.4.86. – And the “sheeples” hold still or merely say “no”, protest or march. – JZ, 30.5.08, 15.11.13. – DISSENTING PEOPLES, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, OBEDIENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial governments have developed into the greatest threat to the survival of the human race. Yet they are still being voted into office and tolerated in power. - JZ, 6.4.84. - & GOVERNMENTS, VOTING, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: That most libertarians, to my knowledge, have so far not responded to Rothbard’s “War, Peace and the State”, indicates their intellectual stagnation or cowardice. - JZ, 9.6.86, – But then I must admit to not having made a web-search on the subject. – Perhaps there are already thousands of positive responses to this excellent essay of his and I have just not noticed them. – Finally, today, I have repaired that omission. Google provided me with 626 references to this essay, upon (Rothbard + “War, Peace and the State”), mainly reproductions and translations or remarks on it. I downloaded the first 94 selected from these hints by Google and just browsed through these short references, without downloading their full text. Mea culpa! My fault! My ignorance, my neglect! There were as many responses. Some other libertarians have recognized the value of this outstanding article as well. – I am happy about that. This work will continue to be read and induce more thinking. But have most readers as yet taken a fully consistent stand against all nuclear weapons and for the alternatives to them and for the panarchistic institutions that would render nuclear weapons impossible, superfluous and abhorrent to most people? Was Rothbard himself converted to panarchism by this essay? – Naturally, he discussed many other points in this essay. – JZ, 30.6.09. Today I got with Google 195,000 search results, including a free PDF download option of 154 KBs. – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: That was the trouble with the world. too many people were content to leave the very survival of the race to those few ...” - E. C. Tubb. NEW WORLD SF, June 63, p.113. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The “ideal” of nuclear war is the complete automation of slaughter.” – Frances Hoffer, in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, entry 33443.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the actions we take will decide whether intercontinental missiles or space ships lift off Earth ...” - Edmund Cooper, The Overman Culture, p.189.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The age of over-kill and under-think. – Source?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Atomic Age is here to stay – but are we? – Bennett Cerf.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The barbarism of our time is the more appalling because so many people are not really appalled by it. - Herbert Muller. - & APPALLING BARBARISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The best defense against the atom bomb is not to be there when it goes off ...” - BRITISH ARMY JOURNAL, 1949. – As if these devices could not be deconstructed or politics could not be changed so much that their targets would disappear and they would become obviously useless and superfluous. – JZ, 8.8.08. - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, JOKES, DEFENCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS! PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the best way to prevent a holocaust is to prevent any kind of nuclear war in the first place.” - Michael Mandelheim, Harvard University, in TIME, 29. 3. 82. – Does one have to be a Harvard man to arrive at that conclusion? - JZ, 26.1.11. - LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR? ESCALATION? PROLIFERATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The bombs were of the kind described, in the insane jargon of the age, as 'clean'. This meant simply that they killed more people by impact and fire than by a poisoning of the atmosphere that the senders of the bomb might have found inconvenient - for they had persistent delusions about staying alive while they defended freedom or whatever the hell they were doing. I suppose all through history people have imagined that giving horror a pretty name makes it no longer a horror.” - Edgar Pangborn: The Company of Glory, p.14.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The bottom line is that this country needs a powerful, secure defence, but not one that will lead to our blowing ourselves up.” – Henry Kendall, PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – Ourselves? The blowing up would be generously done, free of charge, by the opposing nuclear powers. That these powers, or, rather, their direct victims, their subjects, would also be blown up would not be a sufficient consolation. – JZ, 25.1.08, 27.2.09. - If only all territorial politicians would blow themselves up, without murdering anyone else in the process! - JZ, 26.1.11. - & DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The capacity to kill more people than there are Pentagonese.” - source? - OVERKILL DEFINITION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The cause of liberty becomes a mockery if the price to be paid is the wholesale destruction of those who are to enjoy liberty.” – Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, 1948, 1.272.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The central proposition of the deterrence doctrine – the piece of logic on which the world theoretically depends to see the sun rise tomorrow – is that a nuclear holocaust can best be prevented if each nuclear power, or bloc of powers, holds in readiness a nuclear force with which it “credibly” threatens to destroy the entire society of any attacker, even after suffering the worst possible “first strike” that the attacker can launch.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.196. - Typically, our official and territorialist “expert” military strategists have come up with nothing quite moral and rational. – JZ, 10.10.07. - & DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The charge of being naïve should be leveled against those who believe peace can be achieved by spending $ US 500 billion promoting the game of chicken with civilization. The strategists who sit at their tables in the Pentagon or Kremlin and plan limited nuclear wars, with so many 'mega-deaths' and 'collateral casualties' before getting on the hot line to call it off, are not realists. they are naïve and out of touch with reality.” - John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.86/87.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The danger posed by the local bank robber is minor when compared to the threat posed by a massive military arsenal capable of immense destruction.” - Sy Leon: None of the Above, p.144.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The death penalty for individual crimes has been largely abolished but the "death penalty" for whole populations, even for mankind, has been introduced, prepared and maintained by territorial governments, our pretended "protectors", still all too widely believed in, in spite of all their criminal actions. - JZ, 24.2.83, 1.5.06. - & THE DEATH PENALTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the deliberate killing of innocent persons is “murder” (according to international law, noncombatants, i.e. the entire civil population, are considered to be “innocent persons”). Thus an atomic war would lead to mass murder more surely than the type of mass bombings hitherto employed. Even those moral theologians who still refrain from defining the atomic weapon as “bad in itself” do so only so long as its effects can be controlled, i.e. restricted to military targets.” – Franciskus Stratmann, O.P., quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.225.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The destruction of cities or the threat of it will neither promote stability, security, liberty, peace nor justice - on the contrary! - JZ, 3.7.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The dissidents know, as Solzhenitsyn has taught, that the Soviet system depends upon the lie; that the foundations of Soviet power are threatened more by truth than by the cruise missile.” - Terry Quist, NEW GUARD, July-August 1978. - Is it a lie or is it the truth? I hold with the latter, in the case of any dictatorship. - Perhaps he has meant that as well. But then he should have said something like: "… depends upon great lies." These and the Soviet system are threatened more by the spread of truths than by cruise missiles in the hands of Western allies. The cruise missiles threaten the victims of dictators more than the dictators themselves. - Inaccuracy in thought and expression is a strong contributing factor towards nuclear war. - JZ, 1. 5. 06. - POWER, SOVIET SYSTEM, TOTALITARIANISM, TRUTHS, IDEAS, LIBERATING IDEAS, COMMUNISM, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS, AN IDEAL DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Doomsday Bomb is the ultimate madness in a world filled with all too many madmen in power and with the nuclear strength arsenals already having come all too often all too close to being used. – JZ, 25.6.86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the emperor of national security has no clothes!” - Herb Feith in: John Hinchcliff, ed. of "Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.54. - & NATIONAL SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The entire planet is a human time-bomb.” - Edmund Cooper, Kronk, p.186. - Not the planet but some of its territorial power-mongers, and in them, some of their wrongful and irrational ideas and notions. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The extreme limit to which one may tolerate atomic armament is its being set up as a deterrent. … [If] the opposition should nevertheless start a war, in my opinion, uncontrollable atomic weapons may even then not be used in defense, because this means is bad in itself. And the end does not justify the means. The principle laid down by Catholic moralists … that the good to be expected from the defensive war must outweigh its enormous damage, cannot be realized by a defence carried out with atomic weapons.” - Franciskus Stratmann, O.P., quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.226. - NUCLEAR RETALIATION TO A NUCLEAR STRIKE?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The facts remain obdurately what they are: an attack of several thousand megatons will annihilate any country on earth many times over, no matter what line of argument the strategists pursue; and a “nuclear exchange” will, if it is on a large scale, threaten the life of man.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.203. - DETERRENCE & STRATEGIES OF ANNIHILATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The feeling of unreality that present strategic thinking arouses is compounded by the fact, itself a unique feature of life in the nuclear world, that the strategist must incessantly plan for future attacks and counterattacks whose prevention is supposedly the planning’s whole purpose. Strategic thinking thus refers to a reality that is supposed never to come into existence. Therefore, not only is morality deliberately divorced from “thinking” but planning is divorced from action. The result of all these novel mental operations is a fantastic intellectual construct – the body of strategic theory (hypotheses, mere speculations! - JZ, 26.1.11.) built up over more than thirty years – in which ratiocination, unrestrained either by moral feelings or by facts, has been permitted to run wild in a riot of pure theory. (*) On this “thinking” almost no bounds are set, and the slaughter of whole populations and the extinction of man become all too “thinkable”. - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - (*) (hypotheses! – JZ) - & STRATEGIC “THINKING”, WAR GAMING

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The first is to save the world from extinction by eliminating nuclear weapons from the earth. Just recently, on the occasion of his retirement, Admiral Hyman Rickover, who devoted a good part of his life to overseeing the development and construction of nuclear-powered, nuclear-missile-bearing submarines for the United States Navy, told a congressional committee that in his belief mankind was going to destroy itself with nuclear arms. (*) He also said of his part in the nuclear buildup that he was “not proud” of it, and added that he would like to “sink” the ships that he had poured so much of his life into. And indeed, what everyone is now called on to do is to sink all the ships, and also ground all the planes, and fill in all the missile silos, and dismantle all the war-heads. The second aim, which alone can provide a sure foundation for the first, is to create a political means by which the world can arrive at the decisions that sovereign states previously arrived at through war. These two aims, which correspond to the aims mentioned earlier of preserving the existence of life and pursuing the various ends of life, are intimately connected. If, on the one hand, disarmament is not accompanied by a political solution, then every clash of will between nations (territorial governments! – JZ) will tempt them to pick up the instruments of violence again, and so lead the world back toward extinction. If, on the other hand, a political solution is not accompanied by complete (nuclear, biological and chemical) disarmament, then the political decisions that are made will not be binding, for they will be subject to challenge by force.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.221. - The alternative institutions that are required would simply grow from realizing individual secessionism and free associationism under full exterritorial autonomy. Such institutions have not need or super-weapons or reasons or motives to fear other such institutions, all being free to do their own things. They would have not use for ABC mass murder devices and would collaborate to destroy all of them as fast as possible. The kinds and shapes, means and ends of their voluntary communities would be entirely up to them. Their growth and decline would be determined by individuals being attracted to them or leaving them because of disappointments with them. – JZ, 22.9.07. -  (*) Rather, territorial governments will do this job, against the wishes and will of mankind. – JZ, 22.9.07. -  NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT & POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES TO SOVEREIGN TERRITORIAL STATES & THEIR “SOLUTIONS” VIA WARS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The first principle of life in the new common world would be respect for human beings, born and unborn, based on our common love of life and our common jeopardy in the face of our own destructive powers and inclinations. This respect would grow out of each generation’s gratitude to past generations for having permitted it to exist. Each generation would look on itself as though it were a delegation that had been chosen by an assembly of all the dead and all the unborn to represent them in life.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.177. - & RESPECT FOR HUMAN BEINGS OR, AT LEAST, FOR ALL THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO CLAIM THEM FOR THEMSELVES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the fundamental logic of the strategy of both sides is, in McNamara’s words, to hold not just the military forces of the other side hostage, but also its ‘society as a whole’.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.33. – Actually, for many years cities were much more targeted than military targets. – JZ, 21.9.07. – The nuclear destruction of thousands of military targets, primarily nuclear weapons, would also lead to intolerable radioactive pollution. – JZ, 2.6.13. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF WHOLE POPULATIONS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR TERRITORIAL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.” – Euripides, Phrixus, c. 412 B.C., 970, tr. H. Morgan. – Nuclear “weapons” were actually designed upon such “thoughts” about religion. Which religion and which modern political theory does quite radically reject all notions and practices of collective responsibility? – JZ, 30.5.08. – Also of any degree of territorial domination? - JZ, 26.1.11. – What religions have, finally, learned about religious liberty or religious tolerance, they have not yet learnt to apply political, economic and social systems, relationships and institutions. The social “science” are still stuck in the territorial system groves and to that extent quite unscientific, while in all natural sciences and in technology and private lifestyles experimental freedom is already the rule rather than the exception. – JZ, 15.11.13. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM, PANARCHY, POLYARCHY, TERRITORIALISM, RELIGIONS, SOCIAL SCIENCES, NATURAL SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, VOLONTARISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The great Carthage conducted three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second one. When the third was over, it could be found nowhere." - Bertolt Brecht, 1951, quoted by Ruth Coleman in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.45. – Another version: The Great Carthage conducted three wars. After the first it was still powerful. After the second it was still inhabitable. After the third it could no longer be found.” - Sign at a German demonstration: "Das grosse Karthago fuehrte drei Kriege. Nach dem ersten war es noch maechtig, nach dem zweiten, noch bewohnbar, nach dem dritten war es nicht mehr auffindbar.“ - CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 12. 9. 83.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Hiroshima’s people’s experience  … is a picture of what our whole world is always poised to become – a backdrop of scarcely imaginable horror lying just behind the surface of our normal life, and capable of breaking through into that normal life at any second.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.33.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Holocaust is not a little war for the soldiers and the history books. It is our greatest enemy, no matter where we stand on the political spectrum.” - John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.84. - THE ENEMY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The horror of the human condition - any human condition - is that one soon grows used to it.” - Sanders, quoted in Poul Anderson: After Doomsday, p.27.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The human race could not survive mass death technology so widely spread. - Vernor Vinge, The Peace War, in ANALOG 7/84, p.137. - Not under territorialism and the belief in collective responsibility. - JZ - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The human race is in deadly danger, and I refuse to argue with anyone who plots and schemes for advantage under such circumstances. Men must mature or die.” - A. E. van Vogt, The Wizard of Linn, p.45.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Human Race: Fellow travelers on a tiny spaceship spinning through infinite space. We can wreck our ship, we can blow the human experiment into nothingness; and by every analogy of practical life, a quarrelsome ship's company and many hands on the steering gear is a good recipe for disaster.” - Adlai Stevenson, at UN, NYC, 26. 1. 65. - Not so tiny that each could not enjoy almost full exterritorial autonomy with like-minded people in his own cubicles, under his own kind of personal law. - One steering wheel for all, in spite of the great diversity of aims, is a good recipe for disaster. It is asking for battles to control the wheel. - JZ, 14. 3. 84. - Anyhow we cannot steer the course of planet Earth, at least not yet. But what we should be able to steer, quite freely, is the course of our own lives, together with like-minded people, and always at our own risk and expense. Territorial governments have made that largely impossible in very important spheres. Only in those sphere they consider to be trivial or of no interest to them have they left us some autonomy. - JZ, 15. 3. 84, 1.5.06. - HUMAN RACE, SPACESHIP EARTH, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The hydrogen bomb is a suicide bomb.” - Allan Watts, PLAYBOY, in interview with A. C. Clarke. – At least he should be able to distinguish between suicide and mass murder. – JZ, 11.2.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The idea of the territorial “state, not society is responsible for the design, development and utilization of the atomic bomb.” – Felix Morley, State and Society, in Templeton, The Politization of Society, p.82. – I only added the 5 words at the beginning. – JZ, 5.6.92.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the most respected defence institute in the West (*), has released a report stating unequivocally that there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Any nuclear war would (**) escalate into a world-destroying holocaust.” – Daniel Kagan in PENTHOUSE, INTERNATIONAL, 11/82. - (*) Has it also explored the possibilities for an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of all individual rights and liberties? And that of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, with some of them practising full monetary and financial freedom and proclaiming only quite rightful war aims and alliances with all kinds of governments in exile, all only for volunteers? Has it developed a libertarian defence and liberation program, one for the initiation of a military insurrection against any dictatorship? I very much doubt this. - (**) It could, and that is bad enough. – JZ, 25.1.08. - LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR, MILITIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the invention of political means by which the world can peacefully settle the issues that throughout history it has settled by war.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 227. – Religious wars were settled merely by giving the world religious liberty or religious tolerance, i.e., individuals and their voluntary groups the choice of their religious or non-religious activities. Wars for artificial monopolies, e.g. over the customers in a particular countries, can be avoided via free trade. To the extent that protectionists continue to religiously believe in their dogmas and prejudices, they can and should be granted their preferred kind of protectionism for their own volunteers and at their own expense and risk. At the same time, the believers in Free Trade should be left to their free trade deals and communities or federations. Sports, arts, literary and food and clothing supply competitions do already peacefully exist almost everywhere. The same kind of tolerance and peaceful coexistence can be and must be achieved for political, economic and social systems. None of them should be granted a territorial monopoly with territorial government power and territorial laws. Only then would such systems no longer automatically clash with each other. Such a system does not have to be invented. It has long existed in history and merely became largely forgotten or suppressed. All the constitutional, legal, juridical and institutional barriers against it have merely to be removed, by no longer recognizing and respecting their territorial monopoly claims and allowing self-help, individual choice, free enterprise, consumer sovereignty, free associationism, free contracts, free federalism and individual secessionism - in these spheres as well. Then most of the current “issues” or “conflicts” that lead to wars would simply disappear. Artists, poets, sportsmen, fashion-designers, gardeners, hobbyists, inventors of one kind or the other do not battle each other in the street but simply do all their own things, quite peacefully, at their own expense and risk. The same is possible in the last few spheres in which territorial monopolies remained so far upheld by territorial governments. Such governments are not only superfluous but the very cause of ABC mass murder devices, their development, stockpiling and their ultimate use. – JZ, 23.9.07. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The irrelevance of military victory in terms of total war." - Alex Comfort - Authority and Delinquency, p. 02. – VICTORY?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the latest refinements of science are linked with the cruelties of the Stone Age.” – Sir Winston Churchill, speech, London, March 26, 1942. (*) – Apparently, he had not read his Shakespeare, Henry V.: When lenity and cruelty fight for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner. – (Quoted from my flawed memory only. – JZ, 30.5.08.) - (*) He was one of those, who made sure of that. – But then he seems to have been almost always “under the influence.” – Thus his originally almost photographic memory did not always help him and he fell back into Stone Age emotions. – “When wine is in, wit is out!” It is even worse for harder drinks. – Not that his counterpart, Hitler, was any better in any respect, although he was a vegetarian, non-smoker and teetotaler. But he was addicted to other drugs and syphilis had already deteriorated his brain. Both were ruthless territorialists and acted on the biblical “principle” of collective responsibility. – That reminds me of an old joke: “A summit conference plane, carrying Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, does crash. Who is saved? None of them! But Europe is!” - JZ, 30.5.08. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The machinery of destruction is complete, poised on a hair trigger, waiting for the “button” to be “pushed” by some misguided or deranged human being or for some faulty computer chip to send out the instruction to fire. That so much should be balanced on so fine a point – that the fruit of four and a half billion years can be undone in a careless moment – is a fact against which belief rebels.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.182.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The main point of my comment was an attempt to start a discussion with Zube on why he thinks the mere possession of nuclear weapons would justify assassination. (*) I consider this an interesting point with implications beyond the specific issue.” – Ely Chaitlin, THE CONNECTION 138, p.13. – Nuclear weapons are small, handy, economical mass extermination camp packages, built and maintained to be used internationally, or used by accident or miscalculation – upon the principle of collective responsibility of whole cities, populations and countries for the criminal actions of a few people, mostly the monopolistic decision-makers in power. With them millions of people, the populations of whole territories, are taken hostage or considered as mere expendable property of their rulers. Even when used with the intention to deter a government from committing aggression, they do not deter only these ruler but rather threaten to exterminate their subjects, while the rulers might survive, in the safest bunkers. They are not suitable means for liberation efforts or for inciting the oppressed to rise in revolutions or military insurrections. On the contrary, they make them prefer even the worst government of their own to such a threat and its execution. They make enemies, not friends or allies out of our secret allies, the oppressed peoples. They leave life and death decisions for millions in the hands of those foolish, ignorant or power-mad rulers, who image that they could use such devices rightly, wisely, deterringly or defensively in the long run. They, by constructing them, keeping them in readiness for use, characterize more than anything else tyranny and tyrants. (*) One should also distinguish tyrannicide from assassination of people who cannot be rightly classed as tyrants. – JZ, n.d. & 25.1.08. - & TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The means by which we live (*) have outdistanced the ends for which we life. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. (**) We have guided missiles and misguided men.” (***) - Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength of Love, 1963, 7.3. – He was one of the misguided and misguiding forces, babbling about love instead of discussing individual rights and liberties. The Bible is full of collective responsibility notions. Nuclear “weapons” are just handy means to put such notions into practice. – JZ, 30.5.08. - (*) Are nuclear weapons means by which we live? – (**) Are indiscriminate mass murder devices scientific devices for moral and sensible aims? – (***) Would a real scientist ignore the consequences of his actions? – Soft thinking by soft heads won’t get us out of our difficulties. - JZ, 30.5.08. – COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, LOVE, CHRISTIANITY, BIBLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The means prepare the end, and the end is what the means have made it.” – John Morley, 1871-1908, “Carlyle”, in Critical Miscellanies

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The mere existence of nuclear “weapons” is a dire threat to all human beings, their rights, their liberties, their lives. – JZ, 22.9.05.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The mere existence of nuclear weapons was the most revealing symptom of what was out of balance about the past. Two societies (territorial States! - JZ), in varying degrees acceptable or unacceptable to one another, were so interested in their differences that they came to hate their common good. That obsession was as a cancer in the mind and heart of the old world, which spread cruelty and blindness through the whole enormous body, and finally killed it. … If only we had gained wisdom from the fire. If only we can accept how alike we all are, one and another. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day, p.514 & 515. In this book it lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world. - Those alike should “embrace” or tolerate each other in their own structures and leave at the same time and sufficiently alone all those who are different and chose a different structure for themselves. Territorialists find that very difficult to do or even merely to think about. They want to reshape all others in a territory in accordance with their own ideals and this leads, inevitably to clashes, for the others have different ideals and also want to impose them upon dissenters. Only exterritorially, as voluntary and free experimenters, could they leave each other sufficiently alone. But it takes a major effort to get that simply idea into their heads, blocked by territorialist notions. In their private lives they already practise it, taking it for granted. But in public affairs their minds are still welded to the territorial model. – JZ, 13.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The military profession derived whatever respect it enjoyed because it was supposed to protect the lives and property of the non-combatant population. Now, in the conception of nuclear war, the armed forces of each side take the civilians of the other side as their targets, and are unable to safeguard the lives of their own people. In 1907 it was declared to be against the laws of war for armed forces to take hostages whose lives would guarantee submission. Now the whole populations are hostages.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.3. – Treated as hostages? – JZ, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The military should realize that the greatest threat to the survival of democracy is no longer the Russians or the Chinese or any other country professing anti-democratic ideologies, but rather war itself. It is nuclear war against which the military must protect their fellow-citizens.” – Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.7. - ENEMY, WAR, DEFENCE, THE MILITARY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The mind had to distance itself from the horror or go mad.” - Michael F. Flynn, In the Country of the Blind, part I, ANALOG, 10/87, p.52. - Unless the minds sees the possibility of averting the nuclear war threat, combined with seeing the small chance to publicize this solution. - However, that latter chance is so small, that I tried to do so, so far in vain, for half a century! - That is one of the reasons why I favour an Ideas Archive. - Compare PEACE PLANS 16-17, now available digitized, PP 61-63 and the German original of the latter, in PP 399-401, all now available digitized, in English, free online: and many other writings in my PEACE PLANS series, but still largely ignored. - JZ, 30.10.02, 2.6.13. – Even the Internet, in its present form, like the other mass media before, still spreads more popular erros and prejudices than truths. Libertarians are, partly to blame for this, for they have omitted or neglected so many importante enlightenment options, which I listed in my “New Draft” manuscript, not yet online by available from me, free of charge, as a zipped email attachment of 306 Kbs. –

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The moral cost of nuclear armament is that it makes of all of us underwriters of the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people and of the cancellation of the future generations – an action whose utter indefensibility is not altered in the slightest degree by the fact that each side contemplates performing it only in ‘retaliation’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - THE MORAL COST

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the moral degradation of a world in which millions can be killed by the press of a button.” - Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, 103. - IMMORALITY & MORALITY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION AS A “POLICY”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the moral guilt would be the same if any government, after the experience of World War II of  how “precision” bombing of military targets became degraded into mass-bombing of civilians, should initiate nuclear warfare against any country, whether the prime targets were supposed to be military or not. Knowing what we do about the wide-spreading effects of the multi-megaton nuclear weapons and uncertain as we must be about their accuracy, we know that nuclear war will in effect be a war of mass destruction and mass killings of the enemy population, combatants and noncombatants without distinction.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.228/29.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The most dangerous situation that humanity has ever faced in all history." - Harold C. Urey, One World or None, ch.2, 1946.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.” - Nathaniel Borenstein - From Monica Cellio homepage. – ACCIDENTAL WAR, EVEN ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR IS POSSIBLE & EVEN LIKELY IN THE LONG RUN

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the most obvious single fact of our time – that one more disaster, in the age of inconceivable nuclear horrors, almost certainly will be the last.” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.26.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Nazis are regarded as animals in human form because they gassed, shot or burned perhaps as many as six million Jews. Today the people of the United States are quite prepared, if provoked, to actually burn alive hundreds of millions of innocent men and women, young and old.” – Mr. Steve Allen, in a foreword to “God and the H-Bomb”, a symposium of opinion published in 1961, and distributed by Random House. – Quoted by: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.225. – Even in the freest territorial States the people have no decisive say on this subject. – JZ, 10.10.08. – MASS MURDER PREPARATIONS TACITLY TOLERATED

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The New York Zoo has installed in the Great Apes House, between gorilla and the orangutan compartments, an exhibit entitled “The Most Dangerous Animal in the World”. The exhibit consists of a mirror with this text: YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL IN THE WORLD. IT ALONE, OF ALL ANIMALS THAT EVER LIVED, CAN EXTERMINATE (AND HAS) ENTIRE SPECIES OF ANIMALS. NOW IT HAS ACHIEVED THE POWER TO WIPE OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH. – Visitors stop, stare at themselves in the mirror, and usually remark: ‘It’s true’. ” - L. S. Stavrianos, The Promise of the Coming Dark Age, 1976, p.13. - MAN, HUMANS, CIVILIZATION, ANIMALS, JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear deterrence universalizes the hostage system and proliferation of nuclear weapons minimized the safety factors against accidental or unintentional nuclear war. – JZ, 8.4.86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear peril makes all of us, whether we happen to have children of our own or not, the parents of all future generations. Parental love, which begins even before any child exists, is unconditional. It does not attach to any quality of the beloved; it only wants him to be.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.175. – If merely quite rightful moral preaching, in all too general terms, without clearly pointing to the panarchistic way out, could do away with the threat of nuclear war, then books like this would already have done the job. – However, my own two peace books, which tried to point out the way out as clearly as I could, did not do the job either, at least not yet. - JZ, 23.2.09. - Both are on - & PARENTS & CHILDREN

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear theorist Herman Kahn, for example, suggests that “it might best deter the attack” by an “appearance of irrationally inexorable commitment”. Kahn first wonders whether it might not be enough merely to “pretend” to be irrationally committed, but he concludes that a pretense of unreason is not reliable, and that one must “really intend to do it”. The prescription, then, which he calls the policy of “the rationality of irrationality”, is to coolly resolve to be crazy. How statesmen are to go about this, Kahn does not say.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.204. – They cannot help it! - JZ, 1982. They act crazily all the time, for instance in their economic “policies” and “measures”. Alas, this kind of craziness is not recognized by the ruling crazies on the other side. So the others crazies will not be deterred by it nor will the crazy rulers on our side be deterred by it. – The whole nuclear strength policy is crazy – but the crazies who practise it at our risk and expense have not yet recognized its craziness and their own craziness and may never do so. – Nuclear “weapons” in the hands of crazies and targeted, mainly, at innocents or at least at people who have no say in the matter. – It is truly a crazy world in which we live. The innocent victims do not even seriously question being ruled and lead towards nuclear war by crazies practising territorial rule and “protection” by mass-murder devices. - JZ, 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE & APPEARANCE OF IRRATIONALITY, CRAZY RULERS, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear threat is the greatest treason ever committed by governments against the people. - JZ 10/2/79.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat calls out louder than ever before: "a solution or death!" (The cry Bastiat quoted in Economic Harmonies, 1/2) - JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat is so unimaginable to ordinary human experience that, like a mere dream or nightmare it is, usually, simply ignored or overlaid by delusions like that of peace through the nuclear deterrent. - JZ, 20.11.02. - Fugues or denials are usual responses among humans to as large threats. - People are all too aware that, at least under the present territorial establishments, they are altogether helpless against this threat. So they do not even explore what actions they ought to undertake to finally gain self-help freedom of action in this sphere as well. - JZ, 26.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat results from a combination of various factors like e.g.: 1.) the insane centralization and monopolization of decision-making power over war and peace, disarmament and disarmament, international alliances and treaties, disfranchising peoples and individuals in this respect, 2.) the immoral principle and practice of collective responsibility, believed in and acted upon, as if it were self-evident, 3.) the territorial division of this planet among state governments, wrongly called national or people’s governments, with compulsory members and subjects, territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, 4.) the dependency upon territorial governments that States have established, especially through their monetary and financial despotism but also through many other monopolies. These do all exploit and impoverish the people under the pretence of protecting them and taking care of them. They have thus established nation-wide and official kindergartens for adults or a kind of nation-wide prisons for innocents, 5.) territorial governments have outlawed competition with them in many very important spheres, thus rendered their subjects largely helpless victims of the “services” provided by territorial governments, 6.) territorial governments do not permit their subjects to protect their genuine individual rights and liberties themselves, with suitable arms, organizations and training, 7.) territorial governments do not even proclaim, recognize and protect all individual right and liberties of their subjects in their declarations and constitutions. Thus they have become the greatest threats, criminals and aggressors, internally and externally and the least protective institutions, 8.) they established and maintained what they assumed to be justified targets for ABC mass murder devices, 9.) Territorial governments, even in form of “Welfare States”, treat us, in practice, as their property and tax slaves, as people to be used and abused by them. – JZ, 14.1.06, 29.10.07. – TERRITORIALISM WARFARE STATES, WELFARE STATES, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat stands or falls with a) territorialism or its replacement through voluntary exterritorial autonomy for all, b) collective responsibility notions and actions or its alternative: individual responsibility only, c) monopolized and centralized national decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties or their opposites, d) the absence or existence of a recognized declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties or its absence, e) the absence or existence of a quite rightful and autonomous militias of volunteers for the protection of these rights and liberties or their absence, e) the continuance of monetary and financial despotism, instead of their replacement through full monetary and financial freedom. - You make your choice and suffer or enjoy the consequences of your choices. So far, all too many have chosen or tacitly accepted the former and have shown no serious interest in the latter. – JZ, 21.8.00, 21.3.12, 15.1.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat will only disappear with the faith in the "principles" of collective responsibility, territorial integrity, internal affairs of governments, uniformity of laws and jurisdiction for all - because these lead to nuclear targets, motives, powers and means to conduct nuclear wars. - JZ, 30.10.82, 1.5.06. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL UNITY, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat will remain large at least as long as handbooks on the prevention of nuclear war, like those on & - remain non-sellers and are not avidly downloaded, duplicated, read, discussed and criticized and further improved. – JZ, 15.1.86, 30.5.08, 15.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the nuclear weapon is the enemy of security.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, XIII.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The objection to dissemination is well known: the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that these will be used in war. The difference between nuclear and conventional weapons maintained rather precariously until now would disappear. First use by a minor nuclear-armed power could touch of a general nuclear war in which the great powers would loose their vast arsenal of destruction. If ownership of nuclear weapons was widespread, their use in war would be looked on as inevitable. Without progress towards disarmament, and stable, peaceful world, it would become much more difficult to prevent war than under the present balance of power and distribution of the nuclear weapons.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.216. - Nations don’t have them. Their government do. – JZ, 10.10.08. - PROLIFERATION, DETERRENCE, ESCALATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The odds must now be against mankind's survival into the twenty-first century. As the hazards multiply, so do the chances of disaster. Men cannot indefinitely stockpile nuclear weapons without detonating them, lethal chemicals and bacteria without releasing them, or radioactive isotopes without becoming exposed to them. If a small quantity of dynamite explodes there may be a serious but local accident; if a minute quantity of nerve gas is let loose there may be a final and universal accident. Man has created stuff so dangerous that it must not be deliberately used, or allowed to leak out or be stolen, ever. - This is beyond man's capacity to achieve. Because human beings are not perfect, they cannot devise foolproof defences against every known contingency even in the short term (mental aberration, earth tremors, aerial bombardment for ransom?), still less prepare for the unforeseeable in the long term. Already hydrogen bombs have been mislaid and recovered, failsafe devices have jammed, and nerve gas has escaped and dispersed (*), yet radioactive waste from nuclear power stations has to be shielded from human contact for hundreds of years. Plutonium, an artificial element extremely damaging to living organisms, has to be shielded for hundreds of thousands of years, a proposition so absurd that, if the manufacture of plutonium goes on, it is certain that mankind is under sentence of death.” - A. J. Carter, in PROGRESS, 2/77. – (*) In what quantities? - JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The only defence against the weapons of the future is to prevent them ever being used. In other words, the problem is political and not military at all. A country’s armed forces can no longer defend it; the most they can promise is the destruction of the attacker. … - Upon us, the heirs to all the past and the trustee of a future, which our folly can slay before its birth, lies a responsibility no other age has ever known. If we fail in our generation, those who come after us may be too few to rebuild the world, when the dust of the cities has descended, and the radiation of the rocks has died away.” - Arthur C. Clarke, conclusion of his 1946 essay, “The Rocket and the Future of Warfare”, quoting himself again in ANALOG 7/83, p.166. – Also quoted, at greater length, which I included here, in ANALOG 1/85, p.57. - Which leads to the question: Supposing that the attacker, in a surprise attack, wipes out half of mankind. What good would it do then, when, in retaliation, from still remaining rocket bases, on land or on submarines, the second half of mankind, including the attacking government, is also wiped out? – JZ, 25.1.08. - To build them and stockpile them, under present territorialist conditions and faith in collective responsibility, they will sooner or later be used. No such powers to anyone! All mass murder devices and anti-people "weapons" are to be destroyed - by people themselves, rightfully armed and organized for this purpose. - JZ, 17.8.02. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES, Q., DEFENCE & RETALIATION OR PREVENTION?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The only drawback in the sovereign State is the simple and massive fact that sovereign States have not brought peace to the world but a sword (nuclear tipped and capable of ensuring not eternal life but eternal death), and now sovereign governments threaten the lesser objectives of prosperity and economic security.” - H. S. Ferns: The Disease of Government, p.18/19. - He should have replaced "only" by "main"! – JZ – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The opinions, thoughts, ideas and actions as well as the laws, constitutions and institutions of billions of people will have to be changed, sufficiently, to abolish this threat. However, a free and successful practice of correct thoughts, ideas, actions, laws, constitutions and institutions by one or the other minority, long enough and also sufficiently publicized, could soon come to change even the public opinion of the majorities, almost everywhere. The enlightenment process would also be greatly speeded up if all the technological means for collecting and spreading opinions and ideas were used up to their full potential. So far some of them are hardly used at all, e.g. disks for whole special freedom reference libraries. – JZ, 20.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Pentagon referred to the neutron bomb as a ‘radiation enhancement device’.” - NEUTRON BOMB & DEFENCE OR AGGRESSION, LANGUAGE ABUSE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the People of the Sky had sunfired the city of Hiroshima while they maintained laws against killing criminals.” - Donald Kingsbury: Courtship Rite, ANALOG, 29.3.82, p.137. - Mass-murder of innocents seems to be O.K. for some, but not the execution of convicted murderers. - JZ, 26.1.11. – DEATH PENALTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The people who are not frightened by nuclear war do frighten me. - JZ, 12. 4. 84. - After reading: "You are an Australian, you read ‘On the Beach’ and you became frightened of nuclear war." - Pres. Reagan to Dr. Helen Coldicott, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERAD, 12.4.84. - As if only reading a science fiction novel could lead to fear of nuclear war! - JZ, 1. 5. 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The people, not their guilty leaders, are directly threatened by nuclear weapons. – JZ, 10.10.99. - The people are wrongly considered as the property of a foreign regime, that one may influence by destroying or threatening to destroy this “property”. – Imagine a “protective” police force itself threatening to murder the hostages taken by some criminals or terrorists, but to spare the hostage takers. Or to exterminate them both, if they can. That is what nuclear strength threatens to do, while on all sides the peoples are disfranchised in this respect, not free to conclude a separate peace between them, over the heads of their rulers. Some think that would be unconstitutional. That is correct. Constitutions that allow such powers to exist ought to be broken. – JZ, 24.1.08, 15.11.13. - LEADERS, DECISION-MAKERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, LEADERSHIP, CONSTITUTIONS & PEOPLES TAKEN HOSTAGE, WHOLESALE, COUNTRY-WIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the peril of extinction is the price that the world pays not for “safety” or “survival” but for its insistence on continuing to divide itself up into sovereign nations. Without this insistence, there would be no need to threaten annihilation in order to escape annihilation, and the world could escape annihilation by disarming, …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. - This “world” is just a planet, without a will of its own. Its population, with its multitude of various groups, has so far not been given the option, anywhere, to divide itself up, including individual choice, into the kinds of non-territorial, non-geographical or exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, all those that they would prefer for themselves, of whatever kind these may be. Their territorialist statesmen prevent them from doing this, although thereby the thus freed people, minorities and individuals would eliminate targets, motives, means and powers to continue to prepare for or engage in a nuclear war. This arrangement would confine all politicians to the voluntary followers they can find anywhere in the world. [Perhaps more than they have in involuntary subjects in their present territories. – JZ, 2.6.13.] Among them, as long as they have any, they would have a kind of sinecure. The remaining guilty targets would be only individuals and small local groups. With them one can cope with rightful policing or militia methods. Nobody would dream of using nuclear weapons against them – and, thereby, also against all their dissenting neighbors, no more so than e.g. the Pope or some other religious leader would nowadays dream of using ABC mass murder devices to impose or protect their faith. – JZ, 22.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The present state of balance – deterrence from warlike acts or policies through fear of the destruction of nuclear war – although it can be expected to preserve the peace between great powers for some time to come, will not be of indefinite duration. While the arms race goes on, the balance, and thus the stability and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent is threatened. If additional nations become independent nuclear powers, the balance will become less table, and war more likely.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.254/55. – BALANCE OF POWER, DETERRENT, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The present strategy of the West, what has been called the “Balance of Terror” is no more than a new term for the oldest of concepts – the balance of power. This policy has been consistently applied for two hundred years. During that time it has not succeeded in averting war except over short periods, nor has it led to any visible slow bettering of conditions in which war could be averted. By its very nature it preserves the old conditions – those which always end in war. There is no reason to suppose that history will suddenly change its course. Unless an entirely new approach is tried, war is a certainty by the form-book.” – Nigel Gosling, Features editor of the OBSERVER, in Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.84.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The problem of our time is how to develop new political units. Just as the hydrogen bomb numbers the days of the completely sovereign nation state, great numbers of such new states are being born. What kind of political organization can give us both security and variety? Probably the answer is that any given group of people should belong simultaneously to more than one political unit. We would do well to study the Swiss Confederation, and the linguistic states in India. – B. Henderson, reviewing the editorial “Maxi-Mini” in OBSERVER, London, 3.1.65. Ref. 15634, addr. 14. in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL. – Almost all peace lovers seem to be addicted to dealing only with territorial political units and their all too limited potential for peaceful coexistence. Or they are committed to other primitive peace ideas, already often refuted. – JZ, n.d. & 30.5.08. – With regard to the presently monopolistic and coercive because they are territorial political units, one could say that not new political units are needed but, rather, non-political or even anti-political units: Those of volunteers only, none of them with a territorial monopoly. These new political units, communities and societies, with all the diverse political economic and social systems they do like for themselves, should replace all existing territorial politics, all of their constitutions, laws and institutions for whole populations, but leave the remaining statist volunteers alone, free to do their own things among themselves, to do all their various kinds of statist things among themselves, always at their own risk and expense, i.e. without a territorial monopoly and any involuntary subjects, apart from private criminals with victims, who acted against their members or other aggressors against them. All existing public debts should be repudiated – as investments in tax slaves. The remaining statist capital assets should be shared out through freely transferable capital certificates. No Warfare State powers would remain or government-granted privileges, at the expense of involuntary subjects and customers. Only free competition would remain for members, investors and customers, including the competition between e.g. free traders and protectionists, religious and atheist communities, statist and anarchist or libertarian ones. – 16.11.13. – PEACE, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TO EACH HIS OWN, VS. TERRITORIALISM, ITS WARFARE STATES, MONOPOLISM, COLLECTIVISM & COERCION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The procession of generations that extends onward from our present leads far, far beyond the line of our sight, and, compared with these stretches of human time, which exceed the whole history of the earth up to now, our brief civilized moment is almost infinitesimal. And yet we threaten, in the name of our transient aims and fallible convictions, to foreclose it all.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.182. - Was there ever a greater crime planned and prepared? – Could there be a greater crime? – And yet these terrible men remain honored and in possession of monopolistic territorial powers over our “fate”, in their hands. - JZ, 10.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The prognosis of our terminally ill planet is gloomy. In 1975 the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States testified before a Senate committee and predicted a 50 - 50 chance of a nuclear war occurring before 1985. A Harvard/MIT study has verified that prediction. Dr. George Kistiakowsky, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Harvard University, who was Eisenhower's science advisor and who devised the implosion mechanism for the first atomic bomb, has serious doubts that we will survive to the year 1990. Presidential advisors, some of them coming from Harvard, at the moment are making statements that we must psychologically prepare ourselves for a nuclear war.” - Helen Coldicott in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.26. – Why blame the planet when only ignorant, prejudiced and flawed human minds are involved? – JZ, 28.2.09. – Especially the minds of the ruling territorialists, their advisors and scientists, who were unable or unwilling to think of and realize of organizational forms and peaceful competition between them, that is quite rightful, non-coercive, non-monopolistic and progress and prosperity-promoting, in spite of the examples set by centuries of religious freedom and free competition in the natural sciences, in technology, in life styles, arts, sports, hobbies and crafts all peacefully competing with each others for members and supporters. – It is a question of flawed or even sick minds rather than of a sick planet. - JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the greatest peril confronting life on this planet." - Kenneth Brower, OMNI, 4/80f p.16. - The usual response: “Which colour shall we choose for our new curtains and carpet?” - JZ, 20.11.02. – Compare: “Most people have a horizon with a radius of zero. This they call their point of view.”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The question is: can the statists be trusted with as much as a pea shooter? - Ishmael, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION No.41. – If they bothered us only with pea shooters, then they would not be much of a problem for us. We could easily disarm them and hold them responsible if they abused these weapons. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the real issue, when all is said and done is the moral question: the preparation for and the implied use of nuclear weapons are the hideous denial of all the best in the human tradition – for myself I should want to add: and the hideous denial of Christianity despite whatever the Church might say.” – Canon John Collins, in Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.75.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The scientists split the atom, and now the atom is splitting us.” - Quentin Reynolds, quoted in OMNI, 2/83. – He wrote as if the atoms were a single, conscious and malicious entity, as if all of us were not made up of atoms and molecules and as if the scientists rather than all too powerful politicians and their territorial systems and institutions were the problem. If a problem is not clearly seen, how can it be solved? – Jokes should clarify rather than confuse the issuers. – Mankind was always largely divided into xyz groups and only coercively and wrongfully united in territorial States, which, above a certain size, often tended to become Warfare States. - JZ, 16.11.13. & SCIENTISTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The self-extinction of our species is not an act that anyone describes as sane or sensible, nevertheless, it is an act that, without quite admitting it to ourselves, we plan in certain circumstances to commit. Being impossible as a fully intentional act, unless the perpetrator has lost his mind, it can come about only through a kind of inadvertence – as a “side effect” of some action that we do intend, such as the defense of our nation, or the defense of liberty, or the defense of socialism, or the defense of whatever else we happen to believe in. To that extent, our failure to acknowledge the magnitude and significance of the peril is a necessary condition for doing the deed. We can do it only if we don’t quite know what we’re doing. If we did acknowledge the full dimensions of the peril, admitting clearly and without reservation that any use of nuclear arms is likely to touch off a holocaust in which the continuance of all human life would be put at risk, extinction would at that moment become not only “unthinkable” but also undoable.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.186. - Governmental declarations of human rights do not give us any say or freedom of action in this sphere. Is there anyone else but me, who is really interested in what some of the private declaration of individual rights have to say on this and other matters? I haven’t got any requests for my anthology of over 130 of them: PEACE PLANS 589/590, revised edition, enlarged and digitized and available for the time being only from me, free of charge, via email, until it appears online or (*) on a CD. – JZ, 10.10.07. - It is not a case of "self-extinction" but of mass murders by territorial governments, under all kinds of false excuses and pretences! - JZ, 26.1.11. – (It is now reproduced on - JZ, 2.6.13.) – Neither the term “we” nor “species” indicates the real criminals who are involved: The coercive and monopolistic territorial decision-makers. The guilt of most of us consists only in tolerating or even demanding such wrongful powers for a few – for all too long. – JZ, 16.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, STATISM, RULERS, GOVERNMENTALISM, MONOPOLISM, UNITY OR UNIFORMITY SPLEEN

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Soviet government, … has frequently stated the view that nuclear hostilities cannot be limited, and Secretary of Defense Harold Brown also said, in 1977, that a nuclear conflict probably could not be limited.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 33. – Wrongful and foolish actions and their results should never be blamed on “fate”. – In all too many ways habitual language abuse misleads us. – How can e.g. any kind of murder or even mass murder be considered to be merely “limited”? It certainly is not for the victims. - JZ, 16.11.13. - LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the specter of extinction hovers over our world and shapes our live with its invisible but terrible pressure. It now accompanies us through life, from birth to death. Wherever we go, it goes, too, in whatever we do, it is present. It gets up with us in the morning, it stays at our side throughout the day, and it gets into bed with us at night. It is with us in the delivery room, at the marriage ceremony, and on our deathbeds. It is the truth about the way we now live. But such a life cannot go on for long.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.169. - LIFE & ITS EXTINCTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The state of mind of the decision-makers might be one of calm rationality, of hatred, of shock, of hysteria, or even of outright insanity. They might follow coldly reasoned scenarios of destruction to the letter (*) and exterminate one another in that way.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.31. - (*) Just like the scientists and technicians, who built such “weapons”. – Moral principles are not their most significant trait. – Territorial rulers are already madly in love with their wrongful and irrational territorial power and nuclear mass murder devices are powerful enough to be easily used against whole territories and populations of other such madmen, in order to protect or enlarge these powers. - JZ, 21.9.07, 2.6.13, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The statistical probability of our avoiding general suicide is very small …” - Arthur Koestler. – It is very misleading to speak of “suicide” in this respect, since the decision-making power on nuclear and other war is very much centralized and territorially monopolized. The guilt of the rest of the people consists in this, that they consider even such mass murderous power to be quite normal and tolerable and do not really give it a first or second thought in most instances. – JZ, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the strange double life of the world, which has continued up to the present. On the one hand, we returned to business as usual, as though everything remained as it always had been. On the other hand, we began to assemble the stockpiles that could blow this supposedly unaltered existence sky-high at any second.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.149.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The survival decision over the lives of ca. 6 billion people is now in the hands of, perhaps, only 6 to 12 "people"! - They know of nothing better. - Neither do most of their victims. - I can think of nothing worse! - JZ, NWT, 27 5 06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The survival of all depending upon the morality, rationality and all too limited knowledge of a handful of people? Should that condition of mankind be tolerated any longer? – JZ, n.d. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The system of sovereignty is now to the earth and mankind what a polluting factory is to its local environment. The machine produces certain things that its users want – in this case, national sovereignty – and as an unhappy side effect – extinguishes the species.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.187. – Was there ever a referendum on whether its victims really want “national territorial sovereignty”, including decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties, in the hands of its “democratic” rulers, any more than in the hands of an absolute king, emperor, czar, prophet or guru? – Are “the people” using this power or are they used or abused by it and threatened to be used up by it? – It is really a carry-over from the times of governmental absolutism and an all too easy step towards total war and general holocaust. - JZ, 10.10.07, 2.6.13. – HUMAN LEMMINGS, SOVEREIGNTY & POLLUTION, ECOLOGY & CONSERVATION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the system of sovereignty. Perhaps the leading feature of this system, and certainly the most important one - in the context of the nuclear predicament, was the apparently indissoluble connection between sovereignty and war. For without sovereignty, it appeared, peoples were not able to organize and launch wars against other peoples, and without war they were unable to preserve their sovereignty from destruction by armed enemies. (By “war” I here mean only international war, not revolutionary war, which I shall not discuss.).” (*) Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.187. - (*) In revolutionary wars we have at least two strong internal groups each fighting for exclusive territorial sovereignty, with each wanting itself on top. – JZ, 22.9.07. – All they need to arrive at peace would be to agree upon exterritorial autonomy for both or all of them, all only for their volunteers, all under their self-chosen kind of personal law. – JZ, 2.6.13. – Even in the sphere of religions, still more full of popular errors, prejudices, myths and “ghosts”, most people, in most countries did, finally, arrive at the mutual tolerance for their faiths or spleens in order to avoid further endless civil wars and clashes between them. One should have expected political, social and economic systems to be much more based upon facts, arguments and reasoning, so that mutual tolerance for all of them, if practised only among volunteers, would be easier to achieve between them, than it was between the adherents of different religions. Alas, their adherents, even most anarchists and libertarians, still took territorialism largely for granted and merely wished to decentralize it or limit its scope rather than abolish it. The wrongfulness and irrationality of the territorialist faith persisted in most of them, even when confronted with one of its worst results, the threat of nuclear war. Almost everything else gets usually blamed for our situation rather than this faith in and practice of territorialism. – JZ, 16.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, ANARCHISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LIBERTARIANISM, WAR, SOVEREIGNTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The task is not to learn to live with mass murder devices but to live so freely that we are motivated and free enough to be able to destroy them ourselves or to insist on their destruction and to do our bit to supervise this action. – JZ, 23.4.92. – Not freedom of action for governments or other terrorists with such devices but freedom of action for us to act against them. – Best through an ideal militia force of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties. JZ, 26.1.08. - MILITIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The terms “defence” and “weapons” become meaningless in connection with ABC mass murder devices. – JZ, 26.12.05.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The terror created by weapons has never stopped men from employing them.” – Bernard M. Baruch, 1870-1965, - Lore and Maurice Cowan, compilers, The Wit of the Jews, Leslie Frewin, London, 1970, p.106. – WEAPONS, DETERRENCE THEORY, TERROR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The threat of nuclear war is implicit in the mood of nationalism and chauvinism to be found in many countries; in the tendency to blame other people for our present difficulties.” – Michael Moorcock, The Retreat from Liberty, p.76. – Nationalism and chauvinism are presently all too much based upon the territorialist wrongful premises and practices. The superiority complex, the myth of the chosen people, race, nation or faith can be harmlessly practised within communities of volunteers, as it is e.g. by sportsmen, artists, scientists, religious people and in thousands of other societies for special interests, all without a territorial monopoly. – Who but the own members can be blamed in societies of volunteers, all free to do their own things, under full experimental freedom? - JZ, 16.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, MYTH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, VOLUNTARISM, FREE COMPETITION, DOING THE OWN THINGS, NATIONS & STATES OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY, ALL UNDER PERSONAL LAW OR EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The totality of the peril, in particular, helped to disguise it, for, with everyone and everything in the world similarly imperiled, there was no flight from imperiled things to safe things – no flow of capital from country to country, or migration of people from one place to another. Thoughts of the nuclear peril were largely banned from waking life, and relegated to dreams or to certain fringes of society, and open, active concern about it was restricted to certain “far-out” people, whose ideas were on the whole not so much rejected by the supposedly sober, “realistic” people in the mainstream, as simply ignored.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.150/51. – Well, I fled from Europe, in 1959, as a potential nuclear battlefield, to Australia. However, Australia might become a primary target in a limited nuclear war, in which the major contestants rather wipe out some of their allies than themselves. – JZ, 10.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The trouble with nuclear war (apart from the fact that it causes a great many people to be dead) is that it is over so fast it isn't any fun. In fact, it isn't really a 'war'. It is a stand-up shoot-out, exactly like the gunslinger in High Noon. You take your best shot. The other guy takes his. And that's the end of it. The big difference is that when two cowboys shoot it out, one or the other might miss. In an all-out nuclear exchange nobody gets missed. There is enough devastation for everybody." - Frederick Pohl, DESTINIES, 2/4, - p.128. – The insanity of nuclear “duels”. - JZ, 28.2.09. – MAD: MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION “POLICY”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The ultimate danger stems not from the bomb itself but from the paranoia of the institutions that wield it.” - Jack Stoneley: CETI, p.164. These institutions do have so excessive powers that they can only be described as mad and to be afraid of them is rational. One should remain rational in one's justified fears and come to ponder rational and moral actions and institutions to remove these powers. - JZ, 4.8.82. - So far, they remained, largely, even unquestioned! This in spite of the facts that most of the better definitions of States do mention their territorial aspects. - JZ, 20.11.02, 26.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES FOR VOLUNTEERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the ultimate evil is to destroy mankind and the penultimate evil is to make that destruction possible. … the ultimate good is to ensure the safety of humanity and the penultimate good is to make safety possible.” - Bob Brown, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.23. – It was always possible for moral and rational beings. Even some primitive tribes have demonstrated that with their peaceful histories. But to assure it, against the present territorial Warfare State systems, of “civilized”, “educated” and “enlightened” people, does remain a difficult job, since territorialism is deeply imbedded still in the minds of most people, as, perhaps, the worst of all “fixed ideas”, one that most people are rarely conscious of but simply take for granted, just like they do the “principle” and practice of collective responsibility. - JZ, 16.11.13. – THE FIXED IDEAS OF TERRITORIALISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The underlying, all-encompassing 'fact' of an ill-considered response was nuclear war. It seemed inconceivable ... that sentient beings could weigh such a possibility in the balance. As if they were conducting a trade-off study with annihilation in the offing, a measurable, calculable alternative.” - Alfred D'Attore, "An Earnest of Intent, ANALOG, 10/73.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the United States and the Soviet Union have stockpiled enough weapons to incinerate most of human civilization. This is the progress the arms race has made in the name of peace. Yet as long as major stockpiles of nuclear weapons exist, probabilities dictate that they will be eventually used. The only alternative is disarmament. In the nuclear age there is no other logical alternative to secure peace.” - Ruth Coleman in: John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.46. - The Nazis had stockpiled enough poison gas to murder a further 20 million people. There were not as many Jews available to them or even living in the world. Luckily, their transport system was partly destroyed and thus did not permit them to murder still more people. - JZ, n.d. - & ARMS RACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift to unparalleled catastrophe.” – Albert Einstein, quoted in - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. – He rejected the secessionist and exterritorial autonomy alternatives for volunteers and promoted the worst form of expressing territorialism and collective responsibility, namely, with WMDs. – JZ, 8.1.06. - It certainly did not change his mode of thinking on territorialism and exterritorialism. He was quite in vain approached about the panarchistic alternative. – JZ, 23.2.09. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY & TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The use of indiscriminate weapons must now be condemned as an affront to the Creator and the denial of the very purpose of Creation.” – Church of England statement, Ref. 11518, PRAJ. – How often has this statement been repeated on Anglican Church pulpits? – JZ, 30.5.08. – GOD, RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY, PREACHERS, WORKSHIP

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The very fact that political leaders got nuclear weapons built, stockpiled and kept in readiness, targeted, and that they showed no willingness to destroy all of them, unilaterally, says something about their mental condition. – JZ, 3.1.98. – POLITICIANS, RULERS, LEADERSHIP, POWER ADDICTS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, POWER MADNESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the very nature of modern nuclear warfare rests upon the annihilation of civilians.” - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, revised edition, p. 267, Collier Books, 1978, ISBN 0-02-074690-3. – We should be deterred, as moral beings, from ever building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons or allowing anyone else to do so. – JZ, 22.2.09. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, CIVILIANS, NONCOMBATANTS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The way in which methods of waging war have developed since the introduction of aircraft, through the nuclear and missile age, leads to the conclusion that if war between great powers should occur, it would be unlimited in scope, and cause immense, catastrophic damage to the most highly civilized countries. The greatest danger against which all nations have to be protected is the outbreak of nuclear war.” – Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.254. – And that, at a minimum, will require the abolition of all territorial powers and their replacement by communities of volunteers, none of them with a territorial monopoly, all of them only exterritorially autonomous – and as wide-spread on this planet as they want to be and can be. – JZ, n.d. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts.” – General Omar Bradley. – Not to win such a war but to win against the threat of such a war! – JZ, 28.2.09. - DEFENCE & VICTORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The whole nuclear war threat is just a modern and “scientific” revival of the ancient warfare method of “scorched earth”. – Our territorial rulers and their advisors could not or would not think of anything moral and rational. – So why should we trust and follow them any longer, into a universal extermination camp? – JZ, 23.2.09, 26.1.11. - Q., OBEDIENCE TOWARDS MAD LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” - Gen. Omar Bradley – ETHICS, MORALITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, CONSCIENCE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DECLARATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The world is spending a million dollars a minute on weapons; more than half of it is expended by the United States and the Soviet Union. Already the United States and Russia possess nuclear weapons with explosive power of 32 trillion pounds of TNT, enough for 4 tons for every man, woman, and child on earth, or enough for 800 000 Hiroshima-size bombs.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Why Things Go Wrong or The Peter Principle Revisited, George Allen & Unwin, 1971, p.137. – OVERKILL, NUCLEAR STRENGTH MADNESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the world is very old and human beings are very young … that we have been preceded by an awesome vista of time.” - Carl Sagan. - Phillip Adams commented on this in THE BULLETIN, 10. 1. 84: As such recent arrivals on this planet, what right do we have to destroy it? - If, really, all of us, would be intent upon suicide, would it be so difficult to mass produce 6 billion suicide pills and to distribute them?”- Not suicide is involved but mass murder, on the largest scale and this by our supposed protectors and defenders. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The world, obviously, cannot survive many more decades of rule by gangs of armed males calling themselves governments. Whatever its varying forms of justifications, the armed State is what is threatening all of our lives at present ... " Who we are: the anarcho-feminist manifesto", first published by Siren, Chicago.1971, quoted in H. J. Ehrlich et al: Re-inventing Anarchism, p.251. - Not the fact that they are males is decisive but that they, and the women, too, are territorially organized and motivated. - These female "liberationists" overlook this aspect of liberation as well as most males do. - JZ, 20.11.02. – In the Falkland War, under Prime Minister Thatcher, the English fleet had nuclear “weapons” on board. I also doubt that under its present female Chancellor, all US nuclear “weapons”, stationed in Germany, have been removed. Not just male domination attempts are involved. Power addiction can be found in both sexes and in homosexuals as well. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The worse our present crises become, the more the pressure increases on us all to find real solutions. (*) We stand at the pivot of human evolution. We now have the technology to blow ourselves up 1,700 times over, thus rendering the planet absolutely sterile, destroying flowers and fish and birds and everything else in a blaze of planetary madness. (**) We also have, or are rapidly developing, the technology for all the once-utopian scenarios discussed here. A world without poverty. Without national rivalries and wars. Without emotional twisting and vast waste of intelligence. A world of immortals who can explore all space-time and who can contact more advanced immortals.” - Robert Anton Wilson, "Illuminati Papers", p.56. - WE? - JZ, 26.1.11. - (*) I still do not get any letters or enquiries about my two peace books on the www. - If those, who find them there and do manage to read them, are aware of better peace programs, why don't they bother to inform me about them? - JZ, 1.5.06. - (**) My friend Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, used to comment on this: “I do not mind so much about man, as he is - but what about the butterflies?!”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The worst enemies of mankind put themselves forward as its defenders! And they are, all too widely, still accepted as such, by people who should know better but do not bother to learn enough about this problem and its solution. They would rather read the latest novels or play the latest war games. - JZ, 20.11.02. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, DEFENCE, SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS BEYOND PRIVATES ONES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The worst terrorists are the nuclear-armed territorial governments. They are “holding” the population of all whole countries as hostages. - JZ, 17.12.82, 26.1.11. – At least they hold them collectively responsible for the criminal action of their governments or mis-rulers. – The modern hostages, whole territorial populations, do no longer have to be incarcerated by their hostage takers. They are already “imprisoned” and subdued by their own territorial governments and threatened with mass murder by being targeted by our own territorial governments, just like we are targeted by their government, as the supposed property or asset of our territorial government. Moreover, our immigration restrictions help to prevent them from escaping their dictatorial regimes. – JZ, 23.2.09. - GOVERNMENTS & TERRORISM, HOSTAGE TAKING, TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLES AS PROPERTY, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WRONGFUL TARGETS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Then the nuclear rain (*) began. And nothing was funny any longer.” - Conclusion of the story: "Day of Burning", by Poul Anderson, in his book: The Book of Poul Anderson, p.284. – (*) Radioactively polluted rain. All rain, even the most pure, is made up of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are circumstances in which Christian obedience demands civil disobedience.” - Christian recent resolution, quoted by Patrick White, 27.12.83. Not only civil disobedience, but also military and revolutionary disobedience is still, all too often required! - JZ, 1.5.06m 16.11.13. - CHRISTIANITY, OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there are enough psychopaths in high places on both sides of the cold war as to make the odds for annihilation an almost sure bet.” - L. Labadie, Selected Essays, p.61. – There is still no shortage of rogue governments either in possession or trying to get nuclear weapons. Moreover, are all the democratic governments, which are armed with mass murder devices, not also rogue governments, merely through that readiness? – Already Kant, more than two centuries ago, called all governments despotic, which monopolized decision-making on war and peace. – Most of their “democratic” subjects do not even question that monopoly, just like they do not question the nuclear deterrent, collective responsibility notions and practices and monetary as well as financial despotism which are financially backing up territorial despotism, all quite legally. - JZ, 16.11.13. – ROGUE GOVERNMENTS & DEMOCRACY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are less large cities in the world than there are nuclear devices that could destroy each one of them. – JZ, 21.9.07. – And these targets and their people still remain all too silent, passive and thoughtless about this situation. – JZ, 10.10.07, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are more than 50,000 nuclear warheads now deployed and ready. Considering the dearth of rational thinking among political leaders, the probability of being killed by the effects of a nuclear bomb is far greater than that of falling victim to a nuclear reactor.” - Mark Oliphant, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 21.6.80, p. 21.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are no circumstances”, he says, “in which we could use these weapons without behaving both wickedly and insanely. What sort of ‘deterrent’, then, are weapons, which can never in any circumstances be used to our advantage – which can only be used as a futile act of revenge from the grave or as a means of putting us into the grave? They are of use to no one who possesses them and they are a perpetual and appalling danger to us all.” The same might be said of those chemical and biological weapons which have dropped so surprisingly from our calculations.” - Nigel Nicolson, M.P., in Philip Toynbee: The Fearful Choice, p.41, quoting P. Toynbee. - Replace all these wrongful territorial "choices" by free individual ones, going into the direction of peace, justice, freedom, prosperity, progress, enlightenment, longevity and the stars, via full exterritorial autonomy under personal law, or full experimental freedom, freedom of contract and freedom of association in all spheres now monopolized by territorial governments. - JZ, 16.1.11, 2.6.13.  – The grave-diggers would also be mass murdered. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are only two ways: either peaceful coexistence or the most destructive war in history." - said Bulganin, 1956. (5) - Alas, he thought only of territorial "coexistence", which is like the "coexistence" between criminals and their victims. – JZ, NWT 27.5.06. - Peaceful coexistence requires individual choices under exterritorial autonomy and personal law, i.e., individual and group secessionism, freedom of contract, free associationism, regardless of one's ideal, if only one confines it to its volunteers and remains tolerant towards all the different choices which other people make for themselves. - Needed also: An ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and also an ideal militia for their protection. - JZ, 26.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there are people in the world willing and able to destroy mankind.” - John Brunner, The Stone that Never Came Down, p.135. – And most of us are not yet ready, prepared and willing to destroy them or at least all their wrongful powers and weapons. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are powerful voices around the world, who still give credence to the old Roman precept – if you desire peace, prepare for war. This is absolute nuclear nonsense.” – Admiral Mountbatten. – We ought to undertake all the measures and establish all the principles, practices and institutions required to establish peace and reduce all former wars involving whole populations to mere rightful and discriminating police actions against the remaining criminals with involuntary victims. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are times when victory is very hard to take.” - From film: "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence." – The very notion of “victory” becomes meaningless for nuclear war. Looked at it objectively, even in World War I and II there were actually, only losers, on all sides. – JZ, 16.11.13. – VICTORY?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax.” – Robert Heinlein, Starship Trooper, p.56. – Not only sometimes but mostly, if not always. – JZ, 21.7.85.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There is a simple test for deciding whether or not we have truly contemplated the reality of nuclear warfare. Have we decided how we are to kill the other members of our household in the event of our being less injured than they are? This will sound morbid and melodramatic to most English ears, but in reality we ought already to be making sober plans for killing off our injured before disposing of ourselves. If nuclear war begins, a great many rockets are likely to fall on this country simultaneously. Those who are fortunate enough to live in the “safest” areas – London, East Anglia – can reasonably expect to be killed outright. But over most of the country there will probably be a chaos of people dying in isolation from each other, and in great agony. In most areas there will probably be no organized rescue work and no prospect of any organized rescue work. Much needless anguish can be avoided if we are at least prepared with our methods of euthanasia.” – Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.10. – If the nuclear war threat is thus brought home to them – then at least some people will, hopefully, start to think seriously about causes and prevention of nuclear war. – JZ, 30.5.08, 26.1.11. – EUTHANASIA, SUICIDE PREPARATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There is a vast difference between discriminate killing and indiscriminate killing. To the nuclear pacifists, the murder of civilian populations neither advances practical justice nor serves the purposes of God. As a citizen of both the kingdom of God and of the earthly polis, he is impelled to reject the use – and therefore the threat – of force that exceeds rational and moral control.” - Norman Gottwald, Professor of Old Testament at the Andover-Newton Theological School, quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.227.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there is another extreme solution, which would entirely remove the defect in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. This solution, described (but not recommended) by Kahn, would be to construct a literal doomsday machine, which would blow up the whole world as soon as an adversary engaged in some activity that had previously been defined as “unacceptable” by the machine’s possessor. Kahn, who estimated in 1960 that a doomsday machine might be built for as little as ten billion dollars, points out that the machine would eliminate any doubt concerning the retaliatory strike by making it fully automatic. The retaliatory strike would still be senseless, but this senselessness would no longer cloud its “credibility”, since the action would have been predetermined: the foundation would have been provided for a fully consistent policy of nuclear deterrence, under which nations would be deterred from launching nuclear attacks (*) by the pre-arranged certainty that their own countries would perish in the ensuing global annihilation. But Kahn is also quick to point out a disadvantage of the doomsday machine which makes its construction immediately repugnant and intolerable to anyone who thinks about it: once it is in place, “there is no chance of human intervention, control, and final decision.” And behind this objection, we may add, is an even simpler and more basic one: the chief reason we don’t want a doomsday machine is that we don’t want doom – not in any circumstances. Doom doesn’t become any more acceptable because it comes about as someone’s “final decision”. And, of course, even though no enemy attack has been launched, in a moment of computer confusion the doomsday machine might make its own “final decision” to go off.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.206. - -(*) Nations or the population never do, only their mis-leaders do decide upon war under the present universal system of territorial sovereignty for our political mis-leaders. – JZ, 22.9.07. I would rather propose a cheaper scheme, namely implanting a bomb in the brain of everyone who has his finger on a nuclear button. This bomb to explode, automatically, in all these heads, as soon as the first nuclear "weapon" is used anywhere. The functioning of this bomb is to be frequently tested, if possible, without exploding it. That would put an effective deterrent exactly there, where it is needed most, as long as the people of this world are still foolish enough to tolerate any nuclear "weapons" anywhere on or around Earth. - Doing away with all territorial powers would work even better. - JZ, 26.1.11. – Compare the movie “Dr. Strangelove”, in which a doomsday machine had been built but its public announcement had been delayed, for some silly political reason, so in the meantime the first nuclear attack occurred and set it off. – JZ, & THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There is no protection for those who place themselves in the power of evil.” - Ron Manners – STATISM, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there is no such thing as an ‘external enemy’. – Gandhi. With the world itself at stake, all differences would by definition be “internal differences, to be resolved on the basis of respect for those with whom one disagreed. If our aim is to save humanity, we must respect the humanity in every person.” (*): - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.229. - (*) Not the aggressor, terroris or tyrant in any person. – JZ, 23.9.07. - EXTERNAL ENEMIES, RESPECT FOR THOSE WITH WHOM ONE DISAGREES, TOLERANCE FOR THE TOLERABLE ONLY, INTOLERANCE FOR THE INTOLERANT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There must be some way of arousing people to the fact that this was the eleventh hour of man's destiny.” - A. E. van Vogt, The Wizard of Linn, p.57. - Not even thousands of SF stories on this subject and dozens of films and official studies and war-games have so far opened up a sufficient number of minds to the risks and the possible, rightful and rational cures. - JZ, 20.11.02, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There remains hope that a non-proliferation agreement can be reached, in spite of the Vietnam block. But as armaments continue to increase in number and power, the negotiators at Geneva begin to have the feeling that they are like men standing over a fused mine. They see the fuse burning, they know the mine that can destroy hundreds of millions is there. How long the fuse may be, they do not know, but they do know that if it is not cut, sooner or later the mine will explode. And still they find themselves disputing over whether the fuse should be cut with an axe … or by shears … who will make the first cut, and so on. The fuse keeps on burning.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.268, concluding paragraph. – NUCLEARL DISARMAMENT BY GOVERNMENTS, THE PEOPLE OR AN IDEAL MILITIA FORCE?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there were people sick enough, angry enough, afraid enough to use what could not possibly be used ….” - Kevin O'Donnell, Jr., War of Omission, p.94. - I would add: "rightfully and rationally". - JZ, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There will be no score-keeper around to record the desolate fact of whose weapon superiority won the final battle. The bomb has not made war impossible - only victory."- L. J. Peter in: The Peter Plan, p.36.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There will be nukes – as long as we maintain large territorial targets for them and continue to apply the “principle” of collective responsibility. – JZ, 8.1.84, 13.8.87, 26.1.08. - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TERRITORIALISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: these bombs are sheer lunacy, just one more example of the insane antics of governments.” – Lee Goodlow & Jerry Oltion, Moonsong, ANALOG 7/89, p.37. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: These playful darlings would swat a fly with a sledgehammer or cure a cough with a guillotine.” - Robert Heinlein: The Number of the Beast.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: these silk-suited characters with their manicured hands on their children can reach over the child's shoulder and press a button to kill children thousands of miles away.” - Father Berrigan, quoted in OMNI, 12/81 by James Reston.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: They "will carry out their orders and there won't be any human race pretty soon." - George H. Smith: The Four Day Weekend, End of chapter 10.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: They are insane, … insane and pushed into a corner.” - Frank Herbert, The Priests of PSI, p.40.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: They are prepared to commit the ultimate folly, the ultimate Holocaust, at our expense, under all kinds of rationalizations and pretences. - Some would argue that the general nuclear holocaust hasn't happened yet during the last 60 decades, so it won't happen in the future, either. - To them such notions are "the voice of experience" and a proof that nuclear strength and nuclear deterrence policies do work. - I am here reminded of the story of a guy who jumped or was thrown of a 90 story skyscraper and who, by the time that he reached, unharmed, the 30th floor, said to himself: "So far, so good!" - How often did we come already very close to nuclear war during the last few decades? - JZ, NWT 27 5 06. – Q., DETERRENCE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: They make a desert and call it peace.” – Tacitus, ca. 56-120, in Agricola, ca. 98 AD, p.30. - He ascribes these words to the British leader Calgacus, AD 84. - They prepare a world-wide radioactive desert – and call it peace-making. – JZ, 18.11.85. - SCORCHED EARTH POLICY, AREA BOMBING, WMD’s

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: They were not weapons but suicide devices.” – Richard D. Lamm, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, April 27-May 3, 1985, on “nuclear weapons”. – Have our territorialist politicians and military experts recognized that as yet? How many more decades will they need? – How many more decades will their victimized peoples remain sheeple? - JZ, 30.5.08. - Calling them that does not describe their mass murderous nature. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: they were still burning the barn to get the rats.” … - Robert Heinlein, Glory Road, p.188.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Think of the number of scientifically trained idiots at work, putting more and more nuclear power, more and more easily, into the hands of idiots like themselves, like politicians, generals and others! - JZ, 5.10.79.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This country seems to be headed closer and closer to some sort of Armageddon that will happen completely automatically, with no one lifting a finger or, indeed, being able to. – John Thiel, NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 56, 9th of Jan. 77.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This doctrine, in its detailed as well as its more general formulations, is diagrammatic of the world’s failure to come to terms with the nuclear predicament. In it, two irreconcilable purposes clash. The first purpose is to permit the survival of the species, and this is expressed in the doctrine’s aim of frightening everybody into holding back from using nuclear weapons at all; the second purpose is to serve national ends (*), and this is expressed in the doctrine’s permitting the defense of one’s nation and its interests by threatening to used nuclear weapons. The strategists are pleased to call this clash of two opposing purposes in one doctrine a paradox, but in actuality it is a contradiction. We cannot both threaten ourselves with something and hope to avoid that same thing by making the threat - both intend to do something and intend not to do it. The head-on contradiction between these aims has set up a crosscurrent of tension within the policies of each superpower. The “safety” that Churchill mentions may be emphasized at one moment, and at the next moment it is the “terror” that comes to the fore. And since the deterrence doctrine pairs the safety and the terror, and makes the former depend on the latter, the world is never quite sure from day to day which one is in the ascendant – if, indeed, the distinction can be maintained in the first place. All that the world can know for certain is that at any moment the fireballs may arrive.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.197/98. - (*) (territorialist ends! – JZ) - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This is not a policy of peace. It is a policy of war. If this is the only way we win, we do not deserve to win; and in any case, if the precepts of history have any validity, we cannot win this way. We can end only in impoverishing and ruining America.” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.352. – What actually happened, was that the USSR was ruined in this way. With its much more State-socialized economy it could not keep up the pace of the nuclear arms race. Alas, its collapse has not led to the destruction of all nuclear mass murder devices for territorial misrule went on, on all sides. – JZ, 6.10.07. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH POLICY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This is the greatest challenge the human race has ever had. Unless we mature and stop behaving like children, we will not survive.” - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.30.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This security against the outbreak of war has been referred to as a peace enforced through mutual terror. Just now to the man in the street, general nuclear war seems “unthinkable” – although military staffs and civilian strategic analysts are thinking about it all the time. [It will be they, not the people at large, who will influence the final decision. – JZ, 2.6.13.] But how long can this armed camp built on a volcano endure? – No one can put a term to the life of the present system of nuclear deterrence, dependent on an approximate balance of apprehended mega-deaths and continent-wide abominations of desolation. But there is every reason to fear that over a sufficiently long period of time, deterrence will fail. Lasting security for any nation – or coalition – can hardly be built on threats to the existence of other nations. …” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.239. – DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Those immoral enough to let themselves be trained in the use of nuclear mass murder devices are, probably, also immoral enough to actually use them on command or even on their own initiative or to sell them to private terrorists. – JZ, 11.1.05, 22.10.07. - & PRIVATE TERRORISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Those people who talk about winning or surviving a nuclear war don’t know what they are talking about.” – Dr. Howard Hiatt, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – One of these idiots even wrote a book entitled: “All it takes is shovels”. – He believed that all could simply dig safe enough shelters for themselves and survive, for any length of time, in their artificial caves. - JZ, 28.2.09, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Those who can’t create feel the need to destroy – because that’s the only way for them to effect a change. Maybe that’s why they cause or support wars and mass murder and get mass murder devices built and kept in readiness? – JZ, 11.3.08. – Even an anarchist like Bakunin said once: “The lust to destroy is a creative joy.” – Would he have been willing to destroy not only a tyrannical regime or institution but also a peaceful and creative society? – JZ, 18.9.08. – DESTRUCTION, VANDALISM, WAR, TERRORISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Those, who otherwise are adult sane and rational, who let themselves be led into nuclear holocaust, like sheep to the slaughterhouse, and this even without protesting or mere bleating, almost deserve to die! - JZ, 14.11.82. - But what about the rest, and their children? - JZ, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Thousands of years of civilization have taught us that what is morally wrong is in the long range insane, and what is morally right in the long run is practically wise. Let us resolve, each for his own sake, as well as for the sake of the world, that never again shall nuclear power be used for destruction … “ – Israel Goldstein of the Jewish agency, quoted by: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.227.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To be men not destroyers. - Ezra Pound, Cantos.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To be targeted from the cradle to the grave as a victim of indiscriminate mass murder is degrading in one way, but to target others for similar mass murder is degrading in another and, in a sense, a worse way.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.153.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.95.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To grasp the reality of the contradiction, we have only to picture the circumstances of leaders whose country has just been annihilated in a first strike. Now their country is on its way to becoming a radioactive desert, but the retaliatory nuclear force survives in its silos, bombers, and submarines. These leaders of nobody, living in underground shelters or in “doomsday” planes that could not land, would possess the means of national defense but no nation to defend. What rational purpose could they have in launching the retaliatory strike? Since there was no longer a nation, “national security” could not be the purpose. Nor could defense of other peoples be the purpose, since the retaliatory strike might be the action that would finally break the back of the ecosphere and extinguish the species. In these circumstances, it seems to me, it is really an open question whether the leaders would decide to retaliate or not.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.204. – If they are still somewhat rational and moral. – JZ, n.d., 1982? – Watch the film “Dr. Strangelove”, 1964, by Stanley Kubrik, with Peter Sellers, if you can get it. But it seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth. Possibly, some government has bought up and destroyed all copies of it. – JZ 10.10.07. – Finally I managed to order and receive a copy after some weeks of waiting, some time ago. It cost me ca. $ 40. - JZ, 26.1.11. - No mass murder justifies another mass murder! – JZ, 23.2.09. - & SECOND STRIKES IN RETALIATION, NATIONAL DEFENCE, REVENGE, RETALIATION, NATIONALISM, NUCLEAR WINTER

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To me it seems reasonable that if we're to survive at all, we have to make a team and work together … Apparently it does not seem so to you.” - Poul Anderson, Planet of No Return, p.32. - Instead, let each become free to choose or build his own team, all of volunteers only, all free to try to realize their ideals or dreams, as far as possible, at their own expense and risk, under full experimental freedom, which would mean ignoring or destroying all territorialist regimes and realizing full exterritorial autonomy for all their experiments or ideals, whether utopian or realistic. It works in the sphere of religion and in numerous private choices. I would also work in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, which are now still monopolized by territorial governments. - Alas, P. A., although one of the best libertarian SF writers, was not ready to accept that view and develop it in one of his stories. - He stuck with the all too limited and still territorial utopia of "a limited" government. - JZ, 26.1.11. – SECESSIONISM, INDIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, CONTRACTARIANISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIEMENT, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNANCE, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To me nuclear strength policies are like duels that are prepared and carried out by the duelists with hand grenades “only” in a closed small room. – JZ, 22.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To paraphrase Winston Churchill: "Each person has only to do his duty to wreck the world." - Richard Tanner Pascale & Anthony G. Athos: "The Art of Japanese Management", p.183. - DUTY & OBEDIENCE, NO MATTER HOW ABSURD OR WRONG?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To say that we and all future generations are threatened with extinction by the nuclear peril, however, is to describe only half of our situation. The other half is that we are the authors of that extinction. (*) (For the populations of the superpowers, this is true in a positive sense, since we pay for extinction and support the governments that pose the threat of it, while for the people of the non-nuclear-armed world it is true only in the negative sense that they fail to try to do anything about the danger.)” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.150/51. - (*) Not as the decision-makers but as tribute payers to and all too obedient subjects of the centralized and monopolistic decision-makers. – JZ, 21.9.07. - & TAXATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To the obligation to honor life is now added the sanction that if we fail in our obligation life will actually be taken away from us, individually and collectively. Each of us will die, and as we die we will see the world around us dying.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185/86.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To the old “harsh realities” of international life (*) has been added the immeasurably harsher new reality of the peril of extinction.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185. – (*) Between territorial Warfare States! – JZ, 21.9.07. - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & THE EXTINCTION OF MANKIND

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To the old truth that all men are brothers has been added the inescapable new truth that not only on the moral but also on the physical plane the nation that practises aggression will itself die. This is the law of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence – the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” – which “assures” the destruction of the society of the attacker.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - When was the last time that a whole nation decided upon an aggressive war, if ever? - JZ, 1. 5. 06. –DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: to waste the planet itself. - Senator George McGovern, quoted in PLAYBOY, "The End of the World". – The planet is likely to role on, only scratched, but only few, if any, of its life forms may survive. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today the tigers realize that nuclear war is not a question of strategic plans, not a question of who has most oil, steel or even uranium, but one of instant and general annihilation. Disarmament has become a vital necessity for us all … before some stupid accident leads to catastrophe.” – Ilya Ehrenburg, Post-War Years, p.164, in For Freedom, an anthology by Davis Poynter.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today we Pacifists have become realists. We are willing to fight, to kill and to die, in order to prevent war. We are not interested in the survival of individuals, we are of the opinion that another war will destroy the race, and to preserve humanity we will do literally anything." - The Book of War, Editor J. Sallis, p.73. (War hawks think similar! - JZ) - Yes, they are both prepared to do anything - except think about the voluntary, exterritorialist and personal law alternatives! - JZ, 20.11.02. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM & VOLUNTARISM FOR ALL VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today, nuclear war is seen in only two acts: the initial attack that is to be deterred, and the retaliatory strike that constitutes the deterrent. The possibility of later phases in a full-scale nuclear war, let alone how such a war would end, is no longer a question that people wish to debate.” – Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.120. – The thinking and decision on all related questions is not only taken out of their hands but, largely, also out of their minds. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today, when all the world is becoming Nazi, when all nations are becoming capable of genocide with their nuclear war preparations …” - Emanuel Levine. - It still takes territorialism, with its centralized powers, coercion and monopolies to bring this about. Its opposites, personal law societies of volunteers, could prevent it. - JZ, 26.1.11, 16.11.13. - NAZIS & GENOCIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Too many people still seriously believe that nuclear war is no threat to anyone. - JZ, 5.2.81. - They still trust their governments and the governments on the other side, not to use nuclear weapons! The big lies are still effective. - JZ, 1.5.06. - TERRITORIALISM, DETERRENCE, IGNORANCE PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Traditional military doctrine began, as I have suggested, with the premise that the amounts of force available to the belligerents were small enough to permit one side or the other to exhaust itself before both sides were annihilated. Nuclear doctrine, on the other hand, begins with the premise that the amounts of force are so great that both sides, and perhaps all mankind, will be annihilated before either side exhausts its forces.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.198.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Truman was able and willing to use two nuclear “weapons”. Hitler could have been trusted to use nuclear weapons, too, if he would have had them at his disposal. There are at least hundreds to thousands of people as mass-murderous, power-addicted and power-mad as they were. No one is quite safe under any territorial leadership while anyone still possesses such wrongful power over the lives of millions. – JZ, 3.9.01, 21.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: TV showing: Two guys seeing which is faster on the draw. Then the news comes on and everything changes. A couple of other guys are seeking which one can be last to take his finger off the trigger. - "CHANGING TIMES" - & WESTERNS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Two 100 Megaton weapons … The delivery of one such weapon by ICBM on London would destroy all life and property sought of a line drawn between Newcastle and Carlisle. … It follows that a second missile dropped in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen would inevitably result in the total destruction of Britain and all Ireland. -  Ian Fleming, James Bond. Diamonds are Forever. PAN BOOKS, 1958 to 1964, p.50/51. – Quite a few years ago I read somewhere, that about 20 nuclear weapons would be required to destroy all of England. The degree of destruction might be more even with a larger number of smaller ones than the 2 super “weapons” here suggested. – As long as such “weapons” exist and might be used – the term “defence” becomes almost meaningless. - JZ, 27.2.12. DEFENCE, AGGRESSION & MASS MURDER, WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Ukrainian MPs want “compensation” for giving up nuclear weapons.” – Radio report 22.11.93. – If that is not “nuclear blackmail” then what is? – JZ, 22.11.93.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: until the angels get tired of the show, and the whole earth is set off like a gigantic bomb, …” - H. L. Mencken, Prejudices, Second Series, ‘The Cult of Hope”, p.214. – DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: US President Harry S. Truman, … said in his message to Congress on 3rd October, 1945: “The release of atomic energy constitutes a new force too revolutionary to consider in the framework of old ideas.” Quoted by Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia, 1992, p.7. – The ideas of genuine self-government - through full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, independent of where they live - is not a new but a very ancient one, also one with a very prolonged practice which, alas, has been largely forgotten by modern “political scientists”, who, following the rule of absolute emperors and kings, have concentrated all their thoughts and efforts on the supposed ideal of territorial sovereignty in the hands of territorial “democratic” governments and have, largely, forgotten about the sovereignty of the individual and of communities of volunteers (which do really provide unanimous consent situations), apart from the farce of territorial, collectivistic and majoritarian voting (misnamed “the” vote or “the” franchise” or “self-government”), by which individuals are really disfranchised and become victims of “representative” politicians, among whom the worst tend to get to the top and stay there, for all too long. – No territorial government and no territorial population, anywhere, has so far seriously considered the exterritorial autonomy alternatives, all for volunteers only. This is probably a by-product of the public mis-education delivered or controlled by territorial governments. – The older ideas and practices of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers are in many ways very much superior to the newer notions and practices of territorial sovereignty, especially when it comes to the threats posed by ABC mass murder devices in the hands of “sovereign” territorial regimes, from which no one is allowed to freely to secede. Individual secession is, probably, the most important vote of all. - JZ 1.10.07. - & REVOLUTIONARY NEW IDEAS, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Use of power is no longer the deciding factor because one man is as powerful as a million. Restraint - self-restraint is now the key to survival. Each of us is at the mercy of his neighbor's good will. Each of us ... the man in the palace and the man in the shack. We'd better do all we can to increase that good will - not attempting to buy it, but simply recognizing that individual dignity is the one inalienable right ..." - Frank Herbert: Committee of the Whole, Worlds of F. H., p.46. - We ought to grant that dignity even to the terrorists once they confine all their activities to creative options among like-minded people and ought to offer some of them amnesty under that basic condition. - JZ, 4.8.82. - The very characteristic of territorial nuclear powers is that they are not inherently restrained but unrestrained and that even good will and logic does not open their minds to the exterritorialist and voluntaristic alternatives. - JZ, 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: utopian” is the term of scorn for any plan that shows serious promise of enabling the species to keep from killing itself (*) (if it is “utopian” to want to survive, then it must be “realistic” to be dead); and the political arrangements that keep us on the edge of annihilation are deemed “moderate”, and are found to be “respectable”, whereas new arrangements, which might enable us to draw a few steps back from the brink, are called “extreme” or “radical”. With such fear-filled, thought-stopping epithets as these, the upholders of the status quo defend the anachronistic structure of their thinking, and seek to block the revolution in thought and action which is necessary if mankind is to go on living.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 161/62. - (*) It is not the species that does that but its “territorial State” and in it only the top people have this decision-making power and monopoly. – Underlining by me. - JZ, 21.9.07, 2.6.13. - & UTOPISM CHARGE, PANARCHISM, OBJECTIONS, , PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: victims in a World War III would be counted not by scores of thousands but by hundreds of millions.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.199.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Voluntarism, exterritoriality and personal law, all based on individual rights are our only hopes for the future, the only chances for the survival of man. Check it out yourself if you dare to think for yourself. - JZ - See: PEACE PLANS 16-17 & 61-63, the latter, in German, in PP 399-401. The first two are online at – The German original text in PEACE PLANS 399-401 is presently without a host-website. - JZ, 27.2.09. - HUMAN RIGHTS, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, FREEDOM, SURVIVAL, MAN, FUTURE, EXTERRITORIALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Want to play a leading role in a Geiger counter?” - Robert Heinlein, Between Planets, p.59. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: War As the Health of the State – Many libertarians are uncomfortable with foreign policy matters and prefer to spend their energies either on fundamental questions of libertarian theory or on such “domestic” concerns as the free market or privatizing postal services or garbage disposal. Yet an attack on war or a warlike foreign policy is of crucial importance to libertarians. There are two important reasons. One has become a cliché, but is all too true nevertheless: the overriding importance of preventing a nuclear holocaust. To all the long-standing reasons, moral and economic, against an interventionist foreign policy has now been added the imminent, ever-present threat of world destruction. If the world should be destroyed, all the other problems and all the other isms – socialism, capitalism, liberalism, or libertarianism – would be of no importance whatsoever. Hence the prime importance of a peaceful foreign policy and of ending the nuclear threat.” - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, revised edition, p. 277, Collier Books, 1978, ISBN 0-02-074690-3.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: War games have proved time and again that, contrary to some administrative statements, there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war and that a nuclear war cannot be reasonably “fought“ or won.” – Daniel Kagan in PENTHOUSE, INTERNATIONAL, 11/82, on Herbert Scoville. - & LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Warfare has now reached the stage of perfection where nobody wins and everybody loses.” – Eric Frank Russell & Leslie T. Johnson, Seeker of Tomorrow, in “Science Fiction of the 30’s”, ed. by Damon Knight, p.391. - Actually, that was the case for every war. Both sides would have been better off by peacefully trading with each other. However, some aggressors were so ruthless that a defence against them had to be attempted. – JZ, 30.5.08. – The mass of the population has no longer any icy or hot desert to retreat to, as the Eskimos, Firelanders and Hopi had, when confronted with mass extermination and scorched Earth “policies”. But less of them might have died – if they had tried to kill the leaders of their enemies. – 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: wars can be started by technical accidents, or started by leaders who fail to think coherently how the fighting will end, or who, in some perverse stubbornness, no longer care if it ends in disaster for their own country. - Many wars in this century have been started with only the most nebulous expectations regarding the outcome, on the strength of plans that paid little, if any, attention to the ending. Many began inadvertently, without any plans at all.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.108.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are "living in a pre-war and not in a post-war world." - Eugene Rostow, former head of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency. - THE NATIONAL TIMES, 23/29. 9. 83.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are all accessories to the mass murder preparations and alliances of our territorial governments. – JZ,  9.3.93, 21.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are all playing Russian Roulette with nuclear weapons. - JZ, 16.7.79. – Not WE are, THEY are! And they would not only wipe themselves out thus (good riddance!) but us, too. And so far we have tolerated their “game” or “play” with our lives. – JZ, 11.2.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are all sitting in a fast train driving towards a broken bridge and are not allowed to stop the train and leave it. – JZ, 1984. - SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are being led to the "gas chambers" and seem to believe that there is as little chance to stay out of them as the holocaust victims had. In fact, every nuclear destructive device or ABC "weapon" is nothing but a miniaturized extermination camp package. It is even worse than such a camp, in that it is still more indiscriminately and collectively applied against the population of whole cities, districts or countries. Since this is a fact, we have, obviously, at least the same right to resist and rebel, if there is the least chance for it, as the inmates of the Nazi extermination camps had. You might remember that some of the last survivors did rebel successfully and escape, e.g. in Buchenwald, Sobibor and Treblinka. And some, a few, escaped the exterminators of the people of the ghetto of Warsaw. - JZ, 4/83 & 1.5.06, 2.6.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are never more than an incident away from nuclear holocaust. - Robert Engler, Social Sciences and Social Consciousness. The Shame of the Universities, in: The Dissenting Academy, ed. by Theodor Roszak, Pelican, p.165. - NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST, SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: we are once again having the same old argument from the National Rifle Association: “Guns don’t kill – people kill.” Maybe we should start selling nuclear “weapons” to any “country” that wants them. (*) After all, “nuclear bombs don’t kill - only people who drop them kill.” There is a quantitative and a qualitative difference in nuclear weapons. Their “quality” is indiscriminate killing, masses of innocents together with a few guilty people. Rifles and hand-guns can be directed against guilty people only and for centuries, even in the hands of quite wrongful territorial governments, they have not yet threatened all of mankind with extermination. A mad gunman could only kill a few dozen people before he is killed himself. A madman with nuclear weapons could kill dozens of millions of innocents. – JZ, 6.7.89, 30.5.08. - (*) Neither their countries nor their populations want them. Their territorial governments do. – JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are still “thrown to the lions” by our rulers. Only the name of the game has changed and our lions are more voracious. They consist in nuclear devices or anti-people 'weapons'. - JZ, 77/82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are stuck with nuclear weapons and cannot get rid of them again. - They are a fact or reality and we have to put up with it and adapt. – We were once stuck with slavery and serfdom, child sacrifices, the inquisition, torture as a common policy, feudalism, the Black Death, the burning of “witches, mercantilism, Nazism and Bolshevism and, to a large extent did get rid of them. – JZ, 8.8.87, 30.5.08, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are told that “realism: compels us to preserve the system of sovereignty. But that political realism is not biological realism; it is biological nihilism – and for that reason is, of course, political nihilism, too. Indeed, it is nihilism in every conceivable sense of that word.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.218. – What other species upholds a territorial sovereignty? They only protect nesting and breeding grounds etc. not whole territories, which they do share, non-violently or violently as their life forms demand. No government-prescribed any armed borders for them, only the natural barriers exist for them. – JZ, 22.9.07. – Most people are still statist and territorialist utopians rather than realists. – They are so much "true believers" that they never examine the foundations of their faiths and their opposites. - JZ, 23.2.09. - & TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY & NIHILISM RATHER THAN REALISM.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are told that it is human fate – perhaps even “a law of human nature” – that, in obedience, perhaps, to some “territorial imperative”, or to some dark and ineluctable truth in the bottom of our souls, we must preserve sovereignty and always settle our difference with violence. If this is our fate, then it is our fate to die.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 218. – How many have so far thoroughly examined and criticized the notion of “territorial imperative” or “territorial integrity” and replaced it in their minds with the “exterritorial imperative”? – JZ, 23.2.09, 16.11.13. - EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE VS. TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We believe that if the politicians cannot keep the peace between us, then we must do it. We have our differences. But there is no ideology in a graveyard." - Alfred Coppell: Thirtyfour East, p.242/3.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We can kill all human beings and close down the source of all future human beings, but we cannot create even one human being, much less create those terrestrial conditions which now permit us (*) and other forms of life to live.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.178. - WE? - (*) We are not free or permitted to establish the political, economic and social systems, constitutions, laws and institutions that would prevent wars, even nuclear wars, starting with e.g. individual secessionism and personal law societies and do not even bother to think about them, sufficiently, with very few exceptions, so far. – Most people could but don’t, they just can’t be bothered, although their own lives are at stake and the lives of those people whom they say they love. – They rather take out huge insurance contracts, which will be useless in case the nuclear holocaust happens. – They do not want to think about effective self-help steps in this sphere, but rather ask e.g.: “What’s for dinner?” – As for terrestrial conditions: For thousands of years we have artificially increased our chances e.g. by building artificial shelters, producing clothing, defensive and hunting arms, productive tools, gardening, agriculture, irrigation, medicines, transport options and trade. – Without them some people still die from exposure to natural conditions. – We have not been very successful yet in preventing storms, floods, earthquakes and changing the climate or cause rain in our favor. – But at least we should try to get rid of territorial governments and the disasters and crises they cause. - JZ, 10.10.07, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We endeavor to hold life sacred, but in accepting our roles as the victims and the perpetrators of nuclear mass slaughter we convey the steady message – and it is engraved more and more deeply on our souls as the years roll by – that life not only is not sacred but is worthless; that, somehow, according to a “strategic” logic that we cannot understand, it has been judged acceptable for everybody to be killed.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.153. - And all too many still put their trust in their present political leaders, i.e. their future territorial executioners, or the territorial system, which allows them to become such executioners! – JZ, 10.10.07, 26.1.11, 2.6.13, 16.11.13. - & THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, RIGHT TO LIFE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With territorial governments and their wrongful powers, we have put all our eggs into a few baskets on this planet. They are ready to blow them up and us with them. - Actually Earth, as an astronomical and geological body will remain largely unchanged - but will the life upon it? - Will human life or civilization be continued? - JZ, 19.2.79, 26.1.11, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: we have been largely dead to the nuclear peril … we have found it much easier to dig our own grave than to think about the fact that we are doing so.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.148. – The faith in territorial governments continues, in spite of all the wars, democides, crises and tributes they have imposed upon us. – We have even tolerated, for decades already, anti-people mass murder devices in their hand, more “efficient” and much faster than Nazi extermination camps. – JZ, 16.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, STOCKPILED MASS MURDER DEVICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: we have begun to live as if life were safe, but living as if is very different from just living. A split opens up between what we know and what we felt. We place our daily doings in one compartment of our lives and the threat to all life in another compartment. However, this split concerns too fundamental a matter to remain restricted to that matter alone, and it begins to influence the rest of life. Before long, denial of reality becomes a habit – a dominant mode in the life of society – and unresponsiveness becomes a way of life. The society that has accepted the threat of its utter destruction soon finds it hard to react to lesser ills, for a society cannot be at the same time asleep and awake, insane and sane, against life and for life.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – Rather, the mostly self-chosen fate of man under territorialism, until all somewhat enlightened people are free to secede and live under their preferred personal law together with like-minded volunteers. Only then will we see rapid progress and enlightenment in the so far all too backward and limited “social sciences”. How slow would the present statists be in following the first examples of those, who realized e.g. voluntary taxation or contribution schemes for their societies, communities and governance systems? How long would it take them to adopt their full employment and stable currency methods? Nuclear targets would be rapidly dissolved into personal law communities, whose members would live intermixed in every territory. – JZ, 16.11.13. – INDIVIDIUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERERITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY TAXATION, FULL EMPLOYMENT VS. GOVERNMENT PRODUCE MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, GOOD MONIES DRIVING OUT BAD MONIES.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have blighted the promise of this century and converted the miracles of science into a chamber of horrors where a nuclear holocaust could become a death-trap for the entire human race. If we continue feverishly planning and inventing and building and rebuilding more of this progress, we will achieve the level of Total-Life-Incompetence." - Dr. Laurance J. Peter and Raymond Hall, The Peter Principle, 1969ff, p.148.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have got all the time there is … - Dennis Gould, "From Protest to Resistance", p.5.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have long recognized that as the arms race continues and the weapons multiply and become more swift and deadly, the possibility of a global catastrophe, whether by miscalculation or design, becomes ever more real.” – Mr. McNamara, quoted in: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.206.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have no power against this threat! - What powers would we need for this? Why have we not got them as yet, although we do have, supposedly, "the" vote? How can we acquire these powers? Can we afford not to acquire them? - JZ, 18.12.82. - Alas, the territorial and statist slave or serf mentality is still with us. - JZ, 1.5.06, 2.6.13. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risks that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs …” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.95. - & RISK TAKING

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world – or to make it the last.” – John F. Kennedy, address, United Nations General Assembly, Sep. 20, 1963. – So, what did he do? He doubled the nuclear arsenal of the USA! – JZ, 30.5.08. To that extent he was rightfully executed. But he deserved to be executed by a moral and rational being rather than by a madman or a communist. – And some other rulers deserved to be executed even more. - JZ, 26.1.11, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We hold these truths to be self-evident: All men could be cremated equal.” – Vern Partlow.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We may be likened to two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” – J. Robert Oppenheimer, on the East-West balance of terror, Foreign Affairs, Vo. 31, July 1953, p. 529. - DETERRENCE THEORY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We may in our passion wreck civilization as a passionate man in his anger will injure those he loves.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.136.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We must … found a political system for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. (*) - The task we face is to find a means of political action that will permit human beings to pursue any end for the rest of time.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.226. - (*) Most political disputes could and should be avoided in the first place by giving up and no longer recognizing any territorial monopoly claims for any particular group of any population. - (**) Any aim that does that involve only the like-minded volunteers of a community which makes no territorial monopoly claims, however wrong and irrational we, as outsiders, might perceive their actions to be, as long as the members of a voluntary community are prepared to put up with their self-selected conditions and do not secede from it individually or in groups. That secession or separation right should never be suppressed by any community. Experimental freedom for all others as well, as the only limit to freedom of action for the volunteers of the own community. In other words, the only system in common need be that of tolerance for all tolerant communities of volunteers. Under that condition there would not only be one society or community for all but hundreds to thousands of them, all somewhat different, according to the preferences, ideals or prejudices or their voluntary members. None of them to have compulsory membership or subordination, except for aggressors or private criminals against a community of volunteers. To assure that mutual tolerance juridical avenues are to be agreed upon, especially arbitration arrangements. As international law for them would count especially the best declaration of individual rights and liberties that can so far be compiled and published. A most suitable international enforcement agency - against offenders of such rights in members of other communities than their own - would be an ideal volunteer militia for the defence of individual rights and liberties. Internal and self-chosen restrictions of individual rights and liberties among the volunteers of an exterritorially autonomous community would not be considered as offences against the rights and liberties of its members. – JZ, 23.9.07, 26.1.11. - A TERRITORIALIST & TERRORIST POLITICAL SYSTEM, OPERATING ON THE “PRINCIPLE OF “COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY” OR PANARCHISM (POLYARCHISM), I.E. A SYSTEM THAT HAS ROOM FOR THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF DIVERSE POLITICAL SYSTEMS, ALL ONLY FOR THEIR OWN VOLUNTEERS & UNDER PERSONAL LAWS? Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We must dare to think about “unthinkable things”, because when things become “unthinkable”, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.” – William Fulbright, speech, U.S. Senate, March 25, 1964.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We must learn how to overcome the nuclear war danger before the “experts” do - and organize ourselves accordingly. - JZ, 18.11.82. – “… as Thomas Kuhn has shown in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, an exact measurement of the extent of stupidity among the learned is provided by the fact that every scientific revolution seems to take a generation. As Kuhn documents extensively, this one-generation time-lag seems to be caused by the fact that elderly scientists hardly ever accept a new model, however good it is, and the revolution is only fully accomplished when a second generation, with less prejudice, examines both the new and old models objectively and determines that the new is more useful.” - Robert Anton Wilson, Illuminati Papers. - SCIENTISTS & EXPERTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We played “blind cow” at the edge of an abyss.” – Opera FM, Sydney 5.2.87. – JZ tr. of: “Wir spielten blinde Kuh – am Rande der Welt.”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We possess – each of us – nuclear arsenals capable of annihilating humanity. We – both of us – have a special duty to see to it that confrontations are kept within the bounds that do not threaten civilized life. Both of us, sooner or later, will have to come to realize that the issues that divide the world today, and foreseeable issues, do not justify the unparalleled catastrophe that a nuclear war would represent.” – US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, press conference statement, 25. Oct. 1972; “Years of Upheaval”, 1982, p.594. - Territorial rulers are no more likely to destroy their nuclear "weapons" than they are to abdicate. - Their victims ought to do away with such "leaders", such "systems", such "politics" and such "weapons", before they are too much victimized by them. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We rely on the weapons of annihilation to secure our ‘way of life’. - Violence is so commonplace in our lives that we hardly notice it. …” – In a leaflet by American Friends Service Committee, Inc., (Quakers), 431 So. Dearborn, Chicago, Ill. 60605, directed against toys of violence for our children. – Have the toy producers already produced imitations nuclear weapons for children or are such “toys” in real version, reserved for our adult and official war games players, in spite of their obvious immorality and immaturity when it comes to such devices? – Much of public opinion is directed against firearms in the hands of decent people – but remains indifferent towards nuclear “weapons” in the hands of the worst criminals, the territorial governments. - JZ, 24.9.08, 16.11.13. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We see today governments, controlled by imbeciles who, while presuming to care for the health, education, and welfare of their victims, are at the same time preparing for a holocaust that threatens to decimate the human race; and this astounding contradiction is being accepted by millions of manufactured idiots the world over, completely oblivious of the inherently criminal nature of these very governments.” - Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.39. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We send a little medicine here, we distribute a little food there, we give proof of what we could do if mankind would only devote as much attention to its own preservation as it does to its own destruction.” - Alan Drury, A Shade of Difference, p.520. - He wrote as if charity would always be superior in its effects to free trade, voluntary insurance and competitive credit arrangements under conditions of full monetary and financial freedom. In the latter case all the medicines of the world and all its food would be available, under fair conditions to both sides, to those who urgently need them and those, who are ready to supply them. Not just a little bit of medicine and food! - I underlined part of that passage. - JZ, 1.5.06. - It is not mankind or individuals or groups of volunteers that are free to act in this sphere but only territorial governments. - The targeted people, free to choose, would hardly "pursue nuclear strength and deterrence" policies. - JZ, 26.1.26. – FREE TRADE & FREE INVESTMENTS, FREE MARKETS, FREE ENTERPRISE, RATHER THAN CHARITY & FOREIGN AID

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We shall not have a chance to draw lessons from World War III." - Dean Rusk, 2.7.66.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We view the devastation of Hiroshima with horror, but such things happened regularly in the ancient world. The Assyrians destroyed every major city in their region several times over, with body counts far exceeding that at Hiroshima, and Tamerlane made pyramids of the skulls of those destroyed in his westward march. The tide of civilization was turned back again and again by the march of barbarians, and unhappily some of the barbarians come from within the civilization itself.” – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.167. - BARBARIANS, HIROSHIMA, CIVILIZATION, MASS MURDERS, AN ANCIENT PRACTICE OF RULERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We wanted something, anything, to save the race from its own madness. Telling them isn't enough. People refuse to believe in annihilation ... Does that surprise you? Everyone lives with the knowledge of his own death. Telling him it may be a little closer or more widespread doesn't make it any more dreadful. To any thinking being, personal death is the most dreadful thing there can be. If he can live with that knowledge, how can you hope to frighten him with anything else? - But no one admits, consciously at least, that he is going to die, ... Agreed, But he knows that he is living a lie and still he manages to ignore it. Against that armour you don't stand a chance. Personal death is, after all, a certainty. The ultimate war is only a probability." - E. C. Tubb: Window on the Moon, pp.117/8, in NEW WORLDS SF, 6/64. - So we might need longevity or even immortality to make people really interested in the nuclear war threat! - JZ 24.5.80.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We were dulled by living under the Sword of Damocles for nearly half a century. We had done the worst possible thing – gotten used to an incredible and immediate danger. The nuclear mechanism was far more hazardous to each one of us individually than, say, pouring gasoline on our clothes would have been. But it didn’t feel that way, not in those sunny, treacherous days. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day. - p.195/196. - It lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We're planning Armageddon. - Robert Sheckley, The Battle.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: we've become able to ruin the world we live in and even to exterminate our species. Rationally, that's a decision we ought never to take. But if it is taken, it won't be on a rational basis.” - John Brunner, The Stone that Never Came Down, p.144.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Well, if you prefer nuclear weapons, nuclear targets and nuclear deaths as your choice, then that is what you will get. - Prepare for your point zero impact. - Unfortunately, we others will suffer under your choices, too, unless we manage to destroy all your favorite “weapons” and get rid of all your power maniacs first. – JZ, n.d. & 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What a joke on the sorry state of mankind to call the US policy MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) and then to go on with it! - JZ, 4.8.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What about our leaders? I think they see nuclear weapons as they saw bows and arrows or conventional weapons. The more one has, the safer one is, because you can destroy your enemy. There are very few leaders in the world, I think, who have seen a hydrogen bomb explode. So they think of more hydrogen bombs as providing more security, when in fact this thinking is leading us to total insecurity. … I telephoned the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I asked why hadn't anybody testified about the medical consequences of thermonuclear war. They replied: "The Senators don't like to hear that sort of thing; it makes them feel uncomfortable." - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.28. - OUR LEADERS, INSECURITY VIA SECURITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What about the adolescents? A recent study done by Harvard psychiatrists of a thousand adolescents in Boston shows that one of the main reasons the children are taking drugs and drinking alcohol is their profound fear of the future, a feeling that they probably won't grow up and they will provably never survive to have children.” - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.28. - ALCOHOL & OTHER DRUGS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What an absurdity to try to tell us that the way to prevent nuclear war was to make extreme nuclear threats and preparations. But then the jokes about the "eternal peace" of the graveyard are rather old. - JZ

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What are its premises? Mainly: territorial organization, political and juridical monopolies, monetary despotism, taxing powers and intolerant ideologies, notions of collective responsibility and of statism in general! - JZ, 11.6.80, 20.11.02. - Many of thousands of wrongful notions in our heads, relating to war and nuclear war are listed and somewhat discussed, in PEACE PLANS 16-17 & 61-63, (*) do make way for war, even nuclear war rather than peace. - JZ, 20.11.02, 16.11.13. - (*) &

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: what Dr. Robert J. Lifton calls 'psychic numbing', induced by the weaponry itself. As the weaponry touches individuals, they are really touched with madness, with a death of feeling and of compassion. We become a nation touched with moral leprosy. That's Hiroshima before the fact ... There are many, like Daniel Berrigan and his friends, who refuse to consort with the Beast ..." - James Reston Jr., in OMNI, 12/81.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What helps it if man wins the whole world - but cannot stand himself - i.e., cannot be tolerant? - JZ, 2.10.75. - Then, obviously, he will lose it again and perish! He has already prepared the means for his destruction - and that of all others. - JZ, 3.8.78. - & TOLERANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What is a weapon? What can be the rightful and rational aim of anyone or any group that has or tries to get "weapons", one of which can demolish a whole city or even a whole small country? What rightful war aim can be furthered by it? What kind of enemy can be killed by it? What kind of defence can be achieved with it? - JZ, 13.7.01, 29.1.02. - IBMs, ATOM BOMB, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WAR AIMS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What is needed to make extinction possible, therefore, is some way of thinking about it that at least partly deflects our attention from what it is. And this way of thinking is supplied to us, unfortunately, by our political and military traditions, which, with the weight of almost all historical experience behind them, teach us that it is the way of the world for the earth to be divided up into independent sovereign states, and for these states to employ war as the final arbiter for settling the disputes that arise among them. This arrangement of the political affairs of the world was not intentional. No one wrote a book proposing it; no parliament sat down to debate its merits and then voted it into existence. It was simply there, at the beginning or recorded history; and until the invention of nuclear weapons it remained there, with virtually no fundamental changes. Unplanned though this arrangement was, it had many remarkably durable features, and certain describable advantages (*) and disadvantages; therefore, I shall refer to it as a “system” – the system of sovereignty.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.186/87. - (*) The only “advantage” that I can see, which perpetuated it so far, was its “democratic” agreement with many popular errors and prejudices, just like it happened in another sphere to make the long continuance of various churches and sects possible and in the economic sphere numerous errors and abuses, etc. The misnamed “social sciences” are still in a terrible mess. - JZ, 21.9.07. - Territorial statism or absolutism is also much more recent than this author believes, He even manages to overlook altogether the historical exterritorial alternatives. Personal law probably prevailed before there were any written histories or even any writing and reading abilities for most people. - JZ, 26.1.11.  TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGN STATES, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW TRADITION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What is needed, among other things, is "moral outrage at such obscene military scenarios". - Dennis Gould, "From Protest to Resistance".

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What kind of idiots would tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of politicians? - JZ, 19.4.82, after re-reading: Frederic Brown: The Weapon, in ASTOUNDING SF, Oct. 61: ”... only a madman would give a loaded revolver to an idiot" - the idiot son of a nuclear scientist, a scientist without social responsibility.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What legal and constitutional methods are left to us to prevent war and nuclear holocaust? - JZ, 22.11.82. – Q., TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What offers would we have to make to Russian (*) soldiers and officers to satisfy their nationalistic, survival, conservative and reform aspirations and induce them to destroy, even one-sidedly, the Soviet nuclear arsenal? They would have to be strong incentives, indeed, but not impossible ones. They would have to assure even the few convinced communists among them a continued autonomous existence - even after they are deprived of their power over others. For details see PEACE PLANS 16-17 and 61-65. - JZ, 4.8.82. – (*) The Soviets are gone, but not their anti-people or anti-proletarian “weapons” and others have copied this totalitarian precedent or one of the “democratic” ones. – The same applies, naturally, to any other nuclear power. - JZ, 28.2.09. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What the alpha males had forgotten was that the science of weaponry had already evolved to the point where even a small minority of angry, rage-filled people could blow the whole planet to hell. Even if they had understood this, it is doubtful that the alpha males would have tried to create a world in which it was impossible for anybody to get that angry. Such a goal would have seemed utopian to them. They could not guess that it was actually a necessity on any advanced technological planet.” - R. A. Wilson: Schroedinger's Cat, p.107/8. - Ponder the effects, even upon private terrorists, when the following principle becomes realized: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams or individual choice! - JZ – Even the most powerful nuclear weapons so far developed would not blow up the whole planet, not even all of its surface. – But they might suffice to kill off all of the more advanced life forms. - JZ, 16.11.13. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What would be the pathogenesis of the terminal event, nuclear war? Through history we see that wars are often started for totally illogical and inane reasons. (*) Often wars are started by sane men. (**) Or nuclear war could be initiated by pathology within leaders of the world. Sane people can easily develop acute psychosis suddenly, under severe stress. A leader could develop a cerebral tumor and before they get their CT scan could do something, which is totally insane. (***) Or a nuclear war could be started by accident. Over the last 18 months computers within the Pentagon and elsewhere have made 151 errors that predicted that nuclear weapons were coming from the Soviet Union. One such error was started by a man who plugged a war games tape into the fail-safe computer at the Pentagon in November 1979. The computer detected weapons coming from Russia. There was a full-scale nuclear alert for six minutes. At the seventh minute the President was to be officially notified but he could not be found. If the error had not been determined at that time, we would have been annihilated. … What is the therapy for this planet, and for us? First, as physicians we must shatter people's psychic numbing. It is inappropriate for any person on this planet to be psychologically comfortable in this day and age. As the psychic numbing is shattered, people will enter the phases of the grieving reaction. This then motivates individuals to become active in doing something about the problem. The anger can be very profound. It becomes therapeutic to do something: it feels better.” - Helen Caldicott in John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, 29. - Towards the end H. C. repeats the old error that the very terrors of a war would suffice to induce people to do something to prevent war. The terror rather leads to another kind of psychic numbing, which leads to inactivity because of a feeling of total helplessness. It does not even induce people to explore the reasons for their present helplessness and the ways and means for them to develop self-help options for themselves and freedom of action against such threats. – (*) Motives! – (**) Men who strove for territorial power and maintain themselves in that position are, at least to some extent, already insane. – (***) It is also insane to maintain such decision-making monopoly positions! - JZ, 1.5.06.) – ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, FUGUES, DENIALS, PSYCHIC NUMBING, INSANITY, POWER MADNESS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” – Bible, Galatians, 6.7. – Alas, in this case, the sowers will survive, at least for years. Only their victims will die. – Who else but governments has produced nuclear “weapons” so far, really, anti-people mass murder devices? - JZ, 30.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: whatever our “modest hopes” as human being may be, every one of them can be nullified by a nuclear holocaust.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.47.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When a fleet can incinerate a world, Flandry said bleakly, I prefer governments not to have fast reflexes. You and your teammates could well be quantum-hopping to an unwarranted conclusion.” - Poul Anderson, A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows, p.18.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When has the fact of something being very stupid ever prevented at least some people from engaging in it? - JZ, 23.5.82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When nuclear weapons were invented, it was as though a battlefield, on which two armies had been fighting for as long as anyone could remember, had suddenly been bisected in an earthquake by a huge chasm, so that if the armies tried to rush at one another, in order to engage in battle, they would plunge into this chasm instead, pulling their nations in with them. And it was as though, further, the generals of these armies, having spent their lifetimes fighting this war and hearing about their forebears’ exploits in it, periodically forgot about the existence of the chasm, and therefore from time to time sent their armies into the field – only to discover that the chasm was still there.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.193.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When one reads in the press that ‘terrorists have sabotaged a nuclear rocket base’, the debasement of language can go no further. – STATE RESEARCH BULLETIN, Aug./Sept. 1982. Vol.5, No.31, & LANGUAGE ABUSE, TERRORISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When people say that they are prepared to defend our freedom even at the cost of nuclear warfare, they are talking nonsense. What they should say is that they are prepared to destroy our freedom by accepting the mutilation of our society rather than to destroy it by accepting an occupation by the Russians. - For we can predict that there will be a personal struggle for survival in this country after a nuclear attack. And we can predict that it will be a hideous affair, which will take little account of parliamentary procedures or the four freedoms. This is another example of the obsolescence of our vocabulary.” - Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.108. - Was this "historian" really unable to distinguish between the Soviet regime, and its Russian and numerous other ethnic and ideological as well as religious victims in its empire? - Upon such misjudgments, ignorance and prejudices the nuclear strength and deterrence policy has been built up. - JZ, 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: when the attack rises above a certain level the attacker will be engulfed in the general ruin of the global ecosphere.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185. - NUCLEAR WINTER

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When the Bomb finally does go off … and it won't be all that long now - all men will be cremated equal." - Down Under Calendar, 1974.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When the next “great” leader commands the use of the next nuclear anti-people mass murder device, then the suicide bomb, previously installed in him and in all other such leading politicians should become automatically exploded. For then they would have become, quite obviously, not only useless but even a threat to the survival of mankind. Only such bombs could act somewhat effectively as means to deter “leaders” from engaging in a nuclear war. – Obviously, such doomsday devices should only be installed in such decision-makers, not on the innocent people whom they target with nuclear “weapons”. Then only these potential mass murderers would be unsafe while the people would be largely safe from them. Then even they might come to work actively for the destruction of all mass murder devices. – Naturally, it would be even better if there were no risk of such “representatives” finding obedience to their orders or if ABC mass murder powers and devices would be altogether destroyed for him and for all others and if they had no longer any territorial powers to build such devices again. - JZ, 12.2.06, 12.3.06, 29.10.07, 26.1.11. – Or if all present territorial targets had been dissolved into a great variety of personal law societies of volunteers, living intermixed in the same territory. – JZ, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When the scientists working on the Manhattan Project wanted to send word to President Truman, who was at the Potsdam Conference, that the detonation near Alamogordo had been successful, they chose the horrible but apt code phrase “Babies satisfactorily born”. Since then, these “babies” – which are indeed like the offspring of a new species, except that it is a species not of life but of anti-life, threatening to end life – have proliferated, under our faithful care, bringing forth “generation” after “generation” of weapons, each more numerous and more robust than the last, until they now threaten to do away with their creators altogether. Yet while we did all this we somehow kept the left hand from knowing – or from dwelling on – what the right hand was doing; and the separation of our lives from awareness of the doom that was being prepared under us and around us was largely preserved.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.149/50. – Most people still believe that they love their partner, their children, their family, their countries and life in general, while quite complacently doing nothing about the nuclear war threat, not even seriously thinking about it! – JZ, 23.2.09. - & The use of “we” here does amount to language abuse. – JZ, 16.11.13. - LOVE, PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, LACK OF INTEREST IN THE OWN & MOST IMPORTANT AFFAIRS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: when we hide from ourselves the immense preparations that we have made for our self-extermination we do so for two compelling reasons. First, we don’t want to recognize that at any moment our lives may be taken away from us and our world blasted to dust, and, second, we don’t want to face the fact that we are potential mass killers.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – We aren’t the territorial governments and the territorial governments aren’t us. But we do put up with all too much from territorial governments. – JZ, 10.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When wrongful weapons are in wrongful hands then they will be used, sooner or later, whether by official or private criminals. – JZ, 11.9.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When you are marked for extermination, as all people are, who are living in nuclear target zones, what do you think or wish to do to your potential exterminators or executioners? Do you respect their legitimacy, their constitutional or other powers and their territorial integrity or their “internal affairs” or their territorial sovereignty? Do you then decide upon “non-intervention” and “non-violence” or for persuasion and negotiation attempts only? Or do you think it to be good enough to simply ignore all such problems and threats and leave their solution to territorial governments, which have created them in the first place and maintained them for decades already? – JZ, 17.6.03, 31.10.07. - WMD’s: ATOMIC WEAPONS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TYRANNICIDE, DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE, IDEAL MILITIAS FOR THE DEFENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When you are surrounded by or living within States relying on “nuclear strength”, as an acceptable means, and when you show no interest in alternatives to such “weapons”, then you are very likely to get the result of your passive “choice” in this respect: a general nuclear holocaust. – What reasons do we have to trust politicians and generals in this respect? - JZ, 17.8.86, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: While almost every moral statement is widely questioned, nuclear weapons and other great wrongs persist or even proliferate. – JZ, 28.5.87, 25.1.08. – Libertarians and anarchists are still arguing with each other on whether natural law, natural rights, individual human rights and liberties do exist or not – and, largely, leave the abolition of war and nuclear war to territorial Warfare State governments! – Do you know of a single point of a comprehensive peace program that they have so far all agreed upon? - JZ, 16.11.13. - & MORALITY, RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM, ANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their State enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-State war. This is true even with the older weapons; and, of course, with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever.” – Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.192. – EXTERRITORIALISM OR PANARCHISM VS. NUCLEAR TARGETS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: while the rhetoric of the bomb is that it is the defence of democracy, the fact of the bomb is that it imposes, by its very character, the most centralized and arbitrary kind of politics. The necessary timing of nuclear war does not allow of any democratic process of decision. The only rational policy therefore is a policy of general nuclear disarmament.” – Mary Ramsay, reviewing an article by Raymond Williams in SANITY, April 65, Ref. 14955. PRAJ.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Who decided for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors? Territorial governments, did, not their subjects, the people themselves. The people are merely, as usual, the targeted or exposed victims of these “weapons” and reactors. – JZ, 5.5.04, 16.10.07. - & NUCLEAR REACTORS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Who is the enemy against whom nuclear weapons are directed? – JZ, 14.3.98. - & ENEMIES, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Who was the writer who had said about atomic weapons, "Would any self-respecting cannibal toss one into a village of women and children?" - H. C. Neal, Who Shall Dwell, in: Themes in Science Fiction, ed. by Leo P. Kelley, Western Division, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972, p.200. - ATOM BOMBS OR IBMs, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRITORIALISM, SAVAGES, WEAPONS, BARBARISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Whoever resorts to nuclear weapons will be destroyed by them.” - Uwe Timm, Gesammelte Schriften, S.60. - When? Only those? That would be good riddance. Unfortunately, only a few people are presently given any choice in the matter and they would be murdered, too, by those with these “weapons” and the more or less centralized decision-making power over their use. – JZ, 14.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Whoever whishes that the world remains as it is, does not wish that it remains.” – Graffiti (Wer will, dass die Welt so bleibt, wie sie ist, will nicht, dass sie bleibt!) - STATUS QUO, DOOMSDAY, CHANGE, WORLD, DISASTER, CRISES, CATASTROPHES, EXISTENCE, SURVIVAL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Whosoever believes in nuclear destructive devices as being rightful and useful does not, seriously, believe in any values. - JZ, 17.11.78, 16.11.13

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Why bet your life that nuclear war will not occur? - JZ, 30. 9. 83. - You not only bet your own life but those of your family members as well, and those of your other relatives and friends. Have you got any excuse for this? - JZ, 1.5.06. – Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Why bother building any more nuclear warheads until we've used the ones we have? – AnonymousJOKES, NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Will you accept your own extinction?” - Frank Herbert: God Emperor of Dune, p.100. - You do already, in more than one way: Nuclear war, natural death, suppression, conscription, expropriation, taxation. - JZ, 4. 9. 82.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Winning a nuclear war is like saying: ‘Your end of the boat is sinking!” – Richard D. Lamm, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, April 27-May 3, 1985. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With regard to nuclear war preparations, stockpiles of such mass murder devices, their targets and their “defensive” alliances, we are almost all Nazis now, either conspiring to commit the mass murder of innocents or accomplices and accessories to such preparations for mass murders and be it only through our taxes and our lack of opposition. – JZ, n.d. & 21.3.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With regard to nuclear war we are all hostages in enemy hands and our political opposition, the communist party members and their victims, are hostages of the West. But an ineffective hostage system is involved. Like e.g. the thousands of Japanese Christians were, who lived in Hiroshima, and the hundreds of thousands of opponents to the Nazis in Germany, who were also bombed by the Allies. Those preparing for mass murders do not care if a few hundred-thousands or even millions of innocents are killed in the process. Why would e.g. exterritorially autonomous communities of communists in Western countries and anti-communists ones in Eastern countries, be better hostages or, rather, guarantors for peace via the only kind of "peaceful coexistence", that is quite rightful and possible? They are then no longer outlawed or all too much restrained. They would not longer be oppressed but liberated by their standards. Then they could peacefully gain more voluntary followers everywhere. Then they would be secure and would no longer need the usual "national security" protection and defence. They would not constitute a threat to others, against which they would want and need protection and defence. They would tend to dissolve all monolithic power blocks. They would mark the same difference that competing and tolerated as well as tolerant churches and sects provide under full religious liberty or tolerance. – Free enterprise businesses, too, do not make war against each other or against the customers of the others but, rather, compete with the other businesses, peacefully and appeal to all potential customers, quite peacefully, with better offers. - JZ, 29.10.82, 1.5.06, 27.2.09. - & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, HOSTAGE SYSTEM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With ten million megatons to explode against each other, who cares where they go off? Everybody dies. – Richard Bach, ONE, a novel.Pan Books, 1989, p.138.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With the invention of nuclear weapons (*), it became impossible for violence to be fashioned into war, or to achieve what war used to achieve. Violence can no longer break down the opposition of the adversary; it can no longer produce victory and defeat; it can no longer attain its ends. It can no longer be war.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.191. – (*) “weapons”? – JZ - WAR & VIOLENCE, VICTORY & DEFEAT, ENDS & MEANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Without territorialism and the collective responsibility spleen nuclear “weapons” would have no targets. Nor would there be powers and means to stockpile and use them. – JZ, 22.9.07. - & TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: World War I and World War II, not being planned as world wars, should be considered as accidental wars, too, made possible by xyz war preparations and zero peace preparations. World War III will almost certainly be an accidental war in this sense, too. – JZ, n.d. & 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: World War II once a second for the length of a lazy afternoon. – Carl Sagan, summing up Jonathan Schell’s book “The Fate of the Earth” in a single chilling sentence. – I would like those madmen who talk glibly about “protracted nuclear warfare” to think their way slowly through that sentence. - Arthur C. Clarke, War & Peace in the Space Age, in ANALOG, July 83, p.8. - FULL SCALE NUCLEAR WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Yet nuclear deterrence begins by assuming, correctly, that victory is impossible. Thus, the logic of the deterrence strategy is dissolved by the very event – the first strike – that it is meant to prevent. Once the action begins, the whole doctrine is self-canceling. In sum, the doctrine is based on a monumental logical mistake: one cannot credibly deter a first strike with a second strike whose raison d’être dissolves the moment the first strike arrives. It follows that, as far as deterrence theory is concerned, there is no reason for either side not to launch a first strike.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.202. – Our supposedly irreconcilable enemy, who, we assume, considers us as his irreconcilable enemy, might then actually rely upon our humane feelings and reasoning not to strike back, in a second strike, after having delivered the first strike against us. The basic concepts of enemy and aggression have to become re-defined, and this without the wrongful assumptions of territorialism. To the extent that extensive tourism does lead to some thinking and re-thinking among the tourists, at least their concept of territorial enemies becomes undermined. They come as peaceful observers and buyers rather than as bomb-throwers and thus are not regarded as enemies either, by most of the natives. But both groups might still - and with good reasons, - dislike or even hate their own and the other’s territorial governments, as their true enemies. – JZ, 22.9.07. – Alas, even on this most important question, the survival of mankind on Earth, so far no electronic “argument mapping”, as proposed by Paul Monk et al, and explained on the Internet, has been compiled to my knowledge. Apparently, the survival instinct is not strong enough in the face of such ultimate danger. To bear it, psychologically, we simply switch off our awareness of it – unless we are lucky enough to be shown a way out and are able to comprehend it. – JZ, 10.10.07. - DETERRENCE, FIRST & SECOND STRIKES, ENEMIES & TOURISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Yet the deterrence policy itself is clearly not the deepest source of our difficult. Rather, as we have seen, it is only a piece or repair work on the immeasurably more deeply entrenched system of national sovereignty. People do not want deterrence for its own sake (*), indeed, they hardly know what it is, and tend to shun the whole subject. They want the national sovereignty that deterrence promises to preserve. (**) National sovereignty (***) lies at the very core of the political issues that the peril of extinction forces upon us.” (****) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.217/18. - (*) The people have no say in the matter anyhow. That is one aspect of territorial sovereign powers! – JZ, 22.9.07. - (**) Do they really? Were the details of it ever clearly spelled out and left to a referendum to decide? Were the minorities allowed to opt out? After all, they are also part of the people, although not an inseparable part. They could form their own kind of peoples and should be free to do so. – JZ, 22.9.07. - (***) Rather, territorial monopoly claims made by territorial governments. – JZ, 22.9.07. - (****) It is rather the political practice of territorialism that forces the peril of extinction upon us. Schell seems to have in mind, as an alternative, not exterritorial autonomy for all communities of volunteers but merely some form of world State or world federation, with its sovereign and world-wide territorial and imperial monopoly, which could lead to nuclear weapons production and use in its kinds of civil wars. – JZ, 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE DOCTRINE & NATIONAL TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OR EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY: TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You can’t persuade or liberate or defend with nuclear “weapons”. You can’t even, sufficiently and permanently deter with them only those, who ought to be deterred. – JZ, 3.3.07, 25.7.07, 2.6.13. - DEFENCE, LIBERATION, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You have slammed the door into the face of every possible rightful and rational solution, or simply ignored it. Coercively organized, mis-educated, misled, compelled into a death march towards an almost guaranteed and generalized nuclear holocaust, seemingly with your consent, in your name, for your sake, by your “representatives”, giving them the “sanction of the victims”. Those, who adopted nuclear mass murder as a final solution for their problems will get it – for they will find enough similar murderous and self-destructive fools all over the world. – Unfortunately, their actions will also lead to the death of the more moral and rational people. – JZ, 17.8.86, 30.5.08, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You may reasonably expect a man to walk a tightrope safely for ten minutes; it would be unreasonable (*) to do so without accident for two hundred years.” – Bertrand Russell, the campaigner against nuclear weapons; - quoted in: D. Bagley, The Tightrope Man, 1973. - (*) to expect anyone to do so for 2 days, 20 days or even 20 years. No system of relief men could do it for 200 years. – JZ, n.d. – ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, “BALANCE OF TERROR”

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You never know what fools, madmen or power addicts will do with nuclear weapons. So far they have kept them in readiness for the ultimate folly and crime. – And we have let them do this to us. - JZ, 25.3.99, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You ought to love your beloved enough to think and do something about the nuclear war threat. – JZ, 26.2.91.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You seen one atomic war, you seen 'em all. - quoted by Stormy Mon in his "Imagine Freedom", No. 10, p.138.

NUCLEAR WAR: I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to him them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. – Dwight D. Eisenhower on the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time he was General and later became president. - Carrard Auban shared World wide freedom's photo. – Facebook, 28.2.13.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS & THEIR TARGETS: A politician who was so obtuse and bellicose as to recommend solving the problem of the Negro demand for equality by well-placed atom bombs would be considered both socially dangerous and psychically sick. The current myopia, however, permits these same persons to propose a similar step in Russia, China, Cuba, or Vietnam without much of a response of revulsion from otherwise sensitive persons. As some military men have insisted, the death of the enemy is mere statistics, the death of our own soldiers is a tragedy. - D. A. Wells - Roy Halliday, Quotations with an Attitude, online.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: According to the news of 14.5.02, on ABC, nuclear weapons of the US and Russia to be reduced, over a 10 year period, from 7,000 each to 2,000 each. - If 7,000 are not necessary, why wait with this disarmament? And what rightful targets exist for 2,000 mass extermination devices of this kind? - J.Z.JZ, 14.5.02. - The most important questions are often not raised at all - and when they are raised then they are not sufficiently answered. - J.Z.JZ, 20.8.02. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Already a single nuclear weapon is too much. Yet tens of thousands exist, more and more are produced every year and more and more do they come into more and more irresponsible hands. - J.Z.JZ, 29.1.84. - To my knowledge only outdated nuclear mass murder devices have so far been destroyed, just like outdated tanks, planes, rockets or cannons. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: An “atomic weapon is not a weapon which can pinpoint the enemy.” – David Hart, 12.2.78.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: As a military man with half a century of active service I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions they have generated.” – Lord Mountbatten, quoted in Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.12.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: As for using atomic bombs, that’s about as sensible as using an A-bomb to light a cigarette.” – Mr. Cabot Lodge, 4.7.64. – So how sensible are governments that keep thousands of them in readiness? Are we ruled by madmen? This seems to be the best proof for this deplorable fact. – J.Z.JZ, 31.5.08. – Q.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: As long as such mass murder devices are still called “weapons” one or the other leading idiot or madmen will sooner or later try to use them as such. – J.Z.JZ, 16.2.00, 24.1.08, 16.11.13. – LEADERSHIP, RULERS, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Atom bombs, nuclear explosive devices or rockets with nuclear war heads, when in the hands of anyone, do provoke and threaten everyone and entitle everybody to participate in their dismantling – as a self-defence measure. – J.Z.JZ, 23.10.84, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: But more and more Americans recognize that weapons which lead to self-destruction are no longer weapons.” - ( „Aber mehr und mehr Amerikaner erkennen, dass Waffen, die Selbstvernichtung bedeuten, keine Waffen mehr sind.“ ) - Anton Zischka, "Krieg oder Frieden", S.205.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Do you find nuclear weapons disarming? - A remark by someone, heard by me on 28.8.87.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: During the first debate on the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima Pope Pious XII was asked whether there were any circumstances, which would justify the use of the atomic bomb. He replied: No circumstances whatsoever.” - Prof. Manning Clark's article in John Hichcliff, editor of "Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.43. - Here should be taken into consideration, that by the use of conventional bombs and the intentional production of fire-storms, mixing explosives and incendiaries in the right proportion for this, about as many innocents were murdered each e.g. in Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg. And in the occupation of Nanking, just with firearms, hands and bayonets, ca. 200 000 were murdered. In one way these war crimes were even worse, for many more barbarously murdering soldiers were involved in them. - J.Z.JZ, 1.5.06, 2.6.13. – HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI & OTHER MASS MURDERS

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Each nuclear mass murder device would kill only about one real enemy among a thousand people, all other victims being innocents, non-combatants, at least as far as nuclear strength is concerned, all of them potential allies or friends, or trading partners, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, refugees or deserters or at least neutrals. And, thereby, it makes, by its mere existence and readiness to be used, more enemies than would exist without its existence and threat. – Even the worst government can exploit that fear as an excuse to produce its own nuclear mass murder devices and keep them in readiness. - J.Z.JZ 6.9.89, 30.5.08, 2.6.13. – NUCLEAR DETERRENT?

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Even nuclear weapons deteriorate and become less reliable over the years. Thus they are regularly checked and reconstructed to the extent that this is considered necessary. Can't let our mass murder devices deteriorate, or can we?  When was the last time that you heard or saw or read about any people protesting about such devices in the hands of your government? – J.Z.JZ, 16.5.91, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Even the Nazis, the Stalinists and the Mao followers did not manage to mass murder ca. 100 000 innocent people in a fraction of a second, as the supposedly democratic US government did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, - Nuclear weapons, too, are used by governments rather to exterminate people, whole populations, rather than the rulers who misled and forced them into a war. - J.Z.JZ, 15.3.97, 24.1.08, 28.2.09.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Even their retaliatory use would still be aggressive against all those masses of innocents in the target areas, who had no decision making power on the first aggressive use of nuclear weapons. Even the enemy regime’s conscripts and professional soldiers are mostly quite innocent in this respect. They had no say on their use but are being used as cannon fodder. – A retaliation with nuclear devices might satisfy the lust for revenge but might also destroy the last hope for mankind. – J.Z.JZ, 25.4.92, 27.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Freedom, justice and peace can neither be obtained nor defended with nuclear weapons. That would be as absurd an attempt as to try to establish a crime-free society via the Mafia. - J.Z.JZ, 18.12.80.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: He called the H-Bomb “the most useless weapon ever invented. It can be employed to no rational purpose.” – George Kennan, PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: I have never considered nuclear weapons to be a rational form of warfare or a rational instrument of policy. “– A. S. Collins, Lieutenant General, US Army, ret. – But then: Who says that all generals and politicians are rational beings, not to speak of moral beings? – This general certainly was exceptional. But perhaps he was merely afraid that his profession, conventional warfare, might also become superfluous by the new, modern and “scientific” form of warfare and its wrongs and absurdities. - J.Z.JZ, 13.7.94, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than of kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. One libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will is there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot be used discriminately. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited, exclusively, a vast geographical area.) (*) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. - How many other libertarians are as sensible as Rothbard on this subject? I liked especially his essay: War, Peace & the State. – (Now offered free online! – JZ, 16.11.13.) - (*) Would their children and wives also all be criminals? – J.Z.JZ, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Kennedy after all had lots of glamour. Gregory Peck with an atom bomb in his holster.” – Bill Buckley, NR, July 16, 1963, p.9. – Glamour or madness? He doubled the nuclear arsenal of the US. – What for? To liberate the Russian people and other captive nations under totalitarian communist regimes? No, he rather threatened them with extermination, not their tyrants. He, as a democrat, favored anti-people “weapons”. Should we forgive him for that? He did not even manage to liberate the Cuban people. He just upheld the status quo by a “balance of terror”. – Was his killing tyrannicide or assassination? I only concede that his counterpart on the Soviet side, Mr. Khrushchev, deserved it even more as a still greater authoritarian. – K.’s madness was indicated by the fact that he was prepared to annihilate the supposedly suppressed proletarians of the U.S.A., rather than to “liberate” them. – Such great and fundamental contradictions in their behavior were, to my knowledge, never publicly discussed outside my tiny PEACE PLANS series, although, on both sides, thousands of academics were involved, all experts on mass murder preparations and their “justifications” but not on the prevention of nuclear war. - J.Z.JZ, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: mass murder multiplies rather than lessens mankind's problems.” - Leonard E. Read: "How Do We Know? 98.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Most were built and are kept in readiness as if they had the following inscriptions: a.) This device will kill only communists, not their victims or active anti-communists, or b.) This device will kill only capitalists, not socialists. – As if such lies about them were really believable. – J.Z.JZ, 4.12.95. – Such false assumptions or beliefs are only possible in an atmosphere of territorial statism, also characterized by its popular notions of collective responsibility of subjects for the actions of their territorial governments, although the subjects had no real say regarding the decisions of their supposedly representative governments and foreign policies and war and peace decisions are constitutionally or despotically still monopolized in the hands of territorial governments. – J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nothing could have been more obvious to the people of the early twentieth century that the rapidity with which war was becoming impossible. And as certainly they did not see it, they did not see it until the atomic bomb burst in their fumbling hands.” - H. G. Wells, 1866-1946. - A. Andrews Quotations, p.323. – “the people”? – “in their fumbling hands”? – JZ.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear "weapons: are neither communist weapons to liberate a supposedly suppressed proletariat - they would mass-murder it - nor a capitalist weapons to free producers and consumers in the East from their totalitarian exploiters. What capitalist would mass murder his potential customers or employees? They are only devices for ignorant, immoral, prejudiced and at least close to mad people, on all sides. - J.Z.JZ, 24.5.83, 1.5.06, 16.11.13. - Nuclear weapons are neither weapons to liberate the supposedly suppressed proletariat in the West nor devices to liberate the people really suppressed by totalitarian regimes in the East. They are simply mass murder devices and, as such, to be totally condemned and destroyed by either side on its own or by both of them together or in succession, especially by their potential victims rather than by the top decision-makers. - J.Z.JZ, 25.5.83, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear giants and ethical infants!” - General Omar Bradley, some time after WWII.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: nuclear proliferation must be prevented. It is an urgent, mortal threat to any hope of getting the arms race under control.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.12. – But what can you do as long as madmen or power addicts are territorially in control, on all sides and all armed forces are at their disposal and most people cannot even imagine anything else than territorial rule? – J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are more directed against oppressed and innocent people than against oppressive and guilty governments. Thus they are not genuine weapons but, rather, genocide or mass murder devices. By radioactive poisoning of the soil, water and air and nuclear winter consequences of the use of many of them, they are not weapons against a real enemy but rather genocide or mass murder devices, directed even against all of mankind, not to speak of other critters. – J.Z.JZ, 7.10.97, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are not safe in anyone's hands. Least of all in the hands of politicians and generals. - J.Z.JZ, 31.3.84, 1.5.06. - POLITICIANS & GENERALS

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are not weapons – mainly because of their indiscriminately destructive and murderous power. They are just means for an immoral and senseless destruction and killings. – J.Z.JZ, n.d., 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are still more indiscriminately mass murderous than were the extermination camps of the Nazis. They are portable, scientific and cheap mass extermination devices, wrongly called "weapons" instead of mass murder devices. Who would have called the Nazi's extermination camps "weapons"? Nevertheless, some governments have "armed" themselves with these devices for decades and have reserved the decision on the use of these mass murder devices to themselves. General Omar Bradley called us, shortly after WWII: "Nuclear giants and ethical infants." Was he altogether wrong? Which is the ethical solution to this problem? – J.Z.JZ, n.d., - Q.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are weapons that do not threaten the guilty ones, the despotic decision-makers (included those in “democratic” States), but, rather, their victims, the people, their subjects. – J.Z.JZ, 10.10.99, 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons deal with an enemy regime’s victims and subjects as if they were the exclusive property of that regime and responsible for its actions. They attack whole cities and whole countries and their populations and are thus completely wrongly perceived and used, especially when, at the same time, these people are described as the slaves of a despotic regime or as the supposedly exploited proletarian victims of capitalism. – J.Z.JZ, 30.7.92, 27.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons have been made safe from the people and democracy, ready to be used as anti-people “weapons” or mass extermination or genocide devices, all under the pretence or excuse of defence or national security. – J.Z.JZ, 20.7.87, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons mean governments running riot or mad. They and their "mass murder devices" must be abolished. No one can rightfully condemn other nations to death and, thereby, possibly to likely, the own nation as well. - J.Z.JZ, 25.7.83, 1.5.06. - RULE, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: On the evidence of the nuclear age so far, reviewed by Professor Bundy in Chapter 4, the dangers arising from nuclear weapons far outweigh their very limited political utility. Nuclear threats are inherently incredible to sane people, and they have no coercive potential in international relations.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.12.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Our world will be a safer and healthier place when we can admit that every time we make an atomic bomb we corrupt the morals of a host of innocent neutrons below the age of consent.” - W. H. Auden, Of Man and the Atom, in READER'S DIGEST, 1/66. - How old are Neutrons? Do they have free will? - J.Z.JZ

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: People no longer thought of private stocks of atomic weapons as something to laugh at. They’d kill anyone they believed had some.” – Jerry Pournelle, Peace with Honor, ANALOG, May 71, p.148. – Are such “weapons” in government hands any better and safer? – J.Z.JZ, 27.1.08. - PRIVATE ONES

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Quite indiscriminately they target rather victims than guilty persons and least of all the worst offenders. They are directed against women and children, old and sick people and not against the few despotic people empowered to decide upon war and peace. This makes them criminal devices, mass murderous ones, anti-people “weapons”. – J.Z.JZ, 26.7.87, 26.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Tell me any right or liberty by which one human being or several would b e entitled to build, keep ready and use any nuclear weapon against millions of other people. – J.Z.JZ, 17.7.95.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: the arms race is the absolutely lowest point of human morality. We must equate the possession of atomic weapons with crimes against humanity. – My rough translation of a passage on p.38 of: Johannes Mario Simmel, “Doch mit den Clowns kamen die Traenen”, Roman, Knaur, Vollstaendige Taschenbuchausgabe 1990. ISBN 3-426-02957-X. – JZ, 2.3.12.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The existence of nuclear weapons is "an ethical obscenity". - Theodore Roszak

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: the International Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy, with members from the US, Japan & Europe, declared that the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons violated established tenets of international law and that the weapons were, in effect, illegal.” – Daniel Kagan, in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – As lawyers they should have clearly enough expressed that once they are produced but not yet used, keeping them in readiness for use does also constitute a crime. – J.Z.JZ, 25.1.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The threat arising out of the own government's nuclear weapons is largely identical with that arising out of an enemy government's nuclear weapons. Neither the best nor the worst government can be trusted with nuclear weapons. - J.Z.JZ, 28.1.78, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The United States fought a costly, destructive war in Southeast Asia and ultimately surrendered without ever finding any justifiable use for any of its 30,000 nuclear weapons.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.12. – It did not surrender but simply withdrew from its alliance with and support for the South Vietnamese regime, which was merely less totalitarian or dictatorial than the North Vietnamese regime and its allies, the South Vietnamese “revolutionaries”. – J.Z.JZ, 24.1.08, 26.1.11, 16.11.13.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: there are no sensible military uses for nuclear weapons.” – Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, X.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: There exists an affluence or abundance, a “riches” in nuclear “weapons”, enough to mass murder more people than the Nazis, Soviets and Chinese and other totalitarians managed to murder between them. They are cheap, modern and scientific devices, but, essentially, still more indiscriminate mass murder devices than were the extermination and slave labor camps of the totalitarians. They are, so to speak, portable extermination camp packages, realizing their “aim” within seconds. And many more of them exist than ever extermination and slave labor camps existed and exist. And yet, there are people who still want to keep them in readiness and most people do simply quietly put up with these wrongful preparations and powers. – J.Z.JZ, 27.6.94, 24.1.08, 2.6.13. – NUCLEAR STRENGTH OR NUCLEAR WEAKNESS? DEMOCRACIES NOW EVEN MORE PREPARED FOR MASS MURDERS THAN TOTALITARIAN REGIMES! COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR “WEAPONS” WITH EXTERMINATION CAMPS.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: There is no sensible military use for nuclear weapons … there is no conceivable military objective worth the risk of nuclear war.” – Noel Gaynor, former commander in chief of US naval forces in the Pacific. – In Vietnam they even ran out of targets for High Explosives. – J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Via their nuclear weapons territorial governments have made themselves the true and primary enemies of all truly moral and rational men and women. – Alas, sometimes one comes to believe that there are more territorial governments than there are such people. – J.Z.JZ, 13.4.86, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: We put up with kings for thousands of years, so I guess we are prepared to put up with nuclear weapons for hundreds of years - if they will let us! Especially if placed in the hands of territorial power-addicts and power-mad people. - J.Z.JZ, 11.12.82, 1.5.06.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: What in the name of God is strategic superiority? What is the significance of it, politically, militarily, operationally, at these levels of numbers? What do you do with it? – Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, quoted in: Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, 12. – Q.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: What is most unclear or wrong about nuclear “weapons”? a) Their targets, whole civilian populations, whole cities, b) their supposed enemy, c) the “justification” of their use by notions of collective responsibility, d) their supposed “deterrent” effect upon the decision-makers, e) the exclusive and centralized decision-making power involved, f.) their finance out of coercively levied tributes, g) the absence of quite rightful war- and peace aims, h) their infringement of international laws on warfare, e.g. of the concept of “open cities” not to be bombarded, i) that they are “weapons” of aggression, which make a real defence with them impossible, j) that only madmen and power addicts can and will use them, k) that the systems, democratic or autocratic, that built them, kept them in readiness and will sooner or later use them, disfranchised the people regarding of questions of their own survival and that of other peoples, even that of all of mankind. – J.Z.JZ, 10.5.96, 24.1.98, 2.6.13. – WEAPONS AS OPPOSED TO MASS MURDER DEVICES

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: With the advanced weapons they had, they were like idiot children playing with machine guns.” - Ralph Williams, Pax Galactica, p.55 in ASTOUNDING SF, Nov. 1952. - Are they "advanced" weapons or as backwards as are ancient mass murder devices, with which e.g. Genghis Khan murdered about 50 million people, or as wrong and inefficient as the old "scorched earth" warfare methods have always been for defensive purposes? - 23.1.02.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: You can’t hug your children with nuclear arms.” – Stormy Mon, Imagine Freedom, No.10.

NUCLEAR WINTER: The government must be nailed to the wall on this one. Nothing would be more graphic and final an argument for government as the problem, not the solution.” – Pyrrho, THE CONNECTION 122, p. 65.

NUDISM: if the Good Lord had meant us to run around without any clothes on, we would have been born that way! – ANALOG, Jan. 92, p.6, editorial by Stanley Schmidt. - NUDITY & THE MORAL MAJORITY, JOKES:

NUDISM: The human body is an aggregation of flesh and sinew, around a central bony structure. The use of clothing is primarily to protect this organism from rain and cold, and it may not be regarded as the banner of morality without danger to this fundamental premise. If a person does not desire to be so protected, who will quarrel with an honourable liberty?” – James Stephens, The Crock of Gold. - Not to forget protection at work and e.g. protection against excess exposure to the sun or wind or excess hair or fat (which their owners may want to somewhat cover up) or the avoidance of bodily contact in crowded public transport. - Generalizations on the human body can be as misleading as generalizations on the human mind and its ideas. – J.Z.JZ, n.d.

NUDISM: There’s a lot to be said in favor of nudist camps. You can at least tell the girls from the boys.” – W. G. P., quoted in a calendar. – They also discourage pick-pockets. – J.Z.JZ, 13.1.84. – And prevent cover-ups. – Only what has been for all too long mostly covered up becomes sometimes all too attractive, rather than being accepted like the natural facial variations. – Shared secrets are no secrets any longer and inspire no special curiosity. - J.Z.JZ, 30.10.07. – TOLERANCE, JOKES

NUISANCE: The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859, p.3. – You may be considered a mere nuisance by some people, particularly the enemies of liberties, the holders of power and privileges, never mind that, but you must not be an aggressor with involuntary victims. You might bore some indifferent people with your preachings about liberty and they might consider such preaching to be a nuisance. Just ignore their complains and go on talking to better prospects. You might prance around nakedly, if you like, but not upon other people’s bodies or properties, but only within their sight, and at a decent distance. If they consider that to be too much of a nuisance then this mental hang-up is their problem. Don’t the complainants see e.g. naked plants and their genitals, flowers, very often and do not complain about that? Don’t they see other naked animals very often and even have them as pets? – But you are not entitled to inflict your smoke or excess noise upon them. – That could be real nuisance. - J.Z.JZ 25.1.08, 26.1.11. - Nothing is a nuisance to all. Nothing makes everybody happy. Both are subjectively perceived. Somewhat definable are private and property spheres. Thus there can hardly be anything like a “public nuisance”, unless one defines almost all territorial governments in this way. The vote of one, on his own affairs, with regard to his privacy and private property, should be enough, to decide what constitutes to him a nuisance that he will not tolerate. – No host is obliged to put up with every troublemaker. Guests are obliged to abide by the usual house rules, politeness and good manners and consideration for others. - J.Z.JZ, 6.4.89. – Can one be more precise on this? – J.Z.JZ, 26.1.08. – LIBERTY, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

NULLIFICATION POWER FOR DISSENTERS: Nullification power for dissenters, regarding their own affairs, making them exterritorially autonomous in their own voluntary communities. – J.Z.JZ, 30.9.04. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL DISSENTERS.

NULLIFICATION: The alleged right of a state of the Union to declare an Act of Congress inapplicable, null and void, and without force or effect, within its own borders.” - Footnote 6 of: C. Gordon Post, in his introduction to: “John C. Calhoun. A Disquisition on Government and Selections from the Discourse”, The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1953, page XI. - Under: “State Rights and Nullification” Post wrote: “Nullification developed as a concomitant of the doctrine of state rights, which, in turn, had its genesis in the question of the nature of the union. Was the union intended to be a consolidated republic or a confederation of sovereign and independent states bound together by a formal compact, namely, the Constitutions. … The most extreme statement of the doctrine, for example, held to the notion that the states did not relinquish their sovereignty when they agreed to enter the Union. …” – Nullification power for dissenters and the right for them to associate in voluntary communities that are exterritorially autonomous! Nullification power transferred from States to individuals! Even a consistent geographical secessionist and decentralist would, finally, arrive at individual secession, too. – J.Z.JZ, 30.9.04 & 17.1.05, 26.1.11. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

NUMBER OF MINORITY GROUPS: The "unified" territorial States like to pretend that they are really unified. The figures for their minorities do usually prove the contrary. Even their temporary majorities are usually made up of several minorities. – J.Z.JZ in Pan AZ. - IN PRESENT TERRITORIAL STATES, MINORITIES

NUMBERS: The enormous variety of human beings and other living things. No two people are alike and yet the assumption is that as single and legally imposed "culture" would be suitable for all human beings in a territory. Sufficient awareness of this variety would, inevitably, lead many people towards panarchism for human beings. Territorial States, like exclusive territorial churches, are not institutions that are natural for human beings. - See my growing digitized file on this (Pan Numbers), still to be increased further, edited and published to counter the unity and uniformity spleens. - J.Z.JZ

NUREMBERG LAWS: If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged.” - Noam Chomsky – Did N. C. have the same punishment in mind for their ruling opponents or was he biased only against American rulers? – J.Z.JZ, 8.8.08. – RULERS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, WAR CRIMINALS

NUREMBERG TRIALS: The Nuremberg Trials condemned war criminals after the fact. The way to prevent war is to condemn them before the fact."-  Herbert Holdridge, a retired US brigadier general. (8) J.Z.JZ, NWT 27 5 06

NURSERIES FOR ADULTS: If you want to remain in the nurseries for adults provided by national territorial "welfare" States, you should be free to do so - at your own continued risk and expense. But if you have mentally grown up and are willing to risk and finance your own experiments, with like-minded people, then you should become free to opt out of these nurseries, to begin an adult and independent lifestyle, in your self-chosen or self-made "utopia". - J.Z.JZ, 13.1.93, 11.12.03. in Pan AZ. – WELFARE STATE, PATERNALISM, DEPENDENCY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, NATION-WIDE PRISON SYSTEM = TERRITORIAL STATES



[Home] [Top]