Home Globe
Menu Corners Menu Corners about Menu Corners Menu Corners greenpeace.org Menu Corners
Nuclear Weapon Free Zones: Why not preserve them?
by tomakint on 17 September 2004 @ 04:48 PM

If there is a war that every human being dreads that would be the Nuclear Warfare. Some believe it can never happen because of its effects - a war of no winner. But what do we say of attacks from the third parties?- TERRORIST!

Already the environment has been degraded by military activities in many ways, but without the military the terrorists would have made the entire world their abode reigning supreme in every sphere. We are all familiar with the danger of starting off a nuclear warfare which actually was the teething issue that gave birth to our great organization, GREENPEACE!

Several places have continued to suffer the aftermath effects of this poisonous substance either as testing grounds or battle grounds as witnessed in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945. Several Test Ban Treaties have come up yet we all still live in fear of having this war someday (the doomsday clock tells better). The creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zones is an important part of the global effort to restrict geographically the nuclear menace. Sometimes ago three zones were created; South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga), Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba). Now, three more have been added; Bangkok Treaty, Mongolian Free Status and Antartic Treaty. This is a plus to the goals of Greenpeace we would love to see more of these zones been created but my contribution is to see how those already set up being preserved from any compromise of annihilation of some Nuclear weapons fron the nuclear states. More of these zones is needed if you know of any region around your country that can be converted into this save haven please do inform us all, we need to act fast.


The Fine Print: Comments and articles posted on this website are owned by the person who posted them and do not necessarily represent the views of Greenpeace.
Re: Nuclear Weapon Free Zones: Why not preserve them?
by peaceyouth on 27 September 2004 @ 05:34 PM
terrorismn : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University And yet Blair and Bush feel that they have the right to attack small countries that are not excellently equipped army-size wise (thus practising terrorism) and do this in the name of the "War on Terror?" An important point Tomakint- preserve the nuclear-free zones!
  • Re: Nuclear Weapon Free Zones: Why not preserve them?
    by tomakint on 04 October 2004 @ 12:40 PM
    We all stand a chance to preserve our fragile environment as cyberactivists the best opportunities we ever had is to sensitize the entire public on the danger of these weapons!
Re: Nuclear Weapon Free Zones: Why not preserve them?
by Anonymous on 05 October 2004 @ 02:01 AM
Im from Nu-clear free nz and i totally disagree in the use of Nu-clear. Because it can't be rid of also the atmospere probly can't stand another nu-clear melt down.

The Fine Print: Comments and articles posted on this website are owned by the person who posted them and do not necessarily represent the views of Greenpeace.


buffer More Community articles for this month  |  Community index