Dear all,

Wall Street Journal yesterday (19 March) had an editorial speaking volumes about how they see the situation. Subject: Ukraine and nuclear proliferation. Thesis: The lesson learnt most recently is that Ukraine would had been better off in its conflict with Russia had it not decided to abandon its nuclear arsenals to Russia in the 1990s. Iran, North Korea, etc. will have learned the lesson. Corollarium: V. Putin is reponsible for causing even more nuclear proliferation. My comment: yes, the nukes are political weapons. Unfortunately, they are also nuclear weapons. Would it be possible to  prove that the nukes are not only political weapons? Of course, after a nuclear attack (and a possible counter-attack) one could say: Look, I was right!  But then, who would like to be proven right in that case?  It is wiser to  prefer nuclear disarmament. Would not nuclear disarmement, too, be a kind of proof?

The situation reminds me about le pari de Pascal. Oppenheimer might have agreed with the comparison. Yet it is not Shiva who has become the multi-faceted Destryoer of Worlds. It is us. After the nuclear war, it would no longer be possible to determine who was responsible. We would all be. The Mayor of den Haag is said to have forbidden demonstrations during the Nuclear Security Summit there next Monday and Tuesday. Demonstrations and protest there will certainly be, nevertheless. And for a good reason: nuclear disarmament and general denuclearisation! And against the hypocrisy about nuclear non-proliferation and the possible (because I am afraid it is possible, after all) nuclear terrorism. May I remind you once again that Altiero Spinelli was in favour of American military disengagement from Europe, and European denuclearisation, already in the sixties. He actually said so in the American journal Foreign Affairs. Of course that was well before Chernobyl and Fukushima and the fall of the USSR. And well before the internet. Which does not mean that the Spinelli's opinion has become obsolete.

I have just returned from the NATO in Brussels where I was one in a group of visitors from Finland. I did not go there to protest or demonstrate. It was more like a fact-finding mission. And it proved to be an interesting visit. However, in the short time we had, it was not possible to go very deeply into the nuclear issues. After the main lecture, I managed to ask whether all member states of NATO do have a say about the nuclear weapons and their use, or whether NATO should have or use such weapons at all. Background: the question whether  my country (Finland) should now join NATO is presently being discussed with fervour there, and I have heard people say, that Finland should join, because then we the Finns could influence NATO to become better, read: to abolish its nuclear weapons doctrine. The answer I got was that NATO is not really the forum for discussions about nuclear weapons. The weather is sunny and warm here in Brussels. Have a good day,

Mikael