Page 4, 6th November 1981

6th November 1981
Page 4
Page 4, 6th November 1981 — The folly of a weak stance
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags

Organisations: etc

Share


Related articles

Kent's War For Peace

Page 3 from 19th October 1984

The Reasons For Defence Policies

Page 4 from 4th October 1985

Reality And Immorality In Deterrence

Page 6 from 31st July 1987

When Deterrence Is Deferrence

Page 5 from 17th March 1989

The Need For Church Leadership

Page 3 from 12th November 1982

The folly of a weak stance

THE NAIVETY of those Christians involved in the CND gives rise for concern. Perhaps they could consider a few points.

Nuclear war and it's aftermath are too horrible to contemplate so we must do all in our power to prevent war.

Chemical and biological warfare are equally horrible.

Those who exploit our fear of nuclear war make great play of genetic defects, the end of civilisation as we know it.

This may be, but chemical warfare also causes genetic defects and may affect untold generations, while biological warfare can easily get out of hand and wipe out nations.

Germs in a city's water supply may be harder to live with than the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. There is evidence that chemical weapons are being used in Afghanistan.

To prevent war we must both strive for peace and make sure that potential enemies respect our strength.

Striving for peace means negotiation, working for a just society, etc. To ensure potential enemies respect our strength means having efficient armed services and possibly nuclear weapons.

Negotiations are usually more effective when carried out from a position of strength.

C. Veronica Fielder Basildon, Essex.




blog comments powered by Disqus