**********************************************************************************

UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES,

INCLUDING E.G.:

MONETARY FREEDOM, FREE MIGRATION, FREE TRADE, VOLUNTEER MILITIAS,

RIGHT TO RESIST, RIGHT AND DUTY TO DESERT FROM A DICTATORSHIP, TYRANNICIDE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE,

EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOIL ALL VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES - BASED ON INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, DECISION ON WAR AND PEACE BY THE PEOPLE,

ALSO ON: UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, DESTRUCTION OF ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ON RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS.

THESE AND MUCH MORE ARE HERE DESCRIBED AS GUARANTIES AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR.

YOU COULD HELP TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR - BUT SO FAR YOU STILL DISAGREE WITH MOST OF THE ABOUT 500 SUGGESTIONS MADE HERE.

PEACE PLANS series, combined issues 16 - 18, PLAN No. 251, 1.000 impressions, 1975,

published, edited, printed and distributed by: J. M. Zube, 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia .

Phone: (02) 48771536 No FAX! jzube@acenet.com.au www.acenet.com.au/~jzube (2,001!)

Appearance irregular. Since 1964, since 1977 published only on microfiche.

Reprints of up to 10.000 copies of this edition are free and desired.

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED: REFUND UPON RETURN OF WELL KEPT PAPER COPY.

AN ABC AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR: PEACE PLANS 16-18, plan No. 251

Pages Appx. Headings

1 - 4 - INTRODUCTION

5 - 199 - ALPHABETICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIC SECTION

200 - 208 1 SUMMARY

208 - 209 2 IDEAS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR

209 - 211 3 WHAT DOES REALLY MAKE FOR NUCLEAR WAR?

212 4 A LISTING OF WRONG IDEAS

213 - 216 5 STEPS TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR

216 6 THREE STEPS TOWARDS NUCLEAR WAR PREVENTION

217 7 FROM PARTICULAR SINGLE STEPS ALL ELSE COULD FOLLOW

217 8 THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE POINT FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR

WAR

218 9 WHAT HAS THIS PROGRAM IN COMMON WITH AT LEAST SOME OTHERS?

219 10 IN WHAT POINTS DOES THIS PROGRAM DIFFER FROM MOST OTHERS?

219 11 SECTIONS OMITTED IN THIS BOOK .

219 - 221 12 SOME NOTES AND COMMENTS BY ULRICH VON BECKERATH

222 13 A SHORT LIST OF RELATED SCIENCE FICTION BOOKS

222 14 SOME OF THE RELATED PEACE PLANS SO FAR PUBLISHED

223 - 233 15 PANARCHY

234 - 237 16 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, RIGHT OR WRONG - MY COUNTRY &

DEFENSIVE APP APPEALS

238 - 240 17 RAILWAY MONEY & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT,

REVOLUTION AND RELIGION

241 - 244 18 MILITARY JIU JITSU OR: HOW CHINESE SOLDIERS DETERMINED

THE LIMITS MILITARY OBEDIENCE

244 - 246 19 LET US TURN WARS INTO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

246 - 250 20 DEMOCRATIC NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

250 - 256 21 SOME DETAILS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE

256 - 257 22 SOME EDITORIAL NOTES

258 - 260 23 INDEX OF THE HEADLINES OF THE ALPHABETICAL SECTION

1

WE STILL LIVE IN THE SHADOW OF THE BOMB - AND YET WE GO ON IGNORING IT.

WHY?

That there is a danger of nuclear war is common knowledge. There are only disagreements as to how large and how acute the danger is.

Nobody appears to believe that there are no risks involved at all and yet at the same time nobody seems to value his own Life and that of mankind enough to draw the conclusion that no matter how small this man-made risk might be, one should not take such a risk with the survival of mankind, no more so than one would wager the lives of ones children in a social game of chance. The democratic "law and order" system and despotic state socialism, both supposedly defended by nuclear weapons, have both their popular appeal but do not, objectively, justify risking nuclear war. Neither the "socialist" societies of the East nor the "free" societies of the West are worth defending because, among many other reasons, both make for nuclear war. Thus they really deserve each other and would not do each other wrong if they wiped themselves out in a holocaust. But what about all their non-consenting and yet conscripted victims?

Is there anything more important to think about than how to deprive all those, who prepared for nuclear war and keep society at its brink, of all their war-making powers?

DESTROY ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND EVERYTHING THAT MAKES FOR THEM!

Nothing but the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons, their manufacturing facilities and the prevention of their re-building will assure our survival.

How could this be achieved?

At present everything has been done to bring about nuclear war soon and as yet nothing effective has been done to prevent it.

Governments are unable to prevent nuclear war.

They have done what they could do and still do what they can do.

Everybody can see what can be achieved in this way.

New paths must be taken.

They consist mainly out of self-help and disobedience measures, leading to the destruction of all nuclear weapons,

and of steps replacing all institutions making these "weapons" by free and peaceful alternative institutions.

THE MOST IMMORAL AND IRRATIONAL BET:

It is self-evident that real threats, large or small, do not go away by ignoring them, by hoping for the best or by relying on myths. And yet, this is apparently the common practice towards the nuclear threat.

Everybody bets his whole property, his Life, the Lives of his family members, those of all his friends and the future of mankind on his opinion that either

1. nuclear war will not occur or

2. that it would not be so bad after all or

3. that he couldn't prevent it anyhow.

There is no truth in the first supposition. Presuming that no radical social changes take place it will occur rather sooner than later.

The second opinion amounts merely to hoping for the best, no matter how much the laws of chance and of war gaming are against it.

But there is some truth in the third supposition - if the present situation is accepted as unchangeable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

APATHY

People are apathetic because they are at present powerless to act directly upon the danger.

Moreover they are apathetic because they are still too ignorant to act indirectly, getting themselves at first into a position from which they could do something directly to abolish this danger. This should not surprise us because they experienced only a society which gives tem no power at all in this sphere and they are ignorant of the peaceful characteristics of a free non-statist society because in the state's education system they are not even taught a glimpse of this alternative vision.

POWERLESSNESS

People are powerless because, among other things, they are not organized, trained and armed militarily for the protection of their rights and because all other essential powers are also centralized away from them.

Their powerlessness rests largely on ignorance and this ignorance is understandable because:

a) since tribal times they were never given responsibilities regarding external policies and war, peace,

armament and disarmament decisions,

b) they do not know from personal experience the type of political organization which would allow

different ideologies to coexist and be acted. upon in the same country and which would never tend to

lead to nuclear armament (Only few books describe such experiences in the past.),

c) they do not know the right means organizations and methods to defend their rights forcefully, if need

be, and without nuclear weapons, even against an enemy regime armed with such weapons. (Only

literature on how to conduct totalitarian wars and revolutions is common.) and

d) they are indoctrinated with the wrong ideas, the ideas making for nuclear war.

Schools, universities recognized experts, political leaders and the mass media confirm these errors,

continuously.

NO SIMPLE SOLUTION

As indicated above, the threat of nuclear war is by no means a simple and easy task which could be solved by one or two obvious steps. For that reason the rather involved steps towards the solution have been recognized only by a few.

One might be inclined to sum up the hints given in this book with slogans like: "Power to the people" or "Power to the individual" - but what would they mean here?

They should certainly not be interpreted to mean: "Power to use nuclear devices into the hands of a majority or nuclear weapons into everybody's hands" as e.g., Alfred Bester suggested in: "The Stars My Destination". Majorities and individuals are all too often all too irrational and should therefore not have any power over the basic rights of others.

But they should have all the powers and motives required to allow them to participate in one way or the other in the destruction of all mass extermination weapons.

These powers should reside in every individual.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to envision a society in which that will be the case.

The roots of the nuclear mushroom have penetrated all of society and specialization of knowledge has gone so far that only few see the extent of this penetration and few can see more than a few roots at a time. (The author

does not exempt himself from this rule. )

What is involved?

Almost every social organization, principle and idea!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

WHY AN ALPHABETICAL HANDBOOK?

The nuclear war threat requires an enormous amount of re-thinking and re-organizing. That's why it still exists. The present "society", in all its ramifications is an almost perfect recipe for nuclear war and we are merely lucky that it has not happened as yet.

Before this threat is over, an extensive change of public opinion is required, a change of principles, a change of aims, a change of institutions: together the most comprehensive revolution ever.

A peace lover must attempt to think a few hundred moves ahead or of hundreds of moves made either simultaneously or in connection with each other - in order to realize how to defeat the threat of nuclear war presented by the present suicidal power game. Even grand masters of chess can't think that far ahead.

At the same time, we must realize that the hundreds of steps required to prepare for nuclear war, and to bring it about, at almost any time, have already been taken. Moreover, many of them are very popular. Furthermore, no effective moves have so far been made to prevent nuclear war. These steps have not even been recognized or looked for.

For this reason this book has collected numerous steps leading to the prevention of nuclear war, as well as those leading to the abyss, in handbook form.

The alphabetized form was also preferred because only few are able to grasp, in a single vision, all the full freedom alternatives to collectivist and nuclear power, i.e., after reading a book-length enumeration and conventional description of the alternatives.

Too many misconceptions have to be overcome first. Thus the simple alphabetical ordering of this book was chosen. It allows everyone to see details of the peaceful and free alternative (to the coercive society making for nuclear war), point by point, according to his interest, knowledge and commitment and allows a continuous integration of newly found understanding through numerous cross references.

Scholarly tomes, with their elaborate classification and subdivisions are read, studied and understood only by a few. I want this work to be an easy-to-use handbook, one which everybody can use to rapidly clear up many doubts he has regarding solutions.

The alphabetical order makes it easy to jump from one related point to another. Relationships are rarely linear. One can thus find answers to particular questions almost instantly while, otherwise, one would have to read the whole book, or a large section of it. Correlations can thus be continuously checked and kept in mind.

Lastly, the alphabetical arrangement makes it easy to include, later on, more relevant material which will, I hope, be supplied by some of my readers.

Please make the fullest use of the alphabetical order and try to get the whole picture, idea by idea. Measures, which on their own appear rather futile, will often appear effective if seen in combination with the other proposals.

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

This book certainly hasn't got all the answers but I am conceited enough to believe that its collection of ideas from all sources contains enough of the bare bones, general ideas, guidelines and hints to practical steps - to discover, sufficiently explain and prove, with your assistance, all the remaining detail and additionally required steps.

If anyone knows another, simpler and better way to prevent nuclear war than the one here described, please, don't keep it from me.

I have attempted to keep this exposition short, Much more could be said on every point but even fully developed essays on particular points will be easier to understand when this program survey is already at hand. If you love life enough, not necessarily what it means now but what it could be for you and your children, then you will think ahead further on this subject, on any of the remaining problems. Give me the benefit of your thinking and write - but do not expect a personal reply.

Anyone wanting to develop any of these themes in specialized articles, essays and books, would be welcomed by me. But I could not promise to print and distribute them at my expense in money and labour. Do your own thing in this sphere but, please, let me know what you are doing and thinking. At least I want my files on the subject complete and could then possibly offer an information and clearing centre for those interested.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

Some monographs, on some of the topics summarized here, are planned by myself. Others will, I hope, be written by others.

The tools to bury the nuclear threat cannot be forged and wielded by one man alone.

I do intend to work on the following subjects: Monetary Freedom, Secession - individual, Exterritorial Imperative, Compulsory Unionism, Bill of Rights, Price Control, Inflation, Tyrannicide, Cultural Revolution. With some others I have already dealt at some length in my PEACE PLANS series e.g, with Panarchy, Devaluation, Tax Strikes and Voluntary Taxation. Please help me by collecting material for any of the above topics, Also, let me, and, possibly through me, others as well, know about the related subjects you are working on. A listing of all libertarian research in progress could do much to promote it.

SEPARATE APPEAL TO LIBERTARIANS

All others either missed the main issue, are making the problem worse or have only non-solutions to offer. They are to some extent excused because they cannot see the freedom solution. But those, who call themselves libertarians, and do not see the libertarian solution but, instead, rely on nuclear strength for "defence" or as a "deterrence", are not to be excused. They are acquainted with the solution and are merely mentally too lazy to apply it to the international sphere as well.

The solution to the problem of nuclear war is individual liberty in EVERY sphere and there is no excuse for libertarians who overlook this. Libertarians now must not only make sure that all will be free, or as free as they want to be, but also that we will we will continue to exist at all!

Or would you rather want to leave it to governments to deal with this threat? If you do not help yourself out of this dilemma, then the government won't do it either because, objectively, it cannot, On the contrary, it, EVERY TERRITORIAL government, even a "limited" one, is the most important factor making for nuclear war. Who else but governments has any genocidal powers at present? Libertarians can no longer afford to ignore this danger. They have a duty to spread the knowledge of the libertarian solution to this greatest problem of our time and perhaps of all times.

THE CHANCES TO REVERSE THE CURRENT TREND TOWARDS NUCLEAR WAR?

The danger itself is fairly well recognized - although not its acuteness and its causes. People are rational enough not to like paying taxes, People do not like forced labour, Regardless of collectivist indoctrination and opinions, given the chance, most people will follow their rational self-interest, e.g. they smuggle and cheat regarding income taxes. Nor do most people like being outvoted in democratic decision-making. In general, "the people", individually and in most of their voluntary groups, when free to express and inform themselves, and free to act, are more peace loving and trustworthy than their present rulers. Mostly they are not power-addicts. Given a chance to act, most people would act against nuclear war preparations. They have no wish to become mass murderers. Most abhor the very thought or possibility of mass murder. I do know that there are exceptions and our present territorial States do tend to breed them.

Unfortunately, the people have presently not the vision of the sound alternative society, a complete enough vision to induce them to act on it. It has not yet been put before them in a convincing and comprehensive way.

With that vision, individual liberty could be established, point by point, even if at first only by a few, until, finally, new communities of free men could openly opt out of the nuclear power system, protect their freedom and proceed to destroy the nuclear powers of the remaining old communities.

The nuclear threat itself is and can be used as the strongest incentive to induce people to opt out of the territorial power systems with their inherent nuclear war threat.

The enlightenment required could be sufficiently speeded up with the cultural revolution program indicated in this book.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************************************************************************************

5

ABDICATION: ABDICATION OF RULERS AND ABDICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

There are two important and different types of abdication: The abdication of power and the abdication of liberty.

The abdication of liberty is the primary one and leads inevitably to political power and all its inherent abuses and corruption. Has it ever been offset by abdications of political power? The rulers may change but their office, resting on the abdication of individual responsibilities, remains.

When citizens wrongfully abdicate their rights, liberties and responsibilities, there are always some who (although they are unable and unwilling to fill the vacuum thus created, nevertheless, and with the approval of the victims,) take over political powers and only rarely give them up again - unless death does them part, The solution to problems which only individuals could solve is then rendered a prerogative of the crown or the presidential office, although both by their very nature, cannot solve them, The result is a mess - and now the threat of nuclear holocaust.

Seeing that the nuclear threat rests on political power, of the own and other governments, it would be desirable if those holding this power would voluntarily abdicate. But it is rather unlikely that they will do so. In history cases of formal abdication are rare. Moreover, abdications of power are rarely done deliberately, voluntarily, wisely, in recognition of ones incompetence to sensibly regulate the lives of millions of others. Usually, the abdications that did occur were only cover-ups for previous real losses of power, or actions arising out of prejudices, religious ones for instance, as in the case of Charles V., or enforced actions, arising from fear, e.g. of execution, or loss of succession rights of one's heir - due to some scandal, defeat or corruption. Sometimes it happened due to strong public opinion pressure exerted by those wanting another leader in their endless, hopeless and utopian quest for the ideal one. It may also have happened under the threat arising out of conspiracies from competitors for the throne or office or, maybe, under pressure from the men of one's own party, who are afraid of exposures of their cases of corruption and are thus looking for scapegoats.

Forced resignations would usually be a more apt description. But these forced resignations were not happening very frequently, either. The old observation: "For every tyrant a thousand ready slaves" explains this. Even when they get rid of one tyrant, slavish people see to it that they quickly get another: "The king is dead! Long live the king!" - characterizes this state of development. This principle, when applied to rulers armed with nuclear devices, makes now less sense than ever before.

All rulers ought to abdicate their present powers because these powers threaten us with nuclear war and because they, as rulers, are unable to prevent nuclear war. From this it follows that they should at least be put under the conventional pressures to abdicate. How difficult it is to induce a public servant, like the U.S. President to, resign by e. g. impeachment procedures against him, was very well demonstrated recently.

Such pressures are rarely strong enough to be successful or they are so senseless that they lead only to the rapid replacement of one regime by another, not necessarily a better one. Often they merely lead to riots which usually can be suppressed and are, with bloodshed. New types of pressures ought to be applied, These pressures could all arise from ending the abdication of individual rights, liberties and responsibilities, abdication from the rightful powers of self-rule or self-government based on individual consent and individual sovereignty.

To induce some politicians, especially elderly statesmen, to resign, one moderate means, sometimes sufficient, would be to assure them of a good pension and some honorable position. The old Romans did this with consuls who could not be elected again and Americans still offer this to their former presidents.

A forceful pensioning off of all public servants would go much further. It would be a cheap expenditure compared with the costs and risks of continuing nuclear war preparations. It would also appeal as a reform proposal to a very powerful and large lobby: that of the public servants. A free market system, rid of the obstructions they caused, could easily bear this temporary charge. Many public servants would also be likely to decline acceptance of this charity, at least after a while, and after having taken up some productive work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

Those unwilling to abdicate or resign could be threatened with the loss of all their pension claims.

Those who have to fear for their lives, when they have lost power, would have to be offered an amnesty backed up by asylum, anonymity, protection and economic support in their retirement.

Such measures would certainly help to thin out the ranks of the true enemies of peace, the men in power. But. to defeat the remaining fanatics and power addicts, some stronger measures would be required, measures like outlawry, tyrannicide, military insurrection and revolutions, secessions, accompanied by a step by step and as fast as possible destruction of all their powers.

Self-rule, not rule over others, is the solution to the problem of peace. All rulership powers over others, i.e., all rule over involuntary subjects, ought to be renounced, removed or destroyed.

Ordinary citizens in democratic countries ought also to abdicate their wrongful powers, those inherent in their present "right to vote", i.e., their power over the fate of others, as expressed in majority-democratic elections, whose results are enforced upon minorities. The abdication of this part of the present voter's limited power would amount to his recognition and re-assertion of his own right to rule himself and of the right of others to self-determination. He would thus abdicate his position as a subject of a territorial political body, one whose fate is mainly decided by the votes of others

The wrongful abdication by citizens of their liberties, rights and responsibilities must be ended, A sufficient but not the only reason is that it makes for nuclear war. Citizens must abdicate from their present position of powerlessness over their own fate, or of subordination and obedience towards others, and must gain new rightful, self-limiting and responsible powers over their own lives, They could achieve this by individual secession and voluntarist re-organization on an exterritorial and personal law basis.

Compare Appx 3 & 5 and see under the following headings: Amnesty, Asylum, Autonomy, Broadcasting, Censorship, Decisions, Declarations, Democracy, Desertion, Disarmament, Disobedience, Duty, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Migration, Free Trade, Government, Government-in-Exile, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Motives, Obedience, Outlawry, Pension Claims, People, Politicians, Power, Prize Money, Recall, Referendum, Resistance, Rights, Rulers, Secession, Social Contract, Sovereignty, Statism, Subordination, Tax Strike, Tolerance, Voluntary Taxation, Tyrannicide, Voting, Weapons Monopoly.

One type of mass murder makes the other appear more acceptable, People habituated to one type of mass murder do not object strongly enough against another. From the fire-bombing of Dresden & Tokyo to the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki no great progression in immorality. Morality is indivisible. Think yourself through, from the realization of the immorality of abortion to e.g. the recognition of the rights of noncombatants and innocents. You will then be closer to a rightful definition of "the enemy" and you will, by that much, come closer to the solution of the nuclear problem, a problem which is also mainly a moral problem and thus a problem which can be solved only with a new moral stand.

People remaining insensitive to the murder of 25 to 40 million humans every year, murders committed not by strangers but by the victims' own parents and with scientific assistance, will remain insensitive to the moral questions involved in the nuclear war threat, as insensitive as the other barbarians. What makes this murder worse than any other - is the fact that the victims of this war of extermination are all noncombatants. They are so young that they are completely helpless, more helpless even than the 1-2 million Jewish children that were murdered by the Nazis. See - Morality and plan 243.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

"If nuclear weapons and their factories are not destroyed, then the end will come for the same reason fire comes to a depot of easily inflammable material, sooner or later, when it is continuously frequented by people handling lighters, burning cigarettes and lanterns, no mater how careful they are in their use." - U. von Beckerath.

When accidents can occur they will occur. They are so certain to occur that sound insurance systems have been built upon their statistical regularity. No fail-safe system is fail-safe enough to prevent them altogether and only a 100% fail-safe system would suffice. All factories for explosives and all ammunition dumps have, in the average, only a limited Lifespan and then they blow up. Nuclear weapons are set off by "ordinary explosives" and also by "explosive" human natures, by computer-malfunctions or misinterpretations of radar screen observations and could thus similarly "self-ignite".

There are numerous chances which might lead to an unpremeditated nuclear attack. It might be a bad trip of a drug addict among those having their fingers on the buttons. The buttons are there for many fools to press them - and there was never a shortage of fools. The occasion might be irrational national hatreds or religious fanaticism, or the all too wide-spread notion of "collective responsibility". Some Christian sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, in Germany, before I left it, in 1959, assure us in their pamphlets that "you can be happy that so little time is left." - They expected to get to their "heaven" all the sooner! It might be thirst for glory. Instance: DeGaulle's motivation for nuclear armament. Or it might be nothing more than a sudden fever attack. Hitler was by no means the only contemporary madman. (In recent years, when the government of Pakistan, largely a military dictatorship, acquired nuclear "weapons", its ignorant and prejudiced subjects, unaware that they are anti-people mass-murder devices, were dancing in the street in they joy about this event! - J.Z., 10.10.01.) What makes all this worse is hat madness among rulers tends to remain a well kept secret for a considerable time. The power urge itself is a kind of madness and it has led to more senseless destruction already than that of all certified madmen put into insane asylums for being dangerous to the public. Mass hysteria among statists and collectivists is the equivalent to the madness of power addicts among the "leaders". Among the essential preconditions for such mass hysteria are territorialism and notions of collective responsibility as well as the false notions that arise from them regarding "enemies".

In 1959 Krushchev admitted to Mr. Nixon that a Russian missile had headed for Alaska by mistake and only by luck fell short of the American continent. (Daily Telegraph, 31/10/60.)

A volcanic explosion like that of Krakatoa might be interpreted as a nuclear attack, The same could happen in case of a large meteor hitting earth without advance warning given by astronomers.

Nuclear war might even be started as a practical joke, e.g. on the 1st. of April. Or has nobody ever paid with his life or limb for irrational jokes?

Was there ever any real shortage of thrill killers - and are not those striving for life and death powers over their fellow men somewhat related in their attitude to these not so uncommon criminals? Rulers, like others groups of mien, have vices and one sadist among them could spell the end.

Wrong radar observations might suffice, or suicidal tendencies or irrational hatreds or drunkenness or love-sickness of a commander. They could all lead to nuclear wars not intended by most of those in power. Even WW I and WW II largely "happened" unintentioned by most of the decision-makers. The arms race itself increases the risk of accidents and so does any policy of strength, deterrence, secrecy and deception. Even civil defence preparations have been interpreted as preparations for a nuclear first strike.

The analysis of radar observations has to be undertaken so fast that mistakes are inevitable. Indeed, they occurred already several times. Due to a technical breakdown the instruments have sometimes indicated the approach of bomber formations at supersonic speeds. Only the discretionary hesitation of the commanding officers, which some might interpret as treasonable, has then prevented a massive retaliation. Even flocks of geese were sometimes mistaken for missiles. A formation flight of UFOs or a swarm of meteors could well once be interpreted as a flight of IBMs and could thus be a motive for a "counterstrike".

Even in conventional wars, when there is still some time available and there are some eyewitnesses, there arises, nevertheless, and remains a doubt on who began it and who would, according to popular ideas, have to be considered as the aggressor. Due to military secrecy, monopolized decision-making and censorship, both sides might then engage in a "defensive" war against each other which might well escalate into a nuclear war.

Suitcase bombs might be exploded prematurely in situ, and start the nuclear war, e.g. when a radio amateur accidental broadcasts the frequency sequence required to start them off. There are 60,000 HAM radio amateurs in the Soviet Union alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

World Wars I and II were not intended as world wars either by most, if not all of the participants. They just slid into them without having foreseen them, without having planned for them, Many books have described Europe on the brink of WW I in terms of "a startling and often tragic picture of the blunders, misunderstandings, irresponsibilities and sheer fatalism that sent 20th.-century Europe lurching into self-destruction: "'This is a war that nobody wants, unleashed, as it were, by elemental forces,' saith Bethmann Hollweg, while in London the icy, patrician Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, was pounding his desk and crying in a voice high with frustrated passion: 'I hate war! I hate war!"' - Geoffrey Scott, The Bulletin, 25 .7.64, in reviewing "The Twelve Days, 24. 7. - 4.8.14", by G. M. Thomson, Hutchinson.

According to Krushchev, Stalin was mad during his last 3 years. Only during the last three? one might ask.

Dag Hammarskjoeld, according to his memoirs, "Road Signs", almost certainly regarded himself as God's instrument in guiding the U.N. along its path. (Bulletin 4/11'6.3.) How many more such instances are required before most people wake up to this danger?

Numerous novels were written, all believably describing this risk and their stories were not without reason considered fascinating and believable by millions of readers. They were thus confirming that this risk is neither infinitesimal small or unbelievable.

There is no moral duty to obey any government which involves all in such risks. To expose mankind to any of these risks reveals a degree of irresponsibility which borders on insanity.

As long as any nuclear powers remain this danger remains. Thus a complete nuclear disarmament is a must and even a unilateral one is preferable to none.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Automated Warfare, Decisions, Defence, Disarmament, Fail-safe, Madness of Rulers, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

ACTION, FREEDOM OF - :

Without all non-aggressive people gaining not only freedom of expression and information but also freedom of action, they will always risk being forced, hands tied, into a war situation, now even into nuclear war.

When any man feels certain - and who does not? - that he has no powers at all, to directly protect his life, property and freedom and those of his family and friends, against the threat of nuclear war, then the diagnosis is quite simple: He actually has no freedom of action.

"To destroy freedom of action is to destroy the possibility and consequently the power of choosing, of judging, of comparing; it amounts to destroying reason, to destroying thought, to destroying man himself." - F. Bastiat (Roche III: Bastiat, 213.)

There is no other way to introduce peace promoting alternative institutions and Systems and to convince others of their effectiveness than to gain freedom of action first: "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right." - said H. D. Thoreau.

Men are not yet adapted to the requirements of a free society - but there is no other way to get them adapted than to give them freedom of action first and to hold them only individually responsible: "It is only in freedom of action that a mans full powers are used and developed." - Dr. H.G. Pearce in: "Good Government", Dec.1971.

If you ask : "But what can I do?", you have not yet fully' realized how much of your liberty you have handed over to politicians and bureaucrats. Enlighten yourself. Demand your freedom of action back from them. Secede, Use your tax money for your own expenditures. Run your own budget. Make your own friends and enemies, Arm and train yourself with rightful weapons and resist. Do not expect advice on how you can be free and could directly act to prevent nuclear war - under the present restrictive system.

For some instances of what freedom of action would mean see under - Autonomy, Capita-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

lism, Competition, Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Disobedience, Economic Freedom, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative Freedom, free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Individualism, Militia, Monopolies, Powerlessness, Referendums, Resistance, Secession, Self-help, Separate Peace, Subordination, Tolerance, Weapons Monopoly.

"1945 gave us a whole new situation. Up to then it was people who ran out of time. Now there is always the chance that time will run out of people first." - William Garner in: "The Us Or Them War", ch. 27.

"The experts think the chances of nuclear holocaust in the next five years are about even." - Henry Schoenheimer, The Australian, 16/6/73.

Madmen are in power and will be again. Men in power, as a class, are the most criminal class. The whole nuclear war preparations are irrational and immoral. Who could feel safe under the power of terrorist madmen?

The production of overkill nuclear stockpiles goes on and on and does in itself indicate irrationality. We come closer and closer to the Doomsday Bomb.

More and more nuclear power plants produce more and more nuclear weapons material. More and more powers and politicians and generals have their fingers on nuclear buttons. Some do so openly and other, smaller powers, may already be armed secretly with nuclear weapons, e.g. Israel and Egypt.

The sequence of narrow escapes. which we had so far, will not be continued indefinitely.

Balance of power preparations always failed in the long run and often led to war.

Arms races have resulted in war in 99% of all cases.

Deterrents are never 100%.

Fail-safe precautions are never completely reliable and now nothing less would do.

All preparations and incentives for nuclear war are ready. See Appx. 3 & 4. Nothing suitable has been done, so far, to prevent it. None of the basic requirements for preventing it are fulfilled. See Appx. 1,5,6 & 8,

Nevertheless, we have apathy regarding this question, even among most of the libertarians who, due to their moral philosophy and knowledge of practical solutions to economic, social and political problems, are closest to the solution. Their apathy really frightens me because the realization of the program to prevent nuclear war depends largely on them.

I hold that there is nothing more important now than working to prevent nuclear war. If we do not cope with nuclear power before it is too late, nuclear power will cope with us.

Ulrich von Beckerath remarked in a letter to Dr. R., 25.6.57: "In this situation in which Germany and the whole world find themselves, the thoughts of all, who are able to think, should concentrate on one single point:

How can one abolish the danger that all life becomes extinguished in Germany, including sparrows and moles, and in the rest of the world almost all life? The nuclear devices to bring about this condition are ready. Factories which allow to produce still more of them, more and more cheaply, are also present. Madmen who would rather today than tomorrow throw nuclear devices at "the enemy" do also exist. Common men who consider these madmen as leaders or prophets in the same way as they recognized Nero, Jenghiz Khan, Tamerlane and Hitler are available en masse (the all too many, as Nietzsche called them rightly). An insignificant coincidence can close this cosmic mousetrap. Then the liberated life-energies of herrings, octopuses and perhaps albatrosses at the South Pole will seek new avenues, but they will hardly get further than we did.

What is to be done? Everybody can do something and even if it were nothing else than to challenge others to occupy themselves with this crisis and try to find a way out."

See : Accidental War, Deterrence, Miscalculation, Research, Time Factor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

The problem is not a wrongfully assumed aggressiveness of man in general but how to stop the own and foreign governments from practising their inherent aggressiveness. Man is supposed to be aggressive but is not really inherently so. Only his upbringing, his institutions, his indoctrination and the poverty of his ideas make him so. Otherwise civilization would not have survived wars. Continuous wars combined with diseases would have wiped man out. There are even a few instances of primitive tribes who do not know systematic and organized violence of man against man. Herbert Spencer in "Political Institutions, par. 437 & 574, gave eight examples from races of different types. In Principles of Ethics he mentions the Lepcha, the Hos and the Wood-Veddhaa. Pitirim A. Sorokin, in "Contemporary Sociological Theories", page 484, refers to researches revealing nine peoples who did not know war at all. P. Kropotkin has also shown, in his work "Mutual Aid", that in spite of it all man is still the most cooperative animal and that most of his successes are due to this fact.

When we see men acting aggressively, we must not simply assume that they do so because this is bred into them, We must realize that their actions could also be due e.g. to wrong ideas forcing them to live in wrong institutions. Instances : The employer m employee relationship creates and preserves antagonism between employers and employees. Monogamy, combined with difficulties for divorce, have led to many a husband and wife struggle and sometimes to murder. Sexual mores and the outlawry of prostitution led to many a rape, Sexual repression in armed forces and gaols led to many perverse assaults and rapes. With other aggressive behaviour of man it is similar.

How aggressive really free men will be we do not know as yet from experience. They might be habitually quite peaceful - unless their lives or liberties are meddled with. Once the "exterritorial imperative" (see under this heading) is obeyed, no nuclear threats will be made any longer, no nuclear strength preparations will continue, nuclear aggression will be avoided by the voluntary and even unilateral destruction of all nuclear weapons. (Compare: Motives, Targets.) But up to then the mere production and storing of ABC weapons or of the raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons, is an aggressive act, a conspiracy to commit mass murder or genocide, warranting any act of resistance, Through their nuclear strength policies both, East and West, are aggressors.

Any rightful definition of aggression, a definition which governments so far could not agree upon, would have to contain a clause like the following:

Whosoever suppresses elementary human rights, on any large scale, does thereby declare war to all human beings and has no reason to be surprised and to complain when thereupon mankind takes up arms against him, treats him as an aggressor and helps his victims to resist him. Compare peace plan 100.

"Governments which do not respect human rights are to be considered as a group which has declared war against mankind. It is an inborn and holy duty of every human being to seriously consider how to destroy their means of power, how to enlighten their subjects, teaching them that subordination under such a government must never be voluntary and how to reorganize society after these common enemies of man have been rendered harmless." - Ulrich yon Beckerath, 3.6.59.

An ideal militia would not resist an enemy occupation force which would not threaten but help to realize individual human rights but would rather welcome them as liberators. It would invade another territory only when this would be essential to protect human rights and when in its own normal sphere of action all human rights are already realized and protected. Thus such a militia would not conduct unjust defensive wars like the war of Hitler against the Americans in 1944/5. It would rather offer its services, as a body, to a German government in Exile which is allied to the U.S. On the other hand, this kind of militia would participate in as just a defensive war as that of Prussia against Napoleon I in 1812 was. One of its maxims would be the statement of Machiavelli: "Not whosoever first resorts to arms is the aggressor, but whosoever makes this necessary."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11

The ideal militia, the only rightful military force, would not conduct wars for any nationalistic or imperialistic interests. It would not conduct wars of conquest or for the suppression of people, races, classes or religions. Neither would it conduct wars of aggression in the old sense. Its wars, although sometimes appearing aggressive in the old sense, would be something completely new: wars for the protection of human rights, wars conducted in a way that human rights are not any further infringed by acts of warfare. Such wars of liberation could hardly be called unjust. Every nation considering to shake off the chains of despotism would thereby become an ally of this militia force. The militia would then, generally, grant generous military and other assistance. Instance: Until Gustav Adolf's Swedish army suppressed human rights in occupied territories its participation in the 30 years' war was justified. It was an act to protect the rights of Protestants. Ideally, it should also have protected the rights of Catholics and religious tolerance generally.

If the despotism to be overthrown has nuclear weapons at its disposal, then the assistance given must be mainly moral and economic and militarily confined to advice on how to organize military uprisings and popular revolutions successfully. If you want, call it aggression to defeat aggression. But know what you say and know the difference.

That man is not inherently aggressive will be demonstrated once he gains, in a revolutionary or direct democratic wary, the freedom to secede from all aggressive governments the rights and freedoms required to resist them effectively, including the right to have a say on whether there is to be a war or not, the right to arm, train and organize militarily, to refuse payment of taxes and to refuse the acceptance of a dictator's paper money. Until such liberties are fully realized one can still always rightly say that men are forced into wars. Governments certainly do not rely on any inherent aggressiveness in man when they conscript their soldiers.

See: Class Warfare, Communism, Conscription, Derision-making, Defence, Dictatorship, Enlightenment, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Imperialism, Invasions Liberation War, Militia, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Social Contract, Subordination, Territorial Integrity, Territorial Organization, Weapons.

Introduction of free market, contractual and property relationships within enterprises and involving all employees, would bring about industrial peace, defeat the class warfare ideology, increase the general standard of living and would thus help to defuse the international situation.

See: Communism, Cooperative Production, Hierarchical Production, Class Warfare Ideology, Purchase of Enterprises, Unions, and also peace plans 150, 180-2, 215, 226

As long as there are still nuclear weapons around, all bombers and even all civilian heavy aircraft pose a threat as their means of delivery. The bombers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specially converted planes. Boing studies show that the Boeing 747 jet could be converted into a missile carrier. (The Australian, 4/2/74.)

Thus military bombers ought to be dismantled and the large civilian air carriers at least militarily disabled and afterwards closely supervised.

Maybe, for a while at least, helicopters, gyrocopters and other light and slow aircraft would have to be the only aircraft to be used. (While chemical and biological warfare threats continue, even these aircraft may have to be outlawed. Perhaps the numerous people no longer free to fly would become interested in steps to prevent nuclear war? They seem to take their air travels more serious, so far, than the survival of themselves, their children and grandchildren, in the face of threats from ABC mass murder devices and institutions that promote their use. - J.Z., 11.10.01.)

If we accept that then modern aircraft should be reconsidered only once it can be safely assumed that all nuclear weapons have been destroyed and no more of them will be produced, Compared with the cost of nuclear war this would be a very low price to pay. Compare this risk and cost e. g. with the news that on one of any of the Pan Am jets an ordinary high explosives bomb would be hidden. Immediately, all these aircraft would be grounded. Why, then have we up to now ignored the larger danger? Because it is government organized?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

Air raids, particularly carpet bombing air raids, or "strategic" air raids against civilians and incendiary air raids, designed to cause fire storms, set the precedents for mass destruction and mass murder mayhem by means of the ABC anti-people weapons. They must be ended for the same reasons.

According to Murray N. Rothbard: "The very nature of nuclear war" is "resting on the annihilation, of civilians.' - From his essay: "War, Peace and the State."

The international laws of warfare, outlawing attacks on open cities and on noncombatants, must become respected again. Only those have a chance to survive who will respect them.

See: Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Destruction, Disarmament, Enemy, Indiscriminate Warfare, International Law, Noncombatants, Open Cities, Scorched Earth Policy, Weapons, Peace Plan 186.

People who, in their leisure hours, put themselves into any degree of alcoholic stupor, are unlikely to think rationally about the causes of nuclear war and are still less likely to do anything sensible about them. Alcoholics or drunken people cannot even drive a car safely. Far less can they or are they interested in preventing nuclear war, Drunken people think and act belligerently and they can be used to engage in and continue a senseless slaughter. Any non-coercive measure to induce people to reduce or stop their alcohol consumption would indirectly be peace promoting. According to some teetotalers the sense of justice, the perception of and respect for the rights and liberties of others, are more impaired by frequent drunkenness than any other capacities, perhaps permanently. Any drunkenness causing slight dizziness causes the destruction of thousands of brain cells. The mere possibility of such a crippling effect would be enough for me. I would not want to wait for a statistical proof which might not be available for another few decades.

A drunken commander might even start off nuclear war. Although drunk he may stall be cunning enough to bypass the fail-safe precautions, I doubt very much that all nuclear weapons are manned only by confirmed teetotalers. People who are completely sober and rational, and who would stay thus long enough, would not arm or continue to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Militiamen would have to be teetotalers at least while on duty.

See: Accidental War, Drugs, Escapism, Nuclear Strength,

A lasting peace requires the repeal of all Alien Acts. All coercive discrimination against all non-aggressive aliens must cease. Freedom of movement and settlement must be introduced for all rational people. The more aliens are forcefully discriminated against by special alien acts, the less are likely to immigrate, The less alien immigrants are living next to us (but exterritorially independent from us, if they want to), the greater is the likelihood that we become targets for their home countries' nuclear rockets. There is safety in the number of aliens among us. They, for the same reason will one day welcome many of us. This motive may not be praiseworthy but the results would be. I doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed had they contained not only about 10.000 Japanese Christians but, let us say, 50.000 Christians of mixed origin, Christians who were autonomous, i.e. not subservient to the Japanese emperor.

See: Emigration, Exterritorial Imperative, Immigration, Minority Autonomy, Secession, Segregation, Peace plan 232.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13

ALLIANCES, NEW ALLIANCES AGAINST THE NUCLEAR THREAT

Conventional. territorial alliances do not prevent but accentuate the nuclear threat. Thanks to them every minor crisis might escalate into World War III or even the nuclear holocaust.

We should use other, new types of alliances instead:

Let the potential victims themselves form alliances, defensive alliances which could be trusted.

Let minorities rule themselves - to allow all peaceful and rightful changes and to disperse extreme powers.

Let even world-wide autonomous and exterritorial communities of volunteers be established freely, i. e.,. on a peacefully competitive basis.

Let all traders trade freely, at least within their own alliances.

Let all potential migrants freely ally themselves by migration and voluntary associations.

Let tax payers ally themselves against the tax gatherers who buy nuclear weapons out of tax funds.

Let the targeted cities make alliances between them to gain power against all rulers, who have put them on their target maps.

Let Moscow's and New York's people get thus together- against the Kremlin and the White House.

Let every ideologically motivated terrorist and warmonger be ideologically disarmed - by granting him all the opportunities for his utopia among his voluntary allies which he can rightly ask for, that is, all chances to practice it at their risk and expense.

Let all tolerant people practise solidarity against the intolerant ones.

Let the disarmed people arm themselves with rightful weapons against those who so far stood over them, with the help of the weapons monopoly and that for military organization.

Let the people conclude separate peace treaties and alliances over the heads of their rulers.

Let all those who appreciate their human rights ally themselves against all those who threaten them.

Let people be free to use all the so far unused and peace promoting ties in form of rightful, voluntaristic and individualistic alliances, across all present frontiers and areas of jurisdiction.

But, do not tolerate any longer any of the territorial, collectivist and conventional alliances of political powers which now make for nuclear war. Secede from them. Resist them.

See: Balance of Power, Bases, Cities, Decision-making, Declarations, Defence Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative Governments-in-Exile, Militia, Motives, Negotiations, Referendums, Separate Peace Treaties, Trust. Compare: Desertion, Enemy, Secret Allies.

Would a rational man complacently relax knowing that there is a time bomb ticking away in his cellar?

Either man will, in the not so far future, destroy nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons will destroy him.

Once enough people are thinking rationally on this situation they will no longer tolerate it but engage instead in the numerous actions required to change it.

As long as territorial and monopolistic States remain, organizations sanctioned by all kinds of social institutions, they are unlikely to be deprived of their nuclear powers. They remain the holy beasts, the holy cows, in the eyes of most. People who cannot imagine privately run post offices, social insurance, roads and garbage removal services, will go on trusting what governments offer under the misnomers "defence" and "national security".

Thus all institutions which grant exclusive State powers and prestige, institutions whose apex is the nuclear deterrent, must be replaced by peaceful, harmless, rightful, voluntaristic and competitive ones, which do not grant to anyone any immoral and

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

irresponsible powers.

Alternatives must be established for all present public services:

We will have to allow market alternatives to e.g. State Housing Commissions, Education Departments, Tax Offices, Courts, Police Forces, Main Roads Departments etc.

Likewise, all their more directly war promoting powers must be replaced by peace-promoting ones. The replacement must be done by self-help measures of the citizens - otherwise it would not be done. The abdication tendencies of this hierarchical society are not strong enough to allow us to rely on them.

See: Abdication.

Defence ministries, presidential powers, standing armies, departments for foreign affairs, must all be replaced by decision-making by the people, volunteer militias, negotiations and peace declarations by the people themselves. For some of these alternatives see under: Communication, Decision-making, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Economic Freedom, Free Trade, Exterritorial Imperative, Immigration, Military Organizations, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Political organization, Panarchy, Power, Production, Rights, Social Security, Taxation, Trust, War Aims, Weapons.

Every tyrant should be threatened with outlawry and tyrannicide if he persists in his suppression of human rights.

Wrongful assassinations or murders must be distinguished from tyrannicide or rightful executions of major criminals.

Everyone with mass extermination weapons at his disposal is also to be considered and treated as a tyrant. But in order not to drive them to desperate steps, they ought to be offered an amnesty period during which they could surrender safely. Moreover, holders of nuclear weapons should be offered amnesty even after this period expired, provided only they render at least one nuclear weapon harmless or hand it over.

The amnesty offer to former rulers and commanders of nuclear devices should be accompanied by offers of anonymous asylum, pension and protection, whenever required. These would be cheap compared with the destruction a single nuclear device could cause.

See: Asylum, Outlawry, Tyrannicide.

An anarchic society would have neither the means, the power, nor the motives to build nuclear weapons or to keep them in readiness.

An anarchic society is one in which not one single non-aggressive and rational being is either ruled over at all or ruled over without his individual consent:

"Anarchism... advocates the abolition of all government as we today understand the term, save that originating in voluntary cooperation." - Encyclopaedia Americana, 59.

Usually, those who want to destroy the State are as intolerant as those who want to destroy what they call capitalism or communism or churches or insurrectionist secessionist groups like the Biafrans. But the State need not be forcefully destroyed in the short run. People have only to become free to desert it individually and it will collapse relatively soon. (Recent examples are the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Iron Curtain in general. Alas, we have set up other walls against those trying to vote with their feet. - J.Z., 12.10.01.)

Only, its aggressive, coercive, monopolistic powers need be destroyed or, rather, competitive services should become free to compete its disservices out of existence.

Any State might be your worst enemy - but it is still the beloved one for many other people. They are entitled to their love, to their self-imposed punishment for their illusions and self-deceptions. They have the right to make their own mistakes - at their own expense and risk. Thus any form of anarchy or libertarianism for you and any form of State for them, each according to his choice, is the only just answer.

That does not mean that dissenters have to go on tolerating any aggressive powers of the remaining States. Instead, we must realize, and we would soon see, that as soon as dissenters are free to secede, individually, and in groups, and to organize themselves in their own volunteer communities, under exterritorial autonomy, then the remaining States would

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

soon be reduced to the status of relatively powerless, voluntaristic, individualistic and cooperative societies, no matter what particular spleen or utopia they attempted to put into practice among themselves.

Neither rule through nor be ruled by nuclear power! Nor by compulsory membership and a territorial monopoly.

See: Alternatives, Decision, Disarmament, Democracy, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Libertarianism, Motives, Panarchy, People, Territorial Organization, Tolerance.

The desire for annexations, no matter how worthless and depopulated a country is, is still one of the factors making for nuclear war. The fact that a country conquered with nuclear weapons might be nothing but a radioactive wasteland, for hundreds of years, does not necessarily deter a politician. Pakistan and India fought a war, not long ago, for a worthless piece of desert. Moreover, is much of the land the Israelis and the Arabs fought about really worth conquering?

Only the exterritorial re-organization of society would eliminate this motive for war.

See: Conquests, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Governments, Imperialism, Power, Red/Dead, Secession, State, Territorial Organization, War Aims.

Anti-communism, of the unthinking and all too common type, applying the principle of collective responsibility and considering all under communist rule, even its victims, as enemies, leads logically to nuclear weapons to "defend" us against such an imagined enemy while leaving the real menace of communism untouched.

This "defence", instead of threatening the communist regimes, does in reality strengthens them by threatening their subjects and thus driving them into the hands of their rulers, who offer them "national" defence.

Anti-communists should attack one of the Achilles Heels of communism: the fact that it threatens to exterminate the proletarians it has promised to "liberate". Whosoever "thinks" that we should wipe out all the "Reds" is threatening the survival of all red-blooded animals. All those who want to fight what they consider to be "capitalism" by threatening, what they believe to be its victims, the "proletarians", constitutes a threat not only to all proletarians but to all other innocent people as well. For decades these quite immoral and irrational threats to our survival persisted because the "enemy" was never properly defined, on either side.

See: Asylum Class Warfare, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Declarations, Defence, Desertion, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Liberation War, Nuclear Strength, Revolutionary Warfare, Socialism, Tolerance, Tyrannicide, War Aims.

The anti-man movement is presently stronger than ever before - apart from the religious eras, like the Christian one with its strong belief in "original sin". This anti-man movement upholds nationalistic, racist and economic myths, class warfare and collectivist ideas, overpopulation notions, the denouncement of rights, liberties, science, technology, progress, trade, property, profit and wealth. It shows preferences for flowers and animals in place of humans. It is responsible for all the crimes of Statism.

Whosoever most strongly represents this negative attitude has usually the least understanding of individual human rights.

Numerous books are now in print on man as the destroyer, the polluter, the arsonist, the naked ape, the territorial animal. Behaviorists try to describe him as a mere bundle of pre-programmed impulses and instincts.

All these hypotheses undermine the faith in man, what he sometimes already is, often could be or could become and thereby they weaken the belief in the rightfulness and rationality of efforts to save him.

The welfare state considers and makes persons immature. Only a free society develops

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16

and reinforces the character of a free man. Power corrupts, slavery corrupts even more and only individual liberty or laissez faire, laissez passer, releases all the creative powers of man and turns him into a sufficiently moral, rational and reasonable being.

The right to make mistakes the right to experiment, the right to secede, are essential steps in this direction.

The belief in the potential of individual rational man has to be reestablished.

See: Class Warfare, Conservation, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Ideas, Man, Overpopulation, Racism, Reason, Religion, Self-help.

Antisemitism once used the old-fashioned extermination camps extensively and is now aspiring to or has already at its disposal their concentrated essence: ABC mass murder devices. It immoral basis is the principle of collective responsibility. Collective responsibility is also behind the wrong definition of the enemy, which has led to the use and preparation of ABC devices. Survivors from the holocaust, or their descendants, now being armed with "nuclear weapons", or scientific mass extermination packages, are as much a moral obscenity as are "anti-semites" armed with such mass murder devices.

Only full autonomy for semites and anti-semites alike, as well as for non-semites, has a chance to reduce this enmity to a bearable level and would eliminate nuclear targets. That would require the elimination of all geographical and borders, of all territorialism, and its replacement by "borders" around individuals and their voluntary associations, no matter how dispersed their members live.

Only in forced association does one fear to become outnumbered and overpowered by people one considers to be aliens or enemies. When one is free to mind the own business, in all spheres, then one does not mind when others do mind their business in their ways.

In the long run these ancient animosities will anyhow disappear by individuals crossing these artificial borders, by voluntary integration or intermarriage.

A great precedent has already been set by religious liberty or tolerance - to the extent that it has been introduced and become traditional custom or habit anywhere.

As for racism: By now almost all of us are "bastards", of very mixed descent, with almost everybody related to almost everybody, if one goes back long enough. Not so long, if one takes into consideration how long man has already existed on this planet.

See: Arabs, Collective Responsibility, Exterritorial Imperative, Israel, Minority Autonomy, Racism, Religion, peace plans 200-203.

What do you do with people who elect and obey governments armed with anti-people weapons? One might rightly say that all those who take no interest in the prevention of nuclear war do not deserve to survive. Unfortunately, they are not the only one who would be killed.

"Man is so built that he cannot imagine his own death" - said Robert Heinlein in: "Stranger in a Strange Land", page 337. Thus he partly explained this apathy and the popularity of the deterrence policy.

But the threat of nuclear war is not to be apathetically accepted like a bad climate or weather - and yet this is just what most people do. No wonder: They are rendered powerless in a rather effective way. It is only too obvious that, directly, immediately and individually, they can hardly do anything directly to prevent nuclear war.

Once we accept that for one or the other reason most people are today apathetic in this respect we have to ask ourselves: What should the few non-apathetic people no? What kinds of freedom of action for all should they strive for to release everybody's creative energies rather than their destructive prejudices?

What means are available now to spread enlightenment fast?

Once that is decided upon, and convincingly conveyed, then sufficient people might be induced to drop their apathy and help to prevent nuclear war.

See : Cultural Revolution, Enthusiasm, Ideas, Ignorance, Interest, Powerlessness, Self-help.

APPEALS, PUBLIC APPEALS BY THE PEOPLE AND TO THE PEOPLE

All appeals to governments "to do something" are condemned to failure. Governments neither know what is to be done nor could they do it if they knew it.

But certain public appeals can help prevent nuclear war and promote peace generally. Such appeals can be used as "weapons", as means which could make the use of other weapons largely unnecessary - as they could bring about an extensive voluntary disarmament of the enemy's conscripts. Naturally, to be "disarming", the offers made in these appeals must really be "disarming". General aim of all such appeals is to turn one's secret allies into open and active supporters, even comrades in arms against a common enemy. Then, due to desertions, uprisings and secessions, the real and remaining enemy could be rendered relatively harmless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

Appeals, declarations, proclamations and manifestos were frequently used with great success - by generals and statesmen and, generally, the more rightful and trustworthy their contents was the more successful they were. The most famous examples are the American Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789. This "weapon" should be used in its most perfect forms, e.g. the offers made should be exclusively rightful ones.

Publicity is not a drawback but an essential feature for the effectiveness of such appeals.

The appeals must not only be made with the most extensive publicity but they must also be made long before an acute crisis, preferably years before. They must also be frequently repeated - so that almost everybody will become aware of them and reminded how to apply them in particular and foreseeable crises.

Moreover, the appeals must be made in a serious, truthful and trustworthy manner. This almost automatically excludes most governments from making any such appeals successfully.

To fulfil all these conditions the appeals must be made on a people-to-people basis, i.e., over the heads of the rulers.

There should be separate but interrelated appeals to the own people and to foreign people, separate ones to the soldiers and to the citizens among them.

There should e .g. be appeals to the own people, especially the opinion makers, to help in the prevention of nuclear war by the proclamation of a new morality, a new political cal organization, a new military constitution, a new economic system.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament by itself, if well publicized, would constitute a unique and most important appeal and so would a unilateral peace declaration.

Among the other more important public appeals, serving as non-violent "weapons" to promote peace, would be appeals e.g. to the Red Armies of Soviet Russia and Red China to cease obeying the Moscow and Peking regimes, to destroy their nuclear weapons, to conclude separate peace treaties with the Western communities, to organize themselves into exterritorial and autonomous bodies of volunteers, to send delegates who could convince themselves and their comrades of the complete destruction of all ABC weapons in the West and the sincerity of all the appeals made.

Whenever and wherever they could not disobey , resist, rise or secede successfully, they should be asked to desert at the first opportunity - to their own governments an exile or to Western exterritorial communities of their choice. ALL these associations are to offer them asylum, protection and a chance to earn their livelihood in freedom

The appeals should also encourage them, in any rightful way, to form militia units wherever they are or have to flee to.

Declarations of rightful war aims would be very important appeals to deprive soldiers on the other side of their motives to fight us. They should, in essence, declare:

In case of war we desire no conquests and no reparations from innocents. We will not attempt to dominate the people of the defeated regime or forcefully recruit them into our armies or workforces. Our aim is exclusively the introduction or reintroduction of individual human rights. We are proving this by already accepting, in peace time and, naturally, in wartime, any refugee and deserter, without infringing in the least any of his individual rights.

To be successful and predictable in their results, the appeals must be directed mainly to the moral sense, to reason and rationality and a well understood personal interest and not to ill defined feelings like nationalistic sentiments, readiness to sacrifice and subordinate oneself, religious or racial emotions. They should appeal to personal honor and courage only of those who do appreciate and respect human rights.

This would often require a prior and prolonged and extensive propaganda and enlightenment effort. One cannot deal, on an intellectual level with irrational people. But the allegiance or at least neutrality of unenlightened people could be literally bought with monetary offers made in the appeals, e.g. with prices for surrendered weapons or on the heads of tyrants, and with good and earned wages for free jobs taken up by the refugees and deserters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

Appeals to the enemy's soldiers should offer them amnesty, asylum autonomy, jobs, the alternative of a free, peaceful and just society, a society without a nuclear threat. They should assure them that they would not be treated as enemies but rather as guests and friends - if they surrendered or fled to us.

They should induce them to rise, if that is possible, and offer practical advice for this purpose, particularly advice on how to finance such an a rising.

They should appeal to them to execute their tyrants and to destroy their ABC mass murder weapons.

They should be asked to usurp and properly protect their freedom of assembly, association, expression and information and to form militias for the protection of their rights.

They should be offered a separate peace, individually and in whole units.

The appeals should induce them to avoid the usual mistakes and crimes committed in military insurrections in the past: arson, inflation, requisitioning, curfew declarations etc.

They should be asked to secede from dictatorships while keeping their arms and military organization and to organize themselves exterritorially and autonomously according to their individual ideological preferences.

Appeals ought to be directed to all the enemy regime's civilian subjects to recognize and respect individual rights and should make them realize that the realization of these rights and nothing else is our aim.

These appeals should also induce them to form or join militia units for the protection of individual rights.

They could inform them how to start, organize and finance a revolution and how to help in the destruction of their regime's nuclear devices.

The appeals should motivate them to secede from their regimes, whenever and wherever this becomes feasible, and to organize in exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers instead.

They should also be asked to reveal, as soon as possible and publicly, their peaceful and friendly intentions towards us - in a way sufficient to convince the most suspicious nationalists on our side.

See: Amnesty, Asylum, Broadcasting, Communism, Decision Declarations, Desertion, Employment, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Enlightenment, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights, Liberation War, Morality, Motives, Noncombatants, Open Air Meetings, Peace, People, Propaganda, Referendums, Secrecy, Separate Peace, Trust, Tolerance, War Aims.

ARABS: THE TERRITORIAL STATISTS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS AMONG THEM

In their extermination war against Israel (the nationalistic and socialistic state of a minority of the Jewish people) and, seeing the terrorist, totalitarian and extortionist inclinations of many of their States & movements, they will sooner or later resort to nuclear weapons - if they can get hold of them. Then they may involve all of us in nuclear war. In spite of the declarations of Egyptian rulers that they see in nuclear weapons the solution to Egypt's external affairs problems, the U.S. has now offered them the technology to produce nuclear weapons. The most powerful government which, in spite of all its powers, could not cope successfully with guerillas in Vietnam, with rioters, smugglers, tax evaders and criminals in its own country, does now pretend to be able to prevent the abuse of nuclear materials and technology in another country Some people dig their own graves believing that they are engaged in mere agricultural activities.

Nothing but the recognition of the ancient Arabic tradition that Islamic Law applies to Muslims only - wherever they may be living - and that the non-believers are to remain "condemned" to live under their own laws, would preserve us from a nuclear holocaust initiated by Near East territorial politics. This would require, among other things, fully free migration for all Arabs, even into Israel, and fully unrestric-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19

ted autonomy for all Arabs, even within the present borders of Israel. Naturally, the Israelis would have the right to insist upon this same autonomy for their own nationals or faithful. If they initiated it, they could induce the same transformation among their neighbours. They could rely for this on the numerous tangential and decentralizing and diverse forces existing among the Arabs as well as among all other peoples.

See : Antisemitism, Exterritorial Imperative, Israel, Minority Autonomy, Panarchy, Tolerance, peace plans 200 & 202.

ARBITRATION COURTS, INTERNATIONAL

International arbitration courts should be set up in advance to settle disputes which might arise between members of different exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers. The basic law they ought to apply would be an improved code of individual rights (compare peace plan 110) and Jerome Internoscia's "New Code of International Law", New York, 1910. Generally, unless otherwise agreed upon between certain communities, the particular personal law of the accuser ought to be applied, whenever not only his feelings and interests but his rights were hurt. See: Exterritorial Imperative, Panarchy.

Without making the fullest use of all reasonable peace promoting ideas and abilities, we may not achieve peace. The only way to find and fully use all these ideas and talents and to distinguish them among the multitude of others, would be to gather all of them in a central archive and register, combined with a research and information service. Rightful ideas are, potentially, the most powerful force. They can set off a constructive and enlightening chain reaction, one which can be more powerful than the destructive one of nuclear devices.

See: Education, Enlightenment., Ideas, Myths, Prejudices, PEACE PLANS Nos. 20 & 183 & compare Appx. 4.

Almost all arms races end in war. The nuclear arms race will also, as soon as the deterrence does not work strongly enough, somewhere temporarily, among some people.

"Among 1656 arms races since 650 BC no less than 1640 led to war", stated Otto Lehmann Russbueldt in: "How can we win peace?"

Nuclear power plants are part of the nuclear arms race efforts and must be destroyed as at least potential nuclear arms factories. (See a Atomic Energy.)

Most arms races feed on motives for war (See: Motives.), on territorial organization and on compulsory taxation and would stand or fall wish them. (See under the relevant headings.)

Today we need today a race to destroy all nuclear devices.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Accidental War, Decision, Defence, Disarmament, Espionage, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Secrecy, Trust, War Aims, Weapons.

Freedom of association does not yet exist because it would also mean freedom to set up e.g.:

1. New States or societies - exterritorial and autonomous ones.

2. New armed organizations for the protection of human rights.

3. New unions e .g of young or coloured people or women whenever the existing unions infringe their rights.

4. Payment associations using other than the government's currency as means of exchange and standards of value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

5. Free Trade associations.

6. Associations of experimenters who are exempt from certain laws for all their internal relations and actions.

See.: Alternative Institutions, Autonomy, Freedom of Action, Competing Governments, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Minority Autonomy, Panarchism, Parallel Institutions, Pluralism, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Unity.

Deserters and political and other refugees from dictatorships should be offered unconditional asylum and protection, upon request, everywhere. Otherwise, they are likely to be among the conscripted soldiers and workers used against us one day.

Those who surrender or destroyed a nuclear device should not only be offered asylum but also protection, a reward, and amnesty for past offences. This should apply even after they had previously been outlawed. We cannot afford to drive people with nuclear weapons to desperate steps.

See: Amnesty, Desertion, Outlawry, Refugees, Tyrannicide.

The "peaceful' use of atomic energy can lead, in the long run, to mass extermination through radioactive pollution as well as through nuclear war. It produces more radioactive materials for still more nuclear devices. It has too high an accident, sabotage and garbage disposal risk and would attract nuclear weapons in case of war.

Due to this risk, no nuclear reactor should be built or continue in operation unless it has been approved in a referendum by the people living in a circle of several hundred miles diameter around it.

People who become informed on the subject will refuse use to permit such power production. Such referendums ought to be initiated everywhere and repeated when they fail at first.

No international safeguards are likely to prevent the abuse of such facilities in case of war by a nationalistic government. Nuclear power is still uneconomic. Even if it were possible to produce it cheaper (than power could be produced by other means), the difference should be considered as an insurance premium against the risks involved. Moreover, since transmission costs make up to 95% of the cost of electricity to the consumer, it is obvious that even if nuclear energy could be produced free of charge and risk, in a few central power plants, then this would not significantly reduce the price of electricity.

The future does at present, indeed, appear to belong to nuclear power - not to us! It leaves us no future.

The following is a free version of some remarks by U. von Beckerath in a letter to Prof. H. R., 18.10.56:

"After a referendum has outlawed the use of atomic energy even for purposes of research, within the area of this decision, every nuclear installation has to be considered as an attack on the people's safety and health, an action which could be regarded as a preparation for a mass murder. Every citizen has to practise self-defence against such installations and those building or using them. Every citizen, moreover, may make preparations to practice such self-defence, It does not matter that the offender may be unconscious of the immorality and dangerousness of his actions to others. The others would still act in self-defence. The situation is similar to one in which the promoters of a new religion would consider it as a pious act to poison the water works with Prussic Acid and would refer to the fact that Prussic Acid would also be used in medicine and for various purposes in industry. I have no doubt that the people, once they are free to act, would prohibit the

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

use of atomic energy. In any case, it is extremely undemocratic that the authorities act to realize their opinions over the heads of the people. After such a referendum the concessions, granted by the authorities, will be declared invalid and those responsible will be sued for damages."

See: Decision, Democracy, Disarmament, Peaceful Use, People, Radiation Hazard, Referendum.

There is no justification for the new nuclear aristocracy which led to a situation in which a handful of men have the fate of mankind in their hands. Or is any man good enough to be rightly authorized to decide whether millions of others, whole nations or mankind, are to killed? Who was ever so authorized by all concerned, that is, by all his potential victims?

See : Centralization, Consent, Decision, Democracy, Monopoly, Power, Responsibility, Tyrannicide. On authoritarian forms of production see under: Class Warfare, Cooperatives, Hierarchical Production, Purchase of Enterprises, Unions.

"The 'ideal' of nuclear war is the complete automation of slaughter." - said Frances Hoffer. (Quoted in Peace Research Abstracts Journal, 33443.)

Automated radar and computer analyses will now often indicate within seconds or minutes whether we are being attacked or not. Sometimes these indications are wrong, due to a technical breakdown. Sooner or later one of these wrong indications will be accepted as right by one of the deciding humans. To make the right decision only minutes are available. Compare this with the fact that in Dec. 73 the astronomers of the world were wrong by a factor of 1 to 50 on size and appearance of one comet they had already observed for 3 months. Nuclear defence machinery may even automatically unleash a nuclear counterattack - to what it interprets as a nuclear attack.

See: Accidental War, Decision, Doomsday Bomb, Extermination Camps.

AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL AND VOLUNTARISTIC - FOR ALL MINORITIES AND MAJORITIES

The old type of territorial sovereignty and national independence must be replaced by full autonomy for all groups and individuals desiring it. Otherwise, the nuclear targets and motives and powers to use nuclear weapons would remain.

See: Decision, Exterritorial Imperative, Minority Autonomy, Motives Nationalism, Panarchy, Power, Secession, Self-help, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Voluntarism.

Seeing the degree of the danger, it is surprising how much the topic of nuclear war is avoided in discussions and conversations. The unpleasant, the "unthinkable" is not treated seriously until it is too late, until it happens.

Most people avoid this topic, probably because so much innovative and unconventional thinking is required to find the way out.

Avoidance of such discussions is one of the main causes for the present powerlessness of individuals. A small fraction of the attention now given to health and natural deaths would suffice to overcome this threat. A fraction of the funds now going to heart and cancer foundations or to sports activities would suffice to finance all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

research required in this sphere. See: Apathy, Cultural Revolution, Deterrence, Education, Enlightenment, Escapism, Ideas-large, Myths, Powerlessness, Prejudices, Statism.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons but indiscriminately destructive and even suicidal devices. No nuclear weapon can be safely used without harming noncombatants, not only among the enemy's subjects but also among the own fellow citizens. Radioactive fallout from each nuclear explosion finds its way all around the world. This was one of the few lessons to be learned from nuclear testing. Why was atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons banned by most governments? Precisely for the indiscriminate spread of radioactive pollution everywhere.

Nuclear weapons do not respect borders. For them there is no enemy territory to be exclusively attacked. No matter where they explode, in enemy or in friendly territory, in deserts, on the high seas, in the arctic, in New York, or in Moscow or Peking, everywhere, they will, at least to some extent, harm friends with the enemies. Never mind the motives and intentions of those who use these devices.

Due to the hardening of firing sites, or their dispersal or naval mobility, or due to interceptors or interfering broadcasts etc., it is almost certain that no surprise attack will be able to prevent a strong retaliation. This kind of backfiring does deter rational beings but this does not mean that it would always deter rulers and similar madmen.

There is always a dilemma when two sharpshooters have each other in their gun-sights and their fingers on the triggers. The guns have then the unhappy tendency to be fired even against the will of those holding them. They might as well direct their shooting against themselves. Regarding wars the situation is similar. Almost all arms races ended in wars.

But nuclear war is comparatively worse in that the own bullet will return and poison the one who shot it off. Not only will it kill the armed men, against whom it was intended (assuming it is not directed against hostages in the first place), but all his friends, relatives, acquaintances and others, who may never have met him but just happen to live in the same country. There would be no spectators either who could have fun watching fools killing themselves off, for a point of "honor" - as the spectators would also be wiped out. The situation is even worse in that the shooters do not fully realize their situation and are separated from the spectators by a wide abyss so that they cannot easily disarm these madmen.

Whosoever threatens others with nuclear weapons must expect that sooner or later the others will likewise threaten him. Two can play at that mad and criminal game, a game which is logical only at present, due to the absurd and immoral situation we find ourselves in.

See : Accidental War, Arms Race, Balance of Power, Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Fail-safe, Madmen, Motives, Noncombatants, Nuclear Strength, Radiation Hazards, Revolution, Rulers, Suicide, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tests, Weapons.

A precarious balance which, once upset, may end in total disaster, and which may easily be upset by the chances of technological advances, the uncertainties of espionage efforts, censorship and secrecy attempts, suicidal threats and the unbalance minds of excessively powerful and corrupted men, who are often deceived by their own propaganda, is an insufficient basis to base the survival of man upon.

"We cannot live forever in a world where our safety and our security depend on a

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

precarious balance of terror .... This is a balance of insanity, an immoral balance, that undermines our very claim to be civilized." - Vice President Humphrey, The Australian, 26/10/68.

The attempts to keep up an assumed balance of power caused perhaps more wars than they prevented. The best reference I found was an essay by W. G. K. Duncan: "The Balance of Power and the Preservation of Peace", in: "Paths to Peace, edited by V."H. Wallace, Melbourne University Press, 1957, pages 241-246:

"The closer one looks at balance of power, the less helpful it becomes as a maxim of statecraft, or a goal of policy. Each of its terms is vague and ambiguous. What exactly is power, and in what unit is it to be measured? Square miles of territory and density of population? Think of the helplessness of China until very recently. Industrial development? Certainly; but what sort of industries are of military significance? That depends on the technique of war. And how certain are these industries of access to the necessary raw materials in time of war? Self-sufficient United States of America and navally supreme Britain were obviously in a different category from continental powers vulnerable to blockade or military invasion. But what about counter-blockade? Might not submarines cut Britain's life line? And what limits can be set to the discovery of synthetic substitutes for raw materials? On what assumptions are any such calculations to be made in an age of increasingly rapid technological change?

"And this is only the beginning of the problem. When one comes to such subjective factors as morale, or fighting skill and spirit, stubborn endurance and ability to 'take it', political stability and reliability, how does one measure these things or assess their military equivalence? Even when military alliances have been formed, how much reliance can be placed upon them? The Allied Powers succeeded in detaching Italy from the Triple Alliance in World War I, but failed to detach her from the Axis in World War II. Britain interpreted her commitments under The Entente Cordiale as much more binding than Germany hoped they would prove to be, white the United States completely upset Germany's calculations in both world wars.

"'Balance' the other term in the phrase, turns out in practice to be equally difficult, for it is capable of contradictory interpretations. As Lowes Dickinson pointed out years ago: 'It means, on the one hand, an equality, as of the two sides when an account is balanced and, on the other hand, an inequality, as when one has a "Balance" to one's credit at the bank. The balance of power theory professes the former, but pursues the latter. It is thus, in fact, a perpetual effort to get the better of the balance; and as this effort is prosecuted on both sides, the ultimate issue is war.' ("The International Anarchy, 1904-1914", 1926, p. 4.)

"It is because power is so difficult to measure, and its constituent elements so constantly changing, that each power (or group of powers) deems it necessary to have a margin of safety on its side of the balance. But the achievement of any such margin by one power or group makes its opponents feel so insecure that they are driven to redouble their efforts to tilt the balance in their favour. Everyone must, for safety's sake, be ahead of everyone else. Hence the vicious spiral of the armament race, which itself becomes one of the factors leading to war. Balance of power turns out, in practice, to be a chimera, a myth, an ideology, a cloak to disguise the realities of foreign policy from critics, at home as well as abroad...

"Sooner or later balances of power break down, and the powers fight it outs. But, the same search for a balance starts again immediately afterwards. 'The balance has gone - long live the balance' seems to be the inescapable treadmill of competing sovereign states; or, in perhaps a more appropriate figure, 'from one slippery path to another, all leading to damnation..."

In a foreword to the same book, pages XVI / XVII, Nehru (or his ghostwriter) commented:

"The advent of thermonuclear power and the weapons of mass destruction as part of the armory of the great powers, has totally deprived the conception and policies of balance of power of any validity which it might have had, and has rendered it a menace instead of a means of security in the world of today. This is the case both in regard to the nations concerned on either side in the present bipolarity and to the rest of mankind. These weapons and the magnitude in which they will be employed have erased the differences between the capacity to inflict punishment and of receiving the same; for

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24

the side that employs them is not immune from the lethal effects of their own offence. They have no defence before the proximate and almost instant retaliation any more than the enemy had against the attack delivered on her... "There are those again who have begun to look on the hydrogen bomb and the capacity for mass destruction as a 'deterrent' to war. It may be conceded that this may be the case in the beginning and in the short term. But fear is no basis on which to build peace and, what is more, we cannot be certain that the hydrogen bomb will function as a deterrent against its use by the possessor of it, Some miscalculation panic or some internal changes within a country, and even fear overreaching itself, can trigger this force. Nothing deters global conflict thereafter … "

Even the World Federalist concept is still based on the unchecked premise of a balance of power: the idea that certain powers of States must continue to exist and cannot be abolished. Quite obviously, once all these dangerous powers are withdrawn, there would no longer be any motive for attempting to establish a lasting balance between them.

It does take a degree of mental imbalance to totally rely on the success of any balance of power politics.

See: Accidental War, Alliances, Arms Race, Deterrence Immorality, Madmen, Miscalculations, Nuclear Strength, Power, Property Concept of Citizens, World Federation.

Don't just ban the bomb; destroy it! Disgust with taxes is not enough to get rid of them. One has to know how to do without them. It's just the same with the bomb. How does one ban the bomb? Is it any easier than banning diseases, stupidity, ignorance, crime and irresponsibility? Bombs must not only be banned but physically destroyed. The governments would not even ban them. Self-help against the bombs is the only way out.

Actually, one cannot "ban" the bomb but only those producing, stockpiling and preparing to use them.

Once nuclear weapons are no longer considered as weapons then, obviously, no ban would be any longer proposed. Those holding them would destroy them themselves.

Until then, the best agency for banning or rather destroying nuclear "strength" would be a volunteer militia for the protection of human rights.

See: Decision, Destruction, Disarmament, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Outlawry, Resistance, Self-help, Tyrannicide. Compare: Demonstrations, Protests.

BASES, FOREIGN NUCLEAR STRENGTH BASES

All foreign and the own bases, which directly or indirectly promote nuclear strength, ought to be subjected to referendums and destroyed once they are condemned by them. This should also apply to communication centres, even when they are also used for peaceful purposes at present - as some of the bases are, which allow the more accurate positioning and targeting of nuclear submarines.

All nuclear armed allied troops should be sent home. According to an article by Ian Moffitt in: The Australian, 3/9/71 , there are at least 28 secret bases in Australia and its territories. Australia is simply considered as 'a large empty aircraft carrier, available for use.'

Naturally, all nuclear weapons of one's own national government and all plants for their construction should also be destroyed - by the people themselves or under their supervision and that of the world public.

In short : All primary nuclear targets should be abolished. They invite and provoke nuclear attack. They are inherently aggressive.

See: Alliances, Atomic Energy, Defence, Disarmament, Referendums.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

BET, THE ULTIMATE BET

Many people who would not even bet a few dollars on a dog or a horse race are, nevertheless, among the worst gamblers - by having bet their lives and that of their families on their conviction that nuclear war will not occur. Rational men would hedge their bets but in this respect very few have, We are all walking willingly to the "Final Solution" furnaces, betting that they are only delousing chambers.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Decision, Deterrence, Enlightenment, Ideas-large, Myths, Powerlessness, Reason.

BIGNESS, WRONG IDEAS ON THE VALUE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BIGNESS

Most people uncritically assume anything very large and powerful to be also very valuable and effective. But going e.g. after tyrants with anti-people weapons is no more effective than artillery fire against sparrows.

An effective weapon against a tyrant need not even be as large as his heart - and only one heart makes him tick. The weapon which could make it stop need not be powered by anything stronger than a human arm.

The weapons which could prevent a thousand ready slaves from following their tyrant any longer could be as small as words are.

The larger and blunter a cutting instrument is the more useless it becomes, e.g. for cutting out a brain tumor. No surgeon could do it with an axe or high explosive. Killing the patient would also get rid of the tumor but it would hardly be a moral or efficient way. Tyrants cannot be wiped out by nuclear devices without also killing all too many of his victims. But a single dagger or bullet could do the trick. See: Centralization Decentralization, Defence Desertion Discriminating Warfare, Governments Myths, Rationalism, Nuclear Strength, Power, Revolutionary Warfare, Tyrannicide, Weapons.

Governments restrict numerous basic rights by laws and regulations and they do not even have any or a halfway complete and consistent paper bill of rights in their constitutions to prevent this.

Good bill of rights codes attempt to settle what basic rights no government of whatever persuasion may interfere with (unless they are exterritorial ones restricting only the rights of their voluntary members with their full individual consent) and allow us to realize and extend these rights.

A completed bill of rights, protected by an armed citizenry, would contain many basic rights which would help prevent nuclear war:

The right to trade, travel and migrate freely, the right to bear arms, organize and train for the protection of human rights, the right to resist and revolt against oppression the right to secede as an individual, the right to associate exterritorially, the right to remain neutral, the right to participate in nuclear disarmament and other war and peace decisions, the right to refuse paying taxes, the right to refuse acceptance of a dictator's deteriorated paper money and the right to issue or accept sound alternative exchange media and value-standards instead.

Such human rights declarations ought to be included in all constitutions - at least as basic codes for international if not for internal conduct. Citizens, public servants and militiamen ought to swear to abide by them as their highest law.

See: Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Freedom of Action, Freedom to Experiment, Free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Militia, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Voluntary Taxation - and the anthology of about 100 PRIVATE human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589/590.

Apart from technical detection, prevention and destruction measures and financial steps, the same preventive measures apply as for nuclear weapons.

See : Collective

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

Responsibility, Control, Decision, Disarmament, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Individual Responsibility, Inspection, Militia, Motives, Power, Targets, Weapons.

BLACKMAIL, NUCLEAR

If any community is threatened by a blackmailing and nuclear armed government then it should formally surrender, preferably even before the first nuclear weapon is used against it, That means that all official military resistance would have to cease, The fight would then have to be continued on another level, that of revolution, tyrannicide and military insurrection, among the occupation forces and the home forces of the enemy government. If preparations for such a resistance are far advanced and this fact is made well known to dictatorial rulers then this would severely dampen their aggressive spirits - and it would promote their overthrow.

See: Crime, Surrender.

No blockade in war or peace! Their common premise with nuclear war is collective responsibility and it feeds on and supports this immoral and all too popular fallacy.

Trade with the enemy's subjects but not with him - as far as this is possible.

Offer his subjects and victims food, clothing and medicines, either in exchange or as a loan or even as a present. Sell or lend them, sometimes, weapons to be used against their and our enemy.

In some instances it would even be wise to supply his troops with food and medicine to soften them up and ready them for uprisings, fraternization, surrender or desertion. (Wrongful blockades are still all too common. Instead of executing Saddam Hussein, Western troops killed masses of his conscripts and kept food and medicines from his civilian victims. As a result, according to some estimates, a million innocent people died and these indirect killings continue and hardly inconvenience this dictator and his henchmen. - J.Z., 12.10.01.)

Although not usually classed and recommended as such, a tax strike, combined with a refusal to accept a government's paper money, could well serve as a rightful and sensible blockade of the real enemy, one which would have to be practised mainly by subjects against their own oppressors.

Under armed protection by newly formed local militias and after taking precautions, so that the militia itself would be able to continue essential payments, this kind of blockade could blockade a dictator better than most others. Other blockade measures are not likely to prevent nuclear war or to promote peace, on the contrary.

See: Boycotts, Free Trade, Monetary Freedom, Revolutionary Warfare, Tax Strike.

BOMBING, AIR RAIDS

All heavy bombing, especial area or carpet bombing, is, in its effects, all too similar to the use of nuclear devices, namely, capable only of indiscriminate murder and destruction. An exception are the recently developed "smart" bombs. But they are by far not as smart as yet as they are said or believed to be. If they were, then they might be useful even for tyrannicide.

Thus all ordinary bombs and bombers usable only for carpet bombing and, naturally, all heavy aircraft, which could be used for the transport of nuclear weapons, ought to be rendered unusable or, if necessary, ought to be destroyed.

Until all nuclear "weapons" are destroyed we have to go back to relatively slow and small aircraft, small helicopters, gyrocopters and small private planes. Seeing the threat posed by biological and chemical mass murder devices we might have to do without these as well, while we allow this threat to continue.

The great losses in transport capacity and time savings would be more than offset by the greater security. Anyhow, we have now rapid trains and e-mail. We can't go on indefinitely as if the nuclear war threat did not really exist. Instead of trying to develop Star War capacity, we ought to aim at destroying all rocket delivery capacities for ABC mass murder devices. That can be achieved by fully collaborating with the victims of all dictatorships, including most of their conscripts.

See: Aircraft, Air Raids, Carpet Bombing, Collective Responsibility, Disarmament, Discriminatory Warfare, Indiscriminate Warfare, Rockets, War Aims, Weapons.

Those who made and use nuclear devices are best protected against counterattacks and thus least deterred. Those who have nothing to do with their production and

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

use are threatened most. Nuclear devices are anti-people "weapons" or mass murder devices, in a situation where the people are rendered powerless and helpless, The bomb-makers and users would be rightful targets but even they could not be safety be attacked with nuclear weapons without hurting innocents. They have to be rendered harmless in other ways.

See: Amnesty, Asylum, Decision, Deterrence, Disarmament, Militia, Prize-money, Referendums, Resistance, Revolution, Rulers, Secession, Tyrannicide, War Aims

People tend to react only to immediate and temporary dangers. They get accustomed to large and persistent ones, and do even get bored with them, especially when they cannot imagine a way out. How else could one explain the current apathy towards growing government powers, aggressive acts of communists and towards the nuclear threat? Children have only a very short attention span on almost all subjects. That of adults is comparatively onger but it does not last either, for decades, at full strength, with them. This also helps to explain the current attitudes towards statism, totalitarian communism and nuclear holocaust. People got accustomed even to slavery, oppression and tributes - especially when they come not under terms like "taxation", "selective service", "compulsory schooling" and "general franchise". They would no longer be bored by such problems once they became liberated to act themselves and directly against such dangers. So far their State-controlled "education" does not include lessons on such freedom options and this organized miseducation will probably never include such lessons.

See a Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Enlightenment, Enthusiasm, Freedom of Action, Ideas -large, Ignorance, Powerlessness, Secession.

Ambrose Bierce, in his: "The Devil's Dictionary", defined a boundary as: "in politics, the imaginary ine between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of the other."

Boundaries in today's military "thinking" define the "enemy" and "targets" large enough to make people think of using nuclear mass destruction and mass murder devices against them. Without such boundaries nuclear weapons would be useless, as useless as they are for fighting criminals in a large city.

Nuclear devices appear suitable only against a large collective enemy located in a large separate territory which is exclusively his own, i.e., against the practice of the "national unity" myths, expressed and upheld by coercive boundaries and imposed laws and governments.

Under full freedom for territorial secessions new boundaries would multiply so much and political units would become so small that many of them might become excluded as nuclear targets, except, perhaps, for the smallest nuclear mass murder devices, those called "tactical nukes".

But boundaries and the danger they bring with them could be fully removed not by multiplication but by individual exterritorial secessions only, or you will, by allowing everyone to draw a boundary around himself, his companions and his property, no matter where he has chosen to live at his own expense. Even mini-States can be despotically governed and could be expanded into empires. Compare the history e.g. of Athens, Sparta and Rome and that of the British Empire. Even within the U.K. some fighting still continues because neither all the Irish nor all the Scottsh and Welsh people, not to speak of all the other kinds of dissenters, have attained, even there, all the liberties they desire for themselves. Territorialism cannot offer it for widely desired territorial subdivisions have their dissenters, too. Enforced territorial unity can at most achieve temporary armistices - and it breads revolutionaries and terrorists.

See : Collective Responsibility, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Governments, Nationalism, Rights, Rulers, Secession, Territorial Organization, Targets, Unity, Weapons.

Boycott nuclear powers, i.e., make no alliances with them, Grant them no bases. Boycott all engaging in nuclear power "games" - apart from counter-propaganda efforts, which should go on - and refuse also to pay for nuclear armaments. Don't in any way give the consent of the victim to any preparations for the nuclear holocaust.

See: Alliances, Bases, Decision, Employment, Freedom of Action, Powerlessness, Referendum, Secession, Tax Strike, Uranium Mining.

At any time some "strategic" bombers are in the air and some IBM rockets on the ready. The warning time in the U. K. is supposed to be down to 2 minutes, according to some even to 20 seconds. Thus we are on the brink all the time now and could got from an unstable "peace" or armistice to a nuclear holocaust very rapidly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

Under the nuclear strength and deterrence policy every incident involves brinkmanship.

"Only men of small worth would ever have let things drift this far. And if they were such small men they wouldn't have the humility to, draw back now" - said Lauran Paine in: "This Time Tomorrow", World Distributors, London 1963.

A comprehensive listing of all those occasions, at which nuclear threats were made so far, might go far to help overcome apathy towards the nuclear threat As much secrecy surrounds these events that often we have no more than speculations and suppositions to mark these occasions. The following list is very incomplete.

Years ago I saw once a survey listing about 12 such events. Most of them were revealed only much later, years later, if at all. Thus, those condemned to die through the use of nuclear "weapons", without having been accused of anything, without having had a hearing, may hear of their death sentence only when it is already too late, when they are already being exterminated as if they were a pest.

During the Korean War Gen. McArthur was supposed to have been dismissed by Truman for his intention to use nuclear weapons against North Korea.

In the Cuba Crisis the threats with nuclear weapons were rather openly committed by both sides.

The Hungarian revolutionaries, it has been said, were isolated from their Western sympathizers by nuclear threats made by the Soviet Regime.

The 1955 dispute for the Quemoy and Matsu islands involved a US nuclear armed fleet.

"The Eisenhower Administration offered in 1954 to sell France four atomic bombs for use in a last ditch defence of its embattled forces at Dien Bien Phu, a leading U.S. aerospace magazine reported yesterday." - The Australian, 1/9/71.

The 1967 Arab/Israel Six Day War involved nuclear threats , and so did the 1973/4 Arab/Israel war.

Several Berlin Crises brought us to the brink and were possibly only stopped by threats of massive nuclear retaliation.

Please add your information and suspicions on this subject.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Accidental War Automated Warfare, Censorship, Decision, Deterrence, Nuclear Strength, Power, Retaliation.

Under government control broadcasting is more an instrument of war than of peace. The Nazi's use of broadcasting was one of the worst examples but even the BBC's broadcasting on Rhodesia's UDI went pretty far towards advocating aggression. (I was pleased to hear on the grapevine that British air force officers, in talks among themselves, had agreed to refuse orders to attack Rhodesia's white regime. Alas, Unilateral Declarations of Independence for ALL people in Rhodesia, were not part of the public debate.)

"One must bear in mind that throughout the last seven thousand years of human history the twenty large empires and hundreds of little empirettes were held together mainly by control of all major systems of communication.' - said Dagobert D. Runes in his excellent "Handbook of Reason", page 105.

We shouldn't let broadcasting be monopolized, taxed or licenced any longer. We should introduce freedom in the airwaves and should tolerate no censorship of any kind except self-censorship.

Without freedom in broadcasting we could not easily come to an agreement with the people on the other side, over the heads of our rulers, building up trust between them and us, enough for common action against the threat of nuclear war.

Moreover, without free broadcasting bringing e.g., numerous specialized talk-back shows, public opinion cannot be changed rapidly enough to remove all other institutional and mental obstacles to peace.

See: Cultural Revolution, Declarations Enlightenment, Ignorance, Negotiations, Open Air Speaking Places, Peace Declarations, People, Publicity, Referendums, Trust, War Aims, peace plan 249.

COULD CRIMINALS GET THEIR HANDS ON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES?

CRIMINALS, OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, DO ALREADY HAVE THEIR HANDS ON ALL OF THEM!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29

Whosoever talks of the brotherhood of man has probably no brothers or has never seen brothers fighting. The utopia of brotherly love between all humans need not be realized - if only we learn to concede justice to each other, whether we are brothers or not.

Brotherhood is dangerous if enforced and beneficial only if it leads to the toleration of diversity and to justice between the various independent groups, each practising one or the other degree of "brotherly love" within the group. In short, it can be achieved only by individual secessionism, for even brothers disagree and have the right to disagree. They need not love each other - as long as they leave each other alone.

See: Alliances, Appeals, Declarations, Diversity, Freedom, Human Rights, Justice, Love, Negotiations, People, Referendums, Rights, Separate Peace, Segregation, Selfishness, Tolerance, Trust, Unity, War Aims, World Federation.

Only bureaucrats can conceive of and prepare for a nuclear war. If your life span continues to be administered by a handful of bureaucrats, what chances do you have?

Bureaucrats, whether they are in or out of the armed forces, by their very nature, cannot prevent nuclear war nor do they even want to. Their whole thinking is conditioned to consider only attempts to solve everything with power and if this proves to be difficult, then they are always inclined to use not less or no power at all but instead more and more concentrated power. The nuclear threat does perhaps best illustrate the absurdity of this attempt - but this has not deterred the bureaucrats as yet or induced them to use their underdeveloped reasoning powers. Nor is it likely that they will do so in the future.

See : Decision, Governments, Leadership, Monopolies, Power, Rulers, Self-help, Secession.

Canals, like the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal, should not be subjected to national control but rather to an open access system - similar to the principle of the High Seas. They should be treated as if they were scarce natural resources of a monopolistic kind. The owners and investors in such a canal should only be entitled to the free market prices of their services no matter who would use them. Canals would then cease to be objects of contention between opposed States, Moreover, without obstacles and threats by national governments, another Suez and another Panama Canal would probably have been built long ago.

See: Nationalism, Natural Resources, Open Cooperatives.

Capitalism is not one of the causes of but one of the major cures for the threat of nuclear war. Why is it peace promoting? Because in essence it means nothing but fully free and competitive production and trade - based on private property rights and the absence of monopolies - and both are inherently peaceful, without any privileges, and powers over others. Thus it offers only advantages to all involved. Only when capitalism becomes mixed with State power does its State power aspect become dangerous to others. As somebody once said:; To call our present system capitalistic is a slander of capitalism. It amounts to more or less fascistic or communistic rule over "free" enterprises and "free" people.

Only if one defined, with Ulrich von Beckerath, the present situation, popularly called capitalistic, as one in which most people don't know much about their own important affairs and are not even

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

interested in them, could one attack this situation as war promoting. But this has nothing to do with capitalism as an ideal, as the unknown ideal which Ayn Rand described in her works. Compared with the ideal capitalism, this kind of "capitalism" is nothing but a misnomer.

See: Cooperative Production Economic Freedom, Free Migration, Free Trade, Greed, Human Rights, Investments, Laissez Faire; Monopolies, Profit, Property, Purchase of Enterprises, Self-help, Socialism, Welfare State.

CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION OF ALL CAPTIVE NATIONS.

"You cannot have freedom until the captive nations are free." - Mr. Darby, MLA, 9/72.

Captive nations increase the threat of nuclear war in at least four ways:

1. They provide the manpower which seemingly can be defeated only with nuclear devices.

2. Their uprisings might be countered with nuclear weapons and this could involve outside nuclear powers.

3. There are good reasons for being afraid of any regime which suppresses whole nations and only the most

"powerful and modern" weapons seem strong enough against such empires.

4. The suppressed nations themselves might, out of nationalistic hatreds, use clandestine nuclear weapons against

their oppressors.

No captive nation has any worthwhile chance to see liberation through nuclear war or even to survive it. To have a good chance for liberation and to avoid the danger of nuclear holocaust, they must be re-defined as minority or majority groups which have the right to full exterritorial autonomy on a voluntaristic and personal law basis but no right at all to rule over dissenters. Free secession from all nation states, including forme