Australian Red Cross CEO Robert Tickner reports International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have resolved to oppose the use of nuclear weapons (Letters, 14 December) – even though, of course, Red Cross has always opposed the immorality of war. None would disagree with this latest Red Cross/Red Crescent “anti-nuclear” resolution.
Unfortunately, the truth is that no charity on earth can prevent the outbreak of nuclear war or any other sort of war: what prevents the use of nuclear weapons in war is the knowledge that all countries may either manufacture or access such weapons. Indeed, it keeps “nuclear” peace between nations. At the same time, it should be noted that Red Crescent operates in some thirteen Arab countries and societies in the Middle East, all subservient to the nuclear-happy government of Iran which continually threatens nuclear war against the United States and Israel. Does Mr Tickner really believe Red Crescent has the power to stop Iran (and Pakistan) using nuclear bombs and missiles at will?
If Red Cross and Red Crescent really were peace-seeking bodies, why not join the United States and Israel in a declaration calling on Islamic terrorist nations to put down their nuclear arms – or face the consequences? Where would Mr Tickner stand on this ultimatum? Certainly, I understand very well Lady Macbeth’s urging her husband to “Be bloody, bold, and resolute”; better a truthful and deadly warning than words, words, words.
Dr Paul Fidlon,
Armidale
