I've got an awful lot of time for Kate Hudson, chairwoman of CND and an implacable opponent not just of the aggression against Iraq, but of NATO's equally unlawful and immoral aggression against Yugoslavia too.
But I do feel that Kate is mistaken when she claims in today's Morning Star: "North Korea has the mistaken idea that having nuclear weapons will increase its security. This is wrong. Nuclear weapons do not make a country safer."
Sadly, they do. Not a single country that possesses nuclear weapons has ever been attacked in a conventional military manner. It doesn't mean that the country is safe from all attacks- as 9-11 showed- but it does mean that no other country is going to launch a full scale military invasion or rain bombs down on your cities.
If Yugoslavia had possessed nuclear weapons, NATO would not have launched hostilities in 1999. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons, it too would not have been attacked. We can call Kim Jung-il many things. But he understands well the lessons of deterrence.
UPDATE: That avid reader of this blog, Stephen Pollard, argues that the above argument is wrong and that the Hezbollah missiles fired at Israel this summer are evidence that nuclear weapons do not prevent states from attack. http://www.stephenpollard.net/002964.html
Wow, I guess he must be right. The attack on Israel was really massive wasn't it- all of 44 civilians killed and some structural damage in Haifa and Tyre. And of course, it was entirely unprovoked. If Stephen really does believe that nuclear weapons don't make a state secure, then why does he support Israel having them? Perhaps he could let us know in his next Times Thunderer....