No nuclear bombs for Iran
Regarding the question of the bomb. We believe, as a matter of religious teaching, that we must be against any form of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The production and the usage of nuclear weapons is one of the most abhorrent acts to our eyes.
In addition, we also believe that the atomic bomb has lost its use in political affairs, in fact. The time for a nuclear bomb has ended. Whoever who invests in it is going the wrong way.
Was a nuclear bomb able to help keep the Soviet Union intact and prevent its downfall? Was it able to bring victory for the United States either in Afghanistan or Iraq? Can it be used to that end? Can the nuclear bomb save the Zionist regime?
The time for bombs of that nature has ended. It is a time of thought, a time for culture and reason to prevail.
Iran's President Ahmadinejad speaking at the United Nations
No nuclear bombs for anybody...
Australia to host first nuke talks
By Sandra O'Malley The Australian September 26, 2008
AUSTRALIA will host the first meeting of a new international commission aimed at eradicating the spread of atomic weapons, following a bleak past decade for the cause of nuclear disarmament.
In New York, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Japan's new leader, Taro Aso, officially launched the International Commission for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, to be co-chaired by former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi.
Today, their 13 fellow commissioners were revealed, including former US defence secretary William Perry and former Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas.
They are part of a group comprising former politicians, military strategists and disarmament experts.
The first meeting of the commission, which is due to report in early 2010, will be held in Sydney from October 19 to 21, and is one of around six planned over the next few years.
The new body has been set up with the intention of co-ordinating international talks ahead of a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010.
"The task is to develop the political and policy consensus necessary during the period ahead to make the non-proliferation treaty review conference, due in 2010, a success and, more broadly, to advance the nuclear disarmament agenda," Mr Rudd said.
Mr Aso said that given Japan's history, it wanted to take a concrete approach to achieving nuclear disarmament.
"As the only country to have experienced bombing (with) a nuclear weapon, Japan has over the years taken a realistic and concrete approach towards the target of realising a nuclear weapon-free world," he said.
Mr Evans said he hoped the commission would be able to re-energise the nuclear debate after a bleak period for those advancing a disarmament view.
"The last 10 years have been fairly desolate ones for the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda," he said.
"I think we are seeing signs of a new momentum developing ... What this commission can do is energise a new debate at a high political level, which is what's really been missing."
He promised the report, to be released ahead of the NPT review conference, would be "hard-headed and realistic".
Some of the issues the commission will examine include the emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear-armed states outside the NPT, as well as Iran's development of proliferation sensitive nuclear activities, which was occurring while it was a member of the treaty.
"One of the things this commission must focus really hard on doing is finding solutions that can actually work for the three elephants that are outside the room, that is India, Pakistan and Israel," Mr Evans said.
In 2006, India struck a historic deal with the US, giving it access to American uranium and nuclear technology in return for international inspections of its civilian reactors.
Mr Evans was dismissive of the deal as relatively weak, saying it placed no restrictions on India producing fissile material or even testing weapons.
But he admitted it was at least a precedent "for some kind of formal discipline" on a nuclear armed state outside the NPT.
"It's widely acknowledged that if this is to be a precedent for the future, it's going to have to be dramatically strengthened if it's going to have viable and relevant utility elsewhere.
"But it's a way forward and we shouldn't be too pessimistic."
