If you want an out of the box solution see Schawrz and Derber’s “The Nuclear Seduction: Why The Arms Race Doesn’t Matter and What Does”. They critique what they refer to as “weaponitis” and the standard calls for the abolition of nukes, of the they type to which you refer, they would see as being manifestations of weaponitis. From there you can construct an out of the box solution.

The entire book is online at
http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft1n39n7wg&brand=ucpress

They would argue for deep seated underlying structural reforms to the system of international relations.

Perhaps the solution is simple; democracy. See Robert Dahl on guardianship and nuclear weapons; see Janne Nolan on The Guradians of the Arsenal; see Kosta Tsipis in his “Arsenal”. See the book “The Amatuer Strategist”.

All suggest that nuclear weapons is by and large entrusted to and justified by a narrow technocratic elite who basically share the same perceptions and these perceptions are one’s that are not necessarily shared by the public.

So, if actual nuclear weapons policy was made accountable to the public in the nuclear weapon states, including the US, we would get abolition.

See if that out of the box solution flies.

From Australia’s website: The Government has approved the deployment of approximately 4000 Australian Defence Force personnel to 11 operations overseas and within Australia to protect Australia and its national interests.

Iraq (1540); Afghanistan (1025); Solomon Islands (140); Timor-Leste (750); Sinai Peninsula, Egypt (25); Australia’s offshore maritime areas (450); Australia’s Northern Territory (105); Australia will host a military pilgrims festival to be attended by the Pope (0); Sudan (*15); Israel/Lebanon (*12); Timor Leste (*4).

* designates a UN mission.

From the UN website: At March, Australia had supplied a total of 107 personnel to ongoing UN peacekeeping missions. 75 police, 23 military observers and 9 troops.

Perhaps Australia shouldn’t aspire to an independent defence policy, with the type of military spending that commitment entails. It should instead join with other states.

Interestingly France is in the midst of preparing a new defence policy, which is said to propose considerable downsizing.

It is “of course the security of Europe that is at stake,” [the president] added.

“It is a fact that France’s nuclear forces by their very existence are a key element in its security,” he said, urging Europe to join “an open dialogue on the role of deterrence and its contribution to our common security.”

But Sarkozy said France would continue with its commitment to the goal of global nuclear disarmament.

(Trackback to http://www.banthebomb.org/blog/comments.php?aid=908)