Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS

Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments

Muhammad in Pakistan writes:
Reagrding nuclear issue, no country should have it...because always it will be for destruction not for construction.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

CR in Virginia writes:

@ Troy -- The only reason our troops are being killed in Iraq is because we decided to invade their country. It is THEIR country and they should have the right to run it as they please. We are the only ones that should NOT be there and if we do not want our troops killed all we need to do is GET OUT!

@ Paulo -- You highlighted the most coherent truth when you said, "In democracy there are not imposition of the values or concepts but respect for the divergences".

So, let us just allow other countries decide what is best for them.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Ariana in Virginia writes:
Democracy is respect!
We preach "democracy" but our actions demonstrate DESPOTISM. How can we believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech when we negate other countries of this right? We are not superior, our ways are not "better", democracy is not the icon of government, Muslim, Christianity, Judaism, are not "the truth" -- It is all on the eye of the beholder!
This means, mind your own business because you cannot force others to act and live in accordance with your own views.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

@ Marlene in California -- You are the most ignorant person on the face of earth and your posting earned you the title of "the biggest scum in society".

Because of irrational people like you, most Americans are hated all over the world. You are a disgrace to our country!

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Xan in Romania writes:
The problem isn't who should be allowed to possess nuclear technology, but who should be the judge of that? The answer is obvious, not USA.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Eric in New Mexico writes:
"What should determine who should be allowed to possess nuclear technology and who should not?"
To those concerned,
I'd venture a guess as this may be determined by why they want it.
What motivates them, what intent to implement its usage, the character and trustworthiness of (call it willful transparency if you wish) of a nation’s leadership, their relations within the family of nations, the people's support and voice in the matter, the reciprocal trust of the international community and its attendant agencies all must be taken into account.
I speak of the peaceful aspect to nuclear power in the above.
Whereas it concerns proliferation of nuclear arms, materials, tech. expertise, equipment, and related financial backing:
There can be no excuse for the international community, or a partnership of nations even, to fail to act decisively in defense of people's right to live in peace, even if it involves military action and/or regime replacement therapy for a dysfunctional and willfully dangerous mindset that would place global peace and security at risk as well as the populations they are putting in harm's way.
Why on this blue Earth do We, the People (humanity in this case), put up with terrorism and the states that sponsor them let alone allow anyone to build a nuclear power plant in an earthquake prone area between two tectonic plates? (I hope Mr. Putin gets this, because 800 mil to build is chump change to the cost of another Chernobyl.)
Never mind the fact that the fuel may be "returned to sender" with a bang.
Oh, "we have rights." we're told by those that also say they would see nations "wiped off the map".
I say to Aminidejad "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", and I'm sure folks in the U.S. government can see the point I'm trying to drive home and park in the UN's garage.
Folks, we have a test case on our hands.

So I decided to ask a question that has only begun to be answered, no disrespect intended:
-------
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ask/69001.htm
Eric from Santa Fe, New Mexico writes:
Dear Under Secretary Joseph,

General Omar Bradley once said, "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants, we know more about war than we do about peace, more about killing than about living."

Mine is a philosophical question:

At what point does the international community determine that the ethical infant’s diapers need changing, as the smell of ill intent has become all too overwhelming and noxious to Humanity? Or will ethical infants like the leaders of Iran and North Korea be allowed to remain in power to "dump" on civilization at a time of their choosing?

I've noted that the diplomatic attempts at "behavior change" have only resulted in temper-tantrums, at the expense of global peace and security. But as my granddad worked with Oppenhiemer on the Manhattan project, and these issues are thus quite personal to me, I'd like to personally thank everyone involved globally seeking solutions to these problems, as well as the building of consensus among nations to address these issues in concrete terms.

Under Secretary Joseph:

As in Omar Bradley's time, the United States continues to offer the world ethical leadership, dedicated to partnerships that lead to lasting international peace and security, as well as to the development of democratic governments and the rule of law. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism will build on Secretary Rice’s vision of transformational diplomacy by building consensus among partner nations regarding our most serious international security threat, and galvanize them to take concrete and sustained steps to defeat it.
-------
Here's an outside "box 1663" perspective:
It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. In secret.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possession, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.

The question this thread was based upon was a question of parameters, not philosophy.
But without philosophy how can one define these parameters? Or find perspective?
I find the narrow parameters used today to define a right of a nation to nuclear technology are not adequate to today's world, for what should be self evident reasons.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Jennsy in China writes:
Two choices:
NO one can have it; Everyone can have it.
So, if you want to forbid others have it, first, drop yours.

Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007

Fletcher in Minnesota writes:
@ Robert in Arizona --

You seem to be suggesting that the only countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons are countries which will not use them.

If a weapon has no potential for use, why should anyone have it? (I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your views, just raising the point that obviously follows from your views)

@ Robert in Ohio --

The bombing of Japan, while regrettable in many ways, almost certainly saved huge numbers of lives in the long run. It preempted the need for an invasion of mainland Japan, as many know, which would have been extremely costly on both sides. What I think is overlooked, however, is that with the advent of nuclear weaponry in America and the research being conducted elsewhere, it's incredibly unlikely that the world would have abandoned the idea had we not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That assumed, it seems to me far more likely that a full-scale nuclear war would have erupted sometime in the 1950's or 1960's, had there not been such clear examples of the human costs of using those types of weapons. As it was, enough people seemed eager to use them in those decades, and I doubt cooler heads would have prevailed were there not such examples. Any nuclear conflict occurring in the 1950's or 1960's would have proven much more costly than the end of our war with Japan.

The recent increase in nuclear states is disturbing primarily because these new nuclear states may be more willing to use these weapons than the US and the USSR ever were. The only upside to proliferation, awful as it may be, is that we'll all be reminded of how terrible nuclear weapons are the next time someone decides to drop one on a city, and afterward hopefully we'll find cooler heads prevailing on this issue once again.

Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007

Dipnote Blogger Frederick Jones writes:
@ Ali in Singapore -- Ali, we understand that some people have had problems with the size, and color, of the font on the site. We are working now to figure out what works best. You may have noticed that we've already increased the font size for the comments. You will probably see more changes in the near future.

Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007

Hey there.

Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007

Joannes in Brazil writes:
To hear the persons it is a thing completely different of to do what all they want that you (govern) do. Being the USA, everybody, around the world, they want to give ideas. But, in politic, ideas and action can live each one in your world. What will you do with all opinions? Thank you and sorry my terrible English!

Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007

Steve in Maryland writes:
The rules for nuclear technology are clear in international law and custom. Sign the treaties, play by the rules, get along, prosper. Fail to sign the treaties, fail to play by the rules, and you get two clear outcomes: 1. sanctions and approbation from the international community, and 2. targeting from those countries that possess nuclear weapons. While I wish it weren't so, the nuclear genie is long out of the bottle and will not be re-stoppered. If a nation chooses to impoverish itself to join the nuclear club, whether for energy or defense, it must also choose to play by the nuclear club rules - no more denial, no more obfuscation and no more silly chatter about history - it's the varsity of foreign policy, plain and simple. If you have reactors, enrichment plants or nuclear weapons, you can't run around making inflammatory statements about history or other people without expecting to incur some level of global derision, rejection and risk. The nuclear powers have co-existed successfully for fifty-eight years because they take it seriously; deadly seriously.

Posted on Sun Sep 30, 2007

Robin in Romania writes:
@ -- Robert in Ohio

I agree with you Robert.

I believe an international organization such as IAEA should should handle this matter, not particular countries. Furthermore, there should be some strict, regulated punishment for any country that crosses the line. I say that they need to be regulated because some major incidents may occur, due to diplomacy. For instance, let's just say that some country breaks the international rules. US might agree on some harsh punishment. Russia might not. How about that?
This has happened before, on other matters.

Tracking such materials is difficult because not all governments feel they should be opened towards public and the UN, especially when they are exporting nuclear technology.

@ -- everyone who is critical of the U.S. for bombing Japan

I agree with Robert in Ohio. The bombs ended the war. Millions of people no longer died, especially in Japan. Russia was on its way to develop the bomb. Germany was rather close to chemical warfare. There are countless examples of such events and facts. Keep that in mind. Also, keep in mind that Germany, Italy and Japan started the war.

Posted on Sun Sep 30, 2007

Wang in China writes:
I think that the countries, which possess a real aspiration to make her people and the human all around the world live more happily and peacefully, can have the right to develop her nuclear energy. But weapons, especially nuclear weapons, are in no situation righteous.

Posted on Sun Sep 30, 2007

IR in China writes:
That's right
The final mission is for the human's peace.

Posted on Sun Sep 30, 2007

Kyle in Missouri writes:
It seems that SOME of you do not understand many of the aspects of Nuclear Weaponry.

First-Mutually Assured Destruction. I have them(nukes)and you have them, I guarantee if you shoot and kill me, I will do the same to you. This has not changed even since the Cold War, we still have 2 man crews in capsules buried in the Great Plains ready to "Turn The Key" if ordered. Our fellow nuclear powers know this. It is called Deterrence. It has worked beautifully. We're all still here.

Second-The "Nuclear Genie" is out of the bottle. It will never be put back in. To think it will be is naive, unrealistic,and only complicates the discussion, leading to distraction of the real issues.

Third- The only "powers" that would use Nuclear weapons are extremists. I.E. Iran, Chavez, and the like. The U.S. would only use them in a "Must" type scenario. This logic holds true, or we would have used them already(as in Korea). I believe this applies for all Nuclear Capable nations at the present time.

Now, Mutually Assured Destruction in my opinion has worked only because our counterparts with nukes value life as much as we, and are fully aware of the consequences of using such weapons. No doubt that this is not the case in the Nations that are trying to get Nukes. They would use them, and somehow twist their version of reality to blame it on the US.

The United States of AMERICA is far from being a perfect nation. BUT we have helped more people on this planet than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED. That somehow gets lost in the arguement doesn't it? If other leading nations would help out in the world, maybe it wouldn't seem like we are trying to "Dominate" the globe. So, with that in mind, Lets try something. Pull all US forces from everywhere in the world back to the mainland U.S. Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, everywhere. Watch the Global situation then. Then, when the US refuses to help you out, maybe this would all make sense to those that hate the US.

No one else NEEDS Nuclear Weapons. The world doesn't NEED anymore. That club is full.

Posted on Sun Sep 30, 2007

Shaw in Sino writes:
Who can explain the reason that the 6 soldiers died in a series of mysterious accidents?
Who can explain the reason that the 6 six nuclear missiles were hang on the B-52 bomber out of president's control?
Is this a responsible and Rational country?
What if the pilot Fire the bomb to America or even the other country like Sino, Russia?

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Peter in South Africa writes:
i don't think that their can be a method of determining who is good and who is bad. you can have a country that for a long time has been stable etc....and all it takes is some bad guy to come to power and then you have a real problem in the region. (particularly if the other surrounding countries don't have the nuclear weapons.) like wise, organizations like the UN are not effective (as can be seen where the US went to war in Iraq against the wishes of the UN.)

so either every country has the technology or none. however every country in my view has the right to develop nuclear energy.

additionally, cultures will differ dramatically in their world views etc... what is good for one country is not good for another. some countries have elected officials, other are absolute kingdoms and other are mixed bunch of elections along tribal / hereditary lines etc... so any policy that is based on democracy needs definition as democracy USA style is but only a fraction of the earths population - a very foreign concept to most of the world.

i wonder what the outcome of a UN vote would be if the question was "should every country have the technology" ?? - and if any security council members would use a veto.

while on the issue of "democracy", has anyone ever wondered what china would be like with democracy?? - in my view it would be a war zone as i don't believe that you can control so many people if they all have rights. (sometimes to get things done - you need to dispense with democracy.)

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Peter in South Africa writes:
I believe that every country has the right to nuclear energy - nuclear weapons on the other hand is a consequence of this.

south Africa is the only country in the world to have destroyed its nuclear weapons as they are just too dangerous to mankind and in the end really don't serve any purpose.

the real question people should ask, is why do you need nuclear weapons - if you feel threatened - then you should ask yourself why ??? trying to control nuclear access is a pointless exercise - it is like trying to control drugs or something, people will still get their hands on it - rather change your ways and foreign policy and then maybe you wont have so many Anti-American people in the world.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Myriam in Canada writes:
During the last cold war, in the sixties, the U.S government with NATO, was in an aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons programs to neutralize, in the same time the Russian et French nuclear powers, influenced by De Gaulle nuclear ambitions in Europe, as an ally more of the Soviets than of the Americans. At that time, there was a fair confrontation between those countries in two different blocks. Today, the nuclear threats towards America and its allies, come from everywhere, in anarchist ways, from former third world countries becoming today economically super actives like China, India to Arab nations with Islamic theocracies, unable to control fairly the use of nuclear power. They will use without thinking... So, America and its allies have no choice to use any means to prevent these foolish nations to have or to use nuclear powers.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Knox in Florida writes:
I think only peaceful democratic nations with strict nuclear watch dogging should be allowed to have nuclear power...

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Brian in South Carolina writes:
Every country should be able to possess nuclear technology, that does not support terrorism or has ties to terrorism. I hope some day nuclear bombs will not exist but since they do we must keep tight control over the technology.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Les in Minnesota writes:
Something to think about: who/what does the allowing, is it decided strictly in the marketplace (if you can afford it, you can have it) or is it regulated by either an international body or a country?

The folks making the decision are more important than folks being allowed/disallowed.

Is it the current nuclear club, the U.N., the IAEA, or who?

The effectiveness of a ruling body to have the world abide by its decision depends to a great degree on how the ruling body is viewed. If everyone thinks it is a thoughtful and fair organization then compliance is high. If the general consensus is that the deciders are working in their own self interest, compliance is low.

If compliance is low or grudgingly given, then enforcement of the decision is problematic.

So, who decides which nation can have nuclear technology.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Kat in Missouri writes:
Then there is the internal issues of a nuclear Iran. Nuclear powered theocracy would have the power to eliminate any outside assistance to their people, oppressing and committing reprisals at will internally for anyone who dares to criticize their government internally. While I see some commentary above about the Cold War and the USSR having these nuclear weapons and never using them, I think people tend to forget the rather ugly 70 year history of Communist Russia, it's repressions, manufactured famines, gulags, etc, etc, etc. The people of the USSR were stuck with their government and these repressions for nearly a century due to its nuclear capabilities.

In our quest to discuss the "rights" of the Iranian people for "peaceful" nuclear technology, we are not discussing the rights of the Iranian people to live without repression or to live at all. Something that will be questionable with a nuclear Iran.

The posing of the question "who should have access to nuclear technology" is directly related to Ahmadinejad's and the Iranian theocracy's demand for their "right" to it. These demands are nothing but distracting slights of hand in a bad magic show that many around the world want to believe is "real". Repressive theocracies who are the largest sponsors of state power are not "peaceful".

I really appreciated Ahmadinejad's interview on 60 minutes where he insists that Iran has no need for nuclear weapons and points to the collapse of the USSR as the pinnacle of nations that can implode without it. What a bunch of bunk. He knows very well that Russia is still a power player that has not been invaded for more than half a century. Of course, Ahmadinejad also believes that the Godless Russians simply didn't have the right belief and political system or they would never have failed as Iran intends never to fail.

While we go on our way discussing this non-existent "right" in ideological, legal and moral terms, they go on their way to developing it for military and economic hegemony.

I might answer, also, some critics here about the US, its nuclear power and economic, political or military hegemony. Should Iran get nuclear technology and eventually nuclear weapons, causing this shift in power, I believe we will discover the difference between a largely benevolent nuclear power that tends towards freedom, democracy and capitalism to a potentially malevolent power whose long term goals include "death to America" and any western state that may oppose them. Part of this power structure does have a God complex and doesn't mind forcing it on its own people, much less others with no ethnic or political relationship to them.

And, another part, with a billion or so people, really doesn't mind sucking up all the resources it can get, holding entire nations over the barrel for energy while insuring that these nations give them said resources at highly discounted, price controlled rates that will keep many nations exceedingly poor for many more generations.

Oh, and our South American friends can look forward to nuclear Venezuela and the perpetuation and expansion of Chavismo Socialism where freedom of speech is null and void, television replays the great leaders favorite speeches and political dissidents disappear into never, never land.

Pardon me if I find this question being posed the equivalent of gallows humor.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Kat in Missouri writes:
Whenever I read such questions, I think of Fukyama's "End of History". There was no end. The players simply changed their names and put on Armani suits.

Let's be clear, as a Romanian commenter above noted, certain nations are proliferating nuclear technology for the purposes of developing a new security strategy. This security strategy is not solely developed due to US presence or activity, but can be related to the political changes in surrounding nations that directly threaten the proliferating nation's security. Not necessarily physically, but economically.

Currently, Russia is continuing its efforts in building the Iranian nuclear plant. Through its relations with other nations it has supplied technology that is directly related to, not just the building of peaceful nuclear energy, but potential nuclear weapons.

After the break up of the USSR, Russia had a serious problem. Many of the republics which contained vast portions of their resource wealth had broken off, though retaining some relationship with Russia. Others have been slipping away over the last decade and a half to Euro-centric politics.

that is a direct threat to Russia's economic stability (economic instability leads to national implosions; ask the USSR...oops, you can't, it doesn't exist).

Look at a map. Iran shares geographic locality with Russia, some of it's republics and former republics in the Caucasus. all of which either supply energy resources (70% of Russias export economy and about 50% of its total state revenue) or , such as the former republics, pay leasing fees for distribution of said resources through pipelines, trains, highways and, finally, ports through Russia. Russia has a vested interest in securing the region.

The oil and natural gas in the Caspian Sea is equally of importance and equally shares some "international borders" with Iran. this is refined and/or shipped via pipelines, trains, highways and canals through or in close proximity to such troubled regions as Chechnya (why do you think they refuse to let it be independent?) and Ingushetia (recently in the news for similar issues of a violent independent movement). finally, major pipelines, canals, roadways, etc move through Stavropol down to the Crimean Peninsula in the Black sea. Loss of those republics or instability is a serious threat to one of their few ports and a major source of revenue.

Iran represents an excellent anvil to the Russian hammer against any erosions in this area. It's not all about the middle east.

However, Iran is part of OPEC and Russia is not. OPEC, with Middle East nations out pacing Russian output, controls the price of oil by increasing or decreasing production (thus the price of energy, gas, etc). Thus, effecting Russian economy.

In some ways, Russia's continuing actions to provide nuclear energy is to bring Iran more closely into their economic power ring. Iran can vote in OPEC, Russia cannot. But, with Russia, the Caucasus and Iran (oh, and let's not forget getting chummy with Hugo down in Venezuela, also an OPEC member), they form a very powerful energy cartel whose direct control of resources or the voting power (even by proxy) within other organizations can change world economics and politics for a long time (and not in a good way for those outside the ring).

A nuclear Iran would be icing on the cake as they would have either balanced out or completely jumped ahead of any security the other OPEC Middle East nations have with US and European military support. thus hitting the tri-fecta in terms of military, economic and political hegemony in two regions.

China, of course, will be a huge beneficiary of this outcome (God having nothing to do with it). They are energy hungry and seeking new or expanded countries to export their goods to (Iran being one such expanding market). They have inked a deal with both Iran and Russia regarding oil and natural gas pipelines (Iran having the third largest reserves). Competitive markets for energy are not China's friend.

I wonder how benevolent some of our European friends will be feeling about the subject when Iran has nuclear weapons that can reach to Paris and Berlin, when they are paying upwards of 15 Euro per litre for gasoline and their heating and electricity bills have quadrupled as inflation skyrocket along with the price of basic necessities (like food, clothing, etc) due to hugely inflated transportation costs and unemployment of 11% seems like economic gangbusters?

Please send your complaints to Moscow. Who, by the way, no longer has to poise armies at the Fulda Gap to threaten European independence. All they have to do is turn the screws on the tap. The little contretemps with the Ukraine last winter and the resulting embargo of natural gas is a taste of the joys yet to come.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Japrog writes:
The greatest mistake that the U.S. is making is to assume that it controls the world. As a result it (the U.S.) is now viewed as a big bully afraid of small nations.

The issue of nuclear weapons should rather be lectured and spearheaded by the UN and not the U.S. Considering that .......

read more http://jayprog.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/09/29/the-nuclear-issue-re-visited.html

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Les in Minnesota writes:
The question is "What should determine who should be allowed to possess nuclear technology and who should not?" I suggest that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power and fuel technology.

Currently, China, EU, Japan, Russia and the U.S. are actively planning, developing, licensing, and building new nuclear power plants.

There are two types of reactor technology: slow and fast.

Slow reactors create power but generate a large quantity of low to medium level radioactive waste with a half life of hundreds of thousands of years and requires extremely long-term containment. Spent nuclear fuel must be reprocessed and combined with new enriched uranium. This fuel cycle, requires domestic uranium enrichment facilities or access to international nuclear fuel markets.

Fast breeder reactors work at higher temperatures with more energetic nuclear reactions. Unlike slow reactors, fast reactors can consume low and medium level radioactive waste as part of its fuel. It creates power and generates far less waste. This waste, while more radioactive has a significantly shorter half-life and reduces the problem of storage.

Fast reactors generate enriched nuclear material and plutonium. It can be used as fuel in slow reactors or in other fast reactors. It can also be used for weapons.

Why would Iran, with vast stores of oil, need nuclear power reactor, slow or fast?

A thoughtful nation, with oil reserves, might analyze the international trend of nuclear power development and realize that it makes sense to invest in domestic nuclear power generation and conserve its oil for a profitable export market.

Why doesn't Iran not contract with the French or Russians to build their power stations?

Iran and Russia do have a nuclear plant project going.

However, Iran is a progressive country and building their own nuclear industry provides then with several benefits:

1. Nuclear research stimulates growth of prestigious technical programs at Iranian Universities. Students involved in this research later become involved in other projects such as computer and materials development.

2. Iran can compete more effectively in international markets because it can develop and sell its own lines of nuclear power products and fuel, again a spin-off from the expanded Universities and downstream industrial development.

3. Iranian national security is enhanced because, like the U.S., dependence on foreign energy sources and high-tech products makes the country more vulnerable. Remember that Iran is under U.S. embargo and anything that Iran can learn to design and build itself makes it more secure. Having Iran dependent on an international nuclear fuel cycle makes Iran vulnerable to pressure from the U.S., Russia, etc.

4. Domestic stability and prosperity increases because there are more diverse jobs and businesses. Investing in nuclear power research and development is the seed for numerous hi-tech industries.

5. Iranian internal esteem and prestige is greatly enhanced because they have been able to join the nuclear power club through their own effort. This is doubly important for Iran and its place in the Islamic World.

6. Defense against legitimate external threats.

In or near the mid-East there are five nuclear powers: India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and U.S. Of these powers, Israel, Russia, and the U.S. have practiced pre-emptive strikes against other countries.

The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Recently, the Vice President stated he wanted to use nuclear "bunker buster" bombs on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. In addition, The U.S. has repeatedly intervened in Iranian internal affairs, including subsidizing Iraq during the 1980-888 Iraq-Iran war.

Iran�s fear of U.S. attack is real.

Summing Up

There are sound, peaceful reasons for Iran to develop its own nuclear industry and power cycle. There are economic, environmental, and political reasons supporting the development of a highly enriched uranium fuel and fast, breeder reactor technology for peaceful applications.

There are even sound reasons why the Iranians might want to develop nuclear weapons, strictly as a defensive measure to protect themselves from a country that has used nuclear weapons and manipulated Iranian internal affairs.

Charlie Rose interviewed Iranian President Ahmadinejad who gave a good rationale for not having nuclear weapons. To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons are useless: did they help the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or when it fell apart, are nuclear weapons helping Pakistan with its internal problems, and have nuclear weapons helped the U.S. in Iraq?

Iran has compelling, legitimate reasons for the peaceful development of nuclear technology.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

EJ in New Mexico writes:
There are many globally who have no voice in these matters of grave import, and I would like first to thank the Dept. of State for having provided a virtual "Village square", by creating this blog.

Folks,

Technology now makes possible the complete separation between peaceful use, and weaponization.

Funny thing about technology....it has consistently outpaced mankind's ability to use it in an ethical manner.
Now it gives us a means of self discipline...now That's progress!

A nuke can be used to keep the peace, regain the peace, or break the peace. So when it is possible to create power generation from fuel that cannot be used to weaponize a nation, I think the intent of a nation may be observed by whether it simply grasps the tool in a nation building capacity or not. And if that capacity alone isn't enough to satisfy its leadership, whether or not it seeks a weaponization capability. IE: Does it seek enrichment capability after having been offered a viable alternative.

Some commenters must think nukes are like I-pods, everybody wants one, Sure, step right up! It's your right, go for it!

Don't believe everything you think.

I speak now as a member of the original nuclear family, granddad being the Metalurgical and Chemistry Division group leader during the Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic weapon;

"To you who wish a nuke, be careful what you ask for.

This double edged sword only knows one master- Physics.

We fallable, fragile , bits of sentient organic matter think ourselves omnipitent masters of that we have created, because the subconcious fear we have created in the ability to self exterminate the species is too great a mental burden to think otherwise, and remain sane."

Well, when the going gets insane, the sane get going.

Let me rephrase this to the average joe citizen's perspective: We couldn't live our daily lives in any normal sense of the word if living them in fear of imminent extinction.

Yet "Democracy R US" sayeth the people, and we demand the truth from those who bear the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind, having a vested interest in the matter.

Therein lies a part of the reason why we in America have not built a new nuclear power plant in this country for the past 30 years or so. The people spoke.

The vast amounts of money required to establish an industry has a way of blinding ethical standards and that my friends is too, part of the human condition.

Now my President has decided that we may indeed be able to build safe nuclear power plants in the US, and I'm willing to give American industry the chance to prove they can. And for the most part, I think after hard lessons, they have to a fair degree.

But just as with protecting any nation from terrorist attack, One mistake...the outcome is unacceptable.

I wish to leave you with a Koan in solidarity with all who seek freedom from fear, and have no voice in the matter. I hope it will speak well for them.

"When Battleships give way to Sailboats, how does the world realize its true self?"

In Buddhist training, a student is given a Koan, a question to meditate on and learn understanding of the source of all things, life being dualistic in nature, this is the essential struggle for enlightenment.

The above is such a Koan, or "life question".

Sometimes a conscious mind can construct great changes, with a single question, asked at the right moment, to the right people. But words are all too often giving way to the sword, silenced in utterance, and stilled with overwhelming force.

Words of good will, with hope for the future.

Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007

Ronald in California writes:
Well, it seems to me that Pandora's box is already opened. The next logical step would be to allow any country to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but should any government make a nuclear weapon, the world community should come down as hard as possible to eliminate all nuclear weapons and peaceful equipment and the area of that country should become property of the whole for 2 generations and governed by a UN governor.

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Prascila in Brazil writes:
@ Brianna -- I agree with Brianna. Why do countries want to develop nuclear technology if nobody really think about that use nuclear weapons? Of course theres a need to keep weapons in order to have respect from others nations - in fact, they do think about use it someday "if it's necessary".

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Jim in California writes:
Bin Laden and al Qaeda, et al, have us preoccupied in Iraq while they are preparing to attack some of our cities with atomic bombs, before too long.

If we bomb Iran to destroy their nuclear manufacturing operation we will have put ourselves in the position, in the minds of our Enemy, of being owed a bombing, or two.

If, instead, we simply back off and openly warn the major Muslim nations that, should we be bombed, we will accept the bombing as the will of all such nations and will bomb them all, without delay or negotiation and with a fervor that is ten times more vicious than their bombing of us.

We are totally wrong in thinking that we're the savior of the World and that we're going to save it whether or not it wants saved.

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

George in Mexico writes:
No one. No body in this planet should to have nuclear weapons or any tecnology bassed in nuclear energy.

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Robert in Ohio writes:
@Robin in Romania --
"@ Robert - I'm afraid there can't be a compromise in this matter, since, one way or another, civilian nuclear fuel can be turned into military warheads."

Yes, and that is why I said that the fuel should be managed by someone (Russia, U.S., IAEA, etc etc) that already has the technology. Just some outside org with some accountability. Even with as hectic as the situation currently is they are still able to keep track of most fuel. In no way is it perfect, but neither is what we're doing now. At least this way it would stress tracking and accountability of materials instead of just relying on the word of the individual country that might develop the technology. Instead of alienation it would provide inclusion and eliminate some serious double standards.


@everyone who is critical of the U.S. for bombing Japan

Just a quick reminder, Germany and Japan were aggressively researching these capabilities as well. As terrible as it was, they would have done the same to the US in a heartbeat (and did intend to). Clear intent was established as the war waned in research facilities and delivery systems (rockets, planes). There is no question that they would have used them. It was a different time. Like I said before, somebody was going to be first. It was inevitable. Whereas I agree that reflections upon the horror and devastation caused by The bombing are appropriate as a reminder of the suffering that can be a result, I also believe that holding the present day US accountable for those actions as ridiculous as holding present day Germany accountable for the Holocaust. Actions were taken, lessons were learned. Thus is the nature of progress. It is now our responsibility to keep those past experiences in present mind and prevent similar events from occurring.


Finally, I would just like to say that I am happy this board exists. It pleases me to read opinions from people all over this country and the world. I am proud, and find it encouraging, that so many people can voice differing opinions in a peaceful and mature manner.

No, we won't really be solving any world issues here. However it can't be a bad thing to increase worldwide exposure and communication.

So, thanks to everyone for keeping matters civil. I look forward to reading more from everyone.

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Robert in Arizona writes:
I think most stable republics and democracies could qualify to have Nukes. As they would not use them. It's dictatorships/totalitarian and religious fundamental states that have little or no respect for life that need to be prevented from having nukes.

I have no problem with the U.S., U.K., France (barely), or Israel having Nukes. I do have concern about Russia, China and both Pakistan/India having nukes.

I believe that if the Middle Eastern countries who have no problem chanting death to America and Death to Israel need to be stopped - ABSOLUTELY stopped from developing Nukes. If that means military action needs to be taken - so be it. Better to resolve the issue now than to let appeasement run its course. Because we all should know appeasement does not work!

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Troy in Iraq writes:
There is an inherent problem with any type of weapon; when one country has one, the next one wants a larger more powerful one. It is the history of the world. History also tells us that too much of a good thing often brings about problems of complacency or lack of ability.

Most countries in the Middle East Region lack sufficient knowledge and/or the proper faculty on both parts to properly manage, maintain or run nuclear programs in either an energy or weapons standpoint.

Iran is one perfect example of this. We know, without a doubt, that the deadly weapons which have the most success killing our troops in Iraq come from Iran. Iran's leaders constantly say they have no knowledge of the transport, trafficking, construction or conveyance of such weapons from their country. That being said, how will they ever have the ability to manage any nuclear materials at all? Obviously, they have no control over what is already leaving their country. It doesn't even matter that they have an irrational hate for all things Western.

I have a question...
If the literacy rate and the educational powers of the Middle East is the consistency of what Iraq's is, who is running the nuclear program in Iran? Or does the leadership of Iran even know its operating?

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Murat in Turkey writes:
Every nation should respect others. Seeing America as the only one to be respected by others makes no sense, and is also a very dangerous view. We all see the current catastrophic results of bullying around. I admire the principles that lay behind the foundation of the U.S.-freedom, human rights, democracy, diversity, etc., but Americans should definitely respect the very same rights of other nations, many of whose history goes far beyond than America's. I'm concerned about both rising anti-Americanism in many countries and anti-Islamism in America (and the West, generally). Let all the nations live in piece, interact and communicate with each other peacefully. It's the 21st century we're in, wars should have been left far beyond in history.

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Shunt in South Africa writes:
Einstein was one of the world's best scientists. When he was small, people didn't think much of him... didn't even think that he would have been as successful as he has been.

If we tell countries like Iran, no to Nuclear technologies. Only because the world lives in fear, thinking that they will be nuked or that it will be used against itself. Then are we not restricting our self from growing? Developing new and better technologies?

If countries like Iran is allowed to use these technologies to better their lives and environment under supervision "at least", who is to say that they might not develop a better way of using Nuclear Technologies to improve power output or even develop new fuel source? by mixing it with a different natural element.

We do not have the right to restrict growing countries from using technologies like this. If the world continues on like this, it might take use twice as long to get where we want to go, with Peace, freedom, better technologies and to end starving countries that is not presented an opportunity to grow.

If we are so afraid and untrusting to each other... we should place people around the word to monitor these countries and our own, that wishes to grow. To give them that chance of growth, with supervision and even assistance. There for can still advance and should have less worries, because we know what is going on, because we trust each other to grow and use it for the right purpose.

If you find one bad apple in an apple tree, do you destroy the tree in fear that the rest will also be bad? or do you dispose of the rotten one's, eat the good ones and search for a new method of protecting your tree from bad apples and continue growing them?

Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007

Dave in Virginia writes:
Do you let your young children play with kitchen knives? No? In the same way we must not let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the immature.

We can't wish away the technology, but we can try to restrict its possession to the "grownups" - beginning with the country that has behaved most responsibly for the past 60 years with the ability to destroy all human life. That would be the United States of America.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Chris in Missouri writes:
I really think that this policy that "only the countries with crazies as leaders should be prevented from having nukes" makes very little sense. Say we prevent Iran and N. Korea from grabbing nukes now because they're crazy, while we allow other countries to develop them because their leaders are ok, and then a new leader comes to power who is crazy. He already has nukes! We can't stop it anymore!

It only takes one crazy person with enough nukes one time to wipe out practically all of civilization. Do you all honestly believe that there will never be that one crazy person? We need to get rid of nukes. Through a strong UN and some personal responsibility we can end the nuclear age before it ends us.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Shaw in Sino writes:
@ Marlene -- Marlene in California writes:
I could care less that other Countries hate the U.S. I notice, that in spite of "hating us", they all flock here for us to support them. We need to withdraw from the UN, and kick them out of New York. Just read your Bible to see what a hazard a "World Government" is.
----------------------------
Oh yeah? Where is your father or your grandfather from?
Maybe a small country in europe.

OK, like you said you kick the UN out of NY, and consider all the rest world as your enemies, because you want to become the world empire to rule the other countries, so they have to hold together as military allies to protect themselves, and then, I'm afraid that you guys would be kicked out of Earth.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Fletcher in Minnesota writes:
With regard to nuclear power, I think that any government that will guarantee full transparency of its nuclear program and unquestioned review of said program by qualified international observation teams should be allowed to develop or possess nuclear power. Unfortunately, even if only because of pride, many nations seem unwilling to agree to this. (I think existing nuclear powers should also be willing to meet this test.)

With regard to nuclear weaponry, since it's much more difficult to develop than nuclear power, I consider proliferation to be a larger threat than raw development. I think it's easy for us to agree that no nation which is incapable of making nuclear weapons for itself should be allowed to possess them.

The million dollar question is whether we should allow countries to continue developing nuclear weapons technology. I personally support a moratorium on all nuclear weapons production, and this seems to be a generally accepted viewpoint. All recent developments of nuclear weapons have been met with large-scale international disapproval.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Shaw in Sino writes:

Who Should be Allowed To Possess Nuclear Technology?
---------------------------
LOL. Can't you guys still get the true answers? It is determined by the U.S. goverment!!

American is the first one open the nuclear evil box, and find out a truth that it not just destroy his opponents, but also the whole human-being including himself. But now it's too late.

Why do other countries strongly want to get this evil weapon? The main reason is they're afraid of being threathen by other nuclear country, so let's come back to the beginning, who is the first of nuclear holder and user?

To forbid other countries holding weapon is just like forbidding american holding gun, think about it~!!!

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Mariano in Uruguay writes:
First of all, sorry for my English. It is not so good. I think that nuclear energy is the future, because the oil will be finished soon. The wood (and the trees, of course) is very important for the planet's life. But, not all people are responsible with something so dangerous. By that I mean, only countries under ONU controls may to use nuclear energy. If this powerful energy is obtained by terrorists or fundamentalists, the world will be over. Regards from Uruguay


Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Diego in Chile writes:
Any government that has the money and the technology, just like your country that can attack poor countries for stealing their oil.

Are you afraid for Iran? You should, and for China also and Korea, etc. You're full of enemies.

A message for all the people in your country: stop calling yourselves "american" I am american and chilean; you are "unitedstaten".

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Marlene in California writes:
I could care less that other Countries hate the U.S. I notice, that in spite of "hating us", they all flock here for us to support them. We need to withdraw from the UN, and kick them out of New York. Just read your Bible to see what a hazard a "World Government" is.

As for Muslim countries being allowed to have Nuclear power, "Are you people nuts?" Bush only made one mistake when he attacked Iraq. He should have gone on to Iran and the other Muslim Countries and done the same thing. Kill them before they kill us.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Marlene in California writes:
The first thing the United States needs to do is to get out of the United Nations, and kick them out of New York. Then, we need to "walk softly and carry a big stick", as Theodore Roosevelt said. I really could care less that other countries hate the United States. They are not required to love us, but just to respect us, and not mess with us. Anyone that believes countries made up of Muslims can be trusted with Nuclear Power, is just plain nuts. The only mistake Bush made was not to go ahead and bomb Iran and the other Muslim strongholds after we took Iraq.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Boyan in Bulgaria writes:
All countries should be allowed to use nuclear energy to ensure their energy independence. More nuclear power plants mean independence from oil, coil and gas power plants and less green-house gases.

Of course there should be control over those who use it as weapons. In that line of thoughts the countries who are known to have used it in the past should be forbidden to have it. Currently that is only the U.S.

It is widely discussed that radical muslims may create nukes. Although somewhat reasonable, that is only speculation at this point. What I am more concerned about, is that the U.S. is still using radioactive materials in their weapons. Even more concerning is that you are using you weapons quite a lot lately, but that is another issue.

I am sure that currently the ordinary people all over the world are more worried about the radical christians in your government that the radical muslims next door. You just have more guns and more hate - it is as clear as that.

Think about that next time you ask why everyone hates America.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Louis in Spain writes:
Please, your hearts, my heart, our hearts always claim for peace. Tell me, tell us; which developed countries are interested to do a viable plans and programs to consolidate a real peace? And more, which developed countries respect the others rights to do their own business? Everybody talks about human rights, about this and about that, and who cares for me?, who cares for those without rights? Today we are enjoying the life, the time is not yet over ,we must do something to convince the powerful countries ,even with tears on our cheeks, to give us an example of brotherhood, only an example, and this miracle must happen; otherwise our planet will become a jungle where the powerful prevails and the weak will die under the luxurious boots of the king. Please, give us only one example of a generous country and we will follow your example. If I am the one working with nuclear technology, I will carry on with it until you come up with wonderful things for the entire human being, if that day happens I will take you into my factories to tell me what to do with it, as a son to his father. For now don't tell me what to do with nuclear matters or other matters, because you must convince me, convince us that you have the moral to tell us what to do.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

JD in Ireland writes:
Russia was U.S. arch-nemesis (scarecrow) a few decades ago...
They had quite a few nukes... And almost nothing happened.
It is a deterrent that kept both sides in check.
Many countries are seeking it to protect themselves.
It is the bright colors on snakes that says, you'd better leave me alone.
You cannot go around the world and say "Do as we say, not as we do".
To the question: "What should determine who should be allowed to possess nuclear technology and who should not?" I will answer with another question: "What should determine who should be allowed to police the world?"

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Han and Jing in China write:
No country should be allowed to possess nuclear technology. This technology is like a bomb that has not exploded yet. Someday, it will explode, and the history of human beings may meet its end. We should develope technologies that are more harmless, such as technology of using solar power and wind power, etc.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Basyl in Romania writes:
Only Nuclear energy is a good thing that helps and will continue to help humanity. When we are talking about the weapons, I think that this may be one of the greatest mistakes ever made in the humanity`s evolution. Why can`t you all just give them up ? Try to think at other things like healts emproving... try to make other countries better, try to help both sides if you see that there are almoast at war.

And something that you will like for sure, Iran should not have nuclear weapon technology, they must be stopped.
Have a great day.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Martin in Argentina writes:
I think NOBODY can't get nuclear technology, the world is small and all of us are in there!

By the way, the ONLY country in the world who used those weapons was the U.S. against civil people in Japan... How many people must be die to stop this crazy thingh someday?? The world is dying and still we think in kill more people, animals and other lives souls??

I think STOP!

To all, please remember, "Iraq" that country was assaulted and devastated because "they have nuclear weapons", then ALL we know that argument was false... Is George Bush in jail? No, many is many, so sad, so simple! I wondered, How a country like USA who used nuclear weapons over many and many Janpanese people it can accuse to another country saying to another country, "Don't get killer weapons"? USA is the country who spend more money in weapons all over the world.. that is a fact!

Love and peace!

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

P in Romania writes:
We should discuss Fascism and racism in Romania and other countries.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Raul in Spain writes:
Everyone

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Fire in China writes:
It ought to be up the country possessing nuclear technologies to decide whether they should forbid the export of that technology. But any
country should have the power to develop new science, including nuclear science.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

John in California writes:
Plane and simple answer, NOBODY!

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Murat in Turkey writes:
Nobody for building nuclear weapons (including the U.S.), everybody for peaceful purposes such as an alternative source of energy.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Ali in Singapore writes:
Please! the font be bigger than this! It is realy tiny and difficult to read. Is it done on purpose?

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Ting in China writes:
The countries that have responsibility should posses Nuclear Technology. Weapons of mass destruction must be possessed by those who observe justice.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Guo in China writes:
The world is fair, if some are willing to pay, they have the right to harvest what they paid for.
Nuclear weapons proliferation is a fearful matter because lunatics always exist.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Soi in China writes:
@ Marc - I can't agree with Marc any more. Any country has the same fair right to possess nuclear weapons. However, under the current global complex political situation, it is necessary for each member of UN to keep the NPT in case any potential nuclear wars.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Ti from Illinois writes:
I have not read the UN charter or NPT from top to bottom, and I do not think either matters. I would not be beholden to either in every case. No set of documents or laws drawn up decades ago can resolve current and evolving problems. The United States of America and its allies must be wiling to wage war in order to solve problems which cannot otherwise be solved.

If NATO aligned countries do not want nuclear materials in the hands of Iran which is aggressively pursuing a (missile) delivery vehicle or has available other delivery mechanisms(truck, ship or plane) to reach deep into their territory then NATO should use the UN to seek redress with regard to the issue. That failing NATO aligned countries should divest from the offending country, which they are going to pursue. That failing they should declare war. NATO has NO other solution and they had better not waste a great deal of time in making the case for war. Iran will have enough nuclear material to make a dirty bomb in less than a year. Iran will have enough nuclear material to make a nuclear weapon in less than three years.

In the case of Iran and possibly North Korea there may be NO other solution but all other avenues have to be tried before the ensuing battle.

Nuclear technology, proliferation, and weapons related problems are not all going to be resolved with the UN or NPT.

Given the decision to go to war you have to be able to live with the results, which could be catastrophic and wide ranging. Within five to ten years of hitting 2000 targets in Iran, Iran would again have the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Iran would have to be dealt with again and they would have to be heavily infiltrated in order to find out what their nuclear ambitions were.

This brings up an interesting problem in that once you stop Iran other "non favored" countries, of which there may be dozens may seek to work together to proliferate the fuel cycle and other technologies in secret. In that case they do not have to develop enough to build one weapon but enough to build for example one fifth...then get together to assemble the material for use against a target.

----
I think what the United States needs to do is to develop a means of ascertaining whether a vehicle of any type has nuclear materials within it while in transit at least 200 miles from the border. The vehicle could be in the air, in the water, under water, or in transit over the road. This might be the job of a satellite or non destructive energy weapon. If this technology cannot be produced in the next five years then we are in trouble. Iran is the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Shinobi in Romania writes:
I think we should forget about nuclear technology and think about environmental issues.

What are we going to do with nuclear technologies (weapons) when Mother-Nature goes wild and everybody suffers? We cannot tame Nature with nuclear technology.

All the money used for nuclear stuff would have a better use in solving environmental issues. We should think about redesigning the industries for use of environmental-friendly technologies.

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Gene in Maryland writes:
Re: the question of "what should determine who should be allowed to possess nuclear technology and who should not?" ... many readers of this blog may not know that in 1946 the United States provocatively proposed that this issue be determined by an functioning international authority. This recommendation was found in a study titled "The Acheson-Lillienthal Report," that became President Truman's policy and that the US formally submitted to the UN for consideration. One of its main authors, Dean Acheson, was a principal architect of the Marshall Plan to rebuild ater World War II, and he later became US Secretary of State. Acheson described this report and its recommended policy as follows:

"In plain words, the Report sets up a plan under which no nation would make atomic bombs or the materials for them. All dangerous activities would be carried on -- not merely inspected -- by a live, functioning international Agency with a real purpose in the world and capable of attracting competent personnel. This monopoly of the dangerous activities by an international Authority would still leave a large and tremendously productive field of safe activities open to individual nations, their industries and universities ... the extremely favored position with regard to atomic devices, which the United States enjoys at present, is only temporary. It will not last. We must use that advantage now to promote international security and to carry out our policy of building a lasting peace through international agreement."

This excerpt is taken from Acheson's award-winning book "Present at the Creation."

Acheson also relates that this policy was submitted to the UN's Atomic Energy Commission, which in turn recommended to the UN in its entirety the adoption of a comprehensive international system. Unfortunately, as Acheson recalls:

"There the matter died. Mr. Molotov rather neatly escaped a propoganda defeat by introducing in the General Assemby, and strongly urging, a plan for general regulation and reduction of armaments."

Posted on Thu Sep 27, 2007

Francisco in Colombia writes:
everybody or nobody

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Roger in Ohio writes:
Right now, the U.S. is just another country. We've already lost the mantle of Moral Superiority that we wore proudly a long time ago. With that said, there are two things we can do, each one determining our NPT strategy. If the U.S. wants to be morally superior, then that imposes a duty on itself to act as an example for others. In that case, we should disarm our own nukes, despite the obvious disadvantages associated with deweaponizing. However, this will also send a signal. Furthermore, without nukes we still have a superior army. We have little intention of using them, either. No country is even close enough to us to merit the force multiplying effect of the mighty atom.

Now, if we see ourselves as just another nation, then we can act selfish like everyone else and hoard our nukes. Of course, this means we can't glare disapprovingly at other people like China for their selfishness either.

Give power to the UN? Oh man. I don't trust the UN because there's too much inertia. It's not so much the UN itself, but the very nature of harmonizing all the countries in the world. Diversity is mutually exclusive to cohesion, and having the combined voices of nearly all the people in the world is pretty diverse...which means they probably aren't cohesive, and things don't get done.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Paulo in France writes:
The fact is the U.S. is the only one country to have used the nuclear weapons against another country. The U.S. is not the police of the world but act like that and believe are the owner of the reason, therefore, we have the unjustified conflicts and politics for destabilization in certain regions. In democracy there are not imposition of the values or concepts but respect for the divergences, as so, why can some countries have nuclear weapons and not others? Who have reason to impose prohibitive rules to other countries when are distant to have a perfectly integrity?

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Anibal in Czech Republic writes:
First of all i think that the ideal would be that no one can have Nuclear Weapons, since at least for now seems quite dificult, i would say that no one that has a current military conflict, or had a military conflict in X amount of years, for example 30,CANT have nuclear weapons.

Also i think that a good option could be to give real efficient power to the UN, so that what they say really metters, for example changing the chain of command in the millitary adding UN approval (and yes, i know its basicly imposible).

And as a last thought, think that U.S. should be the first in disarming and hopefully stop invading countries, and if you want other countries to listen to the UN, U.S. should do the same too.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Robin in Romania writes:
@ John - We should not exclude other types of *cracies, such as kleptocracies (as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy) or plutocracies (as described hare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy).
Of course, the list can continue.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Jorge in Chile writes:
Any country... except USA!!!

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Hajo in Germany writes:
The question is not very clear. What do you mean by the term "nuclear technology"? civil or military technology or even both?

With regard to the NPT, the Treaty is based on a simple compromise between the nuclear haves and the nuclear have nots: The nuclear have nots are willing to accept their non-nuclear military status under several conditions:
1. They have full access to civil nuclear technology if they need it. Article 4 of NPT even say, they should be supported by the nuclear haves in this regard.
2. The nuclear haves will not threaten the nuclear have nots and give up their nuclear weapons in order to overcome this double standard in global order.
3. If the nuclear haves think they can preserve their priviliged nuclear status and the nuclear have nots will accept their inferiour status forever, this will never work over time. Either the nuclear powers truely disarm or they must handle a growing number of nuclear haves with terrorists on its territory like Pakistan and perhaps soon Iran, they must handle nuclear weapon states which can fail or disolve like the former Soviet Union which had happened fortunately under very cooperative international circumstances but this can happen in times of conflict and confrontation also.

Where are the instruments of the U.S. to handle all this coming problems? As a nuclear status quo power the U.S. is not a part of the solution but a part of the growing global security problem.
The problem for the nuclear have nots is, they must pay the price also. So why not going nuclear as the nuclear haves in order to reduce the price as the nuclear status quo powers do? What is then wrong with approach?

Hajo

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Robin in Romania writes:
@ Marc - I totally agree with your statements. It is my strong belief that, as you said, questionable leaders/countries should not be allowed to have nuclear facilities. I am speaking especially about Iran. They say they need to build nuclear facilities for energy purposes. I doubt that, since Iran is one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. And it's only about 1.000 miles away from EU.

Maybe nuclear power is not a right, but a privilege. Many will say that USA should not be a nuclear power. I disagree. USA invented the nuclear power. Many will say that Germany should not be a nuclear power. I also disagree. Many patents were, as you know, stolen from Germany at the end of WW2, so that, by giving back so much to the world, the world should give something back!

@ Robert - I'm afraid there can't be a compromise in this matter, since, one way or another, civilian nuclear fuel can be turned into military warheads.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Jim in California writes:
All nations should be allowed to develop nuclear power, even assisted in the effort, if asked. No Nation that is openly planning to take over the world, i.e. is an obvious threat to us, should be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. We should not interfere with their operations otherwise, unless invited.

For those who have the weapon and who seemingly intend on using it on us, we should warn them openly that should they bomb us we will counter-bomb them and their world with ten times the destruction inflicted by their weapons, and that we will do so following each successive round of bombing. To make this most effective we should name the major Muslim nations on our list.

Then, again, we should sit back and wait for their response, being carefully prepared to do as promised. Hopefully, our threat would cause the other Muslim nations to dissuade al Qaeda, et al, not to bomb in the first place.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Robert in Ohio writes:
Whereas I will agree that is does seem hypocritical to possess nuclear capabilities and then to try to tell another country that they may not (especially bearing in mind that we are the only country to use them), I believe someone has to be the first for everything and even if it does seem a bit imperialistic we are simply trying to learn from our mistakes and help others do the same.

I can totally understand the others wanting the bomb, how would we feel if Russia had them and we did not? That said, I don't want anyone else to gain the capability if for no other reason than self preservation ;)

As for peaceful purposes, perhaps the countries that already possess the capability to broker the fuel. One would think that if a country genuinely has no interest in the bomb then having someone else handle all the risky enrichment would be beneficial all around. If you tell me that I can have all of the benefits of nuclear power without any of the responsibility of enrichment, and more importantly disposal of waste, then I say it is win-win. This would also allow for tracking and regulation of the materials involved.

It seems to me that a compromise is in order. If they will tolerate some mild interference for the sake of our ease of mind then we can help them provide affordable and adequate power for their people.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Michelle in Washington DC writes:
I don't believe anyone should be using/creating any nuclear weapons or running power plants with nuclear energy. It's about the environment - how long do we think we can keep polluting the planet and just burying the stuff we don't want anymore? If bombs are made they will eventually be used - so stop making them! I know there will be flare ups between countries but killing each other is senseless.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

J. writes:
I will have to check the NPT language, but wasn't the intent of the treaty to "dissuade" countries from developing nuclear weapons, not to "prevent" such proliferation? Along that line, the question is phrased incorrectly. The question ought to be, "how can the NPT be used or better implemented to influence nations to not develop nuclear weapons?"

And along that line of thought, the key to this is through leadership demonstrated by the US govt in NOT developing the RRW until it has 1) improved its Cold War strategy for nuclear weapons employment and made it applicable to today's security environment, and 2) demonstrated in good faith a plan that shows the dismantlement and permenant disposal of older nuclear weapons is in place.

The "nuclear energy" deal with India didn't help the NPT's influence, either. If India isn't living up to the NPT, the US govt shouldn't be dealing with India. Very simple.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Daniel in Illinois writes:
The question should really be "Who should NOT be allowed to have Nuclear Weapons" and I believe we all pretty much know the answer to that. They tend to stick out on the world playground. The problem lies in that the various members of the current Nuclear Club all seem to have too many vested political, strategic, or economic interests in one or another of these rogue nations/groups to band together and "do the right thing." In the final analysis there really is no way to forever keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of someone with the means to obtain them and the twisted will to use them. Oh, and one more thing. Mr Bush, there is no such thing in this world as a NUKYUHLER weapon. One would think that in 7 years someone would have corrected his pronunciation. Please !!

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Marc in Germany writes:
@Brianna - I agree with you that we do not govern the world and we shouldn't attempt to do so. But, we do have a responsibility to our National Security to ensure that questionable countries/leaders don't gain the power of launching nuclear attacks at us or our allies. The vehicle in which to achieve this really depends on your personal view-point as to HOW directly involved we should be. One view is too take action (military wise) another way is to use the long drawn out political process via the UN and sanctions. The last, obviously, is a combination of the previous two options. Which course of action is best is difficult to answer; due to each individual persons opionens on how best to resolve such issues. Nonetheless as a nuclear power we have a certain amount of responsibilty to ensure that nuclear weapons are tightly controlled.

@Chris- Nuclear weapons are a gruesome piece of work. I have no arguments with you on this issue. But as nuclear power/weapons are already "out of the bag" it is a fairy tale to actually believe that a "Nobody Should Have" approach is even remotely possible. I do agree that to strengthen the UN and IAEA and give them a coalition enforcement capability in "controlling" nuclear proliferation is a step in the right direction. But I firmly believe that ,as in the past, the load of the "enforcement" would fall to the US Military. That is something I wish to see less of as the U.S. Military arent the World Police Force

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

John in California writes:
Countries that should not be allowed to possess nuclear technology include those governed by non-democratic governments, especially theocracies. Non-democratic governments permit extremist views to influence decisions that can have catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Theocracies are particularly dangerous in this regard due to the ease by which religious teachings can be twisted into advocating the exclusion of all who do not share the same beliefs. And if such a country possesses nuclear technology, this power to "exclude" becomes very real.

Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007

Chris in Missouri writes:
No country in the world should have the power of nuclear weapons at their disposal, including the United States. That we have the power to destroy humanity should be as frightening to us as anyone else. We need to work to strengthen the United Nations and the IAEA to give them the means to enforce a policy where no country would be able to construct nuclear weapons and all countries that currently control would them destroy them in a timely manner.

Posted on Tue Sep 25, 2007

Brianna in Wisconsin writes:
If one country is able to posses nuclear weapons I feel another country should be able to, too. Fair is fair. We don't govern the world and we should stop acting like we do.

Posted on Tue Sep 25, 2007

Tina in Michigan writes:
The factors seem very complex regarding countries having the ability to possess nuclear technology. Countries that are not hostile, that have a long history of being friendly to their neighbors, that clearly adhere to Freedom, Equality and Liberty that also respect Human Rights which belong to the United Nations should be trusted with this delicate technology. The rest of world needs to be watching those that have this technology with a keen eye.

The other issue related to this is to make sure those countries using this technology take the care to properly manage the bi-products of this technology. Mother Earth and people need this careful proctection.

Posted on Tue Sep 25, 2007

Page 1 of 1 pages