--James Stuart 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)DISCUSSION: Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear proliferation is inevitable.
It is inevitable this will destabilise an already unstable world.
It is also inevitable the expectant members of this unique proliferation club will point to the hypocrisy of the states who already have achieved nuclear power / weapons, yet who are against expanding the list of countries that can – overtly - claim to be a nuclear power.
As a growing number of states reach for energy self-sufficiency, will the widespread use of nuclear energy for peaceful or other purposes give greater security to the world?
Will there be a greater sense of “Mutually Assured Destruction”?
If these states do not see their future energy needs secure through oil, should anyone else?
In those countries who already have a nuclear programme it is possible to state that with a number of civil nuclear facilities at or nearing the end of their design life the costs and risks associated with the present programme are already high without adding to these costs and risks by expanding the programme.
It is possible to argue that nuclear proliferation increases the probability of nuclear material finding its way into the hands of unscrupulous extremists. This will be for the purposes of producing either a full blown nuclear device or at the very least a dirty bomb for an unfortunate city centre. This would very likely be a western city centre ... or an attack on Israel. There are clear indications of where it is likely to be.
What human and material damage would there be?
What financial damage would there be?
What reaction would there be?
From present trends, it is possible to calculate such material will overtly be in the hands of a terrorist organisation between 6-8 years from the present date. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that limited material is already in the hands of such organisations, or within reach of such organisations. There are a number of established routes by which this material could have originated.
Proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear material available to terrorist organisations. Proliferation is inevitable. A number of states are already starting to develop a "civil" nuclear programme. A number of these states do not have the most stable of political regimes or have a significant level of extremist activity within their borders.
Under the guise of obtaining civilian nuclear power, it will be no surprise to many that some other states have the hidden agenda of producing nuclear fission weapons. As a result of their own foreign policies, such countries may perceive they need protection from the war orientated rumblings of other states. Alternatively, such countries may also believe in the concept of “pre-emptive action” to further their own view of the world.
The real danger is further enhanced if such countries have established links with “terrorist” organisations. The countries may be very willing to pass material on to these organisations with a view of themselves not being implicated in any horrific deed.
Will this really make those countries a more secure place?
Will this really make the world a more secure place?
The real reasons why these states will not be relying on their own significant level of natural and sustainable resources to secure their future needs should be examined.
Will the expansion of established civil nuclear programmes in the west in search of sustainable energy independence give the right signals to the rest of the world? Or will it give further reason for the proliferation of nuclear technology throughout the world? Will it increase the risk of material falling into the wrong hands, as well as point source bio-active isotope pollution? Can nuclear power be classed as sustainable energy?
When the full cost externalities of the holistic nuclear fuel cycle is taken into account, it can be argued that nuclear energy is not a sustainable energy. It can be argued that the greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere from the mining, the refining, the transportation, the disposal of nuclear material is too extensive to ignore. The expansion of any civil nuclear programme may not be as viable an option to true alternative, sustainable energy sources as some would have us believe.
This type of atmospheric pollution as well as the point source isotope pollution (with very different behaviour patterns in biological tissue than residual background radiation), as well as the great long term financial cost and environmental dangers of decommissioning and disposal have led many to believe nuclear power is not a true viable option.
And indeed, as has been stated, what are the risks associated with the wider production of nuclear weapons?
Even today we feel the repercussions of states with a political or cultural axe to grind. In the possession of nuclear weapons their belligerence would be even greater. The risk to the world would be near critical point. Analysis of events and behaviours indicates the likely focal point would be in the west – a high profile western city, western population, multi-cultural and mixed of all races, ages, sexes.
On the contrary to making them more safe, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by some specific countries is likely to inspire their enemies to strike first – and widely – to destroy the early nuclear capability before it becomes a dire threat.
Ironically, if this happens, such countries who were attempting to achieve a nuclear capability would also claim complete innocence, with all the repercussions this would entail.
Who will be right and who will be wrong? Life rarely gives a clear insight into such complex questions. Ultimately it comes down to what individuals believe and how states perceive their present situation and future ambitions. If any state believes its route to becoming a “global power” is in the acquisition of nuclear weapons, they are surely deluded. Greatness, economic might and security is not a matter of weapons. It is a matter of how one interacts throughout the world. It is a matter of civilisation. It is also a matter of financial might rather than physical might.
Rogue states who act like bullies will believe they can do anything if in possession of nuclear weapons. Such rogue states will undoubtedly begin to think the unthinkable and use others to do their bidding. This would be a cowardly act beyond comprehension to unleash unspeakable disaster upon the world in the name of some vague philosophy. Or would it be in the name of personal ambition?
Is the world ready for the unthinkable?
In the face of the unthinkable how will the world behave?
Pro-actively how will the world behave to halt the unthinkable?
It can be argued that nuclear proliferation should be halted. Technology aligned to true sustainable energy sources is less expensive, less polluting and more lasting than nuclear power. The pursuance of civil nuclear power or the expansion of civil nuclear power betrays a lack of foresight. The pursuance of a new generation of nuclear weapons betrays a distinct danger that has to be dealt with by the international community.
As we have seen in the near past, this international community is split due to trade links and the possibility of themselves selling nuclear technology for hard cash. Yet again there is the concept of short term gain for long term pain. It is time both Russia and China took this growing threat seriously enough to act. The wrong history is made by default.
Time is running out for this international community to take the decisions it knows it must. Yet so many of the major players of the international community have money signs in their eyes.
James Stuart