View Feedback | Send this Article | Published 2/28/03

Graphic By: Jonelle Thackston

First off, nuclear techonology does not equate to nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is a resourceful tool for generating mass quantities of energy cleanly and efficiently. It is great for countries that lack natural resources, or where pollution has become a major issue. It is when countries attempt to pervert this techonology into a weapon that the world becomes nervous.

Yes, I said world. Despite common misconceptions, the U.S. isn't trying to keep those poor countries from developing nuclear techonology; it is the world, represented in confederation by the United Nations. See, when someone seeks to develop nuclear techonology, they have to declare it to the U.N. and make all purposes involving nuclear techonology open to inspectors. This process determines that the country is being faithful to its declaration and that it will only develop the techonology to create energy by nuclear means.

Now on to the point of the argument. Some people believe that the possession of nuclear weapons is "everyone or no one." This ideology is inheriently flawed, considering that the situation is much more complicated than that.

If every country had the ability to possess nuclear weapons, we would see places like Palestine, Iran, North Korea, Chechnya, the Balkans, Cuba, Columbia, and Tibet seeking these weapons. These nations do not have the political maturity or the stability to possess such weapons. In regimes where it is hard to tell friend from foe, who gets control of the nuclear weapons? Would we like to see the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran use these weapons against the west in a Jihad? Or the Palestinians instigate the final fight with Israel? Or North Korea use nukes to put demands on the rich nations--as we are already beginning to see? Or would Iraq benefit from having these weapons? The Chechyans would love nukes; they could go after Moscow instead of just local theatres. Obviously, the idea of opening nuclear techonology is flawed, for it would bring forth the most death and destruction this world has ever seen.

As for the idea of no one having nukes: this stance has just as many holes in it. Think about every nuclear nation in the world completely disarming its nukes. Rogue states like Iraq or North Korea would continue to develop the techonology--disarmament does not equate to the technology disappearing--and then what position would the west be in, or any region for that matter? Little militarily inept countries like Iraq would hold a terror over the world that we could not combat.

The answer to the regulation of nuclear technology is simple: keep going about the issue as we have been. Also, when you think to put down the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saying that we have no right to tell other people what to do, consider this: having used the weapon, having seen the effects, having seen the devastation, who better to lead the restriction of the technology? Only after seeing it first hand, and having the credibility to testify to the horrendous nature of this weapon, can you truly understand the need for restrictions and regulations.