Nuclear Abolition

Telling a country to suspend her nuclear enrichment program is like telling a mischievous child to get her hand out of the cookie jar. She knows exactly what she's doing, and she'll do it when your back is turned if need be.

This much is understood. Iran WILL continue their nuclear enrichment program, and Iran WILL (at least in my opinion as long as US and Israel has them) pursue nukes. Quite simply, the center of the Muslim world is looking for any answer as they struggle to find a way to coexist with the western world in the 21st century. In response to Iran's intent to develop peaceful nuclear technologies, the US is seeking UN support for economic sanctions against Iran.

Not to single out Iran, North Korea has also been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and have admitted to developing nuclear weapons in defiance of a 1994 U.S.-North Korean nuclear agreement. In response to North Korea's recent nuclear tests on October 9, 2006, the UN recently passed a resolution punishing North Korea with sanctions, a resolution strongly supported by the US.

If we have been paying attention to the current Iraq war, we should be asking ourselves: What are economic sanctions good for? If we were going to go invade a country anyway, and blow up all their resources, why did we even bother with the sanctions? An estimated 500,000 children deaths under the age of 5 have been attributed to 8 years of economic sanctions during the Clinton regime. Sick individuals might point out that the economic sanctions worked by preventing Iraq from developing WMD. First of all, the sanctions were never in place to prevent the development of WMD, but rather to remove already existent WMD that never existed. Second of all, and unless you're Madeleine Albright, answer me this: At the cost of half a million lives? Is this really the way nuclear nonproliferation should work?

I have a better idea. I have a problem with even 1 nuclear weapon on this planet. Yes, I'm serious, so hear me out. Nukes are not a solution to any problem. I challenge you to give me a good example where even 1 nuclear weapon is necessary.

Until we find a way to rid the world of WMD permanently, those without nukes will want them as those with nukes continue to hold the world (or at least their non-allies) at nuclear gunpoint. This is the first concept learned in Bullying 101. If you don't understand it, think about. *jeopardy theme sounding* If you still don't understand the problem with me having nukes, and you not having them, close this website. It is imperative that we understand this critical point before we can learn how to fix it.

While US has reduced their arsenal of nuclear weapons since the cold war, they have made no concessions about holding the world's largest supply (or close to it, if not always more than Russia) of active nuclear warheads for the past 50 years. They currently have an estimated 10,000 nuclear weapons. Additionally, the number of bombs awaiting dismantlement has monotonically decreased since 1993, bringing the overly ridiculous total down from around 25,000 to the still ridiculous total of 10,000 warheads.

As of February 2004 instead of dismantling nuclear warheads, the US has shifted operations to "modifying warheads to extend their service life".

The conclusion is clear: the US is not making a serious commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, as long as the US is enhancing nuclear capabilities, the "dark side" will only gain more motivation to develop their nuclear technologies. As long as somebody has them, the probability that nuclear weapons are used again (by any side) goes up.

I now return to my previous thought; nuclear abolition. No, not nuclear weapons abolition, but nuclear technology abolition.

What does nuclear technology provide us? More energy for less cost? The keyword here being "cost". Nuclear waste stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Currently scientists across the globe are warning of an impending danger if we continue to pollute our skies. Let's not make another mistake by burying radioactive waste in the ground for those 50 years later to clean up.

Even if you claim nuclear waste can be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years until the radioactivity wears off, is a little compromise not worth the lives of thousands, or I should say millions, as the United States and other nuclear forces continue to impose economic sanctions and drop bombs on the premise of eradicating nuclear weapons?

According to wikipedia, nuclear power provides 20% of the total energy in the US and 15.7% of the total energy in the world. If we pool together our 21st century expertise, shouldn't we be able to find a replacement for this 15.7% contribution? Even better, why not just cut our usage down 15.7% with little compromise. The best part is most 3rd world countries won't even need to do anything because they currently lack nuclear power anyway. Of course Japan and France might have more trouble finding a way to replace nuclear energy, which contributes up to 80% of their total usage, but I see this as a challenge rather than an excuse.

Why not abolish nuclear power? It's just a thought. I'm not 100% sure it's the right thought, but to me it seems little to sacrifice to settle one of the largest problems in the world: Terrorists with WMD.

What is your alternative?

No Apologies?

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
- US Vice President, Dick Cheney before the Iraq invasion

I wanna give Bush and Co. the benefit of the doubt. I really do. As much as I realize the war is a big mistake, and given all the evidence supporting this realization, let's suppose our administration really did believe Iraq had WMD. Right? Okay, now what?

We've long since found out there weren't any WMD and are now finally realizing this war is creating more "terrorism" than it's destroying. Don't you think there might be an apology? Is Bush so proud of what he has done that he feels no remorse?

No apologies to the many Iraqi families in mourning? What about US citizens who feel manipulated by Bush's over-exaggerated confidence in prewar intelligence? Not one apology acknowledging a mistake that has now taken over a hundred thousand lives. Or did I miss it? Sometimes I feel bad bumping into a complete stranger on the sidewalk. Makes you wonder where the humanity went in the US gov't.

It is in this line of thought that I have convinced myself, yet again, that I can no longer give Bush the benefit of the doubt. We, as a country, have done that for far too long, and he's breached our trust. Whether or not you believe in fighting a "war on terrorism", Iraq is no such war. It is a mistake. A mistake that our families and friends, not George Bush and his ilk, are giving our lives for. If it was an honest mistake, it requires an apology.

Massive piles of evidence are accumulating, evidence that reveals Bush as a war criminal. If under the same judgement that presided over the Nuremberg Trials, he would surely receive severe punishment.

"... most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they either overidentified with an ideological cause or suffered from a lack of imagination."
- Douglas O. Linder

I think the previous quote applies well to Bush. Especially the "ideological cause." I'm not claiming that Bush premeditated the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, but rather he's proven time and again that he is ideologically commited to a bad idea.

Even now, despite the abysmal mess this Iraqi invasion has become, George Bush states, "We are a nation at war. I wish I could report differently, but you need to have a President who sees the world the way it is, not the way somebody would hope it would be."

Wrong George. YOU are at war. Not this nation. We are not being attacked. YOU are attacking and using us for your own sick ploys. We don't understand what we're doing, and many of us outright don't agree with you, yet you tell us not to worry, and that war is the right thing.

CBS News writes, "According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret..."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=8654

We are a country in need of a new president. I wish I could report differently, but I see things the way they are. Isn't it amazing Clinton was impeached for sexual activities? Why can we not impeach Bush for lieing? Lieing about a war no less? Can you think of a more heinous crime?

Where has the power of the people gone? Those of us who smell the stink are curled up in our shells afraid to speak out. We need to shed that image. We are entitled to take part in this world, too. That is, after all, the point in a "democracy". (Not to be confused with the current "US democracy" - a misnomer that would make Aristotle cry.)

Don't wait for election year, where you will chose between two devils. Start informing yourself, and find out what you can do. Read some Chomsky. Read some Blum. Get the facts, and then decide for youself.