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?