So the talks between Iran and six world leaders (I’m assuming some of the ones who already have nuclear arms) have agreed that more talks should occur before the end of October. All of this is to do with Iran’s continuing development of nuclear material or, at least, the development of developing nuclear material.
The world fears this process will be used for bombs, while Iran says it is for nuclear energy and that they have a right to such developments. While I, too, find it suspect that they’ve had a second, hidden nuclear facility whose existence was only just released, I am inclined to wonder about the politics behind a number of countries saying Iran can’t develope nuclear power. Don’t get me wrong; what I’ve heard from Iran’s President, Ahmadinejad, scares me a little – his temperment and reasoning don’t agree with mine, and he seems hellbent on distrusting Israel and the West – so I am fine with the US not wanting them to have nuclear arms. Still, I find it interesting that a number of world powers can tell another country that it has to stop developing nuclear capabilities.
“You can’t have a nuclear facility.”
“Why not?”
“Because you could make materials for bombs there.”
“So?”
“Well that puts a lot of us at risk.”
“Yes, well, we’re not doing that. We’re trying to have cheaper energy.”
“Yes but it’s impossible to have one of the facilities without having the potential to make bombs. And we don’t want you to have bombs.”
“Well, we aren’t working to make bombs. Besides, you have bombs.”
“Yes, but…”
And that’s exactly where my ignorance is complete. Since it is such an obvious point, and such an obvious question, I’m sure an easy bit of research will lead me to understand how such world powers deal with questions like this bit of near-hypocracy. It must simply be that we powers say that we have bombs, and that’s that. We must directly be saying, “You can’t have bombs because we don’t want you to. In fact, we have them, and that shows how much power we have to tell you not to do things.”
Related posts:
Is Objective Morality Possible?
BP Assures Congress They "Will Laugh About Oil Spill One Day"
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the deal is that you’re allowed to have nucs as long as you don’t go and say things like “Israel should be wiped off the map” as Mahmoud put it in 2005. Yeaaahhh, that’s pretty much going to get everyone pretty paranoid about whatever’s in that big silo.
So then Somoa, they could have nukes? Because I don’t remember the last time Somoa ever attacked anyone, except if you count the spectacular invasion of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Let’s say they wanted a nuclear power plant, would that be allowed?
It may seem like hypocrisy to say that we can have them but other countries can’t, but the basis of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was to help keep everybody safer – a treaty that 189 countries signed – so it’s not just the US bossing everyone around.
The more countries with nuclear weapons, the more risk for accidents, unauthorized use, etc. The treaty in no way affects the “inalienable right” of any nation to research, produce, or use nuclear energy for peaceful means.
So if Samoa wants nuclear energy and they haven’t done anything to warrant concern, then they are allowed to develop it.
Obviously we have no way of knowing a nation’s nuclear intentions, and the spread of nuclear power does increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation. The same equipment and knowledge a country acquires when it develops nuclear power can be used to make bombs.
That being said, any nation that wants to build nuclear weapons could get enough plutonium from its nuclear research facility – just like India back in the 70s. Every major country with nuclear weapons built them before they acquired nuclear power, so it’s not a prerequisite.
Although nuclear power doesn’t replace oil, it is an important alternative energy to coal. It has its problems of course – high cost, thermal pollution, issues with long term waste storage – but it can help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil and is much less polluting than coal.
You seemed to have about summed up both sides pretty well. Everyone deserves it, but I hope they don’t get it.