http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/middleeast/29tehran.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Towards the end of last semester North Korea's missile launch was in the news quite a bit. In case you are not very familiar with it, here is the basic idea: North Korea tested a missile that they claimed was for carrying a communications satellite, however many countries speculate that they intend for it to carry nuclear war heads. North Korea claims the test was successful however other countries including the U.S. have reason to believe it failed and fell into the sea.
In the past few decades, North Korea has become a hot spot when it comes to nuclear energy/arms/threats. The U.S. first helped North Korea develop nuclear energy (as means of safe clean energy) under the Clinton Administration. North Korea made it pretty obvious that they had developed nuclear arms, especially when they withdrew from the Non-Proliferations Treaty. [SIDENOTE: under the Bush administration, Bush referred to North Korea as among "the axis of evil" which also included Iran]
The reason I brought up North Korea was that when I was reading the article about Iran(link at the top), it reminded me of North Korea. North Korea is now a nuclear threat, even though the country's nuclear technology was initially intended for (non-threatening) energy purposes. There is no way to know if Iran would develop nuclear arms if they had nuclear energy. Not to mention, a while back Ahmadinejad (Iran's President) said something to the effect of Iran wanting to "wipe Israel off the map." [Because it was translated those were not his exact words but that is the general idea]. Would it really be a good idea for Iran to develop nuclear energy when they have made statements such as that?
Do countries have the right to develop nuclear power as a source of clean energy, when it so often leads to nuclear threats?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
nice title
I believe that countries have the right to develop nuclear power as a source of clean energy because it's pretty damn obvious if the country is making nuclear power or building nuclear bombs.
According to the October 2009 Popular Science magazine, there are lots of obvious signs that a country is creating nuclear bombs.
1) "[M]aking uranium reactor-grade requires that 3 to 5 percent of its total concentration must be U-235... Nuclear weapons, however, require at least 90 percent. The arrangement it takes to hit that number can be a dead giveaway"
2) "Centrifuges are usually arranged in a triangular cascade; the layout tips inspectors to its purpose. Weapons require heavily enriched uranium, so the triangle is long and narrow; power takes more fuel, so the cascade is short and fat"
3) "The International Atomic Energy Agency, a nongovernmental organization tasked with policing the world's nuclear activity, matches the amount of nuclear material going in and out of power facilities to make sure none is being squirreled away. In addition, inspectors can test water samples from nearby rivers and take samples from inside the plants to test for traces of weapons-grade materials"
just a side note, after taking APES last year, it's clear that nuclear power isn't really a "source of clean energy"...but i do think a country has the right to use nuclear energy if they want to.
when I said "clean energy" I meant that it did not contribute to the greenhouse gases the way that fossil fuels do. I am aware however that it does bring its own sets of problems when it comes to things like its nuclear waste. Many countries are looking at new means of energy(nuclear energy for example) which has brought about this nuclear power movement that has led to other nuclear things(which was the intension of my post).
I think I stand alone on this one, but when it's pretty clear that a nation's privilege to develop nuclear weapons is being abused by testing them recklessly or by statements like "the Holocaust was a lie" (Iran), that privilege MUST be taken away from them. Looking at the recent UN conference, I'm pleased to see that many of the world's leaders, including France, Britain, and the U.S. (I believe) walked out on Ahmadinejad. These pathetic, and essentially annoying, practically third-world countries, deserve to be stripped of their nuclear arsenal or capability, but hey I guess that would be a little too mean and would get most of the liberals all riled up. They're not testing to be battle-hardened or to improve their technological might in a legitimate, and needless to say, humble way.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
I agree with Justin. This is also because Iran already agreed to have the UN nuclear inspection to visit the sites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feZe-x1eZkY
Justin, while I understand what your saying-that there are signs to tell if a country has nukes, in realitity I don't think it's so black and white. I am well aware of The International Atomic Energy Agency, and I recall that countries that are part of the Non-Proliferations Treaty agree to annual inspections by the agency. North Korea was part of the NPT and initially had agreed to these inspections, until they suddenly refused the inspections and withdrew from the NPT.
Maybe it's just me, but Iran seems a little sketchy.
I agree with Andrew when it comes to certain countries being stripped of these priveledges-especially Iran with its track record. However I don't see there being a way to prevent that from happening, even with things like the IAEA and NPT-after all that didn't stop North Korea.
Post a Comment