2008 Woodie Awards
Nuclear Hazard
Jennifer Atchinson
Issue date: 9/27/07 Section: World Views
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Will a weapons program ever be condoned in the post-reconstruction Iraq? Hypothetically speaking, if Iraq, with its newly founded democratic government, desired to reinstate its weapons development program, could the US deny it an opportunity to do so? While the US quickly points to the potential threat it may face, what about the issue of nuclear blackmail?
Nuclear blackmail is defined as the ability of nuclear states to use their weapons as a means of tactical intimidation to Least-Developed-Countries (LDCs) or other non-nuclear nations. Historically, this was the reason India was up in arms (no pun intended) over the nuclear monopoly held by America and the European nations. It claimed that either everyone or no one should attain these weapons. Despite the call for abolition, India found itself largely ignored on the issue of nonproliferation. It believed the only way to prevent nuclear blackmail and to establish itself as a world power was to develop weapons of mass destruction.
It seems, at least on the outside of the issue, that every nation should be entitled to develop its own weapons as a means of self-preservation. What is originally intended to safeguard a state, however, may well end in its destruction.
Take the case of Russia as an example. Here is a nation that, by its own admission, has unaccounted nuclear devices and yet was permitted to maintain its development program. In recent months, Putin and the Russian nation have become increasingly hostile to the Bush administration. Even in the wake of the recent Russian "environmentally friendly" nuclear tests, what keeps them in the clear? Perhaps it is Cold War tensions. Perhaps it is because this administration favors democratic governments which, up until a week ago, Russia could be considered to be.
We (I'm generalizing a bit here) tend to think that any form of democratic government necessarily entails stability, liberalism, and most importantly security. Thus democratic governments, being thought of as both legitimate and stable, will be better able to take precautionary care with and of their nuclear weapons.
Nuclear blackmail is defined as the ability of nuclear states to use their weapons as a means of tactical intimidation to Least-Developed-Countries (LDCs) or other non-nuclear nations. Historically, this was the reason India was up in arms (no pun intended) over the nuclear monopoly held by America and the European nations. It claimed that either everyone or no one should attain these weapons. Despite the call for abolition, India found itself largely ignored on the issue of nonproliferation. It believed the only way to prevent nuclear blackmail and to establish itself as a world power was to develop weapons of mass destruction.
It seems, at least on the outside of the issue, that every nation should be entitled to develop its own weapons as a means of self-preservation. What is originally intended to safeguard a state, however, may well end in its destruction.
Take the case of Russia as an example. Here is a nation that, by its own admission, has unaccounted nuclear devices and yet was permitted to maintain its development program. In recent months, Putin and the Russian nation have become increasingly hostile to the Bush administration. Even in the wake of the recent Russian "environmentally friendly" nuclear tests, what keeps them in the clear? Perhaps it is Cold War tensions. Perhaps it is because this administration favors democratic governments which, up until a week ago, Russia could be considered to be.
We (I'm generalizing a bit here) tend to think that any form of democratic government necessarily entails stability, liberalism, and most importantly security. Thus democratic governments, being thought of as both legitimate and stable, will be better able to take precautionary care with and of their nuclear weapons.
Be the first to comment on this story