Is the US's stance on Nuclear Proliferation fair to developing nations?
By shlooper
@shlooper (309)
United States
July 19, 2008 5:52am CST
In the news we have read repeatedly of how the big 5 nations supposedly are trying to halt nuclear proliferation. They say that it threatens them as a nation. However, considering that there has been no actual use of atomic weapons since the US dropped the big two bombs in world war two, this may or may not be a practical argument. On the flip side, for developing nations, nuclear technology helps them develop new energy policies. Since nobody can use nuclear technology even for electricity without the US threatening to barge in and make sure they don't intend to hurt us, it is limiting their alternative energy development. Furthermore, nuclear technology has become an informal way for smaller countries to legitimize themselves. Nobody would pay attention to a little country normally, but if it had nuclear weapons, other countries are forced to listen to its demands. Since the United Nations charter is written to give more power to the big countries, they put the small ones in a sort of caste system. They cannot become super-powers, but they have to find ways to make themselves heard. So what do you think, is it fair to deny nuclear technology to developing nations because they may be a threat?
3 responses
@wilsongoddard (7291)
• United States
19 Jul 08
I think that it is fair to deny nuclear technology to all nations of the world.
Nuclear technology has nothing to do with "alternative" energy options; it does, however, have everything to do with one person with an itchy trigger finger having the ability to wipe out the entire world.
If someone is seriously interested in clean energy sources, go for solar and wind. They are the perfect clean energies, and they are available in abundance.
@shlooper (309)
• United States
19 Jul 08
You have a good point about alternative energy that it is not a perfectly clean source. However, it produces much more energy. It is difficult to power an entire country off of wind and solar power. Ask Lithuania, which derives over 1/3 of its power from nuclear technology. When only 8 countries have nukes and 56 have nuclear power, isn't it overgeneralizing a little bit?
@enzabird (130)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The United States' stance on Nuclear Proliferation is far from fair. We aren't treating other countries as equals. To truly be fair we need to let them have the same technology as we do.
But at the same time, who cares about fairness when dealing with global security. We are serving US interests first and foremost. If it is better for our economy and our security for them to not have the technology, then we should keep it to ourselves.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
19 Jul 08
So you're advocating for a country...any country...to be able to hold the world hostage with the threat of sending a nuclear warhead into the sky? I don't think that's a logical argument at all. No country, big or small, has the right to threaten their neighbors with a nuclear bomb which is why the big 5 have been reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles and why treaties exist. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War with Russia...each side armed to the teeth waiting for the other to make a move. Fortunately, the leaders of the bug 5 countries have been wise when it comes to using nuclear weapons but who is running some of these little countries you're talking about? Do they have safeguards to keep whoever is in charge at the moment from pushing the little red button because he's ticked off at someone? This is no longer a world of isolated nations. This is a global society and I can only imagine the worlwide destruction if even one nuclear bomb is fired on a neighbor.
